[House Report 112-91]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


112th Congress  }                                            {   Report 
  1st Session   }       HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES             {   112-91 
======================================================================= 
 
       DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2012 

                                _______
                                

  May 26, 2011.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

    Mr. Aderholt of Alabama, from the Committee on Appropriations, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 2017]

    The Committee on Appropriations submits the following 
report in explanation of the accompanying bill making 
appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2012.

                        INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT

                                                            Page number

                                                            Bill Report
TITLE I--DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS
        Office of the Secretary and Executive Management...     2
                                                                      9
        Office of the Under Secretary for Management.......     3
                                                                     14
        Office of the Chief Financial Officer..............     4
                                                                     17
        Office of the Chief Information Officer............     4
                                                                     19
        Analysis and Operations............................     6
                                                                     21
        Office of Inspector General........................     6
                                                                     22
TITLE II--SECURITY, ENFORCEMENT, AND INVESTIGATIONS
        U.S. Customs and Border Protection.................     7
                                                                     23
                Salaries and Expenses......................     7
                                                                     23
                Automation Modernization...................    10
                                                                     39
                Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, 
                    and Technology.........................    12
                                                                     41
                Air and Marine Interdiction, Operations, 
                    Maintenance, and Procurement...........    14
                                                                     45
                Construction and Facilities Management.....    15
                                                                     47
        U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement...........    16
                                                                     48
                Salaries and Expenses......................    16
                                                                     48
                Automation Modernization...................    20
                                                                     56
        Transportation Security Administration.............    21
                                                                     57
                Aviation Security..........................    21
                                                                     57
                Surface Transportation Security............    25
                                                                     66
                Transportation Threat Assessment and 
                    Credentialing..........................    25
                                                                     66
                Transportation Security Support............    25
                                                                     68
                Federal Air Marshals.......................    26
                                                                     70
        Coast Guard........................................    26
                                                                     71
                Operating Expenses.........................    26
                                                                     71
                Environmental Compliance and Restoration...    28
                                                                     77
                Reserve Training...........................    28
                                                                     77
                Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements    28
                                                                     78
                Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation    33
                                                                     84
                Medicare Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund 
                    Contribution...........................    34
                                                                     85
                Retired Pay................................    34
                                                                     86
        United States Secret Service.......................    34
                                                                     86
                Salaries and Expenses......................    34
                                                                     86
                Acquisition, Construction, Improvements, 
                    and Related Expenses...................    37
                                                                     89
TITLE III--PROTECTION, PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE, AND RECOVERY
        National Protection and Programs Directorate.......    38
                                                                     89
                Management and Administration..............    38
                                                                     89
                Infrastructure Protection and Information 
                    Security...............................    38
                                                                     90
                Federal Protective Service.................    40
                                                                     94
                United States Visitor and Immigrant Status 
                    Indicator Technology...................    41
                                                                     95
        Office of Health Affairs...........................    43
                                                                     99
        Federal Emergency Management Agency................    44
                                                                    100
                Management and Administration..............    44
                                                                    100
                State and Local Programs...................    46
                                                                    103
                Firefighter Assistance Grants..............    50
                                                                    110
                Emergency Management Performance Grants....    51
                                                                    111
                Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program    52
                                                                    112
                United States Fire Administration..........    53
                                                                    112
                Disaster Relief............................    53
                                                                    113
                Disaster Assistance Direct Loan Program 
                    Account................................    57
                                                                    115
                Flood Hazard Mapping and Risk Analysis.....    57
                                                                    116
                National Flood Insurance Fund..............    57
                                                                    117
                National Predisaster Mitigation Fund.......    59
                                                                    118
                Emergency Food and Shelter.................    60
                                                                    118
TITLE IV--RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, TRAINING, AND SERVICES
        United States Citizenship and Immigration Services.    60
                                                                    119
        Federal Law Enforcement Training Center............    61
                                                                    124
                Salaries and Expenses......................    61
                                                                    124
                Acquisitions, Construction, Improvements, 
                    and Related Expenses...................    63
                                                                    124
        Science and Technology.............................    63
                                                                    125
                Management and Administration..............    63
                                                                    125
                Research, Development, Acquisition, and 
                    Operations.............................    64
                                                                    125
        Domestic Nuclear Detection Office..................    64
                                                                    131
                Management and Administration..............    64
                                                                    131
                Research, Development, and Operations......    64
                                                                    132
                Systems Acquisition........................    65
                                                                    134
TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS
        This Act...........................................    66
                                                                    136
        Compliance with House Rules........................
                                                                    146
        Detail Table.......................................
                                                                    166
    The accompanying bill contains recommendations for new 
budget (obligational) authority for fiscal year 2012 for the 
Department of Homeland Security. The following table summarizes 
these recommendations and reflects comparisons with the budget, 
as amended, and with amounts appropriated to date for fiscal 
year 2011:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Budget                            House compared with
                                    New budget     estimates of                  -------------------------------
                                  (obligational)        new
          Bureau/Agency              authority    (obligational)  Recommended by    New budget        Budget
                                   fiscal  year      authority,      the House       authority       estimate,
                                   2011  enacted   fiscal  year                     fiscal year     fiscal year
                                      to date          2012                            2011            2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Departmental Management and            1,289,878       1,446,917       1,142,168        -147,710        -304,749
 Operations.....................
Security, Enforcement and             32,501,342      33,196,186      33,139,360         638,018         -56,826
 Investigtations................
Protection, Preparedness,              8,573,886       8,218,567       6,759,053      -1,814,833      -1,459,514
 Response and Recovery..........
Research, Development, Training,       1,589,633       2,154,060       1,282,746        -306,887        -871,314
 and Services...................
General Purpose Appropriations..        -549,406  ..............         -32,892         516,514         -32,892
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Grand total.................      43,405,333      45,015,730      42,290,435      -1,114,898      -2,725,295
                                 ===============================================================================
    Total Discretionary               41,664,000      43,575,573      40,592,000      -1,072,000      -2,983,573
     (excluding GWOT)...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              Summary of Major Recommendations in the Bill

    The Committee recommends $40,592,000,000 in discretionary 
resources for the Department of Homeland Security, 
$2,983,573,000, or 6.9 percent, below the amount requested and 
$1,069,000,000, or 2.6 percent, below fiscal year 2011 enacted 
levels (excluding funding for the global war on terrorism). The 
Committee includes $258,278,000 for the Coast Guard's support 
of the global war on terrorism as part of the recommended level 
instead of assuming a transfer, as was requested, from the 
Department of Defense. This action is consistent with similar 
actions taken by the Committee in fiscal years 2010 and 2011.

                          Funding Comparisons

    Public Law 112-10 (signed into law on April 15, 2011) 
required the Department to submit a detailed fiscal year 2011 
expenditure plan by program, project, and activity no later 
than May 9, 2011. Because the submitted expenditure plan was 
incomplete and labeled as only a ``preliminary'' report by the 
Department; included no updates to the fiscal year 2012 budget 
submission; and was received by the Committee only days before 
the Subcommittee markup of this bill, subsequent technical 
adjustments to funding comparisons between the recommended and 
enacted funding levels may be required.
    The fiscal year 2012 Congressional budget justifications 
were based upon a short-term continuing resolution rate of 
spending and not the funding levels enacted for fiscal year 
2011. Therefore, the Committee notes that many of the requested 
funding levels for fiscal year 2012 are not only unrealistic, 
but based on flawed assumptions. The Committee attempted to 
work through these technical challenges with the Department but 
did not receive clear and timely input on the impacts of the 
fiscal year 2011 enacted appropriations prior to the 
Subcommittee markup.

                         Priorities in the Bill

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) serves a vital 
role in countering the persistent threat from terrorism. 
However, the United States now faces an equally significant and 
perhaps broader threat from an unprecedented fiscal crisis--a 
dire budgetary situation which has the potential to undermine 
the Nation's economy as well as its security. The unquestioned 
need for fiscal restraint; the lessons learned from recent 
terrorist attacks; the near-constant occurrence of natural 
disasters across the country; and the heightened state of 
threats confronting our Nation serve as the basis for the 
Committee's fiscal year 2012 funding priorities for DHS.
    Over the past ten years, Congress has provided robust 
funding to bring the Nation's security posture to an improved 
state of strength, preparedness, and resiliency. Since its 
establishment, the Department's budget has grown by more than 
$12,260,000,000, or 42 percent, as it took on new 
responsibilities. Over this period, the Department's workforce 
has grown by more than 20 percent, approximately 50,000 
positions, with notable increases in the number of Border 
Patrol agents, ICE agents, CBP officers, Coast Guard military 
personnel, Secret Service agents, and intelligence analysts. 
While the Nation is undeniably more secure as a result of these 
investments, the current fiscal climate necessitates a 
transition to actually measuring the level of security 
achieved, improving the application of the resources that are 
currently available, determining how much additional security 
is required, and delineating how much those additional security 
requirements will cost. All of this information forms the basis 
for greater justification that the Committee now demands prior 
to the appropriation of additional funds.
    In this bill for fiscal year 2012, the Committee recommends 
funding to address the significant challenges facing the 
Department, while also instituting renewed fiscal discipline 
and requirements for aligning funding to results. DHS, with all 
its critical functions, is not absolved from fiscal 
responsibility, particularly given the budget crisis currently 
gripping the Federal Government. Therefore, this bill reflects 
the Committee's best effort to target limited resources across 
the Department's multiple security priorities and the Nation's 
numerous vulnerabilities. By insisting upon spending restraint, 
the Committee is not choosing between homeland security and 
fiscal discipline--both are serious national security 
priorities. Instead, the Committee conducted a thorough 
analysis of the Department's functions and prioritized funding 
for essential, frontline operations and critical programs that 
are demonstrating tangible results. By contrast, programs and 
activities that have underperformed or have not measurably 
furthered the homeland security mission have received 
substantial reductions in their annual appropriations.

                          SPENDING REDUCTIONS

    Since the Department was created, Congress has provided it 
with robust financial and legislative support based on the 
importance of the homeland security mission. However, the 
Department continues to struggle with the submittal of adequate 
justifications for its funding requests and is often unable to 
demonstrate a clear link between investments to performance 
goals with measured security benefits. This Committee will not 
recommend appropriating limited taxpayer dollars to support 
underperforming and ill-managed programs; nor can the Committee 
simply backfill the massive funding shortfalls for disaster 
relief and aviation security requirements that were unfunded by 
the inadequate budget submission. As a result, several programs 
have been significantly reduced in this bill. Notable 
reductions in the bill, as compared to the fiscal year 2012 
budget request, include:
DHS--Headquarters consolidation.........................   -$215,273,000
DHS--Departmental Management and Operations.............    -$69,158,000
DHS--Data center migration (Department-wide)............   -$131,600,000
CBP--Automation Modernization...........................    -$29,755,000
CBP--Construction and Facilities Management.............    -$49,726,000
TSA--Select unfunded initiatives........................   -$181,609,000
TSA--Transportation Security Support....................    -$80,907,000
Coast Guard--Operating Expenses (technical adjustment)..    -$10,000,000
Coast Guard--Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements   -$270,251,000
National Protection and Programs Directorate--IPIS......    -$45,242,000
FEMA--First Responder Grants............................ -$2,144,663,000
USCIS--Direct appropriations............................   -$237,116,000
Science and Technology--Research, Development, 
    Acquisition, and Operations.........................   -$628,854,000

   OVERSIGHT--ADDRESSING THE INADEQUACIES OF THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET 
                               SUBMISSION

    The Department's fiscal year 2012 budget submission 
ostensibly accommodates the Nation's fiscal constraints by 
including spending reduction and efficiency proposals. However, 
these proposals are overshadowed by the budget submission's 
grossly underfunded request for the costs of disaster relief; 
its reliance on unrealized offsets from increases to fee 
revenue that had yet to be enacted; and its undefined 
reductions to operational budgets. In total, the Department's 
fiscal year 2012 budget request ignored an estimated 
$4,900,000,000 in known disaster relief costs; claimed nearly 
$650,000,000 in offsets from aviation security and customs fee 
revenue that had not yet been authorized; and proposed more 
than $615,000,000 in reductions from the Department's 
operational components through ``administrative savings'' and 
``efficiencies'' that were neither specified nor clearly tied 
to current spending levels within the Department's budget 
justifications. At a time of record deficits and mounting debt, 
the Committee believes the Department should submit a 
straightforward budget without such misleading and inadequate 
proposals.
    In an effort to address the inadequacies of the President's 
budget submission for fiscal year 2012, reduce costs, limit 
administrative overhead, promote efficiency, counter known 
threats, and prioritize frontline operations across the 
Department's essential security functions, the bill carefully 
targets funding and bolsters oversight. In addition, the 
Committee has substantially curtailed multi-year availability 
of funds across the Department's components, including: 
limiting availability of appropriations for personnel, 
compensation, and benefits across all Departmental components 
to one year; reducing periods of availability for selected 
acquisition and information technology programs; and strictly 
limiting the use of funds that are available until expended. 
Furthermore, many of the expenditure plans that have been 
historically required for submittal after the enactment of the 
annual appropriations Act are revised and directed to be 
included within the Congressional budget justifications 
accompanying the annual budget submission. These expenditure 
plans are required to align funding to mission requirements, as 
applicable, and demonstrate results for each and every dollar 
that is appropriated. Major oversight efforts in the bill 
include the following:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Alteration to
             Account                  Requirement        Availability
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CBP Automated Commercial          Expenditure Plan..  Limit to 3-year
 Environment....................                       funds
CBP Automation Modernization....  Investment and      Limit to 3-year
                                   Management Plan.    funds
CBP Border Security Fencing,      Investment and      Limit to 3-year
 Infrastructure, and Technology.   Management Plan..   funds
CBP Air and Marine Interdiction,  Strategic Plan,     Limit to 3-year
 Operations, Maintenance, and      including           funds
 Procurement....................   recapitalization
                                   and modernization
CBP Construction................  Real Property       Limit to 5-year
                                   Inventory and       funds
                                   Expenditure plan.
ICE Automation Modernization      Investment and      Limit to 5-year
 account.                          Management Plan.    funds
TSA Aviation Security...........  Detailed report on  Limit to 2-year
                                   better integrated   funds for non-
                                   passenger           personnel
                                   screening           compensation and
                                   technology and      benefit funding
                                   screener            only
                                   deployment.......
TSA Transportation Security       Expenditure plans   N/A
 Support.                          for air cargo,
                                   checkpoint
                                   support, and
                                   explosives
                                   detection systems
Coast Guard Acquisition,          Capital Investment  Limit to 3-year
 Construction, and Improvements.   Plan.............   funds for small
                                                       boats and
                                                       aircraft
NPPD Infrastructure Protection    Expenditure Plan    Limit to 1 year
 and Information Security.......   and Investment      funds
                                   and Management
                                   Plan.............
US-VISIT........................  Investment and      Limit to 3-year
                                   Management Plan.    funds
Office of Health Affairs........  Expenditure Plan..  N/A
FEMA Management and               Expenditure Plan..  Limit to 1-year
 Administration.                                       funds
FEMA State and Local Programs...  Prioritization of   N/A
                                   funding across
                                   merged grant
                                   activities.......
FLETC Acquisition, Construction,  N/A...............  Limit to 5-year
 and Improvements...............                       funds
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to concerns over the absence of expenditure 
plans, the quality of the Congressional Budget Justification 
material provided by the Department continues to be of concern. 
Even after thoroughly reviewing the fiscal year 2012 materials, 
the Committee finds its ability to conduct the in-depth 
oversight required in these fiscally challenging times to be 
hindered by the failure of the Department to provide 
consistently clear, detailed and comprehensive budget 
justifications for the programs, projects, and activities 
requested.
    With the delivery of the fiscal year 2013 budget request, 
the Committee directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to 
submit a budget that fully justifies changes from the prior 
year, current year, and any changes for new initiatives in 
order to describe the programs in question and justify the 
estimates. All information shall cover the prior year, current 
year, and budget year by program, project, and activity and by 
objective. Programs shall list increases and decreases 
necessary to reconcile the obligations incurred in each year 
and the related increases and decreases between each year. 
These increases and decreases shall provide programmatic reason 
for the changes and explain why they are necessary, thereby 
supplying a rational continuum for tracking changes.
    The requirement for better justification at the time of 
request not only instills more discipline in planning processes 
and enables more effective oversight, but also eliminates the 
need for expenditure plans and withholding of funds well into 
the fiscal year of budget execution. To transition to 
expenditure plans submitted at the time of request, the 
Committee has retained provisos associated with plans for 
fiscal year 2012 after enactment. In the future, the Department 
shall submit a fully justified budget request that articulates 
how it intends to spend taxpayer funds in order for Congress to 
consider providing the full request. The inability of the 
Department to provide these plans is concerning. Detailed spend 
plans should be a part of any basic budget formulation. As 
such, this requirement should not be overly burdensome.

                      FIRST RESPONDER GRANT REFORM

    The Committee recommends long-overdue reform of FEMA's 
administration of its State and Local Programs. For far too 
long, FEMA has failed to measure the return on investment for 
the billions of dollars awarded through its first responder 
grant programs. Furthermore, billions of dollars appropriated 
in prior years for first responder grants remain unspent due to 
a variety of reasons, some of which are entirely inexcusable. 
The Committee believes the Nation's fiscal crisis and the 
importance of preparedness and the work of State, local, and 
tribal first responders to the homeland security mission 
necessitate bold reform. Therefore, the Committee recommends 
the following: (1) a substantial reduction in annual 
appropriations for FEMA's State and Local Programs; (2) a 
reorganization of FEMA's State and Local Programs with funding 
administered at the discretion of the Secretary and prioritized 
to the greatest needs and highest risks; (3) a mandate for the 
FEMA Administrator to submit a plan to drawdown all unexpended 
balances by the end of fiscal year 2012 from funds appropriated 
prior to fiscal year 2008 under the heading ``State and Local 
Programs''; and (4) a withholding of fifty percent of the 
funding for the Office of the Secretary and Executive 
Management until the submission of the National Preparedness 
Goal and National Preparedness System, consistent with the 
directions within the recently signed Presidential Policy 
Directive-8. The latter requirement is designed to compel the 
Department to begin taking steps to measure the effectiveness 
and future requirements of these programs.

                        OPERATIONAL INVESTMENTS

    As noted previously, the Committee recognizes the need for 
investing in the Department's ability to counter known threats 
and address our Nation's numerous vulnerabilities. Therefore, 
throughout the bill, the Committee prioritizes funding for 
frontline personnel, operations, enforcement, intelligence 
activities, disaster response and recovery functions, and 
selected acquisition of tactical assets. The Committee's 
recommended funding levels will ensure all frontline staffing 
levels are either sustained or increased, including the 
staffing levels of Border Patrol agents, CBP officers, ICE 
agents, Coast Guard military personnel, Secret Service agents, 
disaster response specialists, intelligence analysts, and 
selected TSA personnel. Also, the Committee fully funds all 
requested increases for the Department's intelligence, 
watchlisting, and threat identification functions, including 
the Office of Intelligence and Analysis, CBP's National 
Targeting Center, CBP's Immigration Advisory Program, ICE's 
Office of Intelligence, TSA's Office of Intelligence, TSA's 
Secure Flight program, Coast Guard Intelligence, and several 
vital functions of the National Protection and Programs 
Directorate. Funding enhancements above the amounts requested 
for the Department's most vital operational and analytical 
activities are detailed under the relevant agencies throughout 
the report. Notable recommended increases to operational 
programs above the amounts requested by the President in the 
bill include:
CBP--Automated Targeting Systems........................    +$15,000,000
CBP--Air & Marine operations and procurement............    +$29,400,000
ICE--Visa Security program..............................     +$3,000,000
ICE--Secure Communities (digitized fingerprinting)......    +$10,000,000
ICE--Detention and Removal Operations...................    +$26,718,000
TSA--Air Cargo Security.................................    +$10,000,000
Coast Guard--Legacy Cutters, Maintenance and 
    Communication Upgrades..............................    +$30,300,000
Coast Guard--Replacement HH-65 Helicopters..............    +$37,000,000
Coast Guard--Small Boat Procurement.....................     +$6,000,000
Coast Guard--Tactical Law Enforcement Training..........     +$4,000,000
Coast Guard--Unmanned Aircraft Systems..................     +$2,000,000

                 FUNDING KNOWN COSTS OF DISASTER RELIEF

    As noted, the President's budget submission for fiscal year 
2012 failed to address the known and expected costs of disaster 
relief. Therefore, the Committee recommends an increase of 
$850,000,000 above the amount requested for FEMA's Disaster 
Relief Fund (DRF). The Administration and the Department have 
acknowledged the budget is relying upon emergency supplemental 
funding to support known costs for fiscal year 2012--costs the 
Committee asserts should have been addressed in the annual 
budget. Therefore, in addition to the recommended increase in 
funding to address known DRF shortfalls, the Committee includes 
several new requirements regarding the costs of disaster 
recovery and relief operations. First, FEMA is required to 
submit quarterly reports that provide estimates for funding 
requirements for the current fiscal year and the succeeding 
three fiscal years that include the cost of future disasters 
and the cost of catastrophic events. Second, the Committee 
directs FEMA to develop a policy that defines the five-year 
average that is used to develop the budget estimates for 
disaster relief. Third, the Committee directs FEMA to include 
in the fiscal year 2013 budget submission a clear statement of 
the five-year average to include the fiscal years included in 
that calculated average. Lastly, the Committee directs the 
President to submit a budget amendment from within 
discretionary funds to fully fund all known costs for disaster 
relief for fiscal year 2012.
    In conclusion, the Committee's intent is to prioritize 
funding for frontline security operations; push the Department 
to set clear and well-reasoned priorities that align to stated 
mission requirements; require the Department to practice sound 
financial and program management that disciplines funding and 
aligns resources to results in terms of improved security; 
require the Department to budget adequately for known and 
expected costs of operations, including disaster relief; 
strengthen vital partnerships between Federal, State, local, 
tribal, and private sector entities; and move the Department 
toward the lean and responsive organization it was envisioned 
to be when it was established in 2003. The Committee is 
dedicated to ensuring our homeland security professionals have 
the tools they need to carry out their vital mission to keep 
our Nation safe and secure.

            TITLE I--DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS


            Office of the Secretary and Executive Management

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2011.......................      $136,818,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2012......................       142,533,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       126,700,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2011...................       -10,118,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2012..................       -15,833,000
                                MISSION

    The mission of the Office of the Secretary and Executive 
Management is to provide efficient services to the Department 
of Homeland Security (DHS) and to support the Department's 
efforts to achieve its strategic goals: preventing terrorist 
attacks within the United States; reducing America's 
vulnerabilities to terrorism and natural disasters; minimizing 
the damage from attacks and disasters that may occur; 
responding to attacks and disasters, in cooperation with States 
and local governments; and assisting in recovery following 
disasters and attacks.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $126,700,000 for the Office of the 
Secretary and Executive Management (OSEM), $15,833,000 below 
the amount requested and $10,118,000 below the amount provided 
in fiscal year 2011. Except as noted below, reductions from the 
requested level are made due to shortfalls in the President's 
budget request for DHS, including the President's assumption of 
increases in aviation security fee collections and customs user 
fees that have yet to be authorized and that are not in the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations, as well as an 
inadequate request for the known obligations of the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency's Disaster Relief Fund (DRF).
    Moreover, the Committee recommends that $63,350,000 of the 
appropriated OSEM funds be withheld until the Department 
submits the National Preparedness Goal (NPG) and the National 
Preparedness System (NPS) to the Committees on Appropriations 
as well as the Secretary's determination on implementation of 
biometric air exit. The Committee has asked the Department for 
years to provide proper metrics to demonstrate whether billions 
of taxpayer dollars spent on DHS grant programs have made our 
Nation safer, but the Department has continually failed to 
deliver a quantifiable answer. A system is needed to outline 
our Nation's vulnerabilities and threats--taking into account 
regional differences--followed by clear objectives to mitigate 
those risks. Only then can the Department fully justify its 
requests year in and year out for billions of dollars in grant 
funding. The Committee commends the President for directing the 
Department to do precisely that with Presidential Policy 
Directive-8, which calls for the NPG and NPS. With respect to 
biometric exit, Congress has long sought the Secretary's 
determination on a path forward. The Committee believes the 
Secretary could provide such a determination publicly, and 
immediately, and notes that such a determination could 
significantly affect priorities and appropriations for the 
United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology 
(US-VISIT) program.
    To adequately oversee expenditures and personnel changes 
within each office of the Office of the Secretary and Executive 
Management, the Committee has provided separate funding 
recommendations as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget estimate      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immediate Office of the Secretary.         $5,164,000         $4,641,000
Immediate Office of the Deputy              1,918,000          1,918,000
 Secretary........................
Chief of Staff....................          2,802,000          2,000,000
Office of Counternarcotics                  3,814,000          3,200,000
 Enforcement......................
Executive Secretariat.............          8,402,000          8,200,000
Office of Policy..................         42,423,000         34,000,000
Office of Public Affairs..........          6,419,000          5,800,000
Office of Legislative Affairs.....          6,341,000          6,000,000
Office of Intergovernmental                 2,908,000          2,750,000
 Affairs..........................
Office of General Counsel.........         22,422,000         22,400,000
Office of Civil Rights and                 24,613,000         21,100,000
 Liberties........................
Citizenship and Immigration                 6,336,000          6,200,000
 Services Ombudsman...............
Privacy Officer...................          8,971,000          8,491,000
                                   -------------------------------------
    Total, Office of the Secretary       $142,533,000       $126,700,000
     and Executive Management.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   IMMEDIATE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

    The Committee recommends $4,641,000 for the Immediate 
Office of the Secretary, $523,000 below the amount requested. 
The Committee is interested in helping the Department improve 
its oversight and efficiency in its operations, and so directs 
that the Secretary submit a report not later than December 1, 
2011, including the following information:
          1. A prioritized list of efficiencies being 
        implemented as a result of the Secretary's Efficiency 
        Review, and an accounting of progress against that 
        list;
          2. A list of positions the Department intends to 
        convert from contractors to Federal positions, and an 
        accounting of progress against that list;
          3. A list of components and specific procurements 
        where additional oversight personnel are needed 
        relative to the current personnel and existing 
        capabilities, and where such personnel are being 
        assigned; and
          4. How reforms in the headquarters structure and 
        function are providing better support and management 
        for Department field operations.

                 OFFICE OF COUNTERNARCOTICS ENFORCEMENT

    The Committee recommends $3,200,000 for the Office of 
Counternarcotics Enforcement (CNE), $614,000 below the amount 
requested. CNE supports Departmental and national drug control 
programs by coordinating policy and operations with the 
Department and between DHS and other Federal, State, and local 
agencies. Yet it has faced challenges since its inception in 
defining exactly how this work is carried out. It is unclear 
whether or not CNE's policy development, liaison, and 
coordination functions do not replicate work done by other 
agencies or offices.
    CNE reported, in its 2011 DHS Counternarcotics Review, that 
it is working to fully integrate budget evaluation and 
performance evaluation into DHS counternarcotics planning 
efforts and to establish a formal budget guidance process. The 
Committee also notes that the Office of Inspector General 
proposed (in OIG-10-80, ``The Responsibilities of the Office of 
Counternarcotics Enforcement'') that CNE should make greater 
efforts to help coordinate budgetary aspects of the 
Government's counternarcotics efforts rather than the 
operational aspects. The Committee generally agrees with the 
OIG recommendation. If CNE is to fulfill a more substantive 
function of focusing counternarcotics efforts through the 
resource planning process, it must help coordinate and 
harmonize the many acquisition and operational funding 
initiatives of DHS components and non-DHS partners with 
counternarcotics missions. The Committee encourages CNE to work 
closely with the Office of Policy to establish appropriate 
coordination mechanisms with Department component agencies. For 
example, it may make sense to utilize already-designated policy 
liaisons to serve as the CNE liaisons; and Office of Policy 
engagement in budget development and acquisition could serve as 
a vehicle for CNE.
    The Committee therefore directs the Department to brief the 
Committee on CNE organizational and staffing plans, with 
reference to the aforementioned OIG recommendations, not later 
than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act. This 
briefing shall describe: (1) plans for appointing senior 
officials in component agencies to serve as CNE liaison 
officers, as well as position descriptions and job duties for 
such officers; (2) how CNE will fulfill its statutory 
responsibility to coordinate counternarcotics policy among 
components; and (3) how the liaison officers will enhance CNE 
ability to coordinate budget development and acquisitions in 
the Department.
    GAO shall review CNE staffing and activities in the first 
half of fiscal year 2012 and submit to Congress an assessment 
of progress in implementing OIG recommendations no later than 
nine months after the date of enactment of this Act. 
Additionally, GAO shall assess the extent of counternarcotics 
policy coordination among DHS and other Federal agencies, with 
particular emphasis on the contributions made by CNE.

                            OFFICE OF POLICY

    The Committee recommends $34,000,000 for the Office of 
Policy (Policy), $8,423,000 below the amount requested. The 
Committee recognizes that the Office of Policy has been 
evolving, along with the growth of the Department, but it is 
not yet clear that Policy is properly positioned or structured 
to meet DHS needs. While acknowledging that there are a number 
of sub-offices within Policy with their own particular 
responsibilities and missions, the Committee feels the 
Department has not presented a coherent mission for the Office 
of Policy that is reflected in its budget and activities. The 
Committee recognizes the need for strong, cross-Departmental 
strategic planning and policy guidance in key mission areas, 
such as counterterrorism activities, border security, 
immigration, and protection of critical infrastructure, 
transportation, and cyberspace. However, the Committee is 
concerned that Policy has not matured to a level where it can 
provide authoritative, cohesive policy support to Department 
components or cross-component coordination on major areas of 
the DHS mission. Instead, Policy too often provides 
duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting guidance.
    Furthermore, Policy must improve its responsiveness to the 
Committee. The Office stands among the most difficult 
components from which to get answers. This has a directly 
negative impact on the Committee's oversight efforts on behalf 
of the taxpayer and makes it difficult for the Committee to 
justify providing the Office with its full budget request.
    In light of these concerns, the Committee directs the 
Department to include in its justification materials 
accompanying its fiscal year 2013 budget request a detailed 
spending plan for the Office of Policy that lists planned 
projects for each sub-office within the Office of Policy, with 
their associated funding and staffing requirements. In 
addition, to help it conduct better oversight of operations and 
priorities of the Office, the Committee directs the Department 
to report not later than December 1, 2011, on fiscal year 2011 
travel by political employees of the Office of Policy, listing 
dates, destinations, purposes, number of official travelers, 
and costs by trip.
    The Committee also wants to ensure that Policy engages 
fully in interagency discussions on visa policy matters, 
consistent with DHS authorities.

               OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES

    The Committee recommends $21,100,000 for the Office of 
Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, $3,513,000 below the amount 
requested. Within the amount recommended for this office, the 
Committee includes $694,000, as requested, for five new 
positions to provide advice, investigations, and training in 
connection with oversight and management of the ICE 287(g) and 
Secure Communities programs, including participating in the ICE 
advisory committee.

                               USER FEES

    The conference report accompanying P.L. 111-83 directed the 
Department to submit a contingency plan to address gaps between 
actual and budgeted collections. The Committee directs the 
Secretary to submit a revised plan not later than 90 days after 
the date of enactment of this Act and to update that plan 
quarterly.

                         BUDGET JUSTIFICATIONS

    For fiscal year 2013, the Committee directs that the 
Congressional Budget Justifications for the Office of the 
Secretary and Executive Management include the same level of 
detail as the table contained in the back of the Committee 
report. All funding and staffing changes for each individual 
office must be highlighted and explained. The Committee expects 
this level of detail to include separate discussions for 
personnel, compensation, and benefits; travel; training; and 
other services.

                          WORKING CAPITAL FUND

    The Committee, as in prior years, directs the Department to 
include a separate justification for the Working Capital Fund 
(WCF) in the fiscal year 2013 budget request. This should 
include a description of each activity funded by the WCF; the 
basis for the pricing; the number of full-time Federal 
employees funded in each activity; a list of each departmental 
organization that is allocating funds to the activity; and the 
funding each organization is providing in fiscal years 2011 and 
2012, and projects in 2013. If a project contained in the WCF 
is a multi-year activity with a defined cost, scope, and 
schedule, the estimated costs and schedule shall be clearly 
delineated.
    The Committee expects all initiatives funded by multiple 
DHS organizations to be included in the WCF. The Committee does 
not support taxing departmental organizations for cross-cutting 
initiatives outside the WCF. As such, the justification should 
identify any cross-cutting initiatives or activities that 
benefit more than one organization that are not included in the 
WCF and should explain the omission.
    The Committee directs the Department to notify it promptly 
of any additions, deletions, or changes that are made to the 
WCF during the fiscal year. Furthermore, the Department should 
not fund any activities within the WCF that the House or Senate 
Committees on Appropriations have disapproved either in report 
language or in their responses to reprogramming requests.

                      RECEPTION AND REPRESENTATION

    Within the Office of the Secretary and Executive 
Management, the Committee provides $60,000 for official 
reception and representation expenses, as requested, and the 
same level provided in fiscal year 2011. Within this total, 
$20,000 shall be for international programs within the Office 
of Policy and activities related to the Visa Waiver Program. 
The Department is directed to track its reception and 
representation expenses in enough detail to explain how these 
funds were used as the Committee conducts its oversight efforts 
next year.
    Representation allowances for DHS agencies are largely 
unchanged since the creation of the Department even though 
their missions and responsibilities have grown or been 
refocused. The Committee directs the Department to review 
representation allowances for all DHS agencies for equitable 
alignment of funds with responsibilities and submit any 
proposed changes as part of the fiscal year 2013 budget 
request.

            NATIONAL SECURITY ENTRY-EXIT REGISTRATION SYSTEM

    In recent testimony to the Committee, CBP and ICE officials 
indicated that the National Security Entry-Exit Registration 
System (NSEERS), also known as ``Special Registration,'' is no 
longer necessary in light of significant enhancements made to 
other visa and traveler screening processes since NSEERS was 
instituted immediately following the terrorist attacks of 
September 11, 2001. The Committee has also become aware of the 
negative diplomatic implications that NSEERS has had in some 
countries due to the lengthy wait times to which NSEERS 
selectees are subjected at U.S. ports of entry, the uncertainty 
surrounding the criteria used to flag NSEERS selectees, and the 
occasional subjection of foreign leaders invited to the United 
States through U.S. government-sponsored programs to these 
onerous ``Special Registration'' requirements. For the above 
reasons, the Committee welcomes the Secretary's announcement of 
the end of the program.

             SOUTHWEST BORDER COOPERATION AND PUBLIC SAFETY

    The Committee supports efforts to enhance public safety 
along our Southwest border and urges the Department to build 
and improve relationships; coordinate activities; and provide 
support to State, local, tribal and foreign law enforcement 
agencies; including, as appropriate, the development of State 
and local law enforcement training programs designed to 
educate, promote, and provide the tools necessary to 
effectively counter evolving threats, including crimes 
committed by cross-border criminal organizations.

              Office of the Under Secretary for Management

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2011\1\....................      $317,333,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2012......................       249,058,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       234,940,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2011...................        -4,993,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2012..................      -14,118,000\1\Includes $77,400,000 for headquarters consolidation and St.
  Elizabeths construction.

                                MISSION

    The Office of the Under Secretary for Management's primary 
mission is to deliver quality administrative support services 
for human resources and personnel; manage facilities, property, 
equipment, and other material resources; ensure safety, health 
and environmental protection; and identify and track 
performance measurements relating to the responsibilities of 
the Department. This office is also in charge of implementing a 
mission support structure for DHS to deliver administrative 
services while eliminating redundancies and reducing support 
costs.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $234,940,000 for the Office of the 
Under Secretary for Management, $14,118,000 below the amount 
requested (excluding $77,400,000 provided for headquarters 
consolidation) and $4,993,000 below the amount provided in 
fiscal year 2011. Except as specified below, reductions were 
made to compensate for budgetary shortfalls created by the 
budget's reliance on unauthorized fee proposals and the need to 
provide disaster relief funding. The Committee has provided 
separate funding recommendations in order to adequately oversee 
expenditures for each office, as detailed in the following 
table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget estimate      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under Secretary for Management....         $7,558,000         $2,550,000
Office of Security................         71,236,000         70,200,000
Office of the Chief Procurement            78,771,000         75,150,000
 Officer..........................
Office of the Chief Human Capital          44,847,000         41,340,000
 Officer..........................
Office of the Chief Administrative         46,646,000         45,700,000
 Officer..........................
                                   -------------------------------------
    Total, Office of the Under           $249,058,000       $234,940,000
     Secretary for Management.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------

         IMMEDIATE OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR MANAGEMENT

    The Committee recommends $2,550,000 for the Immediate 
Office of the Under Secretary for Management, $5,008,000 below 
the amount requested. None of the requested funding is provided 
for analysis of icebreaking requirements in the polar region. 
The Committee finds this study to be unnecessary, given the 
extensive analysis that has already been done on the subject. 
In the Department's own budget justification, there is mention 
of the ``numerous existing and ongoing studies'' on the issue.

                    ACQUISITION WORKFORCE INITIATIVE

    The Department needs the right number and mix of 
acquisition professionals in its workforce to manage its 
increasingly large and complex procurements. However, the 
Committee has been frustrated by the Department's lack of 
responsiveness to basic questions with regard to the 
Department's proposed Acquisition Workforce Initiative, which 
consists of $24,200,000 for purposes of hiring 150 new core 
component and program management office staff, training them, 
and investing in systems that track and identify that 
workforce. While the Department completed a major assessment of 
86 major program offices and its component acquisition 
executive organizations, it only provided a list of new 
positions and summary information to the Committee, reiterating 
that the proposed funding will mitigate workforce gaps and 
address deficiencies highlighted by the GAO and OIG.
    This is necessary information but insufficient to enable 
the Committee to understand the basis for the proposed 
increase, including the impact of additional funding provided 
in recent years to build up acquisition capacity in several 
major DHS agencies. The Committee directs the Department to 
provide it with the following information from its assessment: 
(1) its baseline analysis for the current, ``as-is'' 
acquisition workforce; (2) its current capacity and skillsets; 
(3) gaps, in particular with reference to specific skills and 
capacity that are required to achieve the level of acquisition 
capability desired, specifically taking into account and 
identifying the impact of additional funding for workforce 
improvement that was appropriated in fiscal years 2008-2010; 
and, based on the foregoing information, (4) the specific 
positions/skillsets that need to be expanded or added to fill 
the gaps.
    In the absence of this information, the Committee cannot 
recommend funding a number of the proposed acquisition 
workforce increases, particularly for those components or 
programs that have received additional funding for such staff 
in recent years. The Committee will revisit the issue of 
expanding and enhancing the acquisition workforce when it 
receives more complete justification information.

               OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER

    The Committee recommends $45,700,000 for the Office of the 
Chief Administrative Officer, $946,000 below the amount 
requested. Within this total, the Committee includes 
$5,000,000, $398,000 below the request, for improvements and 
maintenance of the Nebraska Avenue Complex, including perimeter 
fencing and sustainment of current operations at the site. This 
is particularly important, given that funding will be 
unavailable in fiscal year 2012, as noted below, for additional 
consolidation of Departmental management and components.

                     DHS HEADQUARTERS CONSOLIDATION

    The Committee recommends no funding in the bill for 
Departmental Headquarters Consolidation, including continued 
construction of the new headquarters site at St. Elizabeths. 
This is $215,273,000 below the request, which included 
$159,643,000 for new St. Elizabeths construction.
    The Committee recognizes the clear requirement to 
rationalize the housing and operations of Department agencies 
and components in the capital region, with roughly 70 offices 
spread in 46 locations across the area. The Committee notes 
that the $77,400,000 appropriated in fiscal year 2011 will 
enable the completion of the Coast Guard headquarters and 
adjacent construction at St. Elizabeths, allowing the 
Department to complete excavation work in a logical sequence 
and avoid some unnecessary costs. Furthermore, the funding, 
which became available for obligation later in fiscal year 
2011, will likely be obligated only late in 2011 or in 2012.
    In addition, both costs and schedule of the current project 
are matters of concern for the Committee. In hearings the 
Committee held on the St. Elizabeths project in 2010, it became 
clear that adequate cost controls were essential for this 
project, the largest Federal building project in the greater 
Washington, D.C. area since the Pentagon. Yet costs have grown 
in a year from $3,400,000,000 to $3,600,000,000 chiefly due to 
increases in the General Services Administration share of the 
project. The Committee notes that dependence on GSA funding 
requires coordination of funding and management, and that the 
proposed DHS request, even if resources were available, would 
likely not coincide with necessary GSA funding. Furthermore, 
delays are already being factored into the Department's 
planning, as it has projected it will postpone work on the FEMA 
section of the facility.
    Finally, the significant cost associated with minimum 
elements of the project makes it impossible to adequately fund 
those elements, given the need to compensate for budgetary 
shortfalls created by the budget's reliance on unauthorized fee 
proposals and the need to provide disaster relief funding.
    The Committee expects that the Department will revise its 
plans in a way to maximize its current project funding and get 
a better understanding of all cost issues surrounding upcoming 
construction phases. The Committee therefore directs the 
Department to provide an update on the progress of the 
initiative no later than four months after the date of 
enactment of this Act, including a revised schedule and cost 
estimates.

                           OVERCLASSIFICATION

    The Committee is aware of clauses contained in contract or 
grant agreements between DHS and universities that preemptively 
restrict publication of research results or which provide DHS 
the right to restrict publication at any time, due to the 
possibility that controlled unclassified information (formally 
referred to as ``sensitive but unclassified'') will be involved 
in the work. Some agreements also prohibit individuals from 
participating in research if they are neither U.S. citizens nor 
legal permanent residents. When applied unnecessarily, such 
clauses can discourage talented researchers and research 
assistants from participating in DHS-sponsored initiatives. The 
Department has an obligation to protect controlled unclassified 
information but is discouraged from placing unreasonable 
burdens on researchers partnering with DHS components, 
especially when the research does not require access to 
controlled information. The Department should consider placing 
such restrictions on research only on the basis of the actual 
inclusion of controlled information in that research, rather 
than the potential that such information might be involved.

                        DEFENSE PROCUREMENT ACT

    The Committee is aware that the Department of Homeland 
Security is a key player in the Federal interagency community 
in the implementation of the Defense Procurement Act, in 
particular with regard to working with the Departments of 
Defense and Commerce to ensure the availability of industrial 
capability to meet current emergency preparedness requirements 
without disrupting commercial activities. One aspect of this is 
supporting the requirement for the President to maintain a 
Defense Industrial Base Information System that identifies 
domestic manufacturing capabilities that are essential to 
national defense and homeland security. The Committee directs 
the Department to fully fund its statutorily required 
activities in support of the Defense Production Act and to 
report on its funding required for such efforts in its fiscal 
year 2013 budget submission.

                           PERFORMANCE PLANS

    The Committee urges the Department to expedite development 
of the agency's annual performance plans and reports, including 
the agency's high-priority goals integrating specific customer 
service standards. Frequent evaluations ensure agency 
efficiency and accountability through performance measurements 
that are reported quarterly to Congress and the public in 
accordance with the Government Performance and Results Act of 
1993.

                     DEPARTMENTAL EFFICIENCY REVIEW

    The Committee strongly approves the Department's efforts to 
streamline its operations and reduce areas of overlapping 
responsibility as part of a major efficiency review, and 
directs the Department to arrange for an independent evaluation 
of that review, and to provide the results of that evaluation 
to the Committee not later than 30 days after its completion.

                 Office of the Chief Financial Officer

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2011.......................       $53,430,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2012......................        62,395,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        50,860,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2011...................        -2,570,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2012..................       -11,535,000
                                MISSION

    The primary responsibilities and functions of the Office of 
the Chief Financial Officer include budget execution and 
oversight; performance analysis and evaluation; oversight of 
the Department's financial management system; oversight of the 
Department's business and financial management systems across 
all agencies and directorates; and oversight of credit card 
programs and audit liaisons.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $50,860,000 for the Office of the 
Chief Financial Officer (CFO), $11,535,000 below the amount 
requested and $2,570,000 below the amount provided in fiscal 
year 2011. Because the Department has decided to cancel its 
solicitation for the Transformation and Systems Consolidation 
(TASC) project and is undertaking a review of its strategy to 
meet current DHS requirements, the Committee does not include 
the $11,000,000 programmatic request for TASC.

                TRANSFORMATION AND SYSTEMS CONSOLIDATION

    The Department continues to have a critical need to produce 
reliable, timely, and useful financial management information. 
In light of its decision to cancel its TASC solicitation, the 
Department shall keep the Committee informed on its strategy 
for establishing a core financial system and any plans for 
integrating its remaining management systems for acquisitions 
and assets.

                  CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET JUSTIFICATIONS

    The Committee directs the Department to submit all of its 
fiscal year 2013 budget justifications on the first Monday in 
February, 2012, concurrent with the official submission of the 
President's budget to Congress. This should include all 
classified budgets as well as non-classified budgets. These 
justifications should have the customary level of detailed data 
and explanatory statements to support the appropriations 
requests, including tables that detail each agency's programs, 
projects, and activities for fiscal years 2011 and 2012. The 
Committee directs the CFO to ensure that adequate justification 
is given to each increase, decrease, transfer, and staffing 
change proposed in fiscal year 2013. The CFO should also ensure 
that each item directed by the Committee to be provided as part 
of the fiscal year 2013 budget justification is delivered as 
mandated.
    The CFO shall submit, as part of the 2013 budget 
justifications, a detailed table identifying the last year that 
authorizing legislation was provided by Congress for each 
program, project, or activity; the amount of the authorization; 
and the appropriation in the last year of the authorization.
    The CFO shall also submit, as part of the Department's 2013 
justification materials to Congress, complete explanations and 
justifications for all proposed legislative language, whether 
it is new or amends existing law. Such information should be 
provided regardless of whether the proposed changes are 
substantive or technical in nature and include an annotated 
comparison of proposed versus existing language. The Committee 
notes that, this year, comprehensive explanations were not 
provided in every instance, making it more difficult to 
consider the Department's legislative language requests.

       DISINGENUOUS BUDGETING AND HYPOTHETICAL USER FEE INCREASES

    The budget request was built upon assumptions that 
$645,000,000 in new revenue would be realized in fiscal year 
2012, $590,000,000 in increased aviation security user fees and 
$55,000,000 in increased customs fees. However, both increases 
require new legislative authority which is outside the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations. Furthermore, 
in the unlikely event such fee increases were enacted this 
year, the Congressional Budget Office estimates aviation 
security user fees would only increase by a net of 
$210,000,000--not the $590,000,000 assumed in the Department's 
budget submission. Clearly, by submitting a budget predicated 
on hypothetical revenue, the Administration has placed the 
Committee in an untenable position. The Committee is therefore 
compelled to fill the huge budgetary hole left to it by the 
Department, while not cutting funding required for critical 
homeland security missions, as is evident in this bill. The 
Committee has been forced to reduce or restrain funding in many 
support areas in order to fill this hole. This is not an 
isolated instance; the Department has repeatedly submitted 
budgets over the past several years with similarly unrealistic 
assumptions and which have also required the Committee to go to 
great lengths to make up the difference.
    Such submissions demonstrate either a frivolous approach to 
budgeting or else a disregard for the seriousness with which 
the Committee takes its responsibilities, and it will not be 
tolerated. The Committee advises the Department that in the 
future it will reject any funding proposals based on such 
hypothetical funding scenarios or on proposals for legislation 
under the jurisdiction of authorizing committees. While the 
Committee expects to be kept informed about the status of such 
legislative proposals, it will not recognize them as relevant 
to its appropriations work until they have been enacted into 
law.

                     MONTHLY REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

    The Committee continues bill language requiring monthly 
budget and staffing reports within 45 days after the close of 
each month.

                Office of the Chief Information Officer

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2011.......................      $333,393,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2012\1\...................       277,972,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       261,300,000
Bill compared with:...................................
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2011...................       -72,093,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2012..................      -16,672,000\1\Does not factor in the $131,590,000 requested for Data Center
  Migration.

                                MISSION

    The Chief Information Office (CIO) has oversight of 
information technology projects in the Department. The CIO 
reviews and approves all DHS information technology 
acquisitions estimated to cost over $2,500,000 and also 
approves the hiring and oversees the performance of all DHS 
component CIOs.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $261,300,000 for the Office of the 
CIO, $16,672,000 below the amount requested and $72,093,000 
below the amount provided in fiscal year 2011.
    A comparison of the budget request to the Committee 
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget Estimate      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salaries and Expenses.............       $105,578,000       $105,500,000
Information Technology Activities.         38,800,000         38,800,000
Security Activities...............         89,525,000         73,000,000
National Security Systems.........         44,069,000         44,000,000
                                   -------------------------------------
    Total, Chief Information             $277,972,000       $261,300,000
     Officer......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACTIVITIES

    The Committee recommends $38,800,000 for Information 
Technology Activities, the same as the amount requested.

                          SECURITY ACTIVITIES

    The Committee recommends $73,000,000 for Security 
Activities, $16,525,000 below the request. While the Committee 
supports these activities, the President's budget assumes an 
increase in aviation security user fees, which has not been 
authorized, and which limits the Committee's ability to meet 
the request level for this account.
    The Committee is increasingly concerned by information 
security vulnerabilities within the Federal Government as they 
relate to insiders removing sensitive or classified information 
without authorization. The CIO's office is directed to brief 
the Committees on Appropriations--in coordination with other 
components as deemed necessary--no later than 60 days after the 
date of the enactment of this Act detailing Department-wide 
efforts to combat ``insider threats'' in the cyber domain, 
including, but not limited to an overview of: (1) the extent of 
the Department's ability to monitor the unauthorized removal of 
sensitive unclassified and classified material from DHS 
information systems; (2) changes made in the wake of recent 
information security breaches, including any new restrictions 
to DHS information systems and databases, both internally and 
to external stakeholders; (3) any recent restrictions placed on 
DHS users by external, interagency stakeholders on access to 
certain databases and an assessment of the operational impact 
of such restrictions; and (4) plans to improve the DHS 
information security architecture and policies to preclude 
similar breaches from happening at DHS.

                         DATA CENTER MIGRATION

    This year, the Administration requested a total of 
$131,590,000 throughout DHS to pay for the migration of 
component resources to the Department's two consolidated data 
centers. The purpose of operating two data centers is to help 
manage the significant risk associated with locating all of the 
Department's data at a single site. However, due to the need to 
offset budgetary gaps created by the request's assumption of 
revenue from as yet unauthorized aviation security fees and 
customs user fees, as well as the need to fund disaster relief, 
the Committee declines to fund this initiative in fiscal year 
2012 and directs the Department to develop a plan to implement 
the migration instead in fiscal year 2013.

                       NATIONAL SECURITY SYSTEMS

    The Committee provides $44,000,000 for National Security 
Systems, $69,000 below the amount requested, which reflects 
management efficiencies. This funding includes work to develop 
the Homeland Security Data Network, which allows DHS to 
communicate at a SECRET-classified level among Federal and 
State government agencies and supporting entities, as well as 
the communications security modernization program.

                        Analysis and Operations

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2011.......................      $335,030,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2012......................       355,368,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       344,368,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2011...................        +9,338,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2012..................       -11,000,000
                                MISSION

    Analysis and Operations houses the Office of Intelligence 
and Analysis (I&A) and the Directorate of Operations 
Coordination, which together collect, evaluate, and disseminate 
intelligence information, as well as provide incident 
management and operational coordination.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $344,368,000 for Analysis and 
Operations, $11,000,000 below the amount requested and 
$9,338,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2011.

                     STATE AND LOCAL FUSION CENTERS

    The Committee provides the funding requested to expand DHS 
support to State and Local Fusion Centers. While the Committee 
is generally supportive of the State and Local Fusion Center 
program, I&A needs to better identify and, if possible, 
quantify the Federal benefit and return on investment generated 
by this spending. The Committee directs I&A to develop such 
robust programmatic justification and submit it with the fiscal 
year 2013 budget request. The Committee also directs I&A to 
continue its quarterly reporting on the fusion center program.

                   BORDER INTELLIGENCE FUSION SECTION

    The Committee commends I&A for establishing the Border 
Intelligence Fusion Section (BIFS). The Committee has long 
believed that robust intelligence capabilities are essential to 
the execution of the Department's border security mission. The 
Committee further believes this multi-agency section--
consisting of personnel from CBP, ICE, Coast Guard, and I&A and 
working collaboratively with staff from the Departments of 
Defense and Justice--will improve intelligence collection and 
dissemination and enhance the use of existing DHS resources 
deployed along the Southwest border. The Committee directs I&A 
to provide regular updates on the development of BIFS and the 
metrics it is applying to measure this new section's 
effectiveness as part of I&A's existing quarterly threat 
briefings.

              INTELLIGENCE ANALYST CONTRACTOR CONVERSIONS

    The Committee supports the conversion of a largely 
contractor-based intelligence analyst workforce to Federal 
employees, as appropriate. Given the difficulty identifying and 
hiring qualified analysts with appropriate security clearances, 
however, the Committee believes I&A must have all necessary 
human resources tools to implement this conversion as rapidly 
as possible. The Committee therefore encourages the Department 
to seek direct hiring authority for intelligence analyst 
vacancies, both to speed up the conversion process and to 
ensure that qualified candidates are not recruited elsewhere 
due to bureaucratic delays in the DHS hiring process.

                 DIRECTORATE OF OPERATIONS COORDINATION

    The Committee denies the request for the C2 Gap Filler 
Technology initiative at this time due to an insufficient 
justification and uncertainties regarding scope and total cost.

                          CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS

    Recommended adjustments to classified programs and more 
detailed oversight of funding for I&A are addressed in a 
classified annex accompanying this report.

                      Office of Inspector General

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2011\1\....................      $113,874,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2012......................       144,318,000
Recommended in the bill\1\............................       124,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2011...................       +10,126,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2012..................      -20,318,000\1\Excludes a $16,000,000 transfer from the Disaster Relief Fund.

                                MISSION

    The Homeland Security Act of 2002 established an Office of 
Inspector General (OIG) in DHS by amendment to the Inspector 
General Act of 1978. This office was established to provide an 
objective and independent organization that would be effective 
in: (1) preventing and detecting fraud, waste, and abuse in 
departmental programs and operations; (2) providing a means for 
keeping the Secretary and the Congress fully and currently 
informed of problems and deficiencies in the administration of 
programs and operations; (3) fulfilling statutory 
responsibilities for the annual audit of the Department's 
financial statements; (4) ensuring the security of DHS 
information technology pursuant to the Federal Information 
Security Management Act; and (5) reviewing and making 
recommendations regarding existing and proposed legislation and 
regulations to the Department's programs and operational 
components. According to the authorizing legislation, the 
Inspector General is to report dually to the Secretary of 
Homeland Security and to the Congress.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $124,000,000 for the Office of 
Inspector General, $20,318,000 below the budget request and 
$10,126,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2011. The 
Committee reduces funding by an additional $4,318,000 from the 
request in the interest of efficiency, with the expectation 
that OIG will prioritize funding to meet its stated needs for 
enhanced oversight of emergency and Departmental programs, as 
well as audits of 9/11 Commission recommendation 
implementation. In addition, the Committee will continue the 
practice of transferring $16,000,000 from the Disaster Relief 
Fund to OIG in fiscal year 2012. However, the Committee hopes 
in the future to reach the point where OIG will fund its 
disaster-related audits and investigations from its core 
budget.

          TITLE II--SECURITY, ENFORCEMENT, AND INVESTIGATIONS


                   U.S. Customs and Border Protection


                         Salaries and Expenses

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2011.......................    $8,212,626,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.....................     8,725,555,000
Recommended in the bill...............................     8,769,518,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2011...................      +556,892,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.................       +43,963,000
                                MISSION

    The mission of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is 
to protect the borders of the United States by preventing, 
preempting, and deterring threats against the Homeland through 
ports of entry and by interdicting illegal crossing between 
ports of entry. CBP's mission integrates homeland security, 
safety, and border management to ensure that goods and persons 
cross U.S. borders in accordance with applicable laws and 
regulations, and pose no threat to the country. The priority of 
CBP is to prevent terrorists and their weapons from entering 
the United States, and to support related homeland security 
missions affecting border and airspace security. CBP is also 
responsible for apprehending individuals attempting to enter 
the U.S. illegally; stemming the flow of illegal drugs and 
other contraband, including weapons and bulk cash into and out 
of the country; protecting U.S. agricultural and economic 
interests from harmful pests and diseases; protecting American 
businesses from theft of their intellectual property; 
regulating and facilitating international trade; collecting 
import duties; and enforcing U.S. trade laws. By the end of 
fiscal year 2011, CBP will have a workforce of more than 
60,000, including CBP officers, Air Interdiction agents, Marine 
Interdiction agents, canine enforcement officers, Border Patrol 
agents, Agriculture Specialists, trade specialists, 
intelligence analysts, and mission support staff.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $8,769,518,000 for Salaries and 
Expenses, $43,963,000 above the amount requested and 
$556,892,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2011. The 
significant increase in funding from 2011 is chiefly due to the 
journeyman pay raise and annualization of significant staffing 
increases provided to both the CBP officer and Border Patrol 
workforces in recent years. Supporting operations and 
maintaining staffing levels is the Committee's top priority. 
The Committee recommendation includes additional resources to 
restore proposed reductions in international cargo screening 
operations (Container Security Initiative) and provide critical 
enhancements to cargo and passenger targeting and screening 
programs.
    This recommendation provides $1,874,252,000 for 
Headquarters Management and Administration, with the following 
differences from the request: the Committee reduces funding by 
$3,452,000 for the Acquisition Workforce Initiative and 
$33,385,000 for data center migration. While the Committee has 
supported substantial increases similar to the Acquisition 
Workforce Initiative in the past and supports the Department's 
data center consolidation efforts, the President's budget 
request assumed an increase in fees collected pursuant to the 
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) 
in order to fund these programs at the requested levels. This 
fee is not within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
Appropriations, and the Committee has adjusted its fiscal year 
2012 recommendation for this account accordingly. Additionally, 
CBP has existing authority and funds to hire appropriately 
qualified program management and acquisition staff as needed to 
effectively manage its programs. The funding level includes a 
$25,939,000 increase for conduct and integrity programs, the 
requested transfer of multiple mission support functions into 
this program, project, and activities (PPA), and increased rent 
requirements.
    Border Security Inspections and Trade Facilitation is 
funded at $2,987,761,000, including $55,000,000 to fill the 
shortfall created by the President's budget request assuming an 
increase in COBRA fees not yet authorized; $44,407,000 for the 
adjustment for law enforcement journeyman pay costs; 
$86,109,000 for prior year annualization of 963 CBP officers; 
$20,692,000 for an additional 300 CBP officers at new and 
expanded ports of entry; $2,212,000 for additional canine units 
at ports of entry; $7,499,000 to expand the Immigration 
Advisory Program to four additional locations; $79,557,000 for 
International Cargo Screening, including $3,287,000 for the 
Secure Freight Initiative and $76,270,000 for the Container 
Security Initiative, $18,300,000 above the requested level; 
$46,400,000 for Automated Targeting Systems, reflecting an 
increase of $15,000,000 over the request, for enhancing one of 
the Department's most effective counterterrorism and security 
capabilities; $46,950,000 for the National Targeting Center, 
including the requested increase of $16,400,000 for 45 new CBP 
officers and 20 new analysts; and $37,834,000 for Training at 
Ports of Entry. The fiscal year 2012 request, including 
anticipated fee collections, claims to support a total of 
21,186 CBP officers.
    Border Security and Control between Ports of Entry is 
funded at $3,619,604,000, which reflects an increase of 
$191,459,000 for prior year annualization of 1,000 additional 
agents along with support personnel funded in the fiscal year 
2010 Border Security Supplemental as well as $184,717,000 for 
the adjustment for law enforcement journeyman pay costs. This 
overall level will support a Border Patrol agent force of 
21,370 (compared to 12,349 in fiscal year 2006), including 
2,212 deployed to the Northern Border and 18,415 deployed to 
the Southwest Border.
    Air and Marine Operations are funded at $287,901,000, as 
requested. Within the overall funding level for Salaries and 
Expenses, $72,646,000 in ambiguous Administrative Savings and 
Professional Services reductions have been proposed in the 
budget request. The Committee's recommended funding level 
includes those so-called savings, given the need to fill the 
operational shortfall created by the budget request's 
assumption of an increase in aviation passenger and COBRA fees 
that have not been enacted.
    A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee 
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget estimate      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Headquarters, Management, and
 Administration:
    Management and Administration,       $688,878,000       $670,494,000
     Border Security Inspections
     and Trade Facilitation.......
    Management and Administration,        738,462,000        720,009,000
     Border Security and Control
     between Ports of Entry.......
    Management and Administration,        483,749,000        483,749,000
     Rent.........................
                                   -------------------------------------
        Subtotal, Headquarters          1,911,089,000      1,874,252,000
         Management and
         Administration...........
Border Security Inspections and
 Trade Facilitation:
    Inspections, Trade, and Travel      2,507,235,000      2,562,235,000
     Facilitation at Ports of
     Entry........................
    Harbor Maintenance Fee                  3,274,000          3,274,000
     Collection (Trust Fund)......
    International Cargo Screening.         68,757,000         79,557,000
    Other international programs..         10,684,000         10,684,000
    Customs-Trade Partnership              44,979,000         44,979,000
     Against Terrorism............
    Trusted Traveler Programs.....          6,311,000          6,311,000
    Inspection and Detection              149,537,000        149,537,000
     Technology Investments.......
    Automated Targeting Systems...         31,400,000         46,400,000
    National Targeting Center.....         46,950,000         46,950,000
    Training......................         37,834,000         37,834,000
                                   -------------------------------------
        Subtotal, Border Security       2,906,961,000      2,987,761,000
         Inspections and Trade
         Facilitation.............
Border Security and Control
 between Ports of Entry:
    Border Security and Control...      3,530,994,000      3,530,994,000
    Training......................         88,610,000         88,610,000
                                   -------------------------------------
        Subtotal, Border Security       3,619,604,000      3,619,604,000
         and Control between POEs.
Air and Marine Operations.........        287,901,000        287,901,000
                                   -------------------------------------
        Total, CBP Salaries and        $8,725,555,000     $8,769,518,000
         Expenses.................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET JUSTIFICATION

    The quality of the Congressional Budget Justification 
material provided by the Department for CBP accounts continues 
to be of concern. Even after a thorough review of the fiscal 
year 2012 materials, the Committee is unable to accomplish the 
basic in-depth oversight required in these fiscally constrained 
times due to the inability of the Department to provide quality 
justification materials that articulate detailed budgets for 
programs, projects, and activities requested. The Committee is 
dissatisfied with the lack of consistency and transparency in 
the ``adjustments to base'' across the Department's budget 
justification materials, whether in the presentations on PPAs 
or in Exhibit B, the table that displays current to budget year 
changes. These presentations are particularly troublesome in 
their use of the label ``technical adjustment'' to describe 
multiple, unspecified increases and decreases. It appears that 
this term obscures, rather than clarifies the reasons for 
changes. For example, CBP Salaries and Expenses includes a 
decrease that appears to reflect a policy decision not to use 
$11,477,000 appropriated for Air and Marine Operations, and an 
increase of $246,922,000 that appears to represent costs to 
annualize staffing increases. The Committee directs the 
Department to avoid the use of the term ``technical 
adjustment'' for any but the most narrow, clearly specified 
reasons, and affirms that it will not recognize any ``technical 
adjustments'' that are not clearly and explicitly identified 
throughout the justification materials.
    CBP, in conjunction with the Chief Financial officer, is 
encouraged to work with the Committee in developing new 
materials for the Congressional Budget Justifications.

                        REVISED BUDGET STRUCTURE

    The Committee directs the Commissioner of CBP to propose a 
subdivision of the Inspections, Trade, and Travel Facilitation 
at Ports of Entry PPA and the Border Security and Control PPA 
within the Salaries and Expenses account in conjunction with 
the budget submission for fiscal year 2013. At funding levels 
of $2,562,235,000 and $3,530,994,000 respectively, the PPAs, 
and the accompanying budget justifications, have not provided 
adequate detail for appropriate oversight of these funds. Funds 
could be subdivided in the following budget activities: officer 
or agent pay, civilian pay, equipment, operations and 
maintenance, and procurement of items over $100,000. CBP is 
directed to work with the Committee in developing the revised 
PPA structure.

           FEE FUNDS SUPPORTING CBP PORT OF ENTRY OPERATIONS

    Approximately 37 percent of CBP officers are funded by user 
fees. Fee collections have been below estimates in recent 
years, given the global economic crisis and the decline in 
international travel. Furthermore, CBP has not been able to 
manage fluctuations in fee funding levels through officer 
attrition due to the low attrition rate also related to the 
prevailing economic conditions. In fiscal years 2008 through 
2010, CBP experienced a decrease in the Immigration User Fee of 
nine percent, in COBRA of six percent, and in the Animal and 
Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Inspection Fee of three 
percent. While CBP has considered submitting legislative 
proposals for changes to their fee collections, a thoughtful, 
thorough approach has not been proposed with a concerted effort 
to implement changes. Rather, the President's budget request 
assumes funds that have not been authorized, leaving the 
Committee with a shortfall to address or the consequences of 
cutting CBP's port of entry operations.
    In fact, the fiscal year 2012 request assumes an increase 
of $55,000,000 in COBRA fee collections that has not yet been 
enacted. The proposal suggests removing an exemption to the 
COBRA fee for individuals entering by commercial air or sea 
vessels from Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean, resulting in a 
net increase of $110,000,000 in anticipated annual fee 
collections and assuming that in fiscal year 2012 CBP would 
begin collections in the third quarter. Again, this fee is not 
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations. 
Therefore, the Committee has reduced the anticipated level of 
COBRA fee collections by $55,000,000 and increased the 
appropriated funds provided in the Border Security Inspections 
Program PPA to fill the Administration-created shortfall. As a 
result, the Committee recommends reductions to other accounts 
in this bill as an offset for this unjustified assumption.
    In addition, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has 
identified $639,400,000 in unobligated balances in CBP's 
Customs User Fee Account as a result of excess collections from 
a temporary fee increase and elimination of North American Free 
Trade Agreement country exemptions from January 1, 1994, to 
September 30, 1997 (GAO-11-318SP). The Committee is aware that 
the CFO and CBP have been discussing these funds with the 
Office of Management and Budget, but there has been no 
resolution regarding the appropriate application. These funds 
should either be applied to CBP operations or rescinded to 
clear up the question of their availability. The Committee 
directs the CFO and CBP to brief the Committee no later than 30 
days after the date of enactment of this Act regarding the 
decision on this matter.
    In addition, the Committee directs the Department to 
continue its quarterly reports from the Secretary on user fees 
to the Committees on Appropriations in fiscal year 2012 
beginning not later than December 1, 2011, and to include in 
the briefings the status of collections and steps taken to 
mitigate shortfalls in expected collections.

           PORT OF ENTRY OPERATIONS--MANPOWER AND INNOVATION

    With the fluctuation of fee funding, which constitutes 37 
percent of resources available for CBP officers, and current 
budget pressures, CBP faces significant challenges in managing 
both staffing levels and wait times at our Nation's ports of 
entry. Further, while the Committee supports targeted staffing 
increases where a clearly demonstrated need exists--for new and 
expanded ports of entry as well as for the National Targeting 
Center-Passenger (NTC-P), overseas programs, and, more 
recently, outbound operations--the Committee does not believe 
that CBP has demonstrated that it has fully explored all 
practicable options for reducing staffing growth in other 
environments.
    To date, CBP has conducted several assessments of its CBP 
officer needs to adequately staff frontline passenger and cargo 
operations at our Nation's ports of entry. The fiscal year 2012 
request, including anticipated fee collections, claims to 
support 21,186 CBP officers. While more modest CBP proposals 
assert an unfunded need of approximately 1,300 CBP officers, 
others call for an additional 10,000. Although the Committee is 
prepared to consider well-documented operational staffing 
increase proposals in the future, the methodology supporting 
such proposals, including how the required positions are 
calculated, must produce more precise requests and must take 
into consideration potential staffing level reductions or 
offsets that could be achieved by initiatives such as: (1) re-
engineering port of entry processes to automate more 
administrative tasks and focus staff on core operational 
activities, such as fully implementing the Land Border 
Initiative (LBI) and new automated pedestrian processing 
procedures; (2) further segmenting travelers and cargo by risk 
and facilitating the entry of lower risk traffic by expanding 
and improving the targeting capabilities in ATS for 
pedestrians, passenger vehicles, trucks, and air and sea 
passengers; (3) facilitating the entry of lower risk traffic by 
strengthening and expanding registered traveler programs, 
including the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-
TPAT)/Free and Secure Trade (FAST) programs; and (4) 
identifying areas where technology investments could increase 
CBP officer efficiency or better utilize available staffing.
    Therefore, to assist the Committee in its oversight of CBP 
staffing and planning, the Committee directs CBP to report to 
the Committee not later than 120 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act on its allocation of CBP officers, 
including how CBP can more effectively manage staffing 
resources across ports of entry to meet rising and falling 
staffing requirements more efficiently. Furthermore, the 
Committee recommends in this bill a substantial investment in 
strategic enhancements to targeting capabilities in part to 
automate functions that currently require significant manpower. 
CBP shall also detail to the Committee, in the same report 
requested above, the manpower savings generated with the plan 
for use of these funds and how those resources will be applied 
to other analytical activities going forward.

         CUSTOMS CHECK OF INTERNATIONAL PASSENGERS AND BAGGAGE

    The Committee is aware that CBP has considered ways to 
eliminate the separate customs check for arriving passengers at 
international airports, while still meeting the requirements of 
customs law. While the Committee would not support any change 
that would denigrate customs law enforcement or CBP's 
capabilities to detect and interdict illicit goods, 
agricultural threats, or drugs, the Committee urges CBP to 
continue looking at options to streamline operations for 
international air passenger processing.
    From the perspective of travelers, elimination of the two-
step check for immigration and customs would mean avoiding the 
second bottleneck to turn in their customs declarations. More 
importantly, it could also mean that passengers with connecting 
flights could continue through to Transportation Security 
Administration (TSA) screening rather than waiting for checked 
baggage to come into the customs hall and waiting for the 
airlines to re-check those bags. Ensuring that security needs 
as well as efficiency gains are met, the Committee encourages 
CBP, in consultation with TSA, to look at piloting different 
concepts of operations.

                               WAIT TIMES

    The Committee continues to be interested in monitoring CBP 
processing times. Beginning no later than January 30, 2012, and 
on a quarterly basis thereafter, CBP is directed to brief the 
Committee on the number of passenger arrivals at air and sea 
ports of entry for which the immigration and customs processing 
time exceeds 60 minutes. The Committee also requests that CBP 
include on its website wait time information for seaports, 
similar to the information already posted for air and land 
ports of entry.

                          OUTBOUND INSPECTIONS

    CBP has devoted substantial resources from its base, as 
well as supplemental funds provided by Congress for the effort 
to dismantle the Mexican drug cartels, to conduct outbound 
inspections along the Southwest border. The Committee 
encourages CBP to assess the effectiveness of outbound 
operations considering the costs dedicated to these activities. 
The current concept of operations is temporary in nature, 
despite the fact that the operations have been underway for two 
years. The Committee directs CBP to brief the Committee no 
later than November 1, 2011, on its plans for outbound 
operations, addressing officer safety issues associated with 
the concept of operations and manpower allocation to these 
operations, including temporary duty staff.

                   AVAILABILITY OF AUTOMATED SYSTEMS

    CBP's operations, particularly passenger operations at 
ports of entry, are highly dependent on information technology 
systems. In 2007, CBP experienced a total network failure at 
Los Angeles International Airport that created a significant 
disruption to CBP operations, the aviation system, and 
passengers traveling at the time. Despite CBP's efforts to 
address significant system availability challenges, the Office 
of the Inspector General (OIG) outlined a number of outstanding 
concerns in a report issued on February 4, 2011 (OIG-11-42). 
The Committee directs CBP and OIG to separately brief the 
Committee on progress in addressing issues raised in the report 
not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
    Further, for both the security of the United States and the 
movement of passengers and goods through the international 
aviation system, the availability and reliability of TSA's 
Secure Flight and CBP's advance passenger information systems 
are critical. The Committee directs CBP, in conjunction with 
TSA, to conduct an end-to-end assessment of their collective 
system availability and reliability issues, develop service-
level agreements associated with system performance 
expectations, and monitor and respond to any performance issues 
expeditiously. Not later than 120 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act, CBP and TSA shall provide a briefing to 
the Committee on the results of these activities.

 CONTAINER SECURITY INITIATIVE AND INSPECTING HIGH RISK CARGO OVERSEAS

    The budget request for fiscal year 2012, similar to the 
request for fiscal year 2011, proposes to significantly reduce 
International Cargo Screening operations. The Committee does 
not support the 44 percent reduction in the Container Security 
Initiative (CSI). Through CSI, CBP deploys officers to foreign 
ports, in partnership with host nation authorities, to identify 
high risk cargo to be screened and cleared before being loaded 
on U.S. bound ships. The budget request would seek to convert 
the program from one with an overseas presence in 58 seaports 
to one that is primarily U.S.-based, maintaining operations in 
a select number of yet-to-be named ports of strategic 
importance. Where CSI operations are closed, CBP would instead 
rely on a ``virtual'' approach, using remote targeting, and 
possibly reciprocal inspection agreements with foreign 
governments. While such a model may work where the host 
government is a close, trustworthy, and fully capable partner, 
the Committee observes that such relationships are not the 
norm.
    Furthermore, the Committee believes there is value in 
meeting face-to-face and establishing genuine relationships 
with partners in foreign customs organizations and port 
operations that goes beyond simply coordinating the screening, 
targeting, and inspection of cargo. Such relationships have 
resulted in valuable exchanges of information about trade and 
supply chain security that cannot be captured through virtual 
channels. Where those relationships are not being forged, the 
Committee encourages CBP to ensure that staff deployed for CSI 
have the proper skills and training for this type of work.
    The budget request also proposes to dedicate $7,500,000 to 
inadequately justified pilot projects to assess alternatives 
for implementing the requirement to scan overseas 100 percent 
of maritime cargo containers bound for the United States. In 
its budget submission, the Department proposed using these 
funds for travel to assess foreign seaports of interest and 
engage foreign government officials. The Committee does not 
recommend funds for this activity until the Department comes 
forward with a substantive approach to meeting or adapting the 
100 percent scanning requirement, instead applying these 
resources to partially restore the cut to CSI.
    The Committee, therefore, recommends $79,557,000 for 
International Cargo Screening, including $76,270,000 for the 
CSI program and $3,287,000 for the Secure Freight Initiative, 
to continue operations in Qasim, Pakistan; limited operations 
in Salalah, Oman; and expand operations to Karachi, Pakistan, 
if possible with funds provided.

             TRADE FACILITATION AND INTERAGENCY COOPERATION

    CBP's creation of the C-TPAT program in 2002 was forward-
leaning, and the trade community is commended for its continued 
participation and support. The concept was extended to importer 
safety compliance issues through the Importer Self Assessment. 
However, the Committee continues to hear concerns that the 
promise of expediting lower-risk cargo through the programs has 
not been fully realized. This seems to most affect cargo 
subject to safety inspections specifically directed or 
generally required by other agencies, rather than as a result 
of security concerns. CBP is directed to continue its work with 
other agencies, such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration 
and the Consumer Products Safety Commission, to provide the 
trade community with clear guidelines for what constitutes low-
risk shippers and shipments. This could include the concept of 
a certified importer program. In no way, however, does this 
suggest that CBP or other agencies eliminate random inspections 
or reduce inspection of goods due to targeting activities. Any 
new pilot project or program to promote efficient movement of 
trade must include a rigorous compliance review component, 
including regular audits. CBP is required to brief the 
Committee on its efforts no later than December 1, 2011.

                  INSPECTION AND DETECTION TECHNOLOGY

    The Committee includes $149,537,000 for Inspection and 
Detection Technology, as requested. The Committee understands 
that, in addition to ongoing operations and maintenance of 
CBP's inventory of technology systems, this funding will 
support acquisition of replacement or upgraded systems, to 
include six large-scale Non-Intrusive Inspection (NII) systems, 
four large-scale NII systems for new and enhanced ports, and 
the purchase, testing, and deployment of small-scale NII. The 
Committee expects CBP to award procurement for these items on a 
fully competitive basis, with the focus for award being on 
attaining the performance goals for which technology is to be 
used.
    Finally, the Committee notes that it has provided 
approximately $1,000,000,000 over the past six fiscal years for 
CBP inspection technology, including NII equipment. The 
Committee continues to support the procurement and deployment 
of new and replacement NII systems and is convinced of the 
continuing need to integrate such technology into CBP 
operations. Furthermore, the Committee is concerned that CBP 
has not had a robust, steady plan for managing this technology 
through its lifecycle. The devices that were rapidly deployed 
in the wake of the 9/11 attacks will soon need to be replaced. 
As the Advanced Spectroscopic Portals have not met 
expectations, it is unclear how CBP, with the input of the 
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, intends to maintain, if not 
improve, fielded radiation detection capabilities. Therefore, 
this bill includes a requirement for a multi-year investment 
and management plan to be provided at the time of budget 
submission and updated on an annual basis to fully justify 
requested funds for this activity as well as project future 
year requirements and funding levels.

                      AUTOMATED TARGETING SYSTEMS

    The Committee includes $46,400,000 for Automated Targeting 
Systems, $15,000,000 above the amount requested, to enhance 
passenger and cargo targeting efforts. In the aftermath of 
recent events involving terrorist travel, and continued 
concerns about cargo security, it is critical that the 
targeting systems on which CBP and other Federal agencies rely 
for counterterrorism and other enforcement efforts be robust 
and effective. The Committee is aware that CBP has substantial 
requirements for such enhancements and supports CBP's 
priorities of: developing capable visualization tools for 
analysts to enable faster and better quality presentation of 
data; implementing entity resolution enhancements to test and 
incorporate a better combination of name matching algorithms, 
facilitate data augmentation for certain traveler records, and 
utilize all data elements in identifying travelers of known 
risk; and employing predictive modeling and machine learning 
capabilities.
    These strategic enhancements to one of our Nation's most 
effective tools to counter terrorist travel and identify risky, 
illicit activity in the global trade and travel systems will 
provide security results. The Committee directs CBP to report 
to the Committees on Appropriations not later than 90 days 
after the date of enactment of this Act on its planned 
application of this enhanced funding. In addition, the 
Committee is concerned that the increase provided under this 
heading may result in funds generally provided to the Targeting 
Analysis Systems Project Office (TASPO) from other accounts 
being directed to other purposes. Such actions would undermine 
this investment intended for strategic enhancements. As a 
result, the Committee directs CBP to identify and itemize the 
consolidated elements of funds provided to TASPO, broken out by 
the programs, projects, and activities under which they fall, 
including a comparison to prior year funds for the same 
programs, projects, and activities, in a briefing to the 
Committee not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of 
this Act.

                       NATIONAL TARGETING CENTER

    The Committee includes $46,950,000 for the National 
Targeting Center (NTC), as requested, including an increase of 
$16,400,000 for 45 additional CBP officers and 20 mission 
support personnel. Both before and after the attempted 
terrorist attack on Northwest Flight 253 on Christmas Day, 
2009, the NTC has played a central role in providing tactical 
targeting information aimed at interdicting terrorists, 
criminals, and prohibited items. As with Automated Targeting 
Systems, it is critical that the NTC has the staffing and 
capacity required to support its critical information sharing 
and analysis mission, and work cooperatively with the Federal 
security and law enforcement community.
    The Committee is concerned that, despite recent attempted 
attacks in international air cargo, CBP did not request funds 
to further secure the international cargo supply chain. 
Furthermore, despite the fact that CBP's targeting initiatives 
started in the cargo arena, CBP has not developed the strategic 
vision for the NTC-Cargo (NTC-C) that it has for the NTC-
Passenger. As a result, CBP is directed to provide a briefing 
to the Committee on its initiatives to advance the 
effectiveness of cargo targeting capabilities as well as its 
vision for the NTC-C not later than 90 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act.

        BORDER PATROL AND BORDER SECURITY BETWEEN PORTS OF ENTRY

    The Committee fully funds Border Security and Control 
between Ports of Entry at $3,619,604,000, granting the request, 
including $88,610,000 for training. This recommendation will 
support an overall staffing level of 21,370 Border Patrol 
agents, to include 2,212 Border Patrol agents on the Northern 
border and over 18,415 on the Southwest border.
    Securing the border is a national priority. Doing it right 
requires the right mix of personnel, technology, and 
infrastructure. The Committee has provided substantial spending 
increases to hire and deploy more Border Patrol agents in 
recent years. From the fiscal year 2008 Act to this, the fiscal 
year 2012 bill, the Committee has provided $17,762,768,000 to 
the Border Patrol for agents and equipment. The number of 
Border Patrol agents has grown accordingly, from 12,350 in 
fiscal year 2006 to the target of 21,370 by September 30, 2011, 
a 73 percent increase. During the same period the number of 
agents deployed to the Southwest border will grow from 11,032 
to 18,415, a 67 percent increase, while the number on the 
Northern border will rise from 919 to 2,212, up 141 percent. 
The Committee also provided a corresponding increase in mission 
support staff needed to enable Border Patrol agents to 
concentrate on their enforcement mission in the field.
    The Committee staunchly supports the increases that have 
been made for Border Patrol operations. At the same time, 
sustaining the significant costs of these enhancements in our 
current fiscal environment will be a challenge. For that 
reason, the Committee directs CBP to measure the return on this 
investment. The American people need to see performance metrics 
reflecting what level of security gains have resulted from the 
investment, as well as the effectiveness of that security level 
when compared to the mission. The Commissioner of CBP testified 
to the Committee, during the fiscal year 2012 Budget hearing, 
that, ``the border is actually more secure than it has ever 
been in terms of the ability to detect and apprehend those who 
come into the country illegally,'' reporting that nearly 10 
times as many Border Patrol agents are in place and over 6,000 
more other CBP personnel are in the field than in 1993. These 
assertions of a more secure border must be validated with 
performance measures that address the effectiveness of 
personnel, technology, and infrastructure investments. A 
reporting of data points does not supplant indicators of 
effectiveness. Rather CBP must develop statistically validated 
measures including better quantification of the denominators--
the number of illegal crossers and volume of contraband coming 
across the border.
    It is essential that CBP's strategies be informed by 
credible performance measures with clear end goals for border 
security. To articulate those clear end goals, the Committee 
encourages the Border Patrol to continue developing its new 
strategy and doctrine. The measures of success must stem from a 
coherent strategy and clear doctrine.
    In light of the significant growth in workforce, and in 
order to attain an optimal and sustainable staffing level, the 
Committee directs CBP to submit a report not later than 90 days 
after the date of enactment of this Act on its five-year 
staffing and deployment plan for the Border Patrol. CBP should 
take serious consideration of illegal crossings, apprehension 
rates, and apprehensions per agent in developing this plan.
    The Committee also directs CBP to brief the Committee no 
later than November 1, 2011, on funds allocated to support the 
health, welfare, and safety of Border Patrol agents in this 
budget.

                        ACCESS TO FEDERAL LANDS

    The Committee is concerned about Border Patrol access to 
Federal lands to address known border security threats. Delays 
in access to Federal lands limit the ability of agents to 
detect and interdict drug smugglers and undocumented aliens in 
border areas by reducing flexibility in conducting patrols and 
positioning surveillance equipment. A March 2006 Memorandum of 
Understanding (MOU) among the Secretaries of Homeland Security, 
Agriculture, and Interior set forth the policy of cooperation 
that should have resulted in expeditious determinations on 
access to Federal lands. However, according to testimony before 
Congress by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), while 
the MOU requires the agencies to ``cooperate and complete, in 
an expedited manner, all compliance required by applicable 
Federal laws,'' such cooperation has not always occurred. In 
one example, ``when Border Patrol requested permission to move 
surveillance equipment, it took the land manager more than four 
months to conduct the required historic property assessment and 
grant permission, but by then illegal traffic had shifted to 
other areas.'' The Committee directs the Departments of 
Homeland Security, Agriculture and Interior to brief the 
Committee not later than October 1, 2011, on their plan to 
address the Border Patrol's access to Federal lands, as 
appropriate and necessary to ensure the border security of the 
United States. Further, the Committee directs DHS to brief the 
Committee not later than October 1, 2011, on its implementation 
of GAO's recommendations for border security coordination on 
Southwest Federal lands in GAO-11-38 and GAO-11-177.

                     JOINT FIELD COMMAND STRUCTURE

    The Committee is aware that CBP recently established the 
Joint Field Command (JFC) in Arizona. The CBP press release 
states the following purpose for the JFC: ``to integrate the 
combined assets of the Tucson and Yuma Border Patrol Sectors, 
the Office of Field Operations Tucson Field Office, and the 
Office of Air and Marine's Tucson and Yuma Air Branches, 
enabling CBP leadership in the Arizona area of operations to 
direct an integrated approach to our mission of border 
security, commercial enforcement and trade facilitation.'' The 
Committee strongly supports joint analysis and reporting 
efforts, such as those envisioned through the Border 
Intelligence Fusion Section, that are designed to leverage 
resources across organizations to provide actionable 
information for frontline border security operations also 
across organizations. Similarly, developing a common operating 
picture to provide situational awareness of particular areas 
and share threat and risk information may be valuable. 
Alternatively, a joint command makes sense where there are 
truly joint operations. Given that Border Patrol already has 
the authority to direct air and marine assets and Field 
Operations operates within the ports of entry, it is unclear 
what mission benefits come from a Border Patrol agent 
commanding Field Operations at the ports or a CBP Director of 
Field Operations commanding Border Patrol operations in the 
desert. The Committee is interested in understanding the cost 
and benefit of establishing the JFC and whether CBP intends to 
establish this concept in other areas along the border. 
Further, CBP is directed to provide the funding levels and 
sources associated with the establishment and operations of the 
JFC no later than July 1, 2011. The Committee is also 
interested in the rationale for Border Patrol's sector lines, 
particularly between Yuma and Tucson, and requests a briefing 
on this topic.

                   OFFICE OF AIR AND MARINE STAFFING

    The Committee includes $287,901,000, as requested, for Air 
and Marine Compensation and Benefits for the annualization of 
prior-year funds, on-going support of CBPs use of air and 
marine forces to secure the border, and consolidation of 
mission support funding across all CBP programs, projects, and 
activities (PPAs) into Management and Administration and 
training PPAs. The Committee supports CBPs internal re-
allocation of positions to manage program needs including the 
Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) program.

                       SOUTHWEST BORDER VIOLENCE

    The Committee has invested billions of dollars in Southwest 
border security efforts over the past eight years. While 
significant resources have been invested and progress made, 
conditions in Mexico remain dire. Drug production is up and 
drug related violence in Mexican border communities continues 
to result in the tragic deaths of innocent people. The level of 
violence directed at U.S. law enforcement agents and officers 
working on the border and in Mexico remains a concern--
particularly with the deaths of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry 
and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Agent Jaime 
Zapata.
    It is clear an effective strategy to curb Southwest border 
violence is multi-faceted. Part of this strategy must be 
comprehensive performance metrics that can demonstrate 
progress, the effectiveness of technology, infrastructure and 
workforce investments, and remaining capability gaps. The 
Committee directs CBP and ICE to brief the Committee on 
existing metrics used to assess the level and impact of 
violence in border communities and along the Southwest border, 
to include violence experienced by CBP and ICE personnel in 
their border enforcement efforts no later than August 1, 2011. 
As part of this briefing, the Committee directs CBP and ICE to 
assess existing performance measures and whether they provide a 
useful basis for analysis of the effectiveness of strategies 
and investments to counter border violence.

                           INTEGRITY PROGRAMS

    The Committee remains concerned with reports from CBP's 
Office of Internal Affairs that drug trafficking organizations 
(DTOs) have been seeking to infiltrate CBP, compromise CBP 
employees, and corrupt the agency. The Committee strongly 
supports CBP's initiative to mitigate these challenges through 
polygraph examination and periodic background re-investigation, 
as well as the provision of workforce safeguards to reduce and 
prevent corruption. CBP should ensure that its ethics, 
integrity, and conduct programs include training at the time of 
recruitment, hiring, basic academy, in-service, and advanced 
stages of an agent or officer's career.
    The Committee includes a requested increase of $25,939,000 
to support polygraph examinations and to reduce the backlog in 
background investigations and periodic re-investigations. 
However, the Committee is concerned that this ``increase'' does 
not represent a real increase over funding the Committee 
previously provided for this purpose specifically to support 
the Office of Internal Affairs. The Committee directs CBP to 
brief the Committee not later than December 1, 2011, on the 
funds available for and progress regarding polygraph 
examinations, background investigations, and periodic re-
investigations. The Committee is also interested in the status 
of periodic CBP's efforts to prevent infiltration of DTOs into 
the CBP organization, including ensuring completion of 
polygraph examinations of all new hires at the appropriate 
point prior to field deployment. The briefing should provide 
the budget, staffing, and effectiveness for these integrity 
efforts.

               TACTICAL COMMUNICATIONS AND BORDER CONTROL

    The Committee observes that a critical element of gaining 
``effective control'' of the border is to ensure seamless 
communication between Federal agencies and their State and 
local counterparts. The Committee supports CBP's efforts to 
minimally upgrade its tactical communications infrastructure in 
order to meet operational needs on the border, while CBP works 
within DHS and with interagency Federal partners on a more 
comprehensive solution to broadband infrastructure and 
communications needs. The Committee directs the Chief 
Information Officer of CBP, the National Protection and 
Programs Directorate's Office of Emergency Communications, and 
the Federal Emergency Management Agency to provide a briefing 
to the Committee not later than 120 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act on Department and interagency efforts.

                          DETENTION STATISTICS

    The Committee directs the Department to issue statistics on 
the number of individuals held in custody by CBP, including all 
Border Patrol stations, checkpoints, and short-term custody 
facilities (defined as facilities used to hold individuals for 
72 hours or less). These statistics shall include a list of all 
the facilities used for short-term custody, the country of 
origin of those in CBP custody, age, sex, duration of detention 
for those individuals in CBP custody, and the circumstances of 
their release (repatriation, referral to ICE, referral to DOJ, 
etc.). The Committee directs the Department to publish annually 
these statistics in the Department's annual statistical 
yearbook. The Department shall further explain how and why 
these facilities are used, what standards govern the conditions 
of custody, and what oversight mechanisms the Department 
employs to monitor short-term detention conditions and lengths 
of time of detention.

                  BORDER COMMUNITY RELATIONS OFFICERS

    The Committee is aware that where they have been used, 
border community relations officers have improved collaboration 
with local border communities and helped the Border Patrol and 
Office of Field Operations more effectively carry out their 
enforcement missions. The Committee, therefore, encourages CBP 
to deploy more such officers to areas that could benefit from 
their presence, and directs CBP to brief the Committees not 
later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act on 
the role such officers play and the status of service-oriented 
training for CBP officers and Border Patrol agents.

                    BORDER SEARCH, TRAUMA AND RESCUE

    The Committee encourages CBP to maintain and, if possible, 
expand its efforts to provide medical aid and Border Search, 
Trauma and Rescue personnel in the Southwest to reduce the 
incidence of deaths in the desert. The Committee recommends 
that CBP work with civil society organizations in the region to 
conduct rescue operations and to construct and maintain rescue 
beacons to identify and locate persons in remote areas.

                      PREVENTING CHILD TRAFFICKING

    The Committee emphasizes that unaccompanied children must 
be treated with special concern while in CBP custody. The 
Committee directs DHS to uphold its responsibility under the 
Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act to pay costs 
of transportation for unaccompanied children who choose 
voluntary departure as their form of immigration relief. The 
Committee finds that it is inappropriate to repatriate 
unaccompanied alien children with adult aliens or on flights 
administered or contracted by DHS or other agencies of the 
Federal government. The Committee directs DHS to utilize, as 
appropriate, regularly scheduled commercial flights to return 
unaccompanied alien children to their country of origin. DHS 
should review any post-18 care plans that have been developed 
by the Department of Health and Human Services for 
unaccompanied children. Furthermore, the Committee directs CBP 
to comply with current law, including the William Wilberforce 
Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. CBP should 
ensure that unaccompanied children are properly screened for 
sexual assault, trafficking, exploitation or other 
mistreatment. The Committee encourages CBP to work with local 
child welfare organizations or other appropriate organizations 
to assist in screening and to ensure appropriate training of 
CBP personnel.

                              GLOBAL ENTRY

    The Committee is pleased that CBP continues to expand its 
Global Entry program and is introducing additional reciprocity 
agreements with allies and partner countries. The Committee is 
also pleased to see the consolidation of trusted traveler 
programs under the Global Entry umbrella. The Committee 
includes $6,311,000 for Trusted Traveler Programs, as 
requested. The Committee encourages CBP to continue looking at 
ways to expand the program without denigrating enrollment 
requirements, including the potential for enrolling certain 
groups of foreign nationals.

                     FOREIGN LANGUAGE AWARD PROGRAM

    The Foreign Language Award Program (FLAP) was established 
in 1985 to provide incentives to CBP officers and Agriculture 
Specialists to learn foreign languages. CBP has proposed 
suspending the program in the past two years but has 
subsequently reversed that position in both instances. As CBP 
continues the policy of pushing out the border, linguistic 
skills are particularly valuable to CBP in effectively carrying 
out its missions, both through its overseas programs and in its 
port of entry and targeting operations. The Committee supports 
the use of pay incentives and other approaches to improve the 
language skills of the CBP workforce.

                   TEXTILE TRANSSHIPMENT ENFORCEMENT

    The Committee includes $4,750,000, as in previous years, to 
continue textile transshipment enforcement. The Committee 
directs CBP to ensure that the activities of the Textile and 
Apparel Policies and Programs Office, specifically seizures, 
detention, and special operations, are maintained at least at 
the level of those activities in prior years. The Committee 
directs CBP to submit a report with the fiscal year 2013 budget 
on execution of its five-year strategic plan. The report should 
include information covering enforcement activities; textile 
production verification team exercises and special operations; 
numbers of seizures; penalties imposed; and the numbers and 
types of personnel responsible for enforcing textile laws 
(including headquarters staff in the Textile Enforcement 
Operations Division).

          CIRCUMVENTION OF CUSTOMS DUTIES--IMPORTS FROM CHINA

    The Committee directs CBP to submit a report on the extent 
and frequency of customs fraud, including circumvention of 
duties and misclassification on entries of imports of goods 
from China. This report should include information covering 
enforcement activities, numbers of seizures, penalties imposed, 
the numbers and types of personnel responsible (including 
interagency collaboration for enforcing laws), and estimated 
costs to reduce substantially the incidence of illegal 
transshipments. The Committee directs CBP to submit a report 
with the data for fiscal year 2011 not later than February 1, 
2012.

                   ADDITIONAL TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES

    The Committee supports CBP's efforts to ensure Border 
Patrol agents and CBP officers get the training they need to 
meet the mission on the front lines and to build leaders for 
the organization's future. Therefore, the Committee urges CBP 
and FLETC to collaborate with regionally accredited 
institutions of higher education to develop standardized 
curriculum, course requirements, and a program accreditation 
system that will lead to efficiencies in time and money in the 
deployment of additional Border Patrol agents and CBP officers 
and that will provide opportunities for existing agents and 
officers to advance professionally through undergraduate and 
graduate programs in operationally related fields. Not later 
than one year after the date of enactment of this Act, CBP and 
FLETC shall brief the Committee detailing their collaboration 
with regionally accredited institutions of higher education, 
including any additional curriculum, course requirements, or 
program accreditation system that should be developed.

                              BORDER ROADS

    The Committee is concerned about reports that border access 
roads may be in poor condition, such that they impede the 
patrol ability of the Border Patrol, sheriff's departments, and 
State law enforcement agencies. Recognizing that the condition 
of border roads provides not only better access for law 
enforcement but potentially influences migration patterns, the 
Committee directs CBP to brief the Committee within 120 days of 
the enactment of this Act on the quality of border access 
roads, the need for repairs, and when CBP expects to undertake 
such repairs.

            PATROLLING WATERWAYS ALONG THE SOUTHWEST BORDER

    Increased violence on the waters of the Rio Grande has 
resulted in the armed robbery through piracy and murder of U.S. 
citizens. The Committee recognizes the Border Patrol and Coast 
Guard are laudably working to prevent these incidents and 
ensure the integrity of the U.S. border with Mexico in 
cooperation with State and local law enforcement. However, the 
Committee also notes the all too frequent occurrence of our 
Federal law enforcement professionals encountering boats used 
by drug smugglers and other armed criminals with far greater 
capabilities. The Committee directs the Border Patrol, working 
with the Coast Guard, to report within 90 days of the date of 
enactment of this Act on efforts to address these security 
issues.

                  CRIMINAL PROSECUTION AND RECIDIVISM

    The Committee believes that criminal prosecution for 
illegal entry into the United States is a key tool in 
countering recidivism. Through Operation Streamline, border 
communities are seeing real results. The Committee therefore 
encourages Border Patrol Sector Chiefs to work closely with 
U.S. Attorneys' offices, particularly on the Southwest border. 
They should regularly share information regarding: the threat 
of violence posed by the arrested individual; the threat to 
communities in the United States posed by the arrested 
individual; the threat of future illegal re-entry into the 
United States posed by the arrested individual; the overall 
safety of the United States-Mexico border; any humanitarian 
concerns that could mitigate against prosecution; and any other 
issues related to the arrested individual that any party to the 
meeting deems relevant. Additionally, the Committee directs CBP 
to continue its initiative to detail CBP attorneys to U.S. 
Attorney Offices as Special Assistant U.S. Attorneys.
    Since 2001, the U.S. Government has utilized a number of 
tools to attempt to reduce the incidence of recidivism when it 
comes to illegal border crossing between the ports of entry. 
The committee directs CBP and ICE to provide a briefing on all 
the tools that have been utilized, such as lateral 
repatriation, interior repatriation, criminal prosecution; 
their findings regarding the effectiveness of these measures in 
reducing recidivism; and their plans for expansion of any of 
these activities as result of their findings.

                      HIRING AND STAFFING REPORTS

    The Committee is keenly interested in seeing that CBP 
achieves its planned hiring targets and therefore directs CBP 
to continue submitting monthly staffing and hiring reports, as 
well as quarterly briefings on its hiring progress, including 
the status of hiring for the Northern and Southwest borders.

                          UNOBLIGATED BALANCES

    The Committee directs CBP to report to the Committees on 
Appropriations quarterly on the results of its own quarterly 
reviews of obligations in carryover accounts that should be de-
obligated through its validation and verification process, 
pursuant to CBP Directive 1220-011C.

                        Automation Modernization

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2011.......................      $336,575,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.....................       364,030,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       334,275,000
Bill compared with:...................................
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2011...................        -2,300,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.................       -29,755,000
                                MISSION

    Automation Modernization includes funding for major 
information technology modernization and development projects 
for CBP, including the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) 
system and the multi-agency International Trade Data System 
(ITDS); support and transition of the legacy Automated 
Commercial System (ACS); the integration and connectivity of 
information technology infrastructure within CBP and DHS as 
part of Current Operations Protection and Processing Support 
(COPPS); modernization of the TECS enforcement and compliance 
system; and the Terrorism Prevention Systems Enhancements 
(TPSE) initiative aimed at enhancing system infrastructure to 
ensure continuity of operations in critical passenger programs.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $334,275,000 for Automation 
Modernization, $29,755,000 below the request and $2,300,000 
below fiscal year 2011. While the Committee recognizes the 
reliance of CBP operations on its information technology 
capabilities, the President's budget request assumed an 
increase in COBRA fees in order to fund this program at the 
requested levels. This fee is not within the jurisdiction of 
the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee has adjusted 
its fiscal year 2012 recommendation for this account 
accordingly. Of the total amount provided, not less than 
$140,000,000 is for ACE. CBP is directed to provide an 
expenditure plan detailing how it will distribute this year's 
appropriations to ACE/ITDS, COPPS, TECS, and TPSE. In addition, 
the bill includes a requirement for submission of a multi-year 
investment and management plan to be provided at the time of 
budget submission and updated on an annual basis to fully 
justify requested funds for this account as well as project 
future-year requirements and funding levels.

                           ACE PROGRAM DELAYS

    More than $3,000,000,000 has been appropriated since 2002 
for the development of ACE and the dream of a ``single trade 
window'' through which the trade community would meet the U.S. 
Government's consolidated requirements and expedite goods 
through the borders. While the 9/11 attacks significantly 
changed the focus of legacy Customs and later CBP, the 
Committee is not sympathetic to such excuses for delays in ACE 
implementation.
    The Committee is aware that ACE governance has changed and 
that a thorough review of ACE priorities and future investment 
is being completed. The Committee urges the Department to get 
ACE on track to complete its major capability drops and provide 
the necessary features critical to facilitating trade and 
supporting security requirements for cargo screening and 
inspection. To ensure the Committee has the information it 
needs to assess the effectiveness of the ACE effort, the 
Committee requires an expenditure plan for fiscal year 2012. 
Further, the bill requires this information for fiscal year 
2013 and thereafter at the time of submission of the 
President's budget request, including a current acquisition 
project baseline for ACE and TECS Modernization.

                    INTERNATIONAL TRADE DATA SYSTEM

    The International Trade Data System (ITDS) is the multi-
agency initiative to establish the single window for the 
collection and sharing of data and statistics on trade, to be 
developed along with ACE. The Committee is pleased to see 
progress on the uniform data set; however, the list of 
participating government agencies remains incomplete, as many 
agencies with relevant interests and responsibilities for trade 
data have not yet engaged in ITDS. The Committee directs CBP to 
continue to include in its ACE plan a report on progress in 
implementing ITDS, with regard to the technical features of 
ITDS as well as the recruitment of all participating government 
agencies needed for ITDS to achieve the benefits of the 
aforementioned ``single trade window''.

                                  TECS

    Funding for TECS Modernization of $50,000,000 is again 
included within the COPPS program, project, and activity line, 
to replace existing, antiquated mainframe elements of TECS with 
a sustainable, modern architecture and graphical user 
interfaces. More importantly, the new flexible architecture for 
TECS provides new capabilities to users, like the Consolidated 
Secondary Inspection System already being rolled out to ports 
of entry. A joint effort between CBP and U.S. Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement (ICE), TECS modernization is to be 
completed in the next four years. The Committee is concerned 
that ICE is not on track with CBP's timeline for retirement of 
the TECS mainframe that will result in a significant resource 
burden for ICE in future years. The Committee directs CBP and 
ICE to brief the Committee not later than December 1, 2011, on 
the status of modernization efforts, progress in fiscal year 
2011, and plans for fiscal year 2012.

        Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2011.......................      $574,173,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.....................       527,623,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       500,000,000
Bill compared with:...................................
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2011...................       -74,173,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.................       -27,623,000
                                MISSION

    The Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology 
(BSFIT) account funds the technology and tactical 
infrastructure solutions to achieve effective control of the 
U.S. borders.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $500,000,000 for Border Security 
Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology (BSFIT), $27,623,000 
below the amount requested and $74,173,000 below the amount 
provided in fiscal year 2011. The Committee recommends 
$312,377,000 for development and deployment, which will fund 
technology and tactical infrastructure investment, including 
$45,000,000 for Northern Border technology and $40,000,000 for 
tactical communications; $133,248,000 for operations and 
maintenance, as requested; and $54,375,000 for program 
management, including $3,000,000 for environmental assessment 
and mitigation as requested.
    While it is clear that the Border Patrol requires 
additional tools and technology to execute its critical 
mission, the Committee remains concerned about the proposed 
Arizona Border Technology Plan. As a result, the Committee 
limits the availability of funding for obligation of 
$150,000,000 from this account until a detailed expenditure 
plan is provided to the Committee, not later than 90 days after 
the date of enactment of this Act.
    A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee 
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget estimate      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Development and Deployment:
    Alternative (Southwest) Border       $242,000,000       $222,246,000
     Technology...................
    Other BSFIT Technology........         55,000,000         50,000,000
    Tactical Communications.......         40,000,000         40,000,000
        Subtotal, Development and         337,000,000        312,377,000
         Deployment...............
Operation and Maintenance.........        133,248,000        133,248,000
Program Management................         57,375,000         54,375,000
                                   -------------------------------------
        Total, Border Security           $527,623,000       $500,000,000
         Fencing, Infrastructure,
         and Technology...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

        SECURE BORDER TACTICAL AND TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENT TO DATE

    From the fiscal year 2007 Act (Public Law 109-295) to this, 
the fiscal year 2012 bill, the Committee has provided a total 
of $5,500,853,000 for tactical infrastructure, technology, and 
tactical communications through the BSFIT account. There is no 
doubt of the Committee's staunch support for border security 
enhancements, given the enormity of this investment.
    The largest investment has been in an expansive deployment 
of vehicle and pedestrian fencing. Maintaining this tactical 
infrastructure is an ongoing operations and maintenance 
responsibility that is fully funded in this account. While the 
Committee will continue looking to the Border Patrol to assess 
its tactical, physical infrastructure needs, the miles already 
constructed provide the total miles of pedestrian and vehicle 
fencing deemed appropriate and necessary by the previous 
Administration.
    The second major investment in this account has been in the 
``virtual fence'' concept through Secure Border Initiative Net 
(SBInet). Over $800,000,000 was devoted to the SBInet program 
through fiscal year 2010, resulting in a system of fixed towers 
for cameras and sensors across 53 miles of the Arizona desert, 
as well as an initial ``common operating picture'' to provide 
the information from those towers to the Border Patrol. The 
lack of progress on SBInet led the Secretary to freeze its 
system development funding in 2010. On January 14, 2011, the 
Department announced no further development work would be 
carried out under the existing contract, citing problems with 
SBInet since its inception in terms of cost overruns, technical 
problems, and scheduling delays. The Department announced that 
it would instead pursue a strategy of acquiring ``off-the-
shelf'' technology on a competitive basis and more effectively 
deploying it across the border given the diverse terrain and 
conditions. The Department is calling the new effort the 
Arizona Border Technology Plan. The Committee notes, however, 
that the Department requests funds to continue operations and 
maintenance of SBInet.

              ALTERNATIVE (SOUTHWEST) BORDER TECHNOLOGIES

    In fiscal year 2011, the Committee provided funds to begin 
the implementation of the Arizona Border Technology Plan. It is 
likely that the Department will not be able to fully execute 
the $185,000,000 requested and provided in fiscal year 2011 for 
this purpose. As noted above, the Department provided a 
specific procurement plan for off-the-shelf technology for 
fiscal year 2011 that includes additional remote video 
surveillance systems, mobile video surveillance systems, 
unattended ground sensors, and other portable, mobile 
technologies that can potentially be procured relatively 
quickly, deployed, and utilized immediately given the 
familiarity of Border Patrol agents with this equipment.
    The Arizona Border Technology Plan for fiscal year 2012, as 
requested by the Department, proposes procurement of three 
integrated fixed tower systems. The procurement should take 
place through a full and open competition, which the Department 
asserts will result in swift deployment of additional 
integrated fixed tower systems. The facts are contrary to this 
assertion. It took four years of painstaking work with the 
SBInet system for the Border Patrol to state that the system is 
working and has borne successes. Further, the Department 
acknowledges that integrated fixed tower systems are not a 
commoditized asset. Additionally, the requirements for an 
integrated fixed tower system include integration of assets 
into a ``common operating picture,'' something that CBP will 
now have to undertake itself.
    It is unclear how the Department's acquisition approach for 
additional integrated fixed tower systems fits with the premise 
of the Arizona Border Technology Plan, namely to procure and 
deploy off-the-shelf technology for an intended immediate 
benefit. As a result of this concern, as well as anticipation 
of procurement delays, the Committee has reduced the funds 
available for this activity. Further, the Committee directs CBP 
to include in its detailed expenditure plan for fiscal year 
2012 as well as its multi-year investment and management plan 
for fiscal years 2013-2016 and thereafter, the rationale for 
its approach.
    Additionally, the Committee has consistently directed that 
CBP employ a comprehensive strategy for achieving operational 
control of the border, including identifying and utilizing the 
right mix of people, infrastructure, and technology. The 
Committee directs CBP to continue its quarterly briefings 
associated with its strategy for BSFIT funds in the context of 
its overall border security mission and assets.

                 NORTHERN BORDER TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENT

    The Committee is encouraged with the positive impact of the 
technology investments on the Northern border that it has 
included in BSFIT appropriations in recent years. As the 
Department has reported, this increased focus on the Northern 
border has resulted in the deployment of proven surveillance 
systems that have received favorable reviews from the Border 
Patrol and are now supporting enforcement operations 
particularly in the Great Lakes region and specifically in the 
Detroit, Swanton, and Buffalo Sectors, and at the Champlain 
Port of Entry, with efforts underway to initiate a multi-agency 
Operational Integration Center at Selfridge Air Force Base. The 
Committee includes $45,000,000, as requested, for continued 
technology investments to address Northern Border security 
needs.

                  INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY PILOT PROGRAM

    The budget request included $10,000,000 for an Innovative 
Technology Pilot Program to look at emergent technology and 
assess commercial and military capabilities. For these 
purposes, the Committee provides $5,000,000, half of the 
requested funding. Research and development efforts are 
scalable activities. Given the Department's focus for BSFIT on 
deploying commercial, off-the-shelf technologies that can be 
applied to enhance border security immediately, this activity 
has been reduced.

                  OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE, AND SUPPORT

    The Committee includes $133,248,000, as requested, for the 
operation and maintenance of systems and infrastructure 
deployed with BSFIT funding. The Committee directs CBP to 
provide a detailed breakdown of the application of this funding 
per tactical infrastructure and technology type in the 
expenditure plan required for BSFIT, including the operations 
and maintenance associated with SBInet and with pedestrian and 
vehicle fencing (even if funds associated with fencing are 
moved to the CBP Construction and Facilities Management 
account).
    Within Operations and Maintenance, the Committee also 
includes $3,000,000, as requested, for environmental mitigation 
deemed necessary as a direct result of construction, 
operations, and maintenance activities for border security. In 
order for DHS to execute interagency agreements with the U.S. 
Department of the Interior to complete environmental mitigation 
activities, the Committee includes a General Provision, Section 
547, in the bill permitting the transfer of previously 
appropriated environmental mitigation funds under BSFIT to the 
U.S. Department of Interior. The authority is narrowly tailored 
and controlled to ensure that funds will only be transferred: 
in accordance with a written agreement between the Secretaries 
of Homeland Security and the Interior; where the Secretary of 
the Interior has submitted an expenditure plan 15 days in 
advance of the proposed transfer detailing the actions proposed 
to be taken with amounts transferred; where the Secretary of 
Homeland Security has certified that the actions outlined in 
the expenditure plan cannot be legally executed under the 
authorities of CBP or any other component of the Department of 
Homeland Security; and where the actions are determined to be 
necessary for mitigation of construction, operations, and 
maintenance activities related to border security.

                    QUARTERLY REPORTS AND BRIEFINGS

    The Committee directs the Department to continue its 
quarterly Secure Border Initiative status reports. The reports 
should include an update on Northern border and tactical 
communication investments. The Committee also directs CBP to 
continue to brief the Committees on Appropriations on a 
quarterly basis on the status of BSFIT programs and 
investments.

               MULTI-YEAR INVESTMENT AND MANAGEMENT PLAN

    The bill includes a new multi-year investment and 
management plan for BSFIT funds to be submitted by the 
Secretary simultaneously with the fiscal year 2013 budget 
request. As stated earlier in the report, the Committee is 
dissatisfied with the Congressional Budget Justifications 
submitted by the Department. Furthermore, incremental 
investments made in a particular fiscal year need to be 
understood in the context of total investment--both in terms of 
the cost commitment and the progress toward meeting the total 
mission requirements. While the Committee would prefer to see 
this plan in fiscal year 2012, the Committee recognized the 
burden on the Department would be significant. As a result, the 
Committee directs the submittal of only a detailed expenditure 
plan for fiscal year 2012 funds. To the extent possible, the 
Committee encourages CBP to incorporate requirements from the 
multi-year investment and management plan into the fiscal year 
2012 plan. The Committee intends, subject to the Department's 
submission of a substantive multi-year investment and 
management plan in fiscal year 2013, to eliminate the practice 
of funding restriction and expenditure plan after enactment.

            OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION AND ACQUISITION

    The Committee has encouraged CBP to continually seek ways 
to innovate and more effectively manage its operations, 
particularly in procuring and incorporating technology. While 
the Commissioner's creation of the Office of Technology 
Innovation and Acquisition (OTIA) could become an inefficient, 
additional layer of bureaucracy, the Committee is hopeful that 
OTIA can utilize the expertise within its organization to 
support more efficient, effective program management across 
CBP--keeping the focus on delivering for the mission. The 
Committee will be closely monitoring the role OTIA plays in 
CBP's major programs and directs CBP to provide a briefing to 
the Committee no later than October 1, 2011, on OTIA's 
activities.

 Air and Marine Interdiction, Operations, Maintenance, and Procurement

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2011.......................      $516,326,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.....................       470,566,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       499,966,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2011...................       -16,360,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.................       +29,400,000
                                MISSION

    CBP Air and Marine provides integrated and coordinated 
border interdiction and law enforcement support for homeland 
security missions; provides airspace security for high-risk 
areas or National Special Security Events upon request; and 
combats efforts to smuggle narcotics and other contraband into 
the United States. CBP Air and Marine also supports 
counterterrorism efforts of many other law enforcement 
agencies.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $499,906,000 for Air and Marine 
Interdiction, Operations, Maintenance, and Procurement, 
$29,400,000 above the amount requested and $16,360,000 below 
the amount provided in fiscal year 2011. The funding includes 
$361,087,000 for operations and maintenance, and $138,879,000 
for procurement. The procurement funds include an additional 
$8,400,000 for the UH-60 Black Hawk conversions to ensure 
completion of two conversions, as the budget request asserted 
it intended. The remaining $21,000,000 increase is recommended 
for purchase of an additional multi-enforcement aircraft, a 
high priority for CBP, particularly important given the 
increasing aircraft retirements CBP expects.

                         UPDATED STRATEGIC PLAN

    In this bill, the Committee directs CBP to update its five-
year strategic plan, submitting it not later than the date on 
which the President's budget request is submitted for fiscal 
year 2013, to enable appropriate oversight of CBP's plans for 
this important component of border security operations and 
mission.

                    AIR AND MARINE OPERATIONS CENTER

    The Committee is aware that CBP's Air and Marine Operations 
Center (AMOC), located in Riverside, California, and 
established in 1988, serves a critical role in providing 
targeting, launching, and tracking control for the CBP Office 
of Air and Marine, and is critical to deploying more UAS and 
operating them at a higher tempo. AMOC was a crucial resource 
in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, 
coordinating and monitoring all law enforcement flights 
nationwide while most commercial flights were grounded. It has 
also played a key role in emergency responses such as for 
hurricanes and in security coordination for national events 
such as Super Bowls and the Olympics. A plan to expand and 
upgrade the systems and facilities at AMOC has been initiated 
by the Department and initial funding was provided by Congress 
in fiscal year 2010, but funding has not been included in 
subsequent requests. The Committee encourages CBP to assess its 
needs for the AMOC and brief the Committee on its plans no 
later than December 1, 2011.

                            CIVIL AIR PATROL

    In testimony before this Committee, the Commissioner of CBP 
expressed support for exploring the use of Civil Air Patrol 
assets for aerial surveillance on United States' borders. As 
such, the Committee directs the Comptroller General of the 
United States to study and report on the functions and 
capabilities of the Civil Air Patrol to support the homeland 
security missions, including aerial reconnaissance or 
communications capabilities for border security; and 
capabilities to conduct search and rescue operations and 
respond to a natural disaster or act of terrorism. The final 
report shall detail the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of 
using Civil Air Patrol assets for homeland security missions in 
partnership with the Department and be submitted no later than 
February 1, 2012.

                           AIRCRAFT UPGRADES

    The Committee strongly supports CBP's efforts to upgrade 
its aircraft fleet. Specifically, the Committee recommends 
funding for CBP's acquisition of two additional wing sets to 
continue its service life extension program (SLEP) for the P-3 
fleet. The P-3 has been a reliable asset for many years. For 
that reason, the Committee understands that CBP is considering 
finishing the program by adding the last two P-3's to the SLEP 
rather than retiring those aircraft. The Committee encourages 
CBP's review of this matter and directs CBP to brief the 
Committee on its decision no later than the submission of the 
President's fiscal year 2013 budget request.
    The Committee also notes that previous Appropriations 
included, as requested, upgrades for the C-550 jet interceptor 
sensors. The Committee encourages CBP to outline its plans for 
these upgrades in the updated strategic plan to be submitted 
with the fiscal year 2013 budget submission.

                      UNMANNED AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS

    The Committee is aware of assertions that frequently 
changing weather conditions and strict air regulations affect 
CBP's unmanned aircraft operations on the Southwest border. The 
Committee urges the Department to thoroughly investigate the 
impact that weather has on providing the constant surveillance 
necessary for protecting the Homeland at our international 
borders and to strongly consider establishing an alternate base 
of operations as well as additional landing and support 
services at an additional Southwest border location as a 
solution.

                          CARIBBEAN OPERATIONS

    The Committee strongly supports the use of air surveillance 
capabilities to support interdiction of drugs, illegal 
migrants, and other contraband en route to the United States 
through maritime transit zones in the Caribbean. Concerns have 
been raised regarding the appropriate base of operations for 
these assets. The Committee expects CBP to appropriately 
position assets and manage their resources to meet mission 
needs.

                 Construction and Facilities Management

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2011.......................      $260,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.....................       283,822,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       234,096,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2011...................       -25,904,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.................       -49,726,000
                                MISSION

    The Construction and Facilities Management account was 
established in fiscal year 2010 to fund all CBP real estate and 
facilities, with the exception of rental payments, which are 
funded in the Salaries and Expenses appropriation. This 
includes consolidating all funding for construction, leasing 
acquisition, facility program support, operations, management, 
headquarters support, and tunnel remediation activities. This 
includes the planning, design, and assembly of Border Patrol 
infrastructure, including Border Patrol stations, checkpoints, 
temporary detention facilities, mission support facilities, 
training facilities, and CBP-owned ports of entry. Construction 
of tactical infrastructure (fencing, barriers, lighting, and 
road improvements at the border) is funded through the Border 
Security, Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology account.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $234,096,000 for Construction and 
Facilities Management, $49,726,000 below the request and 
$25,904,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2011. The 
funding includes $180,000,000 for Facilities Construction and 
Sustainment and $54,096,000 for Program Oversight and 
Management. While the Committee understands CBP has facility 
needs, the President's budget request assumed an increase in 
aviation security and COBRA fees in order to fund this program 
at the requested levels. This fee is not within the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations and the 
Committee has adjusted its fiscal year 2012 recommendation for 
this account accordingly.

                           INVENTORY AND PLAN

    Largely due to port of entry infrastructure investment 
through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, CBP has 
made progress on its construction and facility needs. At the 
same time, CBP's Construction and Facility Management plans are 
still maturing. With the submission of the President's budget 
request, the bill requires the real property inventory and a 
plan that includes the full costs of each activity and project 
proposed and underway in fiscal year 2013 by fiscal year.

                U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement


                         Salaries and Expenses

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2011.......................    $5,437,643,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.....................     5,496,847,000
Recommended in the bill...............................     5,522,474,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2011...................       +84,831,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.................       +25,627,000
                                MISSION

    U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is the lead 
agency responsible for enforcement of immigration and customs 
laws. ICE protects the United States by investigating, 
deterring, and detecting threats arising from the movement of 
people and goods into and out of the country. ICE consists of 
approximately 20,500 employees within three major program 
areas: Office of Investigations; Office of Intelligence; and 
Detention and Removal Operations.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $5,522,474,000 for Salaries and 
Expenses, $25,627,000 above the amount requested and 
$84,831,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2011 to 
ensure robust enforcement of our Nation's immigration laws. 
Within this amount, the Committee allocates no less than 
$1,600,000,000 to finance ICE's various efforts to identify 
aliens with criminal records who are incarcerated, at-large, or 
are determined to pose a serious risk to public safety or 
national security, and to remove those who are deportable. Of 
this amount, $194,064,000 is provided for continued expansion 
of the Secure Communities program, $10,000,000 above the 
President's budget request to digitize paper fingerprint cards 
and enroll them into DHS's automated Biometric Identification 
System (IDENT). An additional $3,000,000 is provided for the 
Visa Security Program above the request to support expansion. 
Within the overall funding level for Salaries and Expenses, 
$110,332,000 in undefined administrative savings and 
professional services reductions have been included in the 
budget request. The Committee's recommended funding level 
includes those so-called savings, given the need to fill the 
operational shortfall created by the budget request's 
assumption of an increase in aviation security and COBRA fees 
that have not been enacted.
    A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee 
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Budget estimate         Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Headquarters Management and
 Administration:
    Personnel, Services and           $237,842,000          $234,251,000
     Other Costs............
    Headquarters-Managed IT            194,727,000           184,227,000
     Investments............
                             -------------------------------------------
        Subtotal,                      432,569,000           418,748,000
         Headquarters
         Management and
         Administration.....
Legal Proceedings...........           215,935,000           215,935,000
Domestic Investigations.....         1,714,234,000         1,714,234,000
International
 Investigations:
    International Operations           114,928,000           114,928,000
    Visa Security Program...            29,489,000            32,489,000
                             -------------------------------------------
        Subtotal,                      144,417,000           147,417,000
         International
         Investigations.....
Intelligence................            81,503,000            81,503,000
Detention and Removal
 Operations:
    Custody Operations......         2,023,827,000         2,050,545,000
    Fugitive Operations.....           154,597,000           154,597,000
    Criminal Alien Program..           196,696,000           196,696,000
    Alternatives to                     72,373,000            72,373,000
     Detention..............
    Transportation and                 276,632,000           276,632,000
     Removal Program........
                             -------------------------------------------
        Subtotal, Detention          2,724,125,000         2,750,843,000
         and Removal
         Operations.........
Secure Communities..........           184,064,000           194,064,000
                             -------------------------------------------
            Total, ICE              $5,496,847,000        $5,522,474,000
             Salaries and
             Expenses.......
------------------------------------------------------------------------

             ICE HEADQUARTERS MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

    The Committee provides $418,478,000 for ICE Headquarters 
Management and Administration, $14,091,000 below the requested 
level due to the following reductions: $3,591,000 for the 
Acquisition Workforce Initiative and $10,500,000 for data 
center migration. The Acquisition Workforce Initiative is not 
funded due to poor justification. ICE has existing authority 
and funds to hire appropriately qualified program management 
and acquisition staff as needed to manage its programs. While 
the Committee supports the Department's data center 
consolidation efforts, the President's budget request assumed 
an increase in aviation security fees in order to fund this 
program at the requested levels. This fee is not within the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations and the 
Committee has adjusted its fiscal year 2012 recommendation for 
this account accordingly.

                   CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET JUSTIFICATION

    The quality of the Congressional Budget Justification 
material provided by the Department for ICE continues to be of 
concern. Even after a thorough review of the fiscal year 2012 
materials, the Committee is unable to accomplish the basic in-
depth oversight required in these fiscally constrained times 
due to the inability of the Department to provide quality 
justification materials that articulate detailed budgets for 
programs, projects, and activities requested.
    ICE, in conjunction with the Chief Financial Officer, is 
encouraged to work with the Committee in developing new 
materials for the Congressional Budget Justifications.

                      ICE DOMESTIC INVESTIGATIONS

    The Committee provides $1,714,234,000 for ICE domestic 
investigatory programs, as requested. The Committee directs ICE 
to continue to provide quarterly data on investigative 
activities and expenditures on a timely basis. The Committee 
also supports ICE efforts to measure the impacts of its 
investigative activities toward dismantling transnational 
criminal enterprises.
    The Committee commends ICE efforts to increase its 
operations along the Southwest border, especially the agency's 
participation in the El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC) and 
joint investigations with partner DHS and Department of Justice 
law enforcement agencies. ICE investigations have successfully 
disrupted major drug smuggling networks and stopped dangerous 
alien smuggling and transport networks in Texas, New Mexico, 
Arizona, and California. Given the extreme and on-going 
violence in and around the Mexican city of Ciudad Juarez, the 
Committee encourages ICE to continue to build its programs that 
investigate border violence and organized crime in the El Paso-
Juarez corridor.
    The recent death of Special Agent Jaime Zapata and injury 
of Special Agent Victor Avila served as reminders of the risks 
faced by law enforcement officers in the line of duty. While 
authorities and responsibilities differ for U.S. law 
enforcement officers on duty in Mexico, the risks remain. The 
Committee is concerned that the U.S. Government has not 
resolved certain officer safety issues for our officers on duty 
in Mexico, such as whether they can be armed. The Committee 
directs ICE to provide a briefing to the Committee on these 
issues no later than July 1, 2011.
    The value of sharing ballistics information to discover 
links between crimes is outlined in the National Southwest 
Border Counternarcotics Strategy. The Committee encourages DHS 
to continue to work closely with the Department of Justice to 
ensure appropriate protocols are in place between the two 
agencies and with Mexican law enforcement partners to further 
collective investigative efforts through this means.

                         VISA SECURITY PROGRAM

    The Committee provides $32,489,000 for the ICE Visa 
Security Program, an increase of $3,000,000 above the amount 
requested. This program places ICE investigators overseas to 
review visa applications from high-risk countries and 
populations and to uncover ties to extremist or criminal 
groups. Recent attempted terrorist attacks on the United States 
have highlighted the ongoing efforts by extremists to 
infiltrate our country through the exploitation of legitimate 
travel and immigration processes. The Committee believes that 
expanding the program to additional countries will reduce fraud 
and security risks in the issuance of visas and thereby reduce 
terrorist travel to the United States and international 
criminal activity. The Committee directs ICE to provide a 
classified briefing no later than November 1, 2011, on how it 
will utilize these additional funds to expand the program.

                              VETTED UNITS

    Vetted units enable ICE to dismantle, disrupt, and 
prosecute transnational criminal organizations with the support 
of foreign partners. To expand ICE's transnational criminal 
investigative unit program, the Committee supports ICE's 
efforts to establish and maintain vetted units; provide 
equipment and support to augment the units; and train and work 
with newly emerging vetted units.

                              TRAFFICKING

    The Office of Investigations (OI) plays a critical role in 
investigating criminal organizations trafficking individuals 
into and within the United States. The Committee encourages OI 
to work with appropriate non-profit organizations and victim 
service providers to ensure appropriate training of ICE 
investigators in the field to assist in the identification of 
human trafficking victims and provide appropriate referrals to 
victim service providers.

                   TEXTILE TRANSSHIPMENT ENFORCEMENT

    Section 352 of the Trade Act of 2002 authorizes funding for 
Customs Service textile transshipment enforcement, and 
specifies how the funds must be spent. The Committee includes 
$4,750,000, as requested, to continue these activities. The 
Committee directs ICE to provide a report with its fiscal year 
2013 budget request on its actual and projected obligations of 
this funding, covering fiscal years 2007 to 2012. The report 
should include staffing levels by fiscal year since 2007 and a 
five-year enforcement plan for transshipment violations.

                INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT

    The Committee believes that Intellectual Property Rights 
(IPR) enforcement is an important part of ICE's investigative 
missions. ICE is directed to report to the Committee on the 
budget for the National IPR Coordination Center for fiscal year 
2012, the number of Agents in the U.S. and abroad dedicated to 
IPR investigations, and the number of hours spent by Agents in 
fiscal year 2011 on IPR investigations.

                        INVESTIGATIVE RESOURCES

    The Committee observes that, because of its location in the 
Caribbean basin and its 360-degree maritime border, Puerto Rico 
has become a key entry and transshipment point for the 
trafficking of illegal drugs into the United States that are 
produced in South and Central America. The Committee further 
observes that such trafficking is connected with other threats 
and crimes, particularly the increased incidence of homicide in 
Puerto Rico. ICE is directed to brief the Committee no later 
than December 1, 2011, on its efforts to counter the illicit 
trafficking of drugs and other related threats and crime 
throughout the Caribbean basin and how it is resourced to 
satisfy its mission requirements in this region.

                              INTELLIGENCE

    For the Office of Intelligence, the Committee recommends 
$81,503,000, as requested, an increase of $11,661,000 over 
fiscal years 2010 and 2011. While ICE eventually provided the 
details associated with this increase--that it provides for the 
operation of the Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center as well 
as the annualization of intelligence analysts provided in the 
fiscal year 2010 Border Security Supplemental--the Committee 
notes that the Congressional Budget Justifications failed to 
reference this increase in any way. The Committee reiterates 
its direction to ICE to provide detailed justifications in the 
Congressional Budget Justification submitted with the 
President's budget request.
    In addition, the Committee supports the Department's 
establishment of the Border Intelligence Fusion Section (BIFS) 
at EPIC, utilizing resources from the Office of Intelligence 
and Analysis, CBP, and ICE in conjunction with the Departments 
of Justice and Defense. Through BIFS, the interagency partners 
should be able to better leverage the substantial, existing 
resources to further improve our Nation's border security and 
enforcement efforts. The Department is directed to regularly 
update the Committee on the development and performance of 
BIFS.
    The Committee also supports ICE's Operation Angel Watch 
program, which dedicates intelligence analysts to tracking the 
international travel patterns of convicted sex offenders, and 
ICE efforts to curb exploitation of children in international 
trafficking.

                       ICE DETENTION AND REMOVAL

    The Committee recommends $2,750,843,000 for ICE Detention 
and Removal, $26,718,000 more than the request, to raise the 
minimum number of detention bed spaces that ICE must maintain 
on a daily basis to 34,000. The Committee appreciates the 
$157,700,000 increase ICE requested in this budget to fully 
fund the existing 33,400 minimum level of detention bed spaces. 
The Committee was disappointed by public statements last year 
that ICE was struggling to sustain a 33,400 bed level and 
accusing Congress of providing inadequate funding to support 
this activity. However, public reports appropriately noted that 
the Administration failed to make sufficient budget requests to 
resource this requirement and that the Congress had provided 
funding for every request made for detention bed space since 
ICE was established. In addition, ICE has acknowledged mission 
and workload requirements for detention space beyond the 
existing 33,400 bed level. Therefore, the Committee has 
prioritized limited resources in this bill to not only fully 
fund the complete costs of existing bed space but also to 
augment this capacity by 600 additional detention beds for 
fiscal year 2012.
    As a result of funds provided in fiscal year 2011 and the 
increase recommended for fiscal year 2012, ICE has the 
resources necessary to manage detention bed needs. Therefore, 
the Committee directs ICE to intensify its enforcement efforts 
and fully utilize these resources. The Committee understands 
that detention bed space is readily available in many locations 
where ICE most needs it, including in public and private 
facilities at potentially lower costs.
    In addition, the Committee encourages ICE to continue to 
refine its logistics management and cost modeling efforts to 
achieve the best value in procuring detention capacity. The 
Committee directs ICE to manage detention and removal costs as 
efficiently as possible, continuing to examine all cost drivers 
and take steps to reduce the overall cost of detention per 
detainee, including speeding the removal process for individual 
detainees as consistent with due process. ICE is directed to 
provide comprehensive, regular briefings to the Committee on 
all steps being taken to reduce the costs of detention and 
removal, including strategies to minimize transportation costs 
and house detainees at the lowest cost facilities, working with 
the Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR) to speed 
processing as consistent with due process, continuing to review 
contracts to ensure maximum flexibility and lowest cost to ICE, 
and considering the costs and benefits of public and private 
providers for all services, including food and medical 
services. ICE is directed to provide the Committee with 
information not only on its bed space costs across the country 
but also on the components of those costs, including food, 
medical, mental health, dental, pharmacy, and electronic health 
record services by location, and whether these components are 
provided by public agencies or private contract services. Such 
services must be aligned to humanitarian needs and should be 
provided in a cost-effective manner. The first comprehensive 
briefing will take place no later than 30 days after the date 
of enactment of this Act.
    The Committee supports consolidation of bed space funds in 
the Custody Operations program, project, and activity.

                       ALTERNATIVES TO DETENTION

    The Committee provides $72,373,000 for ICE Alternatives to 
Detention programs, as requested. The Committee continues to 
support this program and the enrollment of immigration 
detainees in the program who pose neither a flight risk nor a 
risk to public safety or national security, pursuant to meeting 
ICE enrollment criteria for the program. In testimony before 
the Committee, the ICE Assistant Secretary noted that the cost 
of ATD per individual is higher than detention per detainee, 
asserting that this is largely because the individuals enrolled 
in ATD remain in the system significantly longer than those in 
detention. Further, the ICE Assistant Secretary agreed that the 
promise of ATD has not been fully realized since the non-
detained docket has a low priority in many immigration courts. 
The Committee is aware that, as a contravening fact, many of 
the individuals enrolled in ATD are from special populations, 
such as those with pending asylum claims.
    The Committee is also aware of pilots being conducted in 
Baltimore and Miami where the ATD docket is going to be 
expedited, similar to the detained docket. The Committee 
supports this cooperative effort and wants to see ATD used 
efficiently to lower the cost of detention for the population 
eligible for ATD.

                           SECURE COMMUNITIES

    The Committee provides $194,064,000, to continue 
implementation of the Secure Communities program. As in past 
years, the Committee requires ICE to continue quarterly 
reporting on the Secure Communities program and to submit those 
reports within 45 days of the close of the quarter. While ICE 
has improved the quality of its submitted reports over the past 
year, the Committee would like a better understanding of the 
effect Secure Communities is having on ICE detention 
facilities, the docket for EOIR, and the speed with which ICE 
is able to remove criminal aliens and high-risk detainees from 
the country once they are judged deportable. The Committee 
directs ICE to develop such analyses for inclusion in the 2012 
Secure Communities reports and to provide briefings on progress 
in conjunction with its 2011 report submissions.
    Given the expansion of Secure Communities, the Committee 
directs ICE to include information in its quarterly briefings 
on any resource constraints in fully enforcing current Federal 
immigration law based on the information it receives through 
the program. Additionally, the Committee directs ICE to include 
in its quarterly reports more detailed statistics on the 
results of the Secure Communities program, including the number 
of individuals administratively arrested by ICE in each 
jurisdiction by the crime for which they are charged and the 
crime for which they have been convicted (if applicable), as 
well as identifying those who are determined by the Secretary 
to pose a serious risk to public safety or national security. 
The reports should also account for individuals whom ICE 
identifies each quarter and intends to administratively arrest 
but must await the adjudication of the individual's criminal 
charges and/or the completion of a sentence, and identify the 
crimes for which they are charged and crimes for which they 
have been convicted (if applicable).
    The increase of $10,000,000 above the request is to 
undertake digitization of paper fingerprint cards from legacy 
immigration files. The Committee directs ICE, in conjunction 
with the US-VISIT program and United States Citizenship and 
Immigration Services, to report to the Committee not later than 
120 days of the date of enactment of this Act on the 
methodology of prioritizing files for the digitization effort 
as well as the overall projected cost of the project to ensure 
electronic availability of appropriate biometrics in IDENT. 
Recent incidents have demonstrated the vulnerabilities and 
risks to public safety in Secure Communities and our Nation's 
law enforcement processes where biometrics are not 
electronically available.

       CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS AND COOPERATION WITH U.S. ATTORNEYS

    The Committee commends ICE for the successes in its program 
to detail attorneys from ICE's Office of the Principal Legal 
Advisor (OPLA) to U.S. Attorney Offices (USAO) as Special 
Assistant U.S. Attorneys (SAUSA). In fiscal year 2010, ICE 
increased the number of attorneys who are detailed as SAUSAs 
nationwide from 21 to 47, leading to 721 criminal prosecutions 
in Federal court. On the Southwest border, 13 SAUSAs are 
detailed to specifically work on immigration-related 
prosecutions. Further, the percentage of ICE-initiated 
prosecutions accepted by the USAOs along the Southwest border 
increased from 69 percent in fiscal year 2009 to 84 percent in 
fiscal year 2010. The Committee directs ICE to continue this 
initiative and provide a briefing on the number of attorneys 
detailed currently to USAOs by location, the increase in ICE-
initiated prosecutions as a result, and any plans to expand 
this effort no later than 60 days after the date of enactment 
of this Act. The Committee understands that Federally-
developed, case-management tools have been used with great 
success to more efficiently manage the case load of 
immigration-related prosecutions along the Southwest border. 
The Committee encourages the SAUSAs detailed from ICE and CBP, 
working with the USAOs, to look at these tools and consider 
adopting their use.

             ICE SUPPORT TO STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT

    The Committee supports 287(g), through which ICE delegates 
Federal immigration enforcement authority to local law 
enforcement officers, as a key program to assist the Federal 
government in effective enforcement of immigration laws. At the 
same time, ICE must ensure proper oversight of activities 
carried out under this program. A March 2010 OIG review of the 
287(g) program found multiple incidents where ICE field 
officers did not provide adequate oversight of how this 
authority was exercised. For example, the report indicated that 
ICE did not provide required training on 287(g) community 
outreach or complaint procedures, failed to establish 287(g) 
steering committees, and provided inconsistent supervision over 
immigration enforcement activities performed by 287(g) 
jurisdictions. The OIG report made 33 recommendations for ICE 
to improve the program and followed with an update adding 16 
new recommendations in September 2010. The Committee directs 
ICE to report no later than July 1, 2011, on its plans to 
implement the OIG recommendations and the steps it has taken to 
date to address the deficiencies identified in the report.
    The Committee continues a provision first enacted in the 
fiscal year 2009 Appropriations Act that requires ICE to cancel 
any 287(g) agreements where the Inspector General has 
determined the terms of the agreement have been violated.

                          DETENTION STANDARDS

    The Committee commends the Department's ongoing efforts to 
ensure appropriate detention conditions and facilities to meet 
the needs of ICE and immigrant detainees with maximum 
efficiency. The Committee wants to ensure that the Department 
addresses medical staffing vacancies identified by the OIG and 
the need to provide consistent medical care throughout the 
detention system.
    In 2003, Congress passed the Prison Rape Elimination Act 
(PREA) into law. The Committee understands that ICE has revised 
its Performance-Based National Detention Standards (PBNDS), 
including the standard concerning the prevention of sexual 
assault. The revised PBNDS, still under review within ICE, 
explicitly incorporate provisions from the standards 
recommended by the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission. 
The Committee urges ICE to comply with PREA standards and 
expeditiously approve and implement their standards related to 
PREA.

                      HIRING AND STAFFING REPORTS

    The Committee directs ICE to begin submitting monthly 
staffing and hiring reports, as well as quarterly briefings on 
its hiring progress. Further, the Committee is concerned that 
the target staffing levels should be lower than authorized 
full-time equivalent levels. The Committee directs ICE to brief 
the Committee within 60 days of the date of enactment of this 
Act on appropriate staffing levels for their operations 
including steps ICE will take to appropriately adjust its 
expectations and budget.

                          UNOBLIGATED BALANCES

    The Committee directs ICE to report to the Committees on 
Appropriations quarterly on the results of its own quarterly 
reviews of obligations in carryover accounts that should be de-
obligated through its validation and verification process.

                        Automation Modernization

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2011.......................       $74,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.....................        13,860,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        23,860,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2011...................       -50,140,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.................       +10,000,000
                                MISSION

    The Automation Modernization account funds major 
information technology projects for U.S. Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $23,860,000 for Automation 
Modernization, an increase of $10,000,000 above the request to 
mitigate the $50,140,000 proposed decrease and provide funds 
for TECS Modernization, a critical project to provide more 
functional case management and operational reporting 
capabilities for agency operations. The following table 
illustrates funding by specific investment project:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget estimate      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TECS Modernization................         $9,000,000        $19,000,000
Detention and Removals                      4,860,000          4,860,000
 Modernization....................
                                   -------------------------------------
    Total, Automation                     $13,860,000        $23,860,000
     Modernization................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           TECS MODERNIZATION

    The increase in funds for TECS Modernization is targeted to 
provide not only greater capabilities for ICE operations but 
also to stave off significant future-year costs to ICE of 
maintaining the TECS mainframe after CBP is entirely off the 
legacy system. The Committee directs CBP and ICE to brief the 
Committee not later than December 1, 2011, on the status of 
modernization efforts. In addition, the bill includes a 
requirement for a multi-year investment and management plan to 
be provided at the time of the President's budget submission 
and updated on an annual basis to fully justify requested funds 
for this activity and other activities under this account, as 
well as project future-year requirements and funding levels.

                      OTHER MODERNIZATION EFFORTS

    The Committee is aware that, due to fiscal constraints, ICE 
is re-evaluating some of its information technology 
modernization efforts, including electronic detainee health 
records. The Committee encourages ICE to look for creative ways 
within funds available to more efficiently and effectively 
manage this type of information.

                 Transportation Security Administration


                           Aviation Security

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2011.......................    $5,219,546,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.....................     5,401,165,000
Recommended in the bill...............................     5,224,556,000
Bill compared with:...................................
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2011...................        +5,010,000
    Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2012.................      -176,609,000
                                MISSION

    Aviation security is focused on protecting the air 
transportation system against terrorist threats, sabotage, and 
other acts of violence through deployment of passenger and 
baggage screeners; detection systems for explosives, weapons, 
and other contraband; and other, effective security 
technologies.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $5,224,556,000 for Aviation 
Security, $176,609,000 below the amount requested and 
$5,010,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2011. Funds 
within this account are partially offset through the collection 
of security user fees paid by aviation travelers and airlines. 
A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee 
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget estimate      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Screening Operations..............     $4,316,308,000     $4,155,813,000
Aviation Security Direction and         1,084,857,000      1,068,743,000
 Enforcement......................
[Mandatory Aviation Security            [250,000,000]      [250,000,000]
 Capital Fund\1\].................
                                   -------------------------------------
    Total, Aviation Security......     $5,401,165,000    $5,224,556,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The Aviation Security Capital Fund is not included in the Subtotal
  for aviation security because it is not directly appropriated and is
  paid for entirely from user fees.

                         AVIATION SECURITY FEES

    In total, the Committee applies the Congressional Budget 
Office (CBO) estimate for the collection of $2,030,000,000 in 
aviation security user fees, $681,500,000 less than the budget 
claims. This level is based on a re-estimate of fees by the 
CBO, $70,000,000 below the fiscal year 2011 collection 
estimate, reflecting the continued downward trend in air 
travel. These fees will be collected from both aviation 
passengers and the airlines and will partially offset the 
Federal appropriation for aviation security. It is important to 
note that the Committee estimate does not reflect 
implementation of the Administration's proposed increase in 
aviation security fees, as necessary new authorization 
legislation has not been enacted--legislation which is not 
under the jurisdiction of this Committee.

                          SCREENING OPERATIONS

    The Committee recommends $4,155,813,000 for passenger and 
baggage screening operations, $151,980,000 below the amount 
requested and $160,495,000 below the amount provided in fiscal 
year 2011. This recommendation would support current operations 
and all currently programmed acquisitions, including 1,000 
Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) systems for passenger 
screening. However, it includes no funding for the proposed 
increase of 350 Behavior Detection Officers (BDOs); no funding 
for the requested addition of 275 AIT systems and 510 
screeners; and reflects only $140,000,000 for additional 
explosives detection systems (EDS), rather than the 
$190,500,000 requested.
    The principal reason for these reductions is the need to 
compensate for the lack of aviation security fee revenue that 
was built into the Administration's budget. In the case of the 
AIT program, there have been delays in the certification of 
vendors, and in particular with the incorporation of automated 
target recognition capability. In light of these delays, and 
the unrealized potential for greater technology integration, 
the Committee takes a prudent step in waiting for the 
conclusion of current pilot efforts before committing scarce 
resources to additional systems and expanded screener hiring. 
Should the ATR pilot efforts prove successful, the Committee 
expects TSA to advise on its plans to advance the AIT program 
in fiscal year 2012. For the BDO program, the Committee notes 
that the scientific validation of the methodology used by BDOs 
to detect suspicious behavior has not been completed. The 
Committee recommends deferring any expansion of this program 
beyond the current 3,000-BDO workforce until such validation 
has been completed. The Committee expects TSA to prioritize its 
funding for proven explosive detection systems (EDS) for 
installation at airports where facilities are completed and to 
locations where the legacy systems are most in need of 
replacement.
    A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee 
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget Estimate      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Screener Workforce:
    Privatized Screening..........       $144,193,000       $144,193,000
    Screener Personnel,                 3,060,493,000      3,030,167,000
     Compensation and Benefits....
                                   -------------------------------------
        Subtotal, Screener              3,204,686,000      3,174,360,000
         Workforce................ Screener Training and Other......        252,526,000        245,165,000
Checkpoint Support................        254,093,000        181,285,000
EDS/ETD Systems:
    EDS Procurement and                   272,738,000        222,738,000
     Installation.................
    Screening Technology                  332,265,000        332,265,000
     Maintenance and Utilities....
                                   -------------------------------------
        Subtotal, EDS/ETD Systems.        605,003,000        555,003,000
                                   -------------------------------------
Total, Screening Operations.......     $4,316,308,000     $4,155,913,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PRIVATIZED SCREENING

    The Committee recommends $144,193,000 for privatized 
screening, the same as the amount requested. Sixteen airports 
participate in the Screening Partnership Program (SPP). While 
the Committee understands TSA is likely to renew those 
contracts that expire in 2012, the Committee is also aware that 
TSA has rejected applications from a number of additional 
airports to ``opt-out'' of federalized screener operations. 
Should TSA seek to modify an airport's security apparatus, the 
Committee expects all stakeholders at such airport to be fully 
informed and consulted prior to implementation of such status 
changes. The Committee expects TSA to approve applications of 
airports seeking to participate in the screening partnership 
program that meet all TSA criteria, including the determination 
that contract screening can be provided at that location in a 
cost-effective manner. In addition, the Committee directs TSA 
to report not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of 
this Act on its actions in response to the review by the 
Government Accountability Office of the SPP and how TSA is 
implementing GAO recommendations to address the current 
limitations in methodology for comparing cost and performance 
of SPP and non-SPP airports.
    Consistent with prior years, TSA shall notify the 
Committees on Appropriations if it expects to spend less than 
the appropriated amount for privatized screening due to 
instances in which no additional privatized screening airports 
are added or airports currently using privatized screening 
convert to Federal screeners. TSA shall adjust its PPAs within 
10 days of any changes to personnel, compensation, or benefit 
levels resulting from the award of SPP contracts, a change in 
such contracts, or conversion of airports from SPP to 
federalized screening, and notify the Committees on 
Appropriations on such changes.
    The Committee is concerned that airports whose applications 
for participation in the Screening Partnership Program (SPP) 
have been denied did not receive adequate guidance on criteria 
for SPP participation, nor any feedback on why their 
applications were rejected. The Committee therefore recommends 
that TSA (1): provide airports that were denied participation 
in SPP, within 60 days of the date of enactment of this Act, 
the reasons such applications were rejected; (2) allow such 
airports the opportunity to re-apply to the SPP within one year 
of the date of enactment of this Act; (3) issue a decision on 
such re-applications within 90 days of their receipt; and (4) 
should such re-applications be denied, provide the applicants 
which a detailed explanation at the time a decision is issued.

             SCREENER PERSONNEL, COMPENSATION, AND BENEFITS

    The Committee recommends $3,030,167,000 for screener 
personnel, compensation, and benefits, $30,326,000 below the 
budget request. This funds the current services costs for all 
current screeners, including those needed for the 1,000 new AIT 
systems funded to date but does not include funding to expand 
the AIT inventory as requested nor the additional BDOs. The 
Committee recommends using the approach proposed by TSA to fund 
bomb appraisal officers (BAOs) from airport management and 
support funding, rather than from that for screener personnel, 
compensation and benefits, as had been past practice. TSA has 
advised that BAOs are not included in the same functional 
category as passenger and cargo screeners, as a BAO receives 
explosive ordinance disposal or civilian-equivalent training, 
which is not required for screeners. The Committee includes 
language that makes this funding available for one fiscal year. 
In addition, the Committee includes language that restricts 
funding from being used to hire additional full-time screeners 
if the result would be to exceed a total number of 46,000 full-
time equivalent screeners. The Committee strongly supports the 
work of dedicated TSA screener personnel, who are striving to 
ensure the safety of the traveling public and our civil 
aviation system; however, the rapid growth in staffing for 
checkpoint and related security operations needs to be tempered 
by balance with technology, and this limitation is intended to 
encourage TSA and the Department to work toward establishing an 
optimal balance between technology and screener personnel.

                 ADVANCED IMAGING TECHNOLOGY SCREENERS

    AITs currently require more screeners than conventional 
magnetometers used to detect metal objects at airport 
checkpoints. The 1,000 AIT units funded in fiscal years 2009-
11, however, are behind schedule in their deployment. In 
addition, TSA has made it clear that it will not acquire 
additional AITs until new advanced target recognition (ATR) 
capability is incorporated, and there remains uncertainty about 
when this ATR technology will be fielded from more vendors than 
the current, single provider of the ATR system. Given this 
uncertainty, the Committee recommends including the funding for 
the currently planned screener workforce to operate AIT systems 
funded to date but denies the request for $16,100,000 for an 
additional 510 screeners and supervisors. Furthermore, the 
Committee expects that the eventual deployment of ATR-equipped 
AIT systems will permit, as expected, a reduction in the number 
of screeners required to operate them.

                      BEHAVIOR DETECTION OFFICERS

    The Committee denies the request of $14,224,000 to hire 350 
additional BDOs under screener personnel, compensation, and 
benefits, although it is generally supportive of screening of 
passengers by observation techniques (SPOT). TSA deployed SPOT 
before scientific validation of the program was complete, and 
the Committee supports the efforts under way to develop such 
validation. The Committee expects TSA will follow on the 
recommendations of the Government Accountability Office that 
were outlined in its recent testimony (GAO-11-461T) and its 
2010 report (GAO-10-157), which recommended adopting a risk-
based strategy for selectively assigning BDOs and for a cost-
benefit analysis. The Committee expects TSA to conduct a risk 
assessment that incorporates a comprehensive deployment 
strategy for the SPOT program for TSA-regulated airports and 
identifies and communicates the risks to aviation security if 
SPOT were not deployed at TSA-regulated airports. The Committee 
also recommends conducting a cost-benefit analysis before 
adding additional personnel to identify the best way to achieve 
goals at the lowest costs among potential alternatives. 
Currently, TSA has 3,000 BDOs deployed at 161 airports and 
funding for these officers is continued within the screener 
personnel, compensation, and benefits PPA.
    Within the funding provided for BDOs, the Committee 
recommends that TSA conduct more frequent standardization 
testing at airports using the SPOT program than the current 
practice, which is every other year, to ensure program 
consistency and train BDOs on new practices.

                      SCREENER TRAINING AND OTHER

    The Committee recommends $245,165,000 for screener training 
and other, $7,361,000 below the budget request. The Committee 
denies $7,361,000 proposed for training additional AIT 
operators and BDOs.
    TSA's Office of Inspection and the Inspector General 
conduct periodic red team investigations to assess how well 
screeners are performing and if they are able to detect threat 
objects. Over the years, these tests have become increasingly 
difficult, as befits an effort to anticipate the adaptive 
nature of terrorist ingenuity. TSA must ensure screener 
training addresses current threats, is refreshed as frequently 
as possible within a screener's work schedule, and measurably 
reduces operational and technological vulnerabilities 
identified by red teams.

                           CHECKPOINT SUPPORT

    The Committee recommends $181,285,000 for checkpoint 
support, $72,808,000 below the amount requested. The Committee 
denies $53,808,000 requested for 275 additional AIT systems, as 
well as $19,000,000 requested for portable explosives trace 
detector (ETD) systems that were funded in fiscal year 2011. 
While the need remains for expansion of AIT systems to address 
evolving threats to civil aviation, the shortfall created by 
the budgetary reliance on an unauthorized user fee increase, as 
well as the importance of ensuring that the new automated 
target recognition systems work with the AIT systems before 
their acquisition, compels the Committee to forgo funding this 
year. The Committee notes that when currently funded AIT 
systems are fully deployed (deployment which has been delayed), 
they will be at 75 percent of the country's largest airports 
and cover approximately 55 percent of all aviation passengers.

                     PASSENGER SCREENING WAIT TIMES

    TSA established an objective to keep average passenger wait 
times to 10 minutes or less following its establishment in 
2002, which served as an important management tool, informing 
the Staffing Allocation Model and other agency personnel and 
technology decisions. While TSA continues to have passenger 
processing goals, it no longer measures wait times at 
individual airport facilities, making it difficult to determine 
whether or not those goals are being met.
    To address concerns with increased wait times related to 
the deployment of advanced technology at screening checkpoints 
and to ensure that the agency maximizes its utilization of 
screening resources, the Committee directs TSA to measure and 
report to the Committees on Appropriations, on a quarterly 
basis, passenger screening wait times at all screening 
checkpoints at which advanced passenger and/or carry-on baggage 
screening technology is deployed. TSA is further directed to 
brief the Committees within 90 days after the date of enactment 
of this Act on how the agency intends to meet a 10-minute 
passenger screening goal at screening checkpoints, including 
those where advanced technology is deployed. The Committee 
supports TSA efforts to develop innovative methods for 
measuring and displaying wait times in real time for the 
traveling public, which can also support more efficient 
allocation of staffing and other checkpoint resources.

        EXPLOSIVE DETECTION SYSTEMS PROCUREMENT AND INSTALLATION

    The Committee recommends $222,738,000 for EDS procurement 
and installation, $50,000,000 below the budget request. 
Including the existing mandatory Aviation Security Capital Fund 
of $250,000,000, the total appropriation (both mandatory and 
discretionary) for EDS procurement and installations is 
$472,738,000 for fiscal year 2012. Within this total, 
$308,700,000 is for installation of electronic baggage 
screening equipment (including the mandatory funding); 
$140,500,000 is to procure EDS for deployment to support 
projects where facility modifications are completed from prior 
year funds and to recapitalize existing equipment; $5,000,000 
is to install advanced surveillance systems; and $18,500,000 is 
for payroll.
    The Committee acknowledges the progress of TSA in 
installing EDS systems. The recommended funding level reflects 
the reality that the Committee must find offsets for the 
unrealized aviation security fee increase that was built into 
the budget request. The Committee is also aware that TSA is 
studying the potential of maximizing its limited resources and 
consolidating checkpoint and baggage screening at such 
airports. TSA should move forward in such consolidation of 
efforts at Category 3 and 4 airports and brief the Committee no 
later than December 15, 2011 on its progress.
    The Committee includes new language to permit funds in the 
Aviation Security Capital Fund to be used for acquisition of 
new and replacement EDS systems. Without this authority, 
limitations on the use of such funding would result in most of 
the funding going unused and airports remaining reliant on 
aging EDS systems.

             SCREENING TECHNOLOGY MAINTENANCE AND UTILITIES

    The Committee recommends $332,265,000 for screening 
technology maintenance and utilities, the same as the amount 
requested. The Committee expects that two-year warranty 
contracts that TSA is negotiating for its new AIT machines will 
generate savings in fiscal year 2013 for new systems deployed 
in fiscal years 2011-12.

                       FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

    The Committee directs TSA and the Department to comply 
fully with their obligations under the Freedom of Information 
Act and to provide requested materials, as required, without 
undue delay.

              AVIATION SECURITY DIRECTION AND ENFORCEMENT

    The Committee recommends $1,068,743,000 for aviation 
security direction and enforcement, $16,114,000 below the 
budget request and $156,990,000 above the amount provided in 
fiscal year 2011. The following table highlights funding levels 
by program, project, and activity:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget estimate      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aviation, Regulation and Other           $373,239,000       $354,294,000
 Enforcement......................
Airport Management and Support....        571,503,000        568,334,000
Federal Flight Deck Officer and            25,461,000         25,461,000
 Flight Crew Training.............
Air Cargo.........................        114,654,000        120,654,000
                                   -------------------------------------
    Subtotal, Aviation Security        $1,084,857,000     $1,068,743,000
     Direction and Enforcement....
------------------------------------------------------------------------

               AVIATION REGULATION AND OTHER ENFORCEMENT

    The Committee recommends $354,294,000 for aviation 
regulation and other enforcement, $18,945,000 below the budget 
request. This does not include funding for the requested 
addition of twelve Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response 
(VIPR) teams, to be added to the 25 teams currently deployed 
around the country. It includes $4,000,000 in new funding to 
accelerate air cargo security efforts in response to the 
vulnerabilities exposed by the Yemen cargo attack, with 
additional inspection, regulation, and security specialists to 
ensure compliance with screening requirements, improve risk 
assessment, and strengthen air cargo operations overseas.
    This recommendation not to fund the VIPR increase is made 
without prejudice to the potential benefits of additional VIPR 
units, which the Committee is prepared to consider in future 
years, but is unavoidable due to the budgetary shortfall 
created by the proposal to offset this and other initiatives 
with a proposed, but not enacted, aviation security fee 
increase. Any future expansion of VIPR units should be 
accompanied by a clear strategic plan for how such teams will 
be introduced, with respect to the responsibilities of State 
and local law enforcement and transportation authorities, in 
order to ensure VIPR units are coordinated with and do not 
duplicate such activities.

                     AIRPORT MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT

    The Committee recommends $568,334,000 for airport 
management and support, $3,169,000 below the budget request. 
This level fully funds the transition of bomb appraisal 
officers from screener personnel, compensation, and benefits to 
this PPA and the move of explosive security specialists from 
the Federal Air Marshals (FAMs) to this PPA, as originally 
proposed in fiscal year 2011. The Committee believes this is an 
appropriate action since BAOs are trained in recognition and 
disposal of explosive ordinance, and thus not categorized as 
screeners. BAOs report to Federal Security Directors, not 
screening managers, and provide rapid response and resolution 
when a screener finds an item of concern at major airports. 
Explosive security specialists, unlike FAMs, are responsible 
for the conduct of regional vulnerability assessments in all 
modes of transportation.

                               AIR CARGO

    The Committee recommends $120,654,000 for air cargo, 
$6,000,000 above the budget request. This increase, in 
combination with additional funding under Aviation Regulation 
and Other Enforcement described above, is for accelerated 
security efforts in the wake of recent threats in the air cargo 
environment and will support enhanced air cargo inspection and 
other security oversight and improvements. While TSA has met 
its goal of 100 percent of domestic air cargo screening, this 
increase is recommended to ensure TSA achieves its stated 
target of 100 percent system-wide screening of air cargo on 
passenger aircraft, including those originating from last point 
of departure airports overseas. It may also be used to enhance 
inspection, investigation, and monitoring efforts, including on 
all-cargo airlines. The Committee includes a requirement for an 
expenditure plan for air cargo investments.
    TSA is working with foreign governments and air carriers to 
comply with the 9/11 Act requirement to screen all air cargo 
bound for the United States, striving to align their cargo 
screening methods to meet TSA standards. The Committee wishes 
to monitor progress in achieving the 9/11 Act requirements and 
has included statutory language requiring TSA to report on its 
progress in meeting the screening deadline for air cargo coming 
from overseas. This first report is due 180 days after the date 
of enactment of this Act and biannually thereafter until the 
deadline is met.
    A significant obstacle to meeting the 9/11 Act mandate is 
that no current system can screen palletized or oversized air 
cargo. Despite years of study, TSA and S&T do not expect this 
capability will be developed for several more years--well past 
the statutory deadline. Thus, these forms of air cargo will 
continue to require human and canine screeners. The Committee 
encourages TSA, in coordination with S&T, to maintain efforts 
at developing, approving, and thereafter adding to the 
qualified products list large aperture and mobile screening 
devices that could be brought to the cargo instead of requiring 
the cargo to be run through a fixed system. To help meet the 
100 percent screening deadline, the Committee expects TSA will 
consider scheduling explosives detection canine teams with U.S. 
passenger airlines to be deployed to screen cargo at peak times 
before it is consolidated into Unit Load Devices too large for 
canine teams to screen.

                              CALL CENTERS

    The Committee is concerned that West Coast passengers have 
limited access to the Transportation Security Administration 
Contact Center (TCC), which provides support to all TSA 
offices, programs, and airports by responding to inquiries and 
handling complaints during standard business hours in Eastern 
Standard Time. The Committee requests that the TSA examine the 
feasibility or desirability of expanding TCC operating hours to 
accommodate additional contacts and inquiries from the West 
Coast. The Committee directs the Administrator to provide a 
report on the capacity and volume history of the TCC, focusing 
on the difference between East and West Coast inquiries, not 
later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

              RISK-BASED APPROACHES TO PASSENGER SCREENING

    The Committee was encouraged this year to hear TSA testify 
on its plans to enhance aviation security and streamlining 
airport screening operations by using a more risk-based 
approach to screening aviation passengers and reinventing the 
checkpoint process. The Committee is aware that TSA is looking 
at a ``trusted travelers'' program that might allow certain 
passengers found to be ``low-risk'' expedited clearance at 
security checkpoints, possibly using information known about 
such travelers--such as data from frequent-flier programs--to 
be used to help identify candidates for such a program. The 
Committee also understands that TSA will be initially looking 
at modified screening procedures for pilots and flight 
attendants as it determines where and when it might test such 
an approach with the traveling public.
    The Committee recommends TSA use its existing statutory 
authority, under the Aviation Transportation Security Act, to 
develop and test a possible trusted traveler program for U.S. 
citizens who voluntarily submit to a security threat assessment 
and criminal history background check, including possibly a 
review of biometric data. Such threat assessments and 
background checks could be conducted by TSA as part of a 
trusted traveler enrollment process, utilize publicly-available 
commercial data, and include constitutional privacy and civil 
liberties protections. The Committee would encourage TSA to 
examine ways to provide participants in such a program with a 
streamlined and distinct checkpoint screening process. The 
Committee also recommends that TSA look at the potential of 
enrolling likely low-risk populations, such as U.S. citizens 
possessing current Top Secret Security clearances, in such a 
trusted traveler program and encourages DHS to coordinate 
development of the program with trusted traveler programs 
operated by CBP. The Committee directs TSA to provide a report 
as to its progress in developing such a trusted traveler 
program and any legal or budgetary impediments to its 
development no later than 90 days after the date of enactment 
of this Act.

      STREAMLINING PROCESSING FOR INBOUND INTERNATIONAL TRAVELERS

    The Committee is aware that current security regulations 
require air passengers traveling on an inbound commercial 
flight originating outside the U.S. to have their baggage and 
person screened by TSA prior to being allowed to board onward 
domestic flights. This is true even if the passengers arrive 
from countries whose passenger and baggage screening standards 
are certified as comparable to those used by TSA. The Committee 
recognizes that this apparent redundancy is complicated by the 
need to implement customs, immigration, and aviation security 
law at the point where travelers enter the U.S. for customs and 
immigration processing but would be interested to see TSA, in 
cooperation with U.S. Customs and Border Protection, explore 
ways to streamline the process at arrival airports to eliminate 
or greatly shorten the process of rescreening those onward 
traveling passengers who, with their baggage, had been screened 
previously at a location that meets TSA standards. The 
Committee therefore directs TSA, in consultation with CBP, to 
study the potential for eliminating some of this duplication of 
effort with regard to aviation security screening and report to 
the Committees not later than 90 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act on the feasibility of testing such an 
approach through a pilot effort at a Category X airport, 
including funding required and any legal issues or limitations.

                              CANINE TEAMS

    The Committee is aware of the important role canine teams 
play in assisting in the screening of air cargo and in 
supporting efforts to prevent explosives from being introduced 
into mass transit and other transportation systems. TSA has 
funded 518 local law enforcement officer-led units at 78 
airports nationwide, where they divide their efforts between 
cargo screening and associated facilities. There are also 170 
proprietary (federally handled) canine teams that focus on the 
top 20 domestic airports with the greatest passenger air cargo, 
and 117 teams dedicated to mass transit security. The Committee 
encourages TSA to sustain its current level of deployment and 
training to ensure the proficiency of these critical screening 
assets.

                    Surface Transportation Security

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2011.......................      $105,961,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.....................       134,748,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       129,748,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2011...................       +23,787,000
    Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2012.................        -5,000,000
                                MISSION

    Surface Transportation Security is responsible for 
assessing the risk of terrorist attacks for all non-aviation 
transportation modes, issuing regulations to improve the 
security of those modes, and enforcing regulations to ensure 
the protection of the transportation system.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $129,748,000 for Surface 
Transportation Security, $5,000,000 below the amount requested 
and $23,787,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2011. 
Within this total, $38,514,000 is for staffing and operations 
and $91,234,000 is for surface transportation security 
inspectors and canines. This effectively funds the increase in 
inspectors and mass transit canine teams originally provided in 
fiscal year 2010 and reflects a reduced fiscal year 2011 
baseline for these programs. The Committee recognizes that TSA 
intends to increase its annual stipend for participants in 
TSA's National Explosives Detection Canine Team Program and 
will consider a reprogramming request should TSA find it 
necessary in order to meet commitments to local law enforcement 
agencies that deploy canine teams in partnership with TSA.

           Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2011.......................      $162,999,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.....................       183,954,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       183,954,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2011...................        20,955,000
    Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2012.................               ---
                                MISSION

    The mission of Transportation Threat Assessment and 
Credentialing (TTAC) is to reduce the probability of a 
successful attack on the transportation system through the 
application of threat assessment methodologies to identify 
known or suspected terrorist threats working in or seeking 
access to the Nation's transportation system. This 
appropriation consolidates management of all TSA vetting and 
credentialing programs, including Secure Flight, Crew Vetting, 
Transportation Worker Identification Credential, Registered 
Traveler, Hazardous Materials, and Alien Flight School.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a direct appropriation of 
$183,954,000 for Transportation Threat Assessment and 
Credentialing, the same as the budget request and $20,955,000 
above the amount provided in fiscal year 2011. In addition, the 
Committee anticipates TSA will collect $40,320,000 in fees. A 
comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee's 
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget estimate      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Appropriation:
    Secure flight.................        $92,414,000        $92,414,000
    Crew and other vetting                 91,540,000         91,540,000
     programs.....................
                                   -------------------------------------
        Subtotal, direct                  183,954,000        183,954,000
         appropriations...........
Fee Collections:
    Transportation worker                   8,300,000          8,300,000
     identification credential....
    Hazardous materials...........         12,000,000         12,000,000
    Alien flight school (transfer           4,000,000          4,000,000
     from DOJ)....................
    General aviation..............            100,000            100,000
    Indirect air cargo............          1,400,000          1,400,000
    Certified cargo screening               5,200,000          5,200,000
     program......................
    Large aircraft security                 1,200,000          1,200,000
     program......................
    Secure identification display           8,000,000          8,000,000
     area checks..................
    Other security threat                     100,000            100,000
     assessments..................
    Sensitive security information             20,000             20,000
                                   -------------------------------------
        Subtotal, fee collections.        $40,320,000        $40,320,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             SECURE FLIGHT

    The Committee recommends $92,414,000 for Secure Flight, the 
same as requested and $8,051,000 above the amount provided in 
fiscal year 2011. Within this funding is $8,764,000 for 
expanded watch list vetting to ensure uniform watch list 
matching as requested.
    Since fiscal year 2004, GAO has reported to the Committees 
on Appropriations on numerous challenges the Secure Flight 
program has faced in its development and implementation, 
including protecting passenger privacy, completing performance 
testing, defining and testing security requirements, and 
establishing reliable cost and schedule estimates. GAO has 
recommended that TSA monitor the performance of Secure Flight 
system's name matching process, improve the system's ability to 
pre-clear individuals misidentified as being on the No Fly or 
Selectee lists, update the Secure Flight program's schedule and 
expected costs before TSA can take over the watch list matching 
function, and reduce the risk that a traveler could submit 
fraudulent information to avoid detection when making airline 
reservations.
    The Committee recognizes Secure Flight as a key tool in 
protecting civil aviation from acts of terrorism and so directs 
TSA to brief the Committee on the status of its efforts to 
address the aforementioned GAO recommendations not later than 
90 days after the date of enactment of this Act. The briefing 
should describe how the Secure Flight name matching system has 
performed, including its accuracy in identifying passengers on 
the terrorist watch list while minimizing the number of 
passengers misidentified as being on the list, and how TSA 
would use this performance information to improve Secure 
Flight. TSA should also brief on the extent to which Secure 
Flight uses redress data to pre-clear passengers misidentified 
as being on the terrorist watch list and how it will ensure 
passengers cannot manipulate airline reservation information 
submissions to avoid detection.

                   TTAC INFRASTRUCTURE MODERNIZATION

    The largest component of the crew and other vetting 
appropriation consists of $57,800,000 requested for TTAC 
infrastructure modernization (TIM), an effort to consolidate 
and streamline duplicative vetting and credentialing services 
to current and future TSA screening populations and to 
eliminate redundant background checks. Those systems have 
vetted over 96,000,000 names, and TSA plans to initiate 
transition of those legacy TTAC systems to the TIM system in 
fiscal year 2012. The Committee recommends funding the request 
but notes its concerns with delays, including in completing a 
formal analysis of alternatives, gaining acquisition review 
board approval, and awarding its TIM development contract. The 
Committee directs TSA to brief the Committees on Appropriations 
on the status of TIM not later than 30 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act and to advise the Committees about any 
adverse developments in its project schedule or in the 
regulatory process for developing a Universal Rule that might 
significantly delay its plans to achieve its initial operating 
capacity in 2013, to align with the implementation of a 
Universal Fee Rule, and be fully operational in 2015.

   SECURITY IDENTIFICATION DISPLAY AREA (SIDA) ACCESS APPEALS PROCESS

    The Committee directs TSA to submit a report to the 
Committee not later than December 1, 2011, on the number of 
instances in fiscal years 2010 and 2011 when individuals were 
denied unescorted access to the security identification display 
area (SIDA) of an airport based on their criminal history. The 
report should describe current options available to 
individuals, who have been disqualified from SIDA access based 
on non-security related offenses, to waive or appeal such 
denials. If no such appeal or waiver option is now available, 
the report should provide the Department position with regard 
to whether such an appeal process should be established.

                    Transportation Security Support

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2011.......................      $988,638,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.....................     1,113,697,000
Recommended in the bill...............................     1,032,790,000
Bill compared with:...................................
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2011...................       +44,152,000
    Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2012.................       -80,907,000
                                MISSION

    The Transportation Security Support account includes 
financial and human resources support; the Transportation 
Security Intelligence Service; information technology support; 
policy development and oversight; performance management and e-
government; communications; public information and legislative 
affairs; training and quality performance; internal conduct and 
audit; legal advice; and overall headquarters administration.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $1,032,790,000 for Transportation 
Security Support, $80,907,000 below the amount requested and 
$44,152,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2011. A 
comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee recommended 
level by budget activity is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget estimate      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Headquarters administration.......       $320,794,000       $289,798,000
Human capital services............        264,299,000        250,000,000
Information technology............        485,612,000        450,000,000
Intelligence......................         42,992,000         42,992,000
                                   -------------------------------------
    Subtotal, Transportation           $1,113,697,000     $1,032,790,000
     Security Support.............
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      HEADQUARTERS ADMINISTRATION

    The Committee recommends $289,798,000 for headquarters 
administration, $30,996,000 below the budget request. The 
Committee has not included new administrative funding proposed 
to support requested increases in VIPR teams, BDO hires, and 
additional AIT acquisition and staffing, since those 
initiatives are not funded in the bill. The Committee includes 
half the proposed increase ($1,000,000) for enhanced 
acquisition management.

                         HUMAN CAPITAL SERVICES

    The Committee recommends $250,000,000 for human capital 
services, $14,299,000 below the budget request. The Committee 
has not included approximately $10,000,000 in new funding 
proposed to support requested increases in VIPR teams, BDO 
hires, and additional AIT acquisition and staffing, since those 
initiatives are not funded in the bill. It further reduces 
funding as partial offset for the budget gap due to request's 
reliance on unauthorized fees.

                         INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

    The Committee recommends $450,000,000 for information 
technology, $35,612,000 below the budget request. This reflects 
a reduction of $1,000,000 from the request corresponding to the 
elimination of a proposed expansion of VIPR teams, BDOs, and 
AIT screeners; a reduction of $21,200,000 proposed for data 
center migration, which is being deferred this year due to 
budgetary constraints; and additional reductions to compensate 
for unrealistic revenue projections based on unauthorized 
aviation security fee increases.

                             COVERT TESTING

    The Committee supports the continued use of covert testing 
to help identify vulnerabilities in critical systems and 
directs TSA to aggressively pursue innovative ways to probe and 
improve transportation security systems. As in past years, the 
Committee expects TSA to continue to brief the Committees 
semiannually on its red teaming and covert testing activities, 
including testing results at airport checkpoints, in secure 
areas of airports, at air cargo facilities, and in other 
transportation modes, and should also report on trends in 
operational errors and equipment failures.

EXPENDITURE PLANS FOR PURCHASE AND DEPLOYMENT OF AIR CARGO, CHECKPOINT 
               SUPPORT, AND EXPLOSIVE DETECTION EQUIPMENT

    The Committee includes bill language similar to that used 
in previous appropriations requiring TSA to provide a detailed 
spending and deployment plan for air cargo, checkpoint support, 
and explosive detection equipment. This plan shall be submitted 
no later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act 
and shall include: expenditures on an airport-by-airport basis 
for fiscal year 2012, including details on technologies 
purchased; project timelines; obligation schedules; and a table 
displaying actual versus anticipated unobligated balances at 
the close of the fiscal year, with an explanation for any 
deviation from original plans. The Committee recognizes TSA may 
need to revise its plan and so directs TSA to notify the 
Committees on Appropriations prior to amending its expenditure 
plan and reallocating such funds, and to update the Committees 
quarterly on these expenditures.

                          Federal Air Marshals

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2011.......................      $920,802,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.....................       991,375,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       961,375,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2011...................       +40,573,000
    Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2012.................       -30,000,000
                                MISSION

    The Federal Air Marshals provide security for the Nation's 
civil aviation system through the effective deployment of armed 
Federal agents to detect, deter, and defeat hostile acts 
targeting U.S. air carriers, airports, passengers, and crews.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $961,375,000 for the Federal Air 
Marshals (FAMs), $30,000,000 below the amount requested and 
$40,573,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2011. Of 
the total funding provided, $845,260,000 is for management and 
administration and $116,115,000 is for travel and training. 
This funding increase, with the funding provided in the fiscal 
year 2011 appropriation, should enable FAMs to sustain domestic 
flight coverage and enhanced international flight coverage 
initiated in 2010 after the Christmas Day bombing attempt. This 
reduction from the request reflects realignment of the 
explosive operations division to aviation security as well as 
delays in bringing new FAMs on board.
    The Committee expects FAMs staffing levels and deployment 
patterns to optimize coverage of flights so as to address known 
threats, minimize risk, and complement the full range of 
security resources available to TSA. It is therefore critical 
that TSA provide the Committee information about the analysis 
it uses to set its staffing, scheduling, and resource 
requirements, particularly in light of the sustained, enhanced 
levels of coverage that have become the norm since the 2009 
Christmas Day attempt. The Committee directs TSA to brief the 
Committees on Appropriations not later than November 1, 2011, 
on its optimal mix of staff, the types and frequency of flights 
for which FAMs coverage should be provided, and any legislative 
or regulatory changes that might be required to improve FAMs 
operations and overall aviation security. The Committee directs 
TSA to submit quarterly reports on mission coverage, staffing 
levels, and hiring rates as in past years.

                              Coast Guard


                           Operating Expenses

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2011\1\....................    $6,907,338,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012\2\..................     6,819,505,000
Recommended in the bill\3\............................     7,071,061,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2011...................      +163,723,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.................      +251,556,000 
\1\Includes $254,000,000 for the global war on terrorism.
\2\Does not include funds for global war on terrorism requested under
  Navy, Operations and Maintenance.
\3\Includes $258,278,000 for the global war on terrorism.

                                MISSION

    The Coast Guard is the principal Federal agency charged 
with maritime safety, security, and stewardship. The Operating 
Expenses appropriation provides funding for the operation and 
maintenance of multipurpose vessels, aircraft, and shore units 
strategically located along the coasts and inland waterways of 
the United States and in selected areas overseas. This is the 
primary appropriation financing operational activities of the 
Coast Guard.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a total appropriation of 
$7,071,061,000 for Operating Expenses. The recommended funding 
level is $251,556,000 above the amount requested and 
$163,723,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2011. The 
Committee's recommendation is $17,722,000 below the net request 
for Coast Guard Operating Expenses when excluding funds 
requested for support of the global war on terrorism.
    The fiscal year 2012 budget request, as submitted by the 
President, was based upon the fiscal year 2011 rate under a 
continuing resolution rather than the enacted year-long 
appropriation for fiscal year 2011. Because the Coast Guard did 
not submit an updated estimate for fiscal year 2012 relative to 
enacted appropriations for the current year sufficiently prior 
to Subcommittee markup, the comparisons between the amounts 
estimated and those recommended in the bill may require 
subsequent refinement. Funding for the Coast Guard operations 
in support of the global war on terrorism was included in this 
appropriation in fiscal year 2011 and is included in the amount 
recommended for Operating Expenses in fiscal year 2012. 
However, the budget request for the Coast Guard's support of 
the global war on terrorism was included within the Department 
of Defense under the appropriation for Operations and 
Maintenance, Navy.
    The Committee recommends funding for the following 
initiatives requested for fiscal year 2012: $10,666,000 for 
enhancements to marine safety; $9,300,000 for military family 
child care; $39,000,000 in restoration of polar operations 
funding; $8,600,000 for network security upgrades; and 
$6,300,000 for the Distress Alerting Satellite System (DASS). 
Furthermore, the Committee concurs with the proposed 
decommissioning of three PC-179 patrol boats and one High 
Endurance Cutter.
    The Committee recommends the following reductions from the 
budget request: a reduction of $10,000,000 in technical 
adjustments to pay, allowances, and operating expenses due to 
increases provided in the fiscal year 2011 enacted 
appropriation that were unaccounted for in the fiscal year 2012 
budget submission; a reduction of $5,000,000 from the request 
for enhancements to marine environmental response due to an 
insufficient justification; a reduction of $5,000,000 in 
civilian pay due to a projected lapse in expected civilian 
hiring in fiscal year 2011; and reductions of $8,000,000 in 
data migration funding and $7,000,000 from Headquarters 
Directorates due to inadequate budget justification and the 
Department's decision to claim $645,000,000 in unrealized 
offsets from increase fee revenue that had not yet been 
authorized.
    The Committee recommends the following increases above the 
budget request: an additional $20,300,000 to partially address 
the backlog in critical depot level vessel maintenance; an 
additional $6,000,000 for the purchase of replacement small 
boats for legacy cutters; and $4,000,000 for enhancements to 
boat crew pursuit and tactical training.
    Of the funds recommended for the Coast Guard's Headquarters 
Directorates, $75,000,000 is withheld from obligation until the 
Commandant of the Coast Guard submits the following to the 
Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and House of 
Representatives: (1) a revised future-years Capital Investment 
Plan for fiscal years 2012 through 2016 that has been reviewed 
by GAO, as specified under the ``Coast Guard Acquisition, 
Construction, and Improvements'' heading in this Act; (2) the 
fiscal year 2012 second quarter quarterly acquisition report; 
and (3) the polar operations high latitude study.
    A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee 
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget estimate      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military Pay and Allowances.......     $3,447,753,000     $3,434,872,000
Civilian Pay and Benefits.........        780,556,000        775,063,000
Training and Recruiting...........        213,282,000        213,282,000
Operating Funds and Unit Level          1,109,323,000      1,109,450,000
 Maintenance......................
Centrally Managed Accounts........        351,478,000        343,348,000
Depot Level Maintenance...........        917,113,000        936,768,000
Global war on terrorism...........                 --        258,278,000
                                   -------------------------------------
        Total, Operating Expenses.     $6,819,505,000     $7,071,061,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          MISSION REQUIREMENTS

    The Coast Guard has not formally updated its mission 
requirements to the Committee since the 2004 Mission Needs 
Study. The Coast Guard informed the Committee that it uses an 
annual Standard Operational Planning Process (SOPP) to update 
current requirements; however, a SOPP finding has never been 
submitted to the Committee nor has a change in an acquisition 
program baseline or an operational requirement been justified 
before the Committee as a result of a SOPP finding. 
Furthermore, the Coast Guard has stated that it has been 
conducting a Fleet Mix Analysis since 2004 and the results of 
this analysis will inform the fiscal year 2013 budget 
submission and fiscal years 2013 through 2017 Capital 
Investment Plan. The Committee finds this protracted delay in 
updating mission requirements for the Coast Guard's post-
Deepwater era to be a major impediment to effective budget 
planning. The Coast Guard is directed to submit the most 
current Fleet Mix Analysis to the Committees on Appropriations 
of the Senate and House of Representatives and to brief the 
Committees on its process for formulating updated mission 
requirements no later than 30 days after the date of enactment 
of this Act.

                         MARITIME SURVEILLANCE

    The Coast Guard shall include with its fiscal year 2013 
budget submission a report to the Committees on Appropriations 
of the Senate and House of Representatives on how the existing 
gaps in required maritime surveillance hours and the 
operational hours requested by Joint Interagency Task Force-
South (JIATF-South) are being addressed. This report shall 
include quantitative data on current maritime surveillance 
mission hours compared to the number of hours required under 
the 2004 Mission Needs Statement and the number of operational 
hours requested by JIATF-South over the past three fiscal 
years.
    The Committee observes that Puerto Rico, because of its 
location in the Caribbean basin and its 360-degree maritime 
border, has become a key entry and transshipment point for the 
trafficking of illegal drugs into the United States that are 
produced in South and Central America. The Committee further 
observes that such trafficking is connected with other threats 
and crimes, particularly the increased incidence of homicide in 
Puerto Rico. The Coast Guard is directed to report to the 
Committee no later than November 1, 2011, on the number of 
maritime surveillance hours and assets that the Coast Guard has 
dedicated to countering the illicit trafficking of drugs and 
other related threats and crime throughout the Caribbean basin 
and how those resources satisfy the stated mission requirements 
of this region.

        ADMINISTRATIVE SAVINGS AND REDUCTIONS TO PROGRAM SUPPORT

    The Committee commends the Coast Guard's willingness to 
seek internal administrative savings and managerial 
efficiencies. In total, the Coast Guard claims more than 
$140,000,000 in reductions to program support and 
administrative functions within the fiscal year 2012 budget 
submission. However, the fiscal year 2012 budget justification 
included insufficient detail on these ambiguous reductions and 
failed to compare these reductions to current expenditures. The 
Committee directs the Coast Guard to include the following 
details with any such proposal for reductions in administrative 
functions or support services in future budget submissions, 
beginning with the fiscal year 2013 budget justification 
materials: (1) a detailed, itemized listing of all proposed 
reductions relative to current expenditures and (2) a detailed 
explanation of the potential impacts of these reductions upon 
operations and personnel.

               PROPOSED REDUCTIONS TO OPERATING EXPENSES

    Throughout this bill, the Committee has prioritized funding 
to frontline security operations and essential personnel across 
DHS. In fiscal year 2011, the Department requested a 
substantial reduction to the Coast Guard's operational 
capabilities and military workforce without a corresponding 
proposal to backfill depleted capacity through investments in 
recapitalized assets. This proposal had obvious, adverse 
implications upon the Coast Guard's ability to carry out its 
critical missions of maritime safety, coastal security, and 
drug interdiction which ignored current threat activity and the 
ramifications upon the Department's broader border security 
efforts. As evidenced by the enacted appropriations, the flawed 
request for fiscal year 2011 was resoundingly rejected by 
Congress. Within the fiscal year 2012 budget request, the 
Department has proposed a far more balanced approach to 
reducing the Coast Guard's operational costs in conjunction 
with investments in both targeted capabilities and new 
acquisitions and asset refurbishments. The Committee directs 
the Coast Guard to clearly present any known or expected 
adverse impacts to operational proficiency and Government 
Performance and Results Act (GPRA) goals created by proposed 
decreases in its Operating Expenses in future budget 
submissions, beginning with the fiscal year 2013 budget 
justification materials.

                          FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

    The Committee remains concerned with the Coast Guard's 
persistent challenges with its internal financial controls. The 
Committee notes the Coast Guard lags behind all other 
Departmental components in terms of addressing material 
weaknesses in its financial management systems. It is the 
single largest holder of unauditable balances in the 
Department, according to the OIG.
    At the Committee's direction, in December 2008 the Coast 
Guard produced an extensive financial management improvement 
plan for fiscal years 2009 and 2010. The Committee believes the 
Financial Strategy for Transformation and Audit Readiness 
(FSTAR) plan should address the Coast Guard's financial 
management challenges and directs the Coast Guard to provide a 
briefing on the progress of this initiative no later than three 
months after the date of enactment of this Act, and every 
quarter thereafter. This briefing should focus on the progress 
achieved relative to the milestones outlined in the FSTAR plan; 
identification of remaining major roadblocks to achieving a 
clean audit; an explanation of the Coast Guard's efforts to 
examine and review the shortcomings of its current financial 
management system; and proposals on how to overcome identified 
challenges.

                            POLAR OPERATIONS

    The Committee appreciates the restoration of $39,000,000 in 
operating expenses for polar operations within the Coast 
Guard's budget. However, the restoration of these operational 
costs to the operator of the Nation's polar icebreaker fleet 
does little to assure the Committee that national interests in 
the polar regions can be effectively served in coming years. 
The current Administration has failed to execute the existing 
National Arctic Policy, as stated in National Security 
Presidential Directive-66 and Homeland Security Presidential 
Directive-25 (NSPD-66 / HSPD-25) released on January 9, 2009, 
and appears to be permitting the atrophy of national polar 
capabilities. As the sustainable service lives of the Coast 
Guard's heavy icebreakers rapidly approach their expiration, 
the need for polar capabilities is intensifying due to the 
presence of increased vessel traffic and energy exploration 
resources in the Arctic. Rather than address these issues with 
a cogent implementation plan, the Administration and Department 
are delaying the submittal of the Coast Guard's High Latitude 
Study and are requesting an additional $5,000,000 for further 
study of polar needs. As noted previously in this report, the 
Committee denies the request for the additional $5,000,000 
under the Under Secretary for Management since the needs are 
well known and sufficiently documented. The Coast Guard is 
directed to submit the High Latitude Study and brief the 
Committee on the resources required to meet polar mission 
requirements and fulfill the policy directives set forth in 
NSPD-66 / HSPD-25 no later than 45 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act.

               RESOURCES FOR THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM

    The Committee includes $258,278,000 under this heading for 
the costs of the Coast Guard's support for the global war on 
terrorism. These funds in the past had been carried in 
supplemental appropriations bills under the Department of 
Defense and then transferred to the Coast Guard. Beginning with 
Public Law 111-32l, these funds were provided as a direct 
appropriation to the Coast Guard. For fiscal year 2012, the 
Administration has again requested these funds as a transfer 
from the Navy's Operations and Maintenance account. The 
Committee provides these funds to the Coast Guard directly 
rather than as a transfer to provide for better accountability 
and oversight of the Coast Guard's entire Operating Expenses. 
Consistent with the conference report accompanying the Homeland 
Security Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2010 and the 
enacted appropriations for fiscal year 2011, the Coast Guard 
may allocate these funds across its PPAs in the Operating 
Expenses account, as necessary and without regard to section 
503 of this Act. The Coast Guard is directed to provide a plan 
no later than 45 days after the date of enactment of this Act 
on the distribution of these funds by PPA. For fiscal year 
2013, the Committee strongly encourages these funds to be 
included as part of the Coast Guard's budget request, which 
should also include a detailed justification of the continued 
need for these funds and how they are allocated across PPAs.

                   THREATS ALONG THE SOUTHWEST BORDER

    Increased violence on the waters of the Rio Grande has 
resulted in the armed robbery through piracy and murder of U.S. 
citizens. The Committee recognizes the Border Patrol and Coast 
Guard are laudably working to prevent these incidents and 
ensure the integrity of the U.S. border with Mexico. However, 
the Committee also notes the all too frequent occurrence of our 
Federal law enforcement professionals encountering boats used 
by drug smugglers and other armed criminals with far greater 
capabilities.
    The Commandant of the Coast Guard testified before the 
Committee that ``. . . some level of persistent presence is 
required on Falcon Lake, [Texas].'' Given similar challenges 
present on Lake Amistad, the Committee also recommends an 
enhanced Coast Guard presence, as necessary, to counter 
persistent border incursion threats in this area. In light of 
recent events on Falcon Lake, the Committee recommends that the 
Coast Guard adhere to the Commandant's testimony and report 
within 90 days of the date of enactment of this Act on the 
efforts to comply with this security commitment and as to 
whether additional resources or authorities are needed to 
assist in achieving compliance.

              ENHANCEMENTS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT CAPABILITIES

    The Committee recommends an additional total of $4,000,000 
above the amount requested for boat crew pursuit and tactical 
training. Additional funding for boat crew training will enable 
the Coast Guard to conduct tactical training for 24 shore-
based, designated maritime law enforcement units.
    The Committee also recommends an additional $6,000,000 
above the amount requested for the purchase of replacement 
small boats for the Coast Guard's legacy cutters. Additional 
funds are intended to procure up to six small boats used in the 
major cutter fleet and increase the Coast Guard's interdiction 
capacity.

 ENHANCEMENTS TO MARINE SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE CAPABILITIES

    The Deepwater Horizon catastrophe highlighted the need for 
a more robust marine safety capability and for dedicated 
personnel that have incident response as their primary focus so 
that the Coast Guard does not have to sacrifice mission 
performance in other areas when a crisis occurs. The Committee 
therefore recommends $10,666,000, as requested, for 105 marine 
safety positions including inspectors, investigators, and 
safety examiners. In addition, the Committee recommends 
$6,485,000 for marine environmental response enhancements, 
$5,000,000 below the amount requested. The request for marine 
environmental response (MER) is reduced due to an inadequate 
justification that lacked specific details on proposed 
resources and capabilities relative to current gaps in MER 
capacity. The Coast Guard is directed to brief the Committee no 
later than 45 days after the date of enactment of this Act on 
its expenditure plan for these increases in marine safety and 
environmental response. Furthermore, the Coast Guard is 
directed to provide an updated MER Mission Performance Plan no 
later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act to 
address the five-year strategy for providing personnel with the 
necessary skills to perform MER functions and enhance 
environmental response competencies. This plan should address 
resource enhancements necessary to meet mission requirements 
and be informed by lessons learned from the Deepwater Horizon 
oil spill response.

                ENHANCEMENTS TO DEPOT LEVEL MAINTENANCE

    The Committee recommends an additional $20,300,000 above 
the amount requested for critical depot level maintenance. 
Additional funds are intended to replenish repair parts and 
execute backlogged and deferred critical depot level 
maintenance for vessels, including: $9,500,000 for 270-foot 
Medium Endurance Cutter maintenance and $10,800,000 for High 
Endurance Cutter maintenance. Funds shall be prioritized for 
critical operational repairs and unfunded crew habitability and 
welfare needs.

                Environmental Compliance and Restoration

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2011.......................       $13,198,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.....................        16,699,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        10,198,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2011...................        -3,000,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.................        -6,501,000
                                MISSION

    The Environmental Compliance and Restoration appropriation 
assists in bringing Coast Guard facilities into compliance with 
applicable Federal, State, and environmental regulations; 
preparing and testing facilities response plans; developing 
pollution and hazardous waste minimization strategies; 
conducting environmental assessments; and furnishing necessary 
program support. These funds permit the continuation of a 
service-wide program to correct environmental problems, such as 
through major improvements of storage tanks containing 
petroleum and regulated substances. The program focuses mainly 
on Coast Guard facilities, but also includes third-party sites 
where Coast Guard activities have contributed to environmental 
problems.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $10,198,000 for Environmental 
Compliance and Restoration, $6,501,000 below the amount 
requested and $3,000,000 below the amount provided in fiscal 
year 2011. A reduction is made to the budget request for this 
account due to operational priorities, the Department's flawed 
decision to claim offsets from unauthorized fee collections, 
and the lack of funding details included in the Coast Guard's 
Environmental Compliance and Restoration backlog report dated 
April 11, 2011. The Coast Guard is directed to submit an 
itemized expenditure plan for each project listed in the 
backlog report to the Committees on Appropriations of the 
Senate and House of Representatives with its annual budget 
submission.

                            Reserve Training

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2011.......................      $133,632,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.....................       136,778,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       131,778,000
Bill compared with:...................................
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2011...................        +3,146,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.................        -5,000,000
                                MISSION

    This appropriation provides for the training of qualified 
individuals who are available for active duty in time of war or 
national emergency or to augment regular Coast Guard forces in 
the performance of peacetime missions. Program activities fall 
into the following categories:
    Initial training.--The direct costs of initial training for 
three categories of non-prior service trainees;
    Continued training.--The training of officer and enlisted 
personnel;
    Operation and maintenance of training facilities.--The day-
to-day operation and maintenance of reserve training 
facilities; and
    Administration.--All administrative costs of the reserve 
forces program.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $131,778,000 for Reserve Training, 
$5,000,000 below the amount requested and $3,146,000 above the 
amount provided in fiscal year 2011. The Committee recommends a 
reduction to this program's persistent lapse of annual 
appropriations.

              Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2011......................     $1,519,783,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012....................      1,421,924,000
Recommended in the bill..............................      1,151,673,000
Bill compared with:..................................
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2011..................       -368,110,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012................       -270,251,000
                                MISSION

    The Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements 
appropriation finances the acquisition of new capital assets, 
construction of new facilities, and physical improvements to 
existing facilities and assets. The appropriation covers Coast 
Guard-owned and operated vessels, aircraft, shore facilities, 
and other equipment such as computer systems, as well as the 
personnel needed to manage acquisition activities.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $1,151,673,000 for Acquisition, 
Construction, and Improvements, $270,251,000 below the amount 
requested and $368,110,000 below the amount provided in fiscal 
year 2011.
    The Committee recommends the following reductions from the 
amounts requested: a reduction of $77,000,000 requested for the 
National Security Cutter; a reduction of $118,000,000 from the 
amount requested for the Fast Response Cutter; a reduction of 
$19,309,000 from the amount requested for the Response Boat-
Medium; a reduction of $97,692,000 from the amount requested 
for shore facilities, aids to navigation, housing, and 
infrastructure projects; a reduction of $5,000,000 from the 
amount requested for government program management; and a 
denial of the request for $2,250,000 for additional acquisition 
personnel.
    The Committee recommends the following increases above the 
amount requested: an additional $37,000,000 for the replacement 
costs of two, HH-65 helicopters; an additional $10,000,000 for 
communication upgrades to legacy cutters; and an additional 
$2,000,000 for pre-acquisition activities of cutter-based 
unmanned aircraft systems.
    The Committee removes the annual requirement for a Revised 
Deepwater Implementation Plan due to the dissolution of the 
Deepwater initiative and directorate. The Committee modifies 
and strengthens the requirements for the annual capital 
investment plan (CIP) and requires the submittal of the CIP, as 
specified in the bill, in conjunction with the annual budget 
submission.
    A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee 
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget estimate      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vessels:
    Cutter Small Boats............         $5,000,000         $5,000,000
    Fast Response Cutter (FRC)....        358,000,000        240,000,000
    In-Service Cutters Sustainment         14,000,000         14,000,000
    Medium Endurance Cutter (MEC)          47,000,000         47,000,000
     Sustainment..................
    National Security Cutter (NSC)         77,000,000                ---
    Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC)..         25,000,000         25,000,000
    Response Boat-Medium..........        110,000,000         90,691,000
    Survey and Design-Vessels and           6,000,000          6,000,000
     Boats........................
                                   -------------------------------------
            Subtotal, Vessels.....        642,000,000        427,691,000
                                   =====================================
Aircraft:
    Long Range Surveillance                62,000,000         62,000,000
     Aircraft.....................
    HH-60 Acquisition/Conversion/          74,400,000         74,400,000
     Sustainment..................
    HH-65 Acquisition/Conversion/          24,000,000         61,000,000
     Sustainment..................
    Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA)        129,500,000        129,500,000
    Unmanned Aircraft Systems                     ---          2,000,000
     (UAS)........................
                                   -------------------------------------
            Subtotal, Aircraft....        289,900,000        328,900,000
                                   =====================================
Other Equipment:
    C4ISR.........................         34,500,000         44,500,000
    Government Program Management.         35,000,000         30,000,000
    Interagency Operational                 3,000,000          3,000,000
     Centers......................
    Nationwide Automatic                    5,000,000          5,000,000
     Identification System........
    CG-LIMS.......................          6,500,000          6,500,000
    Rescue 21.....................         65,000,000         65,000,000
    System Engineering and                 17,140,000         17,140,000
     Integration..................
                                   -------------------------------------
            Subtotal, Other               166,140,000        171,140,000
             Equipment............
                                   =====================================
Shore Facilities and Aids to
 Navigation:
    Major/Minor construction;              99,192,000         50,000,000
     Housing; ATON; and survey &
     design.......................
    Major Acquisition Systems              94,500,000         66,000,000
     Infrastructure...............
                                   -------------------------------------
            Subtotal, Shore               193,692,000        116,000,000
             Facilities and Aids
             to Navigation........
                                   =====================================
Military Housing..................         20,000,000                ---
Personnel and Related Support
    Direct Personnel Costs........        109,592,000        107,342,000
    AC&I Core.....................            600,000            600,000
                                   -------------------------------------
            Subtotal, Personnel           110,192,000        107,942,000
             and Related Support..
                                   =====================================
                Total,                 $1,421,924,000     $1,151,673,000
                 Acquisition,
                 Construction, and
                 Improvements.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     QUARTERLY REPORTS ON ACQUISITION PROJECTS AND MISSION EMPHASIS

    The Commandant is directed to continue to submit to the 
Committee quarterly acquisition and mission emphasis reports 
consistent with deadlines articulated under section 360 of 
division I of Public Law 108-7. The Coast Guard shall continue 
submitting these reports in the same format as required in 
fiscal year 2010. In addition, for each asset covered, the 
reports should present the objective for operational hours the 
Coast Guard expects to achieve, the gap between that objective, 
current capabilities, and stated mission requirements, and how 
the acquisition of the specific asset closes the gap. The 
information shall also include a discussion of how the Coast 
Guard calculated the operational hours, an explanation on risks 
to mission performance associated with the current shortfall, 
and the operational strategy to mitigate such risks.

                        CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN

    The Committee directs the Commandant of the Coast Guard to 
revise and resubmit the fiscal years 2012-2016 Capital 
Investment Plan as specified in the bill. The CIP submitted 
with the fiscal year 2012 budget request fails to align capital 
investments to mission requirements; does not include current 
acquisition program baselines for each capital asset; does not 
include the associated infrastructure costs essential to the 
operation of each capital asset; and contains no background 
information or justification regarding the future-years funding 
assumptions. The Coast Guard is further directed to submit a 
CIP in accordance with the specified requirements listed in the 
bill in conjunction with the budget submission for fiscal year 
2013 and thereafter. The Committee believes the CIP serves as 
the primary means of oversight for tracking the Coast Guard's 
recapitalization efforts and therefore must be substantially 
improved.

                        REVISED BUDGET STRUCTURE

    The Committee has revised the Coast Guard's budget 
structure for the Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements 
account due to the dissolution of the Deepwater initiative and 
directorate. The Committee appreciates the Coast Guard's 
cooperation in aligning previously appropriated funds with this 
new PPA structure and directs the Coast Guard to submit both 
its fiscal year 2013 budget submission and revised and future 
CIPs in accordance with this new budgetary display. The 
Committee's standing reprogramming and transfer guidelines 
contained in section 503 of this Act shall be applied to these 
new PPAs.

                        NATIONAL SECURITY CUTTER

    The Committee denies the request for $77,000,000 for the 
close-out costs of the fifth National Security Cutter (NSC) 
because these funds were provided in fiscal year 2011 along 
with funding for the full production costs of the fifth NSC. 
The Coast Guard has not submitted a budget amendment proposing 
to re-purpose these requested funds towards the pre-acquisition 
and long-long material costs of the sixth NSC; has currently 
budgeted for the full cost of the sixth NSC in fiscal year 
2013, as per the capital investment plan submitted with the 
fiscal year 2012 budget submission; and has not informed the 
Committee on whether the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
would grant an exception from the full funding policy contained 
in OMB Circular A-11 and allow for the application of 
incremental funding (as has been done for the previous five 
NSCs).
    Due to OMB's application of this Circular A-11 full funding 
policy upon the acquisition of NSCs five through eight, the 
entire NSC acquisition program baseline will be extended by 
several years and the unit cost for NSCs six through eight will 
increase by an estimated $45,000,000 to $60,000,000 per cutter 
(an estimated increase of six to eight percent to total 
acquisition cost per cutter). The Committee believes the 
application of a policy that results in higher costs and in the 
undue delay of critical operational capabilities to be 
illogical and counterproductive to our Nation's security needs 
as well as current budgetary realities. Furthermore, delays in 
the acquisition of the NSC will exacerbate the already 
escalating operating and maintenance costs of the Coast Guard's 
aging High Endurance Cutter fleet. Due to these undisputed 
adverse impacts, the Committee believes the Administration's 
management of the NSC acquisition program baseline to be 
failing in its responsibility to deliver a cost-effective 
capability for maritime safety and security. The Committee 
directs the Department's Office of the Chief Financial Officer 
and the Coast Guard to brief the Committee within 30 days of 
the date of enactment of this Act on a revised NSC acquisition 
strategy that addresses all known adverse impacts resulting 
from the application of OMB's full funding requirements for the 
NSC pursuant to OMB Circular A-11.

                          FAST RESPONSE CUTTER

    The Committee recommends $240,000,000 for the acquisition 
of four Fast Response Cutters (FRCs), $118,000,000 below the 
amount requested and the same as the amount provided in fiscal 
year 2011. Funding for two, additional FRCs is denied due to 
concerns regarding structural deficiencies found during the 
production of the first FRC and the resulting delay in delivery 
of the first FRC due to the required structural modifications. 
The Committee is also very concerned that the Coast Guard is 
applying funds reserved for FRC antecedent liabilities to 
address the costs of these structural modifications and that 
this decision will likely result in future, unfunded 
liabilities. Because the Coast Guard has yet to conduct its 
operational test and evaluation (OT&E) of the first FRC, the 
Committee believes it is prudent to examine the empirical OT&E 
results before accelerating the acquisition of FRCs from four 
to six per year. The Committee also denies the request for the 
re-procurement package and data rights (RDLP) at this time 
because, according to the Coast Guard's fiscal year 2012 budget 
submission, the RDLP option of the contract is not scheduled to 
be executed until fiscal year 2013 and the current contract for 
FRC production does not expire until the end of fiscal year 
2014. The Committee remains committed to the FRC acquisition, 
and believes replacement of the Coast Guard's aging, 110-foot 
Island Class patrol boat fleet to be among the Department's 
highest acquisition priorities. The Committee will re-consider 
the request for funding to support an increase in the annual 
production rate of FRCs and the purchase of the RDLP once 
outstanding issues have been fully resolved.

                         RESPONSE BOAT--MEDIUM

    The Committee recommends $90,691,000 for the Response 
Boat--Medium (RB-M), $19,309,000 below the amount the requested 
and $48,691,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2011. 
Due to the need to address other, unfunded acquisition 
priorities for the Coast Guard, the Committee recommendation 
funds only the cost of annual full rate production of 30 RB-Ms 
for fiscal year 2012, rather than the requested 40 RB-Ms. The 
Committee's recommendation for fiscal year 2012 triples the 
production of 10 RB-Ms funded in fiscal year 2011.

                         ACQUISITION PERSONNEL

    The Committee recommends $107,942,000 for direct costs of 
acquisition personnel, $2,250,000 below the amount requested 
and $1,769,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2011. 
The Committee denies the requested increase in support of the 
Administration's Acquisition Workforce Initiative because of an 
inadequate justification. The Acquisition Workforce Initiative 
and the requested increase for this activity does not 
sufficiently demonstrate the fulfillment of a needed capability 
the Coast Guard does not currently possess within its 
acquisition workforce of approximately 750 FTE. The Committee 
has been a consistently strong proponent of building a robust 
acquisition management capacity within the Coast Guard. In 
fact, since fiscal year 2006, funding for the Coast Guard's 
acquisition workforce has increased by nearly 50 percent. The 
Coast Guard's portion of the Acquisition Workforce Initiative 
neither acknowledges previously funded capacity enhancements 
nor identifies an unfunded capability.

    MAJOR/MINOR SHORE CONSTRUCTION, HOUSING, AND AIDS TO NAVIGATION

    The Committee recommends a total of $50,000,000 for shore 
facilities, military housing, and aids to navigation, 
$69,192,000 below the amount requested and $19,200,000 below 
the amount provided in fiscal year 2011. The recommended 
reduction is due to inadequate justifications and the fact that 
many of the requested projects require only funding for design 
in fiscal year 2012. The Committee has combined the funding for 
military housing with major and minor shore construction 
projects as it did in the fiscal year 2011 enacted 
appropriation and directs the Coast Guard to prioritize the 
recommended funds toward immediate operational requirements and 
the most pressing needs of enlisted personnel and their 
families. The Coast Guard is directed to submit an expenditure 
plan for these funds to the Committees on Appropriations of the 
Senate and House of Representatives no later than 30 days after 
the date of enactment of this Act. This expenditure plan shall 
also include an exhaustive list of all military housing needs, 
listed in priority order with associated costs for completion.

                MAJOR ACQUISITION SYSTEMS INFRASTRUCTURE

    The Committee recommends $66,000,000 for major acquisition 
systems infrastructure, $28,500,000 below the amount requested 
and $10,000,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2011. 
The Committee denies the request for two of the FRC port 
upgrades due to an insufficient budget justification; projected 
delays in FRC deliveries; the protracted delay in the Coast 
Guard's delivery of a revised FRC master schedule to the 
Committee; and due to serious concerns regarding the 
significant cost per port upgrade that amount to nearly a 24 
percent increase in the cost of each FRC. As previously stated 
and directed, the Coast Guard shall include the associated 
costs of major acquisition systems infrastructure with each 
capital asset, as applicable, in the CIP. Furthermore, the 
Coast Guard is directed to brief the Committee no later than 45 
days after the date of enactment of this Act on the cost 
control and estimation tools it is employing to contain the 
costs of infrastructure modifications needed to accommodate re-
capitalized and new assets.

                     GOVERNMENT PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

    The Committee recommends $30,000,000 for government program 
management, $5,000,000 below the amount requested and 
$15,000,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2011. The 
Committee recommends this reduction due to the complete lack of 
detail provided by the Coast Guard in their fiscal year 2012 
Congressional budget justification for this function. While 
Committee strongly supports the activities carried out within 
this function, the lack of detail provided in the budget 
request is inadequate to warrant a recommendation for funding 
the amount requested. The Coast Guard is directed to provide a 
detailed subdivision of funding requested for government 
program management in its justification materials accompanying 
the fiscal year 2013 budget submission.

                COMMUNICATION UPGRADES OF LEGACY CUTTERS

    The Committee recommends an additional $10,000,000 above 
the amount requested to support the costs of installation of 
communications systems on legacy cutters. These enhancements 
will improve surveillance, secure networking, and operational 
coordination among Coast Guard and other blue force assets. 
Furthermore, this increase in funding is consistent with recent 
DHS OIG recommendations to upgrade current maritime satellite 
communication equipment to provide high-speed transmission 
capabilities to enable cutters that interdict migrants to 
collect and screen certain biometric data.

                         HH-65 HELICOPTER RESET

    The Committee recommends an additional $37,000,000 above 
the amount requested for the acquisition of two, replacement 
HH-65 helicopters that were lost in the line of duty over the 
past two years. The Coast Guard is directed to brief the 
Committee within 60 days of the date of enactment of this Act 
on its reset plans for irrecoverable assets lost in the line of 
duty.

                 CUTTER-BASED UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS

    The Committee recommends an additional $2,000,000 above the 
amount requested for the pre-acquisition activities for cutter-
based unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). The Committee supports 
the use of cutter-based UAS to maximize the surveillance and 
interdiction capabilities of the Coast Guard's cutters, but is 
concerned that the fiscal years 2012 through 2016 CIP submitted 
with the fiscal year 2012 budget request contains no funding 
for UAS. In the justification materials accompanying the fiscal 
year 2013 budget submission, the Coast Guard shall clearly 
outline its plans for further investment in the acquisition and 
deployment of a cutter-based UAS, to include estimated 
acquisition costs and delivery schedule. The Committee advises 
that any such plan should align with the Coast Guard's CIP and 
should clearly identify the costs of acquisition, cutter 
integration, and missionization per asset, as well as a 
delivery and activation schedule of UAS capability per cutter. 
The Coast Guard shall also include with its fiscal year 2013 
budget submission a report to the Committee on the impact of 
the absence of deployed UAS upon NSC capability and mission 
performance.

             LAND-BASED MARITIME UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS

    The Committee commends CBP and the Coast Guard for its 
collaboration on the development and deployment of a land-
based, maritime unmanned aircraft system. However, the 
Committee notes with concern the lack of progress on this 
interagency coordination or subsequent acquisition of 
additional land-based, maritime UAS. In fact, the Coast Guard's 
fiscal years 2012 through 2016 Capital Investment Plan 
submitted with the fiscal year 2012 budget request includes no 
funding for land-based UAS. The Committee believes there is 
considerable potential in the use of persistent surveillance 
tools in the maritime approaches to the continental United 
States, namely in the Eastern Pacific and Caribbean basin. In 
the justification materials accompanying the fiscal year 2013 
budget submission, the Coast Guard shall clearly outline its 
plans for further investment in the acquisition and deployment 
of a land-based UAS in collaboration with CBP, to include 
estimated acquisition costs and delivery schedule. The 
Committee advises that any such plan should align with the 
Coast Guard's CIP and should clearly identify the costs of 
acquisition, integration, and missionization per asset, as well 
as a delivery and activation schedule of UAS capability.

                    LONG-RANGE SURVEILLANCE AIRCRAFT

    The Committee has renamed and combined the PPAs for HC-130J 
introduction and HC-130H refurbishment in order to allow the 
Coast Guard to leverage its limited funding for these 
activities for the most cost-effective budgeting for Long Range 
Surveillance (LRS) Aircraft. The Coast Guard is directed to 
brief the Committee no later than 45 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act on its evaluation of options presented in 
the recently completed Naval Air Systems Command business case 
analysis of the optimal mix of refurbished HC-130Hs and new HC-
130Js.

              Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2011.......................       $24,745,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.....................        19,779,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        12,779,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2011...................       -11,966,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.................        -7,000,000
                                MISSION

    The purpose of Research, Development, Test and Evaluation 
is to allow Coast Guard to maintain its non-homeland security 
research and development capability, while also partnering with 
DHS and the Department of Defense to leverage beneficial 
initiatives.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $12,779,000 for Research, 
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), $7,000,000 below the 
amount requested and $11,966,000 below the amount provided in 
fiscal year 2011. The recommended reduction is due to an 
unacceptable lack of detail provided by the Coast Guard in the 
fiscal year 2012 Congressional budget justification for this 
program. While the Committee strongly supports the activities 
carried out within this function, the detail provided in the 
budget request is insufficient to warrant a recommendation for 
fully funding the amount requested. The Coast Guard is directed 
to provide a detailed subdivision of funding requested for 
RDT&E, to include a prioritized listing of planned activities 
relative to stated mission requirements, in its justification 
materials accompanying the fiscal year 2013 budget submission.

                            PACE OF RESEARCH

    The Committee notes with concern the slow pace of several 
research and development efforts highlighted in previous 
reports, including development of technology to control the 
spread of invasive species through ballast water and 
development of a cutter-based UAS.

       Medicare Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund Contribution\1\

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2011.......................      $265,321,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.....................       261,871,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       261,871,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2011...................        -3,450,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.................               ---\1\This account is a permanent indefinite discretionary budgetary
  activity and is not carried in the bill.

                                MISSION

    The Medicare-eligible retiree health care fund contribution 
provides funding to the Department of Defense Medicare-eligible 
health care fund for the health benefits of future Medicare-
eligible retirees currently serving active duty in Coast Guard, 
retiree dependents, and their potential survivors. The 
authority for Coast Guard to make this payment on an annual 
basis was provided in the Department of Defense Appropriations 
Act for Fiscal Year 2005.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    While this account requires no annual action by Congress, 
the Committee provides $261,871,000 to fund the Medicare-
eligible retiree health care fund contribution, the same amount 
included in the budget submission and $3,450,000 below the 
amount provided in fiscal year 2011.

                              Retired Pay

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2011.......................    $1,400,700,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.....................     1,440,157,000
Recommended in the bill...............................     1,440,157,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2011...................       +39,457,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.................               ---
                                MISSION

    This appropriation provides for the retired pay of Coast 
Guard military personnel and Coast Guard Reserve personnel, as 
well as career status bonuses for active duty personnel. In 
addition, it provides payments to members of the former 
Lighthouse Service and beneficiaries pursuant to the retired 
serviceman's family protection plan and survivor benefit plan, 
as well as payments for medical care of retired personnel and 
their dependents under the Dependents' Medical Care Act.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $1,440,157,000 for Retired Pay, 
the same as the amount requested and $39,457,000 above the 
amount provided in fiscal year 2011. The Committee includes 
bill language allowing funds to remain available until 
expended. The Coast Guard's Retired Pay appropriation is a 
mandatory budgetary activity.

                      United States Secret Service


                         Salaries and Expenses

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2011.......................    $1,514,361,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.....................     1,691,751,000
Recommended in the bill...............................     1,666,451,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2011...................      +152,090,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.................       -25,300,000
                                MISSION

    The United States Secret Service has statutory authority to 
carry out two primary missions: protection of the Nation's 
leaders and investigation of financial and electronic crimes. 
The Secret Service protects and investigates threats against 
the President and Vice President, their families, visiting 
heads of state, and other designated individuals; protects the 
White House, Vice President's Residence, foreign missions, and 
other buildings within Washington, D.C.; and manages the 
security at National Special Security Events. The Secret 
Service also investigates violations of laws relating to 
counterfeiting of obligations and securities of the United 
States; financial crimes that include, but are not limited to, 
access device fraud, financial institution fraud, identity 
theft, and computer fraud; and computer-based attacks on 
financial, banking, and telecommunications infrastructure. The 
agency also provides support for investigations related to 
missing and exploited children.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $1,666,451,000 for Secret Service 
Salaries and Expenses, $25,300,000 below the amount requested 
and $152,090,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2011. 
This includes substantial increases for the 2012 Presidential 
campaign season, including a $72,800,000 increase for costs 
associated with the core protective missions and $123,500,000 
to support candidate and nominee protection (the latter number 
is offset by shifting, as requested, $39,000,000 from core 
investigative and field operations in 2012). It includes 
$11,307,000 for planning and advance costs associated with an 
unusual combination of National Special Security Events that 
will take place in fiscal year 2012, with the exception that it 
does not include $7,300,000 for the Asia-Pacific Economic 
Cooperation summit, for which funding is expected to be 
provided in fiscal year 2011. It also includes $371,000 for 
enhanced acquisition management support, as requested.
    The Committee recommendation includes the requested 
$43,843,000 for Information Integration and Transformation 
(IIT), including $9,883,000 requested to begin IIT design and 
development to replace dated information technology 
infrastructure, provide new cyber security tools, acquire 
mission critical communications and classified messaging 
systems, and deploy the Protective Threat Management System to 
centralize protective intelligence and threat assessment 
activities, and requires the CIO to certify that the funding 
for IIT is consistent with DHS enterprise architecture. The 
recommendation does not include $18,000,000 requested for data 
center migration, which is not funded this year due to the need 
to offset the budget shortfall created by the Department's 
reliance on increased aviation security fees and customs fees 
that are yet to be authorized.
    A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee 
recommended levels, by budget activity, is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget estimate      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Headquarters Management and              $246,602,000       $228,302,000
 Administration...................
Protection:
    Protection of persons and             847,693,000        847,693,000
     facilities...................
    Protective intelligence                68,125,000         68,125,000
     activities...................
    Presidential candidate nominee        113,462,000        113,462,000
     protection...................
    National Special Security              19,307,000         12,307,000
     Event fund...................
    White House mail screening....         24,315,000         24,315,000
                                   -------------------------------------
        Subtotal, Protection......      1,073,172,000      1,066,172,000
                                   =====================================
Investigations:
    Domestic field operations.....        223,991,000        223,991,000
    International field office             30,971,000         30,971,000
     administration, operations,
     and training.................
    Electronic Crimes Special              53,051,000         53,051,000
     Agent Program and Electronic
     Crimes Task Forces...........
    Support for missing and                 8,366,000          8,366,000
     exploited children...........
                                   -------------------------------------
        Subtotal, Investigations..        316,379,000        316,379,000
                                   =====================================
Training:
    Rowley training center........         55,598,000         55,598,000
                                   =====================================
            Total, Salaries and        $1,691,751,000     $1,666,451,000
             Expenses.............
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       2012 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN

    The bill includes $113,462,000, as requested, to prepare 
for and support protection of presidential candidates in the 
2012 campaign. If recent history is a guide, the campaign will 
draw an extraordinary level of national attention, involve 
extensive travel by the candidates and their Secret Service 
details, and demand significant manpower and financial 
resources to ensure the Presidential election is not disrupted 
by those who would seek to harm our country or its leaders. The 
Committee supports funding this critical program but expects 
the Secret Service to execute its spending of these enhanced 
resources in a disciplined and transparent manner, and to avoid 
problems seen in past years. The Committee therefore directs 
the Secret Service, in consultation with the DHS CFO, to submit 
its financial control plan for 2012 campaign costs and spending 
not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act 
and to provide regular updates on its implementation of such 
plan.

     INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND CRITICAL PROTECTIVE INFRASTRUCTURE

    The Committee supports the efforts underway in 2011 and 
proposed in 2012 to invest in upgrading the information and 
communication infrastructure and technology systems on which 
the Secret Service depends to enable it to combat sophisticated 
criminals and increasingly sophisticated security threats. The 
Committee would also like better insight into Secret Service 
requirements to upgrade and improve its critical protective 
infrastructure. To those ends, the Committee directs the Secret 
Service to develop a revised account structure to include two 
new PPA categories, technology investments and base 
infrastructure, associated with its dual, core missions. The 
Committee would expect to see this new breakout reflected in 
the Secret Service fiscal year 2013 budget submission. The 
Committee encourages the Secret Service to make a clear 
distinction between unit cost elements associated with staffing 
or equipment for officers and agents (weapons, communications, 
transportation), which should be built into the budgets for 
field office and protective operations, as opposed to site-
specific infrastructure.

                   INTERNATIONAL FIELD INVESTIGATIONS

    The Secret Service has experienced significant success in 
its efforts at combating counterfeiting of U.S. currency, in 
concert with those of its counterparts in the Government of 
Colombia. To build on this success, the Secret Service is 
seeking to establish a permanent presence in neighboring Peru, 
where identification and seizure of high-quality counterfeit 
U.S. currency rose 26 percent in 2010, and where the Peruvian 
National Police rely heavily on the Secret Service for support. 
The Committee also understands that the Secret Service is 
considering intensified efforts in Eastern Europe. The 
Committee directs the Secret Service, in conjunction with the 
DHS Office of International Affairs, to keep it informed of 
plans to establish new field operations in Lima, Peru and in 
other locations, particularly in light of the competing demands 
of the protective mission in 2012.

                         STAFFING AND RETENTION

    Given its unique dual-mission model, the Secret Service has 
a critical need to sustain the right numbers and mix of skills 
and experience in its Agent and Officer ranks, particularly 
given the intense scheduling demands and the influx of younger 
personnel into the workforce over the past decade. The upcoming 
2012 Presidential campaign will place additional demands on the 
Secret Service workforce. The Committee therefore directs the 
Secret Service to provide a briefing to the Committee no later 
than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act on steps 
it is taking to ensure that it is meeting all the human capital 
challenges affecting its ability to retain key personnel, 
including any issues concerning compensation or retirement 
benefits.

     Acquisition, Construction, Improvements, and Related Expenses

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2011.......................        $3,975,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.....................         6,780,000
Recommended in the bill...............................         6,780,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2011...................         2,805,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.................               ---
                                MISSION

    This account supports the acquisition, construction, 
improvement, equipment, furnishing, and related cost for 
maintenance and support of Secret Service facilities, including 
the Secret Service Memorial Headquarters Building and the James 
J. Rowley Training Center (JJRTC).

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $6,780,000, the same level as 
requested in the budget and $2,805,000 above the amount 
provided in fiscal year 2011. This increase will go to 
infrastructure improvements at the JJRTC, including repairs for 
driving courses.

      TITLE III--PROTECTION, PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE, AND RECOVERY


              National Protection and Programs Directorate


                     Management and Administration

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2011.......................       $43,577,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.....................        55,156,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        42,511,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2011...................        -1,066,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.................       -12,645,000
                                MISSION

    The National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) 
includes programs focused on the security of the country's 
physical and cyber infrastructure and interoperable 
communications systems. NPPD also supports biometric identity 
services through the US-VISIT program. The Management and 
Administration account funds the immediate office of the 
Undersecretary for National Protection and Programs; provides 
for administrative overhead costs such as IT support and shared 
services; includes a national planning office for development 
of standard doctrine and policy for infrastructure protection 
and cyber security; and includes a Risk Management and Analysis 
office (RMA), which develops standard doctrine and policy for 
DHS risk analyses.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $42,511,000 for the Office of the 
Under Secretary for NPPD, $12,645,000 below the amount 
requested and $1,066,000 below the amount provided in fiscal 
year 2011. This includes a reduction for data center migration 
and maintains the RMA at the fiscal year 2011 level.

                      RISK MANAGEMENT AND ANALYSIS

    A recent study of RMA by the National Academy of Sciences 
(NAS) highlighted several shortcomings in this program, the 
success of which is critical not only to the NPPD mission but 
to the proper operation of the entire Department. While the NAS 
study concluded that the basic risk framework used by the 
Department is a sound approach to assess risk, other 
significant deficiencies mean that DHS risk analyses can only 
be used with a low level of confidence. Because the validity 
and reliability of DHS risk models are untested, NAS found that 
the Department's risk analysis capabilities and methods are 
inadequate to support DHS decision making. The NAS panel also 
concluded that the risks presented by terrorist attacks and 
natural disasters cannot be combined in one meaningful 
indicator of risk, and so an all-hazards risk assessment is not 
practical. The panel recommended major reforms to the DHS 
approach to risk modeling, including expert, external peer 
review of risk models, integration of more sophisticated threat 
probabilities that simulate intelligent adversaries, and 
incorporation of a wider range of social, health, and economic 
variables into existing risk models. The panel also recommended 
DHS develop a strategic plan to improve employees' risk 
analysis skills across the Departmental components most 
affected by such products. The Committee directs NPPD to brief 
the Committee within 90 days of the date of enactment of this 
Act on its work to implement the results of the NAS study.

           Infrastructure Protection and Information Security

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2011.......................      $840,444,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.....................       936,485,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       891,243,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2011...................       +50,799,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.................       -45,242,000
                                MISSION

    Infrastructure Protection and Information Security (IPIS) 
works to reduce the vulnerability of the nation's critical 
infrastructure, key resources, information technology networks, 
and telecommunications systems to terrorist attacks and natural 
disasters. IPIS is also responsible for maintaining effective 
telecommunications for government users in national emergencies 
and for establishing policies and promoting solutions for 
interoperable communications at the Federal, State, and local 
level.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $891,243,000 for IPIS, $45,242,000 
below the amount requested and $50,799,000 above the amount 
provided in fiscal year 2011. The Committee does not support 
funding for the Acquisition Workforce Initiative. Additionally, 
the Committee recommends making these funds available for one 
year due to the lack of justification for two-year 
availability. After repeated inquiries by the Committee for 
justification of the requested two-year funds, the Department 
failed to provide adequate justification for the continued 
practice for even a portion of the funds. Based on a review of 
the proposed budget, it is apparent that a significant portion 
of the funding requested supports operation- and sustainment-
type activities that do not warrant two-year obligation 
availabilities. Further reductions are included due to low 
execution and lack of justification for the proposed increases.
    At the request of the Directorate, the Committee has 
reorganized the budget display for the Cyber Security and 
Communications and the Office of Infrastructure Protection 
programs to reflect more appropriate programmatic groupings of 
the activities funded in those areas. The Committee recommends 
further subdivision of each of these categories into additional 
PPA's based on details provided in the budget addendum in order 
to provide an additional level of oversight. The Committee 
contends that this level of oversight is required for programs 
of such national importance.
    A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee 
recommended level, organized in the new budget activity 
structure, is as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Amended
                                                                      Request         request     Recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Infrastructure Protection and Information Security:
    Infrastructure Protection:
        Identification and Analysis.............................     $83,948,000  ..............  ..............
        Coordination and Information Sharing....................      48,354,000  ..............  ..............
        Mitigation Programs.....................................     189,977,000  ..............  ..............
    Infrastructure Analysis & Planning:
        Vulnerability Assessments...............................  ..............  ..............     $21,268,000
        Infrastructure Sector Analysis..........................  ..............  ..............      26,693,000
        Bombing Prevention......................................  ..............  ..............      13,551,000
        Incident Planning and Exercises.........................  ..............  ..............      10,006,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
            Subtotal, Infrastructure Analysis & Planning........  ..............      74,518,000      71,518,000
                                                                 ===============================================
    Sector Management & Governance:
        NIPP Management.........................................  ..............  ..............      10,334,000
        SSA Management..........................................  ..............  ..............      22,732,000
        Management, Planning & Administration...................  ..............  ..............       7,326,000
        MPA Facilities..........................................  ..............  ..............      10,666,000
        Critical Infrastructure Technology & Architecture.......  ..............  ..............      30,487,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
            Subtotal, Sector Management & Governance............  ..............      87,045,000      81,545,000
                                                                 ===============================================
    Regional Field Operations:
        National Infrastructure Coordinating Center (NICC)......  ..............  ..............      13,341,000
        Protective Security Advisors............................  ..............  ..............      25,499,000
        Partnerships and Information Sharing....................  ..............  ..............      18,527,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
            Subtotal, Regional Field Operations.................  ..............      61,367,000      57,367,000
                                                                 ===============================================
    Infrastructure Security Compliance..........................  ..............      99,348,000      91,848,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Total, Infrastructure Protection........................     322,279,000     322,279,000     302,278,000
                                                                 ===============================================
National Computer Security Division:
    US Computer Incident Response Team (US-CERT)................     391,406,000  ..............  ..............
    Strategic Initiatives.......................................      65,339,000  ..............  ..............
    Outreach and Programs.......................................       7,096,000  ..............  ..............
    Cybersecurity Coordination..................................  ..............       5,000,000       4,000,000
    US-CERT Operations
        Mission Management......................................  ..............  ..............      23,612,000
        Business, Performance & Planning........................  ..............  ..............       3,980,000
        Analysis................................................  ..............  ..............      27,175,000
        Cyber Mission Integration...............................  ..............  ..............       1,253,000
        Detection...............................................  ..............  ..............      23,096,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
            Subtotal, US-CERT Operations........................  ..............      81,114,000      79,116,000
                                                                 ===============================================
    Federal Network Security:
        Requirement and Acquisition Support.....................  ..............  ..............       3,021,000
        Network & Infrastructure Security (TIC).................  ..............  ..............       6,036,000
        Compliance & Assurance..................................  ..............  ..............      14,668,000
        Security Management.....................................  ..............  ..............       1,542,000
        FISMA Enterprise Performance............................  ..............  ..............       3,657,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
            Subtotal, Federal Network Security..................  ..............      35,050,000      28,924,000
                                                                 ===============================================
    Network Security Deployment:
        Systems Engineering & Integration.......................  ..............  ..............      24,932,000
        Deployment, Logistics, & Sustainment....................  ..............  ..............     138,677,000
        Program Management & Acquisition........................  ..............  ..............      37,792,000
        Business, Investment & Budget...........................  ..............  ..............      27,700,000
        Data Center Migration...................................  ..............  ..............               0
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
            Subtotal, Network Security Deployment...............  ..............     233,602,000     229,101,000
                                                                 ===============================================
    Global Cyber Security Management:
        Cyber Education.........................................  ..............  ..............      14,876,000
        Software Assurance......................................  ..............  ..............       2,147,000
        Research & Standards Integration........................  ..............  ..............       2,225,000
        Supply Chain Risk Management............................  ..............  ..............       5,279,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
            Subtotal, Global Cyber Security Management..........  ..............      24,527,000      24,527,000
                                                                 ===============================================
    Critical Infrastructure Cyber Protection & Awareness:
        Control Systems Security................................  ..............  ..............      28,927,000
        CIP-Cyber Security......................................  ..............  ..............      12,901,000
        Outreach & Awareness....................................  ..............  ..............       8,012,000
        Cyber Exercises.........................................  ..............  ..............      11,524,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
            Subtotal, Critical Infrastructure Cyber Protection &  ..............      61,364,000      61,364,000
             Awareness..........................................
                                                                 ===============================================
    Business Operations:
        Business Operations.....................................  ..............  ..............       5,467,000
        Facilities..............................................  ..............  ..............       6,101,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
            Subtotal, Business Operations.......................  ..............      11,500,000      11,568,000
                                                                 ===============================================
    Subtotal, NCSD..............................................     463,841,000     463,841,000     438,600,000
                                                                 ===============================================
    Office of Emergency Communications..........................      43,495,000      43,495,000      43,495,000    National Security/Emergency Preparedness Telecommunications:
        Priority Telecommunications.............................      56,824,000  ..............      56,824,000
        Next Generation Networks................................      25,253,000  ..............      25,253,000
        Programs to Study and Enhance Telecommunications........      13,441,000  ..............      13,441,000
        Critical Infrastructure Protection......................      11,352,000  ..............      11,352,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
            Subtotal, NS/EP.....................................     106,870,000     106,870,000     106,870,000
                                                                 ===============================================
                Total, Infrastructure Protection and Information    $936,485,000    $936,485,000    $891,243,000
                 Security.......................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  OFFICE OF INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION

    The Committee provides $302,278,000 for Infrastructure 
Protection, $20,001,000 below the request for fiscal year 2012 
and $20,819,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2011. 
These decreases are due to significant unobligated balances 
within Infrastructure Protection programs. In addition to 
failing to obligate $27,959,664 of the funds provided in fiscal 
year 2010, Infrastructure Protection had only obligated 
$36,417,826 of the $323,037,000 available for obligation in 
fiscal year 2011 as of the end of March, 2011, or only 11 
percent of their funds through the first half of the fiscal 
year. This low execution rate for such a critical mission is 
unacceptable.

                   INHERENTLY SAFER TECHNOLOGY (IST)

    The Committee directs the Department of Homeland Security 
to study and report the findings of the impact of inherently 
safer technology (IST) requirements on chemical facilities 
under the purview of the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism 
Standards (CFATS) program. The report shall detail the 
Department's definition of IST; the cost to the Department to 
implement and oversee statutory or regulatory requirements; and 
the financial and economic cost to facilities required to 
implement such requirements. Finally, the report shall include 
findings detailing unintended consequences of implementing IST 
related to security and effects on other Federal agencies.

    CHEMICAL FACILITY ANTI-TERRORISM STANDARDS AND AMMONIUM NITRATE

    Public Law 109-295 authorized DHS to regulate security at 
high-risk chemical plants and other locations that maintain 
large quantities of potentially dangerous chemicals. Further 
authority to regulate the sale or transfer of ammonium nitrate 
fertilizer was granted to DHS in the Public Law 109-329. Since 
that time, DHS has established a robust screening and 
inspection program for facilities covered under the 2007 law, 
but the Department has made less progress carrying out its 
regulatory responsibilities for ammonium nitrate products. The 
Committee directs NPPD to expedite publication of its Final 
Rule for ammonium nitrate regulations and provide an immediate 
briefing on the anticipated timeline for full implementation of 
the program.

                             CYBER SECURITY

    The Committee provides $438,600,000 for the National Cyber 
Security Division (NCSD), $25,241,000 below the amount 
requested and $75,547,000 above the amount provided in fiscal 
year 2011, based on the reconfigured Cyber Security budget 
structure recommended by the Committee. The Committee denies 
the requested technical adjustment to transfer the National 
Computer Forensic Institute to the Federal Law Enforcement 
Training Center and directs NPPD to sustain the current program 
within NCSD. Reductions to the DHS cyber security program are 
attributable to the continued inability of the NCSD to obligate 
fully the funds provided by Congress and the failure to fully 
justify the requested funds. In fiscal year 2010, NCSD carried 
over $129,592,000 of the funds, or 32.6 percent, provided for 
fiscal year 2010. Further, as of the end of March, the program 
has only obligated slightly more than $59,000,000 of the over 
$350,000,000 available for obligation in fiscal year 2011. This 
continual history of failing to fully obligate funds in the 
year they are provided is concerning, particularly for such a 
critical mission.
    Additionally, a proviso has been included directing the 
Secretary to develop a multi-year investment and management 
plan for the National Cybersecurity Protection System also 
known as EINSTEIN that provides the current and proposed 
acquisition, deployment and operation, and sustainment plans 
for the system. EINSTEIN is the Department's integrated 
intrusion detection and prevention system that supports the 
Department's responsibilities under the Comprehensive National 
Cybersecurity Initiative. With the threat to our Nation's cyber 
infrastructure growing every day, the acquisition and 
deployment of EINSTEIN cannot fail. The development of a 
thorough investment and management plan allows the Committee 
the level of detail required to ensure that the Department has 
adequately planned, programmed, and budgeted for such a 
significant and vital acquisition.

                        CONTROL SYSTEMS SECURITY

    The Committee provides $28,927,000 for the Control Systems 
Security Program, as requested. The Committee is aware of 
promising efforts to develop manufacturing standards, 
guidelines, and compliance procedures for industrial automation 
and control systems. Integrating agreed-upon industry standards 
into industrial automation and control systems promises a much 
higher likelihood of successfully countering cyber 
vulnerabilities. Since the development of these standards is 
projected to take up to 10 years, the Committee encourages DHS, 
in conjunction with industry partners, to accelerate the 
development timeline for control system security standards and 
to brief the Committee within 60 days of the date of enactment 
of this Act on its plans to meet this directive.

                       Federal Protective Service

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2011.......................    $1,115,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.....................     1,261,537,000
Recommended in the bill...............................     1,261,537,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2011...................      +146,537,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.................               ---
                                MISSION

    The Federal Protective Service (FPS) is responsible for the 
protection of federally owned and leased buildings and 
properties, particularly those under the charge and control of 
the General Services Administration (GSA). Funding for FPS is 
provided through a security fee charged to all GSA building 
tenants in FPS-protected buildings. FPS has three major law 
enforcement initiatives: Protection Services to all Federal 
facilities throughout the United States and its territories; 
expanded intelligence and anti-terrorism capabilities; and 
Special Programs, including weapons of mass destruction 
detection, hazardous material detection and response, and 
canine programs.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $1,261,537,000 for FPS, the same 
as the amount requested and $146,537,000 above the amount 
provided in fiscal year 2011. All of these expenditures will be 
paid by fees collected from FPS customer agencies.

    United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2011.......................      $334,613,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.....................       302,271,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       297,402,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2011...................       -37,211,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.................        -4,869,000
                                MISSION

    The mission of the United States Visitor and Immigrant 
Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) program is to enhance 
the security of U.S. citizens and visitors; facilitate 
legitimate travel and trade; ensure the integrity of the 
immigration system; and improve and standardize the processes, 
policies, and systems utilized to collect information on 
foreign nationals who apply for visas at an embassy or 
consulate overseas, attempt to enter the country at established 
ports of entry, request benefits such as change of status or 
adjustment of status, or depart the United States. US-VISIT 
provides biometric services across the Department and more 
broadly to law enforcement, other agencies, and foreign 
partners through the automated Biometric Identification System.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $297,402,000 for US-VISIT, as 
requested, though the Committee does not support funding for 
the Acquisition Workforce Initiative or ``US-VISIT 1.0''. The 
Committee includes: $107,976,000 for Business Support Services; 
$128,126,000 for Operations and Maintenance; $32,600,000 for 
Identity Management and Screening Services; and $28,700,000 for 
Unique Identity/Interoperability. The Committee is concerned 
that the request for US-VISIT 1.0 is duplicative of system 
engineering activities under Business Support Services and 
other efforts US-VISIT has undertaken in recent years. While 
the Committee supports IDENT modernization activities, the 
request for US-VISIT 1.0 is further study rather than actual 
enhancements.
    Additionally, the Committee notes that the President's 
budget request assumed administrative savings and technical 
adjustments of $29,139,000. While these proposed cuts are not 
well-defined, the Committee believes the funding level is 
appropriate for US-VISIT's operational budget. Any further cuts 
without detailed explanation would cause concerns about US-
VISIT's ability to provide critical biometric support services 
to its stakeholders in essential operations.

                   CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET JUSTIFICATION

    In fiscal year 2012, the Committee continues the 
requirement for an expenditure plan consistent with prior 
years. With the delivery of the fiscal year 2013 budget 
request, the Committee directs the Secretary to submit a budget 
that fully justifies changes from the prior year, current year, 
and any changes for new initiatives in order to describe and 
fully justify the request for US-VISIT.
    In addition, the bill includes a requirement for a multi-
year investment and management plan to be provided at the time 
of the President's budget submission and updated on an annual 
basis to fully justify requested funds for US-VISIT as well as 
project future year requirements and funding levels for 
projects that cross multiple years. The requirement for better 
justification at time of request not only instills more 
discipline in planning processes and enables more effective 
oversight but also eliminates the need for expenditure plans 
and withholding of funds well into the fiscal year of budget 
execution. US-VISIT, in conjunction with the Chief Financial 
Officer, is encouraged to work with the Committee in developing 
new materials for the Congressional Budget Justifications.

                 COMPREHENSIVE BIOMETRIC EXIT SOLUTION

    Since 2007, this Committee has asked the Department to take 
a realistic approach to implementing an exit solution, and, if 
a decision is made to proceed, to provide a strategy and five-
year implementation plan. At this time, US-VISIT has a balance 
of approximately $25,000,000 in prior year funding to devote to 
planning, designing, and implementing an exit solution. 
However, no plan has been submitted, and while two relatively 
brief and narrowly structured pilot programs for air exit were 
conducted in 2009 with results provided to the Committees, no 
action has been taken to modify or implement the proposed rule 
for air exit. Furthermore, the President's budget request for 
fiscal year 2012 proposed to allocate $24,358,000 to eliminate 
the overstay data analysis backlog rather than hold funds for 
biometric air exit.
    The Committee understands that the obstacles to consensus 
on an exit solution are not primarily technical, though cost 
and design are major factors. The greatest hindrance to 
progress on an exit solution is the lack of a coherent, 
comprehensive policy on the issue, which has been languishing 
within the Department. It is not for lack of ideas by US-VISIT, 
which continues to work on options to compensate for the lack 
of a biometric exit. It is also not for lack of legislative 
direction, which is provided by the 9/11 Act mandate for a 
biometric system to be implemented before visa requirements can 
be waived for additional countries. It is due to a lack of 
leadership by the Department to either provide a plan or 
propose statutory changes. Therefore, the Committee has 
restricted funds within Office of the Secretary and Executive 
Management until the Secretary has made a decision on the path 
for biometric air exit and the Department has briefed the 
Committee on this decision.
    As noted in previous reports, the Committee recognizes the 
actions being taken by CBP and others that could facilitate 
exit solutions, such as the extension of Electronic System for 
Travel Authorization information as a substitute for the paper-
based I-94 entry form; major renovations underway at ports of 
entry, to include expanded outbound inspection infrastructure 
and processes; proposals to incorporate trusted traveler 
concepts and biometrics into aviation screening by the 
Transportation Security Administration; and activities by 
airlines to incorporate personal electronic devices and 
biometrics into the check-in and boarding process. Each of 
these presents opportunities for incorporating exit data 
collection--including biometric data--into the outbound and 
departure processes.
    The Committee directs US-VISIT to continue providing 
quarterly briefings on its biometric exit planning, to include 
data sharing with Canada and Mexico, as well as any plans for 
incorporating exit considerations in the redesign of ports of 
entry and outbound inspection operations now underway. However, 
without a plan for action on exit, and given that the remaining 
balances are too low to actually implement an exit solution, 
the Committee finds it difficult to support maintenance of a 
balance that could be applied to eliminate the backlog of 
potential overstays, thereby enhancing biographic exit data.
    The Committee therefore concurs with the proposal in the 
President's budget request to apply the remaining balance of 
funds for biometric air exit to eliminating the overstay 
analysis backlog. The Committee directs US-VISIT to brief the 
Committee not later than October 1, 2011, on its plan to 
eliminate the backlog of ``unvetted'' overstay records.
    Through the Arrival and Departure Information System 
(ADIS), US-VISIT matches traveler departures with arrivals to 
ascertain compliance. The records within ADIS that do not 
include a departure form the basis for US-VISIT's analysis of 
potential overstays and eventual referral to ICE for further 
analysis and investigation. Optimizing ADIS for overstay 
identification should be the primary focus for investments into 
ADIS. The Committee directs US-VISIT to maintain its focus for 
the use of ADIS on overstay identification and reporting, 
particularly while a backlog of overstay analysis exists.

                       BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES

    The budget request includes $107,976,000 for Business 
Support Services. The budget assumes a savings of $10,179,000 
as a result of converting 200 contractor positions to full-time 
Federal employees by the end of fiscal year 2011. The Committee 
directs US-VISIT to continue its quarterly briefings on its 
hiring and staffing progress to ensure that the conversions 
stay on track.

                       OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

    The Committee includes $128,126,000 for Operations and 
Maintenance. IDENT supports absolutely essential services to 
the immigration and border management enterprise, managing the 
needs of partner agencies across the Department, other Federal 
agencies, State and local law enforcement, and international 
partners. The Committee encourages US-VISIT to continue efforts 
to reduce operating costs of the IDENT infrastructure, while 
ensuring that operations are supported. However, the Committee 
cannot support the $4,869,000 increase requested, as it seems 
to support further study rather than actual enhancements. The 
Committee expects that the US-VISIT multi-year investment and 
management plan will outline the projected funds needed for 
system modernization.

               IDENTITY MANAGEMENT AND SCREENING SERVICES

    The Committee includes $32,600,000 for Identity Management 
and Screening Services, as requested, including a $1,600,000 
increase to ensure that the Data Integrity Group (DIG) is able 
to manage the current workload of overstay records. This 
funding supports the Biometric Support Center, DIG, 
intelligence and law enforcement analysis support, and 
information and technical support for biometric cooperation 
with partner countries. The workload continues to increase for 
these operations, while requested funding levels have seen only 
slight increases. However, as the budget request states that 
US-VISIT will maintain current service levels to stakeholders, 
the Committee expects US-VISIT to sustain that service level. 
The Committee therefore directs US-VISIT to provide quarterly 
briefings on its workload and service levels, including any 
backlogs that may result from an influx of transactions or new 
users.

                            UNIQUE IDENTITY

    The Unique Identity program was established to collect 10-
print biometric information from travelers to the United 
States; share and compare biometric information collected and 
held by the Department of Justice in the Integrated Automated 
Fingerprint Identification System, as well as other law 
enforcement agencies; and enhance multi-modal capabilities in 
IDENT for all users. In the past three years, the Department of 
Defense has become an increasingly significant partner in this 
effort. The Department of State continues to support the 
interagency effort as well.
    The Committee is pleased with the excellent coordination 
and cooperation among Federal agencies in enhancing 
interoperability, accelerating the response times, and sharing 
biometric information for national security and law enforcement 
purposes.
    The Committee therefore includes $28,700,000 for Unique 
Identity. The Committee directs US-VISIT and its counterparts 
at the Justice, State, and Defense Departments to continue 
providing quarterly briefings on the progress in implementing 
system interoperability, operational impacts resulting from 
remaining gaps, and steps being taken to close such gaps.

                     FACIAL RECOGNITION CAPABILITY

    In US-VISIT's efforts to incorporate multi-modal biometrics 
into IDENT, the Committee encourages continued review of 
operational applications for the millions of facial images in 
IDENT. As part of US-VISIT's next quarterly briefing, US-VISIT 
is directed to brief the Committee on the number of records 
within IDENT that do not include fingerprint data and the uses 
of facial images in stakeholder operations.

                        Office of Health Affairs

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2011.......................      $139,734,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.....................       160,949,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       165,949,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2011...................       +26,215,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.................        +5,000,000
                                MISSION

    The Office of Health Affairs (OHA) serves as the Department 
of Homeland Security's principal agent for all medical and 
public health matters. Working across Federal, State, local, 
tribal, and territorial governments and with the private 
sector, OHA has the lead DHS role in the establishment of a 
scientifically rigorous, intelligence-based, medical and 
biodefense architecture that ensures the health and medical 
security of our Nation.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $165,949,000 for OHA, $5,000,000 
above the amount requested. The Committee commends OHA for 
requesting a significant portion of their funding as one-year 
funds with only $45,615,000 requested as two-year funds but 
notes that the request for two-year availability should contain 
detailed justification for the two-year requirement.

                       BIOSURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES

    The Committee recommends $115,164,000 for the BioWatch 
program, the same as the amount requested. The Committee 
continues to require OHA to notify the Committee 15 days prior 
to deploying any BioWatch device to a new location.
    In the National Academies of Sciences' recent evaluation of 
BioWatch and the public health surveillance systems, the NAS 
found that a network of sensors in strategic locations offered 
potential advantages in terms of the early detection of 
airborne agents, but BioWatch's current methods of testing and 
evaluation needed improvement. Moreover, a system of this sort 
has inherent limitations, both in geographical reach and the 
range of agents it might be programmed to detect. The Committee 
recognizes that OHA has responded to some of the 
recommendations of the NAS report as they pertain to the 
development of the Generation 3 technology. The NAS report also 
stated that BioWatch would need to be complemented by improved 
intake and analysis of data through the public health system, 
which is inherently broader and more flexible than BioWatch's 
system of detection. Therefore, the Committee has included an 
increase to OHA's National Biosurveillance Integration System 
to diversify DHS's biosurveillance capabilities and to provide 
BioWatch with contextual data and signals to better understand 
its alerts. Moreover, OHA should continue to invest in robust 
biosurveillance systems which incorporate Federal, State, and 
local partners and integrate data from a variety of health, 
food, social, environmental, and animal sources to provide 
early outbreak detection and improved situational awareness of 
health events.

              NATIONAL BIOSURVEILLANCE INTEGRATION CENTER

    The Committee recommends $7,024,000 for the National 
BioSurveillance Integration Center (NBIC), the same as the 
amount requested. The Committee remains concerned with the 
progress of the NBIC in defining its goals and objectives, 
implementing its mission, and demonstrating its value to the 
wider biosurveillance community of Federal partners. While the 
Committee believes a central location for the integration of 
biosurveillance information and analysis is important, the 
Department has not proven its ability to carry out this 
objective. The Committee understands that OHA plans to move 
forward with a new vision for the NBIC but remains concerned 
that this vision is vague and undefined. The Committee expects 
that OHA will either communicate a well-formulated strategic 
plan--complete with milestones--for attaining a fully 
functional integration center not later than the date on which 
the fiscal year 2013 budget request is submitted to Congress, 
or that the Department will no longer request funding for this 
activity.

                        CHEMICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM

    The Committee recommends $2,439,000 for the Chemical 
Defense Program, the same as the amount requested.

                       PLANNING AND COORDINATION

    The Committee recommends $6,162,000 for planning and 
coordination activities, the same as the amount requested and 
$2,436,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2011. From 
within these funds, the Committee recommends $2,200,000 for 
programs that address the wellness and resiliency of the DHS 
workforce. These funds will allow for the planning, production, 
and distribution of training and information focused on 
workforce health and medical support throughout the Department.

                  Federal Emergency Management Agency


                     Management and Administration

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2011\1\\2\.................    $1,070,311,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012\3\..................     1,000,099,000
Recommended in the bill\1\\4\.........................       982,898,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2011...................       -87,413,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.................      -17,201,000\1\The fiscal year 2011 bill and the fiscal year 2012 recommendation
  include an additional $105,600,000 through a transfer from the
  Disaster Relief Fund.
\2\The fiscal year 2011 bill includes $176,311,000 through a transfer
  from State and Local Programs.
\3\The fiscal year 2012 request includes $185,000,000 through a transfer
  from State and Local Programs and Assistance to Firefighter programs.
\4\The fiscal year 2012 recommendation includes $170,000,000 through a
  transfer from State and Local Programs, Assistance to Firefighters and
  Emergency Management Performance Grants.

                                MISSION

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) manages and 
coordinates the Federal response to major domestic disasters 
and emergencies of all types in accordance with the Robert T. 
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. It 
supports the effectiveness of emergency response providers at 
all levels of government in responding to terrorist attacks, 
major disasters, and other emergencies. FEMA also administers 
public assistance and hazard mitigation programs to prevent or 
reduce the risk to life and property from floods and other 
hazards. Finally, FEMA leads all Federal incident management 
preparedness and response planning through a comprehensive 
National Incident Management System that involves Federal, 
State, tribal, and local government personnel, agencies, and 
regional authorities.
    FEMA provides for the development and maintenance of an 
integrated, nationwide capability to prepare for, mitigate 
against, respond to, and recover from the consequences of major 
disasters and emergencies of all types in partnership with 
other Federal agencies, State, local and tribal governments, 
volunteer organizations, and the private sector. Management and 
Administration supports all of FEMA's programs by coordinating 
all policy, managerial, resource, and administrative actions 
between headquarters and regional offices.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $982,898,000 for Management and 
Administration, $17,201,000 below the amount requested and 
$87,413,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2011, of 
which $3,000,000 is for unfunded maintenance and capital 
improvements at national training centers. The recommendation 
includes a decrease of $7,200,000 for data migration and a 
direct appropriation increase of $5,000,000 to offset 
reductions in the requested amount transferred from grant 
programs. This recommendation includes a transfer of 
$105,600,000 from the Disaster Relief Fund, consistent with 
previous years. In addition, the bill transfers 10 percent of 
the funding provided to State and Local Grants, Firefighter 
Assistance Grants, and Emergency Management Performance Grants 
to this account for the administrative functions related to 
these programs. Similar transfers have occurred in previous 
years.
    The Committee takes seriously its responsibility to provide 
FEMA with the support the agency needs to fulfill its mission. 
This commitment to a strong FEMA is evident in part through the 
appropriations provided over the last few fiscal years. In 
fact, funding for management and administrative functions has 
more than doubled since fiscal year 2006. The Committee 
believes, however, that with this growth in funding, 
transparency into the workings of the agency has diminished. It 
is for this reason that the Committee directs FEMA to provide 
an expenditure plan for fiscal year 2012, by office and 
including staffing data, for the Management and Administration 
account within 60 days of the date of enactment of this Act. 
FEMA shall provide a quarterly report detailing obligations 
against the expenditure plan and a justification for any 
changes in spending. Furthermore, language has been included 
that directs FEMA to include the same plan for fiscal year 2013 
with the delivery of the budget.
    The Committee is aware that there are limitations after 
major disasters when reaching out to rural areas. The Committee 
strongly encourages FEMA to work with rural communities and 
have plans for timely outreach to rural communities after 
disasters.

                      CONGRESSIONAL JUSTIFICATION

    The Committee continues bill language requiring FEMA to 
submit its fiscal year 2013 budget request by office. The 
Committee is pleased that this year's budget submission 
provided fiscal year 2012 budget request levels for many 
priority programs. For the fiscal year 2013 budget submission, 
the Committee directs FEMA to continue to provide the same 
level of budget information for programs and activities 
identified in the fiscal year 2012 budget request.

                     FEMA CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICE

    The Committee recommends $96,274,000 for the office of the 
Chief Information Officer, the same as the amount requested. 
While the Committee commends the CIO for the gains they have 
made in the transformation of information technology (IT) 
programs at FEMA, concern remains about the amount of work yet 
to be accomplished. In a recent audit by the Department's 
Office of Inspector General, the Chief Information Officer for 
FEMA was cited for lacking control over the agency's IT 
structure and modernization of programs. Included in the audit 
were the following recommendations:
    1. Develop a comprehensive IT strategic plan with clearly 
defined goals and objectives to support program IT initiatives.
    2. Complete and implement a FEMA-enterprise architecture to 
establish technical standards and guidelines for systems 
acquisitions and investment decisions.
    3. Establish and maintain a complete, comprehensive 
enterprise IT systems inventory.
    4. Establish an agency-wide IT budget planning process to 
include all FEMA program technology initiatives and 
requirements.
    5. Obtain agency-wide IT investment review authority to 
ensure that all IT initiatives and systems development efforts 
align with FEMA's mission.
    6. Establish a consolidated modernization approach for 
FEMA's mission-critical IT systems, to include DHS plans for 
integrated asset management, financial, and acquisition 
solutions.
    The Committee directs the Administrator to provide a 
briefing to the Committee within 30 days of the date of 
enactment of this Act on the corrective procedures underway to 
address the Inspector General's recommendations.

                        NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION

    The Committee provides $5,493,000 for the Office of 
National Capital Region Coordination, the same amount as 
requested and $1,502,000 below the amount provided in fiscal 
year 2011.

               MOUNT WEATHER EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER

    The Committee recommends $5,863,000 for the Mount Weather 
Emergency Operations Center facility, $6,137,000 below the 
amount requested. The Committee recommends a reduction from the 
request due to concerns over the lack of execution of funds. 
The funds available for obligation in fiscal year 2011 include 
$91,669,816 from prior year appropriations after only 
obligating $9,116,445 in fiscal year 2010. The Committee 
understands that managerial changes have been made and that 
FEMA plans to execute funds more rapidly in fiscal year 2011, 
but based on the current execution reports, this has yet to 
occur. The Committee requests FEMA keep it apprised of any 
changes to the plan and progress in its implementation.

                     EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE

    The Committee recommends $9,000,000 for the Emergency 
Management Institute (EMI), the same as the amount requested 
and the amount provided in fiscal year 2011. EMI provides 
training to Federal, State, local, tribal, public, and private 
sector officials to strengthen emergency management core 
competencies. The Committee again requires FEMA to clearly show 
the amount requested for EMI in the budget justification in 
future years.

                        URBAN SEARCH AND RESCUE

    The Committee recommends $35,250,000 for Urban Search and 
Rescue (US&R) from within the amount requested for Management 
and Administration, $6,137,000 above the amount requested and 
the same as the amount provided in fiscal year 2011. The 
Committee remains concerned with the readiness level of US&R 
teams and, therefore, recommends additional funding to ensure 
the teams are properly trained and equipped to respond to 
future disasters.

                        State and Local Programs


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2011.......................    $2,229,500,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012\1\..................     3,844,663,000
Recommended in the bill...............................     1,000,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2011...................    -1,229,500,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.................   -2,844,663,000\1\The Administration proposed moving Emergency Management Performance
  Grants and Firefighter Assistance Grants under State and Local
  Programs.

                                MISSION

    State and Local Programs help build and sustain the 
preparedness and response capabilities of the first responder 
community. These programs include support for various grant 
programs, training programs, planning activities, and technical 
assistance.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $1,000,000,000 for State and Local 
Programs, $2,844,663,000 below the amount requested and 
$1,229,500,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2011. 
These reductions are due to the persistent lack of quantifiable 
metrics that measure the additional capability that our Nation 
has gained for the billions that have been invested and the 
inability of programs to expend their funds in a timely manner. 
These concerns, combined with the inadequacy of the 
Department's request for a number of other programs, such as 
ignoring $4,900,000,000 in known disaster costs and 
$650,000,000 in offsets from aviation security and customs fee 
revenue that has not yet been authorized, force the Committee 
to make tough decision on all programs.
    Due to a historical pattern of poor execution and 
management, the Committee is recommending significant reform to 
the DHS grants process. For years, the Committee has asked 
question after question of the Department regarding grants and 
the returns the taxpayers are getting for the funds invested. 
Today, these questions remain largely unanswered. Therefore, 
the Committee is making three significant recommendations on 
first responder grants.
    First, the Committee recommends reorganizing the grant 
program to allow funds to be directed towards the highest need. 
In the wake of recent terrorist activity, this reorganization 
will allow the Secretary the discretion to apply limited funds 
to the programs that have the highest need based on the threat 
and risk. To address urban areas with the highest threat, the 
Committee has included language specifically limiting Urban 
Area Security Initiative funds to the top 10 highest risk urban 
areas.
    Second, the Committee has addressed the massive amounts of 
unexpended balances in programs. Based on the latest estimates, 
the Department currently has almost $13,000,000,000 in 
previously appropriated funds that remain unspent dating back 
to fiscal year 2005. This level of unexpended balances is 
unacceptable. To encourage a sense of urgency, the Committee 
includes a proviso directing the Administrator of the FEMA to 
submit within 60 days of the date enactment of this Act, a plan 
to expend all unexpended balances by the end of fiscal year 
2012 from funds appropriated prior to fiscal year 2008 under 
the heading ``State and Local Programs''.
    Third, the Committee has included language directing the 
submission of the National Preparedness Goal and National 
Preparedness System consistent with the directions within the 
recently signed Presidential Policy Directive--8. Funds have 
been fenced within the funding provided for the Office of the 
Secretary until information on these programs are provided to 
the Committee.
    As part of the budget request, the Administration proposed 
including the Firefighter Assistance Grants and Emergency 
Management Performance Grants under this program. The Committee 
has again denied this proposal and provides funding for both of 
these grant programs as separate appropriations, consistent 
with prior years. A comparison of the budget estimate to the 
Committee recommended level by budget activity is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget estimate      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State and Local Programs..........  .................       $807,337,000
Basic State Formula Grants........     $1,050,000,000
    Operation Stonegarden.........       [50,000,000]      [55,0000,000]
    REAL ID/Drivers' License        .................  .................
     Security Grants..............
    Citizen Corps.................  .................  .................
    Metropolitan Medical Response   .................  .................
     System.......................
Citizen Corps.....................         13,000,000  .................
Emergency Management Performance          350,000,000  .................
 Grants\1\........................
Firefighter Assistance Grants\1\..        670,000,000  .................
    Fire Grants...................      [265,000,000]  .................
    Staffing for Adequate Fire and      [405,000,000]  .................
     Emergency Response (SAFER)
     Grants.......................
Urban Area Security Initiative....        920,000,000  .................
Public Transportation Security            300,000,000  .................
 Assistance and Railroad Security
 Assistance.......................
    Intercity (Over the Road) Bus        [20,000,000]  .................
     Security Grants Amtrak.......
Port Security Grants..............        300,000,000  .................
Buffer Zone Protection Plan Grants         50,000,000  .................
National Programs:
    Center for Domestic                    62,500,000         62,500,000
     Preparedness.................
    National Domestic Preparedness         44,500,000         44,500,000
     Consortium...................
    Continuing Training Grants....         20,663,000         25,663,000
    Technical Assistance..........         10,000,000         10,000,000
    Evaluations and Assessments...         14,000,000         10,000,000
    National Exercise Program.....         40,000,000         40,000,000
                                   -------------------------------------
        Subtotal, National                191,663,000        192,663,000
         Programs.................
                                   =====================================
            Total, State and Local     $3,844,663,000    $1,000,000,000
             Programs.............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Funded in a separate account.

    In accordance with the 9/11 Act, at least 25 percent of 
SHSGP and Urban Area Security Initiative funds shall be used 
for Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention activities. Each State 
and Puerto Rico shall pass on no less than 80 percent of their 
grant funding to local units of government within 45 days of 
receiving the funds.
    Within the funds available, the Committee recommends 
$55,000,000 for Operation Stonegarden. All awards under 
Operation Stonegarden shall be made on a competitive basis to 
tribal governments and units of local government, including 
towns, cities, and counties along borders of the United States 
to enhance the coordination between local and Federal law 
enforcement agencies. Operation Stonegarden's eligible costs 
include, but shall not necessarily be limited to: overtime; 
vehicle maintenance; vehicle and equipment rental costs; 
reimbursement for mileage; fuel costs; equipment replacement 
costs; and travel costs for law enforcement entities assisting 
other local jurisdictions in law enforcement activities. The 
Committee directs that only CBP and FEMA make award decisions. 
No administrative costs shall be deducted from Operation 
Stonegarden award totals by States.
    Operation Stonegarden has been a successful program aimed 
at targeting resources to local law enforcement supporting 
Federal operations along the border. In order to continue to 
monitor the program's efficiency and ensure funding is being 
allocated to areas of greatest need and risk, the Committee 
requires FEMA and CBP undertake a thorough analysis using the 
most current data and brief the Committee on the information it 
will use to assess which areas are in greatest need of funding.
    The Committee includes bill language allowing the transfer 
of up to 10 percent of State and Local program dollars to 
FEMA's Management and Administration account for costs 
associated with administering grants and training programs. 
FEMA is required to submit an expenditure plan not later than 
60 days after the date of enactment of this Act on the use of 
the administrative funds. In the judgment of the Committee, the 
fiscal year 2010 expenditure plan included items that may not 
be directly associated with the management and administration 
of these programs. The Committee strongly cautions FEMA to 
adhere to the intent of this funding.
    The Committee is aware that previous grant guidance 
conflicts with the 9/11 Act by further limiting the amount of 
funds that can be used to pay the salaries and expenses for 
intelligence analysts. The Committee directs FEMA to fully 
comply with the 9/11 Act.
    The Committee continues bill language mandating timeframes 
for the application process of certain grants to ensure that 
funds do not languish at DHS.
    For the purposes of determining eligibility for funds, any 
county, city, village, town, district, borough, parish, port 
authority, transit authority, intercity rail provider, commuter 
rail system, freight rail provider, water district, regional 
planning commission, council of government, Indian tribe with 
jurisdiction over Indian country, authorized tribal 
organization, Alaskan Native village, independent authority, 
special district, or other political subdivision of any State 
shall constitute a ``local unit of government''.
    The Committee includes a general provision requiring FEMA 
to brief the Committee five days prior to any announcement of 
State and local grants awards. Such briefings shall include 
detailed information on the risk analysis employed, the process 
for determining effectiveness, the process or formula used for 
selecting grantees, and any changes to methodologies used in 
the previous fiscal year.
    The Committee is aware of the changes that DHS and FEMA 
have implemented in fiscal year 2011 with regards to the risk 
formulas for the State Homeland Security Program and Urban Area 
Security Initiative. The new formulas introduce new criteria 
that has significantly impacted risk scoring of numerous State 
and urban areas. The Department is encouraged to consider prior 
acts of terrorism such as the attack on the Alfred P. Murrah 
Building Federal Building and recent domestic plots and 
homegrown threats when refining the risk formulas. Further, the 
Committee directs the Department to brief the Committee on the 
method use to develop the current formula within 30 days of the 
date of enactment of this Act.
    Lastly, The Committee directs the Administrator of the FEMA 
to publish on the Agency's website, on a biannual basis, a 
summary of the quarterly financial status reports that grantees 
are required to submit to the Agency. The summary shall, at a 
minimum, include for each grant the name of the grantee; a 
brief description of the project carried out with the grant; 
the percentage of such project that is completed; and other 
relevant information at the discretion of the Director.

                          MEASURING CAPABILITY

    A continuing concern of this Committee has been the 
Department's failure to assess capabilities and identify gaps 
within the Nation's preparedness systems. These concerns are 
not new and are shared by others, including the Department's 
own Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office. 
Since 9/11, Congress has appropriated almost $38,000,000,000 
for grants to enhance the capability of State, territory, local 
and tribal governments to prepare for, prevent, respond to, and 
recover from disasters. However, there is currently no 
comprehensive, objective assessment of national capability 
developed with this funding or the gaps that remain between 
current capability and documented requirements.
    Dating back to the 2003 signing of Homeland Security 
Presidential Directive-8, DHS and FEMA have been directed to 
establish a national, all-hazard preparedness goal to include 
action to strengthen preparedness capabilities. Later, in the 
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007, 
Congress included further reform directing DHS and FEMA to 
develop a national preparedness goal and a national 
preparedness system with clear and quantifiable performance 
metrics, measures, and outcomes. These were to include 
capability levels at the time of assessment against target 
capability levels and the resource needs to meet the desired 
levels. Three years later, Congress again addressed national 
preparedness in the Department of Homeland Security 
Appropriations Act, 2010, directing the creation of a Local, 
State, Tribal and Federal Preparedness Task Force and specified 
that the Task Force expressly address the most appropriate way 
to collectively assess our capabilities and our capability 
gaps. More recently on March 31, 2011, the President issued a 
new Presidential Policy Directive addressing National 
Preparedness.
    However, even with all these efforts, the Department and 
FEMA have failed to develop a valid system to measure national 
preparedness. Even though the taxpayers have invested almost 
$38,000,000,000 in a multitude of grant programs, the 
Department is unable to assess to what degree the Nation's 
preparedness has been improved. When pressured by Congress, the 
Department replies with excuses and plans for new studies that 
thus far have failed to measure any level of preparedness. 
Today, our Nation's fiscal crisis compels the Committee to 
discontinue robust funding for programs that do not have 
quantifiable metrics.
    In a recent report, GAO raised concerns over grants and the 
lack of assessment capabilities. GAO suggested that Congress 
consider limiting funding until FEMA completes an assessment of 
capability gaps, which should identify the potential cost for 
establishing and maintaining those capabilities. The report 
further notes that Congress could limit the use of Federal 
preparedness grant programs to fund only projects that support 
the development of identified, validated, and documented 
capability gaps.
    The Committee concurs with the findings of the GAO and is 
recommending substantially reduced levels for the various grant 
programs due to continued concerns with the lack of metrics. 
The Committee can no longer fund these programs at such high 
levels without knowing the results in improved preparedness.
    As noted in March, the President signed Presidential Policy 
Directive-8 (PDD-8), which includes many of the same directives 
previously issued. The Committee hopes this will place renewed 
focus on national preparedness. Similar to the Post-Katrina 
Emergency Management Reform Act, the new PDD-8 directs the 
Secretary of Homeland Security to develop a National 
Preparedness Goal and a National Preparedness System. The PDD 
also directs the Department to have a comprehensive approach to 
measuring capabilities to include clear, objective, and 
quantifiable performance measures against the target capability 
levels indentified by the national preparedness goals. PDD-8 
directs the Department to submit to the President the National 
Preparedness Goal within 180 days and National Preparedness 
System within 240 days of the President signing the directive.
    The Committee commends the President for directing DHS and 
FEMA to measure capabilities with quantifiable metrics. The 
Committee directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to brief 
the Committee within 15 days after the Department's submission 
to the President of the National Preparedness Goal and the 
National Preparedness System to include information on 
timelines and budgetary impacts.
    As outlined in PDD-8, the brief on the National 
Preparedness Goal shall include the risks of specific threats 
and the associated vulnerabilities--taking into account 
regional variations--and include concrete, measurable, and 
prioritized objectives to mitigate risk. It shall define the 
core capabilities necessary to prepare for the specific types 
of incidents that pose the greatest risk to the security of the 
Nation and shall emphasize actions aimed at achieving an 
integrated and layered approach.
    Consistent with PDD-8, the brief on the National 
Preparedness System shall include the guidance for planning, 
organization, equipment, training, and exercises to build and 
maintain domestic capabilities; the corresponding resource and 
equipment guidance; and the methodology used to develop the 
target capability levels and comprehensive approach to assess 
national preparedness that uses consistent methodology to 
measure the operational readiness of national capabilities at 
the time of assessment, with clear quantifiable performance 
measures, against the target capability levels identified in 
the National Preparedness Goal.
    To further emphasize the importance of these requirements, 
funds within the Office of the Secretary and Executive 
Management have been restricted until the Committee has been 
fully briefed on both the National Preparedness Goal and the 
National Preparedness System.

                           NATIONAL PROGRAMS

    The Committee recommends $192,663,000 for National 
Programs, $1,000,000 above the amount requested and $56,837,000 
below the amount provided in fiscal year 2011. The Committee is 
aware of the unique capabilities of regional training centers 
that provide training for first responders where they can 
receive initial training and additional training related to new 
techniques and technologies. The Committee encourages the 
Department to continue to work with regional training centers 
in future funding requests. Further, the Committee encourages 
the Department to review the need for additional university-
based centers that could provide medical readiness training and 
research, and community resiliency for public health and 
healthcare critical infrastructure.

               NATIONAL DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS CONSORTIUM

    Included within the amount provided for National Programs, 
the Committee recommends $44,500,000 for the National Domestic 
Preparedness Consortium, NDPC, the same as the amount requested 
and $48,500,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2011. 
The Department's National Training Program targets the 
essential elements needed for the protection of our Nation, our 
emergency response providers and their leadership. The 
Committee encourages the Department to continue to build on 
past successes with NDPC by continuing to support the program.

                    CENTER FOR DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS

    Included within the amount provided for National Programs, 
the Committee recommends $62,500,000 for the Center for 
Domestic Preparedness, the same as the amount requested and the 
same as the amount provided in fiscal year 2011.

                       NATIONAL EXERCISE PROGRAM

    Included within the amount provided for National Programs, 
the Committee recommends $40,000,000 for the National Exercise 
Program, the same as the amount requested and $2,000,000 above 
the amount provided in fiscal year 2011. This program provides 
the opportunity for key leaders at the Federal, State, local, 
territory, and tribal levels, along with representatives of 
nongovernmental organizations and the private sector, to gauge 
the effectiveness of plans, policies, and procedures for 
responding to natural disasters and terrorist attacks.

                          TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

    Included within the amount provided for National Programs, 
the Committee recommends $10,000,000 for technical assistance, 
the same as the amount requested and $3,000,000 below the 
amount provided in fiscal year 2011. The Committee recognizes 
that State and local officials require technical assistance to 
ensure that equipment is used properly and to support effective 
planning.

                       CONTINUING TRAINING GRANTS

    Included within the amount provided for National Programs, 
the Committee recommends $25,663,000, $5,000,000 above the 
amount requested and $3,337,000 less than the amount provided 
in fiscal year 2011. The budget request was a significant 
decrease to the continuing training programs from prior years. 
The Committee partially restores the funding for this vital 
program. As stated earlier, the Committee is concerned with 
FEMA's interaction with rural and hard to reach areas and 
encourages FEMA to work with these populations to enhance 
training for first responders in rural, tribal, and small 
communities.

                      EVALUATIONS AND ASSESSMENTS

    Included within the amount provided for National Programs, 
the Committee recommends $10,000,000 for evaluations and 
assessments, $4,000,000 below the amount requested and 
$4,000,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2011 due to 
the lack of progress in the assessments of the grant programs.
    The Committee continues to be concerned with an apparent 
lack of ability to develop and implement a framework to assess 
national preparedness capabilities. The GAO reports that 
between fiscal years 2008 and 2010, FEMA spent approximately 
$58,000,000 to develop and implement seven evaluation efforts. 
Still, the Committee is unable to extract information regarding 
the Nation's state of preparedness, the ability to measure 
increases in preparedness, or any assessment of the impact of 
the tens of billions of dollars that have been appropriated in 
preparedness grants since fiscal year 2003.
    GAO shall continue to monitor the development of any DHS 
system to measure the effectiveness of grant programs and 
report quarterly to the Committee with updates.

                EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE COMPACT

    The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for the Emergency 
Management Assistance Compact (EMAC), the same as the amount 
requested. These funds shall have a one-year period of 
performance. EMAC is a mutual aid system that provides a 
critical contribution to the Nation's disaster response 
capacity, allowing a State to quickly and efficiently request 
and receive assistance from other States when disaster strikes.

                     Firefighter Assistance Grants

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2011.......................      $810,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012\1\..................
Recommended in the bill...............................       350,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2011...................      -460,000,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.................     +350,000,000\1\The budget request includes $670,000,000 for Firefighter Assistance
  Grants within State and Local Programs.

                                MISSION

    Firefighter Assistance Grants are provided to local fire 
departments for the purpose of protecting the health and safety 
of the public and protecting fire fighting personnel, including 
volunteers and emergency medical service personnel, against 
fire and fire-related hazards.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $350,000,000 for Firefighter 
Assistance Grants, $350,000,000 above the amount requested and 
$460,000,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2011. The 
budget request did not include a separate appropriation for 
Firefighter Assistance Grants but instead proposed $670,000,000 
for this activity within State and Local Programs. Within this 
level, the Committee recommends $200,000,000 for the Assistance 
to Firefighters Grant program (AFG), which provides firefighter 
equipment, training, vehicles, and other resources. The 
Committee also recommends $150,000,000 for firefighter jobs 
under the Staffing for Adequate Emergency Response (SAFER) 
program.
    The Committee notes that the cost per fighter is extremely 
high. In fiscal year 2012, the budget requests $405,000,000 to 
enable the hiring of more than 2,200 firefighter positions, or 
$184,000 per firefighter. The Committee urges the Department to 
review the costs associated with this program.
    FEMA is directed to continue granting funds directly to 
local fire departments and to include the United States Fire 
Administration during the grant decision process. FEMA is also 
directed to maintain an all-hazards focus and is prohibited 
from limiting beyond current law the list of eligible 
activities, including those related to wellness. Funds are 
available until September 30, 2013, and no more than 10 percent 
may be used for administrative expenses. FEMA is required to 
submit an expenditure plan not later than 60 days after the 
date of enactment of this Act on the use of the administrative 
funds.
    The Committee continues the requirement for FEMA to peer 
review AFG and SAFER grant applications that meet criteria 
established by FEMA and the Fire Service to clearly define the 
criteria for peer review in the grant application package; to 
rank order applications according to peer-review; and to fund 
applications according to their rank order. For those 
applicants whose grant applications are not reviewed, FEMA must 
provide an official notification detailing why the application 
did not meet the criteria for review.

                Emergency Management Performance Grants

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2011.......................      $340,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012\1\..................               ---
Recommended in the bill...............................       350,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2011...................       +10,000,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.................     +350,000,000\1\The budget request includes $350,000,000 for Emergency Management
  Performance Grants within State and Local Programs.

                                MISSION

    Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) funds are 
used to support comprehensive emergency management at the State 
and local levels and to encourage the improvement of 
mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery capabilities 
for all hazards.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $350,000,000 for EMPG, 
$350,000,000 above the amount requested and $10,000,000 above 
the amount provided in fiscal year 2011. The request did not 
include a separate appropriation for EMPG, but instead proposed 
$350,000,000 for this activity within State and Local Programs. 
Consistent with past years, the Committee again does not agree 
to transfer EMPG to State and Local Programs, continuing 
instead to fund the EMPG program as a separate appropriation. 
EMPG is the one true source of funding for emergency managers 
that is focused on preparing for all hazards. EMPG is the only 
grant program within FEMA that requires a 50/50 match at the 
State and local level, which is evidence of the commitment by 
State and local governments to make emergency management a top 
priority, especially while most are experiencing financial 
crisis. Many of the EMPG funds help pay for the personnel to 
run key programs, and funds for this program must remain 
flexible to ensure they support the full gamut of 
responsibilities required of emergency managers.
    The Committee directs FEMA to continue EMPG grant practices 
used in fiscal year 2007, including a continued emphasis on 
all-hazards activities and the inclusion of personnel expenses 
and Emergency Operations Centers as eligible uses of funding.

              Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2011.......................         -$265,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.....................          -896,000
Recommended in the bill...............................          -896,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2011...................          -631,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.................               ---
                                MISSION

    The Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program (REPP) 
ensures that the public health and safety of citizens living 
near commercial nuclear power plants will be adequately 
protected in the event of a nuclear power station incident. In 
addition, the program informs and educates the public about 
radiological emergency preparedness. REPP provides funding only 
for emergency preparedness activities of State and local 
governments that take place beyond nuclear power plant 
boundaries.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee provides for the receipt and expenditure of 
REPP fees, which are collected as authorized by Public Law 105-
276. The request estimates that fee collections will exceed 
expenditures by $361,000 in fiscal year 2011.

                   United States Fire Administration

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2011.......................       $45,588,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.....................        42,538,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        42,538,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2011...................            -3,050
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.................               ---
                                MISSION

    The mission of the United States Fire Administration (USFA) 
is to reduce economic losses and loss of life due to fire and 
related emergencies through leadership, coordination, and 
support. USFA trains the Nation's first responder and health 
care leaders to evaluate and minimize community risk, enhance 
the security of critical infrastructure, and better prepare 
communities to react to emergencies of all kinds.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $42,538,000 for USFA, the same as 
the amount requested and $3,050,000 below the amount provided 
in fiscal year 2011. The Committee requests that future budget 
justifications identify funding levels for the National Fire 
Incident Reporting System and National Fire Academy, as well as 
any other initiatives.

                            Disaster Relief


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2011.......................    $2,650,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.....................     1,800,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................     2,650,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2011...................               ---
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.................      +850,000,000
                                MISSION

    FEMA is responsible for administering disaster assistance 
programs and coordinating the Federal response following 
presidential disaster declarations. Major activities under the 
Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) include: providing aid to families 
and individuals; supporting the efforts of State and local 
governments to take emergency protective measures, clear 
debris, and repair infrastructure damage; mitigating the 
effects of future disasters; and helping States and local 
communities manage disaster response, including the assistance 
of disaster field office staff and automated data processing 
support.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $2,650,000,000 for Disaster 
Relief, $850,000,000 above the amount requested and the same as 
the amount provided in fiscal year 2011. The recommendation 
continues to include a transfer of $16,000,000 from Disaster 
Relief to the Office of Inspector General and a transfer of 
$105,600,000 to FEMA Management and Administration for program 
costs.
    The Committee strongly urges FEMA to work with rural, hard-
to-reach populations when responding to disasters. In many 
cases, rural areas with the least infrastructure and access to 
communications are the forgotten populations due to the 
inaccessibility of the locations. The Committee commends FEMA 
on its efforts in responding to disasters but recommends they 
work to provide additional outreach to rural areas.
    FEMA spends approximately $300,000,000 annually on disaster 
readiness and support costs from the DRF. FEMA shall submit an 
expenditure plan to the Committees detailing the use of funds 
for disaster readiness and support costs not later than 60 days 
after the date of enactment of this Act. FEMA shall provide a 
quarterly report detailing obligations against the expenditure 
plan and a justification for any changes in spending.
    The Committee directs FEMA to continue to submit a monthly 
report detailing allocations, obligations, and undistributed 
amounts related to all disasters, including Hurricanes Katrina, 
Rita, and Wilma that shall maintain the same level of data as 
currently presented to the Committees on Appropriations.
    The Committee includes a proviso which directs the 
submission of a quarterly report providing estimates of funding 
requirements for disaster relief for the current fiscal year 
and the succeeding three fiscal years which shall include: (a) 
an estimate, by quarter, for the costs of all previously 
designated disasters; (b) an estimate, by quarter, for the cost 
of future disasters based on a five-year average, excluding 
catastrophic disasters; (c) an estimate, by quarter, for the 
costs of catastrophic disasters, subdivided by disaster and 
including the amount already obligated and the remaining cost; 
and (d) an estimate of the date on which the ``Disaster 
Relief'' balance will reach $800,000,000.
    To enable improved validity of requests for disaster relief 
in the future budget submissions, the Administrator of FEMA 
shall develop a policy that defines the five-year average used 
to develop the budget estimates for the DRF not later than 60 
days after the date of enactment of this Act. The policy shall 
include a clear definition of the five-year average used as a 
basis for the request, the responsible official who develops 
the average, and the data source(s) used. In addition, the 
policy should note any permitted adjustments made to each 
year's gross obligation totals such as which ``catastrophic'' 
disasters are excluded from obligation totals; inflation 
adjustments; and the source of recoveries applied against the 
obligation total. The Administrator of FEMA shall brief the 
Committee within 90 days of date of enactment of this Act on 
the policy and its guidelines.
    The Committee further directs that FEMA include in its 
fiscal year 2013 budget submission for disaster relief a clear 
statement of the five-year average used as a basis for the 
request, the fiscal years included in the average, and a list 
of the obligations for each of the five fiscal years. In 
addition, FEMA should note all adjustments made to each year's 
gross obligation total, including a record of which 
``catastrophic'' disasters are excluded from each year's 
obligation total and the amount excluded; inflation 
adjustments; and the amount and source of recoveries applied 
against the obligation total.

                FISCAL YEAR 2012 DISASTER RELIEF FUNDING

    The fiscal year 2012 request includes $1,800,000,000 for 
Disaster Relief. FEMA based this request upon a rolling, five-
year average of obligations for non-catastrophic disaster 
activities which are disaster activities that are in excess of 
$500,000,000. DHS claims a funding level made up of the five-
year average--combined with prior year recoveries and carryover 
funds--will support the obligation level for non-catastrophic 
disaster activity in fiscal year 2012 (this excludes funding 
for extraordinary events, such as the series of 2004 hurricanes 
in Florida, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, and the 
California Wildfires in 2007). Even though FEMA is aware of 
additional funding requirements for prior year events, they did 
not request discretionary funding for them, and based on 
testimony by the Secretary, FEMA plans to rely upon emergency 
supplemental appropriations later in the year to pay for the 
known but unfunded costs.
    The $1,800,000,000 request significantly underfunds known 
requirements for current and past events. FEMA states that it 
uses a rolling five-year average; however, the current monthly 
average is $383,000,000 per month, or $4,600,000,000 per year 
for non-catastrophic disasters. The budget assumes $900,000,000 
in recovered, unobligated balances from prior year disasters. 
However, this $900,000,000 in estimated recoveries does not 
offset the amount required--it still leaves $1,900,000,000 
unfunded for new disasters in fiscal year 2011. FEMA has stated 
in testimony that efforts are underway to fund portions of this 
through additional recovered, unobligated balances but thus far 
have not been able to detail how much may be recovered.
    Additionally, as noted above, FEMA has only requested 
funding for non-catastrophic disaster activity, even though 
there are known requirements for prior year events in excess of 
$3,000,000,000 in fiscal year 2012. Combined with the 
requirement for non-catastrophic activity, the Disaster Relief 
requirement for fiscal year 2012 exceeds $7,500,000,000.
    When faced with a similar situation in fiscal year 2011, 
Congress reallocated funds from within other Homeland Security 
programs to fund Disaster Relief. However, due to the 
significant amount unfunded in fiscal year 2012 and the 
assumption of increases in aviation passenger fee collections 
and customs user fees that have yet to be authorized and that 
are not in the jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations, 
the Committee is unable to do the same in fiscal year 2012. 
Instead, the Committee recommends $2,650,000,000, $850,000,000 
above the request to cover the cost of expected non-
catastrophic events and assumes the Department's estimates for 
additional recoveries of unobligated balances to fund the 
remaining portion of the non-catastrophic requirements.
    To address the known catastrophic requirement that may 
exceed $3,000,000,000 in fiscal year 2012 for which the 
Department failed to request funding, the Committee includes a 
new proviso. Under the heading for Disaster Relief, the 
Committee directs that the President shall submit a budget 
amendment, offset from within discretionary funds, not later 
than three months prior to the date that the Administrator of 
the FEMA estimates that the total amount remaining unallocated 
in Disaster Relief will reach $800,000,000, and that the 
request shall account for all estimated funding requirements 
for that fiscal year.

        Disaster Assistance Direct Loan Program Account Subsidy

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2011.......................          $295,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.....................           295,000
Recommended in the bill...............................           296,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2011...................            +1,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.................               ---
Limitation on Direct Loans:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2011...................       $25,000,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.................        25,000,000
    Recommended in the bill...........................        25,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2011...................               ---
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.................               ---
                                MISSION

    Beginning in 1992, loans made to States under the cost-
sharing provisions of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief 
and Emergency Assistance Act were funded in accordance with the 
Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990. The Disaster Assistance 
Direct Loan Program Account, which was established as a result 
of the Federal Credit Reform Act, records the subsidy costs 
associated with the direct loans obligated beginning in 1992 to 
the present.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $25,000,000 as requested for the 
limitation on direct loans from the Disaster Assistance Direct 
Loan Program, pursuant to Section 319 of the Stafford Act, and 
a subsidy of $296,000 to cover the cost of loans.

                 Flood Hazard Mapping and Risk Analysis

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2011.......................      $182,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.....................       102,712,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       102,712,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2011...................       -79,288,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.................               ---
                                MISSION

    The mission of the Flood Hazard Mapping and Risk Analysis 
fund is to modernize, maintain, and digitize the inventory of 
maps and develop a more integrated process of identifying, 
assessing, communicating, and mitigating flood related risks. 
This information is used to determine appropriate risk-based 
premium rates for the National Flood Insurance Program, 
complete hazard determinations required for the Nation's 
lending institutions, and develop appropriate mitigation and 
disaster response plans for Federal, State, and local emergency 
management personnel.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $102,712,000 for Flood Hazard 
Mapping and Risk Analysis, the same as the amount requested and 
$79,288,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2011. The 
Committee notes that an additional $107,320,000 is available 
for flood plain management and mapping activities within the 
National Flood Insurance Fund. While the Committee commends the 
Department for requesting a fiscally austere budget, there is 
concern that the Department has forsaken its legislative 
requirement for flood mapping. This decrease will significantly 
delay the mandated flood mapping process to 2020.
    The Committee endorses FEMA's Risk Mapping, Assessment, and 
Planning (Risk MAP) vision to develop a more integrated process 
of identifying, assessing, communicating, and mitigating flood 
related risks. To support this goal, FEMA is directed to 
provide no less than 20 percent of the funds provided under 
this heading be made available for development of flood hazard 
and risk related data and risk communication products conducted 
by Cooperating Technical Partners that provide a 25 percent 
cash match and have a strong record of working effectively with 
FEMA on floodplain mapping activities. With the fiscal year 
2013 budget request, FEMA shall submit to the Committee a 
status report on the progress made towards the five-year Risk 
MAP strategy.
    When allocating map modernization funds, the Committee 
encourages FEMA to prioritize as criteria the number of stream 
and coastal miles within the State and the participation of the 
State in leveraging non-Federal contributions.
    The Committee lauds FEMA's progress in transitioning the 
flood mapping program to a digital environment. The Committee 
believes significant savings can be achieved through further 
reduction or elimination of costly cartographic map making. 
Therefore, FEMA is directed to report within six months after 
the date of enactment of this Act on its timetable and efforts 
to transition from cartographic Flood Insurance Rate Map panel 
grids to a database-generated digital display environment. In 
transitioning from a cartographic to digital display 
environment, FEMA shall collaborate with key Federal, State, 
private, and association stakeholders.
    The Committee believes that ongoing stakeholder engagement 
is critical to successful implementation of FEMA's Risk MAP 
vision. Therefore, the Committee directs FEMA to establish a 
Risk Map Advisory Committee to provide FEMA with sustained, 
ongoing advisory input and feedback on Risk Map implementation 
including, but not limited to: flood risk assessment and 
communication; national digital elevation data acquisition; 
database-generated, paperless map display; data standards, 
models, and methodologies; and cooperative funding strategies. 
The Risk MAP Advisory Committee shall include representation 
from Federal, State, and local governments; national non-
government organizations; and private sector lending, 
insurance, and service providers that are considered direct 
stakeholders and/or contributors to the Risk MAP vision. The 
Committee strongly encourages FEMA to include State and local 
Cooperating Technical Partners on the Advisory Committee. 
Members of the Advisory Committee shall be selected by the FEMA 
Administrator, or his designee, based on their demonstrated 
knowledge and competence regarding surveying, remote sensing, 
geographic information systems, or the technical aspects of 
preparing, using, and communicating flood hazard and risk data. 
FEMA should submit an annual report to the Committee 
documenting the activities and recommendations of the Advisory 
Committee and actions taken by FEMA.

                     National Flood Insurance Fund

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2011.......................      $169,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.....................       171,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       171,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2011...................        +2,000,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.................               ---
                                MISSION

    The National Flood Insurance Fund (NFIF), which was 
established in the Treasury by the National Flood Insurance Act 
of 1968, is a fee-generated fund that supports the National 
Flood Insurance Program. The Act, as amended, authorizes the 
Federal Government to provide flood insurance on a national 
basis.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee includes bill language providing up to 
$22,000,000 for salaries and expenses to administer the NFIF, 
the same as the amount requested and $145,000 below the amount 
provided in fiscal year 2011. Consistent with the budget 
request, the Committee provides no funding for the severe 
repetitive loss property mitigation pilot program under section 
1361A of the National Flood Insurance Act; $10,000,000 for the 
repetitive insurance claims properties under section 1323 of 
the National Flood Insurance Act; and $60,000,000 for Flood 
Mitigation Assistance under section 1366 of the National Flood 
Insurance Act. No less than $149,000,000 is available for flood 
plain management and flood mapping. Flood mitigation funds are 
available until September 30, 2012, and funding is offset by 
premium collections. The Committee also includes a general 
provision to authorize the program through fiscal year 2012.

                  National Predisaster Mitigation Fund

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2011.......................       $50,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.....................        84,937,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        40,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2011...................       -10,000,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.................       -44,937,000
                                MISSION

    The National Predisaster Mitigation Fund provides technical 
assistance and grants to State, local, and tribal governments, 
and to universities to reduce the risks associated with 
disasters. Resources support the development and enhancement of 
hazard mitigation plans, as well as the implementation of 
disaster mitigation projects.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $40,000,000 for the National 
Predisaster Mitigation Fund, $44,937,000 below the amount 
requested and $10,000,000 below the amount provided in fiscal 
year 2011. The Committee recommends a reduction due to a 
continued practice of carrying over significant funds. In 
fiscal year 2012, the program plans to carry over $105,967,000 
from funds previously appropriated. Even with the proposed 
reduction, there are sufficient funds to continue the program 
due to the amounts still unobligated from previous years.

                       Emergency Food and Shelter

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2011.......................      $120,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.....................       100,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       120,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2011...................               ---
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.................       +20,000,000
                                MISSION

    The Emergency Food and Shelter National Board Program was 
created in 1983 to supplement the work of local social service 
organizations within the United States, both private and 
governmental, to help people in need of emergency assistance. 
The program provides funds to local communities for homeless 
programs, including soup kitchens, food banks, shelters, and 
homeless prevention services.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $120,000,000 for the Emergency 
Food and Shelter Program, $20,000,000 above the amount 
requested and the same as the amount provided in fiscal year 
2011.

       TITLE IV--RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, TRAINING, AND SERVICES


           United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2011.......................      $146,593,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.....................       369,477,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       132,361,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2011...................       -14,232,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.................      -237,116,000
                                MISSION

    The mission of the United States Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) is to process all immigrant and 
non-immigrant benefits provided to visitors to the United 
States; adjudicate naturalization requests; promote national 
security as it relates to immigration issues; eliminate 
immigration adjudication backlogs; and implement solutions to 
improve immigration customer services. USCIS also maintains 
substantial records and data related to the individuals who 
have applied for immigration benefits.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $132,361,000 in discretionary 
appropriations for USCIS, $237,116,000 below the requested 
level and $14,232,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 
2011. The decrease is largely due to the Committee's belief 
that the costs for processing asylum claims and refugee 
applications, as well as providing immigrant integration 
grants, should be supported through fee revenues. Further, the 
Committee does not include funds for data center migration 
activities. While the Committee supports these activities, the 
President's budget request assumed an increase in aviation 
security fees in order to fund this program at the requested 
levels. This fee is not within the jurisdiction of the 
Committee on Appropriations, and the Committee has adjusted its 
fiscal year 2012 recommendation for this account accordingly.
    No funding is provided for the cost of military 
naturalizations, which the Committee believes should be paid by 
the Department of Defense (DoD), as proposed in the budget. The 
Committee strongly encourages USCIS and DoD to negotiate a 
memorandum of understanding for reimbursement of naturalization 
costs as soon as possible to ensure that military 
naturalizations are not interrupted due to delays in payments 
from DoD.

                        USER FEE FUNDED PROGRAMS

    The budget estimates that USCIS will utilize $2,537,389,000 
in fee-funded expenditures in fiscal year 2012. The Committee 
recommendation adds an additional $207,000,000 to that amount 
for asylum and refugee processing, for a total of $2,744,389. 
Revenues from fees paid by persons applying for immigration 
benefits constitute the majority of USCIS's resources, and 
support adjudication of applications for immigration benefits 
as well as government investigations aimed at preventing fraud 
within the immigration system.
    In the current fiscal crisis, the Committee cannot ignore 
significant cash balances as potential offsets for other USCIS 
needs. While fee revenues have been lower in recent years, this 
year's projected fees are higher. It is critical that USCIS 
continue to monitor its fee revenues and obligations against 
those fee collections. The Committee directs USCIS to continue 
to brief the Committee quarterly on fee revenues and 
obligations.

                          USCIS TRANSFORMATION

    The Committee is disappointed with the lack of progress on 
the USCIS Transformation program to date. USCIS has assured the 
Committee that the first application type will be online by the 
end of calendar year 2011. The Committee directs USCIS to 
provide quarterly briefings to the Committee on progress 
related to USCIS Transformation, including tracking cost and 
schedule for all milestones and noting any performance issues.

             VALIDATION INSTRUMENT FOR BUSINESS ENTERPRISES

    Within 60 days of the date of enactment of this Act, USCIS 
shall report to the Committee on a plan to appropriately and 
timely check on the eligibility of agricultural employers to 
participate in the H2A visa program, recognizing the 
difficulties these particular employers have faced under the 
current system. It is the Committee's intention to ensure that 
participating agricultural employers can be verified through 
the Validation Instrument for Business Enterprises program 
prior to actual submission of the I-129 to the USCIS. In the 
past, agricultural employers' workers have been delayed for 
multiple weeks while these employers jumped through seemingly 
unnecessary, bureaucratic hoops, so they can participate in the 
H2A visa program.

              ELECTRONIC ACCESS TO IMMIGRATION INFORMATION

    Within the total fees collected, the Committee directs 
USCIS to provide no less than $29,000,000 to continue 
conversion of immigration records to digital format. The 
efficiencies and cost savings associated with electronically 
maintaining this information for immediate access for 
appropriate users across the immigration continuum, rather than 
shipping A-Files across the country, as needed, and retaining 
millions of pages of paper files, should be realized. The 
occurrence of losing an applicant's personal history and 
information through a shipping error--or waiting for the file 
in the mail to document a simple decision and move a case 
forward--must be eliminated. That is the rationale for 
directing USCIS to provide A-Files in a digital format to those 
who need to access them, particularly within USCIS, for ICE, 
and for immigration law proceedings.
    The Committee has become aware that ICE and the Executive 
Office for Immigration Review have requested paper files 
despite access to digital records. Two reasons cited are the 
preference for original documents and the difficulty of 
accessing files through the Enterprise Document Management 
System (EDMS). While the Committee examines the question of 
original documents--whether that is a mere preference due to 
antiquated rules or a true need, the Committee directs USCIS to 
document the concerns its users have with EDMS. Further, the 
Committee notes that ICE is formalizing its internal policy to 
utilize digital records. The Committee encourages ICE to 
expedite issuance of such a policy and work with EOIR to 
address their concerns or barriers to the use of digital 
records in proceedings. The Committee directs USCIS, in 
conjunction with ICE and EOIR, to brief the Committee on their 
progress and concerns no later than October 1, 2011.

                 REFUGEE APPLICATIONS AND ASYLUM CLAIMS

    The Committee cannot recommend appropriated funds to offset 
the cost of processing refugee applications and asylum claims. 
As in prior fiscal years, the Committee directs USCIS to 
continue utilizing fee revenue to cover the cost of these 
activities. While USCIS does not charge applicants directly to 
process refugee or asylum claims, the cost has traditionally 
been supported through USCIS fee collections for other 
immigration applications. Although the current fee rule, issued 
in December 2010, does not include this cost, the Committee 
directs USCIS to include the cost of processing refugee and 
asylum applications in its current study to develop the next 
fee rule. Given the current fiscal crisis and the operational 
costs borne by taxpayers across the Department, the Committee 
expects USCIS to include the cost of processing refugee 
applications and asylum claims into the new fee rule, as has 
traditionally been the practice.

                                E-VERIFY

    The Committee provides $102,424,000 for the E-Verify 
system, as requested. The Committee commends USCIS on its 
progress in incorporating additional data sets and capability 
to improve the rate of employees automatically, and accurately, 
confirmed as work authorized. That includes the addition of 
photo verification for passports and the upcoming availability 
of certain driver's license photos for photo verification. The 
Committee encourages USCIS to continue introducing additional 
data sets for document verification to ensure the accuracy, 
efficiency, and fraud prevention capabilities of E-Verify. It 
is also important for USCIS to continue its outreach to 
increase the number of employers participating in E-Verify. For 
that purpose, the Committee encourages USCIS to promote E-
Verify participation, including publishing on its website the 
names of participating employers for access by employees, 
patrons, and the public. The Committee acknowledges privacy 
considerations associated with small business participants that 
may operate out of personal residences; information regarding 
such businesses can be withheld from publication.
    USCIS must also ensure that there are appropriate controls 
and analytical systems in place to identify inappropriate use 
of the E-Verify system by employers. As a result, the Committee 
directs USCIS to provide regular briefings on its progress 
implementing a robust compliance review program for E-Verify, 
including any instances of misuse of the system and actions 
taken to address those instances. The Committee also directs 
USCIS to report on any case of an authorized worker being fired 
erroneously as a result of misuse or system error, as well as 
what USCIS is doing to ensure such incidents do not occur. The 
Committee also requests information on how many individuals 
placed calls to the national toll-free number and how the 
issues raised on those calls were resolved.

             SYSTEMATIC ALIEN VERIFICATION FOR ENTITLEMENTS

    As requested in the budget, the Committee provides 
$29,937,000 in appropriated funds for the Systematic Alien 
Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program. SAVE is an 
electronic system to provide Federal, State, and local agencies 
that award various public benefits such as driver's licenses, 
public housing subsidies, and Federal education grants with 
eligibility verification. Although SAVE has previously been 
financed by collections from the public benefits agencies that 
use the system, the revenue from these fees has not been 
adequate to offset the full operating costs of the program. 
Furthermore, the Department makes a compelling argument that by 
eliminating user fees levied on Federal, State, and local 
agencies, more agencies will be able to enroll in the program 
and thus ensure that the benefits they are providing are only 
made available to individuals who qualify for them.
    The Committee remains concerned, however, that adequate 
protections must be put in place to ensure the SAVE system is 
used as designed and intended, namely as a means to certify 
eligibility for public benefits. In light of these concerns, 
the Committee directs OIG to review the systems and processes 
the SAVE program has in place to monitor compliance by users 
with the program's rules, what enforcement actions have been 
undertaken in cases where noncompliance has been determined, 
the processes USCIS and user agencies have in place to enable 
applicants for benefits to request correction of records where 
they believe they have been subject to any erroneous SAVE 
determination, and the average length of time taken to 
adjudicate such requests. The OIG report should be completed no 
later than 270 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

                                REAL ID

    The Department has consistently put forward unobligated 
balances from the USCIS REAL ID funds for rescission, refusing 
to identify appropriate purposes for these funds. The Committee 
strongly supports the goals of securing identification 
documents, particularly driver's licenses. There are unfunded 
needs for enhancing the security of driver's licenses, and the 
Department has significant flexibility in applying the funds to 
the best possible purposes toward this end. The Committee 
directs the Screening Coordination Office, in conjunction with 
USCIS, to brief the Committee no later than July 1, 2011, on 
its intentions for obligating the $10,000,000 remaining in 
unobligated balances for REAL ID. Further, the Committee is 
disappointed at the failure of the States to draw down the 
Driver's License Security Grant funds provided in recent years. 
The Department is directed to brief the Committee, before 
October 1, 2011, on the steps being taken to encourage the 
States to draw down these funds, the progress on draw down, and 
the specific reasons by jurisdiction for the delay in draw 
down.
    The Committee also notes that the security of breeder 
documents used to obtain a driver's license remains an 
important issue. The 9/11 Commission recommended that the 
Federal Government set standards for the issuance of sources of 
identification, specifically calling out birth certificates and 
driver's licenses. While the government has failed to issue 
standards for birth certificates, this is an eligible use of 
certain DHS grant funds, and REAL ID funds appropriated to 
USCIS have been used for enhancements to the Electronic 
Verification of Vital Events (EVVE) system. The Committee 
supports the use and further development of EVVE.

                     IMMIGRANT INTEGRATION PROGRAMS

    The Department requested appropriated funds to fully 
support the Office of Citizenship and grants to organizations 
that provide citizenship preparation services. While the 
Committee supports the efforts of the Office of Citizenship to 
promote civic education through the naturalization process, the 
Committee recommends the use of fee funds for this purpose. 
Active civic participation is critical to continuing the 
American way of life, which is why individuals seeking 
citizenship must take the naturalization test to assess their 
knowledge of these topics. The legal permanent residents who 
are seeking citizenship preparation services are the direct 
beneficiaries of this funding. USCIS has sufficient cash 
balances in its fee accounts to support these grants, if it 
chooses to prioritize its use of fee funds for this purpose. 
Due to concerns about whether the immigrant integration grants 
could be funded through fee collections, the bill includes a 
general provision clarifying the availability of fee funds for 
that purpose. At the same time, the Committee notes that 
private, non-profit organizations across the country have been 
performing these services without support from USCIS grants for 
many years.

                       NATURALIZATION CEREMONIES

    The Committee directs USCIS to identify, in the 2013 budget 
submission, all funds allocated to naturalization and oath of 
allegiance ceremonies. In addition, the Committee directs USCIS 
to work with local public and private groups to hold 
naturalization and oath of allegiance ceremonies as part of 
community Independence Day celebrations. The Committee also 
encourages USCIS to review internal policies that limit its 
ability to use fee revenues to make small grants and to provide 
agency employee support to local community groups that would 
otherwise be financially unable to host such ceremonies.

                           STATELESS PERSONS

    The Committee has become aware of the tragedy of 
approximately 4,000 individuals in the United States who may be 
classified as ``stateless'' because they have no legal claim to 
U.S. residency but are unable to return to their country of 
origin. This situation can arise because of changes in 
political structures such as the collapse of the Soviet Union, 
destruction of citizenship records due to revolution or civil 
unrest, and other geopolitical changes outside of their 
control. In such cases, there is no legal pathway for stateless 
persons in the United States to gain lawful status, and 
therefore they remain unable to participate fully in society. 
The Committee encourages USCIS to work with CBP, ICE, and the 
Office of Immigration Statistics to review DHS records and 
attempt to quantify the number of stateless persons in the 
country. The Committee also encourages USCIS to provide 
recommendations to the relevant Congressional committees of 
jurisdiction that are developing immigration reform legislation 
so that USCIS has legal methods to address statelessness in the 
future.

                Federal Law Enforcement Training Center


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2011.......................      $235,919,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.....................       238,957,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       238,957,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2011...................        +3,038,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.................               ---
                                MISSION

    The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) 
provides the necessary facilities, equipment, and support 
services to conduct advanced, specialized, and refresher 
training for Federal law enforcement personnel. Specifically, 
FLETC serves as an interagency law enforcement training 
organization for over 80 Federal agencies with personnel 
located throughout the United States and its territories. FLETC 
also provides services to State, local, and international law 
enforcement agencies, and on a space available basis, to other 
Federal agencies with related law enforcement missions.
    FLETC is headquartered in Glynco, GA and has facilities in 
Artesia, NM and Charleston, SC. Each of these facilities is 
designed primarily for residential training operations. A 
fourth training facility is located in Cheltenham, MD, and 
provides in-service and re-qualification training for officers 
and agents in the Washington, D.C. area.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $238,957,000 for FLETC, as 
requested. Within the funds provided is $29,716,000 for 
Management and Administration and $1,304,000 for the Federal 
Law Enforcement Training Accreditation Board.

     Acquisition, Construction, Improvements, and Related Expenses

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2011.......................       $35,456,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.....................        37,456,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        35,456,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2011...................               ---
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.................        -2,000,000
                                MISSION

    This account provides for the acquisition, construction, 
improvements, equipment, furnishings, and related costs for 
expansion and maintenance of facilities of the Federal Law 
Enforcement Training Center.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $35,456,000 for Acquisition, 
Construction, Improvements, and Related Expenses, $2,000,000 
below the amount requested and the same as the amount provided 
in fiscal year 2011. While the Committee understands FLETC has 
facility needs to support their customers, the President's 
budget request assumed an increase in aviation security and 
COBRA fees in order to fund this program at the requested 
levels. This fee is not within the jurisdiction of the 
Committee on Appropriations and the Committee has adjusted its 
fiscal year 2012 recommendation for this account accordingly.

                         Science and Technology


                     Management and Administration

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2011.......................      $141,200,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.....................       149,365,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       140,565,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2011...................          -635,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.................        -8,800,000
                                MISSION

    The Management and Administration appropriation provides 
for the salaries and expenses of the Science and Technology 
Directorate (S&T).

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $140,565,000 for Science and 
Technology Management and Administration, $8,800,000 below the 
amount as requested, and $635,000 below the amount provided in 
fiscal year 2011. Within this total, the Committee provides 
$10,000 for reception and representation costs. The Committee 
does not include $3,800,000 requested for data center 
migration. In addition, the Committee does not include the 
proposed $3,000,000 increase to support moving the staff for 
the transformational research and development for radiological 
and nuclear technology from the Domestic Nuclear Detection 
Office (DNDO), although it expects S&T to work collaboratively 
with DNDO and share its particular R&D capacity with DNDO, as 
discussed below. Finally, an additional $2,000,000 decrease is 
recommended in light of the contraction of the research 
portfolio recommended in the bill and described below.

           Research, Development, Acquisition, and Operations

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2011.......................      $688,036,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.....................     1,027,067,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       398,213,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2011...................      -289,823,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.................      -628,854,000
                                MISSION

    The mission of the Science and Technology Directorate is to 
develop and deploy technologies and capabilities to secure our 
Homeland. This Directorate conducts, stimulates, and enables 
research, development, testing, evaluation, and the timely 
transition of homeland security capabilities to Federal, State, 
and local operational end users. This activity includes 
investments in both evolutionary and revolutionary capabilities 
with high-payoff potential; early deployment of off-the-shelf, 
proven technologies to provide for initial defense capability; 
near-term utilization of emerging technologies to counter 
current terrorist threats; and development of new capabilities 
to thwart future and emerging threats.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $398,213,000 for Research, 
Development, Acquisition and Operations (RDA&O), $628,854,000 
below the amount requested and $289,823,000 below the amount 
provided in fiscal year 2011.
    A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee 
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget estimate      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research, Development, and               $659,900,000       $106,500,000
 Innovation.......................
    RD&I: APEX....................       [17,900,000]  .................
    RD&I: Border Security.........       [43,000,000]  .................
    RD&I: Chem/Bio/Radiological/        [342,500,000]  .................
     Nuclear/Explosives Defense...
    RD&I: Disaster Resilience.....      [165,700,000]  .................
    RD&I: Cyber Security..........       [64,100,000]  .................
    RD&I: Counter Terrorist              [26,700,000]  .................
     Research and Development.....
Acquisition and Operations Support         54,154,000         53,650,000
Laboratory Facilities.............        276,500,000        201,500,000
University Programs...............         36,563,000         36,563,000
                                   -------------------------------------
        Total, Research,               $1,027,067,000       $398,213,000
         Development, Acquisition,
         and Operations...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     BUDGET ACCOUNT REORGANIZATION

    This bill marks a turning point for Science and Technology 
and for its core research activity, with the Committee 
recommending a reduction for RDA&O that is 57 percent below the 
request and 42 percent below the fiscal year 2011 levels (after 
excluding transformational research and development on 
radiological and nuclear threats, which the Committee 
recommends funding through the Domestic Nuclear Detection 
Office appropriation).
    The Committee believes that S&T must more clearly 
demonstrate significant contributions to the homeland security 
mission and should prioritize the development of near-term, 
operational projects that promise substantive gains to our 
Nation's security. S&T will be required to do this under the 
funding levels proposed above. The Committee believes that S&T 
has a meaningful role to play within DHS and affirms that this 
reduction will change the nature and scope of S&T's research. 
Nevertheless, the Committee was forced to find offsets to make 
up for a budget gap created by the budget request's reliance on 
unauthorized and unrealized aviation security and customs fees, 
as well as inadequate disaster funding. When faced with such 
difficult choices, the Committee chose to keep DHS frontline 
missions and capabilities robust while taking a harder look at 
components that have had difficulty demonstrating their 
immediate contributions to the homeland security enterprise. 
S&T has not fully justified the billions of taxpayer dollars 
that it has spent on R&D, and the Committee believes these 
revised funding levels will force the Directorate to 
concentrate its efforts on its highest priority projects.
    The Committee rejects the Directorate's proposal to 
reorganize its R&D funding into a single Research, Development 
and Innovation (RD&I) PPA. Such an all-encompassing category is 
too large and vague, even at the level recommended in this 
bill, to permit meaningful oversight. This lack of transparency 
would outweigh the benefits to S&T of flexibility in 
administering such funds. The justification provided for 
granting such discretion is inadequate. The Committee does, 
however, agree that existing PPAs could be adjusted to more 
accurately reflect S&T's current structure and research 
priorities.
    Accordingly, the Committee recommends a revised PPA 
structure within the RD&I construct that aligns the PPAs with 
the RD&I thrust categories displayed in the table above. The 
Committee does not recommend specific funding levels for these 
PPA categories but instead directs S&T to re-estimate how it 
would spread the RD&I funding across those categories, given 
significant funding changes and a need to prioritize the 
Directorate's most promising investments. The Committee directs 
S&T to submit its funding plan for these PPAs not later than 30 
days after the date of enactment of this Act and strongly 
encourages S&T to set funding for the APEX program at or near 
the requested level, since it is directly linked to accelerated 
development of near-term, operational technology improvements.

       SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CONTRIBUTIONS TO HOMELAND SECURITY

    The Directorate is in the midst of a watershed period. 
RDA&O funding grew steadily until 2010, going to a wide variety 
of research areas and resulting in multiple studies and interim 
work products. Yet for the billions of dollars spent, the 
impact of S&T investment and research has not been sufficiently 
demonstrated, as many projects remain in the development stage. 
Thus, it is timely that the Under Secretary has made it her 
priority to streamline the model of S&T to shorten the time to 
delivery of its R&D efforts. This is critical, since there is 
very limited awareness throughout Congress, the interagency 
community, and among the general public that the work S&T has 
done--and is doing--has demonstrated value or tangible products 
and outputs that improve the homeland security mission.
    The Committee supports the mission of S&T and believes in 
the need to leverage R&D throughout government, academia, and 
the private sector to strengthen and support homeland security 
missions. But S&T must demonstrate how its R&D efforts are 
timely, with results relatively well-defined, and above all, 
make investment decisions based on clear and sensible 
priorities. Focusing on innovation, putting cutting-edge 
research to work, and communicating its successes more 
effectively should be top priorities, and the Committee fully 
expects the proposed funding levels will force S&T to make more 
focused, high-return investment decisions.

                           PORTFOLIO REVIEWS

    The Committee applauds S&T's initiation of annual portfolio 
reviews to measure the performance and potential of its R&D 
programs to produce results. While some risk is inherent in 
R&D, timely reviews of project effectiveness can help make such 
risk manageable. The Committee directs S&T to brief it on the 
conclusion of the annual portfolio reviews including, but not 
limited to, an assessment of S&T's most promising projects, an 
appraisal of those that scored poorly, and any plans to modify 
or reallocate funding from underperforming initiatives.

                          IN-Q-TEL PARTNERSHIP

    The Committee understands that S&T has entered into an 
$11,000,000 partnership on homeland security challenges with 
In-Q-Tel, a nonprofit organization that has demonstrated 
success in helping the intelligence community identify 
technology solutions to meet national security needs. Other 
U.S. Government agencies have found partnering with In-Q-Tel to 
be of high value, and the Committee is eager to determine 
whether DHS can achieve similar gains. Because the Committee 
seeks to ensure that projects funded under this effort are not 
duplicative or conflict with existing S&T research, it directs 
S&T to provide a briefing not later than 60 days after the date 
of enactment of this Act detailing the terms of its engagement 
with In-Q-Tel and the research areas in which they are 
collaborating.

                     AVOIDING DUPLICATIVE RESEARCH

    The Federal Government spends billions of dollars each year 
on R&D and faces a responsibility to taxpayers to be certain 
that those funds are not wasted on programs that duplicate 
similar efforts being conducted elsewhere, either in a 
different agency or in the private sector. The Committee 
understands that S&T currently lacks the ability to certify--
before embarking on a new research initiative--that technology 
solutions or similar R&D programs in a given subject area do 
not already exist elsewhere. This is unacceptable and leaves 
open the possibility that research programs could be 
duplicative or wasteful. However, the Committee notes that S&T 
leadership plans to close this gap by improving its ``tech 
foraging'' capability to assess the state-of-play in its 
research areas--both inside and outside of government--before 
initiating new projects. The Committee directs S&T to provide a 
briefing no later than 120 days after the date of enactment of 
this Act on its tech foraging efforts and their impact on the 
R&D process at S&T.

                             APEX PROJECTS

    The Committee, as noted above, is looking to the Department 
to re-estimate how it would apply its RD&I funding. However, 
the Committee strongly supports funding S&T's APEX projects as 
close as possible to the requested level of $17,900,000, which 
is $10,400,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2011. 
The APEX initiative gives special attention to high-priority, 
high-value projects expected to quickly produce results to 
solve a homeland security challenge. It is not yet clear that 
elevating these projects to a higher status produces better or 
more rapid results, but the Committee is interested in 
following the program's progress. S&T has so far initiated only 
one APEX project, which focuses on helping the U.S. Secret 
Service better integrate technology into its protective 
mission. The Committee recommends fully funding this effort, 
given its relevance to current operational needs and its role 
as a pilot effort for the APEX approach.
    Given the flexibility associated with APEX funds, the 
Committee intends to exercise special oversight over the use of 
the mechanism, and directs S&T to: (1) brief the Committee 
before initiating any new APEX project to include, but not be 
limited to, information on the goals and costs of the proposed 
effort; and (2) provide quarterly updates on existing APEX 
projects to include, but not be limited to, the status of the 
initiative, project costs, and approximate project completion 
date.

                         LABORATORY FACILITIES

    The Committee recommends $201,500,000 for laboratory 
facilities, $75,000,000 below the amount requested. This 
includes $75,000,000 (instead of $150,000,000) to fund initial 
construction efforts at the National Bio- and Agro-defense 
Facility (NBAF) in Manhattan, Kansas. While the recommended 
funding is below the request due to the need to find offsets 
for unauthorized aviation security fees and customs user fees, 
the Committee believes it will enable S&T to initiate 
meaningful segments of the NBAF project, for which only partial 
funding was included in the request. The Committee directs S&T 
to submit a detailed update of its fiscal year 2012 NBAF 
construction plan and schedule not later than 60 days after the 
date of enactment of this Act.
    The Committee expects to receive the National Academy of 
Sciences assessment of the Department's revised, site-specific 
biosafety and biosecurity mitigation risk evaluation required 
in the fiscal year 2011 Appropriations Act and will use its 
observations and recommendations to help inform the Committee's 
continued oversight of this important project.

                   RADIOLOGICAL AND NUCLEAR RESEARCH

    The Committee recommends no funding for radiological and 
nuclear research, instead of the $98,700,000 requested. The 
Committee instead recommends that this research remain within 
the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office. While the Committee 
recognizes that S&T is the lead agency for homeland security 
research, and that it has established a network of diverse 
research communities, it is not yet clear that the 
transformational and basic research related to nuclear 
detection is better removed from the agency with primary 
responsibility for nuclear detection policies and investments. 
In fact, the Committee is concerned that DNDO may find 
significantly reduced support for its research mission, given 
the shift in S&T to quicker payoff investments. Therefore, the 
Committee is not persuaded that the proposed realignment is 
optimal and finds the Department's justification for the shift 
to have been insufficient. At the same time, the Department 
expects S&T to work closely with DNDO and bring to bear its 
unique research and development expertise and resources on the 
specific challenges of radiation and nuclear detection.

        CRITICAL NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTIVE TECHNOLOGIES

    The Committee is encouraged by recent advances in new, 
miniaturized protective technology, such as nanotechnology or 
microelectromechanical systems, that could reduce risk for 
major national infrastructure systems, such as energy 
distribution, industrial control systems, communication 
networks, power pumping stations, and similar critical 
infrastructure. The Committee encourages Science and Technology 
to investigate the development and testing of such technologies 
for disaster mitigation.
    The Committee is also aware of the potential of technology 
used in defense applications to provide anomaly detection, 
which can provide early prediction and prevention of natural 
and manmade threats to physical infrastructure components such 
as roadways, dams, waterways, and power plants. The Committee 
encourages the Department to explore the potential of such 
technology to collect and analyze resonant, surface, and 
temperature data; permit remote assessment of infrastructure; 
and identify priority inspection points.

                            RURAL RESILIENCY

    It is a matter of national importance that rural 
communities recover quickly after both manmade and natural 
disasters, be able to restore their commerce and re-establish 
the quality of life. That such capacity is critical is evident 
in the terrible storm and flood damage that struck rural 
America this year. The Committee strongly encourages S&T to 
ensure that its Disaster Resilience projects address the 
requirements of rural communities and include research and 
outreach efforts on rural resiliency. Such efforts should 
include identifying resilience capacity and the development of 
education and resilience mitigation measures that could be 
standardized and used as a model for communities across the 
country.

                FIRST RESPONDER COMMON OPERATING PICTURE

    Given the wide variety of threats that face the Nation's 
critical infrastructure and population, and the need to share 
information rapidly across all levels of government, there 
would be value in having a real-time, common operating picture 
for first responders that could facilitate information 
dissemination and sharing. The Science and Technology 
Directorate is conducting research related to chemical, 
biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive defense for 
first responders, and is also developing improved information 
sharing systems for first responders through its disaster 
resilience research portfolio efforts. The Committee encourages 
the Directorate to build on these research activities and 
explore ways to convey information through a common operating 
picture that could include mobile capability for first 
responder command, control, communications, computer, 
intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capability.

                       FIRST RESPONDER TECHNOLOGY

    The ability of first responders to provide emergency 
medical care to casualties with acute lung injury and acute 
respiratory distress syndrome is vital to casualty 
survivability. However, existing technology is too complicated 
or large to use at disaster sites. In keeping with Department 
efforts to identify and support technology to improve the 
capacity and equipment of first responders, the Committee 
encourages the Department to explore the potential of 
developing rugged, portable, and minimally invasive technology 
that can be administered by first responders in disaster 
incidents.

                CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL AGENT DETECTION

    The Committee encourages the Department of Homeland 
Security to develop powerful, lightweight, and cost-effective 
surveillance capabilities for detection and identification of 
concealed chemical and biological agents.

           FIRST RESPONDER COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT STANDARDS

    When applicable, Federal funding for first responder 
communications equipment should be compliant with common system 
standards for digital public safety radio communications 
(Project 25 standards) to ensure interoperability. S&T, in 
conjunction with the Director of the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology, shall continue assessing the 
compliance of first responder communications equipment with 
Project 25 standards.

                     WIDE AREA AERIAL SURVEILLANCE

    The Committee is aware that the Science and Technology 
Directorate issued a request for information to demonstrate 
wide area aerial surveillance systems in an operational 
environment along the Southwest border. It is also aware that 
the Department of Defense has been supporting the development 
and deployment of similar technology. The Committee therefore 
urges S&T to work with the Department of Defense as it moves 
ahead with its project to demonstrate and evaluate this 
technology, including its potential for use in near-border 
urban areas.

                   Domestic Nuclear Detection Office


                     Management and Administration

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2011.......................       $36,992,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.....................        41,120,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        40,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2011...................        +3,008,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.................        -1,120,000
                                MISSION

    The Management and Administration appropriation provides 
for the salaries and expenses of Domestic Nuclear Detection 
Office (DNDO) employees. This is a jointly-staffed office that 
consists of both Federal employees and interagency detailees.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $40,000,000 for Management and 
Administration, $1,120,000 below the amount requested and 
$3,008,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2011.

                           STRATEGIC POSTURE

    The Committee intends to exercise robust oversight of 
DNDO's plans to move towards a more threat-driven strategic 
posture. The organization has emphasized that this approach 
will include ``surge'' capabilities and other ``diverse 
solutions'' to respond quickly to short-notice threats and 
situations where there may be limited or imperfect intelligence 
information. DNDO will not live up to its mission by focusing 
only on the scanning of containerized cargo, and the Committee 
applauds the organization for this broader focus on tackling 
nuclear threats, particularly through its ongoing work to 
analyze and strengthen the Global Nuclear Detection 
Architecture (GNDA). The Committee directs DNDO to provide 
timely updates on changes to its programs and operations aimed 
at developing a more threat-driven posture, including but not 
limited to, providing the Committee with significant 
architectural studies and analysis that DNDO produces in 
support of the GNDA.

                 Research, Development, and Operations

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2011.......................      $275,437,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.....................       206,257,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       245,194,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2011...................       -30,243,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.................       +38,937,000
                                MISSION

    The Research, Development, and Operations appropriation 
funds all DHS nuclear detection research, development, test, 
evaluation, and operational support activities. DNDO is 
responsible for overseeing the GNDA, a worldwide network of 
systems used to detect and report attempts to import or 
transport a nuclear device or fissile or radiological material 
intended for illicit use. DNDO is continuing to improve the 
domestic portion of this architecture through an integrated 
research, development, test, and evaluation program, while 
providing support to current operations.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $245,194,000 for Research, 
Development, and Operations, $38,937,000 above the amount 
requested, and $30,243,000 below the amount provided in fiscal 
year 2011. A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee 
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget estimate      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Systems Engineering and                   $31,857,000        $30,000,000
 Architecture.....................
Systems Development...............         69,689,000         69,000,000
Transformational Research and                     ---         45,000,000
 Development......................
Assessments.......................         43,104,000         40,000,000
Operations Support................         36,837,000         36,424,000
National Technical Nuclear                 24,770,000         24,770,000
 Forensics Center.................
                                   -------------------------------------
    Total, Research, Development,        $206,258,000       $245,194,000
     and Operations...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------

             TRANSFORMATIONAL AND APPLIED RESEARCH PROGRAM

    The Committee recommends denial of the Department's request 
to move the Transformational and Applied Research (TAR) program 
out of DNDO and into S&T. The Department has provided 
insufficient justification for the move, and the Committee will 
take a closer look at the proposal over the coming year. 
Moreover, the Committee notes with concern the possibility that 
radiological and nuclear research could be de-emphasized in S&T 
when placed among many other, competing research priorities.
    The Committee recommends that the funding for TAR be 
$45,000,000. While it understands that this is more than 50 
percent below the level requested, the Congressional 
justification did not provide the Committee sufficient detail 
on how much funding would be required for its efforts, 
including details of work included in the Science and 
Technology Directorate justification materials for basic 
research (formerly the academic research initiative), 
exploratory research, near-term research, and algorithm 
development. The Committee therefore directs DNDO to provide, 
not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this 
Act, a detailed breakout of how it intends to fund these 
activities at the reduced appropriation level.

                  SYSTEMS ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE

    As it explores a broad range of potential threat pathways, 
DNDO has instituted a matrix approach to the architecture 
development, between cross-cutting functions (systems 
engineering and standards, information technology, and 
architecture) and geographic pathways (land borders, aviation, 
maritime, and interior). The Committee supports additional 
research on these pathways and includes $30,000,000 for Systems 
Engineering and Architecture, $1,857,000 below the amount 
requested. The Committee directs DNDO to continue its quarterly 
program and threat briefings and, as part of them, provide 
details on proposed additional engineering and architectural 
studies to include any potential implications for new 
technology deployments.

                  SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT AND ON-DOCK RAIL

    The Committee recommends $69,000,000 for Systems 
Development, $689,000 below the amount requested. The Committee 
is aware that DNDO is looking at solutions to the problems of 
on-dock rail and transshipment port environments and has 
focused on testing straddle portal prototypes and mobile 
radiation detection systems. While the Committee understands 
these configurations are nearing readiness for operational 
testing, it is also aware that the GNDA has significant 
problems at other ports, where the challenges include the risk 
of transshipment or ship-to-rail ports being used to smuggle 
materials, including possibly the components of radioactive or 
nuclear devices. The Committee urges DNDO to look at all 
options to address these GNDA gaps, including some that may not 
be the exclusive or ideal solution, but which may help close 
significant vulnerabilities in the near term.

                      ASSESSMENTS AND RED TEAMING

    The Committee recommends $40,000,000 for assessments, 
$3,104,000 below the amount requested. Within the assessments 
category, the Committee believes that work by DNDO on red 
teaming and net assessments (RTNA), through the use of 
modeling, open source and covert testing, cooperative 
assessments, and adversarial red teaming, helps States and 
localities gain better awareness of their capabilities to 
detect and respond to radiological and nuclear sources and 
further informs their decisions for improving their systems and 
procedures. DNDO should continue to report on its RTNA efforts 
in its periodic briefings to the Committees on Appropriations, 
including vulnerabilities identified and recommendations for 
addressing such vulnerabilities.

                  NATIONAL TECHNICAL NUCLEAR FORENSICS

    The Committee recommends $24,770,000 for the National 
Technical Nuclear Forensics Center, the same as the amount 
requested. The Committee strongly supports efforts to build up 
the capacity of government agencies--individually, jointly, and 
internationally--to be able to render accurate attribution 
should any nuclear or radiological incident ever occur, and 
thus help buttress deterrence against such a threat.

                   RADIOLOGICAL AND NUCLEAR CHALLENGE

    DNDO has proposed to launch a new initiative in fiscal year 
2012, the ``Rad/Nuc Challenge'' to expose industry to DNDO's 
needs, enhance State and local coordination on radiological and 
nuclear detection issues, and advance industry efforts in the 
field through competition. The Committee strongly supports 
DNDO's efforts to reach out to the broader detection community 
and improve cooperation. However, limited detail was provided 
on DNDO's plans for the Challenge in the fiscal year 2012 
budget submission. The Committee approves funding for this, but 
it directs DNDO to provide a detailed spend plan and program 
development plans for the Rad/Nuc Challenge no later than 60 
days after the date of enactment of this Act, as well as 
updates on the effort during its quarterly briefings to the 
Committees on Appropriations.

                       MISSION CRITICAL MESSAGING

    The Committee recommends full funding within the Systems 
Engineering and Architecture PPA for a new initiative, the 
Mission Critical Messaging (MCM) program, to enhance 
situational awareness of the GNDA by filling in connectivity 
gaps between thousands of nuclear detection assets nationwide. 
This will assist DNDO in achieving real-time access to 
information when radiological and nuclear alarms are triggered, 
allowing for more rapid Federal assistance, if needed. The 
Committee strongly supports improving connectivity of the GNDA 
to DNDO's Joint Analysis Center. If DNDO is to lead the charge 
in protecting the United States from radiological and nuclear 
threats, it must know promptly when detection assets pick up 
suspicious substances. The Committee directs DNDO to provide an 
on-site briefing at the Joint Analysis Center focused on the 
current situational awareness gaps in the GNDA and how the MCM 
will address those gaps no later than 30 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act, and the Committee further directs DNDO 
to provide a spend plan for the MCM program no later than 90 
days after the date of enactment of this Act.

                          Systems Acquisition

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2011.......................       $30,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.....................        84,361,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        52,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2011...................       +22,000,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.................       -32,361,000
                                MISSION

    The Systems Acquisition appropriation provides for 
acquisition and deployment of radiation detection technologies 
for other components of the Department, in particular the Coast 
Guard, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and the 
Transportation Security Administration. It also supports DNDO 
provision of systems engineering and test and evaluation 
programs in support of fielded systems, and prior to 
acquisition and ensures acquisition includes appropriate 
training, exercise, and alarm response protocols. To carry out 
this mission, DNDO acquires a range of radiation detection 
technologies, including fixed, mobile, and relocatable 
radiation portal monitors and a range of human portable 
radiation detection systems.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $52,000,000 for Systems 
Acquisition, $32,361,000 below the amount requested and 
$22,000,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2011.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget estimate      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radiation Portal Monitor Program..        $37,361,000        $20,000,000
Securing the Cities...............         27,000,000         22,000,000
Human Portable Radiation Detection         20,000,000         10,000,000
 Systems..........................
                                   -------------------------------------
    Total, Systems Acquisition....        $84,361,000        $52,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    RADIATION PORTAL MONITOR PROGRAM

    The Committee includes $20,000,000 for the Radiation Portal 
Monitor Program, $17,361,000 below the amount requested, to 
enable additional purchases and deployment of radiation portal 
monitors at ports of entry modernized pursuant to P.L. 111-5, 
or for use in other pathways, such as air cargo terminals. 
Although the funding is not restricted here to polyvinyl 
toluene portal monitors, the Committee does not expect DNDO to 
deploy the advanced spectroscopic portal (ASP), even for the 
currently proposed secondary inspection use, until such systems 
have been certified by the Secretary. The Committee reduces the 
level of funding for procurement of replacement systems, given 
this uncertainty.

                          SECURING THE CITIES

    The threat of a radiological or nuclear attack on the 
United States persists, with terrorist organizations like al 
Qaeda continuing their quests to attack the U.S. Homeland in 
dramatic fashion. DNDO is charged with protecting the United 
States from such an attack by deterring adversaries and 
detecting illicit movements of nuclear and radiological 
material. The Securing the Cities (STC) program aims to add a 
critical detection layer to the GNDA within America's most 
populated areas. The Committee recommends $22,000,000 for the 
STC program, $5,000,000 below the amount requested, of which 
$20,000,000 is to be provided for continuing STC efforts in the 
New York City region, including supporting a transition to a 
model for sustaining the program past the initial, pilot phase; 
and $2,000,000 to begin establishment of an STC program in a 
new U.S. city.
    The STC program has improved radiological and nuclear 
detection capabilities and preparedness in the New York 
metropolitan area. However, the Committee has reviewed the 
recent external assessment of the program and understands that 
several key elements of the program still need to be addressed 
before it can be fully evaluated. For example, the governing 
concept of operations remains in draft and has yet to be signed 
by participating State and local government agencies. Further 
still, DNDO has not yet established effective metrics and a 
more comprehensive cost-benefit analysis by which STC can be 
evaluated. Thus, work remains to be done on developing the 
``interior architecture'' for such programs and assessing 
overall effectiveness, long-term costs, and the Federal 
Government's funding relationship with host cities. The 
Committee strongly urges DNDO to develop comprehensive metrics 
to determine STC effectiveness in the New York City region and 
conduct an assessment of program life-cycle costs.
    Before DNDO commits funding to a new STC location, the 
Committee directs it to provide a report that: (1) details its 
progress on assessing lifecycle costs; (2) provides a more 
complete evaluation of the New York STC project, with 
information on conclusions and corrective actions taken 
following recent exercises; and (3) delineates the metrics by 
which the proposed STC expansion site or sites will be 
evaluated. The Committee also directs DNDO to provide updates 
thereafter during its quarterly briefings. Finally, in light of 
the need for sustainment but also transition, DNDO is urged to 
work with the New York City region, the Committees on 
Appropriations, and the appropriate authorizing committees to 
determine a way forward for sustaining STC projects, to include 
establishing a funding mechanism through the normal FEMA grant 
making process beyond the current dependence on DNDO. Because 
of the uncertainty about the STC model (with respect to metrics 
and cost estimates), lingering technology questions, and long-
term costs involved in committing to a second location, the 
Committee reduces funding by $5,000,000. The Committee leaves 
$2,000,000 for initial steps towards developing a new STC 
location but hopes to work with DNDO to ensure that a full 
commitment to a new site is only undertaken with a robust plan 
for implementation and better means to assess STC 
effectiveness.

               HUMAN PORTABLE RADIATION DETECTION SYSTEMS

    The Committee includes $10,000,000 for Human Portable 
Radiation Detection Systems, $10,000,000 below the amount 
requested, because the Committee was forced to find offsets for 
unauthorized aviation security fees and customs user fees 
assumed by the Administration in the 2012 request.

                 TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS ACT


                    (INCLUDING RESCISSIONS OF FUNDS)

    Section 501. The Committee continues a provision providing 
that no part of any appropriation shall remain available for 
obligation beyond the current year unless expressly provided.
    Section 502. The Committee continues a provision providing 
that unexpended balances of prior appropriations may be merged 
with new appropriation accounts and used for the same purpose, 
subject to reprogramming guidelines.
    Section 503. The Committee continues and modifies a 
provision providing reprogramming authority for funds within an 
account and not to exceed five percent transfer authority 
between appropriations accounts with the requirement for a 15-
day advance Congressional notification. A detailed funding 
table identifying each Congressional control level for 
reprogramming purposes is included at the end of this Report. 
These reprogramming guidelines shall be complied with by all 
agencies funded by the Department of Homeland Security 
Appropriations Act, 2012.
    The Department shall submit reprogramming requests on a 
timely basis and provide complete explanations of the 
reallocations proposed, including detailed justifications of 
the increases and offsets, and any specific impact the proposed 
changes will have on the budget request for the following 
fiscal year and future-year appropriations requirements. Each 
request submitted to the Committees on Appropriations should 
include a detailed table showing the proposed revisions at the 
account, program, project, and activity level to the funding 
and staffing (full-time equivalent position) levels for the 
current fiscal year and to the levels requested in the 
President's budget for the following fiscal year.
    The Department shall manage its programs and activities 
within the levels appropriated. The Department should only 
submit reprogramming or transfer requests in the case of an 
unforeseeable emergency or situation that could not have been 
predicted when formulating the budget request for the current 
fiscal year. When the Department submits a reprogramming or 
transfer request to the Committees on Appropriations and does 
not receive identical responses from the House and Senate, it 
is the responsibility of the Department to reconcile the House 
and Senate differences before proceeding, and if reconciliation 
is not possible, to consider the reprogramming or transfer 
request not approved.
    The Department is not to submit a reprogramming or transfer 
of funds after June 30 except in extraordinary circumstances, 
which imminently threaten the safety of human life or the 
protection of property. If a reprogramming or transfer is 
needed after June 30, the notice should contain sufficient 
documentation as to why it meets this statutory exception.
    A new subsection (e), added in the fiscal year 2011 year-
long continuing resolution, is also added to ensure funds that 
are deobligated by the Department are also subject to the 
reprogramming and transfer guidelines and requirements set 
forth in this section.
    Section 504. The Committee continues a provision that 
prohibits funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the 
Department to make payment to the Department's Working Capital 
Fund, except for activities and amounts allowed in the 
President's fiscal year 2012 request. Funds provided to the WCF 
are available until expended. The Department can only charge 
components for direct usage of the WCF and these funds may be 
used only for the purposes consistent with the contributing 
component. Any funds paid in advance or reimbursed must reflect 
the full cost of each service. The WCF shall be subject to the 
requirements of section 503 of this Act.
    Section 505. The Committee continues a provision providing 
that not to exceed 50 percent of unobligated balances remaining 
at the end of fiscal year 2012 from appropriations made for 
salaries and expenses shall remain available through fiscal 
year 2013 subject to section 503 reprogramming guidelines.
    Section 506. The Committee continues a provision providing 
that funds for intelligence activities are deemed to be 
specifically authorized during fiscal year 2012 until the 
enactment of an Act authorizing intelligence activities for 
fiscal year 2012.
    Section 507. The Committee continues and modifies a 
provision requiring notification of the Committees on 
Appropriations three days before grant allocations, grant 
awards, contract awards, other transactional agreements, 
letters of intent, or task or delivery orders on a multiple 
contract award totaling $1,000,000 or more, or a task order 
greater than $25,000,000 from multi-year funds, are announced 
by the Department, including contracts covered by the Federal 
Acquisition Regulation. The Department is required to brief the 
Committees on Appropriations five full business days prior to 
announcing the intention to make a grant under State and Local 
Programs. Notification shall include a description of the 
project or projects to be funded, including city, county, and 
State.
    Section 508. The Committee continues a provision providing 
that no agency shall purchase, construct, or lease additional 
facilities for Federal law enforcement training without advance 
approval of the Committees on Appropriations.
    Section 509. The Committee continues a provision providing 
that none of the funds may be used for any construction, 
repair, alteration, and acquisition project for which a 
prospectus, if required under chapter 33 of title 40, United 
States Code, has not been approved.
    Section 510. The Committee continues and modifies a 
provision that consolidates by reference prior year statutory 
bill language into one provision. These provisions relate to 
contracting officer's technical representative training; 
sensitive security information; and the use of funds in 
conformance with section 303 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992.
    Section 511. The Committee continues a provision that none 
of the funds may be used in contravention of the Buy American 
Act.
    Section 512. The Committee continues and modifies a 
provision on reporting requirements of the Privacy Officer.
    Section 513. The Committee continues a provision regarding 
the oath of allegiance required by section 337 of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act.
    Section 514. The Committee continues a provision regarding 
the USCIS workforce.
    Section 515. The Committee continues a provision requiring 
the Chief Financial Officer to submit monthly budget execution 
and staffing reports within 45 days after the close of each 
month.
    Section 516. The Committee continues and modifies a 
provision that directs that any funds appropriated or 
transferred to TSA ``Aviation Security'', ``Administration'', 
and ``Transportation Security Support'' in fiscal years 2004, 
2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010, which are recovered or 
deobligated, shall be available only for procurement and 
installation of explosive detection systems for air cargo, 
baggage, and checkpoint screening systems, subject to 
notification. The Committee also requires quarterly reports on 
recovered or deobligated funds.
    Section 517. The Committee continues a provision requiring 
any funds appropriated to the Coast Guard's 110-123 foot patrol 
boat conversion that are recovered, collected, or otherwise 
received as a result of negotiation, mediation, or litigation, 
shall be available until expended for the Fast Response Cutter 
program.
    Section 518. The Committee continues a provision relating 
to undercover investigative operations authority of the United 
States Secret Service for fiscal year 2012.
    Section 519. The Committee continues a provision 
classifying the functions of the instructor staff at the FLETC 
as inherently governmental for purposes of the Federal 
Activities Inventory Reform Act.
    Section 520. The Committee continues a provision 
prohibiting the obligation of funds to the Office of the 
Secretary and Executive Management, the Office of the Under 
Secretary for Management, and the Office of the Chief Financial 
Officer for grants or contracts awarded by any means other than 
full and open competition. Certain exceptions apply, and this 
provision does not require new competitions of existing 
contracts during their current terms. The bill also requires 
the Inspector General to review Departmental contracts awarded 
noncompetitively and report on the results to the Committees.
    Section 521. The Committee continues and modifies a 
provision that prohibits funding for any position designated as 
a Principal Federal Official during a Stafford Act declared 
disaster or emergency.
    Section 522. The Committee continues a provision regarding 
the enforcement of Section 4025(1) of Public Law 108-458.
    Section 523. The Committee continues a provision that 
precludes DHS from using funds in this Act to carry out 
reorganization authority. This prohibition is not intended to 
prevent the Department from carrying out routine or small 
reallocations of personnel or functions within components, 
subject to Section 503 of this Act. This language prevents 
large scale reorganization of the Department, which the 
Committee believes should be acted on statutorily by the 
relevant Congressional committees of jurisdiction.
    Section 524. The Committee continues a provision 
prohibiting funding to grant an immigration benefit to any 
individual unless the results of background checks required in 
statute, to be completed prior to the grant of the benefit, 
have been received by DHS.
    Section 525. The Committee continues a provision 
prohibiting use of funds to destroy or put out to pasture any 
horse or other equine belonging to the Federal government 
unless adoption has been offered first.
    Section 526. The Committee continues and modifies a 
provision relating to other transactional authority of the DHS 
through fiscal year 2012.
    Section 527. The Committee continues a provision that 
requires the Secretary to link all contracts that provide award 
fees to successful acquisition outcomes.
    Section 528. The Committee continues a provision 
prohibiting the obligation of funds for the Office of Secretary 
and Executive Management for any new hires at DHS if they are 
not verified through the E-Verify program.
    Section 529. The Committee continues a provision related to 
prescription drugs.
    Section 530. The Committee continues a provision requiring 
the Secretary, in conjunction with the Secretary of Treasury, 
to notify the Committees of any proposed transfers from the 
Department of Treasury Forfeiture Fund to any agency within 
DHS. No funds may be obligated until the Subcommittees approve 
the proposed transfers.
    Section 531. The Committee continues a provision 
prohibiting funds for planning, testing, piloting, or 
developing a national identification card.
    Section 532. The Committee continues a provision requiring 
the Assistant Secretary of TSA to certify that no security 
risks will result if an airport does not participate in the E-
Verify program.
    Section 533. The Committee continues a provision that 
requires a report summarizing damage assessment information 
used to determine whether to declare a major disaster.
    Section 534. The Committee continues and modifies a 
provision relating to the liquidation of Plum Island assets and 
how the proceeds from this sale may be applied to construction 
costs of the new National Bio and Agro-defense Facility.
    Section 535. The Committee continues a provision directing 
that any official required by this Act to report or certify to 
the Committees on Appropriations may not delegate any authority 
unless expressly authorized to do so in this Act.
    Section 536. The Committee continues and modifies a 
provision that extends the date of the chemical security 
program.
    Section 537. The Committee continues and modifies a 
provision prohibiting the use of funds for the transfer or 
release of individuals detained at United States Naval Station, 
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
    Section 538. The Committee continues a provision 
prohibiting funds in this Act to be used for first-class 
travel.
    Section 539. The Committee continues a provision 
prohibiting funds in this Act to be used for adverse personnel 
actions for employees who use protective equipment or measures, 
including surgical masks, N95 respirators, gloves, or hand-
sanitizers in the conduct of their official duties.
    Section 540. The Committee continues a provision 
prohibiting funds to be used to employ illegal workers as 
described in Section 274A(h)(3) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act.
    Section 541. The Committee continues and modifies a 
provision on the proper disposal of personal information 
collected through the Registered Traveler program. A report on 
procedures and status is required to be submitted 90 days after 
the date of enactment of this Act.
    Section 542. The Committee continues a provision 
prohibiting funds appropriated or otherwise made available by 
this Act to pay for award or incentive fees for contractors 
with below satisfactory performance or performance that fails 
to meet the basic requirements of the contract.
    Section 543. The Committee includes a new provision that 
requires the Assistant Secretary of TSA to submit biannual 
reports on how the agency will meet the requirement to screen 
100 percent of air cargo transportation on passenger aircraft 
arriving in the United States. TSA has indicated they will not 
be able to meet the 9/11 Act deadline for this subset of air 
cargo.
    Section 544. The Committee includes a new provision that 
requires any new processes developed to screen aviation 
passengers and crews for transportation or national security to 
consider privacy and civil liberties, consistent with 
applicable laws, regulations, and guidance.
    Section 545. The Committee includes a new provision that 
extends the National Flood Insurance program until September 
30, 2012.
    Section 546. The Committee includes a new provision that 
makes deposits into the Immigration Examinations Fee Account 
available to USCIS for the purposes of immigrant integration 
grants, not to exceed $8,500,000, in fiscal year 2012.
    Section 547. The Committee includes a new provision that 
provides guidelines, including controls and reporting 
requirements, for any transfer of funds from appropriations for 
fiscal years 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012 to CBP, Border Security 
Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology account for the 
purposes of environmental mitigation to the Department of 
Interior.
    Section 548. The Committee includes a new provision that 
rescinds funds from ICE, Salaries and Expenses from Violent 
Crime Reduction Programs.
    Section 549. The Committee includes a new provision that 
rescinds unobligated balances from ICE, Construction.

      TITLE VI--EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING FOR DISASTER RELIEF


              (INCLUDING RESCISSION AND TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

    Section 601. The Committee includes a new provision 
providing supplemental funding for disaster relief upon 
enactment of this Act and rescinding and transferring funds to 
offset the supplemental funding.

                 TITLE VII--SPENDING REDUCTION ACCOUNT

    Section 701. The Committee includes a new provision that 
prohibits new budget authority from exceeding budget allocation 
in fiscal year 2012.

    APPROPRIATIONS CAN BE USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH MADE

    Title 31 of the United States Code makes clear that 
appropriations can be used only for the purposes for which they 
were appropriated as follows:
    Section 1301. Application.
    (a) Appropriations shall be applied only to the objects for 
which the appropriations were made except as otherwise provided 
by law.

              HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORT REQUIREMENTS

    The following items are included in accordance with various 
requirements of the Rules of the House of Representatives.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

         STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following is a statement of 
general performance goals and objectives for which this measure 
authorizes funding:
    The Committee on Appropriations considers program 
performance, including a program's success in developing and 
attaining outcome-related goals and objectives, in developing 
funding recommendations.

                          RESCISSION OF FUNDS

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following table is submitted 
describing the rescissions recommended in the accompanying 
bill:
        Account/Activity                                     Rescissions
ICE--Salaries and Expenses..............................     $20,997,000
Violent Crime Reduction Programs........................        $595,000
ICE--Construction.......................................     $11,300,000
Department of Energy, Section 129 of Public Law 110-329.    $500,000,000

                           TRANSFER OF FUNDS

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2), rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following is submitted describing 
the transfer of funds provided in the accompanying bill.
    The table shows, by title, department, and agency, the 
appropriations affected by such transfers:

            Appropriation Transfers Recommended in the Bill


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Account from which transfer
  Account to which transfer is to be made          Amount               is to be made                Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of Inspector General................        $16,000,000  FEMA--Disaster Relief Fund...        $16,000,000
FEMA--Management and Administration........       $100,000,000  FEMA--State and Local               $100,000,000
                                                                 Programs.
FEMA--Management and Administration........       $105,600,000  FEMA--Disaster Relief Fund...       $105,600,000
FEMA--Disaster Relief......................     $1,000,000,000  Department of Energy, Section     $1,000,000,000
                                                                 129 of Public Law 110-329.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DISCLOSURE OF EARMARKS AND CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS

    Neither the bill nor the report contains any Congressional 
earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as 
defined in clause 9 of rule XXI.

          Compliance With Rule XIII, Cl. 3(e) (Ramseyer Rule)

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

 SECTION 1202 OF THE 2002 SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR FURTHER 
  RECOVERY FROM AND RESPONSE TO TERRORIST ATTACKS ON THE UNITED STATES


                          (Public Law 107-206)

  Sec. 1202. (a) The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center 
may, for a period ending not later than December 31, [2012] 
2014, appoint and maintain a cadre of up to 350 Federal 
annuitants: (1) without regard to any provision of title 5, 
United States Code, which might otherwise require the 
application of competitive hiring procedures; and (2) who shall 
not be subject to any reduction in pay (for annuity allocable 
to the period of actual employment) under the provisions of 
section 8344 or 8468 of such title 5 or similar provision of 
any other retirement system for employees. A reemployed Federal 
annuitant as to whom a waiver of reduction under paragraph (2) 
applies shall not, for any period during which such waiver is 
in effect, be considered an employee for purposes of subchapter 
III of chapter 83 or chapter 84 of title 5, United States Code, 
or such other retirement system (referred to in paragraph (2)) 
as may apply.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007


(Public Law 109-295)

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                                TITLE V


GENERAL PROVISIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


  Sec. 532. (a) United States Secret Service Use of Proceeds 
Derived From Criminal Investigations.--During fiscal year 
[2010] 2012, with respect to any undercover investigative 
operation of the United States Secret Service (hereafter 
referred to in this section as the ``Secret Service'') that is 
necessary for the detection and prosecution of crimes against 
the United States--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  Sec. 550. (a) * * *
  (b) Interim regulations issued under this section shall apply 
until the effective date of interim or final regulations 
promulgated under other laws that establish requirements and 
standards referred to in subsection (a) and expressly supersede 
this section: Provided, That the authority provided by this 
section shall terminate on October 4, [2011] 2012.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


            SECTION 831 OF THE HOMELAND SECURITY ACT OF 2002


SEC. 831. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS.

  (a) Authority.--Until September 30, [2011] 2012, and subject 
to subsection (d), the Secretary may carry out a pilot program 
under which the Secretary may exercise the following 
authorities:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) Additional Requirements.--
          (1) In general.--The authority of the Secretary under 
        this section shall terminate September 30, [2011] 2012, 
        unless before that date the Secretary--
                  (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


                  NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE ACT OF 1968


                  TITLE XIII--NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE


                              SHORT TITLE

  Sec. 1301. This title may be cited as the ``National Flood 
Insurance Act of 1968''.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                               FINANCING

  Sec. 1309. (a) All authority which was vested in the Housing 
and Home Finance Administrator by virtue of section 15(e) of 
the Federal Flood Insurance Act of 1956 (70 Stat. 1084) 
(pertaining to the issue of notes or other obligations or the 
Secretary of the Treasury), as amended by subsections (a) and 
(b) of section 1303 of this Act, shall be available to the 
Director for the purpose of carrying out the flood insurance 
program under this title; except that the total amount of notes 
and obligations which may be issued by the Director pursuant to 
such authority (1) without the approval of the President, may 
not exceed $500,000,000, and (2) with the approval of the 
President, may not exceed $1,500,000,000 through the date 
specified in section 1319, and $1,000,000,000 thereafter; 
except that, through September 30, [2011] 2012, clause (2) of 
this sentence shall be applied by substituting 
``$20,725,000,000'' for ``$1,500,000,000''. The Director shall 
report to the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs 
of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Banking, 
Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate at any time when he 
requests the approval of the President in accordance with the 
preceding sentence.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                           PROGRAM EXPIRATION

  Sec. 1319. No new contract for flood insurance under this 
title shall be entered into after September 30, [2011] 2012.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


              COMPLIANCE WITH RULE XIII, CLAUSE 3(F)(1)(A)

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee has inserted at the 
appropriate place in the report a description of the effects of 
provisions proposed in the accompanying bill which may be 
considered, under certain circumstances, to change the 
application of existing law, either directly or indirectly.
    The bill provides, in some instances, funding of agencies 
and activities where legislation has not yet been finalized. In 
addition, the bill carries language, in some instances, 
permitting activities not authorized by law. Additionally, the 
Committee includes a number of general provisions.

             TITLE I--DEPARTMENT MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS


            Office of the Secretary and Executive Management

    The Committee includes language providing funds for the 
Office of the Secretary and Executive Management offices, 
including funds for official reception and representation 
expenses. The Committee also limits the funds available until 
certain actions have been taken.

              Office of the Under Secretary for Management

    The Committee includes language providing funds for 
reception and representation expenses; for costs necessary to 
consolidate headquarters operations, including tenant 
improvements and relocation costs; and for the human resources 
information technology program.

                 Office of the Chief Financial Officer

    The Committee includes language providing funds for the 
Chief Financial Officer.

                Office of the Chief Information Officer

    The Committee includes language providing funds for the 
Chief Information Officer and for the development and 
acquisition of information technology equipment, software, 
services, and related activities. The Committee also requires 
submission of an expenditure plan as well as a multi-year 
investment and management plan for projects and activities 
funded in this account.

                        Analysis and Operations

    The Committee includes language providing funds for 
information analysis and operations coordination activities, 
including funding for official representation expenses.

                      Office of Inspector General

    The Committee includes language providing funds for the 
Office of Inspector General as well as certain confidential 
operational expenses, including the payment of informants.

          TITLE II--SECURITY, ENFORCEMENT, AND INVESTIGATIONS


                   U.S. Customs and Border Protection


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

    The Committee includes language making funds available for 
border security, immigration, customs, and agricultural 
inspections and regulatory activities; purchase or lease of 
vehicles; contracting with individuals for personal services; 
Harbor Maintenance Fee collections; official reception and 
representation expenses; Customs User Fee collections; payment 
of rental space in connection with pre-clearance operations; 
and compensation of informants. The Committee includes language 
regarding overtime compensation. The Committee also requires 
submission of a multi-year investment and management plan for 
Inspection and Detection Technology.

                        AUTOMATION MODERNIZATION

    The Committee includes language making funds available for 
automated systems. The Committee requires submission of an 
expenditure plan for the Automated Commercial Environment and a 
multi-year investment and management plan for projects and 
activities funded in this account.

        BORDER SECURITY FENCING, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND TECHNOLOGY

    The Committee includes language making funds available for 
border security fencing, infrastructure, and technology and 
includes language limiting the funds available until a detailed 
expenditure plan is submitted. In addition, the Committee 
requires submission of a multi-year investment and management 
plan for funds provided in this account.

 AIR AND MARINE INTERDICTION, OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE, AND PROCUREMENT

    The Committee includes language making funds available for 
the operations, maintenance, and procurement of marine vessels, 
aircraft, unmanned aircraft systems, and other equipment; 
travel; and assistance to other law enforcement agencies and 
humanitarian efforts. The Committee includes language 
prohibiting the transfer of aircraft and related equipment out 
of Customs and Border Protection unless certain conditions are 
met. In addition, the Committee requires submission of an 
updated five-year strategic plan for air and marine operations.

                 CONSTRUCTION AND FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

    The Committee includes language making funds available for 
the planning, acquisition, construction, renovating, equipping, 
and maintaining of buildings and facilities. In addition, 
language is included requiring an expenditure plan, as well as 
a real property inventory and construction plan.

                U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

    The Committee includes language making funds available to 
conduct investigations of criminal violations of Federal law 
relating to border security, customs and trade, immigration and 
naturalization, and travel and transportation; and for the 
civil enforcement of the immigration and customs laws, 
including the detention and removal of immigration status 
violators; special operations; official reception and 
representation expenses; compensation to informants; and 
reimbursement of other Federal agencies for certain costs. The 
Committee includes language regarding overtime compensation and 
forced child labor laws, as well as a minimum number of 
detention bed spaces that must be maintained. The Committee 
also includes language that requires the Secretary to identify 
illegal aliens who have been convicted of a crime or who pose a 
serious risk to public safety or national security who are 
eligible for removal. The Committee prohibits the delegation of 
law enforcement authority for the 287(g) program if terms of 
the agreement have been violated. The Committee prohibits funds 
to continue any contract for detention services if two recent 
evaluations are less than adequate.

                        AUTOMATION MODERNIZATION

    The Committee includes language making funds available for 
automated systems. The Committee requires submission of a 
multi-year investment and management plan for projects and 
activities funded in this account.

                 Transportation Security Administration


                           AVIATION SECURITY

    The Committee includes language making funds available for 
civil aviation security and establishes conditions under which 
security fees are collected and credited. The Committee also 
includes language providing funds for reception and 
representation expenses. The Committee limits staffing to 
46,000 full-time equivalent screeners, not including part-time 
hires, and requires a report on advanced technology and 
staffing deployment. Finally, the bill includes language 
clarifying a variety of people are not exempt from screening.

                    SURFACE TRANSPORTATION SECURITY

    The Committee includes language providing funds for surface 
transportation security programs of the Transportation Security 
Administration.

           TRANSPORTATION THREAT ASSESSMENT AND CREDENTIALING

    The Committee includes language providing funds for 
screening programs.

                    TRANSPORTATION SECURITY SUPPORT

    The Committee includes language providing funds for TSA's 
transportation security support and intelligence programs. The 
Committee includes language requiring the submission of 
detailed expenditure plans for air cargo, checkpoint support 
systems, and explosive detection systems refurbishment, 
procurement, and installation.

                          FEDERAL AIR MARSHALS

    The Committee includes language providing funds for the 
Federal Air Marshals.

                              Coast Guard


                           OPERATING EXPENSES

    The Committee includes a provision regarding passenger 
motor vehicles, small boats, repairs and service life-
replacements, minor shore construction projects, recreation and 
welfare, and the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. The Committee 
also includes language on reception and representation expenses 
and on reporting sexual assaults. The Committee withholds 
funding for the Headquarters Directorate until certain 
conditions have been met.

                ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE AND RESTORATION

    The Committee includes language providing funds for 
environmental compliance and restoration of the Coast Guard and 
directs the inclusion of costs associated with backlogged 
projects be included in the annual budget submission.

                            RESERVE TRAINING

    The Committee includes language providing funds for the 
Coast Guard reserve, including maintenance and operation of the 
reserve program, personnel and training costs, and equipment 
and services.

              ACQUISITIONS, CONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENTS

    The Committee includes language providing for funds for the 
Coast Guard acquisition, construction, renovation, and 
improvement of aids to navigation, shore facilities, housing, 
vessels, and aircraft as well as for maintenance, 
rehabilitation, lease, and operations of facilities and 
equipment. The Committee includes a provision requiring a 
capital investment plan for future appropriations years with 
certain conditions.

              RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

    The Committee includes language providing funds for applied 
scientific research, development, test, and evaluation; and for 
maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and operation of facilities 
and equipment. The Committee includes language allowing funds 
to remain available until expended; authorizing funds to be 
derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund; and 
authorizing funds received from State and local governments, 
other public authorities, private sources, and foreign 
countries to be credited to this account and used for certain 
purposes. The Committee includes a provision requiring a 
detailed spend plan be submitted with the annual budget 
submission.

                              RETIRED PAY

    The Committee includes language providing funds for retired 
pay and medical care for the Coast Guard's retired personnel 
and their dependents and makes these funds available until 
expended.

                      United States Secret Service


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

    The Committee includes language that provides funds for the 
purchase and replacement of vehicles; the hire of aircraft; 
purchase of motorcycles; services of expert witnesses as may be 
necessary; rental of certain buildings; improvements to 
buildings as may be necessary for protective missions; per diem 
and subsistence allowances; firearms matches; presentation of 
awards; protective travel; research and development; grants for 
behavioral research; official reception and representation 
expenses; technical assistance and equipment to foreign law 
enforcement organizations; advance payment for commercial 
accommodations; and uniforms. The Committee provides for two-
year availability of funds for protective travel. The Committee 
authorizes the obligation of funds in anticipation of 
reimbursements for training, under certain conditions. The 
Committee also restricts the obligation of funds to compensate 
employees for overtime in an annual amount in excess of $35,000 
except under certain conditions. Finally the Committee 
prohibits funds to be available for the protection of the head 
of a Federal agency other than the Secretary of Homeland 
Security unless the Secret Service has entered into a 
reimbursable agreement.

     Acquisition, Construction, Improvements, and Related Expenses

    The Committee includes language providing funds for the 
acquisition, construction, improvement, and related expenses of 
Secret Service facilities.

                  TITLE III--PREPAREDNESS AND RECOVERY


              National Protection and Programs Directorate


                     MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

    The Committee includes language providing funds for the 
Office of the Under Secretary for National Protection and 
Programs Directorate as well as to support business operations, 
information technology, and risk management. The Committee also 
includes language providing funds for official reception and 
representation expenses.

           INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION AND INFORMATION SECURITY

    The Committee includes language making funds available 
until September 30, 2012. The Committee limits the amount of 
funds available for obligation for cyber security activities 
and infrastructure protection until an expenditure plan is 
provided. In addition, the Committee includes language 
requiring a multi-year investment and management plan.

                       FEDERAL PROTECTIVE SERVICE

    The Committee includes language making funds available 
until expended for the operations of the Federal Protective 
Service.

    UNITED STATES VISITOR AND IMMIGRANT STATUS INDICATOR TECHNOLOGY

    The Committee includes language making funds available for 
the US-VISIT program and includes language requiring the 
submission of an expenditure plan as well as a multi-year 
investment and management plan.

                        Office of Health Affairs

    The Committee includes language making funds available for 
health affairs, biosurveillance, BioWatch, medical readiness 
planning, and chemical response. The Committee also includes 
language providing funds for official reception and 
representation expenses. In addition, the Committee includes 
language requiring the submission of an expenditure plan.

                  Federal Emergency Management Agency


                     MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

    The Committee includes language that provides funds for 
management and administration. The Committee also includes a 
provision providing funds for reception and representation 
expenses, a provision limiting administrative costs for Urban 
Search and Rescue Teams, funding for the Office of the National 
Capital Region Coordinator and Mount Weather, a provision 
directing the budget be detailed by office, a provision that 
the Governors of the State of West Virginia and the 
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania be incorporated into the efforts 
to integrate the activities within the National Capital Region, 
and a provision that requires an expenditure plan be submitted.

                        STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS

    The Committee includes language that provides funds for 
grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, other activities, 
including grants to State and local governments for terrorism 
prevention. The Committee also includes a provision identifying 
the amount of funds available for Operation Stonegarden and for 
National Programs. The Committee includes language specifying 
the conditions under which both applications and grants are 
made to certain grants made in the Act. The Committee also 
includes language specifying the conditions for distribution of 
certain grants. The Committee includes a provision that limits 
the distribution of urban area grants to the top 10, highest-
risk urban areas, a provision allowing for a transfer to FEMA 
Management and Administration, a provision providing for the 
submission of an expenditure plan, and a provision directing 
the submission of a plan to expend all unexpended balances.

                     FIREFIGHTER ASSISTANCE GRANTS

    The Committee includes language that not to exceed 10 
percent of the total is available for program administration 
and requires an expenditure plan for program administration.

                EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE GRANTS

    The Committee includes language providing that 10 percent 
of the total appropriation is available for program 
administration.

              RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAM

    The Committee includes a provision regarding charges 
assessed for the radiological emergency preparedness program, 
including conditions and methodology for the assessment and 
collection of fees.

                   UNITED STATES FIRE ADMINISTRATION

    The Committee includes language that provides funds for 
expenses of the U.S. Fire Administration.

                            DISASTER RELIEF

    The Committee includes language making funds available 
until expended and requires a variety of reporting 
requirements.

            DISASTER ASSISTANCE DIRECT LOAN PROGRAM ACCOUNT

    The Committee includes a provision limiting gross 
obligations for direct loans; includes a provision regarding 
the cost of modifying loans; and provides for administrative 
expenses of the direct loan program.

                 FLOOD HAZARD MAPPING AND RISK ANALYSIS

    The Committee includes provisions regarding non-Federal 
sums for cost-shared mapping activities and limiting total 
administrative costs to three percent of the total 
appropriation. The Committee also includes language making 
funds available until expended.

                     NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE FUND

    The Committee includes language limiting funds available 
for salaries and expenses and language making funds available 
for flood hazard mitigation floodplain management available 
until September 30, 2012. The Committee includes provisions 
limiting operating expenses; for interest on Treasury 
borrowings; for agents' commissions and taxes; for fees 
collected and available for floodplain management; and for 
flood mitigation activities associated with sections of the 
National Flood Insurance Act of 1968. The Committee includes 
language permitting additional fees collected be credited as an 
offsetting collection and available for floodplain management. 
The Committee includes language providing that not to exceed 
four percent of the total appropriation is available for 
administrative costs.

                  NATIONAL PREDISASTER MITIGATION FUND

    The Committee includes language authorizing grant awards to 
be available until expended. The Committee includes a provision 
limiting total administrative costs to three percent of the 
total appropriation.

                       EMERGENCY FOOD AND SHELTER

    The Committee includes language making funds available 
until expended and limiting total administrative costs to 3.5 
percent of the total appropriation.

       TITLE IV--RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, TRAINING, AND SERVICES


           United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

    The Committee includes language making funds available for 
citizenship and immigration services, specifically for the E-
Verify program and Systematic Alien Verification for 
Entitlements, as well as permitting replacement of vehicles.

                Federal Law Enforcement Training Center


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

    The Committee includes language making funds available for 
official representation expenses; purchase of police-type 
pursuit vehicles; student athletic and related recreational 
activities; conducting and participating in firearms matches; 
public awareness and community support; marketing; room and 
board; services; services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; law 
enforcement accreditation; and reimbursements for certain 
mobile phone expenses. The Committee includes language 
authorizing the training of certain law enforcement personnel, 
authorizing the use of appropriations and reimbursements for 
such training, and establishing a cap on total obligations. The 
Committee also includes language authorizing funds for the 
compensation of accreditation costs for participating agencies, 
authorizing the hiring of retired Federal employees until 2012, 
and on the scheduling of basic or advanced law enforcement 
training.

      ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENTS AND RELATED EXPENSES

    The Committee includes language making funds available for 
real property and facilities and authorizes reimbursement from 
government agencies requesting construction of special use 
facilities.

                         Science and Technology


                     MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

    The Committee includes language providing funds for 
management and administration as well as official reception and 
representation expenses.

           RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, ACQUISITION AND OPERATIONS

    The Committee includes language making funds available for 
research, development, test and evaluation; acquisition; 
operations, and for the purchase or lease of vehicles.

                   Domestic Nuclear Detection Office


                     MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

    The Committee includes language that provides funds for 
management and administration. The Committee also includes a 
provision providing funds for reception and representation 
expenses.

           RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, ACQUISITION, AND OPERATIONS

    The Committee includes language making funds available for 
nuclear detection research, development, testing, and 
evaluation.

                          SYSTEMS ACQUISITION

    The Committee includes language making funds available for 
the purchase and deployment of radiation detection equipment. 
The Committee limits the full-scale procurement of certain 
types of these systems until the Secretary certifies a 
significant increase in operational effectiveness among other 
requirements.

                      TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

    Language limiting the availability of any appropriation for 
obligation beyond the current year unless expressly provided.
    Language permitting unexpended balances of prior 
appropriations to be merged with new appropriation accounts and 
used for the same purpose, subject to reprogramming guidelines.
    Language providing reprogramming authority for funds within 
an account and limiting the percent that can be transferred 
between appropriations accounts with the requirement for a 15-
day advance Congressional notification. A detailed funding 
table identifying each Congressional control level for 
reprogramming purposes is included at the end of this Report. 
These reprogramming guidelines shall be complied with by all 
agencies funded by the Department of Homeland Security 
Appropriations Act, 2012, for obligation and deobligation of 
funds.
    Language prohibiting funds appropriated or otherwise made 
available to the Department to make payment to the Working 
Capital Fund (WCF), except for activities and amounts allowed 
in the President's fiscal year 2012 request. Funds provided to 
the WCF are available until expended. The Department can only 
charge components for direct usage of the WCF and these funds 
may be used only for the purposes consistent with the 
contributing component. Any funds paid in advance or reimbursed 
must reflect the full cost of each service. The WCF shall be 
subject to the requirements of section 503 of this Act.
    Language providing that not to exceed 50 percent of 
unobligated balances remaining at the end of fiscal year 2011 
from appropriations made for salaries and expenses remain 
available through fiscal year 2012 subject to reprogramming 
guidelines.
    Language providing that funds for intelligence activities 
are deemed to be specifically authorized during fiscal year 
2012 until the enactment of an Act authorizing intelligence 
activities for fiscal year 2012.
    Language requiring notification of the Committees on 
Appropriations three days before grant allocations, grant 
awards, contract awards, other transactional agreements, letter 
of intents, or task or delivery order on a multiple contract 
award totaling $1,000,000 or more, or a task order greater than 
$25,000,000 from multi-year funds, is announced by the 
Department, including contracts covered by the Federal 
Acquisition Regulation. The Department is required to brief the 
Committees on Appropriations five full day business days prior 
to announcing the intention to make a grant under State and 
Local Programs. Notification shall include a description of the 
project or projects to be funded, including city, county, and 
State.
    Language prohibiting any agency from purchasing, 
constructing, or leasing additional facilities for Federal law 
enforcement training without advance approval of the Committees 
on Appropriations.
    Language prohibiting funds to be used for any construction, 
repair, alteration, and acquisition project for which a 
prospectus, if required under chapter 33 of title 40, United 
States Code, has not been approved.
    Language consolidating, by reference, prior year statutory 
bill language into one provision. These provisions relate to 
contracting officer's technical representative training; 
sensitive security information; and the use of funds in 
conformance with Section 303 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992.
    Language prohibiting funds being used in contravention of 
the Buy American Act.
    Language on reporting requirements for the DHS Privacy 
Officer.
    Language maintaining the use of the current oath of 
allegiance required by Section 337 of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act.
    Language addressing the USCIS workforce.
    Language directing TSA to work with air carriers and 
airports to ensure the screening of cargo carried on passenger 
aircraft, as required by the 9/11 Act, increases incrementally 
each quarter, and the submission of an air cargo inspection 
statistics report detailing how incremental progress is being 
made to the Committees within 45 days of the end of each 
quarter of the fiscal year.
    Language requiring the Chief Financial Officer to submit 
monthly budget execution and staffing reports within 45 days 
after the close of each month.
    Language directing that any funds appropriated or 
transferred to TSA ``Aviation Security'', ``Administration'', 
and ``Transportation Security Support'' in fiscal years 2004, 
2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009, which are recovered or 
deobligated, shall be available only for procurement and 
installation of explosive detection systems for air cargo, 
baggage, and checkpoint screening systems, subject to 
notification. The Committee also requires quarterly reports on 
recovered or deobligated funds.
    Language requiring any funds appropriated to the Coast 
Guard's 110-123 foot patrol boat conversion that are recovered, 
collected, or otherwise received as a result of negotiation, 
mediation, or litigation, be available until expended for the 
Fast Response Cutter program.
    Language relating to undercover investigative operations 
authority of the Secret Service for fiscal year 2012.
    Language classifying the functions of the instructor staff 
at FLETC as inherently governmental for purposes of the Federal 
Activities Inventory Reform Act.
    Language prohibiting the obligation of funds to the Office 
of the Secretary and Executive Management, the Office of the 
Under Secretary for Management, and the Office of the Chief 
Financial Officer for grants or contracts awarded by any means 
other than full and open competition. Certain exceptions apply. 
This provision does not require new competitions of existing 
contracts during their current terms. The bill also requires 
the Inspector General to review Departmental contracts awarded 
noncompetitively and report on the results to the Committees.
    Language prohibiting funding for any position designated as 
a Principal Federal Official during a Stafford Act declared 
disaster or emergency.
    Language regarding the enforcement of Section 4025(1) of 
Public Law 108-458 pertaining to butane lighters.
    Language precluding DHS from using funds in this Act to 
carry out reorganization authority.
    Language prohibiting funding to grant an immigration 
benefit to any individual unless the results of background 
checks required in statute be completed prior to the grant of 
the benefit have been received by DHS.
    Language prohibiting use of funds to destroy or put out to 
pasture any horse or other equine belonging to the Federal 
government unless adoption has been offered first.
    Language relating the use of other transactional authority 
by DHS through fiscal year 2012.
    Language requiring the Secretary to link all contracts that 
provide award fees to successful acquisition outcomes.
    Language prohibiting the obligation of funds for the Office 
of Secretary and Executive Management for any new hires at DHS 
if they are not verified through E-Verify.
    Language related to prescription drugs.
    Language requiring the Secretary, in conjunction with the 
Secretary of Treasury, to notify the Committees of any proposed 
transfers from the Department of Treasury Forfeiture Fund to 
any agency within DHS. No funds may be obligated until the 
Subcommittees approve the proposed transfers.
    Language prohibiting funds for the planning, testing, 
piloting, or developing a national identification card.
    Language requiring the Assistant Secretary of TSA to 
certify that no security risks will result if an airport does 
not participate in the E-Verify program.
    Language requiring a report summarizing damage assessment 
information used to determine whether to declare a major 
disaster.
    Language relating to the liquidation of Plum Island assets 
and how the proceeds from this sale may be applied to 
construction costs of the new National Bio and Agro-defense 
Facility.
    Language directing that any official required by this Act 
to report or certify to the Committees on Appropriations may 
not delegate any authority unless expressly authorized to do so 
in this Act.
    Language extending the date of the chemical security 
program.
    Language prohibiting the use of funds for the transfer or 
release of individuals detained at United States Naval Station, 
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
    Language prohibiting funds in this Act to be used for 
first-class travel.
    Language prohibiting funds in this Act to be used for 
adverse personnel actions for employees who use protective 
equipment or measures, including surgical masks, N95 
respirators, gloves, or hand-sanitizers in the conduct of their 
official duties.
    Language prohibiting funds to be used to employ illegal 
workers as described in Section 274A(h)(3) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act.
    Language on the proper disposal of personal information 
collected through the Registered Traveler program. A report on 
procedures and status is required to be submitted 90 days after 
the date of enactment of this Act.
    Language prohibiting funds appropriated or otherwise made 
available by this Act to pay for award or incentive fees for 
contractors with below satisfactory performance or performance 
that fails to meet the basic requirements of the contract.
    Language requiring the Assistant Secretary of TSA to submit 
biannual reports on how the agency will meet the requirement to 
screen 100 percent of air cargo transportation on passenger 
aircraft arriving in the United States since TSA has indicated 
that they will not be able to meet the 9/11 Act deadline for 
this subset of air cargo.
    Language requiring any new processes developed to screen 
aviation passengers and crews for transportation or national 
security to consider privacy and civil liberties, consistent 
with applicable laws, regulations, and guidance.
    Language extending the National Flood Insurance program 
until September 30, 2012.
    Language making immigration examination fee collections 
explicitly available for immigrant integration grants, not to 
exceed $8,500,000, in fiscal year 2012.
    Language permitting funds in the Border Security Fencing, 
Infrastructure, and Technology account to be transferred for 
the purposes of environmental mitigation to the Department of 
the Interior, under strict controls and with reporting 
requirements.
    Language rescinding unobligated balances from ICE Salaries 
and Expenses and from Violent Crime Reduction programs.
    Language rescinding unobligated balances from ICE 
Construction.

      TITLE VI--EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING FOR DISASTER RELIEF


              (INCLUDING RESCISSION AND TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

    Language providing supplemental funding for disaster relief 
upon enactment of this Act and rescinding and transferring 
funds to offset the supplemental funding.

                 TITLE VII--SPENDING REDUCTION ACCOUNT

    Language prohibiting new budget authority from exceeding 
the budget allocation in fiscal year 2012.

                  APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the House of 
Representatives, the following table lists the appropriations 
in the accompanying bill that are not authorized by law:

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                   COMPARISON WITH BUDGET RESOLUTION

    Section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget Act 
requires the report accompanying a bill providing new budget 
authority to contain a statement comparing the levels in the 
bill to the suballocations submitted under section 302(b) of 
the Act for the most recently agreed to concurrent resolution 
on the budget for the applicable fiscal year. That information 
is provided in the table headed ``Comparison of Reported Bill 
to Section 302(b) Suballocation.''

                                                BUDGETARY IMPACT
  PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93-344, AS
                                                     AMENDED
                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         302(b) allocation                 This bill\1\
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Budget                           Buget
                                                     authority        Outlays        authority        Outlays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee
 allocations to its subcommittees of amounts in
 the First Concurrent Department of Homeland
 Security Appropriations Act, 2012
General purpose discretionary...................          40,592          45,107          40,592       \1\45,107
Global war on terrorism.........................             258             206             258             206
Mandatory.......................................           1,440           1,402           1,440           1,402
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Includes outlays from prior year budget authority

                      FIVE YEAR OUTLAY PROJECTIONS

    In compliance with section 308(a)(1)(B) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as 
amended, the following table contains five-year projections 
associated with the budget authority provided in the 
accompanying bill:

[In millions of dollars]

Projection of outlays associated with the 
    recommendation:
    2012................................................       \2\26,896
    2013................................................           7,648
    2014................................................           3,717
    2015................................................           1,263
    2016 and future years...............................           1,256

  \2\Excludes outlays from prior year budget authority.

               ASSISTANCE TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

    In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as 
amended, the financial assistance to state and local 
governments is as follows:

[In millions of dollars]

Budget Authority........................................           2,593
Outlays.................................................          \3\197

  \3\Excludes outlays from prior year budget authority.

                        CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY

    Pursuant to section 6(e) of the rules of the Committee on 
Appropriations, the following statement is submitted regarding 
the specific powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to 
enact the accompanying bill.

          The principal constitutional authority for this 
        legislation is clause 7 of section 9 of article I of 
        the Constitution of the United States (the 
        appropriation power), which states: ``No Money shall be 
        drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of 
        Appropriations made by Law . . .'' In addition, clause 
        1 of section 8 of article I of the Constitution (the 
        spending power) provides: ``The Congress shall have the 
        Power . . . . to pay the Debts and provide for the 
        common Defence and general welfare of the United States 
        . . .'' Together, these specific constitutional 
        provisions establish the congressional power of the 
        purse, granting Congress the authority to appropriate 
        funds, to determine their purpose, amount, and period 
        of availability and to set forth terms and conditions 
        governing their use.

                    DETAILED EXPLANATIONS IN REPORT

    The following table contains detailed funding 
recommendations at the program, project, and activity (PPA) 
level. Public Law 112-10 (signed into law on April 15, 2011) 
required the Department to submit a detailed fiscal year 2011 
expenditure plan by program, project, and activity no later 
than May 9, 2011. Because the Department and the Committee 
continued to reconcile discrepancies on this expenditure plan 
days before both the Subcommittee and Full Committee markups of 
this fiscal year 2012 bill, the following table does not 
include fiscal year 2011 enacted funding per PPA. Subsequent 
technical adjustments to funding comparisons between the 
recommended and enacted funding levels may be required. 
Furthermore, it should be emphasized again that a more detailed 
statement describing the effect of the above provisions 
inserted by the Committee that directly or indirectly change 
the application of existing law may be found at the appropriate 
place in this report.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                             MINORITY VIEWS

    As we approach the ten-year anniversary of the September 
11th terrorist attack, there is no doubt that America is better 
prepared than before to counter and respond to a terrorist 
attack. Yet, it is equally clear that this threat has not 
diminished. Over the past 18 months, we have seen numerous 
attempts to attack our homeland, including efforts from 
homegrown terrorists as well as from persons who would not have 
been flagged for further scrutiny before being permitted to 
come to the United States. The Christmas Day, 2009, bombing 
attempt of a Northwest Airlines flight over Detroit, the Times 
Square bombing attempt in May 2010, and the Yemen air cargo 
plot are notable examples of this persistent threat. 
Additionally, after the death of Osama bin Laden, media sources 
reported that Al Qaeda may have been attempting a major attack 
on U.S. rail systems. Each of these threats must be dealt with 
by the programs and activities funded in this bill. 
Unfortunately, the funding levels contained herein do not 
adequately address these threats.

               Concerns with the Bill: Budget Allocation

    For the second year in a row, overall funding for the 
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will drop. With a 302(b) 
allocation for DHS in FY 2012 of $40.592 billion, the 
Republican majority is essentially returning DHS discretionary 
funding to the 2009 level.
    The bill adopted by the Full Committee is 2.6 percent, or 
$1.071 billion, below the 2011 enacted level of $41.661 
billion, which is already below the fiscal year 2010 enacted 
level. And the bill is 6.8 percent, or $1.984 billion, below 
the President's budget request of $43.576 billion. While this 
bill provides adequate funding for the front line employees of 
the Department of Homeland Security to continue to conduct 
critical operations along our borders, protect our nation's 
airports and seaports, and respond to the spate of natural 
disasters our country has experienced this spring, it severely 
shortchanges our State and local partners who will be the first 
responders to terrorist attacks, natural disasters, and other 
major emergencies. It also decimates the Department's research 
efforts on cyber security and other developing threats.
    Beginning with the 2011 Appropriation, which included 
reduced funding levels to many key State and Local programs, 
and now continuing with this 2012 bill, which cuts funding for 
State and Local grants and Firefighter Assistance grants by 
more than half from 2011, this compounded reduction in funding 
breaks faith with our responder community. These reductions 
come for two reasons: a paltry 302(b) allocation for the 
homeland security bill resulting from an entirely inadequate 
discretionary spending cap established in the Republican Budget 
Resolution, and the decision to increase funding for the 
Disaster Relief Fund by $850 million without emergency 
designation, which was not requested, even though the 
Administration is well aware of at least $6 billion in disaster 
commitments it must pay out shortly. (These Disaster Relief 
commitments do not reflect the new disaster costs incurred with 
the tornados and flooding this spring.) Traditionally, a 
Disaster Relief shortfall has been met through emergency 
supplemental appropriations, as shown when the Full Committee 
adopted a $1 billion dollar emergency supplemental for disaster 
costs anticipated for the remainder of 2011. Chairman Rogers 
has indicated that he expects to pass another supplemental 
later this year to deal with the costs that will be incurred in 
2012 from these same disasters. Yet even with a $1 billion 
increase for 2011 needs and an impending supplemental disaster 
appropriation for 2012, this bill still includes funding for 
Disaster Relief at a higher than requested level. This requires 
deeper cuts to critical programs than would be required by the 
paltry allocation itself. Unfortunately, state and local first 
responder grants received the brunt of this blow, taking a 
fifty percent reduction overall. Not only does this adversely 
impact efforts at the state and local level to improve 
preparedness for natural disasters and terrorist attacks, but 
it does so at a time when state and local budgets are already 
contracting, making this funding all the more vital.

                Breaking Faith with the First Responders

    The bill adopted by the Full Committee cuts FEMA State and 
Local programs by a staggering 55 percent below the enacted 
level and 70 percent below fiscal year 2010. Similarly, the 
bill cuts 57 percent from Firefighter Assistance as grants 
compared to 2010 and 2011. With the threat of terrorism still 
looming large and with the seemingly incessant onslaught of 
natural disasters across the country, these cuts break faith 
with the states and localities that depend on us as partners to 
secure our communities. Similarly, the cuts to firefighters 
ignore key investments needed to maintain the basic response 
capacity in our communities. According to the International 
Association of Firefighters, 1,600 firefighters will lose their 
jobs if the cuts in this bill are enacted. These cuts will be 
doubly disruptive as many of our states and municipalities are 
being forced to slash their own budgets as the effects of the 
recession linger.
    Further the bill provides a total of $1 billion for all 
State and Local Grants, making all-hazard, formula-based State 
Homeland Security grants compete against terrorism-based 
security grants for high threat, high-risk urban areas, ports, 
and transit. But this $1 billion allocation is misleading. 
After excluding the statutory set-asides for Operation 
Stonegarden of $55,000,000 and for National Programs of 
$192,663,000 as well as the 10 percent for administrative 
costs, the actual funding that the Secretary can allocate is 
$677,103,300. This figure is below what the urban area security 
grant program alone received in fiscal year 2011. At this 
level, if the Secretary were to provide funding for State 
Homeland Security grants, which requires each state and 
territory to receive a minimum amount of funding (defined in 
statute) as well as a 25 percent requirement for law 
enforcement terrorism prevention grants, DHS estimates that 
states and territories would receive at least 53.2 percent less 
than they will receive in fiscal year 2011. Some states, such 
as California and New York, could receive over a 90 percent 
reduction if the Secretary did not increase state funding above 
the minimums for risk, vulnerability, and consequence.
    Plainly put, these decisions are shortsighted, and we 
cannot conceive of any defensible argument for cuts of this 
magnitude. Chairmen Rogers and Aderholt explained at the Full 
Committee markup of this bill that one of the main reasons for 
the cut to State and Local grant programs is because the agency 
has allowed large pots of money to remain ``unspent.'' While we 
concur that the Department has struggled to get those entities 
who receive grants to expend the dollars quickly, many of these 
funds are tied to longer term construction and acquisition 
projects that require multiple stages of review before 
construction can begin or reimbursement can occur. We should 
also be clear that, by and large, these funds are already 
obligated for specific and approved projects, but the money has 
not left the Treasury because final receipts for completed work 
have not been turned in by the states and localities. Again, 
this is largely due to the fact that these efforts to build 
local preparedness capacity are long term endeavors and that 
the various financial accountability and legal requirements on 
the grantees extend the reimbursement schedule longer than 
would be ideal. But it is not the case that States and 
localities are inundated with federal preparedness funding and 
that continued funding is unnecessary, as has been suggested. 
On the contrary, vital preparedness efforts will be delayed, 
stalled or abandoned in the absence of sufficient follow-on 
grant funding combined with shrinking state and local budgets.
    Since the Subcommittee markup of this bill, we have heard 
repeatedly from numerous entities about the damaging nature of 
this decision to only provide $1 billion, in one lump sum, for 
all State and Local grants. For example,
     Transit agencies will not have funding to hire 
additional law enforcement officers, acquire bomb sniffing 
dogs, or install explosive screening devices at a time when 
open source media reports indicate that Al Qaeda may be 
attempting a major attack on the U.S. rail system.
     State and localities will receive greatly reduced 
funding (or be denied funding entirely) to harden tunnels and 
bridges or install surveillance systems at high-risk areas.
     Ports will not have funds for vessels to protect 
Harbor waterways from a terrorist threat or for maritime 
training of law enforcement personnel at the ports.
     According to the National Association of Counties, 
a reduction in grant programs and the combining of funding will 
result in communities of all sizes not being able to enhance 
their level of preparedness to deal with all hazards, including 
potential nuclear, chemical, and biological attacks.
     Cuts of this magnitude will cost jobs and harm the 
economy.
    We cannot support this diminution in preparedness and so 
offered three amendments to restore funding for these critical 
grant programs, which were defeated almost exclusively along 
party lines. We maintain that more can and should be done to 
support our first responders, and we will continue to voice our 
support for funding enhancements as the bill progresses to the 
floor and in conference with the Senate.

                 Disaster Relief Reporting Requirements

    We expressed strong concerns in Full Committee over a 
disturbing, precedent-setting provision in this bill. It would 
require the President to submit a budget amendment for 
additional disaster relief funding three months before the 
balance of available funds reaches $800 million. And it would 
require those additional funds to be fully offset from 
discretionary budget accounts. Certainly, Democrats as well as 
Republicans would like to see less reliance on supplemental 
appropriations to fund disaster relief. But when disasters 
strike, victims need help, and they need help quickly. We 
should not risk delaying disaster relief because of partisan 
battles over proposed offsets. Nor should we create a mechanism 
that could tie up the relief process because a disaster did not 
do us the courtesy of providing three months notice.

   Extreme Funding Reductions to Research and Development Activities

    Another highly troubling decision is this bill is reducing 
the level of funding for research and development activities 
within the Science and Technology Directorate by more than 
half. The bill approved by the Full Committee provides $398.2 
million for Science and Technology's Research, Development, 
Acquisition and Operations, 61 percent below the request and 42 
percent below 2011. And to complicate matters further, over 
half of the appropriated funding is to maintain or construct 
laboratory facilities, not even for research activities.
    At this level for 2012, S&T would first fund programs at 
centers that require an extended time to shutdown, programs 
required by law, and work conducted for other Federal agencies. 
After meeting these mandatory obligations, the Directorate 
would only have $110.4 million remaining for high-priority 
Research and Development activities. S&T has informed us that 
it would concentrate its remaining resources on aviation 
security and explosives detection technologies and on two Apex 
projects that S&T has committed to deliver to DHS components in 
signed charters. This means that funding for many other 
critical research efforts under way on cyber security, disaster 
resiliency, and detection of chemical and biological threats, 
could not be funded in 2012.

                              Immigration

    While we appreciate the willingness of the Chairman to 
continue statutory language on the deportation of criminal 
aliens, continued oversight of 287(g) agreements, and funding 
increases for both the Secure Communities and Alternatives to 
Detention programs, we have serious reservations about other 
immigration provisions included in this bill or the 
accompanying report.
    We strongly oppose inclusion of statutory language 
mandating ICE maintain a level of not less than 34,000 
detention beds through September 30, 2012, which is 600 more 
beds than the budget request included. This language may 
obstruct ICE' s ability to satisfy its stated enforcement 
priorities and accomplish detention reform. ICE Assistant 
Secretary John Morton has stated that he interprets this 
language as mandating not only that he maintain 34,000 beds but 
that he also fill those beds with detainees on a daily basis. 
We have no problem funding the capacity for 33,400 beds, as 
requested in the budget ($2,023,827,000); but the use of those 
beds should be determined by the enforcement actions of ICE and 
the judgment of ICE on whether detention is required for 
particular detainees based upon flight risk and danger posed to 
the public. Mandating government spending on a pre-set number 
of detention spaces is contrary to the government's interest in 
reforming the detention system and targeting its use for only 
those individuals who require it. And in an environment of 
fiscal restraint, Congress should not be telling a federal 
agency that it is not permitted to spend less than a certain 
amount if the same objective can be achieved at a savings to 
the taxpayer. For example, ICE could make greater use of 
Alternatives to Detention, where warranted by the circumstances 
of the detainee, resulting in significant daily cost savings. 
Finally, we are unaware of any other law enforcement agency 
that has a requirement to detain no less than a certain number 
of individuals in its custody on a daily basis. Normally, 
detention level is a consequence of enforcement activity.
    We also oppose report language that supports the argument 
that Alternatives to Detention (ATD) program costs more than 
detention per individual. As ICE's own data shows, ATD is a 
very economical alternative to holding a low-risk individual in 
detention. Estimates of ATD enrollment have been as low as $7 
per day while detention costs on average $122 per day. Also, 
ATD has proven to be an effective and low-cost way of ensuring 
attendance at immigration hearings without the high cost of 
detention. While we are pleased that the bill supports the 
requested increase for the ATD program, allowing for 2,500 new 
participants, the bill continues to favor the expansion of 
penal detention, for which funding has increased by 140 
percent, from $842.3 million since 2006, to $2.24 billion in 
this bill, thereby reducing the likelihood that ICE will take 
full advantage of the cost-saving potential of prison 
alternatives.

                              Citizenship

    The bill provides no funding for asylum and refugee 
processing and immigrant integration grants, two areas that had 
received appropriated funds in the past. This reverses course 
on a 2010 decision to fund the processing of asylum seekers and 
refuges out of general funds, rather than asking other 
immigrant petitioners to pay for a service that they do not 
receive through fees. This bill also reverses a policy in 
recent years of appropriating funds for immigrant integration 
grants. Now, if the Secretary decides to continue this 
worthwhile program to promote the integration of new citizens 
into the American social fabric, these funds must now be carved 
out of the fees paid by persons and businesses applying for 
immigration benefits. These grants are used to support 
citizenship preparation services for permanent residents; 
strengthen citizenship preparation programs that provide direct 
services in communities across the country; and increase the 
capacity of members or affiliates of national, regional, or 
statewide organizations to offer citizenship services in 
underserved communities.

Other Reductions to Construction, Information Technology and Automation 
                                Projects

    In total, the bill reduces $504,036,000 from the budget 
request for construction, information technology, and 
automation programs throughout the Department. This includes no 
funding to migrate all DHS component resources to two 
consolidated data centers, a project that has been under way 
for a few years and will reduce the risk of locating all of the 
Department's data at one facility or at aging, non-DHS 
facilities that are already overloaded. The bill also makes 
significant reductions in CBP and Coast Guard facilities 
construction, CBP automation and DHS headquarters. These are 
shortsighted reductions that eventually could weaken frontline 
operations and will cost taxpayers more money in the future.
    Of particular concern is the decision to provide no funding 
for the new DHS headquarters or for the consolidation of leased 
property, a penny-wise and pound-foolish decision. Already, 
based on the delay in finalizing the 2011 bill and the reduced 
resources provided in that bill for DHS headquarters 
construction activities, the cost of the headquarters project 
has grown by $200 million, from a total cost of $3.4 billion to 
$3.6 billion. The decision to deny an additional $159,643,000 
in 2012 to finalize construction of the first phase of the new 
headquarters project and begin construction on the second phase 
will result in higher costs in the out years and will delay, by 
at least one year, when the Coast Guard can move into its new 
headquarters facility (phase one), which is already under 
construction.
    Similarly, the bill does not provide the $55,630,000 
requested for lease consolidation activities. Last year, this 
Subcommittee held a very informative hearing with DHS and the 
General Services Administration on this activity and heard 
testimony about the significant financial benefits of reducing 
the number of leases DHS has from 70 buildings across 46 
locations in the greater Washington DC area to 6-8 buildings. 
Witnesses testified that the massive footprint disrupts the 
effectiveness and cohesiveness of Departmental operations and 
adds needless layers of cost and complexity to facilities 
management. Additionally, the leases will consume an 
increasingly larger share of the Department's budget through 
overhead costs in the coming years. In a time of fiscal 
constraint, the Department will not have extra dollars to pay 
for all of these lease increases without shortchanging front 
line and mission essential programs. At a time when real estate 
prices continue to be low in the greater Washington, DC area 
and construction and materials costs are relative low as well, 
this is the time to make this type of investment. Funding this 
activity would save taxpayers money for years to come.
    The country deserves better than this bill. For the 
aforementioned reasons, we oppose this bill and urge our 
colleagues to do likewise.

                                   Norman D. Dicks.
                                   David E. Price.

                                  
