Report text available as:

(PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip?



114th Congress]                                             [ Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session  ]                                             [ 114-215

======================================================================
 
                      DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 
                           APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2016

                                _______
                                

 July 21, 2015.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

 Mr. Carter of Texas, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted 
                             the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 3128]

    The Committee on Appropriations submits the following 
report in explanation of the accompanying bill making 
appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2016.

                        INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT

                                                            Page number

                                                            Bill Report
TITLE I--DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS
        Office of the Secretary and Executive Management...     2
                                                                      5
        Office of the Under Secretary for Management.......     3
                                                                     10
        Office of the Chief Financial Officer..............     4
                                                                     16
        Office of the Chief Information Officer............     4
                                                                     18
        Analysis and Operations............................     5
                                                                     19
        Office of Inspector General........................     5
                                                                     21
TITLE II--SECURITY, ENFORCEMENT, AND INVESTIGATIONS
        U.S. Customs and Border Protection.................     6
                                                                     22
                Salaries and Expenses......................     6
                                                                     23
                Automation Modernization...................     7
                                                                     31
                Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, 
                    and Technology.........................     8
                                                                     32
                Air and Marine Operations..................     8
                                                                     33
                Construction and Facilities Management.....     9
                                                                     36
        U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement...........    10
                                                                     37
                Salaries and Expenses......................    10
                                                                     37
                Automation Modernization...................    14
                                                                     45
                Construction...............................    14
                                                                     46
        Transportation Security Administration.............    14
                                                                     46
                Aviation Security..........................    14
                                                                     47
                Surface Transportation Security............    17
                                                                     54
                Intelligence and Vetting...................    17
                                                                     54
                Transportation Security Support............    17
                                                                     56
        Coast Guard........................................    17
                                                                     56
                Operating Expenses.........................    17
                                                                     56
                Environmental Compliance and Restoration...    19
                                                                     59
                Reserve Training...........................    19
                                                                     59
                Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements    19
                                                                     60
                Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation    21
                                                                     63
                Medicare Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund 
                    Contribution...........................
                                                                     64
                Retired Pay................................    21
                                                                     64
        United States Secret Service.......................    22
                                                                     65
                Salaries and Expenses......................    22
                                                                     65
                Acquisition, Construction, Improvements, 
                    and Related Expenses...................    25
                                                                     68
TITLE III--PROTECTION, PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE, AND RECOVERY
        National Protection and Programs Directorate.......    25
                                                                     70
                Management and Administration..............    25
                                                                     71
                Infrastructure Protection and Information 
                    Security...............................    25
                                                                     71
                Federal Protective Service.................    26
                                                                     77
                Office of Biometric Identity Management....    26
                                                                     78
        Office of Health Affairs...........................    26
                                                                     78
        Federal Emergency Management Agency................    27
                                                                     80
                Salaries and Expenses......................    27
                                                                     80
                State and Local Programs...................    28
                                                                     84
                Firefighter Assistance Grants..............    31
                                                                     87
                Emergency Management Performance Grants....    31
                                                                     87
                Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program    31
                                                                     88
                United States Fire Administration..........    32
                                                                     88
                Disaster Relief Fund.......................    32
                                                                     89
                Flood Hazard Mapping and Risk Analysis.....    33
                                                                     90
                National Flood Insurance Fund..............    34
                                                                     91
                National Predisaster Mitigation Fund.......    36
                                                                     92
                Emergency Food and Shelter.................    36
                                                                     92
TITLE IV--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TRAINING, AND SERVICES
        United States Citizenship and Immigration Services.    36
                                                                     93
        Federal Law Enforcement Training Center............    37
                                                                     96
                Salaries and Expenses......................    37
                                                                     96
                Acquisitions, Construction, Improvements, 
                    and Related Expenses...................    39
                                                                     97
        Science and Technology.............................    40
                                                                     97
                Management and Administration..............    40
                                                                     97
                Research, Development, Acquisition, and 
                    Operations.............................    40
                                                                     97
        Domestic Nuclear Detection Office..................    40
                                                                    100
                Management and Administration..............    40
                                                                    100
                Research, Development, and Operations......    41
                                                                    101
                Systems Acquisition........................    41
                                                                    101
TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS
        This Act...........................................
                                                                    102
        Compliance with House Rules........................
                                                                    113
        Tables.............................................
                                                                    162
MINORITY VIEWS.............................................
                                                                    194

                    Overview and Summary of the Bill

    The accompanying bill contains recommendations for new 
budget (obligational) authority for fiscal year 2016 for the 
Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The following table 
summarizes these recommendations and reflects comparisons with 
the budget, as amended, and with amounts appropriated to date 
for fiscal year 2015:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Budget                            House Compared With
                                    New Budget     Estimates of                  -------------------------------
                                  (obligational)        new
              Title                  authority    (obligational)  Recommended by    New budget        Budget
                                    Fiscal Year     authority,       the House      authority,       estimate,
                                       2015         Fiscal Year                     Fiscal Year     Fiscal Year
                                                       2016                            2015            2016
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title I, Departmental Management      $1,034,639      $1,329,024      $1,096,499         $61,860      ($232,525)
 and Operations.................
Tide II: Security, Enforcement,       32,986,167      33,905,143      33,598,590         612,423       (306,553)
 and Investigations.............
Tide III: Protection,                 12,416,790      12,958,798      12,859,167         442,377        (99,631)
 Preparedness, Response, and
 Recovery.......................
Tide IV: Research, Development,        1,794,523       1,532,680       1,502,784       (291,739)        (29,896)
 Training, and Services.........
Tide V: General Provisions......       (673,700)        (11,023)     (1,407,087)       (733,387)     (1,396,064)
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Grand Total.................      47,558,419      49,714,622      47,649,953          91,534     (2,054,669)
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total, Net Discretionary....     $39,670,000     $41,397,669     $39,333,000      ($337,000)    ($2,064,669)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee recommends total obligational authority of 
$47,649,953,000 for DHS in fiscal year 2016, including 
$6,712,953,000 for the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA) Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) which is designated by 
Congress as disaster relief pursuant to Public Law 112-25. 
Discretionary appropriations of $39,333,000,000 are 
recommended, of which $37,674,000,000 is for non-defense 
programs and $1,659,000,000 is for defense programs. The 
Committee does not include requested funding for increases to 
civilian pay; should the President provide a civilian pay 
increase for 2016, it is assumed that the cost of such a pay 
increase will be absorbed within other amounts appropriated for 
fiscal year 2016.

                                Overview

    Because threats and challenges to the homeland can come in 
many forms--through computer networks, natural disasters, 
cross-border smuggling and trafficking in people and drugs, 
home-grown terrorists, violent extremism, and illegal 
migration--DHS's missions are more critical now than ever. 
Mission success depends on well-trained personnel, effective 
equipment and systems, coordinated operations, the ability to 
deliver actionable intelligence, and the flexibility to adapt 
quickly to emerging threats.
    Though committed to ensuring National security and public 
safety, DHS continues to operate as a loose confederation of 
its components rather than as a cohesive organization. Roles 
and responsibilities of headquarters and components are not 
clearly defined. Policies are too often developed reactively 
rather than strategically. Multiple systems exist where one 
would suffice. Administrative functions and operations are 
duplicative or differ unnecessarily.
    To overcome these challenges, the Secretary initiated a 
``Unity of Effort'' campaign in 2014 designed to mature the 
Department into an organization that functions in a more 
integrated fashion. The initiative's efforts are beginning to 
pay off. DHS is starting to review and refine acquisition 
processes. Joint task forces are changing the way DHS operates 
to secure the border and fight terrorism. New management 
processes are improving the way requirements are identified, 
prioritized, and resourced.
    Additional tasks remain, as they would in any relatively 
new organization. The Department needs a strategic planning 
process to focus research and development and future 
investments. Common, outcome-based metrics must be developed to 
measure whether the Department is effectively preventing the 
illegal entry of goods and people across U.S. borders, and to 
support decisions about border security operations. Likewise, 
the quality and transparency of decisions about detention and 
removal operations must be enhanced to promote public 
confidence in the Department's ability to enforce immigration 
laws and remove dangerous criminal aliens who pose a threat to 
local communities.
    Most importantly, DHS must improve its ability to 
anticipate, mitigate, and quickly correct internal problems 
that increase risk and distract from its operational mission. 
For the last few years, DHS has suffered from the inability to 
hire people in a timely manner. Compounding this problem are 
attrition rates that outpace hiring in several DHS components. 
According to DHS documents, the Department expects to end 
fiscal year 2015 more than 6,000 FTEs below the number for 
which funds were provided. To achieve the requested fiscal year 
2016 FTE level, more than 7,000 FTEs would have to be hired 
between July 2015 and September 30, 2015. Given its attrition 
rate and the length of time it takes to vet new staff, the 
Committee is unconvinced DHS will be able to spend the funds 
requested in the budget. Consequently, the Committee supports 
the requested number of mission critical positions in CBP and 
USSS, but reduces funding in various agencies to reflect a more 
realistic and achievable number of FTEs that will be onboard 
during the 2016 fiscal year. Likewise, large carryover balances 
in acquisition accounts delay needed capabilities in the field. 
Moreover, the Department's reputation is tarnished when Secret 
Service agents or other law enforcement personnel on duty act 
irresponsibly, or when the Transportation Security 
Administration or other components do not respond seriously to 
Inspector General reports and recommendations until public 
outcry reaches monumental proportion.
    The funding recommendations in this bill and the directives 
in the accompanying report are aimed at these challenges. Title 
I includes directives to institutionalize the Secretary's Unity 
of Effort initiative and to better manage the Department's 
human capital, resources, and information technology. Title II 
ensures the Department's frontline operational components have 
adequate resources to carry out effectively their security, 
enforcement, and investigative missions. Title III includes 
funds necessary to prepare for, respond to, and recover from 
any natural disaster or chemical, biological, or cyber-attack 
on the population or the Nation's critical infrastructure. 
Title IV finances law enforcement training, citizenship 
services, nuclear and radiological detection, and research and 
development functions. Title V includes basic general 
provisions for oversight, reprogramming guidance, reports, and 
funding limitations.
    Let there be no mistake--this Committee believes DHS is 
crucial to national security, public safety, and a strong U.S. 
economy, and appreciates the hard work and dedication of the 
thousands of agents, officers, Coast Guard military personnel, 
watchstanders, and mission support staff who make it their 
business every day to keep the Nation safe.

                               References

    The Committee report refers to the Implementing 
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, Public Law 
110-53, as the 9/11 Act. References to ``the Committees'' means 
to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
Representatives and the Senate, unless otherwise noted. The 
Committee also refers to ``full-time equivalent'' positions as 
``FTE''; ``Program, Project, Activity'' line items as ``PPA''; 
the ``Office of Management and Budget'' as ``OMB''; and the 
``Government Accountability Office'' as ``GAO''.

            TITLE I--DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS


            Office of the Secretary and Executive Management


 
 
 
Appropriation, fiscal year 2015.......................      $132,573,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2016......................       134,247,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       131,859,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2015...................          -714,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2016..................        -2,388,000
 

                                Mission

    The mission of the Office of the Secretary and Executive 
Management (OSEM) is to provide efficient leadership and 
services to DHS and to support the Department's efforts to 
achieve its strategic goals, as outlined in the Quadrennial 
Homeland Security Review.

                             Recommendation

    The Committee recommends $131,859,000 for OSEM, $2,388,000 
below the amount requested and $714,000 below the amount 
provided in fiscal year 2015.
    Within OSEM, the Committee recommends not more than $40,000 
for official reception and representation expenses, of which 
not more than $15,000 shall be for Office of Policy activities 
related to the Visa Waiver Program. To ensure the Committee can 
conduct appropriate oversight, the Department is directed to 
track these expenses in enough detail to explain how the funds 
are used. The Committee expects the Department to review 
representation allowances for all DHS agencies to ensure the 
equitable alignment of funds with responsibilities, and to 
submit any proposed changes as part of the fiscal year 2017 
budget request.
    The Department is directed to include within the 
President's budget request for fiscal year 2017 the amounts 
estimated, by component, for bonuses and performance awards, 
and the standards and criteria for such awards and bonuses.
    The Committee recommends the following funding levels for 
each sub-office as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget Estimate      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immediate Office of the Secretary.         $8,932,000         $8,923,000
Immediate Office of the Deputy              1,758,000          1,748,000
 Secretary........................
Office of the Chief of Staff......          2,716,000          2,696,000
Executive Secretary...............          5,640,000          5,601,000
Office of Policy..................         39,339,000         36,577,000
Office of Public Affairs..........          5,510,000          5,472,000
Office of Legislative Affairs.....          5,405,000          5,363,000
Office of Intergovernmental                10,025,000          9,966,000
 Affairs..........................
Office of General Counsel.........         19,625,000         19,472,000
Office for Civil Rights and Civil          20,954,000         21,800,000
 Liberties........................
Citizenship and Immigration                 6,312,000          6,272,000
 Services Ombudsman...............
Privacy Officer...................          8,031,000          7,969,000
                                   -------------------------------------
    Total.........................       $134,247,000       $131,859,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   Immediate Office of the Secretary

    The Committee recommends $8,923,000 for the Immediate 
Office of the Secretary, $9,000 below the amount requested and 
$984,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The 
reduction to the request corresponds to the amount associated 
with the pay raise assumed in the President's budget.
    As requested, the recommendation includes $5,000,000 for 
the Joint Requirements Council (JRC). The Committee is aware of 
efforts by the Departmental leadership to examine and reform 
joint operations within DHS to better leverage security and 
enforcement capabilities as well as reduce costs. The Committee 
strongly supports such efforts and believes the JRC's mission 
to be one of the fundamental pillars of the Unity of Effort 
initiative. The Department is directed to keep the Committee 
informed on the Council's efforts and to clearly display 
efficiencies and budgetary savings achieved from JRC operations 
within its obligation and budget execution plans and budget 
justification materials.
    The Department shall provide a quarterly travel report to 
the Committee not later than 30 days after the end of each 
fiscal quarter, beginning with the end of the first quarter 
after the date of enactment of this Act. The report shall 
detail all direct and indirect costs of official and 
nonofficial travel by the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary, 
delineated by trip for that quarter, within all DHS 
appropriations.
    The Committee continues to be concerned about the illegal 
trade in rhinoceros horns, elephant ivory from Africa, and 
illegally harvested timber, and understands its connection to 
trafficking in narcotics, arms, and human beings, as well as to 
the financing of groups that pose a threat to the United 
States. The Committee directs the Secretary to submit a report, 
not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this 
Act, on the Department's activities to address wildlife 
trafficking and the illegal natural resources trade; its 
continued engagement as a member of the Presidential Task Force 
on Wildlife Trafficking; efforts to improve DHS coordination 
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Law 
Enforcement; steps taken by DHS to implement the National 
Strategy on Wildlife Trafficking; and the alignment of 
resources to activities and initiatives that address wildlife 
and natural resources trafficking.
    Many Americans worry that unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) 
can be used inappropriately to monitor, track, or surveil their 
movements or without the benefit of a warrant. The Committee 
notes that DHS has an oversight framework and procedures that 
ensure compliance with privacy and civil liberty laws and 
standards. Furthermore, DHS UAS operations are limited by FAA 
requirements and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 
policies and procedures. To monitor compliance with these laws, 
the Committee expects DHS to track the number of times these 
systems are used along the border, in a maritime environment, 
or in support of State, local, and/or tribal law enforcement 
entities.
    House Report 113-481 directed the Secretary, in conjunction 
with CBP, the Air and Marine Operations Center (AMOC), U.S. 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Coast Guard, and 
the Science and Technology Directorate (S&T;) to carry out a 
review of how current border situational awareness can be 
enhanced; technical capabilities planned for acquisition by 
CBP, AMOC, ICE, or the Coast Guard; and other technologies, 
resources, and capabilities that will be needed in the future 
for attaining and maintaining comprehensive and persistent 
situational awareness. The Committee looks forward to receiving 
that review and draft plan for developing situational awareness 
using a common operating picture by the required deadline.
    In addition, House Report 113-481 directed DHS to assess 
the feasibility, cost, and benefits of implementing a universal 
complaint system to operate across the Department to ensure all 
complaints are addressed, receive a prompt response, and inform 
future training and policy. The Committee looks forward to 
receiving that report by the required deadline. Finally, House 
Report 113-481 directed the Department to provide an update on 
its corrective action plan to address low employee morale and 
the poor climate for workplace innovation. The Committee looks 
forward to receiving that report by the required deadline.

                Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary

    The Committee recommends $1,748,000 for the Immediate 
Office of the Deputy Secretary, $10,000 below the amount 
requested and $8,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 
2015. The reduction to the request corresponds to the amount 
associated with the pay raise assumed in the President's 
budget.

                      Office of the Chief of Staff

    The Committee recommends $2,696,000 for the Office of the 
Chief of Staff, $20,000 below the amount requested and $86,000 
below the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The reduction to 
the request corresponds to the amount associated with the pay 
raise assumed in the President's budget.

                          Executive Secretary

    The Committee recommends $5,601,000 for the Executive 
Secretary, $39,000 below the amount requested and $12,000 above 
the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The reduction to the 
request corresponds to the amount associated with the pay raise 
assumed in the President's budget.

                            Office of Policy

    The Committee recommends $36,577,000 for the Office of 
Policy, $2,762,000 below the amount requested and $1,496,000 
below the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The 
recommendation includes a reduction of $2,500,000 due to 
projected underexecution of funds for personnel and a reduction 
of $262,000 that corresponds to the amount associated with the 
pay raise assumed in the President's budget. The reduction from 
underexecution shall be applied proportionally to the Threat 
Prevention and Security Policy, the Border, Immigration, and 
Trade Policy, and the Cyber, Infrastructure, and Resilience 
Policy divisions.
    The Committee expects the Office of Policy to serve as the 
Department's central location for establishing, tracking 
progress of, and implementing DHS strategic planning and policy 
guidance across the entire spectrum of homeland security 
missions.
    The Committee is concerned that the position of Assistant 
Secretary for Policy has been vacant for over one year. It is 
unacceptable that this strategic leadership role has yet to be 
permanently filled. The Administration is strongly urged to 
present a qualified candidate to the Senate for confirmation as 
quickly as possible.
    To improve oversight of operations and priorities of the 
Office of Policy, the Committee directs the Department to 
report not later than December 1, 2015, on fiscal year 2015 
travel by political employees of the Office of Policy, listing 
the following information per trip: dates, destinations, 
purpose, costs, mode of travel, and total number of government 
personnel accompanying the political appointees.
    The Committee continues to believe that a more formal 
engagement between the Department and appropriate Mexican 
authorities could help facilitate the development of common or 
complementary approaches in areas of mutual interest, including 
border infrastructure; immigration enforcement; facilitating 
the flow of low-risk cargo and passengers; and cross-border 
violence and criminal networks. The Committee again encourages 
the Department, in cooperation with the Department of State, to 
explore new opportunities for cooperation with Mexican 
authorities, such as a cross-border working group.
    To assess performance and help inform future policy, the 
Office of Immigration Statistics, within the Office of Policy, 
is directed to develop and implement a plan to collect, 
analyze, and report appropriate data on the Department's 
immigration enforcement activities, including data on the use 
of prosecutorial discretion. The plan should include steps to 
ensure the completeness and accuracy of data on the full scope 
of immigration enforcement activities, from encounter to final 
disposition. Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment 
of this Act, the Office of Policy is directed to brief the 
Committee on this plan.
    To ensure the United States is positioned to counter 
homegrown violent extremism and prevent domestic 
radicalization, the Committee directs the Office of Policy to 
provide a detailed description of all DHS countering violent 
extremism (CVE) programs and initiatives, including associated 
personnel and funding levels, not later than 60 days after the 
date of enactment of this Act.
    The Committee directs the Office of Policy to continue 
developing border security metrics to inform its internal 
decision-making and enable DHS to report on measurable border 
security outcomes. Such metrics shall be focused on reducing 
illegal import and entry and include measuring inflow rates, 
apprehension rates, and consequences for DHS's jurisdiction 
over the Southwest Border. DHS is directed to brief the 
Committee on this initiative not later than 30 days after the 
date of enactment of this Act.
    The Committee directs the Department to ensure that the 
Office of Policy is a full participant in interagency 
discussions on visa policy matters, consistent with DHS 
authorities.

                        Office of Public Affairs

    The Committee recommends $5,472,000 for the Office of 
Public Affairs, $38,000 below the amount requested and $119,000 
below the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The reduction to 
the request corresponds to the amount associated with the pay 
raise assumed in the President's budget.

                     Office of Legislative Affairs

    The Committee recommends $5,363,000 for the Office of 
Legislative Affairs, $42,000 below the amount requested and 
$40,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The 
reduction to the request corresponds to the amount associated 
with the pay raise assumed in the President's budget.

                  Office of Intergovernmental Affairs

    The Committee recommends $9,966,000 for the Office of 
Intergovernmental Affairs, $59,000 below the amount requested 
and $118,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The 
reduction to the request corresponds to the amount associated 
with the pay raise assumed in the President's budget.

                       Office of General Counsel

    The Committee recommends $19,472,000 for the Office of 
General Counsel, $153,000 below the amount requested and 
$478,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The 
reduction to the request corresponds to the amount associated 
with the pay raise assumed in the President's budget.

              Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties

    The Committee recommends $21,800,000 for the Office for 
Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (OCRCL), $846,000 above the 
amount requested and equal to the amount provided in fiscal 
year 2015.
    The recommendation does not assume the amount associated 
with the pay raise in the President's budget; instead, the 
funding level is intended to enable OCRCL to maintain the pace 
of activity funded for fiscal year 2015.
    The Committee expects OCRCL to continue appropriate 
oversight of programs, partnerships, and other cooperative 
efforts involving DHS components and State and local law 
enforcement agencies, and to submit a plan for obligation and 
expenditure in the fiscal year 2017 budget justification 
material that documents its planned expenses related to such 
oversight. Upon request, OCRCL shall provide to the Committee 
copies of memoranda or other reports making recommendations to 
DHS components. In addition, OCRCL shall ensure that all 
individuals whose complaints are investigated by OCRCL receive 
information, within 30 days of the completion of an 
investigation, regarding the outcome of their complaints, as 
appropriate, including findings of fact, findings of law, and 
available remedies.

             Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

    The Committee recommends $6,272,000 for the Citizenship and 
Immigration Services Ombudsman (CISOMB), $40,000 below the 
amount requested and $447,000 above the amount provided in 
fiscal year 2015. The reduction to the request corresponds to 
the amount associated with the pay raise assumed in the 
President's budget.
    The Committee commends the Department for establishing and 
maintaining the Blue Campaign, currently coordinated through 
CISOMB, which has unified the efforts of its component agencies 
to combat human trafficking. As part of the budget 
justification material for fiscal year 2017, DHS should detail 
the amounts obligated for Blue Campaign activities in the prior 
year, along with estimates of its anticipated obligations in 
the current year and the budget year. Given the diverse 
language backgrounds of many human trafficking victims, the 
Committee encourages the Department to make Blue Campaign 
outreach materials available in multiple languages.

                            Privacy Officer

    The Committee recommends $7,969,000 for the Privacy 
Officer, $62,000 below the amount requested and $64,000 below 
the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The reduction to the 
request corresponds to the amount associated with the pay raise 
assumed in the President's budget.

              Office of the Under Secretary for Management


 
 
 
Appropriation, fiscal year 2015.......................      $187,503,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2016......................       193,187,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       193,646,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2015...................        +6,143,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2016..................          +459,000
 

                                Mission

    The primary mission of the Office of the Under Secretary 
for Management (USM) is to deliver quality administrative 
support services for human resources; manage facilities, 
property, equipment, and other material resources; ensure 
safety, health, and environmental protection; and identify and 
track performance measurements relating to the responsibilities 
of the Department. The Directorate also provides policy 
guidance and directives to DHS components.

                             Recommendation

    The Committee recommends $193,646,000 for the USM, $459,000 
above the amount requested and $6,143,000 above the amount 
provided in fiscal year 2015. Not more than $2,000 is for 
official reception and representation expenses.
    The Committee recommends the following funding levels for 
individual offices within USM:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget Estimate      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immediate Office of the Under              $3,411,000         $3,393,000
 Secretary for Management.........
Office of the Chief Security               66,538,000         68,200,000
 Officer..........................
Office of the Chief Procurement            58,989,000         60,630,000
 Officer..........................
Office of the Chief Human Capital
 Officer:
    Salaries and Expenses.........         24,390,000         21,698,000
    Human Resources Information             9,578,000          9,559,000
     Technology...................
                                   -------------------------------------
        Subtotal..................         33,968,000         31,257,000
Office of the Chief Readiness
 Support Officer:
    Salaries and Expenses.........         27,350,000         27,235,000
    Nebraska Avenue Complex.......          2,931,000          2,931,000
                                   -------------------------------------
        Subtotal..................         30,281,000         30,166,000
                                   -------------------------------------
            Total.................       $193,187,000       $193,646,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

         Immediate Office of the Under Secretary for Management

    The Committee recommends $3,393,000 for the Immediate 
Office of the Under Secretary for Management, $18,000 below the 
amount requested and $653,000 above the amount provided in 
fiscal year 2015.
    The USM acts as the Department's Chief Acquisition Officer 
and Chief Performance Improvement Officer. More broadly, the 
Management Directorate integrates common operating standards; 
manages Departmental delegations and directives; leads 
enterprise investment and portfolio management; and directs 
policy regarding back office functions such as human resources, 
information technology, financial management, budget 
formulation, logistics and building maintenance, and security.
    These complex management functions must be exercised in a 
balanced but authoritative manner if the Department is to 
respond effectively and jointly to crises in the homeland. 
Therefore, the Committee includes several directives designed 
to build on the momentum of the Unity of Effort initiative, as 
described below.
    For acquisitions and investments, the Committee directs the 
USM to develop written guidance by April 1, 2016, that:
           clarifies the roles and responsibilities of 
        the Office of Program Accountability and Risk 
        Management (PARM) and the Office of the Chief 
        Information Officer (OCIO) for overseeing program 
        management of major IT acquisition programs;
           requires components to provide operations 
        and maintenance cost estimates for programs in 
        sustainment;
           establishes responsibility at the component 
        level for tracking the adherence of sustainment 
        programs to existing cost estimates; and
           requires components to enter data into the 
        next generation Period Reporting System (nPRS) on a 
        quarterly basis consistently and accurately, and holds 
        Component Acquisition Executives (CAEs) accountable for 
        validating the information.
    As noted by GAO and in prior appropriations reports, proper 
oversight of DHS's investment portfolio is essential to ensure 
that components are accountable for cost, schedule, and 
performance, and that Congress and DHS decision makers receive 
useful, accurate, up-to-date information. For that reason, the 
Committee retains statutory language requiring DHS to submit 
the Comprehensive Acquisition Status Report (CASR) with the 
budget request, provide quarterly updates to Congress, and post 
an unclassified version of the CASR on the DHS public-facing 
website. All programs shall be displayed by appropriation and 
PPA. Within 30 days of delivery of the CASR, the DHS Chief 
Acquisition Officer and each CAE shall provide acquisition 
briefings on all level 1, 2, and 3 acquisition projects.
    In addition, by not later than April 15, 2016, the 
Executive Director of PARM shall update Congress on each 
component's major acquisition program data for each month of 
the prior fiscal year, including an assessment of the accuracy, 
completeness, and timeliness of the data.
    The USM is directed to review the current structure of the 
Office of the Chief Procurement Officer (OCPO), consider 
whether the office's name accurately reflects its function, 
which is overseeing contracts, and determine whether PARM 
should report to a more appropriate supervisor.
    The DHS acquisition policy, set forth in Acquisition 
Management Directive 102-01 and DHS Instruction Manual 102-01-
001, reflects key program management practices. Among other 
things, the policy establishes specific documentation 
requirements for predetermined acquisition decision events to 
help assess whether a major acquisition program is ready to 
proceed to each of the five phases of the acquisition 
lifecycle. Because the Committee is concerned that DHS has not 
executed its policy consistently, a general provision is 
included in title V of the bill that requires all CAEs to 
comply with DHS-established acquisition milestones.
    The Committee is deeply troubled by the fact that DHS 
operational components remain unable to communicate with each 
other a decade after the 9/11 Commission highlighted the 
problem and after expending $430,000,000 to address the 
problem. The inability to communicate effectively during an 
emergency presents serious risks to the safety and security of 
the Nation. Failure to convene an effective governing entity 
with the responsibility and authority to achieve Department-
wide, interoperable communications two years after the OIG 
recommended establishing such an entity is inexcusable. 
Consequently, the USM is directed to brief the Committee within 
90 days of the date of enactment of this Act on the 
Department's plan to achieve and maintain interoperable 
communications among the components of DHS. The plan shall 
include:
           the timetable for establishing a governing 
        entity;
           an assessment of interoperability gaps in 
        communications among DHS components;
           information on efforts, including current 
        and planned policies, directives, and training, to 
        achieve and maintain interoperable communications;
           an assessment of obstacles and challenges to 
        achieving and maintaining interoperable communications 
        among components;
           information on, and an assessment of, the 
        adequacy of mechanisms available to the USM to enforce 
        and compel compliance with interoperable communications 
        policies and directives;
           guidance provided to implement interoperable 
        communications policies and directives;
           projected future expenditures to achieve 
        interoperable communications in the form of equipment, 
        infrastructure, and maintenance; and
           the date by which interoperability is 
        projected to be achieved, along with dates for interim 
        milestones.
    Chronic and systemic personnel shortfalls and lengthy 
hiring times jeopardize DHS's homeland security mission. To 
stem sky-rocketing attrition and hiring shortfalls, the 
Committee directs the USM to complete a root cause analysis, 
and develop a corrective action plan based on its findings, to 
include outcome based metrics for measuring the success of the 
plan's initiatives. The USM shall update the Committee on the 
results of these initiatives on a monthly basis beginning 
January 15, 2016.
    The Committee notes that the statement accompanying Public 
Law 114-4 specifically directed a report on a strategy for 
reducing the time required for hiring personnel and quarterly 
data on hiring timelines by component. The report that was 
received by the Committee on June 22, 2015, failed to fully 
comply with the requirement. A hiring timeline is more than a 
single number for the total days to hire; it should also 
include the number of days associated with each step in the 
hiring process, to include announcements in progress, 
announcements posted, interviews pending, offers pending, 
individuals selected, security approvals, and entering on duty. 
While the report did provide some ideas to improve the pace and 
process for hiring, it tied none to specific categories in the 
hiring timeframe and proposed no metrics, such as the number of 
days reduced by implementing an initiative. Further, the report 
should include the numbers of onboard personnel at the 
beginning and end of the reporting period, along with the 
number of separations for the reporting period. The Committee 
directs the Department to fully comply with this reporting 
requirement and to include the additional information noted 
above, with quarterly reports due not later than 30 days after 
the end of each fiscal quarter.
    A more strategic problem is the lack of a rigorous and 
consistent methodology to determine personnel requirements 
across the Department, and their associated costs. For this 
reason, the Committee directs the USM to require the Office of 
the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) to conduct an analysis of 
force structure that identifies the operations in which DHS 
personnel are expected to perform, the effects they must 
achieve, the attributes the forces must possess, and what kind 
and size of force is needed to execute the operations 
successfully. The OCFO is directed to brief the Committees on 
the study's progress on a quarterly basis. Recommendations from 
the analysis should directly inform the fiscal year 2018 budget 
request, with shortfalls in needed personnel funding clearly 
noted.
    As in prior years, the Committee directs the Department to 
include a separate justification for the Working Capital Fund 
(WCF) in the fiscal year 2017 budget request as described in 
Public Law 113-76. To enhance Committee oversight, section 504 
in title V of the bill is amended to require notifications to 
include the source appropriation and PPA for new activities.
    The Committee is concerned that there are inconsistencies 
in how DHS distributes WCF costs across DHS organizational 
components due to various methods by which components report 
FTEs. For example, FEMA includes both the temporary and 
intermittent workforce in its FTE count provided to DHS 
Headquarters, whereas the Coast Guard does not include its 
temporary workforce (reservists) in its reported FTE count. As 
a consequence, FEMA is overcharged for activities and the Coast 
Guard is undercharged. The Committee directs DHS headquarters 
to create and implement a departmental policy for how component 
FTEs should be reported for WCF purposes.
    To manage the Department's IT enterprise architecture, the 
Committee directs the USM to develop written guidance by April 
1, 2016, that:
           institutionalizes a consumption-based IT 
        business model across DHS based on the acquisition of 
        IT services rather than IT assets when appropriate and 
        cost-effective; and
           defines and distinguishes IT sustainment 
        costs versus new development and investment.

                  Office of the Chief Security Officer

    The Committee recommends $68,200,000 for the Office of the 
Chief Security Officer, $1,662,000 above the amount requested 
and $3,892,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. 
Within the total, a reduction of $338,000 corresponds to the 
amount associated with the pay raise assumed in the President's 
budget, while an increase to the request of $2,000,000 is 
included for Continuous Evaluation, a technique used to 
investigate an individual's continued eligibility to access 
classified information or to hold a sensitive position.

                Office of the Chief Procurement Officer

    The Committee recommends $60,630,000 for the OCPO, 
$1,641,000 above the amount requested and $523,000 above the 
amount provided in fiscal year 2015. Within the total, a 
reduction of $359,000 corresponds to the amount associated with 
the pay raise assumed in the President's budget and an increase 
of $2,000,000 is for critical personnel needed by PARM to 
oversee major acquisition programs. As requested, the 
recommendation includes funds to comply with provisions in the 
DATA Act, which requires unique identification numbers for 
procurements.

               Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer

    The Committee recommends $31,257,000 for the Office of the 
Chief Human Capital Officer (OCHCO): $21,698,000 is for 
Salaries and Expenses, $2,692,000 below the amount requested 
and $754,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2015; and 
$9,559,000 is for Human Resources Information Technology, 
$19,000 below the amount requested and $3,559,000 above the 
amount provided in fiscal year 2015. Reductions to the request 
in each PPA of $136,000 and $19,000, respectively, correspond 
to the amounts associated with the pay raise assumed in the 
President's budget. The $5,056,000 request for an OMB-directed 
CyberSkills initiative is denied; however $2,500,000 may be 
used to hire additional staff to assist DHS components to 
better manage their hiring needs and processes. In addition, 
OCHCO is directed to establish standard performance metrics for 
onboarding the backlog of open positions across DHS, monitor 
said metrics, and provide a monthly update on them to Congress.

             Office of the Chief Readiness Support Officer

    The Committee recommends $30,166,000 for the Office of the 
Chief Readiness Support Officer (OCRSO), $115,000 below the 
amount requested and $3,238,000 below the amount provided in 
fiscal year 2015. Of the total amount, $27,235,000 is for 
Salaries and Expenses, and $2,931,000 is for repairs to the 
Nebraska Avenue Complex. The reduction to the request 
corresponds to the amount associated with the pay raise assumed 
in the President's budget.
    DHS has worked hard and made substantial progress towards 
developing a common flying hour program. To maintain momentum, 
quarterly updates to the Committee shall continue.
    The Field Efficiencies pilot streamlined and integrated 
regional services and common management functions in Boston and 
Seattle, resulting in cost avoidance. For that reason, the 
Committee directs the OCRSO to expand the program to not less 
than ten additional cities by the end of fiscal year 2016.

                     DHS Headquarters Consolidation


 
 
 
Appropriation, fiscal year 2015*......................            - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2016......................      $215,822,000
Recommended in the bill...............................            - - -
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2015...................            - - -
    Budget request, fiscal year 2016..................     -215,822,000
 
*Provided in sec. 540 of the bill

                             Recommendation

    The Committee appreciates changes to the DHS Consolidation 
Plan that have reduced requirements and costs. Acting on 
congressional concerns, overall project costs under the budget 
request have been cut by more than $800,000,000, the size of 
the campus has been reduced by 900,000 square feet, and the 
delivery timeline has been accelerated by five years. 
Importantly, the new plan would save DHS $1,200,000,000 over 30 
years compared to the costs of continuing to rely on multiple 
rented facilities across the Washington, DC region over the 
same time period. Given the constraints of the current budget 
environment, however, the recommendation provides only that 
portion of the request related to existing operations at the 
consolidated headquarters location, which is included in title 
V of the bill.

                 Office of the Chief Financial Officer


 
 
 
Appropriation, fiscal year 2015.......................       $52,020,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2016......................        53,798,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        56,420,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2015...................        +4,400,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2016..................        +2,622,000
 

    The Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) is 
responsible for budget policy; program analysis and evaluation; 
development of Departmental financial management policies; 
operations and systems, including consolidated financial 
statements; oversight of matters related to GAO and the OIG; 
management of Department internal controls; and Department-wide 
oversight of grants and resource management systems.

                             Recommendation

    The Committee recommends $56,420,000 for OCFO, $2,622,000 
above the amount requested and $4,400,000 above the amount 
provided in fiscal year 2015. Within the total, a reduction of 
$378,000 corresponds to the amount associated with the pay 
raise assumed in the President's budget. Funding for the 
Financial Systems Modernization (FSM) program is not 
recommended under this heading; instead, funds are provided in 
title V of the bill.
    A key element of the Secretary's Unity of Effort initiative 
is to strengthen DHS budget processes. Integral to the effort 
is an appropriations framework that supports and standardizes 
budgeting and programming across the homeland security 
enterprise. With over 70 different appropriations and over 100 
PPAs, DHS has functioned for over a decade with significant 
budget disparities and inconsistencies in component's 
appropriations accounts and PPAs. Without question, the current 
budget structure is a contributing factor to the failure to 
recognize how poorly components have been underexecuting 
personnel costs. More frustrating is that neither DHS nor the 
components can provide details on how the funds were spent. 
From the perspective of leaders making judgments about 
programs, the lack of uniformity and transparency makes it 
impossible to compare costs.
    Pursuant to Committee direction, DHS presented a notional 
common appropriations structure shortly after the President's 
fiscal year 2016 budget was submitted. The structure included 
four standard types of appropriations (Operations and Support; 
Procurement, Construction, and Improvements; Research and 
Development; and Federal Assistance) and specific periods of 
availability for each. This structure makes sense. It enables 
cost comparisons between components and simplifies the 
transition from legacy financial management systems to 
modernized systems. Implementing this methodology is a 
strategic imperative and must move forward with haste. To that 
end, a general provision is included in title V of the bill 
mandating that the fiscal year 2017 budget request be presented 
to the Congress in this format and be fully implemented upon 
the enactment of full year appropriations for fiscal year 2017.
    Likewise, the Committee directs the Department to begin 
developing a standard template for budget justification 
material based on the proposed common appropriations structure, 
to be incorporated into the fiscal year 2018 budget request. 
For each appropriation, the justification shall start from a 
zero base and build to the requested level. For justification 
materials that accompany the fiscal year 2017 appropriation 
request and thereafter, the Committee directs the Department to 
include tables that compare prior year actual appropriations 
and obligations, estimates of current year appropriations and 
obligations, and the projected budget year appropriations and 
obligations for all PPAs, programs, subprograms, and FTE.
    For investment end items with severable unit costs in 
excess of $250,000 or a lifecycle cost in excess of 
$300,000,000, the Committee directs the justification materials 
to include:
           the project description, justification, 
        total cost, and scope;
           key acquisition milestones from the prior 
        year, the year of execution, and the budget year;
           the funding history by fiscal year, to 
        include prior enacted appropriations, obligations, and 
        expenditures;
           contract information to include contract 
        number, contractor, type, award date, start date, end 
        date, earned value management potential in the 
        contract, and total contract value;
           significant changes to the prior year 
        enacted budget; and
           project schedule and estimated time to 
        completion.
    For severable end items, the Committee directs the 
justification materials to include:
           the quantity of each item by prior years, 
        current year, budget year, and out-year;
           the quantity of units delivered on contract, 
        funded but not yet on contract, and planned but 
        unfunded; and
           the delivery schedule by quarter for the end 
        item, delineated by fiscal year funding.
    Finally, to improve oversight of all DHS financial 
management activities relating to programs and operations, OCFO 
is directed to develop a financial management regulation that:
           establishes financial management policies;
           ensures compliance with applicable 
        accounting policy, standards, and principals;
           establishes, reviews, and enforces internal 
        control policies, standards, and compliance guidelines 
        for financial management;
           ensures that complete, reliable, consistent, 
        timely, and accurate information on disbursements is 
        available in financial management systems; and
           provides oversight of financial management 
        activities and operations including developing budget 
        requests and preparing for audits.
    To assist with this project and the implementation of a 
common appropriations structure, $3,000,000 is provided above 
the request for appropriate subject matter expertise and 
supporting staff.
    Understanding how components intend to spend appropriated 
funding during the year of execution is critical to the 
subcommittee's oversight. For fiscal year 2015, several 
components provided obligation and expenditure plans for their 
fiscal year 2015 appropriations. For fiscal year 2016, the 
Committee directs the Management Directorate and each component 
to provide a briefing to the Committee, within 45 days of 
enactment of this Act, on its planned obligations and budget 
execution. To facilitate this effort and to enable budget 
comparisons, OCFO is directed to develop the template for 
tables detailing these annual obligation and budget execution 
plans. At a minimum, the template shall include for the prior 
year, current year, and budget year:
           comparisons of actual and estimated 
        obligations and expenditures;
           designations of funding by PPA and cost code 
        by quarter;
           transfers, reprogrammings, and the 
        allocation of undistributed appropriations;
           amounts of actual or planned carryover into 
        the next fiscal year; and
           details on the status of multiyear 
        appropriations by source year.
    The Department's current financial system modernization 
efforts are based on an OMB directive to transition to a 
Federal shared services provider. Improving financial 
accountability and financial reporting is essential, but 
questions persist about the costs of the current approach and 
the capacity of Federal shared service providers to manage the 
transition. Therefore, the Committee directs GAO to assess the 
risks of utilizing the Department of Interior's Business Center 
(IBC), whether the IBC is capable of expanding its services to 
additional Federal agencies, and a comparison of the services 
and capabilities of Federal and commercial shared service 
providers. In addition, the Committee directs OCFO to update 
the lifecycle cost estimate to reflect all contract awards and 
projected overall costs, including those for every component 
that plans to migrate to a Federal shared service provider.
    Bill language is retained requiring Monthly Budget 
Execution and Staffing reports within 30 days after the close 
of each month. These reports shall include the same level of 
detail required in section 513 of Public Law 114-4, with one 
exception: staffing levels for each account should be based on 
the most recent pay period.

                Office of the Chief Information Officer


 
 
 
Appropriation, fiscal year 2015.......................      $288,122,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2016......................       320,596,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       308,488,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2015...................       +20,366,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2016..................       -12,108,000
 

                                Mission

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

                             Recommendation

    The Committee recommends $308,488,000 for OCIO, $12,108,000 
below the amount requested and $20,366,000 above the amount 
provided in fiscal year 2015. A comparison of the budget 
request to the Committee recommended level by budget activity 
is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget estimate      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salaries and Expenses.............       $105,307,000       $104,957,000
Information Technology Activities.        106,270,000         94,512,000
Infrastructure and Security                54,087,000         54,087,000
 Activities.......................
Homeland Secure Data Network......         54,932,000         54,932,000
                                   -------------------------------------
    Total, Chief Information             $320,596,000       $308,488,000
     Officer......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The recommendation includes a reduction of $4,833,000 due 
to projected underexecution of funds for personnel and a 
reduction of $517,000 that corresponds to the amount associated 
with the pay raise assumed in the President's budget. As 
requested, the recommendation includes funding for the 
following initiatives: DHS Data Framework, Single Sign-on, 
several security initiatives, the Federal Risk and 
Authorization Management Program, and the Infrastructure 
Transformation Program. The recommendation includes $5,000,000 
for Digital Services, instead of $10,000,000 as requested, and 
does not include $1,758,000, as requested, to expand the 
Trusted Tester program at DHS expense to other Federal 
agencies. The Administration request for two-year funds to hire 
employees to be part of the DHS Digital Services teams is 
denied. DHS must improve the time it takes to hire new staff. 
Providing two-year funds for Digital Service teams undermines 
that objective.
    The Committee applauds the strategic objectives outlined in 
the DHS Information Technology Strategic Plan (FY2015-2018), 
including acquisition strategies that support rapid deployment, 
agile development, shared technologies, and the adoption of a 
consumption-based business model. To monitor progress in 
achieving these objectives, the Committee directs OCIO to 
provide a baseline briefing followed by quarterly updates on 
the enterprise architecture that supports DHS's strategic plan. 
The briefing shall include component-level details on savings 
achieved through data center consolidation and reducing 
commodity IT spending.
    Preventing the compromise or unauthorized disclosure of 
sensitive digital content or other personally identifiable 
information inside and outside the Department is important to 
national security. The Committee directs OCIO to continue 
providing data loss prevention at the enterprise level through 
the use of technology at the Department's Trusted Internet 
Connection.
    The Chief Information Officer, in coordination with the 
Chief Financial Officer and the Chief Procurement Officer, is 
directed to certify that an independent verification and 
validation agent is currently under contract for major IT 
investments.

                        Analysis and Operations


 
 
 
Appropriation, fiscal year 2015.......................      $255,804,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2016......................       269,090,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       264,898,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2015...................        +9,094,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2016..................        -4,192,000
 

                                Mission

    The Analysis and Operations appropriation supports the 
Office of Intelligence and Analysis and the Office of 
Operations Coordination, which together collect, evaluate, and 
disseminate intelligence information, as well as provide 
incident management and operational coordination.

                             Recommendation

    The Committee recommends $264,898,000 for Analysis and 
Operations, $4,192,000 below the amount requested and 
$9,094,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The 
recommendation includes a reduction of $1,123,000 that 
corresponds to the amount associated with the pay raise assumed 
in the President's budget.
    State and major urban area fusion centers serve as focal 
points within the State and local environment for the receipt, 
analysis, gathering, and sharing of threat-related information 
between the Federal government and State, local, tribal, 
territorial, and private sector partners. Fusion centers are 
owned and operated by State and local entities with support 
from Federal partners in the form of deployed personnel, 
training, technical assistance, exercise support, security 
clearances, connectivity to Federal systems, technology, and 
grant funding. The Committee is pleased with the success of the 
National Network of Fusion Centers and encourages the DHS 
Office of Intelligence and Analysis to continue to provide 
support, including the deployment of personnel, the provision 
of training, technical assistance, and clearances, and the 
management of annual capability and performance assessment 
processes, to ensure that fusion centers remain a vital link to 
the Information Sharing Environment, including their ability to 
address criminal and homeland security-related threats.
    Terrorist groups are increasingly involved in a wide range 
of illegal activities involving the jurisdictions of multiple 
Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies. Criminal 
activities, such as tobacco smuggling, are used to expand this 
activity and to create linkages to funding for terrorist 
activity. Therefore, the Committee encourages DHS to work with 
its Federal partners, such as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 
Firearms, and Explosives, as well as State and local partners, 
to leverage the domestic information sharing architecture, 
which includes fusion centers, the Regional Information Sharing 
System, and High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas, to enhance 
bilateral and multilateral information sharing.
    The Committee supports the Criminal Intelligence Enterprise 
(CIE), which is a national initiative designed to identify, 
prioritize, and catalog the criminal and terrorist threat 
groups that present the greatest concern to each major city and 
county. This vital link between State and local law enforcement 
and the National Network of Fusion Centers focuses on the 
implementation of a threat identification process that helps 
agencies evaluate their threats, while simultaneously providing 
them with a much broader understanding of the threats that 
exist in other parts of the country. The Committee commends 
Office of Intelligence and Analysis for their CIE efforts to 
date, but recognizes the system can better serve the law 
enforcement community if the process is made more user-
friendly. Therefore, the Committee directs that not less than 
$300,000 be made available for purposes of automating the CIE 
template and collection process. In addition, not less than 
$125,000 shall be made available for purposes of providing 
technical assistance to State and local law enforcement 
agencies to assist in the CIE process. The Committee recognizes 
that additional technical assistance will lead to increased 
participation in the CIE process, and greater success of the 
program.

                          Classified Programs

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

                      Office of Inspector General


 
 
 
Appropriation, fiscal year 2015*......................      $142,617,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2016*.....................       166,284,000
Recommended in the bill*..............................       165,188,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2015...................       +22,571,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2016..................       -1,096,000
 
*Includes a directed transfer of $24,000,000 to the OIG from the FEMA
  Disaster Relief Fund.

                                Mission

    The DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducts and 
supervises independent audits, investigations, and inspections 
of the programs and operations of DHS, and recommends ways for 
DHS to carry out its responsibilities in the most effective, 
efficient, and economical manner possible. The OIG also seeks 
to deter, identify, and address fraud, abuse, mismanagement, 
and waste of taxpayer funds invested in Homeland Security.

                             Recommendation

    The Committee recommends a total of $165,188,000 for the 
OIG, $1,096,000 below the budget request and $22,571,000 above 
the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The reduction below 
the request corresponds to the amount associated with the pay 
raise assumed in the President's budget. The Committee 
continues the prior year practice of transferring $24,000,000 
from the FEMA DRF to the OIG for disaster-related audits and 
investigations. As requested, the recommendation includes 
$7,603,000 for acquisition management oversight, $6,110,000 for 
fraud and computer forensics, $2,810,000 for inspections and 
special reviews, and $275,000 for whistleblower protection. The 
Committee also supports the request to raise FTEs by 71 for 
increased oversight capability.
    Since 2012, DHS has grown by over 5,000 FTEs while the OIG 
staff has decreased by over 100. This trend cannot continue if 
the Department is to effectively safeguard tax dollars by 
preventing and detecting fraud, waste, and abuse. The Committee 
is pleased that, unlike previous years, the fiscal year 2016 
request proposed an increase for the OIG to assure robust 
oversight capacity within the Department.
    The Committee directs the OIG to provide quarterly 
briefings on the status of filling OIG vacancies, procurements 
related to the lifecycle auditing program, and programmatic 
successes and challenges.
    The Committee directs the OIG to assess and report on CBP 
ethics and integrity training for agents and officers, as well 
as CBP mechanisms for operational oversight related to ethics 
and integrity. The OIG shall include an explicit plan for 
ethics and integrity oversight in its fiscal year 2016 
obligation and execution plan.

           TITLE II--SECURITY ENFORCEMENT AND INVESTIGATIONS


                   U.S. Customs and Border Protection


                                Mission

    The mission of U.S. Customs and Border Protection is to 
enforce laws regarding the admission of foreign-born persons 
into the United States, to facilitate the flow of legitimate 
trade and travel, and to ensure all persons and cargo enter the 
U.S. legally and safely through official checkpoints at ports 
of entry

                             Recommendation

    CBP's ability to hire and retain its workforce is an 
ongoing challenge. In fiscal year 2014, only 45,629 FTEs were 
on-board, which was 1,071 FTEs below the level funded. For 
fiscal year 2015, CBP projects its on-board strength will be 
1,820 FTEs below the level provided in fiscal year 2015, 
translating into at least $263,606,000 being used for other, 
unbudgeted activities. The fiscal year 2016 request compounds 
the problem by proposing 47,874 FTEs. To reach the requested 
level of FTEs and cover attrition, CBP would have to hire over 
5,500 new employees in less than 12 months, something the 
Committee doubts is possible.
    In fiscal year 2014, Congress provided funding for 2,000 
additional CBP Officers (CBPO). Unfortunately, CBP still needs 
to hire a net gain of almost 1,100 CBPOs to reach the desired 
strength of 23,775 FTEs. Simultaneously, attrition in the 
Border Patrol has skyrocketed, leading to a net loss of nearly 
1,000 agents over the last 12 months even though the Congress 
has consistently mandated and funded 21,370 agents.
    From the beginning of the fiscal year through May 2015, CBP 
hired only 257 Border Patrol agents while 632 agents left the 
agency, a rate of attrition that is untenable. To address 
personnel shortfalls and hiring times, the Committee directs 
CBP to work with the Department to comply with direction in 
title I of this report to complete a root cause analysis and 
develop a corrective action plan based on its findings. Until 
CBP clearly understands the reasons for increased attrition, it 
will be impossible to develop and execute initiatives to reduce 
it. For instance, if the analysis indicates that retention 
issues are primarily a result of hardship assignments, CBP 
could propose additional compensation for such assignments.
    The Committee stands by its recommendation to provide funds 
for 23,775 CBPOs and 21,370 Border Patrol agents; however, it 
is extremely skeptical that CBP can vet and hire sufficient 
people to meet that goal by the beginning of fiscal year 2016. 
Accordingly, the Committee's funding recommendation proposes an 
incremental hiring schedule over the course of the fiscal year 
that will result in CBP reaching its mandated end strength by 
September 30, 2016. This hiring ramp reduces the required 
funding by a total of $254,192,000 over all personnel accounts 
within CBP.
    In order to provide oversight, the Committee directs CBP to 
submit a report not later than five days after the end of each 
fiscal quarter on staffing numbers, to include gains and losses 
by pay period during the quarter. Additionally, the report 
shall include the total number of CBPOs and Border Patrol 
agents on-board.
    In title I, under OCFO, the Committee directs briefings on 
obligation and budget execution plans. Further, the Committee 
directs that CBP's plan include obligations and budget 
execution by PPA, project, and subproject or severable end item 
for multiyear funding appropriated in prior years, anticipated 
carryover, and the planned obligation of the carryover in 
future years until all funds are obligated.
    The Committee is concerned that current CBP metrics do not 
provide a sufficiently accurate and complete picture of border 
security, and directs CBP to continue working with the Office 
of Policy to develop more definitive metrics. Until CBP can 
more accurately measure inflow rates of illicit border crossers 
and contraband between ports of entry, at ports of entry, and 
in the maritime domain, Congress and the public will continue 
to be wary about claims of progress in the border security 
mission. Further, more accurate metrics are needed to inform 
the allocation of scarce resources to where they can be most 
effectively used at the border.
    In April 2010, CBP established the Office of Technology 
Innovation and Acquisition (OTIA) to oversee the agency's 
program management and acquisition efforts for mission 
technology across the agency. The concept for this type of 
coordination at the component level is similar to the 
Department-wide Unity of Effort initiative that the Secretary 
commenced in 2014. Unfortunately, the beneficial impact of OTIA 
has not been fully realized because many of CBP's technology 
acquisition programs have never migrated into OTIA's 
centralized framework and continue to be managed in stovepipes. 
The Committee strongly encourages CBP to expand OTIA's 
technology acquisition oversight and coordination role by 
identifying business drivers and potential risks, pursuing 
requirements integration, avoiding overlap and redundancy, and 
strengthening analytical capabilities. With constant need for 
experienced acquisition personnel and the limited number of 
procurements across the agency, CBP cannot afford to spread and 
stovepipe personnel and funding. In addition, the Committee 
directs CBP and the USM to conduct a review of the CBP 
acquisition process, procedures, and organizational structure 
and report its findings to the Committees on Appropriations and 
Homeland Security not later than 120 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act.

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

 
 
 
Appropriation, fiscal year 2015.......................    $8,459,657,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2016......................     9,124,270,000
Recommended in the bill...............................     8,695,238,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2015...................      +235,581,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2016..................      -429,032,000
 

    The Salaries and Expenses appropriation provides funds for 
border security, immigration enforcement, customs and 
agriculture inspections, regulating and facilitating 
international trade, collecting import duties, and enforcing 
U.S. trade laws. In addition to appropriations, fee collections 
are authorized to cover CBP operations.

                             Recommendation

    For fiscal year 2016, the Committee recommends 
$8,695,238,000 for Salaries and Expenses, $429,032,000 below 
the amount requested and $235,581,000 above the amount provided 
in fiscal year 2015. Included in the total is $3,274,000 
derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. The 
recommendation promotes strong border security, expands efforts 
to facilitate trade and travel, and builds CBP's targeting 
capabilities.
    A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee 
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget estimate      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Headquarters, Management, and
 Administration:
    Commissioner..................        $30,950,000        $12,301,000
    Chief Counsel.................         49,786,000         48,792,000
    Congressional Affairs.........          2,978,000          2,880,000
    Internal Affairs..............        170,024,000        166,121,000
    Public Affairs................         14,464,000         14,350,000
    Training and Development......         80,466,000         79,965,000
    Technology, Innovation and             29,658,000         27,359,000
     Acquisition..................
    Intelligence/Investigative             78,402,000         73,482,000
     Liaison......................
    Administration................        420,238,000        404,041,000
    Rent..........................        629,046,000        629,046,000
                                   -------------------------------------
        Subtotal, Headquarters,         1,506,012,000      1,458,337,000
         Management, and
         Administration...........
Border Security Inspections and
 Trade Facilitation:
    Inspections, Trade, and Travel      3,077,568,000      2,898,419,000
     Facilitation at Ports of
     Entry........................
    Harbor Maintenance Fee                  3,274,000          3,274,000
     Collection (Trust Fund)......
    International Cargo Screening.         69,851,000         68,148,000
    Other international programs..         24,935,000         24,713,000
    Customs-Trade Partnership              41,420,000         41,121,000
     Against Terrorism............
    Trusted Traveler Programs.....          5,811,000          5,811,000
    Inspection and Detection              209,273,000        209,199,000
     Technology Investments.......
    National Targeting Center.....         79,514,000         78,880,000
    Training......................         48,714,000         48,052,000
                                   -------------------------------------
        Subtotal, Border Security       3,560,360,000      3,377,617,000
         Inspections and Trade
         Facilitation.............
Border Security and Control
 between Ports of Entry:
    Border Security and Control...      3,921,393,000      3,806,101,000
    Border Security and Control--          79,000,000                ---
     UC Contingency Funding.......
    Training......................         57,505,000         53,183,000
                                   -------------------------------------
        Subtotal, Border Security       4,057,898,000      3,859,284,000
         and Control between POEs.
                                   -------------------------------------
            Total, Salaries and        $9,124,270,000     $8,695,238,000
             Expenses.............
------------------------------------------------------------------------

              Headquarters, Management, and Administration

    The Headquarters, Management, and Administration (HMA) PPA 
funds the development of critical policy and operational 
guidance, and provides mission support to CBP's operational 
components, among other activities. To support these 
requirements, the Committee recommends $1,458,337,000 for HMA, 
$47,675,000 below the amount requested and $90,137,000 above 
the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The recommendation 
includes a reduction of $27,171,000 due to projected 
underexecution of funds for personnel and a reduction of 
$5,029,000 that corresponds to the amount associated with the 
pay raise assumed in the President's budget.
    CBP has failed to respond in a timely and complete fashion 
to repeated Committee requests for information about new 
hiring, attrition, and amounts of FTE funding expended--budget 
execution data that should be at any senior leader's 
fingertips. The cause of the delay appears to be either an 
unwillingness to inform the Committee about the number of 
personnel actually on CBP's payroll or simply a lack of respect 
for the role of the Congress in overseeing CBP funding and 
operations. When the Committee's oversight activity is stymied 
repeatedly, it has no recourse but to act punitively. 
Accordingly, the Committee reduces funding for the 
Commissioner's Office by 50 percent, and encourages CBP to 
respond to future Committee requests with more alacrity.
    Within 60 days of the date of enactment of this Act, CBP is 
directed to brief the Committee on its use of criminal 
misconduct investigative authority, which was delegated to CBP 
by the Secretary in 2014, and to continue providing regular 
updates thereafter.
    The Committee is concerned that technology currently used 
to analyze vehicular traffic crossing our borders has become 
outdated and should be improved. As part of the overall effort 
to improve situational awareness, the Committee expects the 
Department to continue to improve land border integration by 
procuring and implementing the latest, most effective 
technologies available to monitor vehicles crossing our 
borders.
    When fully implemented in 2016, ACE will serve as the 
``single window'' system for the private sector to report 
import and export data for automated processing. It will also 
allow CBP to more rapidly share data with its federal agency 
partners, such as the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) 
at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The Committee is 
concerned that, prior to full ACE implementation, FSIS 
personnel are required to manually review CBP import data to 
identify importers who fail to present meat and poultry imports 
for FSIS inspection. Such ``failures to present'' can lead to 
the introduction into commerce of uninspected meat and poultry 
products. A May 2015 OIG report (OIG-15-91) found that, while 
CBP is making progress in the development and deployment of 
ACE, it has insufficient internal controls in place to ensure 
that the deployment schedule remains on track. As part of the 
semi-annual ACE briefings, CBP shall identify any risks that 
could result in a delay in fully implementing ACE, including an 
assessment of the adequacy of internal controls to mitigate 
risk and the status of responding to the recommendations of 
OIG-15-91.
    The Committee continues to be concerned about the impact of 
carrizo cane and other invasive plant species on the activities 
of the Border Patrol along the Rio Grande, and is aware that 
the State of Texas recently established a Carrizo Cane 
Eradication Program to be administered by the Texas State Soil 
and Water Conservation Board (TSSWCB). The Committee expects 
CBP to work with the TSSWCB and other Federal, state, and local 
stakeholders on efforts to control carrizo cane, and directs 
CBP to update the Committee, within 30 days of the date of 
enactment of this act, on its efforts. The update shall address 
progress made; a plan for working with stakeholders to make 
future progress; strategies under consideration by other 
Federal agencies, as well as State and local stakeholders; and 
efforts to work with the Government of Mexico to eradicate or 
control carrizo cane on the Mexican side of the river. The 
update should also identify CBP resources expended during 
fiscal year 2015 for this effort, along with resources required 
for it during fiscal year 2016 and future years.
    With CBP's recent release of its risk-based Agriculture 
Resource Allocation Model (AgRAM), the Committee is concerned 
about how CBP plans to carry out its agriculture quarantine 
inspection (AQI) mission with current staffing levels. CBP is 
directed to brief the Committee within 90 days of enactment of 
this Act on a plan to address these staffing needs to meet its 
AQI mission to protect U.S. food, agriculture, and natural 
resources.
    Under CBP's Outlying Area Reporting Station (OARS) program, 
CBP officers can conduct inspections of Canadian citizens and 
residents arriving to the United States by private boat at some 
public marinas through videophone technology. The program has 
helped improve border security while facilitating the flow of 
international tourism and commerce. The Committee is concerned 
by reports that the current videophone technology is old, and 
urges CBP to review upgrading the technology with more 
reliable, modern devices, including mobile technology.
    The Committee is aware of concerns that CBP may not be 
consistently applying its rules for classifying textile 
costumes and related items as festive articles. In particular, 
some importers believe that CBP's current standard for 
categorizing an item as a festive article under heading 9505 of 
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States--that it is 
a textile costume of a flimsy nature and construction, lacking 
in durability, and generally recognized as not being normal 
articles of apparel--is too subjective and leads to disparate 
treatment of similar imported items for tariff purposes. The 
Committee urges CBP to work with private sector stakeholders to 
ensure that the agency's classification approach is both fair 
and objective.
    The Committee is concerned about CBP's resource allocation 
at airports actively expanding services, including the 
threshold of passengers and primary processing times as 
specified under the workload staffing model. CBP is directed to 
brief the Committee on how CBP addresses staffing shortfalls 
and screening times at expanding airports not later than 90 
days after the date of enactment of this Act. Further, the 
briefing shall include the feasibility of reimbursement for the 
salaries of CBP officer included public-private partnerships.
    The Committee expects CBP to adhere to the requirements of 
the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), 
Public Law 110-457, related to the treatment of unaccompanied 
children, including those that apply to children from 
contiguous countries. Within 120 days of the date of enactment 
of this Act, CBP is directed to provide a briefing on its 
policies related to compliance with such requirements, guidance 
to officers and agents related to TVPRA, and mechanisms for 
ensuring compliance with such policies, guidance, and 
applicable laws. The briefing should also address CBP's 
Juvenile Referral Process (JRP), including a description of the 
program, its purpose, the policy or guidance for selecting 
children for the program, and CBP's policies for communicating 
with foreign governments pertaining to the repatriations 
related to the program. In addition, the briefing should 
include JRP data regarding the number, ages, and gender of 
children selected; the average and median length of stay in CBP 
custody; referrals by DHS to the Department of Justice for 
prosecution; transfers of children to other Federal agencies; 
placements into removal proceedings; repatriations; and grants 
of relief from removal, including asylum, Special Immigrant 
Juvenile status, a U Visa, a T Visa, or an S Visa.
    In addition, the Committee expects CBP to ensure that ports 
of entry and short-term custody facilities holding 
unaccompanied children have staff who have been appropriately 
trained to screen children for signs of trafficking or abuse, 
as well as staff trained to manage their care, including 
necessary medical and mental health care; climate appropriate 
clothing; basic personal hygiene; a pillow, linens, and 
sufficient blankets to rest at a comfortable temperature; 
adequate nutrition; a safe and sanitary living environment; 
access to daily recreation; access to legal services and 
consular officials; and access to supervised phone calls. CBP 
is expected to follow all legal requirements and policy 
directives for conveying information to unaccompanied children 
regarding their legal rights in a language they can understand, 
including mechanisms to report abuse or misconduct they may 
have experienced.
    The Committee notes the success of the Global Entry program 
in reducing wait times for pre-approved, low-risk travelers and 
encourages CBP to consider ways to expand the program. In 
addition, the Committee encourages the Department to work with 
the Department of State to explore the feasibility of 
developing a joint process for visa applications and Global 
Entry enrollment.
    The Committee commends CBP for the implementation and rapid 
expansion of Automated Passport Control (APC), along with the 
successful piloting of Mobile Passport Control (MPC), and 
encourages the expanded use of these and other technologies 
that help CBP carry out its important mission while also 
improving the traveler experience. As CBP increasingly relies 
on such technologies for efficient operation, it will be 
important to ensure they are appropriately maintained to avoid 
outages and resulting increases in passenger wait times. As 
part of its budget justification for fiscal year 2017, CBP 
shall describe its plan to work with its airline and airport 
authority partners to ensure the efficient operation of 
automated passenger processing technologies.
    CBP plays a critical role in identifying potential human 
trafficking victims as they enter the United States. The 
Committee encourages CBP to work with appropriate nonprofit 
organizations and victim service providers to improve CBP 
officer and agent training on identifying human trafficking 
victims and providing appropriate referrals to victim service 
organizations. Given the diverse backgrounds of human 
trafficking victims, the Committee strongly urges CBP to 
incorporate culturally sensitive training and language-
accessible translated materials. The Committee directs the 
Commissioner to post the National Human Trafficking Resource 
Center hotline, email address, text messaging number, and 
website information in all U.S. ports of entry.
    The Committee directs the Commissioner to brief the 
Committee not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of 
this Act on continued dialogue with the Department of Defense 
on geo-intelligence activities, to include potential future 
efforts.
    In November 2012, the GAO issued a report (GAO-13-56) 
concerning the Department of Homeland Security's ability to 
more effectively integrate the Civil Air Patrol (CAP) into its 
mission objectives, particularly regarding border security. The 
Committee encourages CBP to continue assessing specific areas 
and missions in which collaboration with the CAP can be 
achieved and successfully integrated during fiscal year 2016.
    The Department has failed to implement a biometric entry/
exit solution as recommended by the 9/11 Commission, and the 
system it is currently developing will likely fall short of the 
biometric exit capability required by law. The Committee 
directs the Commissioner to brief the Committees on 
Appropriations and Homeland Security not later than 90 days 
after the date of enactment of this Act on the Air Entry/Exit 
Re-engineering study and an expected timeline for 
implementation of a biometric entry/exit system.

           Border Security Inspections and Trade Facilitation

    For the Border Security Inspections and Trade Facilitation 
account, the Committee recommends $3,377,617,000, $182,743,000 
below the amount requested and $190,625,000 above the amount 
provided in fiscal year 2015. The recommendation includes a 
reduction of $113,766,000 due to projected underexecution of 
funds for personnel and a reduction of $28,755,000 that 
corresponds to the amount associated with the pay raise assumed 
in the President's budget. As proposed by the President, the 
recommendation includes funds sufficient to support a base of 
23,775 CBPOs, which includes the costs associated with the 
2,000 CBPOs funded through the fiscal year 2014 appropriation.
    The recommendation provides $19,445,000 for the Electronic 
Visa Information Update System, $10,000,000 below the request, 
due to the planned acceleration of the program utilizing fiscal 
year 2015 funding.
    Based on the success of the existing public-private 
partnerships, the Committee includes language increasing from 
five to ten the number of air ports of entry pilots allowed.
    While CBP's resource allocation model has greatly improved 
its ability to make informed staffing decisions, the Committee 
understands that CBP will need to routinely update the model to 
account for new trade and travel data and to address any newly 
identified gaps to include expanding airports. Any 
modifications to the model shall be described in the fiscal 
year 2017 budget. To avoid law enforcement and security 
sensitivities, CBP is encouraged to provide staffing 
requirements at the Field Office level.
    The statement accompanying Public Law 114-4 provided 
extensive direction to CBP on means to reduce wait times at 
ports of entry. The Committee directs CBP to continue to 
provide updates on progress towards reducing wait times and 
implementing section 571 of Public Law 113-76, which requires 
the development of performance metrics and operational work 
plans to reduce passenger wait times at ports of entry with the 
highest passenger volume and wait times.
    In 2014, the Secretary extended, by two years, a waiver on 
implementing the 9/11 Act requirement to scan 100 percent of 
maritime cargo originating in foreign ports prior to lading. 
That extension reflected the continued technological, 
financial, and operational challenges involved in achieving 
this important homeland security capability and the related 
difficulty in balancing security with the facilitation of 
commerce. Unfortunately, it continues to appear unlikely that 
the 100 percent scanning requirement will be met within the 
timeframe of the current waiver and, potentially, not even 
during subsequent waiver iterations. In House Report 113-481, 
the Committee established an expectation that the Department 
should propose to Congress aggressive, alternative requirements 
that build on the layered security capabilities achieved to 
date and that could be realistically achieved within the next 
two years. The Committee directs CBP to provide a briefing, 
within 45 days of enactment of this Act, on its near term and 
longer term plans for the improvement of maritime cargo 
scanning at foreign ports.
    As requested by the President, the recommendation includes 
funds sufficient to recapitalize aging large and small scale 
Non-Intrusive Inspection (NII) systems and to maintain the 
existing assets deployed in the field. The Committee expects 
CBP to use contracts negotiated by the General Services 
Administration (GSA), when possible, to speed up procurement.

           Border Security and Control Between Ports of Entry

    The Committee recommends $3,859,284,000 for Border Security 
and Control between Ports of Entry, $198,614,000 below the 
amount requested and $45,181,000 below the amount provided in 
fiscal year 2015. The recommendation includes a reduction of 
$36,182,000 which corresponds to the amount associated with the 
pay raise assumed in the President's budget, and a reduction of 
$79,000,000 requested as a contingency fund. In addition, while 
the recommendation supports a Border Patrol force of 21,370 
agents and enablers, a reduction of $83,429,000 is imposed due 
to the probability that the end strength will not be reached 
until the end of the fiscal year.
    The Committee directs the Department to continue issuing 
statistics on the number of individuals held in custody by CBP, 
including all Border Patrol stations, checkpoints, and short-
term custody facilities (defined as facilities used to hold 
individuals for 72 hours or less). For all individuals detained 
at any of the facilities used for short-term custody, these 
statistics shall consist of country of origin, age, gender, 
detention duration, and the circumstances of release or 
transfer from custody, including whether a detainee died in CBP 
custody. The Committee directs the Department to publish these 
statistics in its annual statistical yearbook. Additionally, 
the Committee directs CBP to work with ICE to establish 
efficient procedures for processing and transferring 
individuals from short-term custody to ICE detention.
    The Committee expects CBP to ensure that its holding 
facilities are in full compliance with the Department's 
Standards to Prevent, Detect, and Respond to Sexual Abuse and 
Assault in Confinement Facilities, which were finalized on 
March 7, 2014, in response to a Presidential Memorandum 
directing certain Federal agencies to promulgate rules 
consistent with the requirements of the Prison Rape Elimination 
Act. As part of its budget justification for fiscal year 2017, 
CBP shall provide funding estimates for compliance activities, 
including in-person staff training, external audits, 
infrastructure changes, and other activities related to 
adherence to the standards.
    The Committee directs CBP to report to the Committee within 
24 hours of the death of any individual in CBP custody or the 
death of any individual subsequent to the use of force by CBP 
personnel, including relevant details regarding the 
circumstances of the fatality. In addition, CBP shall report 
annually on the status or results of ongoing investigations 
related to such deaths, with the first report due not later 
than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
    Recognizing that repatriation agreements are bilateral in 
nature, the Committee expects DHS to repatriate removable 
individuals in a manner that ensures their safety. For 
instance, CBP and ICE should repatriate incapacitated persons, 
unaccompanied minors, pregnant women, and other vulnerable 
individuals only during daylight hours, make reasonable efforts 
to inform Mexican authorities in advance of repatriating 
vulnerable individuals, avoid removing individuals via entry/
exit points on the U.S.-Mexico border where their safety could 
be threatened, and, to the extent practicable, avoid separating 
family members during the deportation process. The Committee 
notes that House Report 113-481 directed the Department to 
review its current repatriation practices and policies and 
brief the Committee not later than 180 days after the date of 
enactment of the fiscal year 2015 Act on the results of that 
review, including the need for any additional measures to 
ensure that deportations are conducted safely.
    The Committee also directs CBP to work with ICE, the Office 
of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), and the U.S. Marshals Service 
(USMS) to ensure that individuals held in CBP short-term 
custody are processed and transferred to ICE, ORR, or USMS 
custody in a humane and timely manner, and that their 
nonperishable belongings are returned to them when they are 
removed or released. In addition, CBP is encouraged to explore 
the feasibility of developing and deploying an online detainee 
locator system.
    The Committee commends CBP's search and rescue efforts, in 
particular the Border Patrol Search, Trauma, and Rescue 
(BORSTAR) Unit, and encourages CBP to expand its engagement 
with State and local counterparts and nongovernmental 
organizations in providing necessary medical aid and reducing 
deaths. Within 60 days of the date enactment of this Act, CBP 
shall provide a report to the Committee on its search and 
rescue efforts during the prior fiscal year, including the 
number of deaths by sector and a description of the methodology 
for counting such deaths; the number of rescue beacons by 
sector; the frequency of rescue beacon activation; and the 
number of individuals rescued by the Border Patrol as a result 
of rescue beacons. In addition, the briefing should address 
procedures for the identification of deceased individuals, 
cooperative activities with State and local governments and 
nonprofit organizations, procedures for responding to rescue 
beacons, distress calls, and missing persons reports, and plans 
for reducing border crossings and deaths in remote areas along 
and near the border.
    The Committee directs CBP to provide a briefing, within 30 
days of the date of enactment of this Act, on the use of roving 
patrol stops and tactical and permanent checkpoints for 
immigration enforcement near the border. The briefing should 
address the legal authorities, policies, enforcement 
statistics, and oversight mechanisms associated with these 
activities.
    The Committee is aware that the Border Patrol has been 
evaluating Rapid DNA technology as a potential tool to confirm 
claimed relationships of juveniles in custody, identify victims 
of human trafficking, and match latent DNA from unsolved crimes 
against the FBI's Combined DNA Index System. The Committee 
encourages the evaluation of new technologies that have the 
potential to enhance CBP's border security, travel, and trade 
missions, and expects CBP to provide regular updates on its 
assessments of such technologies.
    The Committee is aware that CBP has begun the second phase 
of a pilot program to evaluate the feasibility of incorporating 
body-worn camera technology into the agency's law enforcement 
operations. CBP conducted the first phase of the pilot, which 
involved the evaluation of body-worn cameras at CBP training 
academies, between October and December 2014. The second phase, 
which includes the evaluation of the cameras in a number of 
varied operational environments, is scheduled for completion in 
mid-2015. The Committee looks forward to a briefing on the 
results of the pilot program, as required by House Report 113-
481.

                        AUTOMATION MODERNIZATION

 
 
 
Appropriation, fiscal year 2015.......................      $808,169,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2016......................       867,311,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       846,245,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2015...................       +38,076,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2016..................       -21,066,000
 

                                Mission

    The Automation Modernization appropriation provides funds 
for information technology and targeting systems critical to 
CBP frontline personnel and to protect the Nation's borders and 
facilitate trade.

                             Recommendation

    The Committee recommends $846,245,000 for Automation 
Modernization, $21,066,000 below the amount requested and 
$38,076,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The 
recommendation includes a reduction of $18,773,000 due to 
projected underexecution of funds for personnel and a reduction 
of $2,293,000 that corresponds to the amount associated with 
the pay raise assumed in the President's budget. The Committee 
directs CBP to provide semiannual briefings on the 
modernization of the TECS system, which is used for primary and 
secondary inspection processing, and the Automated Commercial 
Environment (ACE) system.
    A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee 
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget estimate      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information Technology............       $399,027,000       $378,134,000
Automated Targeting Systems.......        122,669,000        122,640,000
Automated Commercial Environment          153,736,000        153,614,000
 (ACE)/International Trade Data
 System (ITDS)....................
Current Operations Protection and         191,879,000        191,857,000
 Processing Support (COPPS).......
                                   -------------------------------------
    Total.........................       $867,311,000       $846,245,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

        BORDER SECURITY FENCING, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND TECHNOLOGY

 
 
 
Appropriation, fiscal year 2015.......................      $382,466,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2016......................       373,461,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       439,430,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2015...................       +56,964,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2016..................       +65,969,000
 

                                Mission

    The Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology 
(BSFIT) account funds technology and tactical infrastructure 
solutions to enhance CBP's situational awareness at the borders 
and its ability to respond to and resolve illegal activity.

                             Recommendation

    The Committee recommends $439,430,000 for BSFIT, 
$65,969,000 above the amount requested and $56,964,000 above 
the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. This recommendation 
continues the Committee's strong support of deploying border 
security technology that is operationally appropriate, agile, 
and cost-effective. Of the total, only funds in the Development 
and Deployment PPA are provided as multiyear.
    Based on CBP's obligation and budget execution plans, CBP 
has engaged in a practice of carrying over significant amounts 
of unobligated funds from prior years while simultaneously 
requesting significant amounts of new funding. For example, of 
the funds requested for fiscal year 2016, $96,400,000 will be 
carried over into fiscal years 2017 and 2018. In addition, CBP 
projects to start fiscal year 2016 with $360,230,000 carried 
over from prior year appropriations, of which $164,070,000 was 
provided in fiscal year 2015, $58,000,000 was provided in 
fiscal year 2014, and $138,160,000 was provided in fiscal year 
2011 or earlier.
    Sometimes contractual requirements dictate the need for 
forward funding, defined as appropriations that are not 
expected to be obligated during the budget year. However, when 
carryover becomes excessive and spans many years, it suggests 
that improvements are needed in planning and execution. This is 
particularly true of funds requested for operations and 
maintenance activities.
    The Committee cannot allow appropriations to remain unused 
for multiple fiscal years. Therefore, the recommendation 
includes a reduction of $96,040,000, which corresponds to the 
amount planned for carryover in the fiscal year 2016 request. 
Additionally, $98,550,000 is rescinded from prior year 
appropriations that will not be obligated in fiscal year 2016 
and is re-appropriated for near-term execution priorities.
    In future budgets, CBP is directed to request funding for 
programs and end items that can be obligated in the budget 
request year. Specifically, the budgeting of acquisition items 
shall be on a time-phased ``lead-time away'' or ``need to 
commit'' basis in order to avoid accumulation of excessive 
carryover.
    A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee 
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget estimate      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations and Maintenance........       $273,931,000       $247,891,000
Development and Deployment........         99,530,000        191,539,000
                                   -------------------------------------
    Total.........................       $373,461,000       $439,430,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       Operations and Maintenance

    For Operations and Maintenance, the Committee recommends 
$247,891,000 in one year funds, $26,040,000 below the request 
and $8,981,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. 
Included in the recommendation are funds sufficient to maintain 
tethered aerostats. The recommendation also includes 
$25,000,000 to continue existing aerostat coverage in the Rio 
Grande Valley and to provide coverage in areas of Arizona. 
Further, the recommendation includes $10,000,000 from funds 
previously appropriated and a decrease to the request of 
$61,040,000 of funding that will not execute until fiscal years 
2017 and 2018.
    CBP is directed to ensure that any data gathered by the 
aerostat fleet is transmitted to the AMOC so it can be used to 
provide situational awareness and to support the timely 
interdiction of illegal crossings.

                       Development and Deployment

    The recommendation includes $191,539,000 for Development 
and Deployment, $92,009,000 above the amount requested and 
$65,945,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The 
recommendation includes an additional $38,459,000 for 
integrated fixed towers and $88,550,000 from funds previously 
appropriated. However, the Committee denies $35,000,000 of 
requested funding because it will not execute until fiscal 
years 2017 or 2018.
    CBP is directed to continue providing weekly notifications 
on procurement actions related to technology investments until 
all initial contract awards have been made.
    The Committee urges the Department to obligate funds 
provided in the Fiscal Year 2015 Homeland Security 
Appropriations Act to resolve outstanding technological issues 
and move expeditiously to the procurement and deployment phase 
of next generation unattended ground sensor technology, which 
will make the Southwest and Northern Borders more secure while 
reducing agent risks and improving response efficiency.

                       AIR AND MARINE OPERATIONS

 
 
 
Appropriation, fiscal year 2015.......................      $750,469,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2016......................       747,422,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       784,934,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2015...................       +34,465,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2016..................       +37,512,000
 

                                Mission

    CBP's Office of Air and Marine (OAM) provides integrated 
air and marine forces for air and marine interdiction, law 
enforcement, and National border domain security.

                             Recommendation

    The Committee recommends $784,934,000 for Air and Marine 
Operations, $37,512,000 above the amount requested and 
$34,465,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The 
recommendation includes a reduction of $11,680,000 due to 
projected underexecution of funds for personnel and a reduction 
of $2,808,000 that corresponds to the amount associated with 
the pay raise assumed in the President's budget.
    Based on direction in House Report 113-481, the OSEM began 
working with OAM and the Coast Guard to establish a common 
flying hour program. While some progress has been made through 
this effort, specifically progress in developing a common 
lexicon, business processes, data elements, and reports, the 
Committee looks forward to implementation of the plan and 
expects the common program to inform the fiscal year 2017 
budget request.
    OAM must also take the next step and leverage the new 
program to improve the rigor of its operational requirements 
process. The current process relies heavily on qualitative 
descriptions of need and lacks consistency among sectors.
    A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee 
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget estimate      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salaries and Expenses.............       $306,253,000       $291,765,000
Operations and Maintenance........        395,169,000        409,969,000
Procurement.......................         46,000,000         83,200,000
                                   -------------------------------------
    Total.........................       $747,422,000       $784,934,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         Salaries and Expenses

    The Committee recommends $291,765,000 for Salaries and 
Expenses, $14,488,000 below the amount requested and $8,035,000 
below the amount provided in fiscal year 2015.

                       Operations and Maintenance

    The Committee recommends $409,969,000 for Operations and 
Maintenance, $14,800,000 above the amount requested and 
$12,300,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The 
recommendation includes $14,800,000 to address unmet 
operational needs, to include increases for the AMOC, 
maintenance on aircraft and ground stations, and sensor 
operations.
    The Committee directs OAM to review the feasibility and 
cost effectiveness of using commercially available services, 
including airships and fixed-wing or rotary aircraft, to 
complement OAM border surveillance activities and brief the 
Committee on its assessment not later than 90 days after the 
date of enactment of this Act.
    The Committee is concerned about the impact of adverse 
weather on the flight hours of CBP's UAS, which support 
situational awareness along the Southwest Border. In 
collaboration with the Federal Aviation Administration, CBP 
should explore the feasibility of developing an alternative 
Certificate of Waiver or Authorization that might mitigate the 
impact of such weather. In addition, CBP shall brief the 
Committee, within 90 days of the date of enactment of this Act, 
on the number of UAS flights canceled due to weather at each 
UAS base, along with an assessment of other actions that could 
help mitigate weather impacts on UAS flight hours, such as the 
establishment of an additional or alternate UAS base with more 
landing and support capacity.
    CBP is directed to study and brief the Committee not later 
than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act on the 
feasibility and cost effectiveness of using National Guard UAS 
along the Southwest Border for the purpose of border security.

                              Procurement

    The Committee recommends $83,200,000 for Procurement, 
$37,200,000 above the request and $30,200,000 above the amount 
provided in fiscal year 2015. The recommendation includes 
$37,200,000 above the budget request for added investments in 
sensors, communications equipment, and facility upgrades at the 
AMOC.
    The Committee includes $44,000,000 for two multi-role 
enforcement aircraft, and expects CBP to conduct a full and 
open competition for the next procurement of the aircraft. 
While continuing to acquire the existing airframe would ensure 
commonality, the Committee believes OAM should consider open 
architecture, modular, and reconfigurable systems in the 
upcoming required competition. This will permit OAM to have a 
fleet of aircraft that can easily be optimized for a wide 
variety of maritime and land border missions.

                 CONSTRUCTION AND FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

 
 
 
Appropriation, fiscal year 2015.......................      $288,821,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2016......................       341,543,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       341,356,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2015...................       +52,535,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2016..................          -187,000
 

                                Mission

    The Construction and Facilities Management account provides 
resources for critical facilities associated with 
infrastructure and personnel, including Border Patrol stations, 
checkpoints, temporary detention facilities, mission support 
facilities, training facilities, and CBP-owned ports of entry.

                             Recommendation

    The Committee recommends $341,356,000 for Construction and 
Facilities Management, $187,000 below the amount requested and 
$52,535,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The 
recommendation includes an increase of $15,475,000 for deferred 
maintenance, a reduction of $2,808,000 that corresponds to the 
amount associated with the pay raise assumed in the President's 
budget, and a reduction of $15,000,000 for unexplained cost 
growth in environmental and energy initiatives and operational 
requirements and services.
    On an annual basis, CBP is directed to submit an inventory 
of real property describing the physical condition of each 
facility and its recapitalization plan. As a component of the 
budget justification, CBP is directed to provide a description 
of each actual or planned construction and major renovation 
project, a cost estimate of each initiative, a description of 
existing conditions and how the project will eliminate or 
ameliorate them, and the estimated costs of routine 
maintenance. To the extent practicable, CBP is urged to 
consider recommendations about construction design from 
existing, border-proximate businesses. Finally, CBP is directed 
to work with GSA to prioritize funds for projects critical to 
improving border security and facilitating trade and travel 
into and out of the United States.
    A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee 
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget estimate      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facilities Construction and              $255,378,000       $270,853,000
 Sustainment......................
Program Oversight and Management..         86,165,000         70,503,000
                                   -------------------------------------
    Total.........................       $341,543,000       $341,356,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement


                                Mission

    U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) enforces 
Federal laws governing border control, customs, trade, and 
immigration to promote homeland security and public safety.

                             Recommendation

    The Committee's recommendation promotes the goals of: 
enforcing immigration and customs laws; investigating and 
dismantling transnational criminal organizations, including 
those that traffic and smuggle people--and especially 
children--as well as narcotics, weapons, and other contraband 
into the United States; ascertaining facts about the 
composition of the detained and non-detained alien population 
in removal proceedings and their legal claims; screening 100 
percent of visa applications; right-sizing the investigative 
and enforcement workforces; and encouraging the development of 
an effective deterrence program.
    In title I, under OCFO, the Committee directs briefings on 
obligation and budget execution plans. Further, the Committee 
directs that ICE's plans include obligations and budget 
execution by PPA, project and subproject, as well as the 
amounts planned to be carried over into the next fiscal year. 
Within these briefings, ICE shall address specific technologies 
and support services intended for procurement, program 
schedules, and major milestones. For multiyear appropriations, 
the briefings shall detail the status of each appropriation by 
source year. In addition, the briefings shall identify the 
numbers of personnel newly hired or lost to attrition since the 
beginning of the fiscal year or since the most recent report, 
as appropriate. These briefings shall be provided not later 
than 45 days after the date of enactment of this Act and on a 
quarterly basis thereafter.

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

 
 
 
Appropriation, fiscal year 2015.......................    $5,932,756,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2016......................     5,886,549,000
Recommended in the bill...............................     5,736,286,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2015...................      -196,470,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2016..................      -150,263,000
 

                             Recommendation

    The Committee recommends $5,736,286,000 for Salaries and 
Expenses, $150,263,000 below the amount requested and 
$196,470,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The 
recommendation includes a reduction of $101,519,000 due to 
projected underexecution of funds for personnel and a reduction 
of $38,110,000 that corresponds to the amount associated with 
the pay raise assumed in the President's budget. Like other DHS 
components, ICE has historically failed to achieve hiring goals 
across the agency based on enacted appropriations, resulting in 
tens of millions of dollars appropriated for payroll, 
compensation, and benefits being diverted to unbudgeted 
activities without congressional oversight of those 
expenditures. Therefore, the recommendation includes funding 
for 19,065 FTEs, an increase of 604 FTEs over the projected 
fiscal year 2015 FTE level. The Committee supports the agency's 
efforts to improve hiring and retention, but remains dubious it 
will be able to achieve its hiring goals for fiscal year 2015, 
much less those for fiscal year 2016. Therefore, the Committee 
withholds $100,000,000 from Salaries and Expenses for Personnel 
and Compensation Benefits pending a mid-year review of the 
agency's hiring progress.
    In 2014, ICE released 12,757 aliens from its custody after 
determining that they were not enforcement priorities. However, 
according to DHS OIG Report 15-85, this data may not be 
accurate and the number could be much higher because officers 
do not always record their use of prosecutorial discretion. The 
report also noted that ICE field office personnel do not always 
have access to an individual's criminal history in his or her 
country of origin, information that could be directly relevant 
to the exercise of prosecutorial discretion by ICE. A directive 
is included under the Office of Policy heading in title I of 
this report requiring the Office of Immigration Statistics to 
develop and implement a plan that results in the complete and 
accurate collection and reporting of immigration enforcement 
data, from encounter through final disposition and including 
data on the use of prosecutorial discretion.
    A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee 
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget estimate       Final bill
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Headquarters Management and
 Administration
    Personnel Compensation and           $195,950,000       $148,738,000
     Benefits, Services, and Other
     Costs........................
    Headquarters Managed IT               146,046,000        145,957,000
     Investment...................
                                   -------------------------------------
        Subtotal, Headquarters            341,996,000        294,695,000
         Management and
         Administration...........
Legal Proceedings                         248,096,000        231,214,000
Investigations
    Domestic Investigations.......      1,766,654,000      1,727,716,000
    International Investigations..
        International Operations..        107,931,000        103,566,000
        Visa Security Program.....         30,749,000         32,561,000
                                   -------------------------------------
            Subtotal,                     138,680,000        136,127,000
             International
             Investigations.......
        Subtotal, Investigations..      1,905,334,000      1,863,843,000
                                   -------------------------------------
Intelligence                               80,041,000         79,768,000
Enforcement and Removal Operations
    Custody Operations............      2,406,744,000      2,388,603,000
    Fugitive Operations...........        129,438,000        128,072,000
    Criminal Alien Program........        320,267,000        317,177,000
    Alternatives to Detention.....        122,481,000        109,740,000
    Transportation and Removal            324,152,000        323,174,000
     Program......................
    Transportation and Removal              8,000,000              - - -
     Program--UC Contingency......
                                   -------------------------------------
        Subtotal, Enforcement and       3,311,082,000      3,266,766,000
         Removal Operations.......
                                   -------------------------------------
            Total, Salaries and        $5,886,549,000     $5,736,286,000
             Expenses.............
------------------------------------------------------------------------

               Headquarters Management and Administration

    The Committee recommends $294,695,000 for ICE Headquarters 
Management and Administration, $47,301,000 below the amount 
requested and $52,726,000 below the amount provided in fiscal 
year 2015. The recommendation includes reductions to the 
request corresponding to the amounts associated with the pay 
raise assumed in the President's budget, as well as reductions 
due to projected underexecution of funds for personnel.
    ICE's reticence in responding to the Congressional requests 
for information, especially when it relates to the agency's 
policies regarding the disciplining of agents who fail to 
follow the President's directives on immigration, demonstrates 
a lack of respect for the role of Congress in overseeing ICE 
operations and ensuring the enforcement of the immigration laws 
of the nation. Therefore, $5,000,000 of funding for 
Headquarters Management and Administration is withheld to 
motivate the Director of ICE to be more responsive to Congress 
in a timely way. The funds will be released if the Director 
briefs the Committee on the Priority Enforcement Program as 
directed later in this report.

                           Legal Proceedings

    The Committee recommends $231,214,000 for Legal 
Proceedings, $16,882,000 below the amount requested and 
$13,821,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The 
recommendation funds the agency's request to hire 311 
additional attorneys to reduce the backlog on the detained and 
non-detained dockets.

                             Investigations

    The Committee recommends $1,863,843,000 for Investigations, 
$41,491,000 below the request and $3,824,000 above the amount 
provided in fiscal year 2015. The recommendation includes 
reductions to the request corresponding to the amounts 
associated with the pay raise assumed in the President's 
budget, as well as reductions due to projected underexecution 
of funds for personnel.

                        Domestic Investigations

    Domestic Investigations supports the enforcement of trade 
and immigration laws through the investigation of activities, 
persons, and events that may pose a threat to the safety or 
security of the United States and its people. The program also 
supports the investigations of illegal trafficking in weapons 
(including weapons of mass destruction), the smuggling of 
narcotics and other contraband, human smuggling and 
trafficking, money laundering and other financial crimes, 
fraudulent trade practices, identity and benefit fraud, child 
exploitation, and health and public safety dangers.
    The Committee recommends $1,727,716,000 for Domestic 
Investigations, $38,938,000 below the request and $27,905,000 
above fiscal year 2015. The bill provides funds for an increase 
of 135 agents and mission support staff to enhance ICE's 
ability to conduct investigations in high-priority mission 
areas, such as human smuggling and trafficking; child 
exploitation, including through the Child Exploitation Unit at 
the Cyber Crime Center and Operation Angel Watch; and 
intellectual property rights enforcement, including through the 
National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center 
(NIPRCC).
    An increase of 1 FTE and $1,000,000 is provided for the 
Human Exploitation Rescue Operative (HERO) Child-Rescue Corps 
to support child exploitation investigations. The Committee 
strongly supports this initiative and directs ICE to continue 
to train at least two classes of veterans annually through the 
program. The Committee expects ICE to continue its efforts to 
employ HERO graduates at ICE or place them with other Federal, 
State, or local agencies with related missions.
    ICE plays a critical role in investigating criminal 
organizations trafficking individuals into and within the 
United States. The Committee encourages ICE to work with 
appropriate nonprofit organizations and victim service 
providers to improve the training of ICE officers in the field 
to identify human trafficking victims and provide appropriate 
referrals to victim service organizations. The Committee also 
encourages ICE to develop, in consultation with the Department 
of Labor or nongovernmental organizations, enhanced training 
for ICE officers and agents on labor exploitation, smuggling, 
and trafficking, along with appropriate referral processes for 
identified victims. The Committee notes that ICE can request 
Continued Presence for victims of trafficking who are potential 
witnesses in trafficking investigations, and encourages the 
agency to make appropriate use of such requests. Given the 
diverse backgrounds of human trafficking victims, the Committee 
urges ICE to incorporate culturally sensitive training and 
language-accessible translated materials.
    The Committee notes and commends the enforcement work by 
ICE and the NIPRCC to crack down on the illegal sale and 
distribution of counterfeit goods and unauthorized copyrighted 
content on the internet. The Committee expects ICE to ensure 
that the NIPRCC is appropriately staffed to expand enforcement 
actions related to the theft of U.S. intellectual property, 
particularly in the online space.
    The Committee directs the ICE Director to work jointly with 
the Attorney General to assess cross-border violence and 
performance measures collected by inter-agency task forces, 
particularly along the Southwest Border. Not later than 60 days 
after the date of enactment of this Act, ICE is directed to 
brief the Committee on the findings of this assessment and 
provide recommendations for additional resources needed to 
track and investigate cross-border violence.

                      International Investigations

    The Office of International Affairs (OIA) represents the 
Department's largest investigative law enforcement presence 
abroad and helps protect the Nation beyond its borders with 75 
offices in 48 countries. Through International Investigations 
and the Visa Security Program (VSP), OIA works with foreign 
counterparts to identify and combat criminal organizations 
before they can adversely impact the United States.
    The Committee recommends $136,127,000 for International 
Investigations, $2,553,000 below the request and $24,081,000 
below fiscal year 2015. The recommendation includes reductions 
to the request corresponding to the amounts associated with the 
pay raise assumed in the President's budget, as well as 
reductions due to projected underexecution of funds for 
personnel. Within the PPA, $103,566,000 is for International 
Operations and $32,561,000 is for VSP.
    The VSP protects the U.S. against terrorists and criminal 
organizations by preventing foreign nationals who pose a threat 
to National security from entering or residing within the 
United States. The agency received an increase of $19,113,000 
for fiscal year 2015 to cover a shortfall caused by an increase 
in State Department service fees and to expand the VSP to 12 
high threat countries. Unfortunately, due in part to the late 
enactment of fiscal year 2015 appropriations, the fiscal year 
2016 budget request did not include funding required to sustain 
operations at the new locations. Therefore, the Committee 
recommends an increase of $2,000,000 and directs ICE to 
annualize these costs in its budget submission for fiscal year 
2017. Further, ICE is directed to program and budget for 
continued expansion of the VSP in at least two locations per 
year.

                              Intelligence

    The Office of Intelligence develops, analyzes, and 
disseminates relevant information and intelligence to support 
ICE leadership, operations, and investigations, and allows ICE 
to prioritize its resources in combating public and National 
security risks. This information supports law enforcement 
efforts and investigations across ICE, DHS, and many levels of 
government. The Committee recommends $79,768,000 for the Office 
of Intelligence, $273,000 below the amount requested and 
$3,289,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The 
recommended amount includes $5,000,000 to enhance human 
smuggling and trafficking investigations.

                   Enforcement and Removal Operations

    Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) is responsible for 
enforcing our Nation's immigration laws by identifying, 
apprehending, detaining, and removing aliens who have been 
adjudicated or otherwise determined to be removable from the 
United States.
    The Committee recommends $3,266,766,000 for ERO, 
$44,316,000 below the amount requested and $164,678,000 below 
the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The recommendation 
includes reductions to the request corresponding to the amounts 
associated with the pay raise assumed in the President's 
budget, as well as reductions due to projected underexecution 
of personnel funds. Additionally, the recommendation does not 
include the proposed $8,000,000 in contingency funding for the 
transportation and removal of unaccompanied children in numbers 
that significantly exceed the Department's current estimate.
    Over the last few years, there has been a growing trend of 
jurisdiction and Law Enforcement Agencies (LEA) around the 
country deciding not to honor ICE detainers issued under the 
Secure Communities program. The Committee acknowledges the 
complexities of the Secure Communities program that motivated 
such policies and recognizes the legal right of state and local 
LEA to refuse to cooperate with ICE by choosing not to honor 
detainer requests; however, it remains gravely concerned with 
the tragic consequences that can occur if dangerous illegal 
aliens, eligible for removal from the United States, are 
released into our communities. This not only endangers our 
citizens, it also makes the job of finding and removing that 
alien substantially more difficult and dangerous for our 
immigration officers. Furthermore, it places a significant 
burden on ICE, which must now expend considerable resources and 
effort in locating individuals who are enforcement priorities 
after they have been released from LEA custody.
    The Department has replaced Secure Communities with the 
Priority Enforcement Program (PEP). PEP is designed to 
alleviate many of the previous concerns and enable DHS to 
better work with state and local law enforcement to take 
custody of criminal aliens who pose a danger to public safety 
before they are released into our communities.
    The Committee is encouraged by this effort and fully funds 
the request for the Criminal Alien Program and Fugitive 
Operations. The Committee directs the Director of ICE to 
prioritize hiring efforts to fill the ranks of enforcement 
officers to the enacted level most expeditiously and to 
implement an in-depth outreach program to engage communities on 
the new Priority Enforcement Program and seek their 
cooperation. The Director of ICE will brief the Committee on 
the results of this outreach within 120 days after the 
enactment of this Act. The briefing will include details as to 
the LEA approached and the level of participation on a by-
community basis.
    A 2014 GAO report (GAO-15-153) found that detention 
facility inspection reports conducted by ERO varied in most 
cases from those carried out by the Office of Detention 
Oversight (ODO) in fiscal year 2013, and recommended that ICE 
assess the reasons why inspection results differ to ensure that 
inspection mechanisms are working as intended. GAO also found 
that, while privately owned contract detention facilities (CDF) 
were subject to ERO inspections, no CDFs were inspected by ODO. 
Within 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, ICE is 
directed to brief the Committee on its policies and procedures 
for inspecting detention facilities, including the status of 
responding to recommendations made in GAO-15-153.

                           Custody Operations

    Custody Operations provides safe, secure, and humane 
detention of removable aliens who are held in government 
custody because they present a risk of flight, a risk to public 
safety, or are subject to mandatory detention.
    The Committee recommends $2,388,603,000 for Custody 
Operations, $18,141,000 below the request and $143,990,000 
below fiscal year 2015. The recommendation includes reductions 
to the request corresponding to the amounts associated with the 
pay raise assumed in the President's budget, as well as 
reductions due to projected underexecution of personnel funds.
    Within the total, $1,694,000,000 is included to maintain an 
average of 34,040 daily detention beds: 31,280 adult beds at an 
estimated daily cost of $123.54 per bed and 2,760 family beds 
at an estimated daily cost of $342.73. ICE is encouraged to 
utilize facilities in locations that have a cost per detainee 
that is below the average of the previous fiscal year and that 
have made modifications and improvements based on ICE guidance. 
ICE is directed to notify the Committee prior to releasing any 
illegal immigrants in custody due to budgetary reasons, 
including an explanation of the rationale for such release.
    Immigration detention is intended to help facilitate the 
removal from the United States of aliens deemed inadmissible or 
removable under immigration law or by an immigration judge. 
Detention is initially mandatory for certain categories of 
aliens who have recently crossed U.S. borders illegally or 
sought admission at ports of entry without valid travel 
documents. Such aliens can be subject to expedited removal 
(ER), which does not require a hearing or review before an 
immigration judge, if they do not have an active claim for 
relief from removal. In its Enforcement and Removal Operations 
Report for Fiscal Year 2014, ICE reported that ER for family 
units apprehended at the border was constrained by the lack of 
sufficient family detention space. Congress responded by 
providing funding for a significant number of new family 
detention beds for fiscal year 2015.
    Because ICE now has an increased capacity to detain family 
units, the Committee expects ICE to prioritize the use of 
family detention beds for family units in ER proceedings to the 
maximum extent possible. This will ensure that the detention of 
family units is short-term and results in more efficient 
removals from the United States of family units who do not have 
an active claim for relief from removal that requires a future 
hearing before an immigration judge.
    With regard to those family units who are detained, the 
Committee is concerned by reports that ICE has not provided 
appropriate food, water, and medical care to families, as well 
as reports about inappropriate and demeaning treatment of 
detainees by contract guards at such facilities. Within 15 days 
of enactment, and monthly thereafter, ICE is directed to update 
the Committee on family detention oversight activities of the 
ICE coordinator for family detention policy and the Office of 
Detention Oversight, including oversight of mechanisms for 
receiving and resolving complaints and responding to requests 
for medical care; providing all relevant and required 
information to detainees related to the removal process and 
their rights in detention; and for providing appropriate 
training and oversight for contract detention staff, including 
oversight related to staff qualifications. These updates shall 
also include data regarding family units in detention who are 
removed from the United States directly from detention; 
detained for longer than 30 days and longer than 60 days; 
issued a bond that has not been posted; and released on bond, 
recognizance, and parole, including data on compliance of those 
released with requirements for immigration court appearances. 
In addition, the updates should include descriptions and data 
on requests for medical care and response times; the average 
and median lengths of stay in family detention; the average, 
median and range for bond amounts, and improvements made as a 
result of recommendations by the family detention Advisory 
Committee or as a result of stakeholder outreach.
    The recommendation supports on-going training and 
stakeholder outreach related to the Prison Rape Elimination Act 
(PREA) and implementation of the 2011 Performance Based 
National Detention Standards (PBNDS). Within 45 days after the 
date of enactment of this Act, ICE shall report on its progress 
in implementing the 2011 PBNDS and requirements related to 
PREA, including a list of facilities that are not yet in 
compliance; a schedule for bringing facilities into compliance; 
and current year and estimated future year costs associated 
with compliance. The Committee expects ICE to refrain from 
entering into new contracts or intergovernmental service 
agreements that do not require adherence to the PREA and 2011 
PBNDS standards. In addition, the Committee encourages ICE to 
consider collaborating with the National PREA Resource Center, 
which is supported by the Department of Justice, to help 
facilitate PREA compliance.
    ICE is directed to brief the Committee, within 90 days of 
the date of enactment of this Act, on its policies and 
practices for ensuring the safety of vulnerable populations in 
immigration detention facilities. The briefing should include 
information for the three most recent fiscal years, including 
data on assaults and injuries; complaints; mental health 
referrals; and other information related to the safety and 
security of such individuals, along with recommendations for 
further improvements to better protect vulnerable detainees.

                          Fugitive Operations

    The Committee recommends $128,072,000 for Fugitive 
Operations, $1,366,000 below the request and $14,543,000 below 
fiscal year 2015. The recommendation includes reductions to the 
request corresponding to the amounts associated with the pay 
raise assumed in the President's budget.
    In 2012, DHS began calculating visa overstay rates by 
country, matching biographic data from flight manifests to 
corresponding data received upon entry through a CBP primary 
inspection. More than two years have passed, and the Department 
has failed to make a report on this information available to 
Congress, despite public promises. In the absence of this 
report, Congress is forced to rely on non-official, outdated 
estimates. Given the importance of visa overstay rates to the 
expansion of the Visa Waiver Program, visa security policy, and 
the development of a biometric entry/exit program, the 
Committee directs ICE to submit this report to the Committees 
on Appropriations and Homeland Security not later than 30 days 
after the date of enactment of this Act.

                         Criminal Alien Program

    The Committee recommends $317,177,000 for the Criminal 
Alien Program (CAP), $3,090,000 below the amount requested and 
$10,046,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The 
recommendation includes reductions to the request corresponding 
to the amounts associated with the pay raise assumed in the 
President's budget. The recommendation includes reductions to 
the request corresponding to the amounts associated with the 
pay raise assumed in the President's budget, as well as 
reductions due to projected underexecution of personnel costs. 
This amount includes the proposed enhancements for improving 
the process for data-sharing between the U.S. and international 
law enforcement partners through the Criminal History 
Information Sharing program.
    Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act 
authorizes ICE to enter into memoranda of understanding with 
State and local law enforcement entities, through which ICE 
delegates limited authority to enforce Federal immigration laws 
within their jurisdictions under ICE's direct supervision. 
These agreements serve as an extension of CAP by directly 
supporting ICE's efforts to determine the immigration status of 
individuals taken into custody by local law enforcement in the 
course of their normal law enforcement duties. The Committee 
acknowledges the success and importance of 287(g) partnerships 
with local law enforcement agencies in identifying criminal 
aliens and recommends the requested level of $24,300,000 to 
support the program. The Committee encourages ICE to consider 
opportunities for expanding 287(g), while also continuing 
efforts to improve the program through additional training, 
legal guidance, and oversight.

                       Alternatives to Detention

    The Alternatives to Detention (ATD) program places low-risk 
aliens under various forms of intensive supervision or 
electronic monitoring, in lieu of detention, to ensure their 
appearance for immigration hearings and for removal. ICE 
operates two forms of ATD: an intensive case management program 
and an electronic monitoring program. The Committee recommends 
$109,740,000 for ATD, $12,741,000 below the amount requested 
and equal to the amount provided in fiscal year 2015.
    The Committee supports the use of effective alternatives to 
detention for appropriate detainee populations, which was 
reflected in an $18,296,000 increase for the program for fiscal 
year 2015 to significantly expand ATD for family units. A 
reduction to the request is recommended, however, because ICE 
does not appear to be fully using the fiscal year 2015 
increase, with an average daily ATD participation rate for the 
current year of 25,700, including only approximately 7,200 
family units. This rate is based on a downward trend since the 
beginning of the fiscal year, perhaps reflecting the 
significant reduction in the number of families crossing the 
border compared to fiscal year 2014.
    The Committee is aware that ICE is planning to implement a 
family case management component within the ATD program. This 
new initiative will ``promote compliance with participants' 
release conditions, including any required reporting to ICE 
ERO, immigration court hearings, and final orders of removal, 
while allowing them to remain in the community and maintain 
access to community services for the duration of the removal 
process.'' ICE should prioritize the implementation of the 
pilot within the funds provided.
    In general, the Committee encourages ICE to give priority 
to participation by unaccompanied minors who have turned 18, 
families, and other vulnerable populations for whom ICE 
determines that ATD could mitigate risk more effectively than 
less restrictive forms of release. The Committee also 
encourages ICE to continue exploring ways to improve the 
effectiveness of ATD, such as working with community-based 
organizations.

                   Transportation and Removal Program

    The Transportation and Removal Program (TRP) provides for 
safe, secure transportation of aliens in ICE custody and 
removal of aliens from the United States.
    The Committee recommends $323,174,000 for TRP, $978,000 
below the amount requested and $3,901,000 above the amount 
provided in fiscal year 2015. The recommendation includes 
reductions to the request corresponding to the amounts 
associated with the pay raise assumed in the President's 
budget, as well as reductions due to projected underexecution 
of personnel costs. The request included $8,000,000 of 
contingency funds for the transportation and removal of 
unaccompanied children. This request is unnecessary and no 
funding is included in the recommendation.
    The Committee expects DHS to repatriate removable 
individuals in a manner that ensures their safety. CBP and ICE 
should make every effort to repatriate incapacitated persons, 
unaccompanied minors, pregnant women, and other vulnerable 
individuals during daylight hours, make reasonable efforts to 
inform Mexican authorities in advance of repatriating 
vulnerable individuals, avoid removing individuals via entry/
exit points on the U.S.-Mexico border where their safety could 
be threatened, and, to the extent practicable, avoid separating 
family members during the removal process. The Committee notes 
that House Report 113-481 directed the Department to review its 
current repatriation practices and policies, and brief the 
Committee not later than 180 days after the date of enactment 
of the fiscal year 2015 Act on the results of that review, 
including the need for any additional measures to ensure that 
deportations are conducted safely.
    The Committee directs ICE to continue to submit the 
semiannual report on removals of the parents of U.S. citizen 
minors.

                        AUTOMATION MODERNIZATION

    The Automation Modernization account funds major 
information technology projects and operations for ICE.

 
 
 
Appropriation, fiscal year 2015.......................       $26,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2016......................        73,500,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        73,500,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2015...................       +47,500,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2016..................             - - -
 

                             Recommendation

    The Committee recommends $73,500,000 for Automation 
Modernization, the same as the amount requested and $47,500,000 
above the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. As noted in 
title I of this report, the Committee is very concerned about 
the lack of reliable, interoperable tactical communications. 
The Committee includes the requested $18,500,000 for tactical 
communications and directs the agency to brief the Committee 
within 120 days of the date of enactment of this Act on plans 
to address the concerns enumerated in DHS OIG Report OIG-15-97-
VR.

                           TECS Modernization

    The Committee directs CBP and ICE to continue semiannual 
briefings on efforts to modernize the TECS system, which is 
used for immigration enforcement case management and for 
screening and determinations related to admissibility to the 
United States.

                              CONSTRUCTION

    The Construction account supports maintenance of ICE's 
owned and directly leased facilities.

 
 
 
Appropriation, fiscal year 2015.......................             - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2016......................        $5,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................         5,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2015...................        +5,000,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2016..................             - - -
 

                             Recommendation

    As requested, the Committee recommends $5,000,000 for 
Construction to perform critical repairs and alterations to 
maintain ICE-owned facilities.

                 Transportation Security Administration


                                Mission

    The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is charged 
with protecting U.S. transportation systems, while ensuring the 
freedom of movement of people and commerce.

                             Recommendation

    TSA has achieved considerable cost savings and reduced its 
screener workforce over the past several years as a result of 
expanded risk-based security measures and more efficient 
baggage screening systems. However, in addition to the planned 
staffing reductions in screening personnel, TSA has 
underexecuted funding for staffing across the agency. TSA's 
inability to hire and maintain its workforce at funded levels 
has resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars appropriated 
for salaries and benefits being diverted to unplanned and 
unbudgeted activities without congressional oversight. For 
example, in fiscal year 2014, TSA received $4,806,905,000 for 
55,602 FTEs, but ended the year at only 52,227 FTEs, leaving 
$274,084,000 in unexecuted salaries and benefits that was used 
for other purposes. For fiscal year 2015, TSA is projected to 
end the year with 50,043 of the appropriated 52,467 FTEs, 
resulting in almost $108,000,000 of salary and benefit funding 
being diverted to other, unplanned requirements. In light of 
the systemic practice of underexecuting staffing levels, the 
recommendation funds only a fractional increase in the number 
of FTEs requested for fiscal year 2016 as compared with 
staffing levels anticipated for the end of fiscal year 2015.
    In addition to the reductions below the request due to 
projected underexecution of funds for personnel, the following 
rescissions from funds provided in fiscal year 2015 are 
included in title V of the bill: $30,000,000 from Aviation 
Security; $22,000,000 from Surface Transportation Security; 
$8,000,000 from Intelligence and Vetting; and $26,000,000 from 
Transportation Security Support.
    In title I, under OCFO, the Committee directs briefings on 
each component's obligation and budget execution plans. Within 
these briefings, TSA shall address specific passenger and 
baggage screening technologies intended for purchase, the 
status of operational testing for each technology under 
development, and program schedules and major milestones. The 
Committee further directs that TSA include details on current 
unobligated balances, anticipated unobligated balances at the 
close of the fiscal year, and the planned obligation of the 
carryover in future years until all funds are obligated.

                           AVIATION SECURITY

 
 
 
Appropriation, fiscal year 2015.......................    $5,639,095,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2016......................     5,614,767,000
Recommended in the bill...............................     5,558,923,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2015...................       -80,172,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2016..................       -55,844,000
 

                                Mission

    Aviation Security provides funds for the protection of the 
air transportation system against terrorist threats, sabotage, 
and other acts of violence through deployment of passenger and 
baggage screeners; detection systems for explosives, weapons, 
and other contraband; and aviation regulation and enforcement 
activities.

                             Recommendation

    The Committee recommends $5,558,923,000 for Aviation 
Security, $55,844,000 below the amount requested and 
$80,172,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. 
Funds within the Aviation Security account are partially offset 
through the collection of aviation security fees.
    The recommendation includes a reduction of $41,979,000 that 
corresponds to the amount associated with the pay raise assumed 
in the President's budget, in addition to the following 
reductions due to projected underexecution of funds for 
personnel: $3,844,000 from Screener Training and Other; 
$838,000 from Checkpoint Support; $5,095,000 from Aviation 
Regulation and Other Enforcement; $3,603,000 from Airport 
Management and Support; and $285,000 from Federal Flight Deck 
Officer and Flight Crew Training.
    The recently-leaked results of covert testing of TSA 
passenger screening operations by OIG personnel renew serious 
concerns regarding TSA's screening procedures and equipment. 
Although similar results were obtained in testing by the OIG, 
GAO, and even TSA in the past, the most recent testing makes 
clear that TSA leadership failed to address the identified 
vulnerabilities with the seriousness and alacrity they deserve. 
The Committee is pleased that DHS and TSA now appear to be 
proceeding with haste to address the vulnerabilities identified 
in the report, but is troubled by the lack of transparency in 
its reporting to Congress on these efforts. The Committee 
therefore directs frequent updates on TSA's implementation of 
the directives issued by the Secretary in response to the 
covert testing, including specific actions taken related to 
screening equipment, training, and processes.
    The covert testing results also raise questions about the 
overall risk mitigation represented by TSA's multi-layered, 
risk-based security approach. TSA has often suggested that 
known vulnerabilities in some aspects of its risk-mitigation 
strategy are adequately addressed by other layers of security. 
Without a clear, comprehensive, and specific description of the 
risk mitigation complementarity of all layers of aviation 
security, it is difficult for the Committee to properly 
evaluate TSA's overall approach. The Committee directs TSA to 
provide a briefing, not later than 60 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act, on its aviation security risk mitigation 
strategy. The briefing should cover the underlying 
methodologies used to assess aviation security risk and the 
basis for any assumptions regarding threats, vulnerabilities, 
and consequences made in assessing and prioritizing such risk.
    A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee 
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget Estimate      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aviation Security:
    Screening Partnership Program.       $166,928,000       $166,928,000
    Screener Personnel,                 2,872,070,000      2,843,305,000
     Compensation and Benefits....
    Screener Training and Other...        226,551,000        222,539,000
    Checkpoint Support............         97,265,000         96,339,000
    EDS Procurement and                    83,380,000         83,196,000
     Installation.................
    Screening Technology                  280,509,000        280,509,000
     Maintenance..................
    Aviation Regulation and Other         349,013,000        345,083,000
     Enforcement..................
    Airport Management and Support        596,233,000        589,278,000
    Federal Flight Deck Officer &          20,095,000         21,456,000
     Flight Crew Training.........
    Air Cargo.....................        105,978,000        105,214,000
    Federal Air Marshals..........        816,745,000        805,076,000
    [Mandatory aviation security        [250,000,000]      [250,000,000]
     capital fund\1\].............
                                   -------------------------------------
        Subtotal, Aviation             $5,614,767,000    $5,558,923,000
         Security.................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The Aviation Security Capital Fund is not included in the Subtotal
  for Aviation Security because its resources come entirely from user
  fees, the budget authority for which is not provided through annual
  appropriations.

                          Privatized Screening

    The Committee recommends $166,928,000 for privatized 
screening, the same as the amount requested and $262,000 above 
the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The recommendation 
provides funding for private security screening services at the 
21 airports currently participating in the Screening 
Partnership Program (SPP). A general provision is included in 
title V of the bill allowing for the reprogramming or transfer 
of funds for obligations associated with contract awards made 
by SPP.
    The Committee believes that private contract screeners play 
an important role in TSA's mission, providing an efficient, 
effective alternative to Federal screeners. However, SPP 
remains underutilized and TSA must take a more proactive 
approach in order to expand this valuable program. In addition 
to increasing outreach to promote interest from new airports, 
TSA must improve its administration of the program to 
encourage, rather than discourage, participation.
    For example, TSA does not adequately include airport 
operators in the source selection process for SPP contracts. 
TSA should consult with airport directors to ensure they are 
afforded the opportunity to offer input in the selection of 
vendors who will provide screening services at their 
facilities. Additionally, the Committee is worried that the 
draft Request for Proposals (RFP) for a new Indefinite Delivery 
Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract for SPP was developed 
without thoroughly considering the concerns of airport 
operators, and in doing so further discourages prospective 
airports from choosing privatized screening services. TSA 
should conduct further outreach to ensure the processes and 
requirements are fully understood before finalizing its 
acquisition strategy.
    The Committee continues to be concerned by TSA's omission 
of significant costs to the Federal government in its 
calculation of a Federal Cost Estimate (FCE) and its effect on 
stifling the growth of the program. The Committee is aware of 
an ongoing GAO audit on this subject, and expects TSA will 
modify the FCE as necessary in response to any recommendations 
included in the final report.

             Screener Personnel, Compensation, and Benefits

    The Committee recommends $2,843,305,000 for Screener 
Personnel, Compensation, and Benefits, $28,765,000 below the 
amount requested and $80,585,000 below the amount provided in 
fiscal year 2015. The reduction below fiscal year 2015 is 
primarily a result of efficiencies associated with risk-based 
security measures and new in-line baggage screening systems.
    The Committee directs TSA to explore methods of data 
collection and analysis related to the referral of individuals 
for secondary screening as a way to ensure that its screening 
practices guard against profiling based on race, national 
origin, or religion.

                    Risk-Based Security Initiatives

    One of TSA's most visible risk-based security initiatives 
is the PreCheck program, which was established to increase 
efficiency and security by allowing expedited screening for 
lower-risk travelers. However, TSA's reliance on Managed 
Inclusion and other methods to attain its expedited screening 
goals introduces a partially-vetted population into a process 
intended for travelers who have voluntarily submitted to prior 
in-depth vetting. It is critical that TSA expand participation 
in PreCheck and increase the population of known, fully-vetted 
travelers in order to reduce this vulnerability.
    The Committee has long advocated for TSA to leverage 
airport operators and the private sector to increase enrollment 
in PreCheck, and is encouraged by TSA's plans to leverage 
public-private partnerships in order to expand PreCheck 
enrollment. The Committee also encourages TSA to consider 
whether the cost of applying for PreCheck deters some travelers 
from the program, particularly low income travelers or those 
who may travel infrequently, and whether a reduced application 
cost could contribute to significant increases in enrollment. 
TSA should also look for additional ways to strengthen and 
expand PreCheck and other risk-based security initiatives to 
achieve further screening efficiencies and enable TSA to focus 
its resources on unknown or high-risk travelers and baggage.
    The Committee does not include a statutory requirement for 
a semiannual report on expedited passenger screening efforts. 
However, TSA is directed to provide semiannual updates on the 
total number and percentage of passengers using PreCheck lanes, 
segmented by eligibility or method of identification for 
expedited screening.

                          Behavioral Detection

    The Committee remains skeptical of the value of the 
Behavioral Detection and Analysis program. In fiscal year 2015, 
Congress withheld $25,000,000 pending TSA's submission of a 
report providing evidence that behavioral indicators can be 
successfully used to identify passengers who may pose a threat 
to aviation security, a report the Committee has yet to 
receive. The Committee is aware that TSA is currently 
conducting tests in an operational environment to collect 
additional data on behavior detection and expects TSA will 
submit the results for independent review and validation.

                      Screener Training and Other

    The Committee recommends $222,539,000 for Screener Training 
and Other, $4,012,000 below the amount requested and $2,903,000 
below the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. As the Committee 
has noted in the past, TSA screeners must be trained against 
current threats, and training should be developed giving 
specific consideration to vulnerabilities identified through 
covert testing activities. The Committee is aware that TSA is 
providing additional training for all screening personnel, as 
well as more intensive training in resolution procedures for a 
portion of the workforce, in response to the recent OIG 
findings. The Committee supports these training initiatives and 
expects regular updates from TSA on these efforts and any 
additional costs associated with the training.

                           Checkpoint Support

    The Committee recommends $96,339,000 for Checkpoint 
Support, $926,000 below the amount requested and $7,870,000 
above the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. No funds are 
included in the recommendation for the procurement of new 
Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) systems.
    The Committee has previously noted TSA's struggles to 
acquire and deploy effective technologies at passenger 
screening checkpoints. In fiscal year 2015, Congress withheld 
$25,000,000 from TSA due to the alarming flaws identified by 
GAO with respect to TSA's next-generation AIT acquisition, 
including questions regarding TSA's testing and evaluation of 
system capabilities, performance, and effectiveness. The 
Committee continues to await the submission of the statutorily-
mandated report addressing GAO's findings. In light of the OIG 
testing, DHS is directed to submit this report without further 
delay or to report to the Committee on the status.
    The Committee understands that TSA is planning to complete 
testing and begin procurement of the new Credential 
Authentication Technology in fiscal year 2016. These systems 
will enable TSA to digitally validate passenger credentials 
against the Secure Flight database in near-real time at the 
checkpoint and are necessary to close a known security 
vulnerability.

       Explosives Detection Systems Procurement and Installation

    The Committee recommends $83,196,000 for Explosives 
Detection Systems (EDS) Procurement and Installation, $184,000 
below the amount requested and $737,000 below the amount 
provided in fiscal year 2015. Including the existing mandatory 
Aviation Security Capital Fund of $250,000,000, the total 
amount available for the procurement and installation of EDS is 
$333,196,000 for fiscal year 2016.
    The Committee is aware of the enhanced security 
capabilities, improved performance, and long-term cost-savings 
afforded by next generation EDS. TSA is encouraged to 
expeditiously pursue the development, testing, and deployment 
of more effective and efficient baggage screening technologies.
    The Committee is aware of funding requests for new in-line 
EDS at growing airports, and encourages TSA to find a balance 
between funding new and replacement in-line systems so as not 
to deter the growth of airports.
    The Committee understands that, consistent with the 9/11 
Act, TSA must prioritize EDS funding based on risk reduction. 
TSA is also required under section 1604(b)(2) of the 9/11 Act 
to give funding consideration to airports that incurred 
eligible costs for in-line baggage screening systems but were 
not recipients for funding agreements. However, there remain 
claims from at least 16 airports for reimbursement of costs 
incurred for in-line baggage systems installed prior to 2008. 
In House Report 113-481, TSA was directed to establish a 
process to resolve these outstanding claims. However, TSA has 
not established a process or plan that has resulted in the 
reimbursement of eligible costs to those affected airports. The 
Committee directs TSA to develop such a plan and to propose 
sufficient funding to begin implementing this plan as part of 
the fiscal year 2017 budget request. In addition, TSA is urged 
to explore how reimbursements could be initiated during fiscal 
year 2016 through the Aviation Security Capital Fund or using 
other TSA resources through a mid-year reprogramming. TSA is 
directed to provide a reimbursement plan to Congress not later 
than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

                        Technology Acquisitions

    The Committee remains concerned with TSA's ability to 
manage complex technology acquisitions and create a strategic 
vision for long-term security needs. Further, the Committee is 
frustrated by the gated nature of the acquisition process and 
its effect on discouraging private sector investment in the 
development of new and innovative technologies. The Committee 
is supportive of the new requirements implemented by the 
Transportation Security Acquisition Reform Act (Public Law 113-
245) to improve transparency with respect to TSA technology 
acquisition programs, and looks forward to TSA's imminent 
submission of a five-year strategic technology investment plan.

                    TSA and CBP Baggage Rescreening

    Currently, checked-baggage screening technologies and 
operations at most international preclearance airports do not 
meet U.S. aviation security standards, requiring checked 
baggage on international flights to be rescreened prior to 
loading on connecting domestic flights at U.S. airports. Within 
90 days of the date of enactment of this Act, DHS shall brief 
the Committee on the status of its discussions with established 
preclearance airports to implement checked baggage screening 
procedures and technologies that meet the checked baggage 
screening requirements of the No Hassle Flying Act of 2012 
(Public Law 112-218).

               Aviation Regulation and Other Enforcement

    The Committee recommends $345,083,000 for Aviation 
Regulation and Other Enforcement, $3,930,000 below the amount 
requested and $4,738,000 below the amount provided in fiscal 
year 2015. The recommendation includes an increase of 
$3,300,000 above the request for the National Explosives 
Detection Canine Team Program to sustain the 12 additional 
canine teams funded in fiscal year 2015, maximizing TSA's 
canine capacity through fiscal year 2016.
    The Committee supports the use of explosives detection 
canine teams and has consistently provided funding to grow 
TSA's canine program and leverage these effective assets, but 
is concerned that TSA has not adequately developed program 
requirements. For example, the Committee is aware of efforts by 
TSA to increase the number of canines that can be trained 
annually, but is concerned these efforts are being undertaken 
without an understanding of the associated training 
requirements. Further, while the Committee supports TSA's 
concept of training and deploying multi-modal explosives 
detection canine teams, it is concerned that TSA does not have 
a plan to evaluate the effectiveness of this approach, a 
necessary step for determining whether additional canine teams 
or other resources will be needed in the future.
    Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
Act, TSA is directed to submit a report on the National 
Explosives Detection Canine Team Program that details TSA's 
requirements for explosives detection canine teams, specifying 
the current and planned numbers of passenger, cargo, and multi-
modal teams; a training and deployment strategy; and metrics 
for assessing the effectiveness of the program.
    TSA is directed to review the feasibility and costs of 
conducting a pilot to assess the use of private sector canine 
teams in TSA passenger screening operations. TSA shall brief 
the Committee not later than 90 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act on the results of this assessment and a 
plan for executing a pilot, including costs, schedule, and 
metrics for determining success. If deemed viable, the 
Committee directs TSA to conduct a pilot using funds provided 
in the Aviation Regulation and Other Enforcement PPA. The pilot 
should ensure private sector participants are provided with the 
necessary TSA certification standards, policies, and procedures 
for explosives detection canines.

                      Federal Flight Deck Officers

    The Committee recommends $21,456,000 for the Federal Flight 
Deck Officer and Flight Crew Training (FFDO) program, 
$1,361,000 above the amount requested and $909,000 below the 
amount provided in fiscal year 2015.
    The FFDO program serves as a valuable layer of defense in 
the aviation security domain. The Committee is aware of TSA's 
efforts to improve its communication with current and 
prospective FFDO pilots through stakeholder meetings and other 
outreach activities. To support the anticipated increase in 
demand for FFDO certification resulting from these outreach 
efforts, the recommendation includes $1,700,000 above the 
request to expand FLETC training capacity for FFDO pilots. The 
Committee directs TSA to provide a briefing not later than 60 
days after the date of enactment of this Act on FFDO 
enrollment, training, and recertification.

                               Air Cargo

    The Committee recommends $105,214,000 for Air Cargo, 
$764,000 below the request and $1,129,000 below the amount 
provided in fiscal year 2015.

                      Federal Air Marshal Service

    The Committee recommends $805,076,000 for the Federal Air 
Marshal Service (FAMS), $11,669,000 below the amount requested 
and $15,076,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2015.
    The Committee expects FAMS resources to be deployed in a 
manner that optimizes coverage of flights to minimize risk, and 
is aware that FAMS is currently assessing its staffing 
requirements to determine the ideal workforce size to fulfill 
this mission. In the absence of this data, the Committee denies 
the requested increase of $5,200,000 to hire additional Federal 
Air Marshals.
    It is critical that FAMS continue to improve the quality of 
information and analysis underpinning its staffing needs, 
resource requirements, and deployment methodology, including 
improving the linkage between the budget request and risk 
mitigation. TSA is directed to include in the fiscal year 2017 
budget submission details tying the requested resources for 
FAMS to risk mitigation, including a methodology for estimating 
risk and factoring in the full range of resources deployed by 
TSA in support of aviation security.

                    SURFACE TRANSPORTATION SECURITY

 
 
 
Appropriation, fiscal year 2015.......................      $123,749,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2016......................       123,828,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       106,894,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2015...................       -16,855,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2016..................       -16,934,000
 

                                Mission

    Surface Transportation Security supports assessments of the 
risk of terrorist attacks for all non-aviation transportation 
modes, the issuance of regulations to improve the security of 
those modes, and the enforcement of regulations to ensure the 
protection of the transportation system.

                             Recommendation

    The Committee recommends $106,894,000 for Surface 
Transportation Security, $16,934,000 below the amount requested 
and $16,855,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. 
The recommendation includes a reduction of $15,834,000 due to 
projected underexecution of funds for Surface Inspectors and 
Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response teams, and a 
reduction of $1,100,000 that corresponds to the amount 
associated with the pay raise assumed in the President's 
budget.

               Transport of Security-Sensitive Materials

    The Committee has repeatedly urged TSA to implement 
programs required by and authorized pursuant to section 1554 of 
the 9/11 Act to improve tracking of Tier 1 highway security-
sensitive materials (HSSM) in order to enhance security of 
surface transportation modes. The Committee is pleased that TSA 
is proceeding with development of an interim emergency-ready 
system to provide basic tracking and chain of custody 
information for Tier 1 HSSM, and anticipates Phase II of this 
effort will be completed by the end of 2015.
    These steps will, however, provide TSA with only a ``stop 
gap'' shipment tracking and chain-of-custody system. The 
Committee urges TSA to consider the implementation of a full 
Tier 1 HSSM security and safety program in conjunction with the 
Department of Transportation (DOT) and to coordinate 
development of telematics requirements for Tier 1 HSSM carriers 
with DOT. Upon completion of Phase II, TSA is directed to 
provide a briefing on the results and next steps for 
implementation of the program, including any resource needs or 
legislative requirements.

                        INTELLIGENCE AND VETTING

 
 
 
Appropriation, fiscal year 2015.......................      $219,166,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2016......................       227,698,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       216,203,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2015...................        -2,963,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2016..................       -11,495,000
 

                                Mission

    The Intelligence and Vetting appropriation supports efforts 
to reduce the probability of a successful terrorist or other 
criminal attack on the transportation system through the 
application of intelligence and threat assessment methodologies 
intended to identify known or suspected terrorist threats 
working in or seeking access to the Nation's transportation 
system.

                             Recommendation

    The Committee recommends $216,203,000 for Intelligence and 
Vetting, $11,495,000 below the budget request and $2,963,000 
below the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The 
recommendation includes a reduction of $883,000 that 
corresponds to the amount associated with the pay raise assumed 
in the President's budget, in addition to the following 
reductions below the request due to projected underexecution of 
funds for personnel: $3,430,000 from Intelligence; $4,204,000 
from Secure Flight; and $2,978,000 from Other Vetting Programs.
    In addition to direct appropriations, an estimated 
$199,153,000 in fee collections is available for intelligence 
and vetting activities.
    A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee's 
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget estimate      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Appropriations:
    Intelligence..................        $51,977,000        $48,205,000
    Secure Flight.................        105,637,000        101,072,000
    Other Vetting Programs........         70,084,000         66,926,000
                                   -------------------------------------
    Subtotal, direct                      227,698,000        216,203,000
     appropriations...............
Fee Collections:
    Transportation Worker                  82,267,000         82,267,000
     Identification Credential Fee
    Hazardous Material Fee........         21,083,000         21,083,000
    General Aviation at DCA Fee...            400,000            400,000
    Commercial Aviation and                 6,500,000          6,500,000
     Airport Fee..................
    Other Security Threat                      50,000             50,000
     Assessments Fee..............
    Air Cargo/Certified Cargo               3,500,000          3,500,000
     Screening Program Fee........
    TSA PreCheck Application               80,153,000         80,153,000
     Program Fee..................
    Alien Flight School Fee.......          5,200,000          5,200,000
                                   -------------------------------------
        Subtotal, fee collections.       $199,153,000       $199,153,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                Technology Infrastructure Modernization

    The Committee supports TSA's efforts to integrate and 
modernize its vetting and credentialing systems and practices, 
but is concerned that unanticipated schedule delays and 
escalating costs have led TSA to scale back the capabilities 
originally envisioned for the Technology Infrastructure 
Modernization (TIM) system. TSA is directed to brief the 
Committee not later than July 31, 2015, on the path forward for 
the TIM program, including an updated schedule, lifecycle cost 
estimate, and a description of the anticipated functionality of 
the end-state system.

                    TRANSPORTATION SECURITY SUPPORT

 
 
 
Appropriation, fiscal year 2015.......................      $917,226,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2016......................       931,479,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       901,442,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2015...................       -15,784,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2016..................       -30,037,000
 

                                Mission

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

                             Recommendation

    The Committee recommends $901,442,000 for Transportation 
Security Support, $30,037,000 below the amount requested and 
$15,784,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The 
recommendation includes a reduction of $2,612,000 that 
corresponds to the amount associated with the pay raise assumed 
in the President's budget, in addition to the following 
reductions due to projected underexecution of funds for 
personnel: $18,298,000 from Headquarters Administration; 
$4,156,000 from Human Capital Services; and $4,971,000 from 
Information Technology.
    TSA is directed to provide the Committee with semiannual 
updates on covert testing activities, including results of 
recent tests and actions taken to address any identified 
deficiencies.
    A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee 
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget estimate      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Headquarters Administration.......       $276,930,000       $256,953,000
Human Capital Services............        202,164,000        197,539,000
Information Technology............        452,385,000        446,950,000
                                   -------------------------------------
    Subtotal, Transportation             $931,479,000       $901,442,000
     Security Support.............
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              Coast Guard


                           OPERATING EXPENSES

 
 
 
Appropriation, fiscal year 2015\1\....................    $7,043,318,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2016\2\..................     6,822,503,000
Recommended in the bill\3\............................     6,899,288,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2015...................      -144,030,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2016.................      +76,785,000
 
\1\Includes funding for the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT)/Overseas
  Contingency Operations (OCO).
\2\Funding for the Coast Guard related to GWOT/OCO is requested under
  Navy, Operations and Maintenance.
\3\Does not include funding for GWOT/OCO.

                                Mission

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

                             Recommendation

    The Committee recommends a total appropriation of 
$6,899,288,000 for Operating Expenses, $76,785,000 above the 
amount requested and $144,030,000 below the amount provided in 
fiscal year 2015.
    The Committee is troubled that the Coast Guard's request 
once again fails to include enlistment and extension bonuses 
for critical personnel. This is unacceptable. Failing to pay 
extension and/or enlistment bonuses negatively impacts the 
retention and morale of enlisted personnel operating in high 
risk areas, as well as their families. It is a shortsighted way 
to balance the budget with long term consequences to personnel. 
The Committee recommends $14,000,000 for these bonuses, and 
expects future Coast Guard budget submissions to include the 
necessary funding for this activity.
    The recommendation fully funds the military pay raise, but 
includes a reduction of $7,600,000 that corresponds to the 
amount associated with the civilian pay raise proposed in the 
budget.
    The recommendation also includes $55,091,000 above the 
amount requested for enhancements to critical depot level 
maintenance programs. These additional funds are intended to 
replenish parts and execute deferred depot level maintenance 
for assets and shore facilities to reduce the backlog in 
critical depot level maintenance.
    The Committee recommends $899,000 to ensure proper 
personnel levels at Aids to Navigation sites. In addition, the 
recommendation includes $12,172,000 to enable Coast Guard 
Office of Aviation Forces to continue full operations. The 
Commandant of the Coast Guard shall brief the Committees on the 
plan for each of these items not later than five days prior to 
obligation.
    A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee 
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget estimate      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military Pay and Allowances.......     $3,467,088,000     $3,486,751,000
Civilian Pay and Benefits.........        799,816,000        792,229,000
Training and Recruiting...........        205,825,000        206,332,000
Operating Funds and Unit Level          1,010,317,000      1,019,263,000
 Maintenance......................
Centrally Managed Accounts........        329,684,000        329,849,000
Depot Level Maintenance...........      1,009,773,000      1,064,864,000
                                   -------------------------------------
    Total, Operating Expenses.....     $6,822,503,000     $6,899,288,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             Sexual Assault

    The Committee directs the Coast Guard to continue to 
provide an annual report, due within 90 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act, on the number of expedited requests for 
transfer made by victims of sexual assault during the prior 
fiscal year, including the number of applications denied and a 
description of the rationale for each denied request. The 
report shall also include the number of service members served 
by the Special Victim Counsel program.

                        Fishing Safety Training

    Section 309 of the Coast Guard Reauthorization Act of 2014 
(Public Law 113-281) authorizes competitive grant funding for 
Fishing Safety Training and Fishing Safety Research grants 
programs that support collaborative training and research into 
emerging and useful technologies to enhance safety on fishing 
vessels. The Committee directs the Coast Guard to provide, 
within 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, a plan 
for carrying out a pilot for a training program, potentially 
involving an expansion of the Coast Guard's current 
collaboration with the National Institute for Occupational 
Safety and Health related to data on commercial fishing safety. 
Although no specific funding is provided for implementing a 
pilot training program, the Coast Guard is encouraged to use 
funds recovered from prior obligations for this purpose.

                       MARITIME POLLUTION CONTROL

    The Coast Guard, jointly and cooperatively with the EPA, is 
charged with enforcing U.S. laws, international conventions, 
and regulations of the International Maritime Organization 
(IMO). The IMO's Marine Pollution (MARPOL) convention focuses 
on preventing different forms of marine pollution, including 
oil, noxious liquid substances, harmful substances, waste 
water, garbage, and emissions of sulfur oxide and nitrogen 
oxide at sea. In accordance with MARPOL Annex VI Regulation 13, 
all vessels entering the North American and Caribbean Emission 
Control Areas (ECA) as of January 1, 2015, are required to use 
Ultra-low (0.1%) Sulfur Intermediate Fuel Oil (IFO). In 
response to concerns that the availability of this type of fuel 
in U.S. ports is limited, the Committee directs the Coast Guard 
to provide a briefing, not later than 90 days after the 
enactment of this Act, on the following:
    a) the number of ECA-related enforcement actions taken 
since January 1, 2015;
    b) the number of fuel non-availability reports received 
since January 1, 2015; and
    c) the number of vessels that received waivers, exemptions, 
or other special consideration for ECA compliance, including 
application and expiration dates.

                     Coast Guard Auxiliary Uniforms

    The Committee is aware that members of the U.S. Coast Guard 
Auxiliary are not eligible for reimbursement for the cost of 
uniforms they are required to wear while performing official 
duties. The Committee encourages the Coast Guard to examine the 
feasibility, rationale, and cost to the Coast Guard of 
providing such reimbursements and to report to the Committee on 
the results.

                          Small Response Boats

    The Coast Guard has a long-standing requirement to replace 
aging and obsolete small response boats and awarded a 
competitive contract to replace these important watercraft. The 
Committee notes, however, that the Coast Guard is not procuring 
enough boats annually to meet the 370 boat acquisition 
objective within the length of the contract. Therefore, the 
Committee provides $7,100,000 above the request for the Coast 
Guard to procure additional small response boats during fiscal 
year 2016 to keep pace with its acquisition objective and 
operational requirements.
    The bill also includes long-standing language to allow 
funding from the Operating Expenses appropriation to be used 
for the purchase or lease of small boats.

                ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE AND RESTORATION

 
 
 
Appropriation, fiscal year 2015.......................       $13,197,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2016......................        13,269,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        13,269,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2015...................           +72,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2016..................             - - -
 

                                Mission

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

                             Recommendation

    The Committee recommends $13,269,000 for Environmental 
Compliance and Restoration, the same as the amount requested 
and $72,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2015.

                            RESERVE TRAINING

 
 
 
Appropriation, fiscal year 2015.......................      $114,572,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2016......................       110,614,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       110,614,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2015...................        -3,958,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2016..................             - - -
 

                                Mission

    This appropriation provides for the training of qualified 
individuals who are available for active duty in time of war or 
National emergency, or for the augmentation of regular Coast 
Guard forces in the performance of peacetime missions. Program 
activities fall into the following categories:
          Initial training: the direct costs of initial 
        training for three categories of non-prior service 
        trainees;
          Continued training: the training of officers and 
        enlisted personnel;
          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 $110,614,000 for Reserve Training, 
the same as the amount requested and $3,958,000 below the 
amount provided in fiscal year 2015.

              ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, AND IMPROVEMENTS

 
 
 
Appropriation, fiscal year 2015.......................    $1,225,223,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2016......................     1,017,269,000
Recommended in the bill...............................     1,301,289,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2015...................       +76,066,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2016..................      +284,020,000
 

                                Mission

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

                             Recommendation

    The Committee recommends $1,301,289,000 for Acquisition, 
Construction, and Improvements (AC&I;), $284,020,000 above the 
amount requested and $76,066,000 above the amount provided in 
fiscal year 2015.
    The Committee is alarmed by the significant decrease in the 
President's budget request for AC&I.; The Coast Guard continues 
to communicate publicly that its fleets of aircraft and vessels 
are in desperate need of recapitalization. Many vessels are 
decades beyond their useful life. Though the need for 
recapitalization programs is apparent, the budget request fails 
to meet the requirement. The Committee recommends a significant 
increase to the AC&I; request and expects the Department and the 
Administration to provide a more realistic AC&I; budget request 
in the future.
    The Committee recommends the following increases above the 
budget request: $31,000,000 for aviation facilities; 
$20,000,000 for construction of a ship lift facility to provide 
docking capacity to execute the In-Service Vessel Sustainment 
project and other sustainment requirements; $21,000,000 for 
construction, renovation, and/or improvement of Coast Guard 
housing; and $31,700,000 for construction and renovation of 
training centers and boat piers. The Commandant of the Coast 
Guard shall brief the Committees on the execution plan for each 
of these items not later than five days prior to obligating 
funds.
    The Committee recommends the following rescissions in title 
V of this bill from prior year accounts: $4,742,000 from funds 
provided in fiscal year 2013; $12,542,000 from funds provided 
in fiscal year 2014; and $2,305,000 from funds provided in 
fiscal year 2015.
    A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee 
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget estimate      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vessels
    In-service Vessel Sustainment.        $68,000,000        $68,000,000
    Cutter Small Boats............          3,000,000          3,000,000
    Fast Response Cutter (FRC)....        340,000,000        340,000,000
    National Security Cutter (NSC)         91,400,000        103,400,000
    Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC)..         18,500,000         89,000,000
    Polar Ice Breaking Vessel.....          4,000,000          4,000,000
    Survey and Design-Vessels and           9,000,000          9,000,000
     Boats........................
                                   -------------------------------------
        Subtotal, Vessels.........        533,900,000        616,400,000
Aircraft
    HC-144 Conversion/Sustainment.          3,000,000          3,000,000
    HC-27J Conversion/Sustainment.        102,000,000        102,000,000
    HC-130J Acquisition/Conversion/        55,000,000        150,000,000
     Sustainment..................
    HH-65 Acquisition/Conversion/          40,000,000         40,000,000
     Sustainment..................
                                   -------------------------------------
        Subtotal, Aircraft........        200,000,000        295,000,000
Other Equipment
    Program Oversight and                  20,000,000         20,000,000
     Management...................
    C4ISR.........................         36,600,000         36,600,000
    CG-LIMS.......................          8,500,000         11,320,000
                                   -------------------------------------
        Subtotal, Other Equipment.         65,100,000         67,920,000
Shore Facilities and Aids to
 Navigation
    Major/Minor construction;              41,900,000        124,600,000
     Housing; ATON; and Survey &
     Design.......................
    Major Acquisition Systems              54,500,000         54,500,000
     Infrastructure...............
    Minor Shore...................          5,000,000          5,000,000
                                   -------------------------------------
        Subtotal, Shore Facilities        101,400,000        184,100,000
         and Aids to Navigation...
    Military Housing..............              - - -         21,000,000
    Personnel and Related Support
    Direct Personnel Costs........        116,869,000        116,869,000
                                   -------------------------------------
        Subtotal, Personnel and           116,869,000        116,869,000
         Related Support..........
                                   -------------------------------------
            Total, Acquisition,        $1,017,269,000     $1,301,289,000
             Construction, and
             Improvements.........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Quarterly Reports on Acquisition Projects and Mission Emphasis

    The Commandant is directed to continue to brief the 
Committee quarterly on all major acquisitions, consistent with 
the direction in the explanatory statement accompanying Public 
Law 114-4.

                        Capital Investment Plan

    Consistent with prior years, the Coast Guard is directed to 
submit a five-year Capital Investment Plan (CIP), in accordance 
with the requirements listed in the bill, in conjunction with 
the budget submission for fiscal year 2017. The CIP serves as 
the primary means for overseeing and tracking the Coast Guard's 
recapitalization efforts and, therefore, must be submitted in 
accordance with mandated timelines. Unfortunately, the Coast 
Guard has repeatedly failed to comply with this legally-
mandated direction in the past. Failing to submit the required 
information in a timely manner hinders the Committee's 
oversight efforts and results in budgetary decisions based on 
limited program information.

                        National Security Cutter

    The Committee recommends $103,400,000 for the National 
Security Cutter (NSC) program, $12,000,000 above the amount 
requested and $529,447,000 below the amount provided in fiscal 
year 2015. The increase above the request will support the top-
side engineering design work required for the permanent 
installation of small UAS, along with associated testing 
activities and critical spares. The fiscal year 2015 
appropriation provided sufficient funding to acquire the eighth 
NSC, which is the final NSC of record. The Committee notes that 
funding for additional NSCs beyond the program of record would 
be neither operationally necessary nor warranted, would create 
potentially unsustainable operational funding requirements in 
the future, and could potentially threaten funding for other 
Coast Guard acquisition priorities.

                          Fast Response Cutter

    The Committee recommends $340,000,000 to acquire six 
additional Fast Response Cutters (FRCs), as requested, and 
$230,000,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2015.

                         Offshore Patrol Cutter

    The Committee recommends $89,000,000 for the Offshore 
Patrol Cutter (OPC) program, $70,500,000 above the request and 
$69,000,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2015.
    The fiscal year 2016 budget request did not include funding 
for the detailed design and construction of the high priority 
OPC, even though the Coast Guard's acquisition schedule 
includes a projected contract award date during fiscal year 
2016. Instead, the budget proposed open-ended transfer 
authority without clear direction as to the source of funding 
when the award is made in fiscal year 2016. The Coast Guard has 
repeatedly communicated that the OPC is its highest acquisition 
priority, yet this is not reflected in the budget request. The 
Committee recommends the appropriate level of funding to ensure 
the OPC contract can be awarded, and the Coast Guard can begin 
the process of recapitalizing its aging fleet of medium 
endurance vessels. The planned OPC program will be the 
Department's largest acquisition program ever, and the 
Administration should make this a top priority by requesting 
the appropriate level of future funding to ensure success.

                       Polar Ice Breaking Vessel

    The Committee recommends $4,000,000 for the polar ice 
breaking program, the same amount included in the request and 
$4,000,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2015.
    This Administration has failed repeatedly to present a 
viable acquisition program for a new, heavy icebreaker. 
Previous CIPs have alluded to an incrementally funded 
acquisition within the existing Coast Guard AC&I; topline 
funding level--a topline that has apparently been set 
arbitrarily with no relation to Coast Guard requirements. These 
proposals only partially fund a new icebreaker while 
jeopardizing existing, validated Coast Guard recapitalization 
programs.
    Further, it is unreasonable for the Administration to 
impose the entire cost of an icebreaker on the Coast Guard 
because this vessel's capability supports the missions and 
requirements of multiple executive branch agencies and these 
requirements will significantly increase the total cost of the 
asset. The Committee believes that shared funding among 
stakeholder agencies is a more appropriate method of funding, 
as it allows for continued recapitalization of the Coast Guard 
while simultaneously acquiring a critically needed ice breaking 
capability.

                            HC-130J Aircraft

    The Committee recommends $150,000,000 for the HC-130J 
aircraft program, $95,000,000 above the request and $47,000,000 
above the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The additional 
$95,000,000 will be used to procure the thirteenth HC-130J, 
which will recapitalize the Coast Guard's Long Range 
Surveillance Aircraft Fleet. These aviation assets provide 
critical support to the Coast Guard's primary missions, 
including search and rescue, enforcement of laws and treaties, 
illegal drug interdiction, marine environmental protection, 
military readiness, international ice patrol missions, as well 
as cargo and personnel transport.

                    Program Oversight and Management

    The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for Program Oversight 
and Management, the same as the amount requested and $2,000,000 
above the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. Of the amount 
provided, not more than $1,500,000 is for the management of 
Coast Guard's advanced command, control, and direction-finding 
communications system, known as Rescue 21. The Coast Guard is 
directed to provide quarterly reports to the Committee on the 
anticipated management actions to be undertaken, as well as 
amounts obligated and expended for such actions.

              RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

 
 
 
Appropriation, fiscal year 2015.......................       $17,892,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2016......................        18,135,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        18,135,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2015...................          +243,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2016..................             - - -
 

                                Mission

    Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation allows the 
Coast Guard to maintain its non-homeland security research and 
development capability, while also partnering with DHS and DoD 
to leverage beneficial initiatives.

                             Recommendation

    The Committee recommends $18,135,000 for Research, 
Development, Test, and Evaluation, equal to the amount 
requested and $243,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 
2015.

       MEDICARE ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH CARE FUND CONTRIBUTION\1\

 
 
 
Appropriation, fiscal year 2015.......................      $176,970,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2016......................       169,306,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       169,306,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2015...................        -7,664,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2016..................             - - -
 
\1\This is a permanent indefinite discretionary appropriation.

                                Mission

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

                             Recommendation

    While this account requires no annual action by Congress, 
the Committee affirms the expenditure of $169,306,000 for the 
Medicare-eligible retiree health care fund contribution, the 
same as the amount requested and $7,664,000 below the amount 
provided in fiscal year 2015.

                              RETIRED PAY

 
 
 
Appropriation, fiscal year 2015.......................    $1,450,626,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2016......................     1,604,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................     1,604,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2015...................      +153,374,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2016..................             - - -
 

                                Mission

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

                             Recommendation

    The Committee recommends $1,604,000,000 for Retired Pay, 
the same as the amount requested and $153,374,000 above the 
amount provided in fiscal year 2015. Bill language is included 
that allows funds to remain available until expended. The Coast 
Guard's Retired Pay appropriation is a mandatory budgetary 
activity.

                      United States Secret Service


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

 
 
 
Appropriation, fiscal year 2015.......................    $1,615,860,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2016......................     1,867,453,000
Recommended in the bill...............................     1,832,813,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2015...................      +216,953,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2016..................       -34,640,000
 

                                Mission

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

                             Recommendation

    The Committee recommends $1,832,813,000 for Salaries and 
Expenses, $34,640,000 below the amount requested and 
$216,953,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The 
recommendation includes $12,000,000 to support electronic 
crimes investigations and training at the National Computer 
Forensics Institute (NCFI) and $8,366,000 for grant assistance 
and investigations related to missing and exploited children. 
The recommendation also includes $4,500,000, as requested, for 
contingencies associated with NSSEs in fiscal year 2016 and 
$16,805,613 only for radio upgrades.
    For the past several years, the USSS's inability to hire 
and maintain personnel at funded levels has resulted in tens of 
millions of dollars appropriated for salaries and benefits 
being diverted to unplanned and unbudgeted activities without 
congressional oversight. For example, in fiscal year 2014, the 
USSS requested and received $1,028,064,000 for 6,572 FTEs but 
ended the year at only 6,376 FTEs, leaving $25,708,000 in 
unexecuted salary and benefits funding that was used for other 
expenses. In fiscal year 2015, the USSS is projected to end the 
year having obligated funding for only 6,367 of the 
appropriated 6,572 FTEs, resulting in almost $32,000,000 of 
salary and benefits funding being diverted for other, unplanned 
and unbudgeted requirements. In fiscal year 2016, the USSS is 
requesting 6,647 FTEs--an increase of 280 FTEs. While the 
Committee supports the growth in urgently needed personnel, it 
is uncertain if the number of FTEs requested by the USSS can be 
achieved. As a result, the recommendation provides funding to 
support the requested number of positions, but reduces funding 
by $23,456,000 for FTEs based on an assumption that, as in past 
years, hiring during the course of the year will not occur as 
quickly as planned.
    A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee 
recommended levels, by budget activity, is as follows under the 
current PPA structure:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget estimate      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Protection
    Protection of Persons and          $1,009,246,000       $976,655,000
     Facilities...................
    Protective Intelligence                72,806,000         63,614,000
     Activities...................
    National Special Security               4,500,000          4,500,000
     Event fund...................
    Presidential Candidate Nominee        203,687,000        203,687,000
     Protection...................
                                   -------------------------------------
        Subtotal, Protection......      1,290,239,000      1,248,456,000
Investigations
    Domestic Field Operations.....        291,139,000        294,523,000
    International Field Office             34,168,000         33,008,000
     Administration, Operations,
     and Training.................
    Support for Missing and         .................          8,366,000
     Exploited Children...........
                                   -------------------------------------
        Subtotal, Investigations..        325,307,000        335,897,000
Headquarters, Management and              194,680,000        193,199,000
 Administration...................
Rowley Training Center............         56,170,000         54,204,000
Information Integration and                 1,057,000          1,057,000
 Technology Transformation........
                                   -------------------------------------
        Total, Salaries and            $1,867,453,000     $1,832,813,000
         Expenses.................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      White House Complex Security

    On September 19, 2014, an individual climbed the fence at 
the White House Complex (WHC) and was able to enter the 
residence before being apprehended by Secret Service agents and 
officers. Following this unprecedented breach of security, two 
separate reviews were conducted, including the Protective 
Mission Panel (PMP) review which focused recommendations on how 
to improve the security of the White House. Included in the 
recommendation for fiscal year 2016 is $86,695,000, as 
requested, for enhancements recommended by the PMP. One of the 
primary recommendations was to increase the size of the USSS, 
in terms of both special agents and Uniformed Division 
officers, and to address significant training deficiencies. 
This bill supports both--fully funding the numbers of 
additional personnel and training enhancements. Further, the 
recommendation includes funding for a new White House perimeter 
fence that will be much more difficult and time-consuming to 
scale, giving USSS personnel a significant tactical advantage 
in protecting the WHC.
    Additional requirements to classified programs and more 
detailed oversight of funding for the Secret Service are 
addressed in the classified annex accompanying this report.

                        Workforce Staffing Model

    While there is no doubt that the USSS desperately needs 
additional personnel, unfortunately the USSS is unable to 
calculate how many personnel are needed in specific job types 
and at what cost. This inability to develop workforce 
requirements and cost has repeatedly jeopardized needed 
increases in the number of personnel. The Committee understands 
that the USSS is reforming its budget to include zero-based 
budgeting. This reform must include workforce modeling similar 
to how other DHS components already model staffing 
requirements, such as CBP's workforce staffing model and, 
additionally, include a third party validation of the 
methodology. The USSS is strongly encouraged to work with other 
components within DHS to develop a model. The Committee directs 
the USSS to provide a briefing to the Committee not later than 
30 days after the date of enactment of this Act on the current 
efforts to build a workforce staffing model, to include lessons 
learned from other DHS components.

Domestic Field Operations, Electronic Crimes Investigations, and State 
                     and Local Cybercrime Training

    The USSS Electronic Crimes Special Agent Program (ECSAP), 
and its network of Electronic Crimes Task Forces (ECTFs) 
comprised of Federal, State, and local law enforcement 
partners, financial and information technology industries, and 
academic and research communities, have proven highly 
productive and deserve strong support. Recognizing that the 
USSS is a ``frontline'' operational agency, the Committee's 
focus is on integrating new technology into the agency's 
operations. The Committee supports the investigative efforts of 
the Secret Service and the investigation of cyber crimes, which 
requires highly technical training in computer forensics. 
Therefore, the recommendation includes $12,000,000 to enhance 
current USSS investigative initiatives, ECSAP and ECTF 
missions, and basic and advanced computer forensics training, 
$8,000,000 above the amount requested and the same as the 
amount provided in fiscal year 2015.
    While ECSAP/ECTF no longer has a separate reporting and 
reprogramming line, the Committee expects: (1) to receive 
periodic briefings on the status of investigations; (2) the 
funding and programmatic efforts to be sustained; and (3) the 
associated funding and personnel resources to continue to be 
identified in future budgets.

                     Missing and Exploited Children

    The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children 
(NCMEC) was created in 1984 to serve as the Nation's resource 
on the issues of missing and sexually exploited children. The 
organization provides information and resources to law 
enforcement, parents, and children, including child victims, as 
well as other professionals. Under the provisions of the 
Violent Crime Control Act of 1994, Congress directed the Secret 
Service to provide forensic and technical assistance to NCMEC 
and other Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies in 
matters involving missing and exploited children. NCMEC has 
been the historical recipient of grant funding related to 
missing and exploited children, and the Secret Service 
currently provides investigative assistance and liaison to 
NCMEC headquarters through the Secret Service Forensic Services 
Division. The Committee supports continuing efforts in this 
area and, therefore, recommends sustaining the fiscal year 2015 
funding level of $2,366,000 for forensic and investigative 
support related to missing and exploited children and 
$6,000,000 for grants related to investigations of missing and 
exploited children.

                    National Special Security Events

    The Committee recommends $4,500,000, as requested, to 
defray costs specific to Secret Service execution of its 
statutory responsibilities to direct the planning and 
coordination of NSSEs. The Committee continues a general 
provision in the Act prohibiting the use of funds to reimburse 
any Federal Department or agency for its participation in an 
NSSE.
    The Committee directs the Secret Service to provide 
periodic updates on NSSEs planned for fiscal year 2016 prior to 
and following each event.

                   International Field Investigations

    The Secret Service continues to show significant results 
from its efforts to stop the counterfeiting of U.S. currency 
and is building on this effort in its field offices. The 
Committee directs the Secret Service, in conjunction with the 
DHS Office of Policy, to keep it informed of developments in 
international investigative missions.

                         Technology Activities

    The Committee recommends $1,057,000 for Information 
Integration and Technology Transformation activities of the 
Secret Service, and directs the agency to brief the Committee 
not later of than 90 days after the date of enactment of this 
Act on all Secret Service information technology activities.

     ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENTS, AND RELATED EXPENSES

 
 
 
Appropriation, fiscal year 2015.......................       $49,935,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2016......................        71,669,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        72,819,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2015...................       +22,884,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2016..................        +1,150,000
 

                                Mission

    This account supports the acquisition, construction, 
improvement, equipment, furnishing, and related costs for 
maintenance and support of Secret Service facilities, including 
the Secret Service Memorial Headquarters Building and the James 
J. Rowley Training Center (JJRTC). It also provides for ongoing 
costs and investment for critical Information Integration and 
Technology Transformation (IITT), a program to sustain the 
information technology capabilities needed to support the 
Secret Service protective and investigative missions.

                             Recommendation

    The Committee recommends $72,819,000, $1,150,000 above the 
request and $22,884,000 above the amount provided in fiscal 
year 2015.

                       Next Generation Limousine

    The Committee recommends $8,500,000 for the next generation 
limousine. The budget request included the funding under the 
Salaries and Expenses appropriation; however, the program is a 
multiyear development and acquisition program and is more 
appropriately funded in a multiyear acquisition account.

         Information Integration and Technology Transformation

    The Committee recommends $34,887,000 for IITT, $10,350,000 
below the request and $9,668,000 below fiscal year 2015. While 
the Committee fully supports the IITT program, the Committee 
cannot allow appropriated funds to remain unobligated for 
multiple fiscal years. To address this issue, the 
recommendation includes a reduction of $8,000,000 due to 
planned carryover of prior year funds into fiscal year 2016. 
Further, the recommendation includes rescissions to prior year 
appropriations as a result of such carryover. In future 
budgets, the USSS shall only request funding for programs, 
assets, and facilities that it plans to execute in the budget 
request year.

                               Facilities

    The Committee recommends $29,432,000 for facilities, 
$3,000,000 above the amount requested and $24,052,000 above 
fiscal year 2015. The increase above the request is for 
addressing critical deferred maintenance at the JJRTC. The 
Committee is concerned with changing requirements for the 
requested funds. To address these concerns, none of the funds 
provided for facilities may be obligated until five days after 
the USSS provides detailed obligation plan for facilities 
funding. Further, not later than 60 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the USSS shall provide a capital 
infrastructure investment plan for fiscal year 2016 through 
fiscal year 2020 that also reports capital infrastructure 
investment funding obligated beginning in fiscal year 2010 
through fiscal year 2015. At a minimum, the plan must include: 
a schedule of resource needs by year; an alternatives analysis 
that includes a review of renovation as compared to new 
construction options; a timeline that includes major 
milestones; and a projection of annual maintenance costs.
    The Committee recommends $2,900,000 for site development 
and excavation costs to begin building a WHC training facility, 
of which $2,186,000 shall not be obligated until the Committee 
is notified that a feasibility study and the design plan are 
completed and such plans have been submitted and approved by 
the National Capital Planning Commission.
    This new training facility will allow USSS personnel to 
train in a significantly more realistic environment than that 
which is currently available. Agents and officers need to train 
with the full complement of forces, structures, and topography 
involved in real life operations to ensure that all teams at 
the WHC know and can fully execute their roles in responding to 
various threats. Because of the potential danger to the public 
and the disruptive impact it would have on WHC activities, the 
real WHC is not available for routine training of agents and 
officers. Moreover, training at the WHC would present a 
potential avenue for individuals to gather exploitable 
intelligence on USSS tactics in response to a critical 
incident. The Committee notes that the Federal government 
routinely invests in specialized training facilities for 
military and law enforcement personnel, ranging from the 
Special Forces to the Capitol Police, to ensure they can 
perform in realistic environments; it is entirely appropriate, 
therefore, to invest in a WHC training facility to ensure that 
the President and the WHC receive the best possible protection.
    The Committee recommends $13,100,000 for demolition of the 
existing Canine Training Facility and construction of a new 
expanded Canine Training Facility. The existing facility was 
not built to handle the current level of canines being used by 
the USSS and has other operational deficiencies associated with 
its age. Canines provide valuable services for the USSS, such 
as explosives detection support and added protection against 
intrusions. The new facility will allow for more canines and 
therefore more training throughput that will more effectively 
satisfy current and future mission requirements.
    The Committee recommends $4,950,000 for renovations of the 
Basic Judgmental Range (an outdoor dynamic training area), 
indoor/outdoor rifle and pistol ranges, and the Magaw Shoot 
House. Compared to similar ranges used by other Federal law 
enforcement agencies, the current USSS facilities are outdated 
and inadequate. In order to provide a safe and effective 
training environment for USSS personnel, the ranges and shoot 
house must be upgraded.

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


              National Protection and Programs Directorate


                                Mission

    The National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) is 
focused on the security of the Nation's physical and cyber 
infrastructure and interoperable communications systems.

                             Recommendation

    The Committee's recommendation supports the directorate's 
missions of preventing terrorism and enhancing security; 
safeguarding and securing cyberspace; and, strengthening 
National preparedness and resilience. The recommendation also 
addresses the systemic problem of underexecuting funding for 
personnel.
    For the past several years, Congress has fully resourced 
NPPD's requested Federal workforce levels to accommodate its 
expanding operational mission. However, NPPD's inability to 
hire and maintain that workforce at funded levels has resulted 
in tens of millions of dollars appropriated for salaries and 
benefits being diverted to unbudgeted operational requirements 
without congressional oversight. For example, in fiscal year 
2014, NPPD requested and received $259,641,000 for 1,885 FTEs 
but ended the year at 1,570 FTEs, leaving $29,573,000 in 
unexecuted salary and benefits funding that was used for other 
purposes. Likewise, in fiscal year 2015, NPPD is projected to 
end the year with only 1,709 of the appropriated 2,092 FTEs, 
resulting in almost $40,000,000 of salary and benefits being 
diverted to other, unbudgeted activities.
    Though the agency is committing significant resources and 
effort to improve its hiring and retention, NPPD has made 
little progress filling vacancies, achieving a net increase of 
approximately only 100 FTEs annually for the last several 
fiscal years after factoring in attrition. The historical data 
does not inspire confidence that the agency will overcome the 
inherent difficulties of attracting and keeping a workforce 
with the requisite skills to achieve its request for an 
additional 432 FTEs. Therefore, the recommendation includes 
reductions to the request due to projected underexecution of 
personnel costs, as well as reductions to the request 
corresponding to the amounts associated with the pay raise 
assumed in the President's budget.
    In title I, under OCFO, the Committee directs briefings on 
obligation and budget execution plans. Further, the Committee 
directs that NPPD's plans include obligations and budget 
execution by PPA, project and subproject, as well as the 
amounts planned to be carried over into the next fiscal year. 
Within these briefings, NPPD shall address specific 
technologies and support services intended for procurement, 
program schedules, and major milestones. For multiyear 
appropriations, the briefings shall detail the status of each 
appropriation by source year. In addition, the briefings shall 
identify the numbers of personnel newly hired or lost to 
attrition since the beginning of the fiscal year or since the 
most recent report, as appropriate. These briefings shall be 
provided not later than 45 days after the date of enactment of 
this Act and on a quarterly basis thereafter.

                     MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

 
 
 
Appropriation, fiscal year 2015.......................       $61,651,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2016......................        64,191,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        56,127,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2015...................        -5,524,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2016..................        -8,064,000
 

                                Mission

    The Management and Administration account funds the 
Immediate Office of the Under Secretary for National Protection 
and Programs; provides for administrative overhead costs such 
as IT support and shared services; and includes a National 
planning office which develops standard doctrine and policy for 
infrastructure protection and cybersecurity.

                             Recommendation

    The Committee recommends $56,127,000 for Management and 
Administration, $8,064,000 below the amount requested and 
$5,524,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The 
recommendation includes a reduction of $7,519,000 due to 
projected underexecution of funds for personnel and a reduction 
of $545,000 that corresponds to the amount associated with the 
pay raise assumed in the President's budget.

           INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION AND INFORMATION SECURITY

 
 
 
Appropriation, fiscal year 2015.......................    $1,188,679,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2016......................     1,311,689,000
Recommended in the bill...............................     1,245,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2015...................       +56,321,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2016..................       -66,689,000
 

                                Mission

    Infrastructure Protection and Information Security (IPIS) 
supports efforts to reduce the vulnerability of the Nation's 
critical infrastructure, key resources, information technology 
networks, and telecommunications systems to terrorist attacks 
and natural disasters. IPIS also supports efforts to maintain 
effective telecommunications for government users in National 
emergencies and establish policies and promote solutions for 
interoperable communications at the Federal, State, and local 
level.

                             Recommendation

    The Committee recommends $1,245,000,000 for IPIS, 
$66,689,000 below the amount requested and $56,321,000 above 
the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The recommendation 
includes a reduction of $42,814,000 due to projected 
underexecution of funds for personnel and a reduction of 
$2,083,000 that corresponds to the amount associated with the 
pay raise assumed in the President's budget.
    Within the total, the Committee recommends $252,057,000 for 
Infrastructure Protection, $42,855,000 below the amount 
requested and $18,975,000 below the amount provided in fiscal 
year 2015; $798,041,000 for Cybersecurity, $20,302,000 below 
the amount requested and $44,841,000 above the amount provided 
in fiscal year 2015; and, $194,902,000 for Communications, 
$3,532,000 below the amount requested and $30,455,000 above the 
amount provided in fiscal year 2015.
    A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee 
recommended level is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Budget Request     Recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Infrastructure Protection:
    Infrastructure Analysis &             $75,969,000        $63,872,000
     Planning.....................
    Sector Management & Governance         71,311,000         62,312,000
    Regional Field Operations.....         52,755,000         50,740,000
    Infrastructure Security                94,877,000         75,133,000
     Compliance...................
                                   -------------------------------------
        Subtotal, Infrastructure          294,912,000        252,057,000
         Protection...............
Cybersecurity and Communications:
    Cybersecurity:
        Cybersecurity Coordination          4,318,000          4,294,000
        US-Computer Emergency              98,642,000         92,186,000
         Readiness Team Operations
        Federal Network Security..        131,202,000        127,547,000
        Network Security                  479,760,000        474,073,000
         Deployment...............
        Global Cybersecurity               20,321,000         19,304,000
         Management...............
        Critical Infrastructure            77,584,000         74,381,000
         Cyber Protection &
         Awareness................
        Business Operations.......          6,516,000          6,256,000
                                   -------------------------------------
        Subtotal, Cybersecurity...        818,343,000        798,041,000
    Communications:
        Office of Emergency                33,025,000         32,105,000
         Communications...........
        Priority                           63,649,000         62,505,000
         Telecommunications
         Services.................
        Next Generation Networks..         80,102,000         79,981,000
        Programs to Study and              10,418,000         10,276,000
         Enhance
         Telecommunications.......
        Critical Infrastructure            11,240,000         10,035,000
         Protection Programs......
                                   -------------------------------------
        Subtotal, Communications..        198,434,000        194,902,000
                                   -------------------------------------
        Subtotal, Cybersecurity         1,016,777,000        992,943,000
         and Communications.......
                                   -------------------------------------
            Total, Infrastructure      $1,311,689,000     $1,245,000,000
             Protection and
             Information Security.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  Infrastructure Analysis and Planning

    The Committee recommends $63,872,000 for Infrastructure 
Analysis and Planning, $12,097,000 below the amount requested 
and $622,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The 
recommendation includes reductions to the request corresponding 
to the amounts associated with the pay raise assumed in the 
President's budget, as well as reductions due to projected 
underexecution of personnel costs. The recommendation does not 
provide the requested $6,000,000 for an assessment of climate 
change on critical infrastructure.
    The Committee recognizes that the Nation's highly 
integrated electrical grid is vulnerable to cyber-attacks and 
natural disasters. It is imperative to fully understand the 
interdependencies among information technology, operational 
technology, and physical security. In this environment, NPPD's 
programs to strengthen the security and resilience of the 
Nation's critical infrastructure against cyber, physical, and 
human risks must be closely coordinated, and the agency must 
work with critical infrastructure owners and operators to 
holistically address these risks and develop comprehensive 
mitigation strategies. The Committee directs NPPD to provide a 
semiannual briefing outlining NPPD's plans to engage private 
sector owners and operators of such infrastructure in order to 
better understand and respond to the full range of critical 
risks. The briefing shall include details on current and 
planned actions to prepare for and protect against cyber and 
physical risks to electrical grids and other critical 
infrastructure.
    The Committee is concerned that the Office of Cyber and 
Infrastructure Analysis has not properly assessed and weighed 
current threats to develop a risk-based funding model for its 
activities. The Committee directs NPPD to brief the Committees 
on Appropriations and Homeland Security not later than 60 days 
after the date of enactment of this Act on plans to develop 
such a model.
    House Report 113-481 included a directive to NPPD to 
provide a report on its engagement with private sector owners 
and operators of critical infrastructure, as well as its 
collaboration with universities, industry, and government labs 
on efforts to improve critical infrastructure readiness and 
response capabilities related to cyber, physical, and human 
risks. The Committee looks forward to receiving that report, 
which is now past due, as soon as possible.

                    Sector Management and Governance

    The Committee recommends $62,312,000 for Sector Management 
and Governance, $8,999,000 below the amount requested and 
$2,649,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The 
recommendation includes reductions to the request corresponding 
to the amounts associated with the pay raise assumed in the 
President's budget, as well as reductions due to projected 
underexecution of personnel costs. The Committee supports 
NPPD's efforts to help strengthen the ability of all levels of 
government and private sector critical infrastructure partners 
to assess risks, coordinate programs and processes, and execute 
risk management programs and activities. Accordingly, of the 
amount provided, $2,000,000 is designated to define agency 
needs, identify requirements for community level critical 
infrastructure protection and resilience, and rapidly develop, 
test, and transition to use technologies that address these 
needs and requirements. The recommendation does not include the 
proposed $4,000,000 for assessments of the effects of climate 
change on critical infrastructure.

                       Regional Field Operations

    The Committee recommends $50,740,000 for Regional Field 
Operations, $2,015,000 below the amount requested and 
$5,810,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The 
recommendation includes reductions to the request corresponding 
to the amounts associated with the pay raise assumed in the 
President's budget, as well as reductions due to projected 
underexecution of personnel costs. The recommendation fully 
funds the National Infrastructure Coordinating Center (NICC) at 
$7,850,000.

                   Infrastructure Security Compliance

    The Committee recommends $75,133,000 for Infrastructure 
Security Compliance (ISC), $19,744,000 below the amount 
requested and $9,894,000 below the amount provided in fiscal 
year 2015. The recommendation includes reductions to the 
request corresponding to the amounts associated with the pay 
raise assumed in the President's budget, as well as reductions 
due to projected underexecution of personnel costs.
    The Committee supports the implementation of an Ammonium 
Nitrate (AN) Security Program, as required by Public Law 110-
161, but is aware of concerns about whether the ongoing 
rulemaking process can effectively balance costs and benefits. 
In particular, the Committee understands that, since the AN 
rule was first proposed in 2011, changes in the manufacture, 
sale, and transport of AN significantly impact the cost-benefit 
calculation that must be taken into consideration. As a result, 
the recommendation does not include funding for the 
implementation of a final rule on the AN Security Program in 
fiscal year 2016. Instead, the Committee urges DHS to continue 
working with stakeholders, such as through a supplemental 
notice of proposed rulemaking, to reduce the cost burden while 
preserving strong security benefits, and directs DHS to 
resubmit the funding request for implementation of the Ammonium 
Nitrate rule in the fiscal year 2017 budget.

            US-Computer Emergency Readiness Team Operations

    The Committee recommends $92,186,000 for US-Computer 
Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT) Operations, $6,456,000 below 
the amount requested and $6,387,000 below the amount provided 
in fiscal year 2015. The recommendation includes reductions to 
the request corresponding to the amounts associated with the 
pay raise assumed in the President's budget, as well as 
reductions due to projected underexecution of personnel costs. 
Within the PPA total, the recommendation funds US-CERT programs 
at the requested level of $60,409,000.

                        Federal Network Security

    The Committee recommends $127,547,000 for Federal Network 
Security (FNS), $3,655,000 below the amount requested and 
$43,453,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The 
recommendation includes reductions to the request corresponding 
to the amounts associated with the pay raise assumed in the 
President's budget, as well as reductions due to projected 
underexecution of personnel costs.
    Cyberattacks on government and private networks, which are 
increasing at an alarming rate, threaten and endanger National 
security. The Committee has consistently recognized this threat 
and fully funds FNS operations at the requested level of 
$114,985,000 to protect U.S. government departments and 
agencies from cyber intrusions. FNS supports activities 
designed to enable civilian departments and agencies to secure 
their systems and networks, including the Continuous 
Diagnostics and Mitigation (CDM) program, and provides a 
single, accountable focal point for achieving cyber 
infrastructure security and compliance throughout the Federal 
enterprise.
    Diagnostic software procured with these funds shall operate 
in accordance with all applicable privacy laws and related 
agency restrictions regarding personally identifiable 
information and sensitive data or content.

                      Network Security Deployment

    The Committee recommends $474,073,000 for Network Security 
Deployment (NSD), $5,687,000 below the amount requested and 
$97,073,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The 
recommendation includes reductions to the request corresponding 
to the amounts associated with the pay raise assumed in the 
President's budget, as well as reductions due to projected 
underexecution of personnel costs.
    NSD manages the National Cybersecurity Protection System 
(NCPS), operationally known as EINSTEIN, which is an integrated 
intrusion detection, analytics, information sharing, and 
intrusion prevention system utilizing hardware, software, and 
other components to support DHS cybersecurity responsibilities. 
Funds are included to continue the planned procurement of the 
third generation of the NCPS (also known as EINSTEIN 3 or 
E\3\A), which will expand current capabilities and enable DHS 
to assume a more active role in securing civilian .gov network 
traffic and reducing the threat vectors available to malicious 
actors seeking to harm Federal networks. Once fully deployed, 
E\3\A will apply in-line protection measures to a wide set of 
Federal network traffic protocols; alert on a cyber-threat; and 
act on that threat to stop malicious traffic.
    The Committee remains concerned with both the planned 
acquisition schedule for NCPS, which has experienced delays, 
and the overall efficacy of signature-based systems for the 
protection of networks. DHS's strategy relies on Internet 
Service Providers (ISPs) to deliver this capability and 
currently has agreements in place with three major (Tier 1) 
ISPs. The Committee urges NPPD to expeditiously establish 
effective working relationships with the remaining Tier 1 ISPs 
to further expand intrusion detection and prevention 
capabilities. Given its prominent role, as delegated by OMB, in 
securing .gov network traffic, NPPD must continue improving its 
relationships with the Departments and agencies participating 
in this program to better prepare those customers for the 
deployment of E\3\A. NPPD must also continue exploring new 
capabilities for the detection of malicious traffic, such as 
behavioral analysis and technologies for the identification of 
zero-day threats.

                    Global Cybersecurity Management

    The Committee recommends $19,304,000 for Global 
Cybersecurity Management, $1,017,000 below the amount requested 
and $6,569,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. 
The recommendation includes reductions to the request 
corresponding to the amounts associated with the pay raise 
assumed in the President's budget, as well as reductions due to 
projected underexecution of personnel costs. The Committee 
directs the agency to provide a briefing, within 120 days of 
the date of enactment of this Act, on the current or potential 
level of cooperation between DHS and the Department of Defense 
on the development of new and innovative software to improve 
National capabilities to counter cybersecurity threats.

                       SLTT Cybersecurity Support

    The fiscal year 2016 request once again proposes to reduce 
support for the Multi-State Information Sharing and Analysis 
Center, which provides critical cybersecurity services to 
State, local, tribal, and territorial governments (SLTTs), and 
aggregates and analyzes cyber threat and vulnerability 
information from SLTTs to help NPPD protect our collective 
cyberspace. Unfortunately, NPPD has provided no supporting 
justification for the reduction in funding and no analysis of 
the impact of the cut on SLLT cybersecurity activity and 
information sharing between SLLT and the Federal government. 
Absent such justification, the Committee directs NPPD to 
continue the current level of support for SLLT cybersecurity 
activities.

                      Cybersecurity Best Practices

    In recent hearing testimony (GAO-15-758T), GAO identified 
the oversight of contractors providing IT services as a 
government-wide cybersecurity challenge. GAO reviewed six 
federal agencies, including DHS, and determined that only DHS 
had adequate processes in place to provide consistent oversight 
of contractor implementation of security controls. The DHS CIO 
is directed to work through the CIO Council to share DHS best 
practices for enhancing oversight of contractors providing IT 
services, and to update the Committee within 180 days of the 
date of enactment of this Act on these activities.

                             Communications

    The Committee recommends $194,902,000 for Communications 
programs, $3,532,000 below the amount requested and $30,455,000 
above the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The 
recommendation includes reductions to the request corresponding 
to the amounts associated with the pay raise assumed in the 
President's budget, as well as reductions due to projected 
underexecution of personnel costs. Of the total amount 
recommended, $32,105,000 is for the Office of Emergency 
Communications; $62,505,000 is for Priority Telecommunications 
Services; $10,276,000 is for Programs to Study and Enhance 
Telecommunications; $10,035,000 is for Critical Infrastructure 
Protection Programs; and $79,981,000 is for Next Generation 
Networks, which includes the $26,668,000 requested to implement 
priority wireless access Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) 
communication capability.

      National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center

    The recommendation fully supports the efforts of the 
National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center 
(NCCIC), which is a focal point within the Federal government 
for cybersecurity. NCCIC's responsibilities include the 
protection of Federal systems and nonfederal critical 
information systems, as well as the coordination of National 
incident response. As such, the NCCIC serves as a centralized 
location where operational elements involved in cybersecurity 
and communications reliance are coordinated and integrated. The 
NCCIC effectively partners with all Federal Departments and 
agencies; State, local, tribal, and territorial governments; 
the private sector; and international entities. Funds are 
provided to continue the NCCIC's efforts to apply unique 
analytic perspectives, ensure shared situational awareness, and 
synchronize response efforts while protecting the privacy 
rights of Americans in both the cybersecurity and 
communications domains. The U.S. continues to be the target of 
massive cyber attacks which threaten the country's economic 
competitiveness and the security of our Nation. DHS and NPPD 
lead the effort to protect the Nation's critical 
infrastructure, to protect our civilian government networks, 
and to collaborate with the private sector to enhance 
cybersecurity.

                       FEDERAL PROTECTIVE SERVICE

 
 
 
Appropriation, fiscal year 2015.......................    $1,342,606,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2016......................     1,443,449,000
Recommended in the bill...............................     1,443,449,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2015...................      +100,843,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2016..................             - - -
 

                                Mission

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

                             Recommendation

    The Committee recommends $1,443,449,000 for FPS, the same 
as the amount requested and $100,843,000 above the amount 
provided in fiscal year 2015. This amount is fully offset by 
fees collected from FPS customer agencies.
    The Secretary and the Director of OMB shall certify in 
writing to the Committees, not later than 60 days after the 
date of enactment of this Act, that the operations of the 
Federal Protective Service will be fully funded in fiscal year 
2016 through revenues and collection of security fees. Should 
sufficient revenue not be collected to fully fund operations, 
an expenditure plan is required describing how security risks 
will be adequately addressed. Within this recommended funding 
level, FPS shall align staffing resources with mission 
requirements.

                Office of Biometric Identity Management


 
 
 
Appropriation, fiscal year 2015.......................      $252,056,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2016......................       283,533,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       283,473,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2015...................       +31,417,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2016..................           -60,000
 

                                Mission

    The Office of Biometric Identity Management (OBIM) is the 
lead entity within DHS for biometric identity management 
services. OBIM utilizes the Automated Biometric Identification 
System (IDENT) to match, store, share, and analyze biometric 
identity information for Federal, State, local, and tribal law 
enforcement, the Intelligence Community, and strategic foreign 
partners.

                             Recommendation

    The Committee recommends a total appropriation of 
$283,473,000 for OBIM, $60,000 below the amount requested and 
$31,417,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2015.

               Automated Biometric Identification System

    The recommendation includes the amount requested for IDENT 
system improvements and sustainment, building on the 
investments funded in fiscal year 2015. These improvements will 
enable the system to meet current requirements and provide 
capability enhancements which can be leveraged and incorporated 
into the planned Replacement Biometric System (RBS). The 
recommendation includes requested funding of $65,800,000 for 
Increment 1 of the RBS.

                            Unique Identity

    OBIM is directed to continue semiannual briefings on 
interagency coordination among the Departments of Homeland 
Security, Justice, State, and Defense, and progress towards 
integrating the various biometric systems, including Unique 
Identity.

                        Office of Health Affairs


 
 
 
Appropriation, fiscal year 2015.......................      $129,358,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2016......................       124,069,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       125,216,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2015...................        -4,142,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2016..................        +1,147,000
 

                                Mission

    The Office of Health Affairs (OHA) serves as the Department 
of Homeland Security's principal agent for all medical and 
public health matters, and has the lead DHS role in chemical 
and biological defense activities to ensure the health and 
medical security of the Nation.

                             Recommendation

    The Committee recommends $125,216,000 for OHA, $1,147,000 
above the amount requested and $4,142,000 below the amount 
provided in fiscal year 2015. The recommendation includes a 
reduction of $153,000 that corresponds to the amount associated 
with the pay raise assumed in the President's budget.
    A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee 
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget Estimate      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BioWatch..........................        $83,278,000        $82,078,000
National Biosurveillence                    8,000,000         10,500,000
 Integration System...............
Chemical Defense Program..........            824,000            824,000
Planning and Coordination.........          4,957,000          4,957,000
Salaries and Expenses.............         27,010,000         26,857,000
                                   -------------------------------------
    Total, Office of Health              $124,069,000       $125,216,000
     Affairs......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       Biosurveillance Activities

    The Committee recommends $82,078,000 for the BioWatch 
program, $1,200,000 below the amount requested and $4,813,000 
below the amount provided in fiscal year 2015.
    In fiscal year 2015, OHA was appropriated an increase of 
$2,240,000 above the request to begin replacement of aging 
BioWatch equipment in order to maintain current biodetection 
capabilities and prevent system failures. The additional amount 
provided in fiscal year 2015 funded the first-year costs of the 
refresh plan and reduced the funding requirement for fiscal 
year 2016. As such, the recommendation includes $1,000,000 to 
enable the Department to continue the replacement and 
recapitalization of current generation BioWatch equipment, 
which is the amount necessary to fund fiscal year 2016 
activities.
    The Committee continues to support efforts to explore cost-
effective advances in biodetection capabilities, with the goal 
of increasing coverage and reducing the time to detection and 
response. As DHS seeks further enhancements in biodetection, it 
is critical that OHA ensure close coordination with interagency 
partners and stakeholders. Additionally, to the extent 
practicable, DHS should leverage the extensive research and 
development conducted by DoD and collaborate with DoD in 
further demonstrations and technology development activities.

              National Biosurveillance Integration Center

    The Committee recommends $10,500,000 for NBIC, $2,500,000 
above the amount requested and the same as the amount provided 
in fiscal year 2015 to fund the operationalization of 
successful pilot programs.

               Anthrax Vaccinations for First Responders

    The Committee has long supported the development of an 
anthrax vaccination program for first responders using vaccines 
from the Strategic National Stockpile, and is encouraged by 
OHA's actions to move forward with a pilot to evaluate the 
feasibility of implementing such a program. OHA is directed to 
provide regular updates on the planning efforts, including a 
timeline for implementation of the pilot and the feasibility 
and costs of expanding the pilot to a full-scale program.

                         Salaries and Expenses

    The Committee recommends $26,857,000 for Salaries and 
Expenses, $153,000 below the amount requested and $709,000 
above the amount provided in fiscal year 2015.

                  Federal Emergency Management Agency


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

 
 
 
Appropriation, fiscal year 2015.......................      $934,396,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2016......................       949,296,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       955,963,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2015...................       +21,567,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2016..................        +6,667,000
 

                                Mission

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

                             Recommendation

    The Committee recommends $955,963,000 for Salaries and 
Expenses, $6,667,000 above the amount requested and $21,567,000 
above the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The 
recommendation includes an additional $4,000,000 to accelerate 
the transition to a new financial management system.
    The following table summarizes the Committee's 
recommendation:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Budget Request      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative and regional              $243,323,000       $243,323,000
 offices..........................
Preparedness and protection.......        190,928,000        190,928,000
Response..........................        168,466,000        176,133,000
Recovery..........................         51,472,000         51,472,000
Mitigation........................         25,753,000         25,753,000
Mission Support...................        168,437,000        172,437,000
Centrally managed accounts........        100,917,000         95,917,000
                                   -------------------------------------
    Total, Salaries and Expenses..       $949,296,000       $955,963,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FEMA is authorized to expend funds from both the Salaries 
and Expenses (S&E;) account and the DRF for necessary expenses 
in carrying out the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.). In the past, 
FEMA has used the election doctrine to determine which account 
should be charged for certain disaster-related expenses. The 
Committee is concerned, however, that FEMA may not apply the 
election doctrine consistently, given a lack of documented 
policies, procedures, and training.
    Specifically, the Committee is also concerned that some 
management and administration expenses routinely charged to the 
DRF for Disaster Readiness and Support (DRS) are more 
appropriately charged to S&E.; To address these concerns, the 
Committee directs FEMA to utilize the following guidance in 
determining whether to charge an expense to S&E; or the DRF:
           FEMA's S&E; account should be utilized for 
        the permanent workforce, programs, and permanent 
        infrastructure required to execute FEMA's core mission. 
        This includes permanent full-time and temporary full-
        time employees, including Federal Coordinating Officers 
        and Federal Disaster Recovery Coordinators hired under 
        title V excepted service authority; headquarters and 
        regional management and administration programs; 
        mission support activities (except for variable costs 
        directly associated with disaster employees), including 
        costs associated with the development, acquisition, and 
        maintenance of all corporate level IT systems; and 
        FEMA-owned facilities and other facilities or space 
        required on a permanent basis.
           The DRF should only be charged for DRS 
        activities and programs that ensure that a well-
        equipped and trained disaster workforce is in place and 
        prepared to respond to disasters and emergencies in a 
        timely, effective, and cost efficient manner. 
        Appropriate obligations include salaries and expenses 
        for all disaster employees hired under the authority of 
        the Stafford Act that are not assigned to a declared 
        disaster; qualification and related training for 
        disaster employees; equipping of disaster employees; 
        stockpiling and maintenance of prepositioned stock; 
        readiness support contracts and other costs required 
        for quick mobilization; non-enterprise IT systems that 
        directly support disaster response and recovery 
        activities; and temporary facilities, structures, or 
        space required to respond to disasters that are not 
        charged directly to a declared disaster.
    The Committee expects the changes outlined above to be 
implemented beginning in fiscal year 2017. FEMA is directed to 
submit a detailed plan and proposed timeline for transferring 
funds for activities that do not meet the criteria for DRF to 
S&E; within 90 days of the date of the enactment of this Act.
    The Committee is also aware of FEMA's distribution of 
mission support costs, such as those for enterprise information 
technology, across multiple appropriations. Mission support 
costs are more appropriately funded in the S&E; appropriation. 
Therefore, the Committee expects these costs to be presented 
and justified as a part of the S&E; appropriation in future 
budget requests, beginning with the fiscal year 2017 budget.
    The Committee notes the improvements in budget presentation 
materials for DRS activities in the fiscal year 2016 
congressional justification, but believes further work is 
needed to achieve desired levels of oversight, transparency, 
and accountability. For example, the fiscal year 2016 
congressional justification presented funding for DRS 
activities in a structure aimed at supporting the Cadre 
Operational Readiness and Deployability Status (CORDS) 
initiative and future efforts to maximize cadre readiness, but 
continued to present all DRF funding under a single PPA and did 
not adequately justify requested funding.
    To properly execute its oversight function, the Committee 
believes more granularity is needed in budgeting documents to 
ensure funds are used consistent with the activities proposed 
in annual budget submissions. In consideration of how DRS costs 
were presented in the fiscal year 2016 budget, as well as 
subsequent discussions with FEMA officials, the Committee has 
developed the following PPA and sub-activity structure for the 
DRS in future budget submissions, spend plans, and expenditure 
reports:
    PPA: Cadre Operational Readiness and Deployability
          --Disaster Employee Staffing
          --Cadre Qualification Training
          --Disaster Employee Professional Development and 
        Direct Support
          --Disaster Employee Equipping
          --FEMA All Hazards Exercise program
    PPA: Readiness Support Contracts and Supplies
          --Readiness Support Contracts and Interagency 
        Agreements
          --Stockpiling (supplies, commodities and temporary 
        housing units)
    PPA: Facilities Support (non-permanent structures required 
for mobilization)
    PPA: Information Technology Support (non-enterprise 
disaster IT systems)
    PPA: Working Capital Fund (activities directly related to 
declared disasters)
    The Committee believes improvements are needed to 
adequately justify the amounts requested and annual changes in 
the DRF. While general descriptions are included for select 
programs, all proposed changes from the current year to the 
budget year are not identified and sufficient information is 
not included to allow the Committee to fully understand the 
level of funds needed. For disaster employee staffing, for 
example, the budget should identify the number and type of 
staff supported and the cost assumptions used to determine the 
budget request. It should also identify any increases or 
decreases in disaster employee staffing and the reason for the 
change. The Committee expects FEMA to improve its justification 
materials in the fiscal year 2017 budget and to present the 
budget in the PPA structure outlined above.
    The Committee recognizes the importance of maintaining 
permanently owned and operated FEMA facilities in a fully 
functional and ready state. Beginning with the fiscal year 2017 
budget, the Committee expects FEMA to specifically budget for 
and justify these costs in annual budget submissions under the 
following PPA and subactivity structure within the Salaries and 
Expenses appropriation:
    PPA: Facilities Maintenance, Repair and Rehabilitation
          --Facilities maintenance
          --Facilities repair and rehabilitation
    The Committee is aware that FEMA spreads its WCF allocation 
across all of its appropriations using a straight-line cost 
allocation methodology based on FTEs and an estimate of the 
temporary workforce. The Committee is concerned that 
appropriations and underlying PPAs may be charged for services 
from which they may not benefit. For example, the DRF 
appropriation is charged for Sedan Services and Financial 
Statement Audit and Mail Services, WCF activities that may not 
be necessary expenses in carrying out the Stafford Act. The 
Committee is also concerned that FEMA uses a cost allocation 
methodology based solely on FTEs. This is inconsistent with the 
methodologies used by DHS when distributing WCF costs across 
all DHS organizational components; the DHS WCF cost allocation 
methodologies vary depending on the WCF activity, and are not 
solely based on FTEs. The Committee directs FEMA to revise the 
WCF methodology used to distribute the FEMA portion of the DHS 
WCF bill, ensuring that WCF charges applied to an appropriation 
or PPA correspond directly to services provided.
    The Committee recommends $27,500,000 for the Mount Weather 
Emergency Operations Center facility, the same as the amount 
requested and $2,500,000 below the amount provided in fiscal 
year 2015. The Committee is concerned with the lack of 
justification provided for the MWEOC request. To address these 
concerns, none of the funds provided for MWEOC may be obligated 
until five days after the Administrator provides a detailed 
obligation plan for capital improvements, to include all 
sources of funding for the proposed activities. Further, not 
later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 
FEMA shall provide a capital infrastructure investment plan for 
fiscal year 2016 through fiscal year 2020 that also reports 
capital investment funding previously obligated beginning in 
fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2015. At a minimum, the 
plan must include: a schedule of resource needs by year; an 
alternatives analysis that includes a review of renovation as 
compared to new construction options; a timeline that includes 
major milestones; and a projection of annual maintenance costs.
    The Committee recommends $35,180,000 for Urban Search and 
Rescue (USAR), the same as the amount provided in fiscal year 
2015 and $7,667,000 above the request. The Committee directs 
FEMA to consider the requirements for the number of USAR teams 
as part of the ongoing review of the agency's existing response 
force structure and its planning for disaster requirements.
    In March 2015, FEMA released a State Mitigation Plan Review 
Guide that is scheduled to become effective in early 2016. 
State mitigation plans are one of the conditions of eligibility 
for certain FEMA assistance, such as Public Assistance 
Categories C-G and Hazard Mitigation Assistance, and must be 
updated every five years. The Committee notes that while FEMA 
approval is required for mitigation plans, States maintain 
discretion for prioritizing how the risk and vulnerability 
associated with hazard events will be identified and addressed.
    Within 12 months after the date of the enactment of this 
Act, FEMA shall work with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration's newly established National Water Center, which 
is focused on water prediction and forecasting, to evaluate the 
latest available research, laws, regulations, policies, best 
practices, procedures, and institutional knowledge regarding 
urban flooding. This review should include the prevalence and 
costs associated with urban flooding, with a focus on the 
largest metropolitan areas and any clear trends in frequency 
and severity over the past two decades. In addition, it should 
address cost-effective strategies to reduce the impacts of 
urban flooding and the most sustainable and effective methods 
for funding flood risk assessments and flood damage reduction 
efforts at all levels of government.

                        STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS

 
 
 
Appropriation, fiscal year 2015\1\....................    $1,500,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2016\1\..................     2,231,424,000
Recommended in the bill\2\............................     1,500,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2015...................             - - -
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2016.................     -731,424,000
 
\1\The budget request proposed moving Emergency Management Performance
  Grants and Firefighter Assistance Grants to State and Local Programs.
  In fiscal year 2015, these grant programs had separate appropriations
  totaling $1,030,000,000.
\2\The bill funds Emergency Management Performance Grants and
  Firefighter Assistance Grants under separate appropriations totaling
  $1,030,000,000.

                                Mission

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

                             Recommendation

    The Committee recommends $1,500,000,000 for State and Local 
Programs, $731,424,000 below the amount requested and the same 
as the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. As part of the 
budget request, the Administration proposed including 
Firefighter Assistance Grants and Emergency Management 
Performance Grants under this account. The Committee denies 
this proposal and provides funding for both of these grant 
programs as separate appropriations, consistent with prior 
years.
    For the fourth year in a row, FEMA proposed a new National 
Preparedness Grant Program under State and Local Programs, 
which the Committee denies due to the lack of Congressional 
authorization.
    A comparison of the President's budget proposal to the 
Committee recommended level by budget activity is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget estimate      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Homeland Security Grant                   - - -       $467,000,000
 Program..........................
    Operation Stonegarden.........              - - -       (55,000,000)
Urban Area Security Initiative....              - - -        600,000,000
    Nonprofit Security Grants.....              - - -       (13,000,000)
Public Transportation Security                  - - -        100,000,000
 Assistance and Railroad Security
 Assistance.......................
    Amtrak Security...............              - - -       (10,000,000)
    Over-Road-Bus Security........              - - -        (3,000,000)
Port Security Grants..............              - - -        100,000,000
Education, Training, and Exercises       $168,224,000        233,000,000
    Emergency Management Institute         19,523,000         20,569,000
    Center for Domestic                    62,860,000         64,991,000
     Preparedness.................
    National Domestic Preparedness         42,000,000         98,000,000
     Consortium...................
    National Exercise Program.....         25,841,000         19,919,000
    Continuing Training...........         18,000,000         29,521,000
National Preparedness Grant             1,043,200,000              - - -
 Program..........................
First Responder Assistance Program
    Emergency Management                  350,000,000              - - -
     Performance Grants\1\........
    Fire Grants\1\................        335,000,000              - - -
    Staffing for Adequate Fire and        335,000,000              - - -
     Emergency Response (SAFER)
     Act Grants\1\................
                                   -------------------------------------
        Total, State and Local         $2,231,424,000    $1,500,000,000
         Programs.................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The budget recommends funding Emergency Management Performance Grants
  and Firefighter Assistance Grants under separate appropriations
  totaling $1,030,000,000.

    Within the funds available for the State Homeland Security 
Grant Program, the Committee recommends $55,000,000 for 
Operation Stonegarden. All awards under Operation Stonegarden 
shall be made on a competitive basis to tribal governments and 
units of local government, including towns, cities, and 
counties along the borders of the United States, to enhance the 
coordination of border security between local and Federal law 
enforcement agencies. Eligible program costs include, but shall 
not be limited to: overtime; vehicle maintenance; vehicle and 
equipment rental costs; reimbursement for mileage; fuel costs; 
equipment replacement costs; and travel costs for law 
enforcement entities assisting other local jurisdictions in law 
enforcement activities. The Committee directs that only CBP and 
FEMA shall make award decisions and that administrative costs 
shall not be deducted by States from Operation Stonegarden 
awards.
    As part of the fiscal year 2017 budget request, FEMA shall 
include performance measures for Operation Stonegarden that 
clearly demonstrate the extent to which funding for the program 
can be tied to progress in achieving program goals, along with 
estimates for how proposed funding would contribute to 
additional progress. These performance measures should be 
consistent with 31 U.S.C. 1116, and should include outcome 
measures, as defined by 31 U.S.C. 1115(h).
    The Committee recommends $233,000,000 to sustain Education, 
Training, and Exercises at the same funding levels and for the 
same purposes as provided in fiscal year 2015. The Committee is 
aware of the unique capabilities of regional training centers, 
which provide initial training to first responders and 
additional training related to new techniques and technologies, 
and encourages the Department to include continued support for 
regional training centers in future funding requests.
    Within the funds recommended for National Programs, the 
Committee includes $29,521,000 for Continuing Training. This 
funding should support training related to: crisis management 
for school-based incidents; mass fatality planning and 
response; the development of emergency operation plans; rail 
car safety, particularly for the transportation of crude oil 
and other hazardous materials; media engagement strategies for 
first responders; agro-terrorism; food and animal safety; and 
hazardous materials. Within the total, FEMA shall prioritize 
funding of not less than $5,000,000, to be competitively 
awarded, for FEMA-certified rural training. Special emphasis 
should be given to filling rural training gaps identified in 
the National Needs Assessment currently being conducted.
    Bill language is included mandating timeframes for the 
application process for certain grants to ensure that funds do 
not languish at DHS, and limiting not more than five percent to 
the amount a grantee may allocate for expenses directly related 
to administering a grant. In addition, bill language is 
retained authorizing the use of funds for constructing 
communication towers and requiring grantees to provide reports 
on their use of funds.
    Consistent with fiscal year 2015, the Department shall 
limit Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) funding to urban 
areas representing up to 85 percent of the National urban area 
risk.
    In accordance with the 9/11 Act, at least 25 percent of 
funds allocated to the State Homeland Security Grant Program 
and UASI shall be used for Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention 
activities. In addition, each State and Puerto Rico shall pass 
on not less than 80 percent of their grant funding to local 
units of government within 45 days of receiving the funds.
    The Committee notes that the construction and establishment 
of Emergency Operations Centers is an eligible expense under 
State and Local Programs.
    The Committee recognizes the important role of the Center 
for Domestic Preparedness in training medical response 
personnel to respond to mass casualty events involving an 
active shooter, and encourages the Department to better utilize 
this important resource.
    The Committee encourages the Secretary of Homeland 
Security, in conducting vulnerability and threat assessments of 
metropolitan statistical areas, to take into consideration 
increases in average daily population resulting from high 
levels of tourism.
    The Committee is aware of concerns that FEMA's evaluation 
methodology for Transit Security grant applications effectively 
disqualifies Priority D projects, including multi-user high-
density key infrastructure protection projects, and encourages 
FEMA to review its methodology to ensure that meritorious 
Category D projects are fully considered for funding awards.
    The Committee notes the Emergency Management Institute's 
(EMI) requirement to deliver training for a wide variety of 
homeland security response scenarios, and understands that 
external technical assistance partners, including academic 
institutions, have historically been used to fill gaps in 
expertise more efficiently than maintaining such expertise in-
house. The Committee encourages EMI to continue working with 
external partners, as appropriate, to provide the full range of 
training required by emergency management officials at all 
levels of government.
    The Committee notes that, beginning with the fiscal year 
2015 grant cycle, FEMA extended the period of performance for 
preparedness grants from 24 months to 36 months to ensure that 
grantees have sufficient time to expend their funding and to 
reduce the administrative burden associated with waiver 
requests.

                     FIREFIGHTER ASSISTANCE GRANTS

 
 
 
Appropriation, fiscal year 2015.......................      $680,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2016......................             - - -
Recommended in the bill...............................       680,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2015...................             - - -
    Budget request, fiscal year 2016..................      +680,000,000
 

                                Mission

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

                             Recommendation

    The Committee recommends $680,000,000 for Firefighter 
Assistance Grants, $680,000,000 above the amount requested and 
the same as the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The budget 
request proposed $670,000,000 for this activity within State 
and Local Programs. Within the total, the Committee recommends 
$340,000,000 for the Assistance to Firefighters Grant program, 
which provides grants for firefighter equipment, training, 
vehicles, and other resources. The Committee also recommends 
$340,000,000 for firefighter jobs under the Staffing for 
Adequate Emergency Response program. FEMA shall continue to 
administer the Fire Grant programs as directed in prior year 
Committee reports. The Committee encourages FEMA to ensure that 
the formulas used for equipment accurately reflect current 
costs.
    The Surface Transportation Board reports that crude-by-rail 
shipments increased from 21,000 barrels/day in 2009 to 1.1 
million/day in 2014; the Department of Transportation projects 
that over the next two decades, an average of ten crude-by-rail 
derailments will occur each year. Furthermore, accidents and 
explosions in West Virginia, Illinois, North Dakota, Canada, 
and elsewhere have underscored the need for local first 
responders to be adequately prepared for crude- and ethanol-by-
rail incidents. Today, crude-by-rail communities and their 
first responders lack the equipment, training, and operational 
support they need to meet the public safety challenges posed by 
derailments. FEMA is encouraged to categorize AFG hazmat and 
other applications related to crude- and ethanol-by-rail 
preparation and response as ``high priority'' so the Agency can 
better meet the needs of our most vulnerable communities and 
first responders.

                EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE GRANTS

 
 
 
Appropriation, fiscal year 2015.......................      $350,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2016......................             - - -
Recommended in the bill...............................       350,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2015...................             - - -
    Budget request, fiscal year 2016..................      +350,000,000
 

                                Mission

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

                             Recommendation

    The Committee recommends $350,000,000 for EMPG, 
$350,000,000 above the amount requested and the same as the 
amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The request proposed 
$350,000,000 for this activity within State and Local Programs.
    The Committee encourages FEMA to work with grantees to post 
on the Agency's website the specific amount for EMPG funding 
awarded to each grantee and subgrantee, identified by 
jurisdiction or organization. Further, FEMA and the States are 
encouraged to work together to ensure States are not overly 
burdened with administrative requirements.

              RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAM

 
 
 
Appropriation, fiscal year 2015.......................       -$1,815,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2016......................          -305,000
Recommended in the bill...............................          -305,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2015...................        +1,510,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2016..................             - - -
 

                                Mission

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

                   UNITED STATES FIRE ADMINISTRATION

 
 
 
Appropriation, fiscal year 2015.......................       $44,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2016......................        41,582,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        44,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2015...................             - - -
    Budget request, fiscal year 2016..................        +2,418,000
 

                                Mission

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

                             Recommendation

    The Committee recommends $44,000,000 for USFA, $2,418,000 
above the amount requested and the same as the amount provided 
in fiscal year 2015.

                          DISASTER RELIEF FUND

 
 
 
Appropriation, fiscal year 2015\1\....................    $7,033,465,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2016\2\...................     7,374,693,000
Recommended in the bill\2\............................     7,374,693,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2015...................      +341,228,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2016..................             - - -
 
\1\Includes $6,437,793,000 that was provided in Public Law 114-4 and is
  designated for major disasters pursuant to 251(b)(2)(D) of the
  Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
\2\Includes $6,712,953,000 designated for major disasters pursuant to
  251(b)(2)(D) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act
  of 1985.

                                Mission

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

                             Recommendation

    The Committee recommends a total of $7,374,693,000 for the 
DRF. Of the funds provided, $6,712,953,000 is designated by the 
Congress as being for disaster relief pursuant to section 
251(b)(2)(D) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
Control Act of 1985. Of the funding not so designated, the bill 
transfers $24,000,000 to the DHS OIG for audits and 
investigations related to disasters.
    A general provision is included in title V of this Act that 
rescinds $1,265,864,000 from amounts provided for non-major 
disaster programs in prior years due to the significant 
balances anticipated to be carried over from fiscal year 2015 
into fiscal year 2016 and amounts recovered from previous 
disasters during project closeouts.
    The Committee continues statutory requirements for annual 
and monthly DRF reporting as originally directed in Public Law 
112-74 and Public Law 113-2. While prior year statutory 
requirements directing the posting of public assistance grants 
and mission assignments are not continued, the Committee 
expects FEMA to continue the practice of posting such 
information to the Agency's website in the same manner as 
directed in Public Law 114-4.
    House Report 113-91 directed FEMA to submit a report 
describing options for making housing cooperative and 
condominium associations eligible for Federal disaster 
assistance, including statutory recommendations for making such 
entities directly eligible for assistance based on disaster-
related damages to common areas. In its May 2014 report, FEMA 
stated that it was ``exploring the program implications 
surrounding Stafford Act changes that would authorize FEMA to 
provide federal assistance directly to housing cooperatives and 
condominium associations.'' The Committee directs FEMA to 
provide an updated report to Congress on the status of its 
exploration, including options for statutory changes to the 
Stafford Act and associated changes to regulations or guidance 
that would be required to make housing cooperatives, 
condominium associations, and community associations eligible 
for disaster assistance.
    The Committee notes that FEMA's budget request omits 
estimated carryover funding that will be available in fiscal 
year 2016, leading to a funding request that exceeds FEMA's 
estimated resource requirement. Related to that omission, FEMA 
proposes $1,000,000,000 in new funding for a reserve in fiscal 
year 2016, even though the agency currently plans to carry the 
same amount forward into fiscal year 2016. In order to avoid an 
excess accumulation of carryover funding, FEMA should consider 
only the categories directed for the annual report in Public 
Law 114-4, including anticipated prior year carryover, in 
developing the requirement for the DRF budget request for 
fiscal year 2017 and future years.
    As required by the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act, FEMA has 
begun a formal rulemaking process to revise the evaluation 
criteria for making the Individual Assistance Program available 
following an emergency or major disaster declaration. FEMA is 
directed to provide regular updates to the Committee on the 
rule's progress and timeline.
    House Report 113-481 directed FEMA to review its disaster 
declaration recommendation process, including a review of how 
to more deliberately incorporate the ``localized impacts'' 
factor outlined under Title 44, Part 206.48 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations. The Committee is aware that FEMA has begun 
a formal process for such a review, based in part on 
recommendations made by GAO (12-838) and the OIG (12-79), and 
directs the agency to provide regular updates on its progress 
and timeline.
    The Committee encourages FEMA to thoroughly review the 
eligibility of hazard mitigation projects that are partially on 
Federal land to ensure appropriate use of Hazard Mitigation 
Assistance funds consistent with FEMA's regulations and 
policies.

                 FLOOD HAZARD MAPPING AND RISK ANALYSIS

 
 
 
Appropriation, fiscal year 2015.......................      $100,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2016......................       278,625,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       100,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2015...................             - - -
    Budget request, fiscal year 2016..................      -178,625,000
 

                                Mission

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

                             Recommendation

    The Committee recommends $100,000,000 for Flood Hazard 
Mapping and Risk Analysis, $178,625,000 below the amount 
requested and the same as the amount provided in fiscal year 
2015. The Committee notes that an additional $155,899,000 is 
available for flood plain management and mapping activities 
within the National Flood Insurance Fund (NFIF).

                     NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE FUND

 
 
 
Appropriation, fiscal year 2015.......................      $179,294,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2016......................       181,198,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       181,198,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2015...................        +1,904,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2016..................             - - -
 

                                Mission

    The NFIF, which was established in the Treasury by the 
National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, is a fee-generated fund 
that supports the NFIP. The Act authorizes the Federal 
government to provide flood insurance on a National basis.

                             Recommendation

    The Committee includes bill language providing up to 
$25,299,000 for salaries and expenses to administer the NFIF, 
the same as the amount requested and $1,540,000 above the 
amount provided in fiscal year 2015. Consistent with the budget 
request, the Committee provides $175,000,000 for flood-related 
grants. In addition, not less than $155,899,000 is available 
for flood plain management and flood mapping. Flood mitigation 
funds are available until September 30, 2017, and funds are 
offset by premium collections
    The Committee is concerned that flood insurance policy 
holders may not always be aware of documentation, such as 
elevation certificates, that could make them eligible for lower 
insurance rates. The Committee urges FEMA to work with ``Write 
Your Own'' insurance companies to ensure that such information 
reaches the end user, to include requiring agents to disclose 
to the applicant when an insurance rate is based on the 
elevation optional rating, which may be more expensive.
    The Committee continues to support the Flood Insurance 
Advocate position, and directs FEMA to allocate necessary funds 
under this heading to enable the advocate to carry out his or 
her statutory responsibilities. The Committee also encourages 
the advocate to assist policy holders in accessing resources to 
validate applicable premium rates as FEMA establishes the 
rating criteria for all NFIP policies. The advocate is also 
encouraged to aid potential policy holders under the NFIP in 
obtaining and verifying accurate and reliable flood insurance 
rate information when purchasing or renewing a flood insurance 
policy as directed in the Homeowner Flood Insurance 
Affordability Act of 2014 (42 U.S.C. Sec.  4033(b)(5)).
    The Committee believes that FEMA should continue to provide 
resources for a more robust and timely Community Rating System 
(CRS) Nationwide program. Therefore, the Committee directs FEMA 
to support institutions of higher education, not-for-profit 
organizations, and other entities with expertise in floodplain 
management and disaster risk management that can provide direct 
technical assistance to communities to develop and prepare CRS 
applications.

                  NATIONAL PREDISASTER MITIGATION FUND

 
 
 
Appropriation, fiscal year 2015.......................       $25,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2016......................       200,001,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        25,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2015...................             - - -
    Budget request, fiscal year 2016..................      -175,001,000
 

                                Mission

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

                             Recommendation

    The Committee recommends $25,000,000 for PDM, $175,001,000 
below the amount requested and the same as the amount provided 
in fiscal year 2015. PDM grants are one of the only sources of 
Federal mitigation funding for communities prior to a disaster. 
It has been repeatedly demonstrated that these types of 
investments lead to significant savings by mitigating risks and 
reducing damage from future disasters.
    The Committee notes that PDM funds may be used to improve 
coastal resilience by mitigating the impacts of coastal storms 
and tsunamis. Projects must demonstrate cost-effectiveness, 
technical feasibility, and meet environmental planning and 
historic preservation requirements. FEMA is encouraged to 
assess and strengthen ways PDM can be applied to increase 
resiliency, to include coastal resiliency.

                       EMERGENCY FOOD AND SHELTER

 
 
 
Appropriation, fiscal year 2015.......................      $120,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2016......................       100,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       120,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2015...................             - - -
    Budget request, fiscal year 2016..................       +20,000,000
 

                                Mission

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

                             Recommendation

    The Committee recommends $120,000,000 for EFSP, $20,000,000 
above the amount requested and the same as the amount provided 
in fiscal year 2015. The explanatory statement accompanying the 
fiscal year 2015 Appropriations Act directed FEMA and the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to develop a 
comprehensive strategy for outreach to stakeholders and a full 
transition plan as part of any future proposal to transfer EFSP 
to HUD. Pending the receipt of such a transition plan based on 
stakeholder outreach, the Committee does not recommend the 
transfer of funding and administrative authority for EFSP to 
HUD, which the Department again proposed as part of its fiscal 
year 2016 request.

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


           United States Citizenship and Immigration Services


 
 
 
Appropriation, fiscal year 2015.......................      $124,435,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2016......................       129,671,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       119,671,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2015...................        -4,764,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2016..................       -10,000,000
 

                                Mission

    The mission of United States Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) is to adjudicate and grant immigration and 
citizenship benefits, provide accurate and useful information 
to customers, and promote an awareness and understanding of 
citizenship in support of immigrant integration, while 
protecting the integrity of the Nation's immigration system. 
Funded primarily through fees, the only discretionary spending 
is for the E-Verify program, an information technology system 
that enables employers to determine the eligibility to work in 
the United States of an employee or job applicant.

                             Recommendation

    The Committee recommends $119,671,000 in discretionary 
funding for USCIS, $10,000,000 below the amount requested for 
discretionary activities at USCIS and $4,764,000 below the 
amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The recommendation fully 
funds the request for E-Verify. Although the proposed 
$10,000,000 in discretionary funds for Immigrant Integration 
Grants is not provided, a general provision is included in 
title V of the bill to permit USCIS to spend not more than 
$10,000,000 from user fee revenue to support such grants to 
benefit individuals who are lawfully admitted into the United 
States. Further, the recommendation allows for $10,000 for 
official reception and representation activities and provides 
spending authority levels that are adjusted based on revised 
fiscal year 2016 estimates.
    While the accuracy of database records has improved as E-
Verify's functionality has evolved, additional improvements are 
needed to reduce the number of erroneous determinations of 
ineligibility to work. The Committee notes that USCIS is 
working to finalize a formal review process for E-Verify final 
non-confirmations for implementation in early fiscal year 2016, 
and directs the agency to promptly notify the Committee about 
any expected delays. The Committee strongly supports the 
efforts of the Monitoring and Compliance Division to ensure the 
appropriate use of E-Verify, and directs USCIS to include in 
its budget request for fiscal year 2017 the amount obligated 
for the Monitoring and Compliance Division during the prior 
year, the amount estimated for the current year, and the amount 
proposed for the budget year. Finally, the Committee notes the 
agency's continuing Verification Modernization efforts, which 
will facilitate future growth and accuracy in E-Verify use, and 
directs USCIS to keep the Committee apprised of its plans and 
timelines for system improvements.
    The Committee urges USCIS to consider adding a question 
related to the National Park System to the civics test 
administered during the naturalization process during the next 
regularly scheduled review of the examination.
    A general provision is included directing that none of the 
fees collected, to include any deposits into the Immigration 
Examinations Fee Account, may be obligated to expand the 
existing Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program 
or the newly proposed Deferred Action for Parents of Americans 
and Lawful Permanent Residents program (DAPA), as outlined in a 
memorandum signed November 20, 2014, by the Secretary of 
Homeland Security, while the preliminary injunctive order of 
the United States District Court for the Southern District of 
Texas entered February 16, 2015, in the matter of the State of 
Texas v. United States of America remains in effect.
    The President's budget request assumed higher revenue in 
Adjudication services attributable to fees associated with 
processing additional DACA and DAPA programs created by the 
President's executive action. Because the implementation of the 
actions is enjoined, the fee accounts can be lowered.
    Additionally, a general provision is included allowing for 
returning workers to be exempt from the H-2B numerical 
limitation for fiscal year 2016 only.
    From within the total fee revenue collected, the Committee 
directs USCIS to provide not less than $29,000,000 to continue 
conversion of immigration records to digital format.
    Pay raises for USCIS employees are not supported with 
discretionary appropriations, but rather through fee revenue. 
The bill does not prohibit the use of fee revenue to support 
the proposed pay raise for USCIS but, for purposes of 
consistency with the treatment of other DHS components, makes 
potential savings derived from foregoing the pay raise 
available for E-Verify program enhancements.
    Security checks are an integral part of the U.S. Refugee 
Admissions Program for applicants of all nationalities. It is 
essential that the Federal government performs adequate and 
appropriate security reviews before allowing any refugee to 
come to the United States. Therefore, the Committee directs 
USCIS to ensure that all refugees, including those from Syria, 
are vetted through an extensive security review process, 
including but not limited to biographic and biometric security 
checks, review of terrorist screening databases, and extensive 
interviews with applicants.
    The Committee is aware of concerns that some O-1B and O-2 
non-immigrant visas may have been granted to petitioners who do 
not meet appropriate eligibility criteria. Eligibility for O-1B 
visas is limited to individuals who can demonstrate 
extraordinary ability in the arts or achievement in the motion 
picture or television industry. Eligibility for O-2 visas is 
limited to support personnel for O-1B visa holders. Within 90 
days of the date of enactment of this Act, USCIS shall update 
the Committee on its processes for identifying fraudulent O-1B 
and O-2 petitions, including data on the number of fraudulent 
petitions identified during the past three fiscal years and an 
assessment of whether additional fraud identification and 
prevention measures are needed.
    The Committee directs GAO to assess the effectiveness of 
the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) 
system, including an analysis of: (1) the overall accuracy and 
timeliness of SAVE responses; (2) the extent to which 
naturalized citizens and lawfully present immigrants experience 
delays or denials in obtaining determinations of their 
eligibility for benefits due to SAVE errors or delays; (3) the 
processes for remedying erroneous determinations, including 
protocols for notifying individuals of the opportunity to 
correct records; (4) the process for determining whether an 
agency seeking to enter into a MOU to use SAVE has legal 
authority to use the system for the specified purpose; (5) 
monitoring and compliance reviews; and (6) safeguards to 
protect privacy and prevent misuse of the SAVE system. GAO 
should report to the Committee regarding the preliminary 
results of its analysis within 180 days of the date of 
enactment of this Act.
    The Committee directs USCIS to examine the feasibility of 
soliciting and accepting donations from the private sector to 
enhance the capacity of the Office of Citizenship and the 
Citizenship and Integration Grants program.
    It is in our country's best interest to encourage and 
assist individuals who are eligible and eager to become 
citizens to apply for citizenship and to understand the rights 
and responsibilities of American citizenship. The Committee 
urges USCIS to recognize the important benefit that 
naturalization confers on our Nation by maintaining 
naturalization fees at an affordable level. Such affordability 
may become increasingly difficult due, in part, to the rapid 
increase in recent years of Credible Fear claims and 
affirmative asylum applications. It is appropriate that 
processing fees are not imposed on those seeking asylum, but 
the increase in these claims has begun to tax USCIS's 
resources, which come almost entirely from fee revenue 
associated with processing applications for immigrant and 
nonimmigrant benefits. As USCIS prepares to initiate a new fee 
rule, the Committee urges it to keep in mind the balance 
between providing asylum adjudication at no cost to the 
applicant and fee increases potentially imposed on individuals 
seeking naturalization.
    The Committee is aware of the differences in the 
authorization requirements for wage determination and wage 
surveys for the H-2A and H-2B visa programs under the 
Immigration and Nationality Act. The Committee directs USCIS to 
brief the Committee not later than 90 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act on the requirements for wage 
determination and surveys as required under the law for the two 
programs and how the rule dealing with temporary labor 
certifications from the Department of Labor in March 2015 takes 
these differences into account. The Committee encourages USCIS 
to utilize State provided or third party wage surveys, when 
applicable, in addition to government provided data for the 
purposes of H-2B Temporary Non-Agricultural Employment.
    The Committee directs USCIS to continue to work with local 
public and private groups to hold naturalization and oath of 
allegiance ceremonies as part of community Independence Day 
celebrations. The Committee also encourages USCIS to review 
internal policies that limit its ability to use fee revenue to 
make small grants and to provide agency employee support to 
local community groups that would otherwise be financially 
unable to host such ceremonies.

                Federal Law Enforcement Training Center


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

 
 
 
Appropriation, fiscal year 2015.......................      $230,497,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2016......................       239,141,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       211,502,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2015...................       -18,995,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2016..................       -27,639,000
 

                                Mission

    The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) serves 
as an interagency law enforcement training organization for 
over 90 Federal agencies and numerous State, local, tribal, and 
international law enforcement agencies.

                             Recommendation

    The Committee recommends $211,502,000 for Salaries and 
Expenses, $27,639,000 below the amount requested and 
$18,995,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. A 
reduction of $1,233,000 to the request corresponds to the 
amount associated with the pay raise assumed in the President's 
budget. In addition, because the fiscal year 2015 DHS 
Appropriations Act did not fund a proposed 2,000 new CBP 
officers, the recommendation includes a reduction to the fiscal 
year 2016 request of $26,406,000 associated with the training 
of those officers.
    FLETC delivers training to personnel across all levels of 
law enforcement in a collaborative environment, ensuring 
consistent instruction and uniform understanding of tactics, 
techniques, and procedures. This consolidated approach also 
offers fiscal advantages, leveraging economies of scale and 
shared resources. The Committee supports continued and expanded 
training efforts at FLETC to leverage the center's unique 
capabilities, as appropriate for the mission of its law 
enforcement training participants, instead of less cost-
effective alternatives.
    FLETC is directed to conduct a review of the 
classification, pay, and fringe benefits of its workforce and 
recommend to the Committee on Appropriations and Committee on 
Oversight and Government Reform any legislative changes, 
including changes to the compensation of FLETC personnel, 
deemed necessary to recruit and retain workers with the skills 
and experience required to effectively support FLETC's mission.

     ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENTS, AND RELATED EXPENSES

 
 
 
Appropriation, fiscal year 2015.......................       $27,841,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2016......................        27,553,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        27,553,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2015...................          -288,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2016..................             - - -
 

                                Mission

    This account provides for the acquisition, construction, 
improvements, equipment, furnishings, and related costs for 
expansion and maintenance of FLETC facilities.

                             Recommendation

    As requested, the Committee recommends $27,553,000 for 
Acquisition, Construction, Improvements, and Related Expenses, 
$288,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2015.

                         Science And Technology

    The mission of the Science and Technology Directorate (S&T;) 
is to develop and deploy technologies and capabilities to 
secure the United States homeland.

                     MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

 
 
 
Appropriation, fiscal year 2015.......................      $129,993,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2016......................       132,115,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       131,531,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2015...................        +1,538,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2016..................          -584,000
 

                                Mission

    The Management and Administration appropriation provides 
for the salaries and expenses of S&T.;

                             Recommendation

    The Committee recommends $131,531,000 for Management and 
Administration, $584,000 below the amount requested, and 
$1,538,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The 
recommendation includes $2,400,000, as requested, to provide 
acquisition lifecycle support to DHS and components. The 
reduction to the request corresponds to the amount associated 
with the pay raise assumed in the President's budget.

           RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, ACQUISITION, AND OPERATIONS

 
 
 
Appropriation, fiscal year 2015.......................      $973,915,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2016......................       646,873,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       655,407,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2015...................      -318,508,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2016..................        +8,534,000
 

                                Mission

    S&T; conducts and supports research, development, testing, 
evaluation, and the timely transition of homeland security 
capabilities to Federal, State, and local operational end 
users.

                             Recommendation

    The Committee recommends $655,407,000 for Research, 
Development, Acquisition, and Operations (RDA&O;), $8,534,000 
above the amount requested and $318,508,000 below the amount 
provided in fiscal year 2015.
    A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee 
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget estimate      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research, Development, and               $434,850,000       $434,850,000
 Innovation.......................
Acquisition and Operations Support         47,102,000         47,102,000
Laboratory Facilities.............        133,921,000        133,731,000
University Programs...............         31,000,000         39,724,000
                                   -------------------------------------
    Total, RDA&O..................;       $646,873,000       $655,407,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 Research, Development, and Innovation

    The Committee recommends $434,850,000 for Research, 
Development, and Innovation (RD&I;), the same as the amount 
requested and $22,649,000 below the amount provided in fiscal 
year 2015. S&T; is directed to brief the Committee not later 
than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act on the 
proposed allocation of RD&I; funds by project and thrust area, 
and to provide quarterly status briefings on the plan and any 
changes from the original allocation.
    The Committee continues to support S&T;'s Apex concept, 
which is focused on delivering near-term solutions to address 
high-priority, cross-cutting issues and capability gaps. S&T; is 
directed to brief the Committee not later than 30 days after 
the date of enactment of this Act on the progress made to field 
improved technologies based on this approach.
    The Committee is pleased that S&T; is proceeding with the 
development of a project tracking system, as directed in House 
Report 113-481, and plans to have a partial solution in place 
by the end of fiscal year 2015. A tracking system is necessary 
to provide visibility into all S&T-funded; projects and 
activities, including how each project addresses a specific 
priority or capability gap. However, it is critical that S&T; 
develop the capability to fully track the transition success of 
each project in order to understand the return on investment 
and improve future investment decisions. S&T; is directed to 
brief the Committee, not later than 30 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act, on the progress made in tracking 
projects and activities across S&T; and, as appropriate, through 
their transition to components. As this capability is 
continuing to be developed and improved, the Committee directs 
S&T; to continue to submit quarterly reports on newly funded 
projects, including documentation of how each project meets 
prioritization and funding criteria, and to brief the Committee 
on the results of any portfolio reviews not later than 30 days 
after completion of the review.

            Other Transaction Authority and Prize Authority

    The Committee supports S&T;'s plans to expand its use of 
prize authority to develop and acquire innovative homeland 
security solutions, and encourages S&T; to ensure plans are in 
place to transition prize winners to other contract vehicles if 
further development is warranted. Additionally, the Committee 
expects that S&T; will continue to use its Other Transaction 
Authority to leverage non-traditional partners for research and 
development efforts addressing critical homeland security 
needs.

                 Cybersecurity Research and Development

    The Committee recognizes the importance of the resilience 
and security of the Nation's critical infrastructure--both 
physical and cyber--to National security and economic vitality. 
S&T; is encouraged to support R&D; and education initiatives to 
strengthen these efforts in a collaborative, interdisciplinary 
manner that leverages the private sector, academic 
institutions, and other Federal government organizations, 
including the National Science Foundation's Cyber Scholars 
program.

                      Coastal Surveillance System

    The Committee continues to support the development of a 
Coastal Surveillance System to integrate information from 
existing and new data sources and sensors to improve maritime 
domain awareness, including the tracking of vessels in real 
time to facilitate the interdiction of vessels based on 
anomalous or suspicious behavior.

                        Modeling and Simulation

    The Committee encourages DHS to further explore the use of 
modeling and simulation to provide cost-effective tools for 
training, planning, and other homeland security missions.

                        Non-Intrusive Inspection

    S&T; and CBP are directed to brief the Committee not later 
than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act on the 
feasibility and cost of operational testing of an automated 
non-intrusive inspection system to inspect vehicles more 
quickly in CBP primary and secondary inspection lanes, 
including the associated training for operators and image 
analysts, maintenance, and other support required. Should S&T; 
and CBP determine that conducting such a pilot would be useful, 
the Committee directs S&T; and CBP to implement it using funds 
provided in CBP Salaries and Expenses for non-intrusive 
inspection systems.

               Public Access to Federally Funded Research

    The Committee is aware that S&T; submitted a draft plan to 
enable public access to its Federally funded research to the 
Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) in May 2014, in 
accordance with the guidance issued by OSTP in February 2013. 
S&T; is exploring two implementation options, including hosting 
the research on the DHS website or potentially joining a 
repository hosted by the Department of Defense, the National 
Institutes of Health, or the Department of Education. The 
Committee expects S&T; to expeditiously finalize and implement 
its plan.

                   Acquisition and Operations Support

    The Committee recommends $47,102,000 for Acquisition and 
Operations Support, the same as the amount requested and 
$5,399,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The 
recommendation includes the funds requested for S&T; to provide 
capabilities and requirements analysis in support of the DHS 
Joint Requirements Council, and to oversee Test and Evaluation 
across the DHS acquisition enterprise, consistent with 
Committee's direction in fiscal year 2015.

                         Laboratory Facilities

    The Committee recommends $133,731,000 for Laboratory 
Facilities, $190,000 below the amount requested and 
$301,258,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The 
reduction to the request corresponds to the amount associated 
with the pay raise assumed in the President's budget. As a 
result of the funding provided by Congress in fiscal year 2015 
and prior years for the completion of the National Bio- and 
Agro-defense Facility, the recommendation includes a decrease 
of $300,000,000 below the fiscal year 2015 level as requested.

             University Programs and Centers of Excellence

    The Committee recommends $39,724,000 for University 
Programs and Centers of Excellence (COE), $8,724,000 above the 
request and the same as the amount provided in fiscal year 
2015. The recommendation restores the proposed cuts to 
University Programs to support all existing COEs, including the 
new Critical Infrastructure Resilience COE. The Critical 
Infrastructure Resilience COE will focus on disaster planning 
and resiliency of critical infrastructure, a component of which 
will involve cybersecurity and the importance of cyber health 
to disaster recovery.

                   Domestic Nuclear Detection Office


                     MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

 
 
 
Appropriation, fiscal year 2015.......................       $37,339,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2016......................        38,316,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        38,109,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2015...................          +770,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2016..................          -207,000
 

                                Mission

    The Management and Administration appropriation provides 
for the salaries and expenses of Domestic Nuclear Detection 
Office (DNDO) employees.

                             Recommendation

    The Committee recommends $38,109,000 for Management and 
Administration, $207,000 below the amount requested and 
$770,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The 
reduction to the request corresponds to the amount associated 
with the pay raise assumed in the President's budget.

                 RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND OPERATIONS

 
 
 
Appropriation, fiscal year 2015.......................      $197,900,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2016......................       196,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       196,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2015...................        -1,900,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2016..................             - - -
 

                                Mission

    The Research, Development, and Operations appropriation 
funds all DHS nuclear detection research, development, test, 
evaluation, and operational support activities, and the 
integration and advancement of U.S. nuclear forensics 
capabilities.

                             Recommendation

    The Committee recommends $196,000,000 for Research, 
Development, and Operations, the same as the amount requested 
and $1,900,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2015.
    A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee 
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget estimate      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Systems Engineering and                   $17,000,000        $17,000,000
 Architecture.....................
Systems Development...............         22,000,000         22,000,000
Transformational Research and              68,000,000         68,000,000
 Development......................
Assessments.......................         38,000,000         38,000,000
Operations Support................         31,000,000         31,000,000
National Technical Nuclear                 20,000,000         20,000,000
 Forensics Center.................
                                   -------------------------------------
    Total.........................       $196,000,000       $196,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          SYSTEMS ACQUISITION

 
 
 
Appropriation, fiscal year 2015.......................       $72,603,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2016......................       123,011,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       123,011,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2015...................       +50,408,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2016..................             - - -
 

                                Mission

    The Systems Acquisition appropriation provides for 
acquisition of radiation and nuclear detection equipment for 
DHS components and supports State, local, and tribal 
authorities in the development of nuclear detection 
capabilities for high-threat, high-density urban areas.

                             Recommendation

    The Committee recommends $123,011,000 for Systems 
Acquisition, the same as the amount requested and $50,408,000 
above the amount provided in fiscal year 2015.
    A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee 
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget estimate      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radiological and Nuclear Detection       $101,011,000       $101,011,000
 Equipment (RDE) Acquisition......
Securing the Cities...............         22,000,000         22,000,000
                                   -------------------------------------
    Total.........................       $123,011,000       $123,011,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Radiological and Nuclear Detection Equipment Acquisition

    The Committee recommends $101,011,000 for Radiological and 
Nuclear Detection Equipment (RDE) Acquisition, as requested. 
The Committee accepts the proposal to merge the Human Portable 
Radiation Detection Systems (HPRDS) PPA and Radiation Portal 
Monitor (RPM) Program PPA into a single PPA to enable DNDO to 
manage the acquisition of all detection equipment more 
holistically and to be more responsive to emerging operational 
requirements. The recommendation for RDE Acquisition, which is 
$47,408,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2015 for 
HPRDS and RPMs, will fund the replacement or recapitalization 
of aging RPMs at CBP ports of entry and Border Patrol 
checkpoints and the purchase of HPRDS for CBP, the Coast Guard, 
and TSA.
    The Committee directs DNDO to include a multiyear 
procurement forecast and deployment schedule for RDE 
Acquisition within the fiscal year 2017 budget submission and 
expects DNDO to continue to provide the same level of detail on 
planned acquisitions as in prior reports.
    The Committee directs DNDO to provide a briefing on the 
results of the analysis of alternatives and the path forward 
for the replacement of aging RPMs.

                          Securing the Cities

    The Committee recommends $22,000,000 for the Securing the 
Cities (STC) Program, the same as the amount requested and 
$3,000,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2015, to 
support ongoing efforts in current STC cities and the two 
additional regions to be awarded in fiscal years 2015 and 2016. 
DNDO shall continue to update the Committee on the status of 
existing STC implementations, the transition of mature STC 
programs to a sustainment phase, and the schedule for 
deployments to additional regions.

                 TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS ACT


             (INCLUDING TRANSFERS AND RESCISSIONS OF FUNDS)

    Section 501. The Committee continues a provision providing 
that no part of any appropriation shall remain available for 
obligation beyond the current year unless expressly provided.
    Section 502. The Committee continues a provision providing 
that unexpended balances of prior appropriations may be merged 
with new appropriation accounts and used for the same purpose, 
subject to reprogramming guidelines.
    Section 503. The Committee continues a provision providing 
reprogramming authority for funds within an account and not to 
exceed five percent transfer authority between appropriations 
accounts with the requirement for a 15-day advance 
Congressional notification. A detailed funding table 
identifying each Congressional control level for reprogramming 
purposes is included at the end of this Report. These 
reprogramming guidelines shall be complied with by all agencies 
funded by the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations 
Act, 2016.
    The Department shall submit reprogramming requests on a 
timely basis and provide complete explanations of the 
reallocations proposed, including detailed justifications of 
the increases and offsets, and any specific impact the proposed 
changes will have on the budget request for the following 
fiscal year and future-year appropriations requirements. Each 
request submitted to the Committees on Appropriations should 
include a detailed table showing the proposed revisions at the 
account, program, project, and activity level to the funding 
and staffing (full-time equivalent position) levels for the 
current fiscal year and to the levels requested in the 
President's budget for the following fiscal year.
    The Department shall manage its programs and activities 
within the levels appropriated. The Department should only 
submit reprogramming or transfer requests in the case of an 
unforeseeable emergency or situation that could not have been 
predicted when formulating the budget request for the current 
fiscal year. When the Department submits a reprogramming or 
transfer request to the Committees on Appropriations and does 
not receive identical responses from the House and the Senate, 
it is the responsibility of the Department to reconcile the 
House and the Senate differences before proceeding, and if 
reconciliation is not possible, to consider the reprogramming 
or transfer request not approved.
    The Department is not to submit a reprogramming or transfer 
of funds after June 30 except in extraordinary circumstances 
which imminently threaten the safety of human life or the 
protection of property. If a reprogramming or transfer is 
needed after June 30, the notice should contain sufficient 
documentation as to why it meets this statutory exception.
    Deobligated funds are also subject to the reprogramming and 
transfer guidelines and requirements set forth in this section.
    Section 504. The Committee continues and modifies a 
provision that prohibits funds appropriated or otherwise made 
available to the Department to make payment to the Department's 
Working Capital Fund, except for activities and amounts allowed 
in the President's fiscal year 2016 request. Funds provided to 
the WCF are available until expended. The Department can only 
charge components for direct usage of the WCF, and these funds 
may be used only for the purposes consistent with the 
contributing component. Any funds paid in advance or reimbursed 
must reflect the full cost of each service. The WCF shall be 
subject to the requirements of section 503 of this Act.
    Section 505. The Committee continues a provision providing 
that not to exceed 50 percent of unobligated balances remaining 
at the end of fiscal year 2016 from appropriations made for 
salaries and expenses shall remain available through fiscal 
year 2017 subject to section 503 reprogramming guidelines.
    Section 506. The Committee continues a provision providing 
that funds for intelligence activities are deemed to be 
specifically authorized during fiscal year 2016 until the 
enactment of an Act authorizing intelligence activities for 
fiscal year 2016.
    Section 507. The Committee continues a provision requiring 
notification of the Committees on Appropriations three days 
before grant allocations, grant awards, contract awards, other 
transactional agreements, letter of intents, or task or 
delivery order on a multiple contract award totaling $1,000,000 
or more, or a task order greater than $10,000,000 from 
multiyear funds, is announced by the Department, including 
contracts covered by the Federal Acquisition Regulation. The 
Department is required to brief the Committees on 
Appropriations five full business days prior to announcing the 
intention to make a grant under State and Local Programs. 
Notification shall include a description of the project or 
projects to be funded, including city, county and State.
    Section 508. The Committee continues a provision providing 
that no agency shall purchase, construct, or lease additional 
facilities for Federal law enforcement training without advance 
approval of the Committees on Appropriations.
    Section 509. The Committee continues a provision providing 
that none of the funds may be used for any construction, 
repair, alteration, or acquisition project for which a 
prospectus, if required under chapter 33 of Title 40, United 
States Code, has not been approved.
    Section 510. The Committee continues a provision that 
consolidates by reference prior year statutory bill language 
into one provision. These provisions relate to contracting 
officer's technical representative training; sensitive security 
information, as modified; and the use of funds in conformance 
with section 303 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992.
    Section 511. The Committee continues a provision that none 
of the funds may be used in contravention of the Buy American 
Act.
    Section 512. The Committee continues a provision regarding 
the oath of allegiance required by section 337 of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act.
    Section 513. The Committee continues a provision requiring 
the Chief Financial Officer to submit monthly budget execution 
and staffing reports within 30 days after the close of each 
month.
    Section 514. The Committee continues a provision that 
directs that any funds appropriated or transferred to TSA 
``Aviation Security'', ``Administration'', and ``Transportation 
Security Support'' in fiscal years 2004 and 2005, which are 
recovered or deobligated, shall be available only for 
procurement and installation of explosive detection systems for 
air cargo, baggage, and checkpoint screening systems, subject 
to notification. The Committee also requires semiannual reports 
on recovered or deobligated funds.
    Section 515. The Committee continues a provision limiting 
the use of A-76 competitions by USCIS.
    Section 516. The Committee continues a provision requiring 
any funds appropriated to the Coast Guard's 110-123 foot patrol 
boat conversion that are recovered, collected, or otherwise 
received as a result of negotiation, mediation, or litigation, 
shall be available until expended for the Fast Response Cutter 
program.
    Section 517. The Committee continues a provision 
classifying the functions of the instructor staff at the 
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center as inherently 
governmental for purposes of the Federal Activities Inventory 
Reform Act.
    Section 518. The Committee continues a provision regarding 
grants or contracts awarded by any means other than full and 
open competition. The Inspector General is required to review 
Departmental contracts awarded noncompetitively and report on 
the results to the Committees.
    Section 519. The Committee continues a provision that 
prohibits funding for any position designated as a Principal 
Federal Official during a Stafford Act declared disaster or 
emergency.
    Section 520. The Committee continues and modifies a 
provision that precludes DHS from using funds in this Act to 
carry out reorganization authority unless otherwise authorized 
by law. This prohibition is not intended to prevent the 
Department from carrying out routine or small reallocations of 
personnel or functions within components, subject to section 
503 of this Act. This language prevents large scale 
reorganization of the Department, which the Committee believes 
should be acted on statutorily by the relevant Congressional 
committees of jurisdiction.
    Section 521. The Committee continues a provision 
prohibiting funding to grant an immigration benefit to any 
individual unless the results of background checks required in 
statute, to be completed prior to the grant of the benefit, 
have been received by DHS.
    Section 522. The Committee continues a provision relating 
to other transactional authority of the DHS through fiscal year 
2016.
    Section 523. The Committee continues a provision that 
requires the Secretary to link all contracts that provide award 
fees to successful acquisition outcomes.
    Section 524. The Committee continues and modifies a 
provision that requires the Secretary to notify the Congress 
within 2 business days of any request for a waiver for the 
transport of oil from and to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
    Section 525. The Committee continues a provision related to 
prescription drugs.
    Section 526. The Committee continues a provision requiring 
the Secretary of Homeland Security, in conjunction with the 
Secretary of Treasury, to notify the Committees of any proposed 
transfers from the Department of Treasury Forfeiture Fund to 
any agency within the Department of Homeland Security. No funds 
may be obligated until the Subcommittees approve the proposed 
transfers.
    Section 527. The Committee continues a provision 
prohibiting funds for planning, testing, piloting or developing 
a National identification card.
    Section 528. The Committee continues a provision directing 
that any official required by this Act to report or certify to 
the Committees on Appropriations may not delegate any authority 
unless expressly authorized to do so in this Act.
    Section 529. The Committee continues a provision 
prohibiting the use of funds for the transfer or release of 
individuals detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo 
Bay, Cuba.
    Section 530. The Committee continues a provision 
prohibiting funds in this Act to be used for first-class 
travel.
    Section 531. The Committee continues a provision 
prohibiting funds to be used to employ illegal workers as 
described in Section 274A(h)(3) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act.
    Section 532. The Committee continues a provision 
prohibiting funds appropriated or otherwise made available by 
this Act to pay for award or incentive fees for contractors 
with below satisfactory performance or performance that fails 
to meet the basic requirements of the contract.
    Section 533. The Committee continues a provision that 
requires any new processes developed to screen aviation 
passengers and crews for transportation or National security to 
consider privacy and civil liberties, consistent with 
applicable laws, regulations, and guidance.
    Section 534. The Committee continues a provision that makes 
deposits into the Immigration Examinations Fee Account 
available to USCIS for the purposes of immigrant integration 
grants, not to exceed $10,000,000, in fiscal year 2016. Grants 
may not be used to provide services to aliens who have not been 
lawfully admitted for permanent residence.
    Section 535. The Committee continues and modifies a 
provision providing funding for the Department headquarters 
consolidation project.
    Section 536. The Committee continues a provision 
prohibiting funds appropriated or otherwise made available by 
this Act from being used to enter into Federal contracts unless 
in accordance with the Federal Property and Administrative 
Services Act or the Federal Acquisition Regulation, unless 
otherwise authorized by statute.
    Section 537. The Committee continues and modifies a 
provision providing $52,977,000 for Financial Systems 
Modernization efforts across the Department.
    Section 538. The Committee continues a provision permitting 
the Secretary to transfer up to $20,000,000 to address 
immigration emergencies notwithstanding section 503 of this 
Act.
    Section 539. The Committee continues a provision regarding 
disposal of Service Processing Centers or other ICE owned 
detention facilities.
    Section 540. The Committee continues a provision requiring 
the Secretary to enforce existing immigration laws.
    Section 541. The Committee continues provision regarding 
restrictions on electronic access to pornography, except for 
necessary law enforcement purposes.
    Section 542. The Committee continues a provision regarding 
the transfer of firearms by Federal law enforcement personnel.
    Section 543. The Committee continues a provision 
prohibiting funds from being obligated to implement the 
National Preparedness Grant Program or any other successor 
grant program unless specifically authorized by Congress.
    Section 544. The Committee continues a provision 
prohibiting funds for the position of Public Advocate or a 
successor position within ICE.
    Section 545. The Committee includes a new provision 
permitting CBP to conduct a ten airport of entry pilot program 
in accordance with section 559 of division F of Public Law 113-
76.
    Section 546. The Committee continues a provision regarding 
funding restrictions and reporting requirements regarding 
conferences occurring outside of the United States.
    Section 547. The Committee continues a provision 
prohibiting the reimbursement of funds to any Federal 
Department or agency for its participation in a NSSE.
    Section 548. The Committee continues a provision 
prohibiting new preclearance locations unless specified 
conditions are met.
    Section 549. The Committee continues a provision 
prohibiting any funds from this or any other Act to be used to 
require airport operators to provide airport-financed staffing 
to monitor exit points from the sterile area of airports at 
which TSA provided such monitoring as of December 1, 2013.
    Section 550. The Committee continues a provision pertaining 
to the temporary reemployment of administrative law judges for 
arbitration dispute resolution.
    Section 551. The Committee continues and modifies a 
provision regarding the availability of COBRA fee revenue.
    Section 552. The Committee continues a provision directing 
the inclusion of budget justification for any structural pay 
reform that affects more than 100 FTE employee positions or 
costs more than $5,000,000.
    Section 553. The Committee continues a provision requiring 
DHS to post Committee-required reports on a DHS public website 
under certain circumstances.
    Section 554. The Committee continues and modifies a 
provision allowing the costs of providing humanitarian relief 
to unaccompanied alien children and to alien adults and their 
minor children to be an eligible use for certain Homeland 
Security grants.
    Section 555. The Committee includes a new provision 
providing TSA additional authority to reprogram funds within 
the Aviation Security appropriation or transfer funds from the 
Transportation Security Support appropriation to the Screening 
Partnership Program PPA.
    Section 556. The Committee includes a new provision 
directing that all DHS acquisition programs meet established 
acquisition documentation requirements.
    Section 557. The Committee includes a new provision 
withholding acquisition funds from particular accounts in CBP, 
Coast Guard, and FEMA until these components meet specified 
acquisition requirements.
    Section 558. The Committee continues a new provision 
directing DHS fiscal year 2017 budget request and accompanying 
justification material be reorganized to follow a common 
appropriation structure, as specified.
    Section 559. The Committee includes a new provision 
prohibiting funds from being used by DHS to approve, license, 
facilitate, authorize, or allow the trafficking or import of 
property confiscated by the Cuban Government.
    Section 560. The Committee includes a new provision 
prohibiting funds to expand or implement certain immigration 
programs while the injunctive order of Civ. No. B-14-254 
remains in effect.
    Section 561. The Committee includes a new provision that 
amends 8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(9)(A).
    Section 562. The Committee includes language prohibiting 
funds for the creation or continued use of metal badges 
resembling those used by law enforcement personnel by the 
Transportation Security Administration.
    Section 563. The Committee includes language prohibiting 
ICE from paying for abortions except in certain circumstances.
    Section 564. The Committee includes language prohibiting 
ICE from requiring any person to perform an abortion.
    Section 565. The Committee includes language authorizing 
ICE to escort female detainees outside the detention 
facilities.
    Section 566. The Committee includes language prohibiting 
the release from custody any alien described in the Priority 1 
or Priority 2 category in the memorandum from the Secretary of 
Homeland Security dated November 20, 2014.
    Section 567. The Committee includes language making States 
or political subdivisions ineligible to receive any Department 
of Homeland Security "State and Local Programs" grants if the 
Secretary of Homeland Security determines they are a location 
with a statute, policy, or practice that prohibits local law 
enforcement officers from assisting or cooperating with Federal 
immigration law enforcement.
    Section 568. The Committee continues and modifies a 
provision rescinding unobligated balances from specified 
programs.
    Section 569. The Committee continues and modifies a 
provision rescinding specified funds from the Treasury 
Forfeiture Fund.
    Section 570. The Committee continues and modifies language 
rescinding unobligated balances from the FEMA DRF.
    Section 571. The Committee includes language specifying the 
amount by which new budget authority in the bill is less than 
the fiscal year 2016 budget allocation.

    APPROPRIATIONS CAN BE USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH MADE

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

              HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORT REQUIREMENTS

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

                          FULL COMMITTEE VOTES

    Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of 
the Rules of the House of Representatives, the results of each 
roll call vote on an amendment of on the motion to report, 
together with the names of those voting for and those voting 
against, are printed below:


         STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

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

                          RESCISSION OF FUNDS

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following table is submitted 
describing the rescissions recommended in the accompanying 
bill:
        Account / Activity                                   Rescissions
Public Law 109-88............................................$27,338,000
CBP, BSFIT (70x0553)..........................................66,600,000
Public Law 114-4, CBP, BSFIT..................................31,950,000
Public Law 114-4, TSA, Aviation Security......................30,000,000
Public Law 114-4, TSA, Surface Transportation Security........22,000,000
Public Law 114-4, TSA, Intelligence and Vetting............... 8,000,000
Public Law 114-4, TSA, Transportation Security Support........26,000,000
Public Law 113-6, Coast Guard, AC&I...........................; 4,741,699
Public Law 113-76, Coast Guard, AC&I..........................12;,542,022
Public Law 114-4, Coast Guard, AC&I...........................; 2,305,000
Public Law 114-4, USSS, Acquisition, Construction, 
    Improvements & Related Expenses........................... 9,100,000
Public Law 113-6, S&T;, RDA&O..................................;   393,178
Public Law 113-76, S&T;, RDA&O.................................; 8,500,000
Public Law 114-4, S&T;, RDA&O..................................; 1,106,822
Treasury Asset Forfeiture Fund...............................176,000,000
FEMA Disaster Relief Fund (70-X-0702)......................1,265,864,000

                           TRANSFER OF FUNDS

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

            Appropriation Transfers Recommended in the Bill


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Account from which transfer is
    Account to which transfer is to be made         Amount                 to be made                 Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of Inspector General...................     $24,000,000  FEMA--Disaster Relief Fund......     $24,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DISCLOSURE OF EARMARKS AND CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS

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

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

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

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

                          (Public Law 107-206)

AN ACT Making supplemental appropriations for further recovery from and 
response to terrorist attacks on the United States for the fiscal year 
           ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes.



           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
                                TITLE I

SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 12--DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS CHAPTER

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


  Sec. 1202. (a) The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center 
may, for a period ending not later than [December 31, 2017] 
December 31, 2018, appoint and maintain a cadre of up to 350 
Federal annuitants: (1) without regard to any provision of 
title 5, United States Code, which might otherwise require the 
application of competitive hiring procedures; and (2) who shall 
not be subject to any reduction in pay (for annuity allocable 
to the period of actual employment) under the provisions of 
section 8344 or 8468 of such title 5 or similar provision of 
any other retirement system for employees. A reemployed Federal 
annuitant as to whom a waiver of reduction under paragraph (2) 
applies shall not, for any period during which such waiver is 
in effect, be considered an employee for purposes of subchapter 
III of chapter 83 or chapter 84 of title 5, United States Code, 
or such other retirement system (referred to in paragraph (2)) 
as may apply.
  (b) No appointment under this section may be made which would 
result in the displacement of any employee.
  (c) For purposes of this section--
          (1) the term ``Federal annuitant'' means an employee 
        who has retired under the Civil Service Retirement 
        System, the Federal Employees' Retirement System, or 
        any other retirement system for employees;
          (2) the term ``employee'' has the meaning given such 
        term by section 2105 of such title 5; and
          (3) the counting of Federal annuitants shall be done 
        on a full time equivalent basis.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


                     HOMELAND SECURITY ACT OF 2002



           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
TITLE VIII--COORDINATION WITH NON-FEDERAL ENTITIES; INSPECTOR GENERAL; 
UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE; COAST GUARD; GENERAL PROVISIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                        Subtitle D--Acquisitions

SEC. 831. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS.

  (a) Authority.--[Until September 30, 2015,] Until September 
30, 2016, and subject to subsection (d), the Secretary may 
carry out a pilot program under which the Secretary may 
exercise the following authorities:
          (1) In general.--When the Secretary carries out 
        basic, applied, and advanced research and development 
        projects, including the expenditure of funds for such 
        projects, the Secretary may exercise the same authority 
        (subject to the same limitations and conditions) with 
        respect to such research and projects as the Secretary 
        of Defense may exercise under section 2371 of title 10, 
        United States Code (except for subsections (b) and 
        (f)), after making a determination that the use of a 
        contract, grant, or cooperative agreement for such 
        project is not feasible or appropriate. The annual 
        report required under subsection (b) of this section, 
        as applied to the Secretary by this paragraph, shall be 
        submitted to the President of the Senate and the 
        Speaker of the House of Representatives.
          (2) Prototype projects.--The Secretary may, under the 
        authority of paragraph (1), carry out prototype 
        projects in accordance with the requirements and 
        conditions provided for carrying out prototype projects 
        under section 845 of the National Defense Authorization 
        Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-160). In 
        applying the authorities of that section 845, 
        subsection (c) of that section shall apply with respect 
        to prototype projects under this paragraph, and the 
        Secretary shall perform the functions of the Secretary 
        of Defense under subsection (d) thereof.
  (b) Procurement of Temporary and Intermittent Services.--The 
Secretary may--
          (1) procure the temporary or intermittent services of 
        experts or consultants (or organizations thereof) in 
        accordance with section 3109(b) of title 5, United 
        States Code; and
          (2) whenever necessary due to an urgent homeland 
        security need, procure temporary (not to exceed 1 year) 
        or intermittent personal services, including the 
        services of experts or consultants (or organizations 
        thereof), without regard to the pay limitations of such 
        section 3109.
  (c) Additional Requirements.--
          (1) In general.--The authority of the Secretary under 
        this section shall terminate [September 30, 2015,] 
        September 30, 2016, unless before that date the 
        Secretary--
                  (A) issues policy guidance detailing the 
                appropriate use of that authority; and
                  (B) provides training to each employee that 
                is authorized to exercise that authority.
          (2) Report.--The Secretary shall provide an annual 
        report to the Committees on Appropriations of the 
        Senate and the House of Representatives, the Committee 
        on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the 
        Senate, and the Committee on Homeland Security of the 
        House of Representatives detailing the projects for 
        which the authority granted by subsection (a) was used, 
        the rationale for its use, the funds spent using that 
        authority, the outcome of each project for which that 
        authority was used, and the results of any audits of 
        such projects.
  (d) Definition of Nontraditional Government Contractor.--In 
this section, the term ``nontraditional Government contractor'' 
has the same meaning as the term ``nontraditional defense 
contractor'' as defined in section 845(e) of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-
160; 10 U.S.C. 2371 note).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


                  CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2014

                          (Public Law 113-76)

 AN ACT Making consolidated appropriations for the fiscal year ending 
              September 30, 2014, and for other purposes.



           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
DIVISION F--DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2014

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                                TITLE V

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

(INCLUDING RESCISSIONS OF FUNDS)

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


  Sec. 559. (a) In General.--In addition to existing 
authorities, the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection, in collaboration with the Administrator of General 
Services, is authorized to conduct a pilot program in 
accordance with this section to permit U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection to enter into partnerships with private sector and 
government entities at ports of entry for certain services and 
to accept certain donations.
  (b) Rule of Construction.--Except as otherwise provided in 
this section, nothing in this section may be construed as 
affecting in any manner the responsibilities, duties, or 
authorities of U.S. Customs and Border Protection or the 
General Services Administration.
  (c) Duration.--The pilot program described in subsection (a) 
shall be for five years. A partnership entered into during such 
pilot program may last as long as required to meet the terms of 
such partnership. At the end of such five year period, the 
Commissioner may request that such pilot program be made 
permanent.
  (d) Coordination.--
          (1) In general.--The Commissioner, in consultation 
        with participating private sector and government 
        entities in a partnership under subsection (a), shall 
        provide the Administrator with information relating to 
        U.S. Customs and Border Protection's requirements for 
        new facilities or upgrades to existing facilities at 
        land ports of entry.
          (2) Criteria.--The Commissioner and the Administrator 
        shall establish criteria for entering into a 
        partnership under subsection (a) that include the 
        following:
                  (A) Selection and evaluation of potential 
                partners.
                  (B) Identification and documentation of roles 
                and responsibilities between U.S. Customs and 
                Border Protection, General Services 
                Administration, and private and government 
                partners.
                  (C) Identification, allocation, and 
                management of explicit and implicit risks of 
                partnering between U.S. Customs and Border 
                Protection, General Services Administration, 
                and private and government partners.
                  (D) Decision-making and dispute resolution 
                processes in partnering arrangements.
                  (E) Criteria and processes for U.S. Customs 
                and Border Protection and General Services 
                Administration to terminate agreements if 
                private or government partners are not meeting 
                the terms of such a partnership, including the 
                security standards established by U.S. Customs 
                and Border Protection.
          (3) Evaluation plan.--The Commissioner, in 
        collaboration with the Administrator, shall submit to 
        the Committee on Homeland Security, the Committee on 
        Transportation and Infrastructure, and the Committee on 
        Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the 
        Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
        Affairs, the Committee on Environment and Public Works, 
        and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, an 
        evaluation plan for the pilot program described in 
        subsection (a) that includes the following:
                  (A) Well-defined, clear, and measurable 
                objectives.
                  (B) Performance criteria or standards for 
                determining the performance of such pilot 
                program.
                  (C) Clearly articulated evaluation 
                methodology, including--
                          (i) sound sampling methods;
                          (ii) a determination of appropriate 
                        sample size for the evaluation design;
                          (iii) a strategy for tracking such 
                        pilot program's performance; and
                          (iv) an evaluation of the final 
                        results.
                  (D) A plan detailing the type and source of 
                data necessary to evaluate such pilot program, 
                methods for data collection, and the timing and 
                frequency of data collection.
  (e) Authority to Enter Into Agreements for the Provision of 
Certain Services at Ports of Entry.--
          (1) In general.--Notwithstanding section 13031(e) of 
        the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 
        1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(e)) and section 451 of the Tariff 
        Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1451), the Commissioner may, 
        during the pilot program described in subsection (a) 
        and upon the request of a private sector or government 
        entity with which U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
        has entered into a partnership, enter into a 
        reimbursable fee agreement with such entity under 
        which--
                  (A) U.S. Customs and Border Protection will 
                provide services described in paragraph (2) at 
                a port of entry;
                  (B) such entity will pay a fee imposed under 
                paragraph (4) to reimburse U.S. Customs and 
                Border Protection for the costs incurred in 
                providing such services; and
                  (C) each facility at which U.S. Customs and 
                Border Protection services are performed shall 
                be provided, maintained, and equipped by such 
                entity, without cost to the Federal Government, 
                in accordance with U.S. Customs and Border 
                Protection specifications.
          (2) Services described.--Services described in this 
        paragraph are any activities of any employee or 
        contractor of U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
        pertaining to customs, agricultural processing, border 
        security, and immigration inspection-related matters at 
        ports of entry.
          (3) Limitations.--
                  (A) Impacts of services.--The Commissioner 
                may not enter into a reimbursable fee agreement 
                under this subsection if such agreement would 
                unduly and permanently impact services funded 
                in this or any other appropriations Act, or 
                provided from any account in the Treasury of 
                the United States derived by the collection of 
                fees.
                  (B) For certain costs.--The authority found 
                in this subsection may not be used at U.S. 
                Customs and Border Protection-serviced air 
                ports of entry to enter into reimbursable fee 
                agreements for costs other than payment of 
                overtime and the salaries, trainingand benefits 
                of individuals employed by U.S. Customs 
                andBorder Protection to support U.S. Customs 
                and Border Protectionofficers in performing law 
                enforcement functions at portsof entry, 
                including primary and secondary processing of 
                passengers.
                  (C) The authority found in this subsection 
                may not be used to enter into new preclearance 
                agreements or begin to provide U.S. Customs and 
                Border Protection services outside of the 
                United States.
                  (D) The authority found in this subsection 
                shall be limited with respect to U.S. Customs 
                and Border Protection-serviced air ports of 
                entry to [five] ten pilots per year.
          (4) Fee.--
                  (A) In general.--The amount of the fee to be 
                charged pursuant to an agreement authorized 
                under paragraph (1) shall be paid by each 
                private sector and government entity requesting 
                U.S. Customs and Border Protection services, 
                and shall include the salaries and expenses of 
                individuals employed by U.S. Customs and Border 
                Protection to provide such services and other 
                costs incurred by U.S. Customs and Border 
                Protection relating to such services, such as 
                temporary placement or permanent relocation of 
                such individuals.
                  (B) Oversight of fees.--The Commissioner 
                shall develop a process to oversee the 
                activities reimbursed by the fees charged 
                pursuant to an agreement authorized under 
                paragraph (1) that includes the following:
                          (i) A determination and report on the 
                        full costs of providing services, 
                        including direct and indirect costs, 
                        including a process for increasing such 
                        fees as necessary.
                          (ii) Establishment of a monthly 
                        remittance schedule to reimburse 
                        appropriations.
                          (iii) Identification of overtime 
                        costs to be reimbursed by such fees.
          (5) Deposit of funds.--Funds collected pursuant to 
        any agreement entered into under paragraph (1) shall be 
        deposited as offsetting collections and remain 
        available until expended, without fiscal year 
        limitation, and shall directly reimburse each 
        appropriation for the amount paid out of that 
        appropriation for any expenses incurred by U.S. Customs 
        and Border Protection in providing U.S. Customs and 
        Border Protection services and any other costs incurred 
        by U.S. Customs and Border Protection relating to such 
        services.
          (6) Termination.--The Commissioner shall terminate 
        the provision of services pursuant to an agreement 
        entered into under paragraph (1) with a private sector 
        or government entity that, after receiving notice from 
        the Commissioner that a fee imposed under paragraph (4) 
        is due, fails to pay such fee in a timely manner. In 
        the event of such termination, all costs incurred by 
        U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which have not been 
        reimbursed, will become immediately due and payable. 
        Interest on unpaid fees will accrue based on current 
        Treasury borrowing rates. Additionally, any private 
        sector or government entity that, after notice and 
        demand for payment of any fee charged under paragraph 
        (4), fails to pay such fee in a timely manner shall be 
        liable for a penalty or liquidated damage equal to two 
        times the amount of such fee. Any amount collected 
        pursuant to any agreement entered into under paragraph 
        (1) shall be deposited into the account specified under 
        paragraph (5) and shall be available as described 
        therein.
          (7) Notification.--The Commissioner shall notify the 
        Congress 15 days prior to entering into any agreement 
        under paragraph (1) and shall provide a copy of such 
        agreement.
  (f) Donations.--
          (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the 
        Commissioner and the Administrator may, during the 
        pilot program described in subsection (a), accept a 
        donation of real or personal property (including 
        monetary donations) or nonpersonal services from any 
        private sector or government entity with which U.S. 
        Customs and Border Protection has entered into a 
        partnership.
          (2) Allowable uses of donations.--The Commissioner 
        and the Administrator, with respect to any donation 
        provided pursuant to paragraph (1), may--
                  (A) use such donation for necessary 
                activities related to the construction, 
                alteration, operation, or maintenance of an 
                existing port of entry facility under the 
                jurisdiction, custody, and control of the 
                Commissioner, including expenses related to--
                          (i) land acquisition, design, 
                        construction, repair and alteration;
                          (ii) furniture, fixtures, and 
                        equipment;
                          (iii) the deployment of technology 
                        and equipment; and
                          (iv) operations and maintenance; or
                  (B) transfer such property or services to the 
                Administrator for necessary activities 
                described in subparagraph (A) related to a new 
                or existing port of entry under the 
                jurisdiction, custody, and control of the 
                Administrator, subject to chapter 33 of title 
                40, United States Code. Such transfer shall not 
                be required for personal property, including 
                furniture, fixtures, and equipment.
          (3) Consultation and budget.--
                  (A) With the private sector or government 
                entity.--To accept a donation described in 
                paragraph (1), the Commissioner and the 
                Administrator shall--
                          (i) consult with the appropriate 
                        stakeholders and the private sector or 
                        government entity that is providing the 
                        donation and provide such entity with a 
                        description of the intended use of such 
                        donation; and
                          (ii) submit to the Committee on 
                        Appropriations, the Committee on 
                        Homeland Security, and the Committee on 
                        Transportation and Infrastructure of 
                        the House of Representatives and the 
                        Committee on Appropriations, the 
                        Committee on Homeland Security and 
                        Governmental Affairs, and the Committee 
                        on Environment and Public Works of the 
                        Senate a report not later than one year 
                        after the date of enactment of this 
                        Act, and annually thereafter, that 
                        describes--
                                  (I) the accepted donations 
                                received under this subsection;
                                  (II) the ports of entry that 
                                received such donations; and
                                  (III) how each donation 
                                helped facilitate the 
                                construction, alternation, 
                                operation, or maintenance of a 
                                new or existing land port of 
                                entry.
                  (B) Savings provision.--Nothing in this 
                paragraph may be construed to--
                          (i) create any right or liability of 
                        the parties referred to in subparagraph 
                        (A); or
                          (ii) affect any consultation 
                        requirement under any other law.
          (4) Evaluation procedures.--Not later than 180 days 
        after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
        Commissioner, in consultation with the Administrator, 
        shall establish procedures for evaluating a proposal 
        submitted by a private sector or government entity to 
        make a donation of real or personal property (including 
        monetary donations) or nonpersonal services under 
        paragraph (1) relating to a port of entry under the 
        jurisdiction, custody and control of the Commissioner 
        or the Administrator and make any such evaluation 
        criteria publicly available.
          (5) Considerations.--In determining whether or not to 
        approve a proposal referred to in paragraph (4), the 
        Commissioner or the Administrator shall consider--
                  (A) the impact of such proposal on the port 
                of entry at issue and other ports of entry on 
                the same border;
                  (B) the potential of such proposal to 
                increase trade and travel efficiency through 
                added capacity;
                  (C) the potential of such proposal to enhance 
                the security of the port of entry at issue;
                  (D) the funding available to complete the 
                intended use of a donation under this 
                subsection, if such donation is real property;
                  (E) the costs of maintaining and operating 
                such donation;
                  (F) whether such donation, if real property, 
                satisfies the requirements of such proposal, or 
                whether additional real property would be 
                required;
                  (G) an explanation of how such donation, if 
                real property, was secured, including if 
                eminent domain was used;
                  (H) the impact of such proposal on staffing 
                requirements; and
                  (I) other factors that the Commissioner or 
                Administrator determines to be relevant.
          (6) Unconditional monetary donations.--A monetary 
        donation shall be made unconditionally, although the 
        donor may specify--
                  (A) the port of entry facility or facilities 
                to be benefitted from such donation; and
                  (B) the timeframe during which such donation 
                shall be used.
          (7) Supplemental funding.--Real or personal property 
        (including monetary donations) or nonpersonal services 
        donated pursuant to paragraph (1) may be used in 
        addition to any other funding (including appropriated 
        funds), property, or services made available for the 
        same purpose.
          (8) Return of donations.--If the Commissioner or the 
        Administrator does not use the real property or 
        monetary donation donated pursuant to paragraph (1) for 
        the specific port of entry facility or facilities 
        designated by the donor or within the timeframe 
        specified by the donor, such donated real property or 
        money may be returned to the donor. No interest shall 
        be owed to the donor with respect to any donation of 
        funding provided under such paragraph (1) that is 
        returned pursuant to this paragraph.
          (9) Savings provision.--Nothing in this subsection 
        may be construed to affect or alter the existing 
        authority of the Commissioner or the Administrator to 
        construct, alter, operate, and maintain port of entry 
        facilities.
  (g) Annual Reports.--The Commissioner, in collaboration with 
the Administrator, shall annually submit to the Committee on 
Homeland Security and the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a 
report on the pilot program and activities undertaken pursuant 
thereto in accordance with this Act.
  (h) Definitions.--In this section--
          (1) the term ``private sector entity'' means any 
        corporation, partnership, trust, association, or any 
        other private entity, or any officer, employee, or 
        agent thereof;
          (2) the term ``Commissioner'' means the Commissioner 
        of U.S. Customs and Border Protection; and
          (3) the term ``Administrator'' means the 
        Administrator of General Services.
  (i) Role of General Services Administration.--Under this 
section, collaboration with the Administrator of General 
Services is required only with respect to partnerships at land 
ports of entry.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


                    IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT



           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
TITLE II--IMMIGRATION

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


 Chapter 2--Qualifications for Admission of Aliens; Travel Control of 
Citizens and Aliens

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                       admission of nonimmigrants

  Sec. 214. (a)(1) The admission to the United States of any 
alien as a nonimmigrant shall be for such time and under such 
conditions as the Attorney General may by regulations 
prescribe, including when he deems necessary the giving of a 
bond with sufficient surety in such sum and containing such 
conditions as the Attorney General shall prescribe, to insure 
that at the expiration of such time or upon failure to maintain 
the status under which he was admitted, or to maintain any 
status subsequently acquired under section 248, such alien will 
depart from the United States. No alien admitted to Guam or the 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands without a visa 
pursuant to section 212(l) may be authorized to enter or stay 
in the United States other than in Guam or the Commonwealth of 
the Northern Mariana Islands or to remain in Guam or the 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands for a period 
exceeding 45 days from date of admission to Guam or the 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. No alien admitted 
to the United States without a visa pursuant to section 217 may 
be authorized to remain in the United States as a nonimmigrant 
visitor for a period exceeding 90 days from the date of 
admission.
  (2)(A) The period of authorized status as a nonimmigrant 
described in section 101(a)(15)(O) shall be for such period as 
the Attorney General may specify in order to provide for the 
event (or events) for which the nonimmigrant is admitted.
  (B) The period of authorized status as a nonimmigrant 
described in section 101(a)(15)(P) shall be for such period as 
the Attorney General may specify in order to provide for the 
competition, event, or performance for which the nonimmigrant 
is admitted. In the case of nonimmigrants admitted as 
individual athletes under section 101(a)(15)(P), the period of 
authorized status may be for an initial period (not to exceed 5 
years) during which the nonimmigrant will perform as an athlete 
and such period may be extended by the Attorney General for an 
additional period of up to 5 years.
  (b) Every alien (other than a nonimmigrant described in 
subparagraph (L) or (V) of section 101(a)(15), and other than a 
nonimmigrant described in any provision of section 
101(a)(15)(H)(i) except subclause (b1) of such section) shall 
be presumed to be an immigrant until he establishes to the 
satisfaction of the consular officer, at the time of 
application for a visa, and the immigration officers, at the 
time of application for admission, that he is entitled to a 
nonimmigrant status under section 101(a)(15). An alien who is 
an officer or employee of any foreign government or of any 
international organization entitled to enjoy privileges, 
exemptions, and immunities under the International 
Organizations Immunities Act, or an alien who is the attendant, 
servant, employee, or member of the immediate family of any 
such alien shall not be entitled to apply for or receive an 
immigrant visa, or to enter the United States as an immigrant 
unless he executes a written waiver in the same form and 
substance as is prescribed by section 247(b).
  (c)(1) The question of importing any alien as a nonimmigrant 
under subparagraph (H), (L), (O), or (P)(i) of section 
101(a)(15) (excluding nonimmigrants under section 
101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b1)) in any specific case or specific cases 
shall be determined by the Attorney General, after consultation 
with appropriate agencies of the Government, upon petition of 
the importing employer. Such petition shall be made and 
approved before the visa is granted. The petition shall be in 
such form and contain such information as the Attorney General 
shall prescribe. The approval of such a petition shall not, of 
itself, be construed as establishing that the alien is a 
nonimmigrant. For purposes of this subsection with respect to 
nonimmigrants described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a), the 
term ``appropriate agencies of Government'' means the 
Department of Labor and includes the Department of Agriculture. 
The provisions of section 218 shall apply to the question of 
importing any alien as a nonimmigrant under section 
101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a).
  (2)(A) The Attorney General shall provide for a procedure 
under which an importing employer which meets requirements 
established by the Attorney General may file a blanket petition 
to import aliens as nonimmigrants described in section 
101(a)(15)(L) instead of filing individual petitions under 
paragraph (1) to import such aliens. Such procedure shall 
permit the expedited processing of visas for admission of 
aliens covered under such a petition.
  (B) For purposes of section 101(a)(15)(L), an alien is 
considered to be serving in a capacity involving specialized 
knowledge with respect to a company if the alien has a special 
knowledge of the company product and its application in 
international markets or has an advanced level of knowledge of 
processes and procedures of the company.
  (C) The Attorney General shall provide a process for 
reviewing and acting upon petitions under this subsection with 
respect to nonimmigrants described in section 101(a)(15)(L) 
within 30 days after the date a completed petition has been 
filed.
  (D) The period of authorized admission for--
          (i) a nonimmigrant admitted to render services in a 
        managerial or executive capacity under section 
        101(a)(15)(L) shall not exceed 7 years, or
          (ii) a nonimmigrant admitted to render services in a 
        capacity that involves specialized knowledge under 
        section 101(a)(15)(L) shall not exceed 5 years.
  (E) In the case of an alien spouse admitted under section 
101(a)(15)(L), who is accompanying or following to join a 
principal alien admitted under such section, the Attorney 
General shall authorize the alien spouse to engage in 
employment in the United States and provide the spouse with an 
``employment authorized'' endorsement or other appropriate work 
permit.
  (F) An alien who will serve in a capacity involving 
specialized knowledge with respect to an employer for purposes 
of section 101(a)(15)(L) and will be stationed primarily at the 
worksite of an employer other than the petitioning employer or 
its affiliate, subsidiary, or parent shall not be eligible for 
classification under section 101(a)(15)(L) if--
          (i) the alien will be controlled and supervised 
        principally by such unaffiliated employer; or
          (ii) the placement of the alien at the worksite of 
        the unaffiliated employer is essentially an arrangement 
        to provide labor for hire for the unaffiliated 
        employer, rather than a placement in connection with 
        the provision of a product or service for which 
        specialized knowledge specific to the petitioning 
        employer is necessary.
  (3) The Attorney General shall approve a petition--
          (A) with respect to a nonimmigrant described in 
        section 101(a)(15)(O)(i) only after consultation in 
        accordance with paragraph (6) or, with respect to 
        aliens seeking entry for a motion picture or television 
        production, after consultation with the appropriate 
        union representing the alien's occupational peers and a 
        management organization in the area of the alien's 
        ability, or
          (B) with respect to a nonimmigrant described in 
        section 101(a)(15)(O)(ii) after consultation in 
        accordance with paragraph (6) or, in the case of such 
        an alien seeking entry for a motion picture or 
        television production, after consultation with such a 
        labor organization and a management organization in the 
        area of the alien's ability.
In the case of an alien seeking entry for a motion picture or 
television production, (i) any opinion under the previous 
sentence shall only be advisory, (ii) any such opinion that 
recommends denial must be in writing, (iii) in making the 
decision the Attorney General shall consider the exigencies and 
scheduling of the production, and (iv) the Attorney General 
shall append to the decision any such opinion. The Attorney 
General shall provide by regulation for the waiver of the 
consultation requirement under subparagraph (A) in the case of 
aliens who have been admitted as nonimmigrants under section 
101(a)(15)(O)(i) because of extraordinary ability in the arts 
and who seek readmission to perform similar services within 2 
years after the date of a consultation under such subparagraph. 
Not later than 5 days after the date such a waiver is provided, 
the Attorney General shall forward a copy of the petition and 
all supporting documentation to the national office of an 
appropriate labor organization.
  (4)(A) For purposes of section 101(a)(15)(P)(i)(a), an alien 
is described in this subparagraph if the alien--
          (i)(I) performs as an athlete, individually or as 
        part of a group or team, at an internationally 
        recognized level of performance;
          (II) is a professional athlete, as defined in section 
        204(i)(2);
          (III) performs as an athlete, or as a coach, as part 
        of a team or franchise that is located in the United 
        States and a member of a foreign league or association 
        of 15 or more amateur sports teams, if--
                  (aa) the foreign league or association is the 
                highest level of amateur performance of that 
                sport in the relevant foreign country;
                  (bb) participation in such league or 
                association renders players ineligible, whether 
                on a temporary or permanent basis, to earn a 
                scholarship in, or participate in, that sport 
                at a college or university in the United States 
                under the rules of the National Collegiate 
                Athletic Association; and
                  (cc) a significant number of the individuals 
                who play in such league or association are 
                drafted by a major sports league or a minor 
                league affiliate of such a sports league; or
          (IV) is a professional athlete or amateur athlete who 
        performs individually or as part of a group in a 
        theatrical ice skating production; and
          (ii) seeks to enter the United States temporarily and 
        solely for the purpose of performing--
                  (I) as such an athlete with respect to a 
                specific athletic competition; or
                  (II) in the case of an individual described 
                in clause (i)(IV), in a specific theatrical ice 
                skating production or tour.
  (B)(i) For purposes of section 101(a)(15)(P)(i)(b), an alien 
is described in this subparagraph if the alien--
          (I) performs with or is an integral and essential 
        part of the performance of an entertainment group that 
        has (except as provided in clause (ii)) been recognized 
        internationally as being outstanding in the discipline 
        for a sustained and substantial period of time,
          (II) in the case of a performer or entertainer, 
        except as provided in clause (iii), has had a sustained 
        and substantial relationship with that group 
        (ordinarily for at least one year) and provides 
        functions integral to the performance of the group, and
          (III) seeks to enter the United States temporarily 
        and solely for the purpose of performing as such a 
        performer or entertainer or as an integral and 
        essential part of a performance.
  (ii) In the case of an entertainment group that is recognized 
nationally as being outstanding in its discipline for a 
sustained and substantial period of time, the Attorney General 
may, in consideration of special circumstances, waive the 
international recognition requirement of clause (i)(I).
  (iii)(I) The one-year relationship requirement of clause 
(i)(II) shall not apply to 25 percent of the performers and 
entertainers in a group.
  (II) The Attorney General may waive such one-year 
relationship requirement for an alien who because of illness or 
unanticipated and exigent circumstances replaces an essential 
member of the group and for an alien who augments the group by 
performing a critical role.
  (iv) The requirements of subclauses (I) and (II) of clause 
(i) shall not apply to alien circus personnel who perform as 
part of a circus or circus group or who constitute an integral 
and essential part of the performance of such circus or circus 
group, but only if such personnel are entering the United 
States to join a circus that has been recognized nationally as 
outstanding for a sustained and substantial period of time or 
as part of such a circus.
  (C) A person may petition the Attorney General for 
classification of an alien as a nonimmigrant under section 
101(a)(15)(P).
  (D) The Attorney General shall approve petitions under this 
subsection with respect to nonimmigrants described in clause 
(i) or (iii) of section 101(a)(15)(P) only after consultation 
in accordance with paragraph (6).
  (E) The Attorney General shall approve petitions under this 
subsection for nonimmigrants described in section 
101(a)(15)(P)(ii) only after consultation with labor 
organizations representing artists and entertainers in the 
United States.
  (F)(i) No nonimmigrant visa under section 101(a)(15)(P)(i)(a) 
shall be issued to any alien who is a national of a country 
that is a state sponsor of international terrorism unless the 
Secretary of State determines, in consultation with the 
Secretary of Homeland Security and the heads of other 
appropriate United States agencies, that such alien does not 
pose a threat to the safety, national security, or national 
interest of the United States. In making a determination under 
this subparagraph, the Secretary of State shall apply standards 
developed by the Secretary of State, in consultation with the 
Secretary of Homeland Security and the heads of other 
appropriate United States agencies, that are applicable to the 
nationals of such states.
  (ii) In this subparagraph, the term ``state sponsor of 
international terrorism'' means any country the government of 
which has been determined by the Secretary of State under any 
of the laws specified in clause (iii) to have repeatedly 
provided support for acts of international terrorism.
  (iii) The laws specified in this clause are the following:
          (I) Section 6(j)(1)(A) of the Export Administration 
        Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 2405(j)(1)(A)) (or 
        successor statute).
          (II) Section 40(d) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 
        U.S.C. 2780(d)).
          (III) Section 620A(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act 
        of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2371(a)).
  (G) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall permit a 
petition under this subsection to seek classification of more 
than 1 alien as a nonimmigrant under section 
101(a)(15)(P)(i)(a).
  (H) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall permit an 
athlete, or the employer of an athlete, to seek admission to 
the United States for such athlete under a provision of this 
Act other than section 101(a)(15)(P)(i) if the athlete is 
eligible under such other provision.
  (5)(A) In the case of an alien who is provided nonimmigrant 
status under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) or 
101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) and who is dismissed from employment by 
the employer before the end of the period of authorized 
admission, the employer shall be liable for the reasonable 
costs of return transportation of the alien abroad.
  (B) In the case of an alien who is admitted to the United 
States in nonimmigrant status under section 101(a)(15)(O) or 
101(a)(15)(P) and whose employment terminates for reasons other 
than voluntary resignation, the employer whose offer of 
employment formed the basis of such nonimmigrant status and the 
petitioner are jointly and severally liable for the reasonable 
cost of return transportation of the alien abroad. The 
petitioner shall provide assurance satisfactory to the Attorney 
General that the reasonable cost of that transportation will be 
provided.
  (6)(A)(i) To meet the consultation requirement of paragraph 
(3)(A) in the case of a petition for a nonimmigrant described 
in section 101(a)(15)(O)(i) (other than with respect to aliens 
seeking entry for a motion picture or television production), 
the petitioner shall submit with the petition an advisory 
opinion from a peer group (or other person or persons of its 
choosing, which may include a labor organization) with 
expertise in the specific field involved.
  (ii) To meet the consultation requirement of paragraph (3)(B) 
in the case of a petition for a nonimmigrant described in 
section 101(a)(15)(O)(ii) (other than with respect to aliens 
seeking entry for a motion picture or television production), 
the petitioner shall submit with the petition an advisory 
opinion from a labor organization with expertise in the skill 
area involved.
  (iii) To meet the consultation requirement of paragraph 
(4)(D) in the case of a petition for a nonimmigrant described 
in section 101(a)(15)(P)(i) or 101(a)(15)(P)(iii), the 
petitioner shall submit with the petition an advisory opinion 
from a labor organization with expertise in the specific field 
of athletics or entertainment involved.
  (B) To meet the consultation requirements of subparagraph 
(A), unless the petitioner submits with the petition an 
advisory opinion from an appropriate labor organization, the 
Attorney General shall forward a copy of the petition and all 
supporting documentation to the national office of an 
appropriate labor organization within 5 days of the date of 
receipt of the petition. If there is a collective bargaining 
representative of an employer's employees in the occupational 
classification for which the alien is being sought, that 
representative shall be the appropriate labor organization.
  (C) In those cases in which a petitioner described in 
subparagraph (A) establishes that an appropriate peer group 
(including a labor organization) does not exist, the Attorney 
General shall adjudicate the petition without requiring an 
advisory opinion.
  (D) Any person or organization receiving a copy of a petition 
described in subparagraph (A) and supporting documents shall 
have no more than 15 days following the date of receipt of such 
documents within which to submit a written advisory opinion or 
comment or to provide a letter of no objection. Once the 15-day 
period has expired and the petitioner has had an opportunity, 
where appropriate, to supply rebuttal evidence, the Attorney 
General shall adjudicate such petition in no more than 14 days. 
The Attorney General may shorten any specified time period for 
emergency reasons if no unreasonable burden would be thus 
imposed on any participant in the process.
  (E)(i) The Attorney General shall establish by regulation 
expedited consultation procedures in the case of nonimmigrant 
artists or entertainers described in section 101(a)(15)(O) or 
101(a)(15)(P) to accommodate the exigencies and scheduling of a 
given production or event.
  (ii) The Attorney General shall establish by regulation 
expedited consultation procedures in the case of nonimmigrant 
athletes described in section 101(a)(15)(O)(i) or 
101(a)(15)(P)(i) in the case of emergency circumstances 
(including trades during a season).
  (F) No consultation required under this subsection by the 
Attorney General with a nongovernmental entity shall be 
construed as permitting the Attorney General to delegate any 
authority under this subsection to such an entity. The Attorney 
General shall give such weight to advisory opinions provided 
under this section as the Attorney General determines, in his 
sole discretion, to be appropriate.
  (7) If a petition is filed and denied under this subsection, 
the Attorney General shall notify the petitioner of the 
determination and the reasons for the denial and of the process 
by which the petitioner may appeal the determination.
  (8) The Attorney General shall submit annually to the 
Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and 
of the Senate a report describing, with respect to petitions 
under each subcategory of subparagraphs (H), (O), (P), and (Q) 
of section 101(a)(15) the following:
          (A) The number of such petitions which have been 
        filed.
          (B) The number of such petitions which have been 
        approved and the number of workers (by occupation) 
        included in such approved petitions.
          (C) The number of such petitions which have been 
        denied and the number of workers (by occupation) 
        requested in such denied petitions.
          (D) The number of such petitions which have been 
        withdrawn.
          (E) The number of such petitions which are awaiting 
        final action.
  (9)(A) The Attorney General shall impose a fee on an employer 
(excluding any employer that is a primary or secondary 
education institution, an institution of higher education, as 
defined in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
(20 U.S.C. 1001(a), a nonprofit entity related to or affiliated 
with any such institution, a nonprofit entity which engages in 
established curriculum-related clinical training of students 
registered at any such institution, a nonprofit research 
organization, or a governmental research organization) filing 
before a petition under paragraph (1)--
          (i) initially to grant an alien nonimmigrant status 
        described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b);
          (ii) to extend the stay of an alien having such 
        status (unless the employer previously has obtained an 
        extension for such alien); or
          (iii) to obtain authorization for an alien having 
        such status to change employers.
  (B) The amount of the fee shall be $1,500 for each such 
petition except that the fee shall be half the amount for each 
such petition by any employer with not more than 25 full-time 
equivalent employees who are employed in the United States 
(determined by including any affiliate or subsidiary of such 
employer).
  (C) Fees collected under this paragraph shall be deposited in 
the Treasury in accordance with section 286(s).
          (10) An amended H-1B petition shall not be required 
        where the petitioning employer is involved in a 
        corporate restructuring, including but not limited to a 
        merger, acquisition, or consolidation, where a new 
        corporate entity succeeds to the interests and 
        obligations of the original petitioning employer and 
        where the terms and conditions of employment remain the 
        same but for the identity of the petitioner.
  (11)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), the Secretary of 
Homeland Security or the Secretary of State, as appropriate, 
shall impose a fee on an employer who has filed an attestation 
described in section 212(t)--
          (i) in order that an alien may be initially granted 
        nonimmigrant status described in section 
        101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b1); or
          (ii) in order to satisfy the requirement of the 
        second sentence of subsection (g)(8)(C) for an alien 
        having such status to obtain certain extensions of 
        stay.
  (B) The amount of the fee shall be the same as the amount 
imposed by the Secretary of Homeland Security under paragraph 
(9), except that if such paragraph does not authorize such 
Secretary to impose any fee, no fee shall be imposed under this 
paragraph.
  (C) Fees collected under this paragraph shall be deposited in 
the Treasury in accordance with section 286(s).
  (12)(A) In addition to any other fees authorized by law, the 
Secretary of Homeland Security shall impose a fraud prevention 
and detection fee on an employer filing a petition under 
paragraph (1)--
          (i) initially to grant an alien nonimmigrant status 
        described in subparagraph (H)(i)(b) or (L) of section 
        101(a)(15); or
          (ii) to obtain authorization for an alien having such 
        status to change employers.
  (B) In addition to any other fees authorized by law, the 
Secretary of State shall impose a fraud prevention and 
detection fee on an alien filing an application abroad for a 
visa authorizing admission to the United States as a 
nonimmigrant described in section 101(a)(15)(L), if the alien 
is covered under a blanket petition described in paragraph 
(2)(A).
  (C) The amount of the fee imposed under subparagraph (A) or 
(B) shall be $500.
  (D) The fee imposed under subparagraph (A) or (B) shall only 
apply to principal aliens and not to the spouses or children 
who are accompanying or following to join such principal 
aliens.
  (E) Fees collected under this paragraph shall be deposited in 
the Treasury in accordance with section 286(v).
  (13)(A) In addition to any other fees authorized by law, the 
Secretary of Homeland Security shall impose a fraud prevention 
and detection fee on an employer filing a petition under 
paragraph (1) for nonimmigrant workers described in section 
101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b).
  (B) The amount of the fee imposed under subparagraph (A) 
shall be $150.
  (14)(A) If the Secretary of Homeland Security finds, after 
notice and an opportunity for a hearing, a substantial failure 
to meet any of the conditions of the petition to admit or 
otherwise provide status to a nonimmigrant worker under section 
101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) or a willful misrepresentation of a 
material fact in such petition--
          (i) the Secretary of Homeland Security may, in 
        addition to any other remedy authorized by law, impose 
        such administrative remedies (including civil monetary 
        penalties in an amount not to exceed $10,000 per 
        violation) as the Secretary of Homeland Security 
        determines to be appropriate; and
          (ii) the Secretary of Homeland Security may deny 
        petitions filed with respect to that employer under 
        section 204 or paragraph (1) of this subsection during 
        a period of at least 1 year but not more than 5 years 
        for aliens to be employed by the employer.
  (B) The Secretary of Homeland Security may delegate to the 
Secretary of Labor, with the agreement of the Secretary of 
Labor, any of the authority given to the Secretary of Homeland 
Security under subparagraph (A)(i).
  (C) In determining the level of penalties to be assessed 
under subparagraph (A), the highest penalties shall be reserved 
for willful failures to meet any of the conditions of the 
petition that involve harm to United States workers.
  (D) In this paragraph, the term ``substantial failure'' means 
the willful failure to comply with the requirements of this 
section that constitutes a significant deviation from the terms 
and conditions of a petition.
  (d)(1) A visa shall not be issued under the provisions of 
section 101(a)(15)(K)(i) until the consular officer has 
received a petition filed in the United States by the fiancee 
or fiance of the applying alien and approved by the Secretary 
of Homeland Security. The petition shall be in such form and 
contain such information as the Secretary of Homeland Security 
shall, by regulation, prescribe. Such information shall include 
information on any criminal convictions of the petitioner for 
any specified crime described in paragraph (3)(B) and 
information on any permanent protection or restraining order 
issued against the petitioner related to any specified crime 
described in paragraph (3)(B)(i). It shall be approved only 
after satisfactory evidence is submitted by the petitioner to 
establish that the parties have previously met in person within 
2 years before the date of filing the petition, have a bona 
fide intention to marry, and are legally able and actually 
willing to conclude a valid marriage in the United States 
within a period of ninety days after the alien's arrival, 
except that the Secretary of Homeland Security in his 
discretion may waive the requirement that the parties have 
previously met in person. In the event the marriage with the 
petitioner does not occur within three months after the 
admission of the said alien and minor children, they shall be 
required to depart from the United States and upon failure to 
do so shall be removed in accordance with sections 240 and 241.
  (2)(A) Subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C), the Secretary of 
Homeland Security may not approve a petition under paragraph 
(1) unless the Secretary has verified that--
          (i) the petitioner has not, previous to the pending 
        petition, petitioned under paragraph (1) with respect 
        to two or more applying aliens; and
          (ii) if the petitioner has had such a petition 
        previously approved, 2 years have elapsed since the 
        filing of such previously approved petition.
  (B) The Secretary of Homeland Security may, in the 
Secretary's discretion, waive the limitations in subparagraph 
(A) if justification exists for such a waiver. Except in 
extraordinary circumstances and subject to subparagraph (C), 
such a waiver shall not be granted if the petitioner has a 
record of violent criminal offenses against a person or 
persons.
  (C)(i) The Secretary of Homeland Security is not limited by 
the criminal court record and shall grant a waiver of the 
condition described in the second sentence of subparagraph (B) 
in the case of a petitioner described in clause (ii).
  (ii) A petitioner described in this clause is a petitioner 
who has been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty and who 
is or was not the primary perpetrator of violence in the 
relationship upon a determination that--
          (I) the petitioner was acting in self-defense;
          (II) the petitioner was found to have violated a 
        protection order intended to protect the petitioner; or
          (III) the petitioner committed, was arrested for, was 
        convicted of, or pled guilty to committing a crime that 
        did not result in serious bodily injury and where there 
        was a connection between the crime and the petitioner's 
        having been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty.
  (iii) In acting on applications under this subparagraph, the 
Secretary of Homeland Security shall consider any credible 
evidence relevant to the application. The determination of what 
evidence is credible and the weight to be given that evidence 
shall be within the sole discretion of the Secretary.
  (3) In this subsection:
          (A) The terms ``domestic violence'', ``sexual 
        assault'', ``child abuse and neglect'', ``dating 
        violence'', ``elder abuse'', and ``stalking'' have the 
        meaning given such terms in section 3 of the Violence 
        Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization 
        Act of 2005.
          (B) The term ``specified crime'' means the following:
                  (i) Domestic violence, sexual assault, child 
                abuse and neglect, dating violence, elder 
                abuse, stalking, or an attempt to commit any 
                such crime.
                  (ii) Homicide, murder, manslaughter, rape, 
                abusive sexual contact, sexual exploitation, 
                incest, torture, trafficking, peonage, holding 
                hostage, involuntary servitude, slave trade, 
                kidnapping, abduction, unlawful criminal 
                restraint, false imprisonment, or an attempt to 
                commit any of the crimes described in this 
                clause.
                  (iii) At least three convictions for crimes 
                relating to a controlled substance or alcohol 
                not arising from a single act.
  (e)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, an 
alien who is a citizen of Canada and seeks to enter the United 
States under and pursuant to the provisions of Annex 1502.1 
(United States of America), Part C--Professionals, of the 
United States-Canada Free-Trade Agreement to engage in business 
activities at a professional level as provided for therein may 
be admitted for such purpose under regulations of the Attorney 
General promulgated after consultation with the Secretaries of 
State and Labor.
  (2) An alien who is a citizen of Canada or Mexico, and the 
spouse and children of any such alien if accompanying or 
following to join such alien, who seeks to enter the United 
States under and pursuant to the provisions of Section D of 
Annex 1603 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (in this 
subsection referred to as ``NAFTA'') to engage in business 
activities at a professional level as provided for in such 
Annex, may be admitted for such purpose under regulations of 
the Attorney General promulgated after consultation with the 
Secretaries of State and Labor. For purposes of this Act, 
including the issuance of entry documents and the application 
of subsection (b), such alien shall be treated as if seeking 
classification, or classifiable, as a nonimmigrant under 
section 101(a)(15). The admission of an alien who is a citizen 
of Mexico shall be subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5). For 
purposes of this paragraph and paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), 
the term ``citizen of Mexico'' means ``citizen'' as defined in 
Annex 1608 of NAFTA.
  (3) The Attorney General shall establish an annual numerical 
limit on admissions under paragraph (2) of aliens who are 
citizens of Mexico, as set forth in Appendix 1603.D.4 of Annex 
1603 of the NAFTA. Subject to paragraph (4), the annual 
numerical limit--
          (A) beginning with the second year that NAFTA is in 
        force, may be increased in accordance with the 
        provisions of paragraph 5(a) of Section D of such 
        Annex, and
          (B) shall cease to apply as provided for in paragraph 
        3 of such Appendix.
  (4) The annual numerical limit referred to in paragraph (3) 
may be increased or shall cease to apply (other than by 
operation of paragraph 3 of such Appendix) only if--
          (A) the President has obtained advice regarding the 
        proposed action from the appropriate advisory 
        committees established under section 135 of the Trade 
        Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2155);
          (B) the President has submitted a report to the 
        Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the 
        Committee on the Judiciary of the House of 
        Representatives that sets forth--
                  (i) the action proposed to be taken and the 
                reasons therefor, and
                  (ii) the advice obtained under subparagraph 
                (A);
          (C) a period of at least 60 calendar days that begins 
        on the first day on which the President has met the 
        requirements of subparagraphs (A) and (B) with respect 
        to such action has expired; and
          (D) the President has consulted with such committees 
        regarding the proposed action during the period 
        referred to in subparagraph (C).
  (5) During the period that the provisions of Appendix 
1603.D.4 of Annex 1603 of the NAFTA apply, the entry of an 
alien who is a citizen of Mexico under and pursuant to the 
provisions of Section D of Annex 1603 of NAFTA shall be subject 
to the attestation requirement of section 212(m), in the case 
of a registered nurse, or the application requirement of 
section 212(n), in the case of all other professions set out in 
Appendix 1603.D.1 of Annex 1603 of NAFTA, and the petition 
requirement of subsection (c), to the extent and in the manner 
prescribed in regulations promulgated by the Secretary of 
Labor, with respect to sections 212(m) and 212(n), and the 
Attorney General, with respect to subsection (c).
  (6) In the case of an alien spouse admitted under section 
101(a)(15)(E), who is accompanying or following to join a 
principal alien admitted under such section, the Attorney 
General shall authorize the alien spouse to engage in 
employment in the United States and provide the spouse with an 
``employment authorized'' endorsement or other appropriate work 
permit.
  (f)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (3), no alien shall be 
entitled to nonimmigrant status described in section 
101(a)(15)(D) if the alien intends to land for the purpose of 
performing service on board a vessel of the United States (as 
defined in section 2101(46) of title 46, United States Code) or 
on an aircraft of an air carrier (as defined in section 
40102(a)(2) of title 49, United States Code) during a labor 
dispute where there is a strike or lockout in the bargaining 
unit of the employer in which the alien intends to perform such 
service.
  (2) An alien described in paragraph (1)--
          (A) may not be paroled into the United States 
        pursuant to section 212(d)(5) unless the Attorney 
        General determines that the parole of such alien is 
        necessary to protect the national security of the 
        United States; and
          (B) shall be considered not to be a bona fide crewman 
        for purposes of section 252(b).
  (3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to an alien if the air 
carrier or owner or operator of such vessel that employs the 
alien provides documentation that satisfies the Attorney 
General that the alien--
          (A) has been an employee of such employer for a 
        period of not less than 1 year preceding the date that 
        a strike or lawful lockout commenced;
          (B) has served as a qualified crewman for such 
        employer at least once in each of 3 months during the 
        12-month period preceding such date; and
          (C) shall continue to provide the same services that 
        such alien provided as such a crewman.
  (g)(1) The total number of aliens who may be issued visas or 
otherwise provided nonimmigrant status during any fiscal year 
(beginning with fiscal year 1992)--
          (A) under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), may not 
        exceed--
                  (i) 65,000 in each fiscal year before fiscal 
                year 1999;
                  (ii) 115,000 in fiscal year 1999;
                  (iii) 115,000 in fiscal year 2000;
                  (iv) 195,000 in fiscal year 2001;
                  (v) 195,000 in fiscal year 2002;
                  (vi) 195,000 in fiscal year 2003; and
                  (vii) 65,000 in each succeeding fiscal year; 
                or
          (B) under section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) may not exceed 
        66,000.
  (2) The numerical limitations of paragraph (1) shall only 
apply to principal aliens and not to the spouses or children of 
such aliens.
  (3) Aliens who are subject to the numerical limitations of 
paragraph (1) shall be issued visas (or otherwise provided 
nonimmigrant status) in the order in which petitions are filed 
for such visas or status. If an alien who was issued a visa or 
otherwise provided nonimmigrant status and counted against the 
numerical limitations of paragraph (1) is found to have been 
issued such visa or otherwise provided such status by fraud or 
willfully misrepresenting a material fact and such visa or 
nonimmigrant status is revoked, then one number shall be 
restored to the total number of aliens who may be issued visas 
or otherwise provided such status under the numerical 
limitations of paragraph (1) in the fiscal year in which the 
petition is revoked, regardless of the fiscal year in which the 
petition was approved.
  (4) In the case of a nonimmigrant described in section 
101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), the period of authorized admission as such 
a nonimmigrant may not exceed 6 years.
  (5) The numerical limitations contained in paragraph (1)(A) 
shall not apply to any nonimmigrant alien issued a visa or 
otherwise provided status under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) 
who--
          (A) is employed (or has received an offer of 
        employment) at an institution of higher education (as 
        defined in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act 
        of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a))), or a related or 
        affiliated nonprofit entity;
          (B) is employed (or has received an offer of 
        employment) at a nonprofit research organization or a 
        governmental research organization; or
          (C) has earned a master's or higher degree from a 
        United States institution of higher education (as 
        defined in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act 
        of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a)), until the number of aliens 
        who are exempted from such numerical limitation during 
        such year exceeds 20,000.
  (6) Any alien who ceases to be employed by an employer 
described in paragraph (5)(A) shall, if employed as a 
nonimmigrant alien described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 
who has not previously been counted toward the numerical 
limitations contained in paragraph (1)(A), be counted toward 
those limitations the first time the alien is employed by an 
employer other than one described in paragraph (5).
  (7) Any alien who has already been counted, within the 6 
years prior to the approval of a petition described in 
subsection (c), toward the numerical limitations of paragraph 
(1)(A) shall not again be counted toward those limitations 
unless the alien would be eligible for a full 6 years of 
authorized admission at the time the petition is filed. Where 
multiple petitions are approved for 1 alien, that alien shall 
be counted only once.
  (8)(A) The agreements referred to in section 
101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b1) are--
          (i) the United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement; and
          (ii) the United States-Singapore Free Trade 
        Agreement.
  (B)(i) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish 
annual numerical limitations on approvals of initial 
applications by aliens for admission under section 
101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b1).
  (ii) The annual numerical limitations described in clause (i) 
shall not exceed--
          (I) 1,400 for nationals of Chile (as defined in 
        article 14.9 of the United States-Chile Free Trade 
        Agreement) for any fiscal year; and
          (II) 5,400 for nationals of Singapore (as defined in 
        Annex 1A of the United States-Singapore Free Trade 
        Agreement) for any fiscal year.
  (iii) The annual numerical limitations described in clause 
(i) shall only apply to principal aliens and not to the spouses 
or children of such aliens.
  (iv) The annual numerical limitation described in paragraph 
(1)(A) is reduced by the amount of the annual numerical 
limitations established under clause (i). However, if a 
numerical limitation established under clause (i) has not been 
exhausted at the end of a given fiscal year, the Secretary of 
Homeland Security shall adjust upwards the numerical limitation 
in paragraph (1)(A) for that fiscal year by the amount 
remaining in the numerical limitation under clause (i). Visas 
under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) may be issued pursuant to 
such adjustment within the first 45 days of the next fiscal 
year to aliens who had applied for such visas during the fiscal 
year for which the adjustment was made.
  (C) The period of authorized admission as a nonimmigrant 
under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b1) shall be 1 year, and may be 
extended, but only in 1-year increments. After every second 
extension, the next following extension shall not be granted 
unless the Secretary of Labor had determined and certified to 
the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State 
that the intending employer has filed with the Secretary of 
Labor an attestation under section 212(t)(1) for the purpose of 
permitting the nonimmigrant to obtain such extension.
  (D) The numerical limitation described in paragraph (1)(A) 
for a fiscal year shall be reduced by one for each alien 
granted an extension under subparagraph (C) during such year 
who has obtained 5 or more consecutive prior extensions.
  (9)(A) Subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C), an alien who has 
already been counted toward the numerical limitation of 
paragraph (1)(B) during fiscal year [2004, 2005, or 2006 shall 
not again be counted toward such limitation during fiscal year 
2007.] 2013, 2014, or 2015 shall not again be counted toward 
such limitation during fiscal year 2016. Such an alien shall be 
considered a returning worker.
  (B) A petition to admit or otherwise provide status under 
section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) shall include, with respect to a 
returning worker--
          (i) all information and evidence that the Secretary 
        of Homeland Security determines is required to support 
        a petition for status under section 
        101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b);
          (ii) the full name of the alien; and
          (iii) a certification to the Department of Homeland 
        Security that the alien is a returning worker.
  (C) An H-2B visa or grant of nonimmigrant status for a 
returning worker shall be approved only if the alien is 
confirmed to be a returning worker by--
          (i) the Department of State; or
          (ii) if the alien is visa exempt or seeking to change 
        to status under section 101 (a)(15)(H)(ii)(b), the 
        Department of Homeland Security.
  (10) The numerical limitations of paragraph (1)(B) shall be 
allocated for a fiscal year so that the total number of aliens 
subject to such numerical limits who enter the United States 
pursuant to a visa or are accorded nonimmigrant status under 
section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) during the first 6 months of such 
fiscal year is not more than 33,000.
  (11)(A) The Secretary of State may not approve a number of 
initial applications submitted for aliens described in section 
101(a)(15)(E)(iii) that is more than the applicable numerical 
limitation set out in this paragraph.
  (B) The applicable numerical limitation referred to in 
subparagraph (A) is 10,500 for each fiscal year.
  (C) The applicable numerical limitation referred to in 
subparagraph (A) shall only apply to principal aliens and not 
to the spouses or children of such aliens.
  (h) The fact that an alien is the beneficiary of an 
application for a preference status filed under section 204 or 
has otherwise sought permanent residence in the United States 
shall not constitute evidence of an intention to abandon a 
foreign residence for purposes of obtaining a visa as a 
nonimmigrant described in subparagraph (H)(i)(b) or (c), (L), 
or (V) of section 101(a)(15) or otherwise obtaining or 
maintaining the status of a nonimmigrant described in such 
subparagraph, if the alien had obtained a change of status 
under section 248 to a classification as such a nonimmigrant 
before the alien's most recent departure from the United 
States.
  (i)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (3), for purposes of 
section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), section 101(a)(15)(E)(iii), and 
paragraph (2), the term ``specialty occupation'' means an 
occupation that requires--
          (A) theoretical and practical application of a body 
        of highly specialized knowledge, and
          (B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in 
        the specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum 
        for entry into the occupation in the United States.
  (2) For purposes of section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), the 
requirements of this paragraph, with respect to a specialty 
occupation, are--
          (A) full state licensure to practice in the 
        occupation, if such licensure is required to practice 
        in the occupation,
          (B) completion of the degree described in paragraph 
        (1)(B) for the occupation, or
          (C)(i) experience in the specialty equivalent to the 
        completion of such degree, and (ii) recognition of 
        expertise in the specialty through progressively 
        responsible positions relating to the specialty.
  (3) For purposes of section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b1), the term 
``specialty occupation'' means an occupation that requires--
          (A) theoretical and practical application of a body 
        of specialized knowledge; and
          (B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in 
        the specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum 
        for entry into the occupation in the United States.
  (j)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, an 
alien who is a citizen of Canada or Mexico who seeks to enter 
the United States under and pursuant to the provisions of 
Section B, Section C, or Section D of Annex 1603 of the North 
American Free Trade Agreement, shall not be classified as a 
nonimmigrant under such provisions if there is in progress a 
strike or lockout in the course of a labor dispute in the 
occupational classification at the place or intended place of 
employment, unless such alien establishes, pursuant to 
regulations promulgated by the Attorney General, that the 
alien's entry will not affect adversely the settlement of the 
strike or lockout or the employment of any person who is 
involved in the strike or lockout. Notice of a determination 
under this paragraph shall be given as may be required by 
paragraph 3 of article 1603 of such Agreement. For purposes of 
this paragraph, the term ``citizen of Mexico'' means 
``citizen'' as defined in Annex 1608 of such Agreement.
  (2) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act except 
section 212(t)(1), and subject to regulations promulgated by 
the Secretary of Homeland Security, an alien who seeks to enter 
the United States under and pursuant to the provisions of an 
agreement listed in subsection (g)(8)(A), and the spouse and 
children of such an alien if accompanying or following to join 
the alien, may be denied admission as a nonimmigrant under 
subparagraph (E), (L), or (H)(i)(b1) of section 101(a)(15) if 
there is in progress a labor dispute in the occupational 
classification at the place or intended place of employment, 
unless such alien establishes, pursuant to regulations 
promulgated by the Secretary of Homeland Security after 
consultation with the Secretary of Labor, that the alien's 
entry will not affect adversely the settlement of the labor 
dispute or the employment of any person who is involved in the 
labor dispute. Notice of a determination under this paragraph 
shall be given as may be required by such agreement.
  (k)(1) The number of aliens who may be provided a visa as 
nonimmigrants under section 101(a)(15)(S)(i) in any fiscal year 
may not exceed 200. The number of aliens who may be provided a 
visa as nonimmigrants under section 101(a)(15)(S)(ii) in any 
fiscal year may not exceed 50.
  (2) The period of admission of an alien as such a 
nonimmigrant may not exceed 3 years. Such period may not be 
extended by the Attorney General.
  (3) As a condition for the admission, and continued stay in 
lawful status, of such a nonimmigrant, the nonimmigrant--
          (A) shall report not less often than quarterly to the 
        Attorney General such information concerning the 
        alien's whereabouts and activities as the Attorney 
        General may require;
          (B) may not be convicted of any criminal offense 
        punishable by a term of imprisonment of 1 year or more 
        after the date of such admission;
          (C) must have executed a form that waives the 
        nonimmigrant's right to contest, other than on the 
        basis of an application for withholding of removal, any 
        action for removal of the alien instituted before the 
        alien obtains lawful permanent resident status; and
          (D) shall abide by any other condition, limitation, 
        or restriction imposed by the Attorney General.
  (4) The Attorney General shall submit a report annually to 
the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives 
and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate concerning--
          (A) the number of such nonimmigrants admitted;
          (B) the number of successful criminal prosecutions or 
        investigations resulting from cooperation of such 
        aliens;
          (C) the number of terrorist acts prevented or 
        frustrated resulting from cooperation of such aliens;
          (D) the number of such nonimmigrants whose admission 
        or cooperation has not resulted in successful criminal 
        prosecution or investigation or the prevention or 
        frustration of a terrorist act; and
          (E) the number of such nonimmigrants who have failed 
        to report quarterly (as required under paragraph (3)) 
        or who have been convicted of crimes in the United 
        States after the date of their admission as such a 
        nonimmigrant.
  (l)(1) In the case of a request by an interested State 
agency, or by an interested Federal agency, for a waiver of the 
2-year foreign residence requirement under section 212(e) on 
behalf of an alien described in clause (iii) of such section, 
the Attorney General shall not grant such waiver unless--
          (A) in the case of an alien who is otherwise 
        contractually obligated to return to a foreign country, 
        the government of such country furnishes the Director 
        of the United States Information Agency with a 
        statement in writing that it has no objection to such 
        waiver;
          (B) in the case of a request by an interested State 
        agency, the grant of such waiver would not cause the 
        number of waivers allotted for that State for that 
        fiscal year to exceed 30;
          (C) in the case of a request by an interested Federal 
        agency or by an interested State agency--
                  (i) the alien demonstrates a bona fide offer 
                of full-time employment at a health facility or 
                health care organization, which employment has 
                been determined by the Attorney General to be 
                in the public interest; and
                  (ii) the alien agrees to begin employment 
                with the health facility or health care 
                organization within 90 days of receiving such 
                waiver, and agrees to continue to work for a 
                total of not less than 3 years (unless the 
                Attorney General determines that extenuating 
                circumstances exist, such as closure of the 
                facility or hardship to the alien, which would 
                justify a lesser period of employment at such 
                health facility or health care organization, in 
                which case the alien must demonstrate another 
                bona fide offer of employment at a health 
                facility or health care organization for the 
                remainder of such 3-year period); and
          (D) in the case of a request by an interested Federal 
        agency (other than a request by an interested Federal 
        agency to employ the alien full-time in medical 
        research or training) or by an interested State agency, 
        the alien agrees to practice primary care or specialty 
        medicine in accordance with paragraph (2) for a total 
        of not less than 3 years only in the geographic area or 
        areas which are designated by the Secretary of Health 
        and Human Services as having a shortage of health care 
        professionals, except that--
                  (i) in the case of a request by the 
                Department of Veterans Affairs, the alien shall 
                not be required to practice medicine in a 
                geographic area designated by the Secretary;
                  (ii) in the case of a request by an 
                interested State agency, the head of such State 
                agency determines that the alien is to practice 
                medicine under such agreement in a facility 
                that serves patients who reside in one or more 
                geographic areas so designated by the Secretary 
                of Health and Human Services (without regard to 
                whether such facility is located within such a 
                designated geographic area), and the grant of 
                such waiver would not cause the number of the 
                waivers granted on behalf of aliens for such 
                State for a fiscal year (within the limitation 
                in subparagraph (B)) in accordance with the 
                conditions of this clause to exceed 10; and
                  (iii) in the case of a request by an 
                interested Federal agency or by an interested 
                State agency for a waiver for an alien who 
                agrees to practice specialty medicine in a 
                facility located in a geographic area so 
                designated by the Secretary of Health and Human 
                Services, the request shall demonstrate, based 
                on criteria established by such agency, that 
                there is a shortage of health care 
                professionals able to provide services in the 
                appropriate medical specialty to the patients 
                who will be served by the alien.
          (2)(A) Notwithstanding section 248(a)(2), the 
        Attorney General may change the status of an alien who 
        qualifies under this subsection and section 212(e) to 
        that of an alien described in section 
        101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The numerical limitations 
        contained in subsection (g)(1)(A) shall not apply to 
        any alien whose status is changed under the preceding 
        sentence, if the alien obtained a waiver of the 2-year 
        foreign residence requirement upon a request by an 
        interested Federal agency or an interested State 
        agency.
          (B) No person who has obtained a change of status 
        under subparagraph (A) and who has failed to fulfill 
        the terms of the contract with the health facility or 
        health care organization named in the waiver 
        application shall be eligible to apply for an immigrant 
        visa, for permanent residence, or for any other change 
        of nonimmigrant status, until it is established that 
        such person has resided and been physically present in 
        the country of his nationality or his last residence 
        for an aggregate of at least 2 years following 
        departure from the United States.
          (3) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
        subsection, the 2-year foreign residence requirement 
        under section 212(e) shall apply with respect to an 
        alien described in clause (iii) of such section, who 
        has not otherwise been accorded status under section 
        101(a)(27)(H), if--
                  (A) at any time the alien ceases to comply 
                with any agreement entered into under 
                subparagraph (C) or (D) of paragraph (1); or
                  (B) the alien's employment ceases to benefit 
                the public interest at any time during the 3-
                year period described in paragraph (1)(C).
  (m)(1) An alien may not be accorded status as a nonimmigrant 
under clause (i) or (iii) of section 101(a)(15)(F) in order to 
pursue a course of study--
          (A) at a public elementary school or in a publicly 
        funded adult education program; or
          (B) at a public secondary school unless--
                  (i) the aggregate period of such status at 
                such a school does not exceed 12 months with 
                respect to any alien, and (ii) the alien 
                demonstrates that the alien has reimbursed the 
                local educational agency that administers the 
                school for the full, unsubsidized per capita 
                cost of providing education at such school for 
                the period of the alien's attendance.
  (2) An alien who obtains the status of a nonimmigrant under 
clause (i) or (iii) of section 101(a)(15)(F) in order to pursue 
a course of study at a private elementary or secondary school 
or in a language training program that is not publicly funded 
shall be considered to have violated such status, and the 
alien's visa under section 101(a)(15)(F) shall be void, if the 
alien terminates or abandons such course of study at such a 
school and undertakes a course of study at a public elementary 
school, in a publicly funded adult education program, in a 
publicly funded adult education language training program, or 
at a public secondary school (unless the requirements of 
paragraph (1)(B) are met).
  (n)(1) A nonimmigrant alien described in paragraph (2) who 
was previously issued a visa or otherwise provided nonimmigrant 
status under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) is authorized to 
accept new employment upon the filing by the prospective 
employer of a new petition on behalf of such nonimmigrant as 
provided under subsection (a). Employment authorization shall 
continue for such alien until the new petition is adjudicated. 
If the new petition is denied, such authorization shall cease.
  (2) A nonimmigrant alien described in this paragraph is a 
nonimmigrant alien--
          (A) who has been lawfully admitted into the United 
        States;
          (B) on whose behalf an employer has filed a 
        nonfrivolous petition for new employment before the 
        date of expiration of the period of stay authorized by 
        the Attorney General; and
          (C) who, subsequent to such lawful admission, has not 
        been employed without authorization in the United 
        States before the filing of such petition.
  (o)(1) No alien shall be eligible for admission to the United 
States under section 101(a)(15)(T) if there is substantial 
reason to believe that the alien has committed an act of a 
severe form of trafficking in persons (as defined in section 
103 of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000).
  (2) The total number of aliens who may be issued visas or 
otherwise provided nonimmigrant status during any fiscal year 
under section 101(a)(15)(T) may not exceed 5,000.
  (3) The numerical limitation of paragraph (2) shall only 
apply to principal aliens and not to the spouses, sons, 
daughters, siblings, or parents of such aliens.
  (4) An unmarried alien who seeks to accompany, or follow to 
join, a parent granted status under section 101(a)(15)(T)(i), 
and who was under 21 years of age on the date on which such 
parent applied for such status, shall continue to be classified 
as a child for purposes of section 101(a)(15)(T)(ii), if the 
alien attains 21 years of age after such parent's application 
was filed but while it was pending.
  (5) An alien described in clause (i) of section 101(a)(15)(T) 
shall continue to be treated as an alien described in clause 
(ii)(I) of such section if the alien attains 21 years of age 
after the alien's application for status under such clause (i) 
is filed but while it is pending.
  (6) In making a determination under section 
101(a)(15)(T)(i)(III)(aa) with respect to an alien, statements 
from State and local law enforcement officials that the alien 
has complied with any reasonable request for assistance in the 
investigation or prosecution of crimes such as kidnapping, 
rape, slavery, or other forced labor offenses, where severe 
forms of trafficking in persons (as defined in section 103 of 
the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000) appear to have 
been involved, shall be considered.
  (7)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), an alien who 
is issued a visa or otherwise provided nonimmigrant status 
under section 101(a)(15)(T) may be granted such status for a 
period of not more than 4 years.
  (B) An alien who is issued a visa or otherwise provided 
nonimmigrant status under section 101(a)(15)(T) may extend the 
period of such status beyond the period described in 
subparagraph (A) if--
          (i) a Federal, State, or local law enforcement 
        official, prosecutor, judge, or other authority 
        investigating or prosecuting activity relating to human 
        trafficking or certifies that the presence of the alien 
        in the United States is necessary to assist in the 
        investigation or prosecution of such activity;
          (ii) the alien is eligible for relief under section 
        245(l) and is unable to obtain such relief because 
        regulations have not been issued to implement such 
        section; or
          (iii) the Secretary of Homeland Security determines 
        that an extension of the period of such nonimmigrant 
        status is warranted due to exceptional circumstances.
  (C) Nonimmigrant status under section 101(a)(15)(T) shall be 
extended during the pendency of an application for adjustment 
of status under section 245(l).
  (p) Requirements Applicable to Section 101(a)(15)(U) Visas.--
          (1) Petitioning procedures for section 101(a)(15)(u) 
        visas.--The petition filed by an alien under section 
        101(a)(15)(U)(i) shall contain a certification from a 
        Federal, State, or local law enforcement official, 
        prosecutor, judge, or other Federal, State, or local 
        authority investigating criminal activity described in 
        section 101(a)(15)(U)(iii). This certification may also 
        be provided by an official of the Service whose ability 
        to provide such certification is not limited to 
        information concerning immigration violations. This 
        certification shall state that the alien ``has been 
        helpful, is being helpful, or is likely to be helpful'' 
        in the investigation or prosecution of criminal 
        activity described in section 101(a)(15)(U)(iii).
          (2) Numerical limitations.--
                  (A) The number of aliens who may be issued 
                visas or otherwise provided status as 
                nonimmigrants under section 101(a)(15)(U) in 
                any fiscal year shall not exceed 10,000.
                  (B) The numerical limitations in subparagraph 
                (A) shall only apply to principal aliens 
                described in section 101(a)(15)(U)(i), and not 
                to spouses, children, or, in the case of alien 
                children, the alien parents of such children.
          (3) Duties of the attorney general with respect to 
        ``u'' visa nonimmigrants.--With respect to nonimmigrant 
        aliens described in subsection (a)(15)(U)--
                  (A) the Attorney General and other government 
                officials, where appropriate, shall provide 
                those aliens with referrals to nongovernmental 
                organizations to advise the aliens regarding 
                their options while in the United States and 
                the resources available to them; and
                  (B) the Attorney General shall, during the 
                period those aliens are in lawful temporary 
                resident status under that subsection, provide 
                the aliens with employment authorization.
          (4) Credible evidence considered.--In acting on any 
        petition filed under this subsection, the consular 
        officer or the Attorney General, as appropriate, shall 
        consider any credible evidence relevant to the 
        petition.
          (5) Nonexclusive relief.--Nothing in this subsection 
        limits the ability of aliens who qualify for status 
        under section 101(a)(15)(U) to seek any other 
        immigration benefit or status for which the alien may 
        be eligible.
          (6) Duration of status.--The authorized period of 
        status of an alien as a nonimmigrant under section 
        101(a)(15)(U) shall be for a period of not more than 4 
        years, but shall be extended upon certification from a 
        Federal, State, or local law enforcement official, 
        prosecutor, judge, or other Federal, State, or local 
        authority investigating or prosecuting criminal 
        activity described in section 101(a)(15)(U)(iii) that 
        the alien's presence in the United States is required 
        to assist in the investigation or prosecution of such 
        criminal activity. The Secretary of Homeland Security 
        may extend, beyond the 4-year period authorized under 
        this section, the authorized period of status of an 
        alien as a nonimmigrant under section 101(a)(15)(U) if 
        the Secretary determines that an extension of such 
        period is warranted due to exceptional circumstances. 
        Such alien's nonimmigrant status shall be extended 
        beyond the 4-year period authorized under this section 
        if the alien is eligible for relief under section 
        245(m) and is unable to obtain such relief because 
        regulations have not been issued to implement such 
        section and shall be extended during the pendency of an 
        application for adjustment of status under section 
        245(m). The Secretary may grant work authorization to 
        any alien who has a pending, bona fide application for 
        nonimmigrant status under section 101(a)(15)(U).
          (7) Age determinations.--
                  (A) Children.--An unmarried alien who seeks 
                to accompany, or follow to join, a parent 
                granted status under section 101(a)(15)(U)(i), 
                and who was under 21 years of age on the date 
                on which such parent petitioned for such 
                status, shall continue to be classified as a 
                child for purposes of section 
                101(a)(15)(U)(ii), if the alien attains 21 
                years of age after such parent's petition was 
                filed but while it was pending.
                  (B) Principal aliens.--An alien described in 
                clause (i) of section 101(a)(15)(U) shall 
                continue to be treated as an alien described in 
                clause (ii)(I) of such section if the alien 
                attains 21 years of age after the alien's 
                application for status under such clause (i) is 
                filed but while it is pending.
  (q)(1) In the case of a nonimmigrant described in section 
101(a)(15)(V)--
          (A) the Attorney General shall authorize the alien to 
        engage in employment in the United States during the 
        period of authorized admission and shall provide the 
        alien with an ``employment authorized'' endorsement or 
        other appropriate document signifying authorization of 
        employment; and
          (B) the period of authorized admission as such a 
        nonimmigrant shall terminate 30 days after the date on 
        which any of the following is denied:
                  (i) The petition filed under section 204 to 
                accord the alien a status under section 
                203(a)(2)(A) (or, in the case of a child 
                granted nonimmigrant status based on 
                eligibility to receive a visa under section 
                203(d), the petition filed to accord the 
                child's parent a status under section 
                203(a)(2)(A)).
                  (ii) The alien's application for an immigrant 
                visa pursuant to the approval of such petition.
                  (iii) The alien's application for adjustment 
                of status under section 245 pursuant to the 
                approval of such petition.
  (2) In determining whether an alien is eligible to be 
admitted to the United States as a nonimmigrant under section 
101(a)(15)(V), the grounds for inadmissibility specified in 
section 212(a)(9)(B) shall not apply.
  (3) The status of an alien physically present in the United 
States may be adjusted by the Attorney General, in the 
discretion of the Attorney General and under such regulations 
as the Attorney General may prescribe, to that of a 
nonimmigrant under section 101(a)(15)(V), if the alien--
          (A) applies for such adjustment;
          (B) satisfies the requirements of such section; and
          (C) is eligible to be admitted to the United States, 
        except in determining such admissibility, the grounds 
        for inadmissibility specified in paragraphs (6)(A), 
        (7), and (9)(B) of section 212(a) shall not apply.
  (r)(1) A visa shall not be issued under the provisions of 
section 101(a)(15)(K)(ii) until the consular officer has 
received a petition filed in the United States by the spouse of 
the applying alien and approved by the Attorney General. The 
petition shall be in such form and contain such information as 
the Attorney General shall, by regulation, prescribe. Such 
information shall include information on any criminal 
convictions of the petitioner for any specified crime described 
in paragraph (5)(B) and information on any permanent protection 
or restraining order issued against the petitioner related to 
any specified crime described in subsection (5)(B)(i).
  (2) In the case of an alien seeking admission under section 
101(a)(15)(K)(ii) who concluded a marriage with a citizen of 
the United States outside the United States, the alien shall be 
considered inadmissible under section 212(a)(7)(B) if the alien 
is not at the time of application for admission in possession 
of a valid nonimmigrant visa issued by a consular officer in 
the foreign state in which the marriage was concluded.
  (3) In the case of a nonimmigrant described in section 
101(a)(15)(K)(ii), and any child of such a nonimmigrant who was 
admitted as accompanying, or following to join, such a 
nonimmigrant, the period of authorized admission shall 
terminate 30 days after the date on which any of the following 
is denied:
          (A) The petition filed under section 204 to accord 
        the principal alien status under section 
        201(b)(2)(A)(i).
          (B) The principal alien's application for an 
        immigrant visa pursuant to the approval of such 
        petition.
          (C) The principal alien's application for adjustment 
        of status under section 245 pursuant to the approval of 
        such petition.
  (4)(A) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall create a 
database for the purpose of tracking multiple visa petitions 
filed for fiance(e)s and spouses under clauses (i) and (ii) of 
section 101(a)(15)(K). Upon approval of a second visa petition 
under section 101(a)(15)(K) for a fiance(e) or spouse filed by 
the same United States citizen petitioner, the petitioner shall 
be notified by the Secretary that information concerning the 
petitioner has been entered into the multiple visa petition 
tracking database. All subsequent fiance(e) or spouse 
nonimmigrant visa petitions filed by that petitioner under such 
section shall be entered in the database.
  (B)(i) Once a petitioner has had two fiance(e) or spousal 
petitions approved under clause (i) or (ii) of section 
101(a)(15)(K), if a subsequent petition is filed under such 
section less than 10 years after the date the first visa 
petition was filed under such section, the Secretary of 
Homeland Security shall notify both the petitioner and 
beneficiary of any such subsequent petition about the number of 
previously approved fiance(e) or spousal petitions listed in 
the database.
  (ii) To notify the beneficiary as required by clause (i), the 
Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide such notice to the 
Secretary of State for inclusion in the mailing to the 
beneficiary described in section 833(a)(5)(A)(i) of the 
International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005 (8 U.S.C. 
1375a(a)(5)(A)(i)).
  (5) In this subsection:
          (A) The terms ``domestic violence'', ``sexual 
        assault'', ``child abuse and neglect'', ``dating 
        violence'', ``elder abuse'', and ``stalking'' have the 
        meaning given such terms in section 3 of the Violence 
        Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization 
        Act of 2005.
          (B) The term ``specified crime'' means the following:
                  (i) Domestic violence, sexual assault, child 
                abuse and neglect, dating violence, elder 
                abuse, stalking, or an attempt to commit any 
                such crime.
                  (ii) Homicide, murder, manslaughter, rape, 
                abusive sexual contact, sexual exploitation, 
                incest, torture, trafficking, peonage, holding 
                hostage, involuntary servitude, slave trade, 
                kidnapping, abduction, unlawful criminal 
                restraint, false imprisonment, or an attempt to 
                commit any of the crimes described in this 
                clause.
                  (iii) At least three convictions for crimes 
                relating to a controlled substance or alcohol 
                not arising from a single act.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


              Compliance with Rule XIII, Clause 3(f)(1)(A)

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

             TITLE I--DEPARTMENT MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS

            Office of the Secretary and Executive Management

    Language providing funds for the Office of the Secretary 
and Executive Management (OSEM) offices, including funds for 
official reception and representation expenses.

              Office of the Under Secretary for Management

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

                 Office of the Chief Financial Officer

    Language providing funds for the Chief Financial Officer 
requires submission of a Future Years Homeland Security Program 
concurrent with the budget request.

                Office of the Chief Information Officer

    Language providing funds for the Chief Information Officer 
and for the development and acquisition of information 
technology equipment, software, services, and related 
activities.

                        Analysis and Operations

    Language providing funds for information analysis and 
operations coordination activities, including funding for 
official representation expenses.

                      Office of Inspector General

    Language providing funds for the Office of Inspector 
General as well as certain confidential operational expenses, 
including the payment of informants.

          TITLE II--SECURITY, ENFORCEMENT, AND INVESTIGATIONS

                   U.S. Customs and Border Protection

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

    Language making funds available for border security, 
immigration, customs, and agricultural inspections and 
regulatory activities; purchase or lease of vehicles; 
contracting with individuals for personal services; Harbor 
Maintenance Fee collections; official reception and 
representation expenses; Customs User Fee collections; payment 
of rental space in connection with preclearance operations; and 
compensation of informants.
    Language regarding overtime compensation and requires 
Border Patrol to maintain an active duty force of 21,370 
agents.

                        AUTOMATION MODERNIZATION

    Language making funds available for automated systems.

        BORDER SECURITY FENCING, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND TECHNOLOGY

    Language making funds available for border security 
fencing, infrastructure, and technology.

 AIR AND MARINE INTERDICTION, OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE, AND PROCUREMENT

    Language making funds available for the operations, 
maintenance, and procurement of marine vessels, aircraft, 
unmanned aircraft systems, the Air and Marine Operations 
Center, and other equipment; travel; and assistance to other 
law enforcement agencies and humanitarian efforts.
    Language prohibiting the transfer of aircraft and related 
equipment out of CBP unless certain conditions are met.
    Language is included allowing CBP to increase operations in 
Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

                 CONSTRUCTION AND FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

    Language making funds available for the planning, 
acquisition, construction, renovating, equipping, and 
maintaining of buildings and facilities.

                U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

    Language making funds available to conduct investigations 
of criminal violations of Federal law relating to border 
security, customs and trade, immigration and naturalization, 
and travel and transportation; for the civil enforcement of the 
immigration and customs laws, including the detention and 
removal of immigration status violators; special operations; 
official reception and representation expenses; for 
compensation to informants; promotion of public awareness to 
counter child exploitation; for enforcement of law against 
forced child labor; for the facilitation of section 287(g); and 
for the reimbursement of other Federal agencies for certain 
costs.
    Language withholding funds from Salaries and Expenses, 
limiting overtime compensation, a minimum number of detention 
bed spaces, the Visa Security Program, the operations of the 
National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center, for 
transportation of unaccompanied alien children, and for Custody 
Operations.
    Language that requires the Secretary to identify illegal 
aliens who have been convicted of a crime or who pose a serious 
risk to public safety or National security who are eligible for 
removal.
    The delegation of law enforcement authority for the 287(g) 
program if terms of the agreement have been materially 
violated.
    Language prohibiting funds to continue any contract for 
detention services if two recent evaluations are less than 
adequate and authorizes the Secretary to reprogram and transfer 
funds within and into this appropriation for the purposes of 
detaining aliens prioritized for removal.

                        AUTOMATION MODERNIZATION

    Language making funds available for automated systems.

                 Transportation Security Administration

                           AVIATION SECURITY

    Language making funds available for civil aviation security 
and establishes conditions under which security fees are 
collected and credited.
    Language providing funds for reception and representation 
expenses.
    Language limiting staffing to 45,000 full-time equivalent 
screeners, not including part-time hires, and requires a report 
on passenger and baggage screening technology.
    Language clarifying a variety of people are not exempt from 
screening.

                    SURFACE TRANSPORTATION SECURITY

    Language providing funds for TSA's surface transportation 
security activities.

                   INTELLIGENCE AND VETTING PROGRAMS

    Language providing funds for intelligence and vetting 
activities.

                    TRANSPORTATION SECURITY SUPPORT

    Language providing funds for TSA's transportation security 
support programs.

                              Coast Guard

                           OPERATING EXPENSES

    Language regarding passenger motor vehicles, small boats, 
repairs and service life-replacements, minor shore construction 
projects, recreation and welfare, and the Oil Spill Liability 
Trust Fund.
    Language on reception and representation expenses and 
reprogrammings.

                ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE AND RESTORATION

    Language providing funds for environmental compliance and 
restoration of the Coast Guard.

                            RESERVE TRAINING

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

              ACQUISITIONS, CONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENTS

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

              RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

    Language providing funds for applied scientific research, 
development, test, and evaluation; and for maintenance, 
rehabilitation, lease and operation of facilities and 
equipment.
    Language allowing funds to remain available until September 
30, 2018; authorizing funds to be derived from the Oil Spill 
Liability Trust Fund; and authorizing funds received from State 
and local governments, other public authorities, private 
sources, and foreign countries to be credited to this account 
and used for certain purposes.

                              RETIRED PAY

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

                      United States Secret Service

                           OPERATING EXPENSES

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

              ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, AND IMPROVEMENTS

    Language providing funds for the acquisition, construction, 
improvement, and related expenses of Secret Service facilities.

                  TITLE III--PREPAREDNESS AND RECOVERY

              National Protection and Programs Directorate

                     MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

    Language providing funds for the Office of the Under 
Secretary for National Protection and Programs Directorate as 
well as to support business operations and information 
technology.
    Language providing funds for official reception and 
representation expenses.

           INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION AND INFORMATION SECURITY

    Language making funds available for cybersecurity 
activities and infrastructure protection, of which certain 
funds are available until September 30, 2017.

                       FEDERAL PROTECTIVE SERVICE

    Language making funds available until expended for the 
operations of the Federal Protective Service

                Office of Biometric Identity Management

    Language making funds available for the Office of Biometric 
Identity Management.

                        Office of Health Affairs

    Language making funds available for health affairs, 
biosurveillance, BioWatch, medical readiness planning, and 
chemical defense.

                   Federal Emergency Management Agency

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

    Language that provides funds for salaries and expenses.
    Language providing funds for reception and representation 
expenses, Urban Search and Rescue Response System, Mount 
Weather Emergency Operations Center.
    Language limiting administrative costs for Urban Search and 
Rescue Teams.

                        STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS

    Language providing funds for grants, contracts, cooperative 
agreements, other activities, including grants to State and 
local governments for terrorism prevention.
    Language identifying the amount of funds available for 
Operation Stonegarden and for National Programs.
    Language specifying the conditions under which both 
applications and grants are made to certain grants made in the 
Act.
    Language specifying the conditions for distribution of 
certain grants and provides authority for the procurement of 
land.

                     FIREFIGHTER ASSISTANCE GRANTS

    Language providing funds for grants.

                EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE GRANTS

    Language providing funds for grants.

              RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAM

    Language regarding charges assessed for the radiological 
emergency preparedness program, including conditions and 
methodology for the assessment and collection of fees.

                   UNITED STATES FIRE ADMINISTRATION

    Language that provides funds for expenses of the U.S. Fire 
Administration.

                            DISASTER RELIEF

    Language making funds available until expended and requires 
a variety of reporting requirements.

                 FLOOD HAZARD MAPPING AND RISK ANALYSIS

    Language making funds available for flood hazard mapping, 
including administrative costs.

                     NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE FUND

    Language limiting funds available for salaries and expenses 
and language making funds available for flood hazard mitigation 
floodplain management available until September 30, 2015. The 
Committee includes provisions limiting operating expenses; for 
interest on Treasury borrowings; for agents' commissions and 
taxes; for fees collected and available for floodplain 
management; and for flood mitigation activities associated with 
sections of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968.
    Language permitting additional fees collected be credited 
as an offsetting collection and available for floodplain 
management and language providing that not to exceed four 
percent of the total appropriation is available for 
administrative costs and that funds are available for the Flood 
Advocate.

                  NATIONAL PREDISASTER MITIGATION FUND

    Language authorizing grant awards to be available until 
expended.

                       EMERGENCY FOOD AND SHELTER

    Language making funds available until expended and limiting 
total administrative costs to 3.5 percent of the total 
appropriation.

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

           United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

    Language making funds available for the E-Verify program, 
permitting replacement of vehicles and official reception and 
representation.

                Federal Law Enforcement Training Center

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

    Language making funds available for official representation 
expenses; purchase of police type pursuit vehicles; student 
athletic and related recreational activities; conducting and 
participating in firearms matches; public awareness and 
community support; room and board; services authorized by 5 
U.S.C. 3109; law enforcement accreditation; reimbursements for 
certain mobile phone expenses.
    Language authorizing the training of certain law 
enforcement personnel; authorizes the use of appropriations and 
reimbursements for such training and establishes a cap on total 
obligations.
    Language authorizing funds for the compensation of 
accreditation costs for participating agencies; and on the 
scheduling of basic or advanced law enforcement training.

      ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENTS AND RELATED EXPENSES

    Language making funds available for real property and 
facilities and authorizes reimbursement from government 
agencies requesting construction of special use facilities.

                         Science and Technology

                     MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

    Language providing funds for management and administration, 
including funds for official reception and representation 
expenses.

           RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, ACQUISITION AND OPERATIONS

    Language making funds available for science and technology 
research, development, test and evaluation, acquisition, and 
operations.
    Language providing funds for operation and construction of 
laboratory facilities.

                   Domestic Nuclear Detection Office

                     MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

    Language that provides funds for management and 
administration, including funds for reception and 
representation expenses.

           RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, ACQUISITION, AND OPERATIONS

    Language making funds available for radiological and 
nuclear research, development, testing, evaluation, and 
operations.

                          SYSTEMS ACQUISITION

    Language making funds available for the purchase and 
deployment of radiation detection equipment.

                      TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

    Language limiting the availability of any appropriation for 
obligation beyond the current year unless expressly provided.
    Language permitting unexpended balances of prior 
appropriations to be merged with new appropriation accounts and 
used for the same purpose, subject to reprogramming guidelines.
    Language providing reprogramming authority for funds within 
an account and limiting the percent that can be transferred 
between appropriations accounts with the requirement for a 15-
day advance Congressional notification. A detailed funding 
table identifying each Congressional control level for 
reprogramming purposes is included at the end of this Report. 
These reprogramming guidelines shall be complied with by all 
agencies funded by the Department of Homeland Security 
Appropriations Act, 2016, for obligation and deobligation of 
funds.
    Language prohibiting funds appropriated or otherwise made 
available to the Department to make payment to the WCF, except 
for activities and amounts allowed in the President's fiscal 
year 2016 request. Funds provided to the WCF are available 
until expended. The Department can only charge components for 
direct usage of the WCF and these funds may be used only for 
the purposes consistent with the contributing component. Any 
funds paid in advance or reimbursed must reflect the full cost 
of each service. The WCF shall be subject to the requirements 
of section 503 of this Act.
    Language providing that not to exceed 50 percent of 
unobligated balances remaining at the end of fiscal year 2016 
from appropriations made for salaries and expenses remain 
available through fiscal year 2017 subject to reprogramming 
guidelines.
    Language providing that funds for intelligence activities 
are deemed to be specifically authorized during fiscal year 
2016 until the enactment of an Act authorizing intelligence 
activities for fiscal year 2016.
    Language requiring notification of the Committees on 
Appropriations three days before grant allocations, grant 
awards, contract awards, other transactional agreements, letter 
of intents, or task or delivery order on a multiple contract 
award totaling $1,000,000 or more, or a task order greater than 
$10,000,000 from multiyear funds, is announced by the 
Department, including contracts covered by the Federal 
Acquisition Regulation or sole source grant award. The 
Department is required to brief the Committees on 
Appropriations five full business days prior to announcing the 
intention to make a grant under State and Local Programs.
    Language prohibiting any agency from purchasing, 
constructing, or leasing additional facilities for Federal law 
enforcement training without advance approval of the Committees 
on Appropriations.
    Language prohibiting funds to be used for any construction, 
repair, alteration, and acquisition project for which a 
prospectus, if required under chapter 33 of title 40, United 
States Code, has not been approved.
    Language consolidating, by reference, prior year statutory 
bill language into one provision. These provisions relate to 
contracting officer's technical representative training; 
sensitive security information; and the use of funds in 
conformance with Section 303 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992. 
The language eliminates statutory reporting requirements for 
SSI.
    Language prohibiting funds being used in contravention of 
the Buy American Act.
    Language maintaining the use of the oath of allegiance 
required by Section 337 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
    Language requiring the Chief Financial Officer to submit 
monthly budget execution and staffing reports within 45 days 
after the close of each month. The Committee also directs the 
submission of obligation and expenditure plans annually and 
quarterly for specified programs.
    Language directing that any funds appropriated or 
transferred to TSA ``Aviation Security'', ``Administration'', 
and ``Transportation Security Support'' in fiscal years 2004 
and 2005, which are recovered or deobligated, shall be 
available only for procurement and installation of explosive 
detection systems for air cargo, baggage, and checkpoint 
screening systems. The Committee also requires quarterly 
reports on recovered or deobligated funds.
    Language limiting the use of A-76 competitions by USCIS.
    Language requiring any funds appropriated to the Coast 
Guard's 110-123 foot patrol boat conversion that are recovered, 
collected, or otherwise received as a result of negotiation, 
mediation, or litigation, be available until expended for the 
Fast Response Cutter program.
    Language classifying the functions of the instructor staff 
at FLETC as inherently governmental for purposes of the Federal 
Activities Inventory Reform Act.
    Language requires the Inspector General to review 
Departmental contracts awarded noncompetitively and report on 
the results to the Committees.
    Language prohibiting funding for any position designated as 
a Principal Federal Official during a Stafford Act declared 
disaster or emergency.
    Language precluding DHS from using funds in this Act to 
carry out reorganization authority unless authorized by 
Congress.
    Language prohibiting funding to grant an immigration 
benefit to any individual unless the results of background 
checks required in statute be completed prior to the grant of 
the benefit have been received by DHS.
    Language relating to the use of transactional authority by 
DHS through fiscal year 2016.
    Language requiring the Secretary to link all contracts that 
provide award fees to successful acquisition outcomes.
    Language requiring notification of any request for waivers 
of navigation and vessel-inspection laws pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 
501(b).
    Language regarding prescription drugs.
    Language requiring the Secretary, in conjunction with the 
Secretary of Treasury, to notify the Committees of any proposed 
transfers from the Department of Treasury Forfeiture Fund to 
any agency within DHS. No funds may be obligated until the 
Subcommittees approve the proposed transfers.
    Language prohibiting funds for the planning, testing, 
piloting or developing a National identification card.
    Language directing that any official required by this Act 
to report or certify to the Committees on Appropriations may 
not delegate any authority unless expressly authorized to do so 
in this Act.
    Language prohibiting the use of funds for the transfer or 
release of individuals detained at United States Naval Station, 
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
    Language prohibiting funds in this Act to be used for 
first-class travel.
    Language prohibiting funds to be used to employ illegal 
workers as described in Section 274A(h)(3) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act.
    Language prohibiting funds appropriated or otherwise made 
available by this Act to pay for award or incentive fees for 
contractors with below satisfactory performance or performance 
that fails to meet the basic requirements of the contract.
    Language requiring any new processes developed to screen 
aviation passengers and crews for transportation or National 
security to consider privacy and civil liberties, consistent 
with applicable laws, regulations, and guidance.
    Language making immigration examination fee collections 
explicitly available for immigrant integration grants, not to 
exceed $10,000,000, in fiscal year 2016.
    Language providing funding for the Department headquarters 
consolidation project.
    Language prohibiting funds appropriated or otherwise made 
available by this Act from being used to enter into Federal 
contracts unless in accordance with the Federal Property and 
Administrative Services Act or the Federal Acquisition 
Regulation, unless otherwise authorized by statute.
    Language providing funds for Financial Systems 
Modernization efforts across the Department.
    Language permitting the Secretary to transfer up to 
$20,000,000 to address immigration emergencies notwithstanding 
section 503 of this Act.
    Language regarding disposal of Service Processing Centers 
or other ICE owned detention facilities.
    Language requiring the Secretary to enforce existing 
immigration laws.
    Language prohibiting funds made available in this Act from 
being used to establish or maintain computer networks unless 
such networks block pornography.
    Language regarding the transfer of firearms by Federal law 
enforcement personnel.
    Language prohibiting funds for the implementation of the 
National Preparedness Grant Program or any successor grant 
program.
    Language prohibiting funds for the position of Public 
Advocate or successor position within ICE.
    Language increasing public private partnership initiatives 
from five to ten.
    Language regarding funding restrictions and reporting 
requirements regarding conferences occurring outside of the 
United States.
    Language prohibiting the reimbursement of funds to any 
Federal Department or agency for its participation in a NSSE
    Language prohibiting pre-clearance locations unless CBP 
meets certain conditions and conducts the necessary analysis 
and reporting.
    Language prohibiting funds from being used to require 
airport operators to provide airport-financed staffing to 
monitor exit points at which TSA provided such monitoring as of 
December 1, 2013.
    Language pertaining to the temporary reemployment of 
administrative law judges for arbitration dispute resolution.
    Language regarding the availability of COBRA fee revenue.
    Language directing the inclusion of budget justification 
for any structural pay reform that affects more than 100 FTE 
employee positions or costs more than $5,000,000.
    Language requiring DHS to post Committee-required reports 
on a DHS public website under certain circumstances.
    Language allowing the costs of providing humanitarian 
relief to unaccompanied alien children and to alien adults and 
their minor children to be an eligible use for certain Homeland 
Security grants.
    Language providing TSA additional authority to reprogram or 
transfer funds within particular PPAs.
    Language directing that all DHS acquisition programs meet 
established acquisition documentation requirements.
    Language withholding acquisition funds from particular 
accounts in CBP, Coast Guard, and FEMA until these components 
meet specified acquisition requirements.
    Language directing DHS fiscal year 2017 budget request and 
accompanying justification material be reorganized to follow a 
common appropriation structure, as specified.
    Language prohibiting funds from being used by DHS to 
approve, license, facilitate, authorize, or allow the 
trafficking or import of property confiscated by the Cuban 
Government.
    Language prohibiting funds to expand or implement certain 
immigration programs while the injunctive order of Civ. No. B-
14-254 remains in effect.
    Language amending 8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(9)(A).
    Language prohibiting funds for the creation or continued 
use of badges resembling law enforcement badges by the 
Transportation Security Administration.
    Language prohibiting ICE from paying for abortions except 
in certain circumstances.
    Language prohibiting ICE from requiring any person to 
perform an abortion.
    Language authorizing ICE to escort female detainees outside 
the detention facilities.
    Language prohibiting the release of particularly 
categorized aliens as defined in the Secretary of Homeland 
Security's memorandum dated November 20, 2014.
    Language prohibiting the granting of certain FEMA funds to 
state or political subdivisions if they inhibit Federal 
immigration law enforcement efforts, as determined by the 
Secretary of Homeland Security.
    Language rescinding unobligated balances from specified 
programs.
    Language rescinding specified funds from the Treasury 
Forfeiture Fund.
    Language rescinding unobligated balances from the FEMA DRF.
    Language prohibiting new budget authority from exceeding 
the budget allocation in fiscal year 2016.

                  APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW

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


                   COMPARISON WITH BUDGET RESOLUTION

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

                                            [in millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  302(b) allocation             This bill
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Budget                    Budget
                                                               Authority     Outlays     Authority     Outlays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General purpose discretionary...............................       39,333       49,169       39,333    \1\44,561
    Disaster-designated\2\..................................  ...........  ...........        6,713          336
Mandatory...................................................        1,604        1,583        1,604        1,583
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Includes outlays from prior-year authority.
\2\The amounts in this bill are technically in excess of the subcommittee section 302(b) suballocation as a
  result of including $6,713 million for the Disaster Relief Fund and designated for disaster relief pursuant to
  section 251(b)(2)(D) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. However, because such
  adjustments are authorized for this funding, the Committee on Appropriations expects the Chairman of the
  Committee on the Budget to provide the Committee on Appropriations an increase of $6,713 million to its
  section 302(a) general purpose discretionary allocation, and the Committee on Appropriations would report
  appropriately revised 302(b)s that reflects the suballocation of this funding, prior to any floor
  consideration. These actions will eliminate the technical difference.

                      FIVE YEAR OUTLAY PROJECTIONS

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Millions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outlays:
    2016...................................................    \1\27,283
    2017...................................................        9,461
    2018...................................................        5,788
    2019...................................................        2,796
    2020 and future years..................................        2,199
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.

               ASSISTANCE TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Millions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Authority...........................................        6,020
Fiscal Year 2016 outlays resulting therefrom...............       \1\359
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.

                          PROGRAM DUPLICATION

    No provision of this bill establishes or reauthorizes a 
program of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of 
another Federal program, a program that was included in any 
report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress 
pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program 
related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of 
Federal Domestic Assistance.

                          DIRECTED RULE MAKING

    The bill does not contain any provision that specifically 
directs the promulgation or completion of a rule.

                    DETAILED EXPLANATIONS IN REPORT

    The following table contains detailed funding 
recommendations at the program, project, and activity (PPA) 
level.



                      MINORITY VIEWS OF NITA LOWEY

                       AND LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD

    We want to commend the Subcommittee Chairman for the extent 
to which he considered our comments, suggestions, and proposals 
in the development of his mark, for accommodating us when he 
could, and for reaching compromises whenever possible.
    The chairman's mark reflected his serious approach in 
supporting the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) 
important security mission while also holding it accountable. 
It is unfortunate that the subcommittee's bipartisan work was 
ultimately tainted by two partisan, poison pill amendments 
related to immigration policy that were offered and adopted by 
the Committee Majority.

                           302(b) Allocation

    At $2,064,669,000 below the budget request and $337,000,000 
below the fiscal year 2015 level, the bill's allocation is 
significantly below the amount required to address the 
country's most critical homeland security priorities. For 
instance, with a higher allocation, the bill could provide 
$200,000,000, the frill request level, for Pre-Disaster 
Mitigation (PDM) grants, instead of only $25 million. The 
Committee report makes clear the importance of PDM grants to 
the resiliency of communities across the country:

          PDM grants are one of the only sources of Federal 
        mitigation funding for communities prior to a disaster. 
        It has been repeatedly demonstrated that these types of 
        investments lead to significant savings by mitigating 
        risks and reducing damage from future disasters.

    The PDM program has bipartisan support because not only 
does it work, it prevents costly and potentially deadly damages 
when disasters strike. The program supports a broad range of 
projects meant to mitigate disasters, including flood risk 
reduction; retrofitting of existing buildings to withstand 
earthquakes and hurricanes; safe room construction to protect 
from tornadoes and hurricanes; soil stabilization to protect 
from landslides; and wildfire mitigation. For every dollar the 
Federal government invests in PDM, the Nation avoids $3 in 
losses. So for an investment of $200 million, we could avoid 
$600 million in future losses, including losses to the flood 
insurance program and the Disaster Relief Fund, without 
counting the number of lives saved and injuries avoided.
    Another prime example of the overall inadequacy of the 
allocation is that the bill provides only $100,000,000 for 
Flood Hazard Mapping and Risk Analysis, which is $178,600,000 
below the amount requested. By failing to recommend the 
requested funding level for this program, the Committee would 
prevent the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) from 
reaching its goal of having flood maps based on valid or 
current data for 80 percent of stream miles by 2019. Currently, 
FEMA has ``technically credible data'' for only 53 percent of 
its flood map inventory, which means that 47 percent of flood 
maps may be inaccurate and unreliable as a basis for setting 
flood insurance premiums, predicting damage from flooding 
events, or informing private sector investments.
    Terrain and weather patterns change, and our toleration for 
and understanding of risk have also certainly changed since 
Hurricane Katrina. We are failing to prepare the country for 
major disasters if we do not properly update flood maps. The 
funding requested for flood mapping in fiscal year 2016 would 
provide the benefit of current flood maps to an additional 9.4 
million Americans. Without this investment, those Americans 
will make decisions about home ownership and insurance 
purchases based on outdated and unreliable information that 
could unfairly increase their flood insurance premiums or leave 
them with a false sense of security.
    A higher allocation would also allow the Committee to 
recommend the requested finding level for the DHS headquarters 
consolidation project, which is already under construction on 
the St. Elizabeths campus in Southeast Washington, DC. The 
Coast Guard fully occupied its new facility there in late 2013. 
Restoration work for the Center Building, which will house the 
Office of the Secretary and Executive Management, began in 
early 2015, with an expected move-in date in 2017.
    Earlier this year, the Department revised its plan for St. 
Elizabeths to consolidate the footprint, reduce costs, and 
accelerate the construction schedule. It makes no sense to 
build half of a headquarters. Further delays will only cost the 
taxpayers more in the long run as the Department is forced to 
extend costly leases in more than 50 locations scattered across 
the Washington, DC, metropolitan area. On both fiscal grounds 
and to improve the cohesiveness of DHS operations, we must 
continue to make timely progress on the headquarters project.

                     Bipartisan Funding Priorities

    Despite an inadequate allocation, the bill does address a 
number of bipartisan priorities, including maintaining the 
current funding levels for all first responder and 
antiterrorism grants. It is our hope that these programs will 
be increased under a better allocation. It also maintains level 
funding for the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, 
including support for continued oversight of DHS partnerships 
with state and local law enforcement entities. In addition, the 
bill increases support for critical Coast Guard acquisitions; 
fully funds the proposed increase for the Secret Service to 
begin addressing Protective Mission Panel recommendations; 
provides additional funding for U.S. Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement (ICE) investigations into child exploitation, human 
trafficking, financial crimes, and drug smuggling; and restores 
funding for University Centers of Excellence.
    While providing level funding of $120,000,000 for the 
Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP), the bill again omits 
the proposed authority to transfer EFSP to the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Instead, the Committee 
continues to make clear, on a bipartisan basis, that any future 
potential transfer must be premised on consultation with 
program stakeholders, appropriate justification, and a fully 
developed plan for transition.

                        Departmental Management

    We continue to fully endorse the Chairman's efforts to push 
the Department to develop and institutionalize more rigorous, 
consistent, and comprehensive processes for planning, 
budgeting, acquisition, evaluation, joint requirements, hiring, 
and operational coordination. While this kind of oversight and 
support does not often generate the biggest headlines, it is 
critically important and is the foundation of the Committee's 
most basic responsibility.

                 Immigration Detention and Enforcement

    Immigration detention is civil detention. It is not 
intended to be a punishment and should only be used when 
required by law, or for those determined to be a significant 
flight risk or a danger to public safety. It is inappropriate 
that the bill continues a provision setting an arbitrary 
minimum of 34,000 available ICE detention beds, which limits 
ICE's flexibility to use cheaper, alternative forms of 
supervision when appropriate. We should not eliminate the 
discretion of ICE law enforcement personnel to make custody 
determinations that are consistent with legal requirements, and 
should not foreclose the use of less expensive, non-custody 
forms of supervision when appropriate.
    Perhaps the most significant area of disagreement on 
funding in the bill is its support for the continued use of 
family detention. Members of the House who have visited ICE's 
two largest family detention facilities, including Ranking 
Member Roybal-Allard, report that facilities like Karnes and 
Dilley are clearly not appropriate places for families. The 
women and children incarcerated are not flight risks or dangers 
to our communities. Most have come to the United States fleeing 
violence or persecution to intentionally submit an application 
for asylum for themselves and their children, in accordance 
with our immigration laws. Some will qualify for asylum and 
some will not, but detaining them for the duration of the 
adjudication process is unnecessary and inappropriate.
    Instead of detention, we should utilize less costly, non-
detention forms of supervision, such as the Alternatives to 
Detention program or release on bond or parole. We are 
encouraged by the Department's recent decision to adopt a 
general policy of releasing families from detention if they are 
seeking asylum.
    The bill also includes a new general provision that we 
believe to be unhelpful and unnecessary. It would prohibit U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) from implementing 
the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans program and the 
expanded Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program while a 
related federal court injunctionremains in place. Since USCIS 
has no intention of violating that injunction, the need for this 
provision is unclear.

                                  Cuba

    It is disappointing that the Committee rejected the Farr 
Amendment, which would have stricken a provision in the bill 
(Sec. 559) intended to reverse the President's modest loosening 
of the trade embargo with Cuba. Congress, of course, has a role 
to play with regard to Cuba policy, but the executive branch 
takes the lead on diplomatic relations with other countries, 
and President Obama should have the chance to try a more 
productive approach that better serves our country and the 
interests of the Cuban people.
    Section 559 is tied to claims of property confiscated by 
the Cuban government, which are important and must be fairly 
resolved. But change does not happen all at once, and those 
claims will certainly never be resolved without further 
improvements in the bilateral relationship.
    While it is unclear whether the language of Sec. 559 would 
actually have the intended impact, we should not prohibit 
individuals returning to the United States from Cuba from 
bringing back up to $400 worth of merchandise, as current 
policy allows. In fact, we believe that the more interaction 
Cubans have with the United States, the more they will come to 
appreciate the benefits of a more open economy.

         Availability of Reproductive Health Services for Women

    Over strong Democratic objections, the Full Committee once 
again adopted an unnecessary amendment related to the 
availability of reproductive health services for women detained 
by ICE. Restrictions on the use of federal funds for abortion 
procedures are already applicable to ICE and the Department of 
Homeland Security by President Obama's Executive Order 13535, 
issued on March 24, 2010, and are specifically formalized in 
Part 4.4 of ICE's 2011 Performance Based National Detention 
Standards. While many of us believe that those restrictions are 
excessive, they are a settled matter, and so we again fail to 
see the point of interjecting this divisive issue into a 
Homeland Security finding bill.
    Before a similar amendment was offered three years ago, 
this bill had never touched on the topic of abortion because it 
is not relevant to DES and falls far outside the lines of 
jurisdiction of the Committee. We will continue to work to 
remove the amendment's unnecessary provisions from the bill.

                     Poison Pill Immigration Riders

    In recent years, there has been an expectation that some 
member of the majority would offer an extreme immigration 
amendment on the House floor that, if passed, would disrupt the 
otherwise broad bipartisan support for the DHS funding bill. 
The conventional wisdom was that most members, including most 
members of the majority, would prefer to avoid consideration 
of, and votes on, such riders on the floor, but the amendments 
were ultimately offered and approved on almost entirely 
partisan votes.
    Now such immigration riders are being offered by members of 
the majority on this very Committee--and approved on a purely 
partisan basis--during Committee consideration of the bill. 
Given that there is perhaps no more controversial issue facing 
our country than immigration policy, it is disappointing, to 
say the least, that members of the Committee would jeopardize 
the bipartisan work of the Subcommittee and potentially 
jeopardize enactment of the finding bill for the Department. 
Have members already forgotten the disgraceful process that 
delayed enactment of the Department's annual funding bill for 
fiscal year 2015 until nearly half the year had already 
elapsed, or that the delay was caused by the majority's 
unrealistic insistence on including extreme immigration 
provisions?
    One amendment adopted by the Committee would categorically 
prohibit the release from custody of any individual meeting the 
definition of a level 1 or 2 enforcement priority. 
Unfortunately, there is a broad misconception that level 1 and 
2 priorities are defined exclusively as individuals with 
serious criminal records. In reality, level 1 and 2 priorities 
include individuals recently apprehended at or near the border 
who were not legally admitted; anyone without documentation who 
cannot demonstrate that they have been in the country since 
January 1, 2014; and individuals who have records of at least 
three prior misdemeanor convictions.
    The Immigration and Nationality Act provides a number of 
avenues for such individuals to seek relief from removal, 
including processes for seeking defensive asylum. But under the 
amendment adopted by the Committee, even asylum seekers would 
be precluded from the possibility of parole, release on bond, 
or alternatives to detention. Such a requirement would also 
clog up expensive detention facilities with individuals who 
pose no threat to our communities and whose flight risk--if 
any--could be easily managed with non-detention forms of 
supervision.
    Further, the amendment's restriction violates the Zadvydas 
v. Davis decision of the Supreme Court, which held that the 
indefinite detention of immigrants is unconstitutional, and 
therefore removable immigrants whose home country refuses to 
accept their return cannot continue to be detained.
    There is no disagreement that those who pose a danger to 
the community should remain in custody, and that is clearly 
ICE's current policy and practice. But individuals and families 
who come to the United States fleeing violence and persecution 
should have the opportunity to seek asylum without being 
further traumatized by unnecessary incarceration.
    Perhaps even more egregious was an amendment offered to 
prohibit the award of anti-terrorism and preparedness grants to 
states and local communities who have policies that limit their 
interactions with ICE for purposes of enforcing federal 
immigration laws. These policies can be based on disagreements 
with federal immigration policy; concerns about liability if 
someone is held in custody without legal authority to 
facilitate a detainer-based transfer to ICE; or the chilling 
effect on a local law enforcement agency's relationships in a 
community if people are afraid to work with them.
    In an attempt to resolve the growing impasse between ICE 
and many jurisdictions regarding the use of detainers, 
Secretary Johnson announced last November the establishment of 
the Priority Enforcement Program (PEP). Instead of the routine 
issuance of detainers, PEP will normally involve ICE asking 
local law enforcement agencies to voluntarily notify them about 
the planned release of individuals whom ICE has clearly 
identified as enforcement priorities, based on a conviction for 
specific types of crimes, participation in criminal gang 
activity, or being a danger to national security.
    Resolving state and local concerns about cooperation with 
ICE does not have to be an all or nothing proposition. We think 
there is room for agreement on making sure that local law 
enforcement agencies can work cooperatively with ICE to 
transfer custody of serious criminals who are immigration 
enforcement priorities. We should give the Department's PEP 
program a chance to work before punishing state and local 
jurisdictions for establishing policies that reflect the 
concerns of the citizens of their own communities and that are 
their legal right to determine.
    We should also think more than twice about injecting 
politics into how the Department allocates anti-terrorism grant 
dollars, which now are based primarily on assessments of 
threats, vulnerabilities, and consequences. These homeland 
security grants are not boondoggles for states and local 
communities; they are vital resources that help communities 
prepare for, respond to, and recover from the most serious 
threats we face.

                               Conclusion

    In closing, we want to underscore our appreciation for the 
efforts of the Chairman and his staff to work with the minority 
throughout the development of this bill to responsibly sustain 
our frontline homeland security operations while holding the 
Department accountable for its performance. As the 
appropriations process continues, we look forward to working 
with the majority to develop final legislation that is both 
free of controversial, extraneous policy riders and based on an 
adequate finding allocation.

                                   Nita M. Lowey.
                                   Lucille Roybal-Allard.

                                  [all]