House Report 110-862 - DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2009

[House Report 110-862]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

110th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 110-862

======================================================================

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2009

_______

September 18, 2008.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

_______

Mr. Price of North Carolina, from the Committee on Appropriations,
submitted the following

R E P O R T

together with

ADDITIONAL VIEWS

[To accompany H.R. 6947]

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, 2009.

INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT

Page number

Bill Report
TITLE I--DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS
Office of the Secretary and Executive Management... 2
11
Office of the Under Secretary for Management....... 2
16
Office of the Chief Financial Officer.............. 3
20
Office of the Chief Information Officer............ 3
23
Analysis and Operations............................ 4
24
Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast
Rebuilding..................................... 5
26
Office of Inspector General........................ 5
27
TITLE II--SECURITY, ENFORCEMENT, AND INVESTIGATIONS
U.S. Customs and Border Protection................. 5
29
Salaries and Expenses...................... 5
29
Automation Modernization................... 7
39
Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure,
and Technology......................... 8
41
Air and Marine Interdiction, Operations,
Maintenance, and Procurement........... 14
48
Construction............................... 15
50
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement........... 15
50
Salaries and Expenses...................... 15
50
Federal Protective Service................. 18
59
Automation Modernization................... 19
59
Construction............................... 19
60
Transportation Security Administration............. 20
61
Aviation Security.......................... 20
62
Surface Transportation Security............ 22
69
Transportation Threat Assessment and
Credentialing.......................... 22
70
Transportation Security Support............ 22
73
Federal Air Marshals....................... 23
75
Coast Guard........................................ 23
76
Operating Expenses......................... 23
76
Environmental Compliance and Restoration... 25
83
Reserve Training........................... 25
83
Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements 25
84
Alteration of Bridges...................... 31
89
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation 31
90
Retired Pay................................ 32
92
United States Secret Service....................... 32
92
Salaries and Expenses...................... 32
92
Acquisition, Construction, Improvements,
and Related Expenses................... 35
95
TITLE III--PROTECTION, PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE AND
DIRECTORATE RECOVERY
National Protection and Programs................... 35
95
Management and Administration.............. 35
95
Infrastructure Protection and Information
Security............................... 35
96
United States Visitor and Immigrant Status
Indicator Technology................... 36
101
Office of Health Affairs........................... 40
106
Federal Emergency Management Agency................ 41
109
Management and Administration.............. 41
109
State and Local Programs................... 42
114
Firefighter Assistance Grants.............. 47
121
Emergency Management Performance Grants.... 47
122
Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program 48
122
United States Fire Administration.......... 49
123
Disaster Relief............................ 49
123
Disaster Assistance Direct Loan Program
Account................................ 51
125
Flood Map Modernization Fund............... 51
126
National Flood Insurance Fund.............. 51
127
National Predisaster Mitigation Fund....... 53
128
Emergency Food and Shelter................. 54
130
Cerro Grande Fire Claims................... 54
130
TITLE IV--RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, TRAINING, AND SERVICES
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. 54
130
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center............ 55
134
Salaries and Expenses...................... 55
134
Acquisitions, Construction, Improvements,
and Related Expenses................... 57
134
Science and Technology............................. 57
135
Management and Administration.............. 57
135
Research, Development, Acquisition, and
Operations............................. 57
135
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office.................. 58
141
Management and Administration.............. 58
141
Research, Development, and Operations...... 59
141
Systems Acquisition........................ 59
144
TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS
This Act........................................... 60
145
Compliance with House Rules........................
165
Tables.............................................
185

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

The accompanying bill contains recommendations for new
budget (obligational) authority for fiscal year 2009 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 2008:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Bill compared with.....
New budget estimates of ---------------------------------
(obligational) new
Bureau/agency authority (obligational) Recommended in New budget Budget
fiscal year authority, the bill 2 authority estimate,
2008 enacted to fiscal year fiscal year fiscal year
date 1 2009 2 2008 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Departmental Management and Operations............................. $982,802 $1,185,492 $1,050,489 $67,687 -$135,003
Security, Enforcement and Investigations........................... 27,010,451 27,549,634 28,201,428 1,190,977 651,794
Protection, Preparedness, Response and Recovery.................... 8,100,046 7,020,139 8,828,985 728,939 1,808,846
Research, Development, Training, and Services...................... 1,684,724 1,861,303 1,819,098 134,374 -42,205
Rescission of Unobligated Balances................................. -106,100 ............... ............... 106,100 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand total.................................................... 37,671,923 37,616,568 39,900,000 2,228,077 2,283,432
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Dollars in thousands.
\1\ Includes $110,000,000 transferred from DoD; excludes $2,900,000,000 emergency supplemental disaster relief appropriations.
\2\ Excludes $2,175,000,000 Project BioShield advance appropriations available in fiscal year 2009.

Summary of Major Recommendations in the Bill

The Committee recommends $39,900,000,000 in discretionary
resources (excluding BioShield advance appropriation) for the
Department of Homeland Security, $2,283,432,000 above the
amount requested and $2,228,077,000 above fiscal year 2008
enacted levels (including emergency border security
appropriations).
The Committee report refers to the following laws and
organizations as follows: Implementing Recommendations of the
9/11 Commission Act of 2007, Public Law 110-53, is referenced
as the 9/11 Act; Security and Accountability for Every Port Act
of 2006, Public Law 109-347, is referenced as the SAFE Port
Act; the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of
2004, Public Law 108-458, is referenced as the Intelligence
Reform Act; the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Public
Law 110-161, is referenced as the 2008 Appropriations Act; the
Government Accountability Office is referenced as GAO; and the
Office of Inspector General of the Department of Homeland
Security is referenced as OIG.

Priorities in the Bill

The formation of the Department of Homeland Security after
the catastrophic events of September 11, 2001, represents the
most ambitious governmental reorganization since the formation
of the Department of Defense after World War II. The House and
Senate Appropriations Committees concurrently reorganized
themselves to create subcommittees with exclusive funding
jurisdiction over the new Department. This report accompanies
the sixth appropriations bill produced by the House
Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security.
The bill addresses the multiple challenges faced by this
Department--challenges of coordination and management, to be
sure, but also the substantive challenges of policy-making and
priority setting in the post-9/11 world. The bill aims to
strengthen the nation's protection against terrorist attacks,
reduce vulnerabilities to a full range of catastrophic events,
and enhance recovery from such events. The bill will equip our
country with necessary new capabilities while enhancing the
conventional capabilities of the Department's constituent
agencies, some of which have deteriorated since 9/11.
Congress has directed substantially increased resources
toward homeland security since 9/11; indeed, the accompanying
bill increases the fiscal year 2008 appropriations level,
including fiscal year 2008 emergency border security funding,
by $2.3 billion. But the bill reflects a careful allocation of
resources based on the Committee's best estimate of risk and
priorities. The bill contains spending reductions as well as
increases, and the expenditure of some $1.4 billion is made
conditional on the fulfillment of critical management and
planning goals.
The bill reflects an extended period of information-
gathering and analysis. The Subcommittee conducted 15 hearings
over three months to inform the contents of this legislation.
The Committee first heard from the Inspector General and the
Comptroller General, with a focus on the many management and
system improvements that each have recommended, but which have
not yet been fully implemented by the Department. The Committee
held hearings on virtually every component and agency of the
Department and received testimony from every high-level
departmental administrator, including the Secretary. Hearing
panels frequently paired departmental officials with experts
from GAO and the OIG to ensure that the Committee received a
full range of information and analysis about departmental
activities. The Committee also heard from private individuals
and organizations about the Department's efforts and challenges
related to a wide array of areas, including preparedness,
border consultation, and technology and research.
Citizens look to their government to make good use of
taxpayer dollars by planning appropriately; targeting scarce
resources to meet the most urgent and compelling needs; and
carefully measuring program performance. The Department has
significant progress to make in each of these areas. As a
result, much of the emphasis of this fiscal year 2009 DHS
appropriations bill is on spurring the Department to plan more
efficiently, articulate its goals better, and develop more
precise methods of measuring progress towards these goals. The
Committee understands that the demanding nature of the
Department's mission, as well as resource and technology
limitations, make it difficult for DHS to consistently meet
these expectations. However, the Committee continues to expect
departmental leadership to be frank and clear about the
limitations it faces. Described below is how the Committee
addressed these issues within the programs of the Department.

ENSURING TAXPAYER DOLLARS ARE WELL SPENT

The Committee is concerned that, despite evidence of
progress by some departmental components in improving financial
and procurement management, other components continue to
struggle. The OIG questioned a total of $112,700,000 in DHS
expenses in the first six months of fiscal year 2008 alone,
more than double the $53,300,000 questioned for the first six
months of 2007 and approximately six times more than the
$19,000,000 questioned for the first six months of 2006. This
is a trend in the wrong direction. Perhaps the most serious
example is Coast Guard, which determined last year that it
could not certify its own financial statements, and therefore
had no confidence that the financial statements it reported to
the Congress and the American people were accurate.
In addition, the Department's procurement review
mechanism--the Investment Review Board--is not succeeding. This
process was set up to oversee and review the need for large,
critical procurements, but it is unclear which investments the
IRB will review, how decisions will be overseen and monitored,
and how follow-up action will be tracked. Through this report,
the Committee directs the Deputy Secretary to specify the top
25 investments the IRB will oversee.
For large programs and procurements, the Committee has on
numerous occasions found that departmental plans lack
specificity, both in defining the expected outcomes to be
measured and in estimating costs and timelines. Therefore, the
Committee has required the submission of several expenditure
plans, which are basic tools for clarifying a program's
strategic context, specific goals and milestones, and lifecycle
costs. For example, the GAO has reported that the managers of
Coast Guard's Deepwater recapitalization program do not have
good visibility into the costing process of program
contractors, and therefore cannot establish appropriate cost
controls. The Committee requires a Deepwater expenditure plan
that includes a procurement strategy, competition, and cost
oversight.
The bill also requires expenditure plans for the following
additional programs, and makes some program funding unavailable
for obligation until these plans are submitted to and, in some
cases, approved by the Committees on Appropriations: Secure
Border Initiative; Deepwater; National Cyber Security
Initiative; Disaster Relief Core Employee Conversion; Emergency
Communications Next Generation Networks; National Command and
Coordination Capability; the Automated Commercial Environment;
United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator
Technology; and explosive detection systems for checkpoint and
checked baggage systems.

CORRECTING CURRENT SHORTFALLS

The Department and Congress are both aware of challenges
facing Department of Homeland Security operations, many of
which would remain unaddressed under the President's proposed
2009 budget. For instance, Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
and Coast Guard have numerous staffing shortfalls that must be
addressed; Coast Guard environmental response capabilities need
more vigorous exercise and attention; the Federal Emergency
Management Agency's (FEMA) efforts to retool its operations to
better respond to disasters are incomplete; the pace of post-
Katrina recovery in the Gulf Coast is still too slow; and the
current economic climate has increased the need for more food
and shelter resources. The Committee has attempted to address
these and many other shortfalls of the proposed budget through
its funding allocations in the fiscal year 2009 bill and
report.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (CBP) current workload
staffing model indicates that the agency needs several thousand
more Officers and Agriculture Specialists to meet its border
security responsibilities. CBP's 2009 budget justification
noted that it lacks 850 CBP Officers for land port of entry
passenger processing alone. The Committee has provided an
additional $28,292,000 to meet this need, as well as $8,750,000
to meet officer shortfalls at airports and $5,100,000 for
needed agricultural specialists. Similarly, Coast Guard has
stated that some Coast Guard sectors lack the resources
required to meet certain dangerous cargo vessel requirements.
The Committee has provided $29,000,000 for additional
watchstanders and marine inspection staff.
Unfortunately, Coast Guard's oil spill response capability
has been tested by significant oil spills over the past year,
including the large Cosco Busan oil spill in San Francisco Bay.
Coast Guard's own review of actions in response to this spill
uncovered many problems for which solutions were recommended 12
years earlier in a similar oil spill case. The two key
recommendations focus on the need to exercise and test
resources and decision-making authority through the Area
Contingency Planning process. The Committee has provided
additional funding to Coast Guard to ensure that additional
testing and exercising of the environmental response process
occurs in fiscal year 2009.
As the challenges to the economy continue, an increasing
number of Americans are relying on food and housing assistance
to meet basic needs. Recent estimates show foreclosure rates
rising 75 percent from 2006 and food prices up nearly five
percent from 2007. Yet, the President proposed cutting
Emergency Food and Shelter Program funding to $100,000,000, 35
percent below the fiscal year 2008 level. The Committee instead
has provided $200,000,000 for this program, an increase of
$47,000,000 above the current funding level.
Almost three years after Hurricane Katrina devastated the
Gulf Coast, the recovery effort continues to be significantly
hampered by what can only be called a housing crisis. The
Committee provides funding to support the development of a
comprehensive strategy for replenishing the stock of affordable
rental housing in Gulf Coast communities.
The needs of the nation's firefighters, who are among the
first emergency responders for most disasters, remain great.
Yet, the President's request would cut firefighter assistance
grants by 60 percent compared to fiscal year 2008. The Second
Needs Assessment done by the United States Fire Administration
in 2006 showed that approximately 26,000 fire stations (54
percent) have no backup power to continue operations during
electrical outages; and an estimated 737,000 firefighters serve
in fire departments with no program to maintain basic
firefighter fitness and health. The Committee provides
$800,000,000 to help address these and other deficiencies in
the nation's firefighting capabilities.

SETTING PRIORITIES FOR LONG-TERM PROGRESS

DHS must address a number of homeland security
vulnerabilities in a sustained manner so that critical,
incremental actions will contribute to the achievement of long
term homeland security goals. Among these needed efforts are
on-going investments in transit systems and ports, aviation,
border security, and systems for identifying criminal aliens
who are deportable.
Borders.--The Committee provides $9.7 billion, $207,000,000
more than requested, for programs and operations to help ensure
the integrity of our nation's borders, including activities to
prevent terrorism, smuggling, crime and illegal immigration.
Security at our nation's borders, both north and south, is
among the most basic responsibilities of the Federal
government. While DHS has made some progress in gaining
operational control of our borders, its border-related
technology development initiative has so far failed to live up
to expectations, and a resulting reliance on tactical
infrastructure risks a significant investment in an incomplete
solution that may not achieve expected results.
In addition, our investments in border security remain
uneven, with the bulk of resources devoted to our Southwest
border and focused on illegal immigration. By the end of fiscal
year 2009, the Border Patrol will employ a record 20,019
agents, 5,096 more than at the end of fiscal year 2007, and
7,670 more than at the end of fiscal year 2006. Ninety percent
(18,109) of these agents will be deployed on our Southwest
border. By the end of fiscal year 2009, the Department will
have invested $3.5 billion in border infrastructure and
technology, only $130,000,000 of which will be for the Northern
border. While illegal immigration from across the Northern
border is not as prevalent as that which occurs over the
Southwest border, the Northern border is a source of
significant vulnerability for terrorist infiltration. DHS must
better prioritize the elements of its border control strategy
to address that vulnerability.
It is important that our investments not only deal with the
control of our vast land borders but also help monitor the
entry and exit of legal visitors to the United States. That is
why the Committee has included direction for the Department to
pilot test options for monitoring the exit of visitors who
depart through air ports of entry, rather than simply implement
a proposed air exit solution that has never been tested. To
facilitate security and expedite the processing of legal
visitors, the Committee also includes $10,000,000 to expand a
new system for international registered travelers.
Immigration Enforcement.--During the past year, the
Committee has attempted to focus the Administration's
immigration enforcement efforts on those individuals who are in
the country illegally and have been convicted of serious and
often dangerous crimes. Just one year ago, Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE) did not have a plan for identifying
such individuals who are incarcerated in our nation's prisons
and jails. Although ICE developed such a plan, based on the
Committee's direction, the President's budget proposed no
dedicated resources to make sustained progress in executing
this plan. As a result, the Committee has provided $800,000,000
to ICE for plan implementation in 2009. This funding will allow
ICE to identify the most dangerous criminal aliens who are in
custody or at-large, and to prioritize those individuals for
removal from our country once they are judged deportable. The
Committee believes that ICE should have no greater immigration
enforcement priority than locating and removing criminal aliens
who have proven that they are a threat to our communities.
The Department's detention programs have expanded
dramatically over the past four years, from a total detention
capacity of 20,800 detainees in 2006 to 33,000 detainees funded
in this bill for 2009. Unfortunately, ICE's ability to ensure
the provision of appropriate medical care to detainees does not
appear to have kept pace with this growth in detention space.
The Committee is extremely concerned by allegations that
individuals held at ICE detention centers have died because of
neglected medical conditions; needlessly suffered from
medically treatable conditions; been the victims of
bureaucratic mix-ups caused by lost medical records; or
otherwise been denied appropriate medical care. The Committee
has therefore directed ICE, in conjunction with the Office of
Health Affairs, to initiate a comprehensive review of medical
care for detainees by third-party medical experts.
Aviation security.--Since 9/11, known threats to our
aviation system have led to improved explosive detection
technologies and better mechanisms to detect other threats in
baggage and cargo and in items carried by individuals. Yet, the
screening systems still employed at many airports are
inefficient and not well-suited to meet growing aviation
demand. A baggage screening investment study concluded that
capital funding requirements to procure and install new optimal
screening systems would cost $8.2 billion over 20 years. Yet,
the President requested only $404,000,000 to help meet these
requirements, $140,000,000 below the level provided in 2008.
The Committee has provided $544,000,000, including $250,000,000
in mandatory funding, to keep the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) on this 20-year investment path. This
additional funding will help airports with sub-optimal
screening solutions address security and traffic flow problems,
as well as retain 100 percent electronic checked baggage
screening compliance at airports that may not be otherwise
maintained due to anticipated growth or recapitalization needs.
Not all air cargo carried on passenger aircraft is screened
for explosives, which is a longstanding concern of Congress.
Last year, the 9/11 Act sought to address this vulnerability
permanently by mandating 100 percent screening of air cargo
carried on passenger aircraft by August 2010. The Committee
provides a total of $110,000,000 for TSA to meet this
requirement.
Earlier this year, TSA began developing and implementing a
certified cargo screening program to meet this mandate.
Assuming successful completion of the pilot, this program will
fundamentally change how air cargo is screened. Currently, TSA
relies exclusively on its personnel and air carriers to screen
cargo at airports prior to loading it onto passenger aircraft.
Under the new program, certified facilities will be allowed to
screen cargo prior to its consolidation onto pallets or into
containers before it leaves these facilities; most screening
will occur well before the cargo arrives at an airport. An
additional $5,000,000 above the budget request has been
provided for air cargo inspectors to audit these certified
facilities to ensure that they consistently meet all necessary
security requirements to participate in this program. The
President's proposed budget failed to address this important
requirement for ensuring program integrity.
Port and transit security.--Transit systems are vulnerable
to terrorist attack, as demonstrated in London and Madrid.
Since 9/11, $1.1 billion has been provided to protect transit
systems in the United States, and the transit industry has
estimated that a total of $6 billion is needed for security
training, radio communications systems, security cameras, and
access controls. The $400,000,000 provided in this bill for
transit and rail security puts the nation on a path toward
meeting the majority of these identified security needs within
five years. This amount is $225,000,000 more than requested by
the President.
Likewise, our nation's ports are critical to ensuring that
individuals and businesses have access to many of the products
on which they rely. Port security lies in the hands of CBP,
Coast Guard, local port authorities and local police agencies.
In 2002 Coast Guard estimated that $7 billion in infrastructure
improvements and operating costs was needed to implement the
sea port security requirements of the Maritime Transportation
Security Act. To date, Congress has appropriated $1.6 billion
for grants to help ports meet these requirements. The Committee
has provided an additional $400,000,000, equal to the fiscal
year 2008 level and $190,000,000 above the President's
requested level.
Cyber security.--Technological advances have strengthened
our government's ability to respond to citizens' needs and
conduct its work efficiently. However, the broad-based
interconnectedness of information technology networks also
makes unprotected systems vulnerable to attack and exploitation
by those who seek to harm our nation, or those who seek simply
to disrupt government operations for political or social
notoriety. In order to protect the government's computer
infrastructure from attack or sabotage, the Committee provides
$298,750,000, $5,250,000 above the request, to carry out the
DHS portion of the National Cyber Security Initiative and
improve the security of Federal computer networks.
Privacy.--Many departmental security programs involve
information and intelligence systems that collect data and
produce ``actionable'' information. Some of this data is
subject to privacy requirements, and the Department has in
numerous instances failed to address privacy protections early
in the development of new programs. The result is that many
such programs are needlessly delayed and resources are wasted.
Therefore, the Committee directs DHS to ensure that privacy
analyses are begun during the planning stages for all new
programs and that all such programs are in compliance with
privacy requirements before they become operational.
Projects.--Congress has made significant reforms in the way
it reviews funding for the Federal government, reforms which
the Committee takes very seriously as it executes its
constitutional authority. Earmarking or directed spending of
Federal dollars does not begin with Congress. It begins with
the Executive Branch. For example, following is a list of
projects submitted by the Administration: $2,250,000 for the
Institute for Information Infrastructure Protection at
Dartmouth College; $13,000,000 for Coast Guard Sector Delaware
Bay; $11,600,000 for Coast Guard Cordova, Alaska housing;
$5,000,000 for Coast Guard Air Station Cape Cod; $1,550,000 for
Coast Guard Montauk housing; $2,500,000 for the Coast Guard
TISCOM-TSD Building; $32,000,000 for the four existing members
of the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium; $47,000,000
for the Center for Domestic Preparedness in Anniston, AL;
$120,000,000 for a new departmental headquarters at St.
Elizabeths in Washington, DC; $4,000,000 for training at the
National Cyber Forensics Institute in Hoover, AL; $31,000,000
for a border patrol station in Boulevard, CA; $28,900,000 for a
border patrol station in Blythe, CA; $28,000,000 for a border
patrol station in Calexico, CA; $18,000,000 for a border patrol
station in Indio, CA; $47,000,000 for a border patrol station
in Naco, AZ; $27,000,000 for a border patrol station in
Sonoita, AZ; $25,000,000 for a border patrol station in
Comstock, TX; $3,000,000 for a border patrol station in
Presidio, TX; $17,800,000 for a border patrol checkpoint in
Tucson, AZ; $1,500,000 for a border patrol checkpoint in El
Paso, TX; $4,000,000 for a border patrol checkpoint in Swanton,
VT; and $18,000,000 for a vehicle maintenance facility in El
Centro, CA. The Administration, in selecting these projects,
goes through a process that is the functional equivalent of
earmarking. When the Committee reviews the budget request, it
goes through a process of rigorous review and may alter or
modify this list to reflect additional priorities.

DEFINING RESPONSIBILITIES

After 9/11, our nation tasked first responders--police,
firefighters, and other emergency response personnel--with the
open-ended responsibility for being the nation's first line of
defense against, and response to, terrorist attacks. When added
to their traditional responsibilities, such as responding to
natural disasters and otherwise keeping their communities safe,
this new homeland security role is a significant burden on
first responders that the Federal government must not take for
granted. We must do a better job defining the homeland security
roles we expect first responders to play, and we must provide
sufficient grant resources to aid them in planning, training,
and equipping for those roles. Unfortunately the Administration
would put first responders in an untenable situation by cutting
grant programs by $1.8 billion, or 49 percent, while asking
them to be better trained, equipped, and able to respond at any
time. The Committee rejects this impractical approach, and
provides $3.7 billion for first responder grants.
The Committee's fundamental goal in providing grant funds
is to ensure that investments for first responders will lead to
a safer homeland. GAO reported to the Committee that FEMA's
current efforts do not provide information on the effectiveness
of grant funds in improving the nation's capabilities or
reducing risk. Therefore, the Committee includes $5,000,000 to
accelerate efforts by FEMA to develop tools to measure the
effectiveness of grant funds. The Committee expects the
Department to ensure that grant funding is used for projects
and activities that make the country better prepared.

TITLE I--DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS

Office of the Secretary and Executive Management

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008....................... $97,353,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2009...................... 127,229,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 117,413,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2008................... +20,060,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2009.................. -9,816,000

MISSION

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

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $117,413,000 for the Office of the
Secretary and Executive Management, $9,816,000 below the amount
requested and $20,060,000 above the amount provided in fiscal
year 2008. To adequately oversee expenditures and personnel
changes within each office of the Office of the Secretary and
Executive Management, the Committee has provided separate
funding recommendations on an office-by-office basis as
follows:

IMMEDIATE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

The Committee recommends $2,904,000 for the Immediate
Office of the Secretary, $474,000 below the amount requested
and $364,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2008.
Funding has been reduced from the request due to the large
number of vacancies in this office that are estimated to
continue through the remainder of fiscal year 2008 and into
fiscal year 2009.

IMMEDIATE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SECRETARY

The Committee recommends $1,235,000 for the Immediate
Office of the Deputy Secretary, $270,000 below the amount
requested and $113,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year
2008. Funding has been reduced from the request due to
vacancies in this office that are estimated to continue through
the remainder of fiscal year 2008 and into fiscal year 2009.
The Committee has fully funded the rent increases and transfers
proposed in the budget request.

EXECUTIVE SECRETARIAT

The Committee recommends $7,778,000 for the Executive
Secretariat, $1,930,000 above the amount requested and
$3,056,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. This
funding level reflects the formal transfer of 14 full-time
equivalent employees and four contractors from the Directorate
of Operations Coordination to the Executive Secretariat, which
DHS proposed after submission of the fiscal year 2009 budget
request. These employees, who work on the Secretary's daily
briefing, coordination with components, and other ancillary
activities, are currently being detailed to the Executive
Secretariat via a memorandum of understanding with the
Directorate of Operations Coordination. The Committee has made
a slight reduction to the request due to vacancies in this
office that are estimated to continue through the remainder of
fiscal year 2008 and into fiscal year 2009.

OFFICE OF POLICY

The Committee recommends $43,963,000 for the Office of
Policy, $270,000 above the amount requested and $10,963,000
above the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. This funding
level reflects the formal transfer of three full-time
equivalent (FTE) employees from the Office of Policy to the
Directorate of Operations Coordination, which DHS proposed
after submission of the fiscal year 2009 budget. These
employees, who work on counterterrorism planning, are currently
detailed to the Directorate of Operations Coordination via a
memorandum of understanding with the Office of Policy. In
addition, the Committee has provided $1,000,000 for the Office
of International Enforcement to review visa waiver program
requests to ensure that they meet statutory and security
criteria. The Committee is concerned that the Office of Policy
does not currently have sufficient staff to adequately oversee
these reviews in a timely manner.

CREDENTIALING

The Committee is concerned about the duplication of efforts
imposed on people who need various DHS credentials. For
example, DHS often requires individuals applying for one
credential to provide information, including biometrics that
has already been collected by DHS for another credential (e.g.
hazardous materials and transportation worker identification
credentials). DHS also issues multiple credentials to
individuals rather than associating multiple licenses,
privileges or status in a single credential. In addition, these
credentials do not all include the same tamper proof or tamper
resistant features. Finally, DHS vetting processes and lists of
disqualifying offenses for similar programs are inconsistent.
The Office of Policy, including the Screening Coordination
Office, is well aware of these concerns. A recent GAO report on
background check investigations found that the Office of Policy
awarded a contract to develop an implementation plan for
coordinated DHS screening and credentialing programs,
including: the creation of a consistent, security risk-based
framework across all DHS credentials; the improvement of
credentialing processes to eliminate redundant activities; the
more effective use of existing information; and an improved
experience for individuals applying for credentials. The
Committee directs the Office of Policy to brief the Committees
on Appropriations on the status of these efforts no later than
September 8, 2008, including the steps necessary to make
improvements; the schedule, milestones, and budget requirements
for making improvements; the potential costs and benefits of
program standardization; and statutory roadblocks and other
challenges facing this effort. The Committee directs DHS to
ensure that all credentialing programs (including, but not
limited to, TWIC, registered traveler, secure identification
display areas, hazardous materials endorsements, free and
secure trade, and merchant mariner documents) are included in
this effort.

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

The Committee recommends $5,991,000 for the Office of
Public Affairs, $2,300,000 below the amount requested and
$659,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. The
Committee has made a slight reduction to the request due to
vacancies in this office that are estimated to continue through
the remainder of fiscal year 2008 and into fiscal year 2009. In
addition, the Committee has not provided funding for the Ready
campaign within this office. The Committee is aware of a
program within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
called ``Are You Ready?'' that conducts activities that are
similar to those of the Ready campaign. The Committee has
provided $1,500,000 within FEMA and directs DHS to combine the
Ready campaign with the ``Are You Ready?'' campaign in 2009 to
better achieve economies of scale. In total, the Committee
provides $2,120,000 for these activities in 2009, including
$1,500,000 in FEMA and $620,000 requested under the Working
Capital Fund.

OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

The Committee recommends $4,900,000 for the Office of
Legislative Affairs, $797,000 below the amount requested and
the same level as provided in fiscal year 2008. The Committee
recommends sufficient funding for 36 staff, equal to the
current on-board strength, which is well below the staffing
level for which funding was appropriated for fiscal years 2007
and 2008. The Committee is aware that DHS has established a
career deputy within the Office of Legislative Affairs, a
position that has not been formally proposed or approved. While
career deputies make sense in many DHS offices, Legislative
Affairs is a truly political office, and its leadership should
be provided by political appointees. The Committee knows of no
other Executive Department with a career deputy in the
legislative office. Non-management positions within this office
can and should be filled, in part, with career employees.

OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL

The Committee recommends $18,439,000 for the Office of
General Counsel, $2,475,000 below the amount requested and
$4,939,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2008. The
Committee fully funds the 10 new FTEs requested for fiscal year
2009 within this recommended level.
The Office of General Counsel comprises all lawyers within
DHS, and the General Counsel has the authority to oversee and
supervise those lawyers. However, the operating components
within DHS, such as Coast Guard, U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the
Transportation Security Administration, fund their legal staff
out of their own operating budgets. In contrast, headquarters
components, such as the National Protection and Programs
Directorate and the Science and Technology Directorate, have
traditionally utilized lawyers funded out of the Office of
General Counsel budget. Last year the Committee encouraged the
General Counsel to have DHS headquarters components fund their
own attorneys. This effort was not intended to create
independent legal offices for each headquarters component, but
to shift attorney funding to headquarters component offices.
For fiscal year 2009, the Committee assumes that such
arrangements will be made, and, therefore, has reduced funding
for the Office of General Counsel by $2,475,000. The Committee
assumes that each component agency will pay for the cost of
General Counsel lawyers working solely for it.

OFFICE OF COUNTERNARCOTICS ENFORCEMENT

The Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement (OCE) was
originally intended to support the Nation's drug control
policy, as well as the Department's missions to stop the entry
of illegal drugs into the United States and track and sever the
connections between drug trafficking and terrorism. The
Committees notes that, to date, the OCE's performance has been
difficult to quantify and assess. Among other concerns, the
office's reports to Congress, which are the primary method for
demonstrating how the office is fulfilling its mission, are
often late and not sufficiently substantive. In addition, this
report is prepared by contractors instead of by staff within
OCE. The Committee directs OCE to discontinue the practice of
relying on contractors to meet reporting requirements.
Furthermore, the Committee directs the Office of
Counternarcotics Enforcement, as part of the 2010 budget
request, to provide a more detailed explanation on how its
funds will be used to support its mission.

BUDGET JUSTIFICATIONS

In fiscal year 2009, the Committee directs that the
congressional budget justifications for the Office of the
Secretary and Executive Management include the same level of
detail as the table contained at the end of the Committee
report. All funding and staffing changes for each individual
office must be highlighted and explained. The Committee expects
this level of detail to include separate discussions for
personnel, compensation, and benefits; travel; training; and
other services.

WORKING CAPITAL FUND

Consistent with prior years, the Committee directs the
Department to include a separate appropriation justification
for the Working Capital Fund (WCF) in fiscal year 2010. This
justification should include a description of each activity
funded by the WCF; the basis for the pricing; the number of
full-time federal employees funded in each activity; a list of
each departmental organization that is allocating funds to the
activity; and the funding each organization is providing in
fiscal years 2009 and 2010. If a project contained in the WCF
is a multi-year activity with a defined cost, scope and
schedule, the estimated costs and schedule shall be clearly
delineated.
The Committee expects all cross-cutting initiatives funded
by multiple DHS organizations to be included in the WCF. The
Committee does not support taxing departmental organizations
for cross-cutting initiatives outside of the WCF. As such, the
justification should identify any cross-cutting initiatives or
activities that benefit more than one organization that are not
included in the WCF, and should explain the omission.
This year, the Committee has heard repeatedly from
component agencies within DHS about problems with the WCF. For
example, some agencies have expressed concern about how WCF
fees are formulated and that they are assessed fees for
services they do not use. Other components have expressed
concern that WCF charges may be altered mid-year, reflecting
unexpected costs that were not included in their 2008 budget
requests. Yet, nine months into the fiscal year, the Department
has not yet submitted a revised 2008 WCF report for
congressional approval. Because of this uncertainty, some
component agencies have delayed expenditures, while others may
need to reprogram to cover these unexpected costs. The
Committee expects to be notified promptly of any additions,
deletions, or changes that are made to the WCF during the
fiscal year. Furthermore, the Department should not fund any
activities within the WCF that the Committees on Appropriations
have disapproved either in report language or in their
responses to reprogramming requests. The Committee understands
that DHS is studying the authority, structure, governance,
organization, business practices, and management of the WCF.
The Committee directs DHS to provide the Committee with a copy
of this study when it is completed and to address any
recommendations regarding cost allocation and billing
consistency as part of the 2010 budget request.

RECEPTION AND REPRESENTATION

Within the Office of the Secretary and Executive
Management, the Committee provides $60,000 for official
reception and representation expenses, $20,000 above the amount
provided in fiscal year 2008. Within this total, $20,000 shall
be for international programs within the Office of Policy.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

The Committee directs the Secretary to provide Congress, by
September 30, 2009, with a detailed inventory of the
Department's greenhouse gas emissions and a plan to reduce
these emissions.

Office of the Under Secretary for Management

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 \1\................... $145,238,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2009...................... 320,093,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 189,695,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2008................... +44,457,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2009.................. -130,398,000

\1\ Reflects rescission of $5,000,000 contained in Section 538 of
Division E of Public Law 110-161.

MISSION

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

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $189,695,000 for the Office of the
Under Secretary for Management, $130,398,000 below the amount
requested and $44,457,000 above the amount provided in fiscal
year 2008. In order to adequately oversee expenditures for each
office, the Committee has provided separate funding
recommendations as detailed in the following table:

FUNDING LEVELS

The Committee notes that the proposed bill language for the
Under Secretary for Management did not correspond with the
congressional budget justification, with the statutory funding
request being $1,376,000 below the figures reflected in the
justification. The Committee is required to abide by the
statutory budget submission unless the Department amends its
budget request. As a result, funding levels for the Office of
Security and the Chief Human Capital Officer reflect the lower
amount. This is not the first time that DHS has submitted this
type of error. The Committee expects DHS to do a better job
ensuring that all budgetary decisions are incorporated into the
President's budget submission.

UNDER SECRETARY FOR MANAGEMENT

The Committee recommends $2,404,000 for the Under Secretary
for Management, $250,000 below the amount requested and
$392,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. Within
this funding level, the Committee has approved the conversion
of four contractors to permanent FTEs but has denied funding
for one new FTE.

OFFICE OF SECURITY

The Committee recommends $59,682,000 for the Office of
Security, $1,200,000 below the amount requested and $6,192,000
above the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. Funding has been
reduced from the request due to the large number of vacancies
in this office that are estimated to continue through the
remainder of fiscal year 2008 and into fiscal year 2009. This
funding level will support 108 FTEs, equal to the 2008 level.

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF PROCUREMENT OFFICER

The Committee recommends $38,355,000 for the Office of the
Chief Procurement Officer, $3,648,000 below the amount
requested and $9,860,000 above the amount provided in fiscal
year 2008. Of this increase, $6,700,000 supports 26 additional
FTEs to focus on high risk acquisitions and expand the
centralized acquisition development (intern) program.
The Committee has heard numerous complaints about the
slowness of the Office of Procurement Operations in working
with DHS components to award necessary procurements. Over the
years, the Committee has added numerous staff to this office to
try to speed up the procurement process, but discontent within
component agencies remains. The Committee is aware that all DHS
contracting activity is conducted under the oversight of the
Head of Contracting Activity (HCA) for each component. The
legacy components, such as TSA, Coast Guard, and CBP, have
their own HCAs, who are employees of the component and have
contract warrant delegation from the Department's Chief of
Procurement Operations. The legacy components also hire their
own contracting officers.
For those components formed when DHS was created, the
Director of the Office of Procurement Operations (OPO) serves
as the HCA. OPO also provides all contracting officers for
these newer components (including the headquarters offices,
OHA, S&T, DNDO, NPPD, and I&A). United States Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS) is an exception to this rule, as
it has been delegated authority to hire its own contracting
officers, who are responsible for meeting USCIS performance
metrics but also report to the Director of OPO. This
arrangement allows the Department to review USCIS activities to
ensure that all procurement actions are aligned with DHS
policies and procedures, while also permitting USCIS to
directly adjust staffing to meet workload requirements.
The Committee is very dissatisfied with the amount of time
it takes OPO to review and approve contracts and studies for
components that were formed when DHS was created. It appears
that while these component agencies are efficient in completing
their work and making recommendations on contracting matters,
OPO routinely fails to act on those recommendations in a timely
fashion. As a result, the Committee directs OPO to expand the
arrangement it has with USCIS in fiscal year 2009 to other
component DHS agencies in the hopes of improving the timeliness
of the procurement process.
The Committee is also dissatisfied that procurements from
minority and small business enterprises are very few. It is
critical that our country utilize the full capability of our
national talent in the development of products and technologies
for homeland security. OPO is directed to identify more
opportunities for these enterprises in DHS procurements.

DHS INVESTMENT REVIEW PROCESS FOR MAJOR PROCUREMENTS

In fiscal year 2006, DHS obligated $15.7 billion for the
procurement of goods and services, making it the third largest
department in the Federal government in terms of procurement
spending. GAO recently reported (GAO-08-263) that several
contracts for the Department's major investments lack well-
defined requirements and measurable performance standards and
that the DHS Chief Procurement Officer lacks reliable data by
which to review these procurements. Previous GAO work has
reported that DHS does not have clear and transparent policies
for all acquisitions, including major investments and service
contracts. For example, GAO found that of 138 contract reviews
by Coast Guard, CBP, ICE and TSA, 51 percent had no performance
work statement, measurable performance standard, or method for
assessing the contractor's performance.
The Committee is very concerned that the Department's
Investment Review Board (IRB), established to ensure investment
oversight, is not performing satisfactorily. It is unclear to
the Committee which investments the IRB will review, how it
intends to oversee decisions on large procurements, how the IRB
decisions will be monitored, and how necessary follow-up action
will be taken. Any plan the Deputy Secretary produces for the
IRB will be useless unless and until the policies, processes
and procedures for departmental review of major procurements,
including ``service'' procurements, are in place and utilized.
The Committee realizes that the IRB will be able to focus
on only a limited number of critical procurements while the
Department attempts to get the investment review process on-
track. With this in mind, the Committee directs the Deputy
Secretary to ensure that the IRB reviews and oversees the top
25 DHS investments, measured either by total cost, criticality
of the item, or service being procured, and/or other means
determined by DHS. In addition, the Committee directs the
Deputy Secretary to provide a report listing these top 25
investments and laying out the formal investment review
processes the IRB will follow to the Committees on
Appropriations by October 1, 2008. Included within this list of
top 25 procurements should be the five top Coast Guard
Deepwater procurements, including the National Security Cutter,
the Fast Response Cutter (B), the Maritime Patrol Aircraft, the
Offshore Patrol Cutter, and Deepwater C4ISR. Also included
should be CBP's Multi-Role Aircraft. The Committee also directs
the Secretary to rescind the delegation of acquisition
authority provided to Coast Guard for Deepwater in order to
align all such oversight within OPO.

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF HUMAN CAPITAL OFFICER

The Committee recommends $38,827,000 for the Office of the
Chief Human Capital Officer, $8,000,000 below the amount
requested and $20,016,000 above the amount provided in fiscal
year 2008. Of this total, $28,827,000 is recommended for the
salaries and expenses of the Office of the Chief Human Capital
Officer (CHCO) and $10,000,000 is recommended for human
resource activities to enhance employee morale and create a
more satisfying work environment. The Committee denies the
request to transfer the accreditation board from the Federal
Law Enforcement Training Center to CHCO, consistent with action
taken in fiscal year 2008. The Committee has provided
$2,500,000 for the new learning initiatives proposal. Finally,
while the Committee has provided $17,131,000 for human resource
information technologies, the Committee is troubled that the
request to fund this within CHCO, instead of within the Office
of the Chief Information Officer, was not clearly detailed in
the budget request. In the future, the Committee directs that
all proposals to move programs and funding from one office to
another be clearly outlined in congressional budget
justifications and include: the preceding year funding level; a
detailed description of the work; a rationale for the movement;
and a detailed breakdown of the budget request. The Committee
noted similar problems in TSA's budget.
The Committee is concerned about reports by numerous DHS
agencies of delays in the hiring process administered by CHCO,
which should be the most efficient departmental office in this
area. The Office is directed to provide monthly reports to the
Committees on Appropriations detailing: vacancies requested, by
office, that have not been processed; vacancies announced, by
office; and the amount of time after a vacancy has closed
before a selection list is sent back to the requesting entity.
The Committee has included a new general provision (Sec.
530) that prohibits the obligation of funds to develop, test,
deploy, or operate any portion of a new human resources
management system for employees. In addition, the provision
requires DHS to collaborate with employee representatives in
the planning, testing, and development of any portion of a
human resources management system for persons excluded from the
definition of ``employee.''

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER

The Committee recommends $50,427,000 for the Office of the
Chief Administrative Officer, $117,300,000 below the amount
requested and $2,997,000 above the amount provided in fiscal
year 2008. Of this total, $44,427,000 is recommended for the
salaries and expenses of the Office of the Chief Administrative
Officer and $6,000,000 is for costs associated with DHS
headquarters needs at the Nebraska Avenue Complex. Within this
funding level, the Committee fully supports the additional 11
FTEs proposed to manage the relocation of Coast Guard
headquarters and consolidation of other DHS components on the
St. Elizabeths west campus.
The Committee has provided $97,578,000 within the Coast
Guard's Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements
appropriation for the first phase of the proposed consolidated
DHS headquarters campus at the St. Elizabeths Hospital site in
Washington, DC. All of the costs associated with phase one of
the St. Elizabeths project are Coast Guard specific.

DHS HEADQUARTERS FACILITIES

The Committee believes the Department must balance its
current needs at the Nebraska Avenue Complex against investment
in future facilities that will be available at the proposed St.
Elizabeths campus facility. Since a significant portion of
departmental offices is scheduled to move to St. Elizabeths by
2016, with the first moves beginning in 2013, the Committee
directs the Chief Administrative Officer to minimize investment
in improvements at the Nebraska Avenue Complex that will be
replicated at the new headquarters campus.

MOVE TO ST ELIZABETHS CAMPUS

The Committee is aware of concerns expressed by historic
preservationists about the amount of parking planned for the
St. Elizabeths campus and urges DHS to limit the number of
parking places provided to DHS employees to preserve as much of
the historic nature of this complex as practicable. The
Committee directs DHS to strive for the National Capital
Planning Commission standard parking rate recommended for core
metropolitan Washington, DC development.

RENT TRANSFER

In the first few years of DHS's existence, rent for all
offices within the Office of the Under Secretary for Management
was centrally funded in the Office of the Chief Administrative
Officer. However, as these offices grew, new space costs were
funded within each office's budget. The 2009 budget request
proposed assigning all rental costs to the budget of each
occupant so that they are more easily identified. The Committee
agrees, and has fully funded the rent transfers contained in
the budget request for each office.

Office of the Chief Financial Officer

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008....................... $31,300,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2009...................... 56,235,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 55,235,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2008................... +23,935,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2009.................. -1,000,000

MISSION

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

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $55,235,000 for the Office of the
Chief Financial Officer (CFO), $1,000,000 below the amount
requested and $23,935,000 above the amount provided in fiscal
year 2008. The Committee has fully funded the new FTEs
requested to consolidate and integrate legacy resource
management systems; to increase oversight of and accountability
for DHS grants and assistance awards; and to support the
quadrennial homeland security review. The Committee notes that
the CFO has improved the process by which the Department
responds to questions submitted by Committee members and
directs that this improved process be continued. The Committee
does not provide funding for appropriations liaison positions
as it has received no benefit from these positions.

TRANSFORMATION AND SYSTEMS CONSOLIDATION

Within the funding provided is $19,189,000 for the
Transformation and Systems Consolidation (TASC) project,
$15,500,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. This
funding shall be used to consolidate the Department's multiple
legacy financial management systems, which are obsolete and
expensive to maintain, into fewer systems that are able to meet
the needs and missions of multiple DHS components. The
Committee is aware that, in April 2008, the United States Court
of Federal Claims ruled that DHS's decision to use two current
DHS financial systems was an improper sole source procurement
in violation of the Competition in Contracting Act. As a
result, DHS must conduct a competitive procurement in
accordance with the law to select financial management system
applications software. DHS has informed the Committee that a
new competitive decision is expected in the fall of 2008.
Because of the challenges the vendor will face to transition
DHS components from existing systems to the new solutions, the
Committee urges the CFO to begin the transition with smaller
agencies before attempting to transition the larger, more
financially complex agencies. This will permit the CFO to apply
any lessons learned and to correct any problems before
transferring larger DHS components, with the exception of Coast
Guard.
Since 2003, Coast Guard has had severe weaknesses in its
financial management. Recent OIG reports indicate that Coast
Guard's financial management practices are worsening and are
the largest contributor to the Department's inability to
receive a clean audit. The Committee urges the CFO to consider
transferring Coast Guard to the new financial management system
as soon as possible to help rectify these longstanding
problems.

FINANCIAL SYSTEM TRANSFORMATION

In June 2007, GAO recommended a variety of steps the
Department should take to improve management of its financial
system consolidation projects. In particular, GAO highlighted
the need to follow best practices so that future efforts to
transform its financial management systems do not replicate the
failures of the Department's abandoned eMerge\2\ project. Since
the Department is moving forward with its TASC project, the
Committee believes it would be worthwhile for GAO to update its
study to ensure its prior recommendations are being
implemented. The Committee therefore directs GAO to review the
TASC project, specifically examining whether DHS has
implemented those recommendations that will help the project
succeed.

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET JUSTIFICATIONS

The Committee directs the Department to submit all of its
fiscal year 2010 budget justifications with the customary level
of detailed data and explanatory statements to support the
appropriations requests, including tables that detail each
agencies programs, projects, and activities for fiscal years
2009 and 2010. The Committee directs the CFO to ensure that
adequate justification is given to each increase, decrease,
transfer, and staffing change proposed in fiscal year 2010. The
CFO should also ensure that each item directed by the Committee
to be provided as part of the fiscal year 2010 budget
justification is delivered as mandated. There have been several
instances in which statutory reporting requirements or other
required budget details have not been included in the
congressional justifications, particularly in the case of
justifications for the FEMA budget.
In addition, the Committee has struggled with a lack of
programmatic details for realignments proposed in the budget.
Of particular concern were the proposed move of the human
resource information technology activity from the CIO to CHCO
and the realignment proposals presented by TSA and the National
Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD). None were clearly
explained in congressional budget justifications and, in TSA's
case, the underlying assumptions and costs for the realignment
changed depending on what was included in each program,
project, and activity (PPA). The Committee directs the
Department not to alter its programs, projects, and activities
or organize its budget in 2010 into any structure other than
the accounts contained under the ``funding recommendations''
table at the back of this report.
The CFO shall submit, as part of the 2010 budget
justifications, a detailed table identifying the last year that
authorizing legislation was provided by Congress for each
program, project, or activity; the amount of the authorization;
and the appropriation in the last year of the authorization.

BELOW ACCOUNT LEVEL DETAIL PLAN

The Committee has included new bill language (Sec. 529)
that requires the Secretary to submit, within 30 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, a spending plan laying out PPAs
by account to serve as a baseline for reprogramming for the
Department of Homeland Security for fiscal year 2009. The
Committee reiterates that a PPA is defined as any dollar amount
contained in the bill or report.

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND

Since the inception of DHS, law enforcement agencies within
the Department (including Coast Guard, CBP, and ICE, and the
Secret Service) have received funds from the Department of the
Treasury's Forfeiture Fund. This fund is replenished by
nonevidentiary cash subject to forfeiture, including seized
cash, proceeds from pre-forfeiture sales of seized property,
and income from property under seizure. DHS received
$17,060,000 from this fund in 2007 and $36,846,000 in 2008.
Because the Department of the Treasury disburses these funds,
the Subcommittee on Homeland Security has not been consistently
notified when Forfeiture Funds have been made available to DHS
and has at times been unaware of how these resources are being
used. The Committee therefore includes a new general provision
(Sec. 531) requiring DHS, in consultation with the Department
of the Treasury, to notify the Committees on Appropriations of
any Forfeiture Fund amounts DHS receives. DHS is prohibited
from obligating these funds until the Committees approve the
proposed expenditures.

MONTHLY REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

The Committee is pleased that the Department has improved
its monthly budget execution reporting so that it is now
timely. The Committee relies on these reports to provide early
warning of financial problems. To ensure that these reports
continue to be received on time, the Committee continues bill
language requiring monthly budget and staffing reports within
45 days after the close of each month.

Office of the Chief Information Officer

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008....................... $295,200,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2009...................... 247,369,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 247,369,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2008................... -47,831,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2009.................. 0

MISSION

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

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $247,369,000 for the Office of the
Chief Information Officer, the same as the amount requested and
$47,831,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. The
majority of the reduction from the 2008 funding level is due to
one-time investments in the National Center for Critical
Information Processing and Storage that will be completed by
2009. The Committee shifts $17,131,000 from the CIO to CHCO to
fund various human resources systems, as requested.
A comparison of the budget request to the Committee
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:

Salaries and Expenses

The Committee provides $86,928,000, as requested, for CIO
Salaries and Expenses, an increase of $5,928,000 over the 2008
enacted level. More than half of this additional funding is for
strengthening DHS network security architecture and improving
the security of DHS financial systems. The Committee supports
DHS efforts to protect its networks, given the wide range of
reports issued by OIG, GAO, and others that have repeatedly
criticized the Department's network security.
The Committee notes that the budget for the CIO includes no
additional Federal staff in its request, even though the office
dedicates over one third of its budget to contract services and
has a mission that will almost certainly continue indefinitely.
The Committee directs the CIO to provide a briefing on plans to
transition long-term contract services to government employees,
including a cost comparison of maintaining contract services
versus employing Federal staff.

SECURITY ACTIVITIES

The Committee recommends $70,323,000 for Security
Activities, the same as the amount requested and $54,577,000
below the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. The vast bulk of
funds in the Security Activities program pays for the
Department's two data centers. The purpose of operating two
data centers is to help manage the significant risk, reduce the
vulnerability, and avoid the potential consequences that would
be associated with locating all of the Department's data at a
single site. To ensure that the Department takes full advantage
of the benefits of a second data center, the Committee includes
a statutory requirement for the CIO to utilize these two
centers in the most effective and economical means possible.

HOMELAND SECURITY DATA NETWORK

The Committee provides $47,673,000 for the Homeland
Security Data Network (HSDN) project, which is the secure
computer network for DHS and its State and local partners. The
Committee understands that DHS has decided to eliminate a
similar system, known as the Homeland Security Information
Network--Secret (HSIN-S), and to enroll all HSIN-S users into
HSDN. HSIN-S is being replaced largely because the system has
not fulfilled the needs of its users. To avoid this type of
lost investment in the future, the Committee directs the CIO to
ensure that user requirements are reviewed and carefully
addressed in every new system acquisition.

CIO-LED INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACQUISITIONS

The Committee continues an existing requirement that the
CIO report on all IT acquisitions financed directly or managed
by the CIO.

Analysis and Operations

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008....................... $297,300,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2009...................... 333,262,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 324,423,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2008................... +27,123,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2009.................. -8,839,000
MISSION

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

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $324,423,000 for Analysis and
Operations, $8,839,000 below the amount requested and
$27,123,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2008.

STAFF TRANSFERS

The Committee has transferred funding from the Directorate
of Operations Coordination to the Executive Secretariat, to
reflect the reassignment of the Secretary's briefing staff
between those accounts. In addition, the Committee has
transferred three staff from the Office of Policy to the
Directorate of Operations Coordination to work on
counterterrorism issues.

DIRECTORATE OF OPERATIONS COORDINATION

The Committee has reduced the funding level for the
Directorate of Operations Coordination below the levels
requested. The Committee notes that the Directorate has not
been able to hire staff at the pace projected in its 2008
expenditure plan, and therefore does not fund the requested
increase for additional personnel in 2009.

OFFICE OF INTELLIGENCE AND ANALYSIS

The Committee has reduced the funding level for
Intelligence and Analysis below the levels requested. The
Committee notes that the Office of Intelligence and Analysis is
still developing the operational plans for two new programs, as
discussed below, and therefore provides reduced funding levels
for those activities.

NATIONAL APPLICATIONS OFFICE AND NATIONAL IMMIGRATION INFORMATION
SHARING OFFICE

In the 2008 Appropriations Act, the Committee required the
Secretary of Homeland Security to submit, and GAO to review, a
certification that the National Applications Office (NAO) and
the National Immigration Information Sharing Office (NIISO)
comply with all existing laws, including applicable privacy and
civil liberties standards. The Department was prohibited from
using any funds appropriated in the 2008 Act until GAO
completed its work. While the Department provided details about
two of the three major program areas of the NAO, information
about the NAO's Law Enforcement Domain was not provided.
Additionally, no certification for NIISO has been submitted. As
a result, the Committee includes a statutory prohibition on the
operations of the NAO Law Enforcement Domain and NIISO in 2009
until the Secretary certifies that these programs comply with
all laws, and that certification is reviewed by GAO.

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS

Recommended adjustments to classified programs are
addressed in a classified annex accompanying this report.

Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008....................... $2,700,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009..................... 291,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 341,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2008..................... -2,359,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009................... +50,000
MISSION

The Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast
Rebuilding coordinates Federal rebuilding efforts in the Gulf
Coast and works with State and local officials to identify the
priority needs for long-term rebuilding.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $341,000 for the Office of the
Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding (OFCGCR), $50,000
above the amount requested and $2,359,000 below the amount
provided in fiscal year 2008. The Committee notes that the
justification for the budget request was based on the planned
closing of OFCGCR on November 1, 2008, as directed by the
original Executive Order creating the Office. The President has
issued a separate Executive Order to extend OFCGCR until
February 28, 2009. The Department is directed to use the
reprogramming authority contained in this Act if additional
funding is needed.
The Committee is displeased that, more than two years and
nine months after Hurricane Katrina, a shortage of affordable
rental housing continues to leave more than 22,000 households
in FEMA trailers and other temporary housing in the Gulf Coast
region. Because many of the travel trailers that FEMA has
relied on for temporary housing have been shown to contain
unhealthy levels of formaldehyde, FEMA has closed its group
sites and is attempting to move individuals in commercial group
sites into other temporary housing. In New Orleans alone,
Hurricane Katrina destroyed an estimated 50,000 rental units
and damaged thousands more apartments, affecting two-thirds of
the city's rental stock. In New Orleans and Mississippi, 6,600
public housing units are being demolished, of which about 5,300
units were occupied before Hurricane Katrina.
In addition, the number of subsidized rental units
associated with HUD programs to assist the elderly (section
202) and the disabled (section 811) has dramatically decreased,
especially in the City of New Orleans. Only 190 units of
housing for the elderly and disabled remain in New Orleans,
compared to 752 such units before Hurricane Katrina. Problems
are numerous, and innovative long-term solutions are lacking.
The overall slow progress in repairing and rebuilding
owner-occupied dwellings is putting additional pressure on the
already strained rental housing market. The Road Home program,
a HUD-funded initiative designed to help Gulf Coast homeowners
repair and rebuild their hurricane-damaged houses, had provided
funding to only 31 percent of applicants as of mid-December
2007, according to the RAND Corporation. Funding for FEMA's
Post-Disaster Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), which can
be used to elevate houses and other structures to mitigate
against future flood damage, is being obligated at a relatively
lackluster pace. Of the $1.883 billion available to the States
of Louisiana and Mississippi under HMGP, only approximately
$182,600,000 has been obligated to date.
Addressing the shortage of rental housing in the Gulf Coast
region will require a deliberate targeting of resources toward
subsidizing or otherwise encouraging the construction of new
rental housing stock, along with appropriate subsidies to
ensure that a sufficient number of new rental units are
affordable. The Committee includes $50,000 for OFCGCR to host a
panel of housing experts, disaster response experts, and urban
planning exerts to develop a framework for developing and
sustaining affordable rental housing in affected Gulf Coast
communities. As part of the framework, the panel shall include
recommendations for how HUD, the private sector, and the States
can achieve a sufficient stock of affordable rental housing to
meet the needs of all those displaced after the storm who still
lack permanent housing options in the region. These experts
shall be chosen in consultation with HUD, the States of
Louisiana and Mississippi, and the City of New Orleans. The
Committee directs OFCGCR to report to the Committees on
Appropriation on the recommendations of this panel, and to
submit a strategy and timeline for implementing the most
promising recommendations, by December 30, 2008.

Office of Inspector General

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008\1\.................... $92,711,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2009...................... 101,013,000
Recommended in the bill\2\............................ 101,013,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2008..................... +$8,302,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2009.................... 0
\1\ Excludes a $16.0 million transfer from the Disaster Relief Fund.
\2\ Excludes a $15.0 million transfer from the Disaster Relief Fund.

MISSION

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 established an Office of
Inspector General (OIG) in the Department of Homeland Security
by amendment to the Inspector General Act of 1978. This office
was established to provide an objective and independent
organization that would be effective in: (1) preventing and
detecting fraud, waste, and abuse in departmental programs and
operations; (2) providing a means to keep the Secretary of
Homeland Security and the Congress fully and currently informed
of problems and deficiencies in the administration of programs
and operations; (3) fulfilling statutory responsibilities for
the annual audit of the Department's financial statements; (4)
ensuring the security of the Department of Homeland Security's
information technology pursuant to the Federal Information
Security Management Act; and (5) reviewing and making
recommendations regarding existing and proposed legislation and
regulations to the Department's programs and operational
components. According to the authorizing legislation, OIG is to
report dually to the Secretary of Homeland Security and to the
Congress.
While oversight of DHS disaster response is included in the
OIG's mission, Hurricane Katrina brought a renewed focus and a
major shift in OIG resources to that mission area. In October
2005, in response to the need for enhanced oversight, OIG
established the Gulf Coast Hurricane Recovery Office to focus
exclusively on preventing problems through a proactive program
of internal control reviews and contract audits to ensure that
disaster assistance funds are spent wisely. The Gulf Coast
Recovery Office has initiated numerous monitoring activities,
reviews, investigations, and audits of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency's disaster response and recovery activities,
as well as disaster-related activities of other DHS components.
In addition, this office is coordinating the work of 23 other
Federal Inspectors General through the President's Commission
on Integrity and Efficiency to review all federal spending on
Gulf Coast relief.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total of $116,013,000 for the
OIG, $101,013,000 in a direct appropriation and $15,000,000 by
transfer from Disaster Relief. The additional $15,000,000 is to
continue and expand audits and investigations related to
disasters, particularly the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes. OIG
disaster-related audit reports warrant continued funding based
on fiscal year 2007 audit results identifying $36,936,392 in
questioned costs; $3,129,086 in unsupported costs; and $860,000
in funds that should have been put to better use.

AUDIT REPORTS

The Committee directs the OIG to forward copies of all
audit reports to the Committee when they are issued and to
immediately make the Committee aware of any review that
recommends cancellation of, or modification to, any major
acquisition project or grant, or that recommends significant
budgetary savings. In addition, the Committee directs the OIG
to provide reports to the Committees on Appropriations on the
following: Coast Guard certification required in this Act that
the Maritime Awareness Global Network complies with all
applicable laws, including laws protecting privacy; the
sufficiency of Coast Guard financial management improvement
plan, which must be submitted by December 1, 2008; Federal
Emergency Management Agency's implementation of recommendations
resulting from the TOP Officials 4 exercise; the CBP
Commissioner's certification of the Analytical Framework for
Intelligence Officers; the CBP Commissioner's certification of
enhancements to the Automated Targeting Systems-Passenger; the
performance of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 287(g)
agreements; and ICE practices for determining the age of those
in its custody. The Committee directs OIG to withhold these,
and any other final audit or investigation reports requested by
the House Committee on Appropriations, from public distribution
for a period of 15 days.

TITLE II--SECURITY, ENFORCEMENT, AND INVESTIGATIONS

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Salaries and Expenses

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008....................... $6,802,560,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009..................... 7,309,354,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 7,534,346,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2008..................... +731,786,000
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2009................... +224,992,000
MISSION

The mission of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is
to protect the borders of the United States by preventing,
preempting, and deterring threats against the U.S. through
ports of entry and by interdicting illegal crossing between
ports of entry. CBP's mission integrates homeland security,
safety, and border management in an effort to ensure that goods
and persons cross the borders of the U.S. in accordance with
applicable laws and regulations, while posing no threat to the
country. The priority of CBP is to prevent terrorists and their
weapons from entering the United States, and to support related
homeland security missions affecting border and airspace
security. CBP is also responsible for apprehending individuals
attempting to enter the U.S. illegally; stemming the flow of
illegal drugs and other contraband; protecting U.S.
agricultural and economic interests from harmful pests and
diseases; protecting American businesses from theft of their
intellectual property; regulating and facilitating
international trade; collecting import duties; and enforcing
U.S. trade laws. CBP has a workforce of over 47,800, including
CBP Officers, Air Interdiction Agents, Marine Interdiction
Agents, canine enforcement officers, Border Patrol agents,
Agriculture Specialists, trade specialists, intelligence
analysts, and mission support staff.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $7,534,346,000 for Salaries and
Expenses, $224,992,000 above the amount requested and
$731,786,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2008.
This recommendation provides $1,266,651,000 for Headquarters
Management and Administration, which includes an additional
$24,000,000 for 27 intelligence officers to enhance CBP
intelligence watch and coordination capacity; an additional
$5,300,000 for 24 investigators and five support staff for
integrity and conduct oversight; and an additional $1,000,000
to expand the CBP regulatory program. Border Security
Inspections and Trade Facilitation is funded at $2,496,146,000,
including $217,000,000 to annualize the cost of law enforcement
officer retirement conversion for CBP Officers; $139,973,000
for the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (of which
$106,900,000 is new funding for systems, infrastructure, and an
additional 89 CBP Officers); an additional $39,900,000 to fund
operations and maintenance of US-VISIT scanners and systems at
ports of entry; $27,300,000 for an additional 238 CBP Officers
and 57 other professional and support personnel to staff
radiation portal monitors; $25,000,000 for an additional 212
CBP Officers and 22 support positions to enhance passenger
screening at land ports of entry; $28,292,000 for an additional
561 CBP Officer positions (140 FTE) for land ports of entry
positions identified by the Workload Staffing Model;
$10,000,000 to support expansion of the Global Entry system;
$8,750,000 for 173 CBP Officer positions (43 FTE) at air ports
of entry; $5,100,000 for 100 Agricultural Specialist positions
(25 FTE) at the busiest land ports of entry; $113,944,000 for
non-intrusive inspection technology replacement and support;
and $32,550,000 for Automated Targeting Systems. In addition,
CBP is directed to utilize $20,000,000 from unobligated
balances of prior year Salaries and Expenses appropriations in
fiscal year 2009 to fund planned activities in Inspections,
Trade, and Travel Facilitation at Ports of Entry. Border
Security and Control between Ports of Entry is funded at
$3,517,270,000, including an additional $442,432,000 for 2,200
additional Border Patrol agents and supporting positions; and
$1,950,000 for additional transfers of 65 Border Patrol agents
to the Northern border. Air and Marine Personnel Costs are
funded at $254,279,000, including $4,000,000 for 24 additional
pilots to reduce the current staffing shortage for UAS
operations, and to enable CBP to operate the six systems that
will be deployed in fiscal year 2009. This funding will enable
CBP to operate the UAS for 14-hour missions, rather than be
limited to the current 10-hour missions. The additional
positions will be initially deployed to Northern and Southern
border locations, as requested and consistent with CBP plans to
expand support for border security operations.
A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salaries and expenses Budget estimate Recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Headquarters, Management, and Administration:
Management and Administration, Border Security Inspections $644,351,000 $644,351,000
and Trade Facilitation...................................
Management and Administration, Border Security and Control 622,300,000 622,300,000
between Ports of Entry...................................
-------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Headquarters Management and Administration.. 1,266,651,000 1,266,651,000
Border Security Inspections and Trade Facilitation:
Inspections, Trade, and Travel Facilitation at Ports of 1,834,793,000 2,061,035,000
Entry....................................................
Harbor Maintenance Fee Collection (Trust Fund)............ 3,154,000 3,154,000
Container Security Initiative............................. 149,450,000 149,450,000
Other international programs.............................. 10,984,000 10,984,000
Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism............... 64,496,000 64,496,000
Free and Secure Trade (FAST)/NEXUS/SENTRI................. 11,274,000 11,274,000
Inspection and Detection Technology Investments........... 117,144,000 113,944,000
Automated Targeting Systems............................... 32,550,000 32,550,000
National Targeting Center................................. 24,481,000 24,481,000
Training.................................................. 24,778,000 24,778,000
-------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Border Security Inspections and Trade 2,273,104,000 2,496,146,000
Facilitation.........................................
Border Security and Control between Ports of Entry:
Border Security and Control............................... 3,440,505,000 3,442,455,000
Training.................................................. 74,815,000 74,815,000
-------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Border Security and Control between POEs.... 3,515,320,000 3,517,270,000
Air and Marine Personnel Compensation and Benefits............ 254,279,000 254,279,000
-------------------------------------------------
Total............................................. 7,309,354,000 7,534,346,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER CONVERSION

Last year the Committee recognized that CBP Officers do not
receive the same level of compensation and other benefits
accorded to other federal law enforcement officers, despite the
fact that they have arrest powers, 24-hour weapon carrying
responsibility, and conduct investigations. As a result, new
authority was included in section 535 of the fiscal year 2008
Homeland Security Appropriation Act to permit CBP Officers to
convert to law enforcement officer status. The law requires
this conversion to begin July 1, 2008, and it included funding
for fiscal year 2008 conversion costs. The President's budget
proposed to repeal section 535, rescind fiscal year 2008
funding for law enforcement officer conversion, and provided no
funding to annualize these costs in 2009. The Committee rejects
these proposals and has included an additional $217,000,000 for
fiscal year 2009 law enforcement officer status conversion
costs. Based on testimony and other reporting provided to the
Committee, such conversion will help CBP retain and recruit the
most qualified and dedicated officers, and contribute to
maintaining and increasing the staffing needed at ports of
entry and other areas critical to CBP's missions.

BORDER PATROL STAFFING

The Committee has included an increase of $362,000,000 for
an additional 2,200 Border Patrol agents, as requested. With
this increase, the total number of Border Patrol agents on
board by the end of fiscal year 2009 will reach 20,019. This is
a significant milestone, a more than one-third increase in the
number of agents as a result of increased appropriations
provided by this Committee in the past two years. This growth,
authorized in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention
Act of 2004, is essential to help ensure the security of our
borders and make the Border Patrol a more effective instrument
of deterrence and enforcement. The Committee directs CBP to
continue to include Border Patrol hiring and deployment
statistics in the quarterly Secure Border Initiative reports,
and to continue to include updates on progress in recruitment,
hiring and retention in the quarterly briefings provided to the
Committees on Appropriations.

WORKLOAD AND STAFFING

The Committee has reviewed the CBP Workload Staffing Model
(WSM). As an improvement over previous methodology, the WSM
should provide CBP more accurate information to address
shortfalls at ports of entry and other locations. As reported
by GAO in GAO-08-219, the model indicates that CBP needs
several thousand more Officers and Agriculture Specialists to
meet its border security responsibilities. CBP noted in its
budget justification that it lacks at least 850 CBP Officers
for land port of entry passenger processing alone. These
estimates are consistent with information the Committee has
received from CBP field officials. Despite this staffing gap,
the 2009 budget includes an increase of just 289 CBP Officers
at land ports of entry, and none for airport operations
(although CBP explains that airport inspection has
traditionally been funded through fees). The Committee
therefore provides an additional $28,892,000 for an additional
561 CBP Officers (140 FTE) to bring the net increase for such
positions to 850 for the final quarter of fiscal year 2009, and
$8,750,000 for an additional 173 CBP Officers (43 FTE) for air
ports of entry. The Committee directs CBP to use the new
staffing model as it allocates these positions and to provide
updated information on its hiring progress for those positions
as part of the quarterly staffing briefings provided to the
Committees on Appropriations.
The Committee also directs CBP to provide the Committees on
Appropriations, as part of its quarterly briefings on hiring,
the current and optimal staffing levels (as indicated by the
Workload Staffing Model) for each CBP location.
The Committee is aware that, as wait times at airports and
land ports of entry have continued to increase, port
authorities and carriers have sought more detailed information
about projected CBP staffing resources than is publicly
available in order to help them make informed decisions about
meeting anticipated growth in international arrivals to the
United States. To the extent security considerations are not
limiting factors, the Committee urges CBP to share staffing and
resource information with port authorities and other
stakeholders.
Border Patrol hiring continues to challenge CBP, which is
working to maintain a rate of recruitment sufficient to have
17,819 agents on-board by the end of fiscal year 2008. In order
for CBP to sustain its recruitment efforts for all positions
and offset continued high attrition rates (11 percent for
Border Patrol agents and 8.9 percent for CBP Officers), it must
look for innovative solutions, such as pay adjustments for
Border Patrol and CBP Officers with fluency in critical
languages. The Committee directs CBP to report no later than
September 8, 2008, on how such an incentive could be used to
attract and keep a workforce with such skills.

TUCSON SECTOR CHECKPOINTS

The Committee is aware that CBP is planning a permanent
interior checkpoint in the Tucson Sector on Interstate Highway
19, and that the agency continues to consult with residents and
community groups in this area as it develops and implements its
planning. After months of local meetings in 2007, CBP stated
that it had not yet determined the exact location for a
permanent checkpoint, agreed to abandon its initial design for
a large-scale permanent checkpoint modeled on the one in
Laredo, Texas, and adjusted its plans for an upgraded interim
checkpoint on I-19 based on input from the community. In
addition, the Committee understands that GAO is beginning a
congressionally-requested study of the effectiveness of
existing interior checkpoints near the U.S.-Mexico border. The
Committee directs CBP to not finalize planning for the design
and location of a permanent checkpoint until the findings from
the completed GAO study and data on the performance of the
upgraded interim checkpoint have been collected and
incorporated into such planning. The Committee also directs
CBP, as appropriate, to make all interim checkpoint performance
data available on an ongoing basis to affected communities and
stakeholders, as part of full and transparent consultation with
the public.

INTERNAL AFFAIRS

The Committee includes $5,300,000, as requested, for new
investigative staff for CBP internal affairs' operations,
bringing the total number of investigators to 101. This
expanded capacity should help CBP address misconduct and
criminal activity, as well as work with the Office of Inspector
General on allegations of corruption along the border. The need
for this internal affairs capacity is made more urgent by the
rapid growth in the CBP workforce. The Committee understands
that processing of misconduct cases has been delayed due to a
shortage of investigators, with potentially adverse effects on
workforce integrity and morale. The Committee urges CBP to
increase efforts to eliminate such backlogs, and directs CBP to
include performance data on internal affairs productivity,
including time required from intake to final disposition for
cases, in the fiscal year 2010 budget request.

INTELLIGENCE STAFFING

The Committee includes $42,750,000 for the CBP Office of
Intelligence and Operations Coordination (OIOC), an increase of
$24,000,000 as requested, for: an additional 27 positions
associated with standing up a 24/7 Intelligence Watch
capability; the development of an Analytical Framework for
Intelligence Officers to improve access to CBP and DHS
databases that currently must be accessed through separate
channels; and the deployment of Homeland Security Data Network
access to critical field sites. The growing role of OIOC in
intelligence support is apparent in the fact that OIOC accounts
for 75 percent of all DHS intelligence output. The Committee
includes bill language directing that no funding may be
obligated for the operation of the Analytical Framework for
Intelligence Officers until the Commissioner certifies that
this Framework complies with all applicable laws, including
section 552a of title 5, U.S. Code, and other laws protecting
privacy, and such certification is reviewed by OIG. The
certification should include a discussion of how the funding
will be used by CBP to integrate its operations under the
intelligence governance and sharing systems of the Department
and the intelligence community; the privacy and security
protections that will be part of this system; and how
procedures and policies will ensure the appropriate use of the
law enforcement, economic and other information generated by
CBP.

WESTERN HEMISPHERE TRAVEL INITIATIVE

The Committee includes $139,973,000, as requested, to
implement the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) at
all ports of entry by June 2009. This includes funding for 89
new CBP Officers, bringing total CBP WHTI staffing to 294. The
Committee remains concerned that the program may not be fully
integrated and ready for enforcement of the WHTI document
requirements. The Committee is aware that CBP is conducting
time and motion studies at the busiest land border ports and
plans to use information from these studies to improve both the
quality and speed of data verification and processing. However,
operational testing will not begin until September 2008 at the
ports of Blaine and Nogales. Notwithstanding these efforts and
the proposed WHTI staffing increase, the overall shortage of
CBP personnel at ports of entry could lead to passenger
processing delays and security gaps. Similarly, as the
Committee noted last year, continued deferral of port
infrastructure improvements also contributes to delays at ports
of entry. The Committee expects DHS to ensure that WHTI does
not exacerbate such problems, and directs CBP and the Office of
Policy to brief the Committee not later than September 15,
2008, and quarterly thereafter, on the status of WHTI.

NORTHERN BORDER STAFFING

As noted in previous years, the Committee strongly supports
statutory requirements in the USA PATRIOT Act (Public Law 107-
56), section 402 of the Trade Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-210)
and the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of
2004 (IRTPA) related to increasing the number of Border Patrol
agents and CBP Officers on the Northern border. Threat
information continues to point to Northern border
vulnerabilities to terrorist action and intrusion. CBP has
stated, however, that its target is to deploy no less than ten
percent of the Border Patrol agent workforce to the Northern
border, below the statutory requirements. Specifically, CBP has
testified that it would deploy at least 1,845 Border Patrol
agents on the Northern border by the end of fiscal year 2009,
375 over the projected fiscal year 2008 level, but 65 less than
is needed to comply with the IRTPA requirement that at least 20
percent of the overall net increase in Border Patrol agents be
assigned to the Northern border. The Committee expects CBP to
meet statutory requirements and has included $1,950,000 for the
cost of transferring an additional 65 agents to the Northern
border. The Committee directs CBP to continue to include, as
part of its quarterly hiring briefings, progress reports on
hiring, training, and deploying Northern border staffing.

ELECTRONIC SYSTEM FOR TRAVEL AUTHORIZATION

The Committee provided $36,000,000 in fiscal year 2008 for
costs of planning, staffing, and system development of the
Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) for screening
and processing travelers from visa waiver program countries.
The Committee understands that an ESTA project plan, schedule
and funding have been approved, that four positions have been
filled, and that CBP is recruiting additional personnel for its
program management office and National Targeting Center. The
Committee expects the Department to keep to its current plan to
implement ESTA by summer 2008 that is commercially available,
uses currently deployed technology, and is compatible with
existing systems used by the global air transport industry. The
Committee directs CBP to submit a report on ESTA implementation
with its fiscal year 2010 budget request, and to include
details on staffing, schedule and funding, as well as initial
performance experience.

MODEL PORTS OF ENTRY PROGRAM

The Committee directs CBP to submit a report on the
establishment of the Model Ports of Entry program authorized by
Section 725 of Public Law 110-53 not later than six months
after enactment of this Act. The report shall show how CBP is
providing a more efficient and welcoming arrival process for
international visitors at the top 20 international airports and
include a CBP Officer staffing plan that considers the use of
overtime and flexible work scheduling. In addition, the report
should describe: (1) efforts by CBP for additional employee
recruitment, retention, and training; (2) the process for
disseminating entry requirements to international travelers
before arrival into the U.S.; (3) improvements to queue
management techniques; (4) the use of instructional and welcome
videos and private sector representatives with multiple
language capabilities at entry; (5) improvements to CBP
signage; (6) the integration of private sector customer service
programs into the CBP training curriculum; (7) the best
practices developed at existing Model Ports of Entry to be
expanded to remaining Model Ports of Entry; and (8) results of
surveys of air travelers used to assess satisfaction with CBP
performance.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED TRAVELER/GLOBAL ENTRY

Section 565 of the fiscal year 2008 Homeland Security
Appropriation Act established a new International Registered
Traveler pilot program, which CBP has named Global Entry.
Global Entry will give pre-approved, low-risk travelers
expedited clearance upon arrival into the United States by
utilizing automated kiosks located at three international
airports: John F. Kennedy International Airport, Washington-
Dulles International Airport, and George Bush Intercontinental
Airport. The Committee understands the pilot was to have begun
accepting applicants in May 2008 and will run for six months.
The Committee directs CBP to report on its findings from the
pilot airports, with recommendations for funding and staffing a
permanent program, not later than January 1, 2009. The
Committee strongly supports prioritizing inspection efforts by
expediting processing of low-risk travelers, and includes an
additional $10,000,000 to enable CBP to continue and expand
this program to the top 20 U.S. international airports. The
Committee encourages CBP to work with the Transportation
Security Administration to explore whether efficiencies can be
gained by integrating enrollment processes for Global Entry and
the Registered Traveler program for U.S. citizens and legal
permanent residents who wish to participate in both programs.

CARGO AND CONTAINER SECURITY

The Committee is concerned about staffing and
implementation of the Container Security Initiative (CSI) and
Secure Freight Initiative (SFI), which the Committee funds at
the requested level of $149,450,000. Although CSI has been
expanded to 58 ports worldwide, and SFI is being conducted at
three primary and four other international seaports, CBP has
yet to ensure that it fills these important posts with
appropriately senior personnel who have requisite language
skills and experience, and that its assignment and rotation
schedule allows for continuity. During recent visits to CSI and
SFI ports, the Committee learned that one port had four
different team leaders in as many months, and that a lack of
Arabic speaking personnel there necessitated moving a senior
officer from another important port. GAO reported in January
(GAO-08-187) that CBP is filling positions at CSI seaports, but
(1) is still dependent on a temporary workforce; (2) needs to
optimize staffing resources as the CSI program expands; and (3)
needs to identify and recruit sufficient numbers of qualified
individuals for the program. GAO noted that collaboration with
host governments varies, leading in some cases to limited
access to port areas and restrictions on participation or
observation of cargo inspection. Until CBP corrects these
critical deficiencies, it is unlikely to make tangible progress
towards meeting the 100 percent screening requirement contained
in the 9/11 Act. The Committee directs CBP to brief the
Committee not later than January 8, 2009, on concrete steps it
is taking, including the use of foreign national employees, to
resolve problems in staffing and host country relations.

SUPPLY CHAIN SECURITY

The Committee understands CBP is reviewing public comments
on its proposed new security filing requirements (also
described as ``10+2'') for importers, shippers and carriers.
CBP expects this new filing system to provide a more complete
picture of supply chain elements and help CBP better target
high risk cargo and containers. The fiscal year 2008
Appropriation Act included $13,000,000 to help CBP begin work
on a global trade exchange (GTX) system to gather, process,
analyze and maintain a database of sensitive information
covering long supply chain segments for which no information is
currently available or would be available under the new 10+2
requirements. CBP decided not to proceed with a GTX pilot
effort until it had implemented the 10+2 security filing
protocol. While the Committee understands CBP's caution in not
moving ahead with a new system while continuing to implement a
new data collection initiative, it is concerned about the
significant gaps that will remain in CBP's information about
cargo and containers in the supply chain. The Committee
therefore directs CBP to report no later than January 8, 2009,
on the state of its information and intelligence about
international supply chain operations, gaps to be filled, and
efforts underway to close them, including costs and
implementation issues associated with such measures.

IN-BOND CARGO AND CONTAINER SECURITY

CBP has initiated a new phase in its tests of commercial
off-the-shelf (COTS) technology as a means to track shipments
that transit the United States under CBP bond. One current test
uses radio frequency (RF) transponder technology combined with
digital imaging as a way to reconcile in-bond transactions. The
initial demonstration is being applied to in-bond shipments
between the Ports of LA/Long Beach, California, and Laredo,
Texas. The Committee directs CBP to provide a status report on
that demonstration, including information on the use of optical
character recognition systems and integrated tracking and
security systems. The report should also include the number of
in-bond shipments for fiscal years 2006 through 2009 (to date),
and the number of times in-bond documents were not fully
reconciled between arrival and destination ports.

US-VISIT FUNCTION SUPPORT

The Committee includes $39,900,000 for maintenance,
engineering and operations support for US-VISIT, a reduction of
$22,900,000 from the request. The budget explanation did not
justify full funding, given that detailed breakouts of fiscal
year 2007 and 2008 costs were not provided, and current
estimates for 2008 appear well below the costs projected for
fiscal year 2009. The Committee expects CBP to cover these
costs from within its Salaries and Expenses appropriation or
through further US-VISIT reimbursements, if necessary. The
Committee also directs CBP to provide a detailed report on the
prior year budget for this support, by account, purpose and
fiscal year, with the fiscal year 2010 budget submission.

SYSTEMS FOR TARGETING

The Committee funds the requested level of $32,550,000 for
systems for targeting. No funding shall be obligated for the
enhancement of Automated Targeting Systems-Passenger until the
Commissioner certifies that such enhancement complies with all
applicable laws, including section 552a of title 5 U.S. Code,
and other laws protecting privacy, and such certification has
been reviewed by OIG. The certification should demonstrate how
such enhancements will improve targeting while fully complying
with statutory requirements for handling and securing personal
data.

TEXTILE TRANSSHIPMENT ENFORCEMENT

The Committee includes $4,750,000, as requested, to
continue textile transshipment enforcement. The Committee
directs CBP to ensure that the activities of the Textile and
Apparel Policies and Programs Office, specifically seizures,
detention, and special operations, are maintained at least at
the level of those activities in prior years. The Committee
directs CBP to submit a report with the fiscal year 2010 budget
on execution of its five-year strategic plan. The report should
include information covering fiscal years 2003-2008 on
enforcement activities; textile production verification team
exercises and special operations; numbers of seizures;
penalties imposed; and the numbers and types of personnel
responsible for enforcing textile laws (including headquarters
staff in the Textile Enforcement Operations Division).

AGRICULTURAL SPECIALISTS

The Committee recognizes that CBP needs additional
Agriculture Specialists to minimize and reduce wait times
associated with agricultural inspections. The Committee
therefore includes $5,100,000 for 100 additional Agricultural
Specialists and directs that first priority be given to fully
staffing the busiest land cargo ports of entry, as determined
by the CBP Workforce Staffing Model.

UNIFORM COMPLAINT SYSTEM

CBP testified that it currently lacks a consolidated system
to collect complaints made regarding operations at ports of
entry, but that it is working towards a uniform complaint
system among all its ports. The Committee directs CBP to move
quickly to develop such a system, and to submit a report with
the fiscal year 2010 budget request on the status of this
effort, needed funding, and a timetable for completion.

UNACCOMPANIED ALIEN CHILDREN

The Committee remains troubled by reports that
unaccompanied alien children continue to languish in CBP
custody without access to appropriate nutrition, health care,
recreation, education, or receipt of form I-770 notification of
rights, including the right to a phone call. CBP has testified
that it has developed standards for treatment of unaccompanied
children and that CBP's policy is to provide I-770
notifications. CBP has also testified that it follows specific
standards for juvenile treatment under 8 CFR 236.3, Detention
and Release of Juveniles, as well as the Flores v. Reno
Settlement Guidance and CBP's Secure Detention Procedures at
Ports of Entry. Nonetheless, the Committee continues to receive
reports of abuse and misconduct towards unaccompanied alien
children, and is concerned with what happens between the time
CBP processes such children and the time the children are
transferred to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, which has
primary responsibility for the care and placement of such
children. The Committee encourages CBP to implement periodic
training for CBP staff, led by reputable non-governmental
organizations with child welfare expertise. CBP's efforts
should include education and testing of employees concerning
departmental policies and procedures regarding children. The
Committee also directs CBP to submit a report with its 2010
budget request on results of the annual Border Patrol Self-
Inspection Program. The report should include data on the
number of unaccompanied minors processed by the Border Patrol;
the degree to which policy on child care was followed in each
event; and whether all unaccompanied alien children received
their Form I-770 and related information in a timely fashion.

CARRIZO CANE

The Committee is aware that DHS and CBP have been working
with the Departments of Interior and Agriculture, as well as
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), on efforts to
eradicate and control the growth of Arundo donax, also known as
Carrizo Cane. Carrizo Cane has proven to be a significant
obstacle to Border Patrol efforts to gain effective control of
the Texas border. The Committee understands that pilot programs
are either underway or planned to use chemical and mechanical
eradication techniques, as well as biological agents such as
wasps, and that the USACE is preparing an environmental impact
statement concerning eradication along 111 miles of the Rio
Grande River. The Committee directs CBP to submit, with its
fiscal year 2010 budget request, a comprehensive plan to
eradicate Arundo donax and other invasive plants that inhibit
security efforts along the U.S.-Mexico border, including in
Eagle Pass and other Texas border areas not now included in the
pilot programs. The plan should evaluate all available methods
for eradication to include, but not be limited to, mechanical,
chemical, and biological agents. The plan should include
recommendations for the quickest and most environmentally sound
eradication methods, and include timetables and funding needed
to implement them.

PANDEMIC FLU AND INFECTIOUS DISEASE

The Committee is aware that in 2006 CBP developed plans and
procedures to guide CBP's role in a pandemic outbreak. CBP's
goal is to decrease the smuggling and distribution of
prohibited agricultural commodities and products with influenza
risk. In related efforts, CBP developed bird importation
handling procedures and deployed related Internet-based
training modules. The Committee encourages CBP to explore with
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Division of
Global Migration and Quarantine the potential of further
efforts to improve CBP officer training related to infectious
disease interdiction and control at U.S. ports of entry. Such
training could include enhanced training at FLETC, distance
learning programs, and the use of technology, such as personal
data assistants for CBP Officers to provide algorithm-based
decision-making tools.

RADIATION PORTAL MONITORS

CBP has reported that the staffing required to operate
radiation portal monitors (RPMs) and control the gates where
RPMs are deployed has come by reducing other positions, chiefly
inspectors. To address this deficiency, the Committee has
included $34,332,000 to fund 350 positions, including 293 CBP
Officers, as well as scientists, specialists and support
positions.
The Committee has also included $4,968,000, $3,200,000 less
than requested, for costs of RPM operation and maintenance,
which have become the responsibility of CBP following transfer
of the systems from the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office.
Funding was reduced from the request because the delivery of
the Advanced Spectroscopic Portal systems is not expected until
mid to late fiscal year 2009.

PROJECT SEAHAWK

The Committee includes $2,000,000 for the containerized
cargo inspection demonstration project as part of Operation
SeaHawk at the Port of Charleston, South Carolina. The
Committee encourages CBP, along with Coast Guard and ICE, to
continue its work with the Department of Justice on the Project
SeaHawk law enforcement task force. The Committee directs CBP
to report not later than February 16, 2009, on the impact of
Project SeaHawk to date, and to include details of how the
project will be funded and supported beyond fiscal year 2009.

CONTAINER SECURITY DEVICE (CSD)

The Committee directs CBP to join the Science and
Technology (S&T) Directorate to provide quarterly updates on
its efforts to explore a viable CSD solution, as described in
the S&T section.

Automation Modernization

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008....................... $476,609,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009..................... 511,334,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 511,334,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2008................... +34,725,000
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2009................. 0
MISSION

Automation Modernization includes funding for major
information technology projects for CBP, including the
Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) system; support and
transition of the legacy Automated Commercial System (ACS); the
integration and connectivity of information technology within
CBP and DHS as part of Current Operations Protection and
Processing Support (COPPS); and modernization of the Traveler
Enforcement and Compliance System (TECS).

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $511,334,000 for Automation
Modernization, the same as the amount requested and $34,725,000
above the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. Not less than
$316,851,000 is for ACE development. CBP is directed to provide
an expenditure plan detailing how it will distribute this
funding to ACE, COPPS, and TECS, and the Committee includes
bill language making $216,851,000 unavailable for obligation
for ACE until 30 days after it receives a detailed expenditure
plan for that program.

ACE PLAN

CBP is beginning to make progress in implementing the ACE
program to automate complex customs processes. The Committee
directs that CBP continue to provide the level of detail within
the ACE expenditure plan as required in previous years. These
shall include:
(1) a detailed accounting of the program's progress,
up to the date of the report, in meeting prior
commitments made to the Committees on Appropriations
relative to system capabilities or services, system
performance levels, mission benefits and outcomes,
milestones, cost targets, and program management
capabilities;
(2) an explicit plan of action defining how all funds
are to be obligated to meet future program commitments,
with the planned expenditure of funds linked to the
milestone-based delivery of specific capabilities,
services, performance levels, mission benefits and
outcomes, and program management capabilities;
(3) a listing of all open GAO and OIG recommendations
related to ACE, the status of DHS efforts to address
the recommendations, and milestones for fully
addressing them;
(4)(a) a certification by the DHS Chief Procurement
Officer that (1) the ACE program has been reviewed and
approved in accordance with the investment management
process of the Department, (2) the process fulfills all
capital planning and investment control requirements
and reviews established by OMB, including Circular A-
11, part 7, and (3) the plans for the program comply
with the Federal acquisition rules, requirements,
guidelines, and practices;
(b) supporting analyses generated by and used in the
DHS investment management process; and
(c) a description of the actions being taken to
address areas of non-compliance, risks associated with
such areas, plans for addressing these risks and the
status of the implementation of such plans;
(5)(a) a certification by the DHS Chief Information
Officer that (1) an independent validation and
verification agent has reviewed and will continue to
review the program, (2) the ACE system architecture is
sufficiently aligned with the DHS information systems
enterprise architecture to minimize future rework,
including a description of all aspects of the
architectures that were or were not assessed in making
the alignment determination, the date of the alignment
determination, and any known areas of misalignment
together with associated risks and corrective actions
to address any such areas, and (3) the ACE program has
a risk management process that regularly and
proactively identifies, evaluates, mitigates, and
monitors risks throughout the system life cycle, and
communicates high-risk conditions to CBP and DHS
investment decision-makers; and
(b) a listing of the ACE program's high risks and the
status of efforts to address them; and
(6) a certification by the DHS Chief Human Capital
Officer that the human capital needs of the ACE program
are being strategically and proactively managed, and
that current human capital capabilities are sufficient
to execute the plan.

TECS MODERNIZATION

The Committee includes $50,000,000, as requested, to fund
the second ``wave'' of a six-year development effort to
modernize TECS, a 38-year-old system used extensively by DHS
(especially CBP and ICE) as well as other federal, state and
local law enforcement agencies. TECS is a critical law
enforcement system used for border enforcement and sharing of
information about individuals who may be inadmissible to, or
represent a security threat to, the United States. The fiscal
year 2009 request, along with the $25,000,000 appropriated in
fiscal year 2008, comprises about 20 percent of the total
projected cost of $343,000,000. To ensure that this important
project is carried out effectively, the Committee directs CBP
to submit a detailed expenditure plan not later than January 8
2009, to include: (1) a description of each project in the
modernization program; (2) a certification by the Department's
Chief Information Officer that the system architecture for TECS
is aligned with the DHS Enterprise Architecture; (3) a status
report on actions taken and approvals granted by the TECS
Governance Committee, as well as the DHS Investment Review
Board; (4) a description of timelines and milestones for the
development and implementation of each project, achievements in
fiscal year 2008, and performance to date against targets and
(5) current cost estimates for the total modernization effort,
as well the remaining project ``waves''.

Border Security, Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008....................... $1,225,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009..................... 775,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 775,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2008................... -450,000,000
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2009................. 0
MISSION

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

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $775,000,000 for Border Security,
Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology (BSFIT), the same as
the amount requested and $450,000,000 below the amount provided
in fiscal year 2008. Of the funds provided, $400,000,000 may
not be obligated until an expenditure plan is approved by the
Committees on Appropriations and reviewed by GAO. The Committee
includes bill language making no funds available for obligation
for fencing or tactical infrastructure for which the Secretary
intends to waive environmental or other legislation until 15
days after the intention to invoke such authority is published
in the Federal Register. In addition, the Committee continues
bill language making no BSFIT funds available for obligation
until DHS has complied with the consultation provisions of the
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of
1996. The bill also requires Secretarial certfication of this
compliance.
A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:

QUARTERLY REPORTS

The Committee directs the Department to continue its Secure
Border Initiative status reports on a quarterly, versus the
current, bi-monthly, schedule. The report should include an
update on Northern border SBInet investments.

SECURE BORDER INVESTMENT

The Committee has provided over $2,700,000,000 in
appropriations for BSFIT activities since 2006. Combined with
the $775,000,000 included in this bill, BSFIT will have
received more funding in this account over four years than the
entire Border Patrol budget for fiscal year 2009. DHS currently
estimates the cost to construct its proposed additional 225
miles of pedestrian fence (to achieve a total of 370) to be
$930,000,000, or over $4,000,000 per mile.
The Committee is concerned that the rapid growth in border
technology and tactical infrastructure (fencing, roads and
lighting) deployed since 2007 and projected for fiscal years
2008-09 may lead to systems and structures that are expensive,
fail to perform as promised, and do not result in a more secure
border. Today, there are 325 miles of pedestrian and vehicle
fencing along the Southwest border, compared to 119 miles of
such fencing at the beginning of fiscal year 2006. Despite this
increase, however, BSFIT results overall to date have failed to
meet expectations.
Fencing in and of itself does not lead to the border being
under ``effective control,'' as has been recently seen in San
Diego, where illegal border crossing traffic has increased
despite having a fence. CBP estimates that only 486 miles of
the 1,954 mile Southwest border are currently under ``effective
control.'' On the largely unpatrolled Northern border, the
number of miles under ``effective control'' remains at 12--
unchanged from 2005--and a pilot program funded in 2007 only
now is getting underway.
Unfortunately, deployment of commercially available
technology to leverage CBP's border enforcement capability has
been disappointingly slow. Project 28, which was to set the
pace for rolling out technology solutions, was completed almost
ten months behind schedule, and its payoff has been very
limited. The disappointing results of Project 28 demonstrated
that technology development must have meaningful participation
by end-users from the start.
The Committee is concerned that the planned deployment of
SBInet technology in the Tucson and Ajo areas of Arizona,
presently scheduled for 2008, is being rushed and may result in
cost overruns and underperformance. Until there is more
tangible progress in developing and testing the underlying
technology, the risks associated with committing funding for
this deployment are significant. The effort to implement a
Common Operating Picture version 0.5 in 2008 may also be
premature. The Committee notes that the former manager of
SBInet publicly stated serious concerns with the program,
including ``cost overruns and lack of a system design by prime
contractor'' as well as ``constantly changing requirements, the
lack of a program baseline, and an unrealistic schedule.''
CBP testified that it plans to have completed work on 370
miles of pedestrian fencing and 300 miles of vehicle barriers
on the Southwest border by the end of calendar year 2008. While
CBP proposes to use development and deployment funding for
additional tactical infrastructure in fiscal year 2009 beyond
the 670 miles currently planned, it has not indicated where it
would be deployed, or even its priorities for such funds. The
Department must effectively demonstrate the positive impact of
currently planned infrastructure on the security and well-being
of the Southwest Border region.

NORTHERN BORDER TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENT

CBP has invested only 1.7 percent of total BSFIT resources
appropriated to date for improving Northern border security. It
plans to use about $46,000,000 for Northern border investments
in fiscal year 2008 (including $20,000,000 in fiscal year 2007
funds for the Detroit pilot), and proposes a similar funding
level for this activity in 2009. This is a meager effort,
particularly given that our land border with Canada is more
than twice the length of the Southwest border and, as the
Secretary of Homeland Security has said, is more vulnerable to
terrorist infiltration or smuggling. The Committee includes
$40,000,000 specifically for new technology investments to
address Northern border vulnerabilities and for efforts to
follow up on the Detroit area maritime pilot project. Quarterly
SBI reports must include a report on technology investments on
the Northern border.

BORDER INTEROPERABILITY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

A key element of border security is the integration of
efforts by all levels of government present at the borders--
federal, State, local and tribal. At present, the lack of fully
interoperable communications among those levels in border areas
places real limits on the ability to coordinate activities and
leverage efforts related to threat detection, operations, and
public safety. To begin to address this problem, the Committee
includes $30,000,000, as authorized in section 302 of the 9/11
Act, for a Border Interoperability Demonstration Project in
Northern border and Southwestern border communities, with
participants to be selected by the Secretary and funding
distributed through the State or States in which the
communities are located. The Committee directs the Secretary to
report by January 8, 2009, on the Department's plans for use of
this funding, including selection of participating communities
and a timetable for conducting the pilots.

OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT

The Committee includes $410,000,000, as requested, for the
operation and maintenance of systems and infrastructure
deployed with BSFIT funding. This represents a 460 percent
increase over the fiscal year 2008 appropriated level. Within
this amount, the Committee understands that $75,000,000 is for
operation and maintenance costs for tactical infrastructure,
with the remaining $335,000,000 for support of technology. The
Committee is concerned that such a large increase is not
consistent with the current pace of implementation of SBI
technology solutions, and that the $75,000,000 seems far beyond
the requirements for maintenance of the 670 miles in total
fencing and vehicle barriers CBP is planning to have in place
by the end of 2008, let alone the 325 miles of such fencing and
barriers currently in place.
The Committee recommends this funding level to make certain
that the program does not lack basic operational resources
despite the fact that the Department provided inadequate
information to justify it. To ensure these funds are necessary,
the Committee directs CBP to provide a detailed report on
operations and support obligations and expenditures on a
monthly basis, beginning January 8, 2009. The first such report
shall include all obligations and expenditures to date.

ENVIRONMENTAL AND REGULATORY ASSESSMENTS

The Committee includes $50,000,000 for regulatory and
environmental assessments and mitigation, $40,000,000 above the
amount requested. In April 2008, when the Secretary waived the
environmental and other laws affecting as much as 470 miles of
Southwest border, the Department stated it would mitigate or
avoid damaging impacts where possible. The Committee is
concerned, therefore, that CBP has rejected proposals to use
science-based approaches to develop and monitor mitigation
efforts, for example by comparing the impact of new
infrastructure with similar areas where such infrastructure is
absent, or by using existing authority to establish ``buffer
areas'' to accommodate both mitigation and security objectives.
The Committee includes $50,000,000 to enable more meaningful
efforts for environmental assessment and mitigation. The
Committee directs CBP to include an environmental mitigation
plan and report on mitigation efforts with its fiscal year 2009
expenditure plan submission. The plan should be science-based;
include an extensive monitoring protocol; incorporate best
practices developed in consultation with relevant Federal,
State, local and tribal authorities; and support land
acquisition efforts for mitigation purposes, where applicable.
Furthermore, the Committee expects the Department to limit
any future exercise of the Secretary's waiver authority to
specific, narrowly-defined, unaggregated segments of the
border. The Committee retains existing bill language requiring
the Secretary to provide 15 days' notice in the Federal
Register in those instances where a decision is made to invoke
such authority.

EXPENDITURE PLAN

The Committee has been disappointed with the initial fiscal
year 2008 BSFIT expenditure plan, which did not provide the
information and level of detail required. Some requirements
were completely ignored, including the comparison of
alternatives to fencing as a means to achieve effective control
on the border. The Committee directs CBP to comply fully with
the requirements of the law in its fiscal year 2009 expenditure
plan.
The Committee is also concerned that DHS has not taken
actions identified by GAO to reduce investment risk, leaving
over $3.5 billion in current and proposed investment at risk.
To ensure that a foundation for effective investment is in
place, a track record of performance is established, and a
balanced approach is taken to address all threats along the
borders, $400,000,000 is unavailable for obligation until the
Committee has received and approved an expenditure plan that:
1. Defines activities, milestones, and costs for
implementing the program to date for all investments,
including technology and tactical infrastructure;
identifies the maximum investment related to the SBInet
contract; estimates lifecycle costs; and describes the
methodology used to obtain these cost figures;
2. Demonstrates in detail how specific projects will
further the goals and objectives of the Secure Border
Initiative (SBI), as defined in the DHS Secure Border
Plan, and how the expenditure plan allocates funding to
the highest priority border security needs;
3. Includes an explicit plan of action for meeting
current and future program commitments, specifically
showing the current year investment and estimated
maximum investment (including lifecycle costs) for
funding under the plan;
4. Identifies funding and staffing requirements by
office and function within the SBI program;
5. Describes in detail how the plan addresses
Northern border and Port of Entry security needs
(including infrastructure, technology, and design and
operations requirements); how plan components rely on
BSFIT funding; and how SBI has prioritized its Northern
border activities;
6. Reports on budgeting, obligations and
expenditures, activities completed, and progress made
related to obtaining effective operational control of
the border;
7. Lists all open GAO and OIG recommendations, status
of efforts to address them, and a timetable for doing
so;
8. Includes Chief Procurement Officer certification
(1) of the investment management process; (2) that the
plan complies with all applicable federal acquisition
rules and best practices, reflects contracting
administration improvements, and addresses procurement
risk; and (3) that there are no conflicts of interest
between the prime integrator and subcontractors. This
certification should append all relevant documents and
memoranda, including documentation and definitions
related to the investment review processes used to
obtain said certification;
9. Includes Chief Information Officer certification
that (1) the program system architecture aligns with
the information systems architecture of DHS and (2) the
program has a risk management process. This
certification should append all relevant documents and
memoranda, including a description of processes used to
obtain said certification;
10. Includes Chief Human Capital Officer
certification that the human capital needs of the
program are being addressed in a way that ensures
adequate staff and resources are available to
effectively manage SBI, along with a description of SBI
staffing priorities. This certification should include
all relevant documents or memoranda, including a
description of processes used to obtain said
certification;
11. Includes a detailed analysis by the Secretary for
each segment, defined as 15 or fewer border miles,
comparing a fence or tactical infrastructure solution
with alternative means to achieve operational control,
such as additional staffing, other technology or
infrastructure, or a combination of such components;
and
12. Is reviewed by GAO.
The Committee retains and modifies bill language setting
thresholds for notifying the Committee of task orders,
including obligations and expenditures. This notification
requirement is necessary because of the procurement risk,
identified by GAO, stemming from the lack of a contract minimum
or maximum in the SBInet contract.

ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

The Committee expects the analysis of alternatives for
effective control of the border that is contained in the fiscal
year 2009 expenditure plan to provide a meaningful basis for
comparing different means to achieve border security. It should
fully document the decision process that led to selection of
fencing as the optimal solution. The Committee directs that
such comparison include the following information:
1. A methodology section to explain how CBP
determined ratings and weightings, and the standard
guidance applied to all segment analyses;
2. A description of the baseline costs of each
segment, broken out by personnel, infrastructure, and
technology, and a detailed comparison of the cost of
each alternative against that baseline;
3. A comparison of the estimated level of border
control, by segment, under each alternative (deterrence
and time/distance) relative to the current level of
border control; in defining the latter, CBP's estimates
should incorporate natural barriers or other features
of the landscape as appropriate and fully describe the
contribution of such features in the plan.
Alternatives should consist of reasonable combinations of
elements (e.g., agents, sensors, and cameras), instead of being
limited to individual elements that are unlikely to be fielded
in isolation. CBP should also include alternatives proposed by
communities or other stakeholder groups, such as eradication of
vegetation; enhancement of natural barriers; or incorporation
of security features into projects.

CONSULTATION WITH FEDERAL AGENCIES AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES

Public Law 110-161 Section 564(b) required the Secretary to
consult with other Cabinet secretaries, State, local and tribal
governments, and local landowners to minimize the impact of
proposed fencing on the environment, culture, commerce and
quality of life of the affected communities. The Committee is
aware of the Department's documented outreach efforts with
organizations, local government officials and landowners. In
many cases, however, such outreach consisted of limited
conversations or briefings, rather than transparent public
dialogue that solicited, acknowledged or addressed concerns or
proposals offered by those with whom CBP is charged with
consulting. While the Committee understands that the
consultation process does not grant stakeholders a veto over
DHS authority to construct tactical infrastructure, the
Department should engage in a meaningful process that attempts
to address stakeholder concerns and fully consider viable
alternatives. To support such consultation, the Committee
directs CBP, as part of the alternatives analysis in the 2009
expenditure plan, to identify and evaluate alternatives
proposed by stakeholders as potential substitutes for tactical
infrastructure. The Committee also retains and modifies bill
language from the fiscal year 2008 Homeland Security
appropriation that makes no BSFIT funding available for
obligation until the Secretary certifies that DHS has complied
with the consultation provisions of the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 and the
Secretary certifies to such.
To help improve the consultation process in the future, the
Committee also directs GAO to assess the consultation process
CBP used in fiscal year 2008 for projects planned for the Texas
border, with particular attention to (1) the standards used to
achieve meaningful consultation and consistent execution of
consultation requirements throughout CBP and the Border Patrol;
(2) the communication of those standards within CBP; (3) the
training, as appropriate, of CBP personnel to carry out the
consultations; and (4) the processes used to address issues or
alternative proposals that were introduced or raised as part of
the consultation process. The report should be submitted to the
Committee not later than March 1, 2009.

Air and Marine Interdiction, Operations, Maintenance, and Procurement

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008....................... $570,047,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009..................... 528,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 510,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2008................... -60,047,000
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2009................. -18,000,000
MISSION

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

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $510,000,000 for Air and Marine
Interdiction, Operations, Maintenance, and Procurement,
$18,000,000 below the amount requested and $60,047,000 below
the amounts provided in fiscal year 2008. The funding includes
$380,022,000 for operations and maintenance; $56,000,000 to
continue P-3 Service Life Extension; $35,600,000 for Multi-Role
Enforcement Aircraft; $9,000,000 to upgrade one Black Hawk
helicopter; $11,600,000 for Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS)
ground control and spares; $7,700,000 for C-550 sensor
upgrades; and $10,078,000 for marine vessels (including
$7,369,000 to acquire 49 marine interceptor vessels for the
Northern border). Within the above amounts, the Committee funds
$26,600,000 for Northern Air branches, as requested.

MULTI-ROLE ENFORCEMENT AIRCRAFT

The Committee is aware that the contract for the DHC-8/
Q300, expected to be the principal medium-range asset for CBP
surveillance and counterdrug missions, will end production in
2009, and that CBP will only take delivery of seven such
aircraft. The Committee understands that the replacement for
this mission area will likely be another twin-engine aircraft.
The Committee directs CBP to brief the Committee on steps it
has taken and is planning for this replacement, including
associated timetables and costs, not later than January 8,
2009. The Committee is supportive of this effort and recognizes
the need to recapitalize. However, if CBP does not plan to
obligate the funding provided for this aircraft in fiscal year
2009, it may utilize this funding instead for additional Black
Hawk helicopters.

UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS

The Committee understands CBP is working with the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) and Coast Guard to expand the
ability to operate and test the use of unmanned aircraft
systems (UAS) in national airspace beyond the limited areas
along the Southwest border, where operations have been
generally restricted to date. CBP is preparing to certify its
Grand Forks, North Dakota Air Branch as a location for UAS
deployment in 2008, and has undertaken a deployment
demonstration in the Gulf Coast area as it begins to work on a
strategy for marine UAS deployment.
The Committee does not include $18,000,000, as requested,
to enable CBP to complete acquisition and deployment of a
seventh UAS system. Despite the potential value of UAS as a
surveillance tool, there are many practical limitations of
expanded UAS deployment beyond current levels. While the
Predator B model is approved to operate in certain restricted
airspace, there remain FAA limitations on extending such
operation to national airspace more broadly. In addition, there
are staffing limitations at the Air and Marine Operations
Center (AMOC), which is intended to house the centrally
controlled operations for all UAS. The relatively high unit
acquisition and operating cost for UAS, roughly $6,000,000 for
the aircraft and $18,000,000 for a complete system, are high
compared to manned aircraft of similar size. Furthermore, DHS
has reported it currently cannot make a valid comparison of the
cost of operating its three aircraft types, which makes a
meaningful cost effectiveness assessment difficult.
The size and cost of the UAS component of the CBP Air and
Marine program, and its exact deployment and mission profile
and performance, are still being developed. The Committee
directs CBP to provide a more comprehensive report on the plans
for deployment of the UAS, to include: the concept of
operations for the border and coastal regions, and
international operations, if relevant; a detailed report on
operational costs, to include staffing and maintenance; basing
and range of deployment of UAS; mission performance statistics;
and status of FAA certification and approval for national
airspace operations. The report should be submitted not later
than January 8, 2009.

PRIVATE AIRCRAFT ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM NONCOMPLIANCE

CBP has testified that private aircraft may routinely enter
the U.S. over the Northern border without reporting their entry
via CBP form 178, as required by law, and are doing so without
repercussion. CBP is directed to brief the Committee not later
than September 1, 2008, on steps being taken to end this
vulnerability. To help in this effort, the Committee includes
$5,000,000 to fund the deployment of the Wireless Airport
Surveillance Platform (WASP) at small or untowered airports.
The Committee is aware that CBP's Air and Marine Operations
Center (AMOC) participated in a WASP demonstration associated
with a Science & Technology Directorate initiative. The
Committee was informed by AMOC staff that this system could
help detect the use of private airports by smugglers or other
private aircraft that have entered U.S. airspace without
authorization.

Construction

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008....................... $348,363,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009..................... 363,501,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 363,501,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2008................... 15,138,000
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2009................. 0
MISSION

The Construction account funds the planning, design, and
assembly of Border Patrol infrastructure, including Border
Patrol stations; checkpoints; temporary detention facilities;
mission support facilities; and construction costs at CBP-owned
ports of entry. Tactical infrastructure (fencing, barriers,
lighting and road improvements at the border) is funded through
the Border Security, Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology
account.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $363,501,000 for Construction, the
same as the amount requested and $15,138,000 above the amount
provided in fiscal year 2008. The funding includes $255,300,000
for Border Patrol construction; $16,600,000 for Air and Marine
facilities; $10,000,000 to modernize CBP-owned ports of entry;
$25,400,000 for minor construction; $15,000,000 for housing;
$39,200,000 for lease acquisition, operations and maintenance,
and repairs; and $2,015,000 for planning.

LAND PORT OF ENTRY MODERNIZATION

Traditionally, funding within the Construction account has
supported Border Patrol and Air and Marine facilities
construction and maintenance. Most land ports of entry are
owned by the General Services Administration, which leases them
to CBP and is responsible for modernizing or expanding those
facilities. CBP has identified the upgrading of these GSA-owned
inspection facilities as a high priority, and has reported that
the cost could be as high as $1,800,000,000. The Committee
directs CBP to continue working with GSA to prioritize funding
for modernizing these facilities.
In addition to GSA facilities, the 43 land ports of entry
owned and maintained by CBP require significant
recapitalization, which CBP estimates could cost $150,000,000.
The Committee includes $10,000,000, as requested, to begin this
recapitalization, and directs CBP to submit a detailed plan for
modernizing all 43 ports of entry with its 2010 budget request.

U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT

Salaries and Expenses

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008....................... $4,687,517,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009..................... 4,690,905,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 4,746,171,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2008................... +58,654,000
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2009................. +55,266,000
MISSION

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is the lead
agency responsible for enforcement of immigration laws, customs
laws, and the security of Federal facilities. ICE protects the
United States by investigating, deterring, and detecting
threats arising from the movement of people and goods into and
out of the country. ICE consists of more than 17,000 employees
within four major program areas: Office of Investigations;
Federal Protective Service; Office of Intelligence; and
Detention and Removal Operations.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $4,746,171,000 for Salaries and
Expenses, $55,266,000 above the amount requested and
$58,654,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2008.
Within these amounts, the Committee provides $800,000,000
to finance ICE's identification of undocumented individuals
with criminal records who are incarcerated or at large, and the
removal of those aliens with criminal records who have been
judged deportable in immigration court. The Committee believes
that ICE should have no greater immigration enforcement
priority than to remove violent, deportable criminal aliens
from the United States.
The Committee provides $1,322,219,000 for ICE's
investigatory responsibilities, and funds many of the requested
increases in customs and trade enforcement activities. The
Committee has developed a new investigatory budget structure
for ICE in 2009 to provide transparency into the agency's
various law enforcement missions. As ICE's investigatory
program has matured since its creation five years ago, its
investigatory budgets have increased dramatically. Along with
this budgetary growth comes the responsibility for
accountability and prioritization of the investigatory
workload.
A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:

PRIORITIZING THE REMOVAL OF DEPORTABLE CRIMINAL ALIENS

In the 2008 Appropriations Act, the Congress provided ICE
$200,000,000 to identify aliens convicted of crimes and
sentenced to imprisonment, and to remove such individuals from
the country who are judged deportable. Along with these funds,
ICE was instructed to submit an expenditure plan to the
Committee describing the strategy and process the agency would
use to carry out this responsibility.
Within the agency's plan to identify and remove deportable
criminal aliens, ICE developed a conceptual methodology to find
the most violent and dangerous criminals in an effort to ensure
that those who are the greatest threat to society are the first
priority for removal. The Committee believes this type of risk-
based prioritization is critical to successful execution of the
ICE mission, and encourages ICE to adopt the same approach to
locating and arresting dangerous, at-large criminal aliens.
ICE estimates that identification and removal of the most
dangerous criminal aliens would cost at least $900,000,000 and
take more than three years to achieve. Of the $200,000,000
provided in 2008, ICE's plan deferred $175,000,000 of
expenditures until 2009, partly in anticipation of a lengthy
program implementation.
The Committee recognizes the need for resources to carry
out the ICE plan, and therefore allocates $800,000,000 in 2009
to finance the agency's efforts to identify and remove the most
violent and dangerous criminals from the United States. The
Committee also includes a statutory requirement for ICE to
provide quarterly briefings on its progress in doing so.
Combined with the $175,000,000 that ICE chose to reserve from
2008, this funding should be adequate for the agency to
establish a full-scale, nationwide program. To support this
effort further, the Committee establishes a consolidated
program budget so that ICE is able to build upon its existing
resources to ensure comprehensive coverage of the entire
nation. Included within this program budget is funding for
Fugitive Operations teams and the Criminal Alien Program,
previously reflected as part of the Detention and Removal
Operations function, along with funding for State and Local
Programs, Criminal Investigations, and a portion of Immigration
Investigations, previously reflected in the Office of
Investigations function. The Committee also adds $54,530,000 in
unrequested funding for this initiative.
The State and Local Programs budget, which is part of the
$800,000,000 allocated to the identification and removal of
criminal aliens, includes funding to support the delegation of
immigration enforcement authority to State and local law
enforcement agencies through 287(g) agreements and funding for
the Law Enforcement Support Center, which helps State and local
agencies determine the immigration status of criminals and non-
criminals alike. By allocating the budgets for these programs
to ICE's efforts to identify and remove criminal aliens, the
Committee intends that ICE make this its first immigration
enforcement priority. However, the Committee does not preclude
ICE from the enforcement of immigration laws pertaining to non-
criminal aliens, or limit the exercise of delegated 287(g)
authorities to the exclusive apprehension of criminal aliens.
Similarly, while funding for Fugitive Operations teams, which
will also be part of the criminal alien budget in 2009, should
primarily be used to focus on locating criminal absconders, the
Committee does not preclude these teams from enforcing
immigration laws when they encounter non-criminal aliens during
their activities. While the Committee directs ICE to prioritize
activities related to criminal aliens, it also provides
$1,190,998,000 for ICE to conduct investigations not
specifically targeted at criminal aliens.

QUARTERLY PROGRESS REPORTS

ICE is required to submit quarterly progress reports on its
efforts to identify and remove deportable criminal aliens. The
report shall include funds obligated during the previous
quarter; the number of ICE staff dedicated to this effort, by
duty location; the number of criminal aliens identified in
correctional institutions and elsewhere, by location
identified; the number of days such aliens are held in
detention before removal proceedings; and the number of
criminal aliens deported. The first such quarterly report shall
also include a description of the staffing model used by ICE to
determine the number of ICE personnel assigned to state and
local prisons in fiscal years 2008 and 2009, and the number of
ICE personnel at such facilities prior to fiscal year 2008,
compared with the number of criminal aliens detained and
processed at these facilities.

ICE RESOURCE ALLOCATION

The Committee is concerned that information on funding
spent for ICE investigations and enforcement initiatives cannot
easily be provided to the Committee by ICE budget office staff.
When such information is provided, it often appears to be based
on projections rather than explicit budget allocations made to
operational managers. While this is partly the result of out-
dated ICE financial and management systems, the Committee is
concerned that ICE financial management processes may lack
adequate control of field expenditures and resource
prioritization. Further, the Committee is concerned that
inadequate budget transparency may result in field staffing and
equipment allocations that are not aligned with workloads. As a
result, the Committee directs GAO to review ICE processes for
resource and staffing allocations, including an assessment of
ICE's ability to adjust resource levels based on workload
trends.

DETENTION BED SPACES

The Committee funds the requested $46,000,000 increase for
detention capacity within the budget for identifying and
removing criminal aliens. With these additional resources, ICE
will have a total 2009 detention capacity for 33,000
individuals per day, an increase of 1,000 spaces over 2008. The
Committee directs ICE to place priority on the detention of
violent criminal aliens who are awaiting deportation. The
Committee expects ICE will have sufficient detention capacity
in 2009 to make significant improvements in the detention and
removal of criminal aliens, particularly since the Department
has noted significant declines in the apprehension of illegal
crossers along the Southern border as evidence of the success
of the ``catch and return'' policy.

DETENTION CENTER MEDICAL SERVICES

The Committee is concerned about media reports alleging
substandard treatment of individuals in the custody of ICE.
While no medical system is without error or problems, detainee
medical care must be well-managed, sufficiently resourced, and
provided in a manner meeting medical standards and ethics.
Given the apparent shortfalls in the care provided, the
Committee directs ICE to undertake immediately a comprehensive
review of the medical care provided to people detained by DHS,
and increases the budget for the Office of Professional
Responsibility by $2,000,000 over the request level to fund
this effort. The review should be conducted by appropriate
independent medical experts, selected with the advice of the
Office of Health Affairs, who can identify deficiencies in the
provision of medical care to detainees and make recommendations
to correct problems.

DETENTION STANDARDS OVERSIGHT AND COMPLIANCE

The Committee is concerned about recent reports issued by
the OIG and GAO concerning the Department's failure to comply
with standards for providing safe, secure and humane treatment
of those detained in ICE custody. The Committee directs the ICE
Office of Professional Responsibility to continue to expand its
detention oversight programs in 2009.
The Committee is pleased that ICE has moved to a third-
party compliance audit program for contract detention
facilities. Detention facilities are now evaluated annually and
on a random basis for compliance with ICE detention standards
(although these audits do not review the quality of healthcare
provided), and receive assessments ranging from ``superior'' to
``good'' to ``acceptable'' to ``at risk'' to ``deficient.'' Of
the 317 facilities for which 2007 reviews were completed as of
March 2008, 55 were judged deficient. While ICE rightly gives
contract facilities the opportunity to correct cases of non-
compliance with its standards, it is important that chronic
failures to meet detention standards are not ignored.
Therefore, the Committee includes a provision prohibiting ICE
expenditure of funds for any contracted detention facilities
that receive two consecutive evaluations of less than
``acceptable''.

CRIMINAL GANG INVESTIGATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT

ICE's unique criminal and immigration enforcement
authorities provide the agency with an effective means of
combating crime associated with transnational criminal gangs.
ICE's ``Operation Community Shield'' has been effective at
working with State and local communities to disrupt organized
criminal activity carried out by groups with connections to
Central and South America, Central and Eastern Europe, Asia,
and Africa. The Committee provides $47,070,000 for ICE gang
enforcement efforts, an increase of $12,000,000 over the
requested level.

STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS

The Committee has provided $78,474,000 for State and local
programs, the same as the amount provided in fiscal year 2008.
The Committee is concerned that ICE has not established
adequate oversight of State and local law enforcement agencies
that are delegated authority to enforce Federal immigration
laws. In particular, the Committee notes that lawsuits have
been filed accusing some of ICE's State and local partners of
not following the procedures outlined in the Memoranda of
Agreement that govern the terms of delegated immigration
enforcement authority. The Committee directs ICE to submit a
comprehensive strategy for ensuring adequate oversight and
regulation of all State and local immigration enforcement
agreements. Furthermore, bill language is included requiring
ICE to prioritize the delegation of Federal immigration
enforcement authorities to State and local correctional
agencies, and to preclude the use of any funds for the
delegation of Federal authorities to organizations that fail to
comply with the terms of their agreements. The Committee also
directs the OIG to audit the performance of agreements between
ICE and State and local officials, specifically investigating
whether violations of the terms of the agreements have
occurred.

CUSTOMS AND TRADE INVESTIGATIONS

In addition to enforcing immigration laws and regulations,
ICE is responsible for investigating and disrupting various
illegal trade-related schemes. ICE investigators also monitor
the export of strategic technologies and products to ensure
that American innovation is not exploited by those who would do
our country harm. To support these important activities, the
Committee provides $11,500,000 for the expansion of ICE's Arms
and Strategic Technology investigations; Commercial Fraud
investigations; National Security Integration Center;
Counterterrorism Unit and Joint Terrorist Task Force Support;
Human Smuggling and Trafficking investigations; Commercial
Fraud and Intellectual Property investigations; and Outbound
Trade Enforcement investigations, as requested. The bill fully
funds the President's request for ICE's cyber crime related
investigations, including, but not limited to, child
exploitation, identity and benefit theft investigations, money
laundering investigations, and the ICE National Digital
Forensics Document Laboratory. The Committee does not fund
requested increases to Identity and Benefit Theft
investigations; Financial investigations; Cyber Crimes
investigations; the Forensics Document Laboratory; or the ICE
Asset Forfeiture Fund staff, since these activities are also
conducted by other Federal law enforcement agencies.

TEXTILE TRANSSHIPMENT ENFORCEMENT

Section 352 of the Trade Act of 2002 authorizes funding for
Customs Service textile transshipment enforcement, and
specifies how the funds must be spent. The Committee includes
$4,475,000 to continue these important activities. The
Committee directs ICE to provide a report with its fiscal year
2010 budget request on its actual and projected obligations of
this funding, covering fiscal years 2005 to 2010. The report
should include staffing levels by fiscal year since 2005. The
report should also include a five-year enforcement plan for
transshipment violations.

ICE LEGAL PROGRAMS

In order to efficiently investigate and prosecute
individuals accused of customs and immigration violations, ICE
requires an active and effective legal staff. The Committee
provides $215,134,000 for the ICE Office of the Principal Legal
Advisor (OPLA), $802,000 more than requested. Of this amount,
$500,000 is for the ICE Human Rights Law Division to continue
to expand its vigorous prosecution of human rights violators
who have managed to enter the United States.

ALTERNATIVES TO DETENTION

Alternative to Detention programs are a cost-effective
approach for maintaining contact with non-dangerous individuals
being prosecuted for immigration violations or whose cases are
under judicial appeal. Through a variety of means, these
programs contribute to more effective enforcement of
immigration laws at far lower cost than detention. The
Committee recommends $63,000,000 for Alternatives to Detention
programs, an increase of $7,209,000 above the request. The
Committee understands that ICE will re-compete some of the
contracts for Alternatives to Detention programs in 2009, and
instructs ICE to ensure the review process for any new
contracts includes an analysis of the nationwide expandability
of the program, as well as a review of the suitability of the
proposals for families and asylum-seekers.
The Committee is aware of claims that ICE is using the
Alternatives to Detention program as a means to track
individuals who would otherwise be eligible for release on
parole or bond, rather than as a true humanitarian alternative
that allows the agency to keep track of non-dangerous people
during their immigration court proceedings. ICE is directed to
provide a briefing to the Committee on the criteria for
enrollment of detainees in Alternatives to Detention programs,
including detailed information about the demographics of those
enrolled in the various Alternatives to Detention programs, and
the specific funds allocated to each approach for Alternatives
to Detention. The Committee further directs ICE to ensure it is
using the Alternatives to Detention program in lieu of using
detention facilities.

CHILD AND FAMILY DETENTION

The Committee remains concerned that, contrary to clear
direction in the explanatory statement accompanying the 2008
Appropriation Act, families continue to be held in prison-like
conditions, and that alternatives to detention are not being
made broadly available to families. In addition, while the
Committee notes that ICE has developed and implemented
detention standards for families held in custody, it is
concerned that these standards permit detention officers to
execute strip searches of children, place children in
restraints, and use disciplinary weapons such as steel batons
against children held in custody. The Committee directs ICE to
cease housing families in prison-like settings, to provide a
briefing to the Committee on its future plans for family
detention facilities, and to report quarterly on any incidents
involving strip searches of children, placement of children in
restraints, or use of disciplinary weapons against children.

INAPPROPRIATE TREATMENT OF CHILDREN IN ICE CUSTODY

The Committee is concerned by the lack of ICE progress in
working with the Department of State and the Office of Refugee
Resettlement (ORR) at the Department of Health and Human
Services to develop safe and secure repatriation programs for
juveniles who are foreign nationals. Children who are deported
from the United States deserve special care so that they are
protected from harm upon repatriation, and are successfully
reintegrated into their home countries. The Committee directs
ICE to brief the Committees on Appropriations by November 1,
2008, on its plans for improving this activity in 2009.
The Committee is concerned that the Department has not
ceased its reliance on bone and dental forensics for child age
determination, as directed in House report 110-181. This
practice has led to the erroneous placement of children in
facilities commingled with adults who may seek to prey upon
young children. The Committee directs the Department to cease
immediately its reliance on fallible forensic evidence as
determinative of a child's age, and provides no funding for
this activity. The Committee also directs the OIG to review ICE
practices for determining the age of those in its custody, and
to report to the Committees on Appropriations on any cases
where ICE used these practices in 2008 or 2009.
Recognizing these and other concerns about the treatment of
children in ICE custody, the Committee directs the Department
to conduct periodic training for all staff who may encounter
children during their duties. This training should be
implemented by reputable, non-governmental organizations with
child welfare expertise and include, at a minimum: laws and
department procedures for caring for children in Federal
custody; policies and restrictions on removal of children from
the United States; and complaint procedures and appeal
mechanisms available to children in Federal custody. The
Committee directs the Department to provide a briefing on its
training program for employees who encounter children,
concurrent with the submission of the 2010 budget.

TRANSPORTATION OF UNACCOMPANIED ALIEN CHILDREN

The Committee expressed interest last year in the transfer
of responsibility for transportation of unaccompanied alien
children from ICE to the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR).
Contrary to information provided during development of the 2008
Consolidated Appropriations Act, however, the Committee has
learned that ORR was not allocated a budget to carry out such
transportation services, does not have the necessary
infrastructure in place, and is therefore unable to accept such
responsibility in 2008. The Committee believes that this
function may be transferred to ORR if ORR agrees it is able to
assume this responsibility and the transfer is cost-effective;
ICE reimburses ORR for the cost of this function as determined
by an independent entity; and a joint transition plan for the
orderly reassignment of this function is developed by ICE and
ORR. The Committee directs ICE to provide a briefing on this
matter within 90 days of enactment of this Act.

WORKSITE ENFORCEMENT

The Committee supports ICE's policies that allow for
humanitarian review of those arrested in worksite enforcement
actions affecting 150 or more individuals, and directs ICE to
expand this guidance to cover all worksite enforcement
activities. The Committee encourages ICE to allow non-
governmental organizations and State and local social service
agencies to participate in humanitarian screening.

REDUCING THE SOCIAL COSTS OF IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT

The Committee is concerned by reports that high-visibility
immigration enforcement efforts have caused alarm in several
communities. The impact of these unsettling events has
apparently resulted in parents withdrawing children from
schools, people avoiding medical care, and individuals reducing
their presence and role in the community at large. The Committe
understands that ICE has stated it does not regularly conduct
immigration enforcement actions at schools, hospitals, and
religious centers, but believes that policy is not widely
understood by the public. The Committee directs ICE to
publicize clear policies describing how immigration enforcement
actions at schools, hospitals, and religious centers are
limited because of the important role these institutions play
in our society.

TREATMENT OF INDIVIDUALS SEEKING ASYLUM

The Committee is concerned that ICE and CIS have not
addressed many of the issues identified by the U.S. Commission
for International Religious Freedom's 2005 report on the
treatment of asylum seekers who are detained in ICE custody. In
particular, ICE has made little progress in reforming its
parole and bond processes for those who claim asylum, leading
both to cases of inappropriate detention of individuals with
subsequently adjudicated asylum claims, and inconsistent
treatment of asylum seekers nation-wide. The Committee directs
DHS to institute a standard, comprehensive policy for
expeditious review of asylum claims by detained individuals,
including a transparent parole and bond process for asylum
seekers. In addition, the Committee directs the Immigration
Services Ombudsman to publish annual statistics on the
detention, parole, and bonding of asylum seekers.

Federal Protective Service

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008....................... $613,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009..................... 616,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 616,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2008................... +3,000,000
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2009................. 0
MISSION

The Federal Protective Service (FPS) is responsible for the
protection of federally owned and leased buildings and
properties, particularly those under the charge and control of
the General Services Administration. 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, including: 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 $616,000,000, the same as the
amount requested and $3,000,000 above the amounts provided in
fiscal year 2008. The Committee notes that in February 2008,
the Secretary of Homeland Security announced increased FPS fees
for fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2009 to support the
expanded staffing levels mandated in the 2008 Appropriations
Act, and encourages the Department to update the fiscal year
2009 FPS collections estimates in the 2009 mid-session review
update.

FEDERAL PROTECTIVE SERVICE POLICE

In the 2008 Appropriations Act, Congress mandated that FPS
employ at least 1,200 full-time personnel, including at least
900 in-service field staff. While the budget justification
submitted by ICE claims that ``the Department intends to seek
repeal of the minimum staffing level provision,'' there has
been no official submittal of a repeal proposal and ICE has
developed no analysis to show the staffing level required to
meet the FPS workload. In early March 2008, ICE increased fees
charged to FPS customers for 2008 and 2009. As a result, the
Committee continues the 2008 provision for minimum staffing
levels, and directs the GAO to complete an analysis of the
resource levels required for FPS to be able to adequately
protect federal facilities.

Automation Modernization

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008....................... $30,700,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009..................... 57,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 57,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2008................... +26,300,000
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2009................. 0
MISSION

The Automation Modernization account funds major
information technology (IT) projects.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $57,000,000 for Automation
Modernization, which funds a variety of ICE technology
investments critical to the future of the agency. The following
table illustrates funding by specific investment project:

ICE FINANCIAL SYSTEMS

Although the Committee understands the Department is
soliciting new bids for the financial systems consolidation
project known as the Transformation and Systems Consolidation
(TASC), it is concerned that ICE financial systems remain in
need of significant improvement. While the budget requested
$7,000,000 to initiate replacement of ICE's financial systems
in conjunction with TASC, that effort is unlikely to occur in
2009. In light of the need to improve ICE's financial systems,
however, the Committee provides the requested amount and
directs ICE to provide a briefing on the planned use of these
funds.

Construction

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008....................... $16,500,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009..................... 0
Recommended in the bill............................... 10,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2008................... -6,500,000
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2009................. +10,000,000
MISSION

The Construction account funds the planning, design,
construction, equipment and maintenance for ICE-owned buildings
and facilities.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for Construction
instead of no funding as proposed in the budget. This funding
will provide for basic and emergency maintenance at ICE-owned
detention facilities, called Service Processing Centers (SPCs).
The Committee notes that ICE has used the poor condition of
many of its SPCs as justification for a proposal to privatize
the facilities. ICE makes this assertion while simultaneously
neglecting maintenance by not requesting funds to perform it. A
recent ICE-commissioned study of the SPCs estimated the need
for nearly $400,000,000 in repairs and alterations between 2007
and 2016. The Committee directs ICE to use the funds provided
to address the highest-priority repair and alteration needs at
the SPCs. The Committee includes a statutory restriction on
obligation of funds to carry privatization of ICE-owned
detention facilities until ICE provides the Committees on
Appropriations a plan for carrying out that privatization.

Student and Exchange Visitor Program

The Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) collects
fees from student and exchange visitor visa applications to
operate and maintain the Student and Exchange Visitor System
(SEVIS) and carry out domestic enforcement of student and
exchange visitor visa laws. In the 2009 budget and subsequent
regulatory filings, DHS and the managers of SEVP proposed
nearly doubling the visa application fees charged for student
and exchange visitors, while increasing the fees charged to
enrolled educational institutions by an even greater amount.
This increased revenue is supposed to enable ICE to streamline
student record-keeping, improve oversight of educational
institutions, and strengthen the support available for both
students and academic administrators. The Committee directs ICE
to ensure this new revenue produces equivalent improvement in
service provided to its academic partners by continuing its
outreach work with the communities affected by increased fees
and by enabling more direct access to records by students and
administrators alike. In addition, the Committee directs ICE to
evaluate the role of the academic liaison officers it plans to
hire using this additional revenue, making sure these new
officials are trained and empowered to assist academic
institutions with problems that arise with SEVP.

Transportation Security Administration

BUDGET FORMAT AND REALIGNMENT PROPOSAL

The 2009 request proposes to significantly rearrange
programs, projects, and activities (PPAs) within the
Transportation Security Administration's (TSA) budget and to
establish new programs, such as law enforcement and human
capital services. TSA has stated that this realignment is
necessary to consolidate like functions within various
appropriations accounts; to realign functions between PPAs to
more closely mirror the current organizational structure; and
to integrate the Federal Air Marshals (FAMs) into the Aviation
Security appropriation. The Committee has rejected many of the
realignment proposals contained in the budget request,
including the proposal to combine air cargo activities with
aviation regulation. It is critical that air cargo remain a
separate and distinct program so that Congress can track how
TSA is meeting the 9/11 Act mandate to screen 100 percent of
air cargo carried on passenger aircraft by August 2010. In
addition, the Committee has denied the proposal to move FAMs
into the Aviation Security appropriation because it is critical
that the FAMs budget continue to be delineated clearly. The
Committee adopted proposed realignments that made sense
financially or enhanced program accountability. The most
notable of these are the combination of all human resource
programs into a new ``human capital services'' account and the
expansion of the information technology (IT) account to reflect
IT purchases and programs that were previously contained within
the Aviation Security appropriation.

Aviation Security

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2008....................... $4,808,691,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 \1\................. 5,289,535,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 4,743,018,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2008................... -65,673,000
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2009................. -546,517,000
\1\ Because the budget estimate assumes a realignment of many programs
including Federal Air Marshals funding of $786,000,000 within this
account, a direct comparison to previous fiscal years is not possible.

MISSION

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

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $4,743,018,000 for Aviation
Security, $546,517,000 below the amount requested and
$65,673,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2008.
Funding has been reduced from the fiscal year 2009 budget
request because the Committee does not agree to move the
Federal Air Marshals program to Aviation Security. FAMs is
funded as a separate and distinct appropriation, consistent
with prior years. Funds within this account are partially
offset through the collection of security user fees paid by
aviation travelers and airlines. A comparison of the budget
estimate to the Committee recommended level by budget activity
is as follows:

AVIATION SECURITY FEES

In total, the Committee assumes the collection of
$2,320,000,000 in aviation security user fees, of which
$1,872,000,000 will be collected from aviation passengers and
$448,000,000 will be collected from airlines. These fees
partially offset the federal appropriation for aviation
security.

SCREENING OPERATIONS

The Committee recommends $3,940,710,000 for passenger and
baggage screening operations, $262,423,000 above the amount
requested and $172,221,000 above amount provided in fiscal year
2008. While TSA refers to the screener workforce as
``Transportation Security Officers,'' these personnel are
referred to as ``passenger and baggage screeners'' for the
purposes of this bill and report. A comparison of the budget
estimate to the Committee recommended level by budget activity
is as follows:

PRIVATIZED SCREENING

The Committee recommends $151,272,000 for privatized
screening, the same as the amount requested and $7,887,000
above the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. To date, 11
airports across the country have chosen to ``opt out'' of
federalized screening and participate in the Screening
Partnership Program (SPP). The Committee is aware of seven
airports in Montana that were federalized in early 2008, after
the 2009 budget was submitted, which currently have no
screeners in place but have submitted applications to
participate in the SPP. The Committee directs TSA to approve
those applications and quickly implement screening at these
airports. Furthermore, the Committee expects TSA to continue to
provide screener service to airports which become eligible in
fiscal year 2009. Should TSA seek to modify some element of an
airport's security apparatus, the Committee expects all
stakeholders at the affected airport to be fully informed and
consulted prior to implementation.
Consistent with prior years, TSA is directed to notify the
Committees on Appropriations if it expects to spend less than
the appropriated amount for privatized screening due to
instances in which no additional privatized screening airports
are added or airports currently using privatized screening
convert to federal screeners. TSA shall adjust its PPAs within
ten days of any changes to personnel, compensation, or benefit
levels resulting from the award of SPP contracts, a change in
such contracts, or the movement of airports from the SPP to
federalized screening.

PASSENGER AND BAGGAGE SCREENER PERSONNEL, COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS

The Committee recommends $2,716,014,000 for passenger and
baggage screener personnel, compensation, and benefits, the
same as the amount requested and $79,910,000 above the amount
provided in fiscal year 2008. This level fully funds the pay
and cost of living adjustments for all passenger and baggage
screeners and annualizes specialized screeners hired as part of
the original 2008 and amended 2008 budget requests (e.g. travel
document checkers, behavior detection officers, bomb appraisal
officers, and officers to randomly screen more airport and
airline employees).

SCREENING WAIT TIMES

The Committee continues to be concerned that screening wait
times vary disproportionately by airport. Based on wait time
information, several large airports consistently experience
wait times well above average, including Atlanta Hartsfield
International airport, Miami International airport, Las Vegas
McCarran airport, San Juan's Luis Munoz Marin International
airport, Newark International airport, Seattle-Tacoma
International airport, John Wayne airport, Tampa International
airport, Washington Dulles International airport, Detroit
Metropolitan Wayne County airport, and Philadelphia
International airport. Consistent with prior years, the
Committee directs TSA to submit wait time data on a quarterly
basis for domestic airports with above-average wait times and
for the top 40 busiest airports in the United States. TSA shall
annotate this report to explain any dramatic shift in wait
times at any airport and explain what is being done to reduce
wait times at these airports.

CHECKPOINT SUPPORT

The Committee recommends $250,000,000 for checkpoint
support, $122,317,000 above the amount requested and equal to
the mandatory amount in 2008. Because checkpoint support was a
mandatory program in 2008, it did not require a direct
appropriation. The Committee approves TSA's proposed movement
of 31 FTEs from headquarters administration and operations
integration to checkpoint support because these personnel work
on the operational concepts of this program.
Over the past year, TSA has made some advances in testing,
piloting, and deploying next-generation checkpoint technologies
that will be used to screen airline passengers and carry-on
baggage for explosives, weapons, and other threats. Even with
this progress, however, additional funding is necessary to
expedite pilot testing and deployment of advanced checkpoint
explosive detection equipment and screening techniques to
determine optimal deployment as well as preferred operational
and equipment protocols for these new systems. Eligible systems
may include, but are not limited to, advanced technology
screening systems; whole body imagers; liquid explosives
detectors; automated explosive detection systems (EDS); cast
and prosthesis screening systems; and necessary reconfiguration
at airports to accommodate the ``checkpoint of the future''
layout. The Committee expects TSA to give the highest priority
to deploying next-generation technologies to designated Tier
One threat airports. Consistent with fiscal year 2008, not
later than 60 days after enactment of this Act, TSA shall
provide the Committees on Appropriations a checkpoint support
expenditure plan outlining how these funds will be spent.

STERILE AREA ACCESS SYSTEMS FOR AIRLINE CREWS

The 9/11 Act requires TSA to move expeditiously on a
security screening process for flight crews and report to
Congress on the status of efforts to ``institute a sterile area
access system.'' A report to Congress was due on January 30,
2008, with implementation of the system required a year later.
To date, TSA has not met the reporting deadline. The Committee
urges TSA to submit this report as expeditiously as possible.
The Committee acknowledges that instituting a sterile area
access system is a complex undertaking that requires several
factors to be taken into consideration, including the overall
cost, the definition of ``expedited access'', and the
appropriate locations for such systems. Given these
complexities, TSA should test the feasibility of any sterile
area access system on a pilot basis at selected airports before
widely instituting them on a national level. Pilot testing will
allow TSA to test concepts and adjust or enhance any system to
make wider deployment feasible. Funding within the checkpoint
support appropriation may be used for these pilots. TSA shall
notify the Committees on Appropriations within 120 days after
the date of enactment of this Act on how funding will be used
and identify the airports that will be participating in the
pilot. TSA shall provide an interim briefing to the Committee
on Appropriations on progress and final results of these pilots
not later than September 8, 2009.

EXPLOSIVE DETECTION SYSTEMS PROCUREMENT AND INSTALLATION

The Aviation and Transportation Security Act made the
Federal government responsible for the electronic screening of
all checked baggage using explosive detection machines. A
recently completed TSA baggage screening investment study
concluded that the capital funding requirements to procure new
optimal screening systems, install these systems, modify
facilities to expand existing systems, and acquire new systems
to support new airport terminals would cost $8.2 billion over
the next 20 years (by 2025). The fiscal year 2009 budget
request assumes that a temporary, four-year EDS
recapitalization surcharge will be enacted by the authorizing
Committees to accelerate the deployment of optimal checked
baggage screening systems and address the need to recapitalize
existing equipment deployed immediately after the September
11th attacks. Without the adoption of this surcharge, TSA has
informed the Committee that it will enter into fewer facility
modification agreements. To date, only about half of the
largest airports (45 out of 82 in Category X and I airports)
have optimal systems at some or all terminals. These include 18
airports that have optimal systems installed at all terminals
and 27 airports that have optimal systems installed at some,
but not all, terminals. The remaining large airports have sub-
optimal screening solutions, with some having large EDS
machines in lobby areas, creating security and traffic flow
problems.
No later than 60 days after enactment of this Act, TSA
shall report to the Committee on the timeline and process the
agency will utilize to replace the existing ETD machines at
medium and small airports with EDS machines.
The Committee recommends $294,000,000 for EDS procurement
and installation, $140,106,000 above the budget request and the
same as the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. Including the
existing mandatory Aviation Security Capital Fund, the total
appropriation (both mandatory and discretionary) for EDS
procurement and installation is $544,000,000 in fiscal year
2009. As part of this funding recommendation, the Committee
approves the realignment of 93 FTEs from headquarters
administration and operation integration into EDS procurement
and installation, as proposed in the budget request. Not later
than 60 days after enactment of this Act, TSA shall provide the
Committees on Appropriations an expenditure plan outlining how
the EDS procurement and installation funds will be spent.
With the funding provided, TSA is directed to enter into
airport facility modification agreements that deploy EDS
equipment optimally to airports that would benefit the most,
leveraging emerging screening technologies to the maximum
extent practicable. Priority should be given to airports for
which 100 percent electronic checked baggage screening
compliance may not be otherwise maintained due to anticipated
growth or recapitalization needs. The Committee continues to
encourage TSA to reduce its dependence on the more labor-
intensive methods to screen checked baggage, such as explosives
trace detection (ETD) machines. ETDs screen fewer bags per
hour, utilize more screeners per system, have a higher rate of
on-the-job injuries, and have a poor return-on-investment
(ROI). TSA should make every effort to achieve extra staff
savings and a better ROI by eliminating the slow, and therefore
costly, process of screening by ETDs.
Over the past year, TSA has been studying the consolidation
of checkpoint and checked baggage screening systems at smaller
and medium sized airports, and has allocated a limited amount
of funding for these efforts in its recent EDS expenditure
plan. This approach has the potential to maximize the use of
limited resources and increase efficiency in airport screening.
Therefore, the Committee encourages TSA to continue to pursue
the consolidation of checkpoint and checked baggage screening
systems and to update the Committee no later than February 16,
2009, on its progress in this area.

SCREENING TECHNOLOGY MAINTENANCE AND UTILITIES

The Committee recommends $310,625,000 for screening
technology maintenance and utilities, the same level as
requested and $46,625,000 more than the amount provided in
fiscal year 2008. The Committee notes that the funding
requirement for maintenance and utilities of explosive
detection systems, checkpoint systems, and other technologies
has grown by 18 percent from fiscal year 2008 to 2009. The
maintenance increase is driven primarily by increases in
fielded security equipment. While TSA uses long-term
maintenance contracts with fixed prices to safeguard the
government against potential cost increases associated with
maintenance of aging technology systems, the agency seems to
incur double digit growth in this area on a regular basis.
While TSA entered into a new maintenance contract in 2005 to
control these escalating costs, it is questionable if cost
control is still occurring. The Committee directs TSA to
provide a detailed report on maintenance and utility costs for
screening technologies and to identify ways that costs may be
controlled in the future.

THREAT CONTAINMENT UNITS

The Committee understands that TSA has a number of bomb
threat containment units that are not utilized today. TSA is
directed to report to the Committee on whether threat
containment units should be part of its explosive detection
operations and if so, whether additional units are needed.

AVIATION SECURITY DIRECTION AND ENFORCEMENT

The Committee recommends $792,308,000 for aviation security
direction and enforcement, $32,940,000 below the amount
requested and $217,669,000 below the amount provided in fiscal
year 2008. This reduction reflects the movement of information
technology projects to the Transportation Security Support
appropriation and the denial of the newly proposed law
enforcement account. A comparison of the budget estimate to the
Committee recommended level by budget activity is as follows:

AVIATION REGULATION AND OTHER ENFORCEMENT

The Committee recommends $246,268,000 for aviation
regulation and other enforcement, $36,277,000 above the budget
request and $9,685,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year
2008. The budget proposed to split regulatory and enforcement
activities into two separate accounts, realigning 203 FTEs and
92 canine teams into this new structure. The Committee denies
the new law enforcement account, thereby keeping the
enforcement FTEs and canines in aviation regulation and other
enforcement. The budget also proposed to merge the air cargo
program with regulatory activities under this account
structure, including 325 FTEs. The Committee denies this
proposal as well.
The Committee has had a longstanding concern about the
number of aviation security inspectors TSA has on board, a
figure that has fluctuated widely. For example, the number of
TSA aviation inspectors increased from approximately 700 in
2004 to 825 in 2005, but then decreased to 715 in 2007, at the
same time that Congress required TSA to begin inspecting
aircraft repair stations and international operations. Although
TSA planned to have 836 aviation security inspectors (excluding
air cargo inspectors) on board in 2008, this figure decreases
to 771 in the 2009 request. The Committee is perplexed by these
vast swings in inspector numbers at a time in which workload is
rising. TSA is directed to maintain, at a minimum, the same
number of aviation security inspectors in 2009 as planned for
in 2008.

AIRPORT MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT

The Committee recommends $407,166,000 for airport
management and support, $34,156,000 above the budget request
and $244,767,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2008.
The Committee has adopted the budget's proposed realignment of
all information technology (IT) projects and 39 associated
FTEs, totaling $251,286,000, from the airport management, IT
and support account to the information technology account in
the Transportation Security Support appropriation. Because the
Committee has denied the newly proposed law enforcement
account, the Committee has retained 128 FTEs in the airport
management and support account.

FEDERAL FLIGHT DECK OFFICER AND FLIGHT CREW TRAINING

The Committee recommends $25,025,000 for the federal flight
deck officer and flight crew training program, $66,000 below
the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. The budget request
proposed realigning this program into a new law enforcement
PPA, which the Committee has denied. Within this total,
$21,784,114 is for the federal flight deck officer training
program and $3,240,886 is for flight crew training.

AIR CARGO

The Committee recommends $109,849,000 for air cargo,
$36,849,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. The
budget request proposed combining air cargo programs into
aviation regulation and other enforcement, which the Committee
has denied. It is imperative that air cargo remain a separate
and distinct PPA so that Congress can more effectively oversee
TSA's plans to screen 50 percent of air cargo carried on
passenger aircraft for explosives by February 2009 and 100
percent by August 2010, as required by the 9/11 Act.
TSA has informed the Committee that it plans to meet the 9/
11 mandate by developing and implementing a certified cargo
screening program. Under this program, all certified cargo
screening facilities, including certain indirect air carriers,
shippers, and distribution centers, will be allowed to screen
cargo prior to its consolidation onto pallets or into
containers before it leaves these facilities. At this time, TSA
relies exclusively on its personnel and air carriers to screen
cargo at airports prior to loading it onto passenger aircraft.
The certified cargo screening facilities will be required to
ensure that the chain of custody of that cargo is maintained
after it is screened. In the event of a break in the chain of
custody, the affected cargo will be rescreened. All certified
cargo screening facilities must meet stringent screening,
facility, and personnel security standards, which will be
validated by TSA. Under this program, all cargo, including
pallet and shrink wrapped cargo, is subject to screening.
TSA rolled out the first phase (or pilot) of the certified
cargo screening program in January 2008. This phase is designed
to test and refine the proposed security measures prior to a
nationwide roll-out. The pilot is anticipated to conclude in
the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2008. The certified cargo
screening program is currently focused on domestic originating
cargo, and TSA does not currently anticipate certifying
overseas entities. The Committee directs TSA to brief the
Committees on Appropriations on the results of this pilot
program before the agency moves to a nationwide roll-out.
Within the funding provided, the Committee includes $5,000,000
for TSA to begin auditing indirect air carriers, shippers, and
distribution centers participating in this program.
In addition to the certified shipper program, TSA is
developing and plans to implement a new policy before the end
of fiscal year 2008 that will require 100-percent screening of
air cargo transported on narrow-body aircraft. Narrow-body
aircraft carry breakbulk cargo. At the larger airports, this
cargo typically arrives at a cargo facility from an indirect
air carrier, and only a certain percent of it is currently
subject to screening. This added measure of security will
include cargo shipments that transfer from one air carrier to
another.

PERIMETER SECURITY

The Committee recommends $4,000,000 for airport perimeter
security pilots, the same as the amount provided in fiscal year
2008. This funding shall be awarded competitively and used to
address specific vulnerabilities identified at airport
perimeters.

IMPLEMENTING REQUIREMENTS OF THE 9/11 ACT

Excluding mandatory funding, the Committee includes $1.105
billion within the total appropriation provided to TSA for
activities and requirements authorized in the 9/11 Act,
including $544,000,000 for checkpoint and checked baggage
screening systems at airports; $109,849,000 for air cargo
security; $30,000,000 for the Visible Intermodal Protection and
Response teams; $400,000,000 for specialized screening programs
(travel document checkers, behavior detection officers, bomb
appraisal officers, and officers to randomly screen more
airport and airline employees); $11,600,000 for surface
transportation inspectors; and $10,000,000 to implement
regulations and other new activities. TSA shall use this
$10,000,000 for: vulnerability and risk assessments; the
development of regulations for name-based immigration status
checks for public transportation and railroad employees;
security reviews at foreign repair stations; piloting new
technologies at airport exit lanes; developing procedures to
implement a law enforcement biometric credential; procuring
blast resistant cargo containers; and improving general
aviation security. The Committee directs TSA to report to the
Committees on Appropriations 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act on the proposed allocation of the
$10,000,000 at the account and PPA level.

Surface Transportation Security

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008....................... $46,613,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 \1\................. 37,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 49,606,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2008................... +2,993,000
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2009................. +12,606,000
\1\ Because the budget estimate assumes a realignment of many programs
within the Transportation Security Administration, a direct comparison
to previous fiscal years is not possible.

MISSION

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

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $49,606,000 for Surface
Transportation Security, $12,606,000 above the amount requested
and $2,993,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2008.
Within this total, $24,885,000 is for surface transportation
staffing and operations and $24,721,000 is for rail security
inspectors and canines. The budget proposed moving the rail
canines and the Visible Intermodal Protection and Response
(VIPR) teams to a new law enforcement program, which the
Committee has denied. At the time that VIPR was originally
formed, these teams were to randomly patrol in and around
transportation stations, including subways, bus stations,
ferries, and other transit systems, to deter terrorists from
surveiling these facilities and planning related attacks. While
VIPR teams are also deployed in airports, it does not make
sense to move the canines and rail inspectors associated with
surface transportation into a new aviation security law
enforcement program. The Committee directs TSA to develop
performance measures to gauge the success of its VIPR teams in
detecting and disrupting terrorist actions and provide a report
describing these measures to the Committee no later than
January 31, 2009.
In addition to the funds provided for surface
transportation security under this heading, the Committee has
provided $412,000,000 for rail, transit, bus, and ferry
security grants under the Federal Emergency Management Agency's
``State and Local Programs'' appropriation.

REAL-TIME TRACKING OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ASSETS

The Committee encourages TSA, in cooperation with the
Federal Railroad Administration, to support the freight rail
industry's efforts to continue developing and deploying a
system for the real-time collection of data from tank cars
carrying hazardous materials. The system will employ telemetry
devices that will relay alerts related to leak detection, dome
openings, temperature changes, and excessive shock detection to
the freight rail industry and State and Federal emergency
response agencies.

Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008....................... $82,590,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009..................... 133,018,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 108,807,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2008................... +26,217,000
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2009................. -24,211,000
MISSION

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

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a direct appropriation of
$108,807,000 for Transportation Threat Assessment and
Credentialing, $24,211,000 below the amount requested and
$26,217,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. In
addition, the Committee anticipates TSA will collect
$40,000,000 in fees. A comparison of the budget estimate to the
Committee recommended level by budget activity is as follows:

SECURE FLIGHT

The Committee recommends $75,000,000 for Secure Flight,
$7,211,000 less than the amount requested and $25,000,000 above
the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. While TSA plans to
accelerate the Secure Flight program, the agency has already
slipped six months behind its accelerated schedule in
finalizing the Secure Flight rulemaking. In addition, while TSA
has improved in providing information to GAO, which Congress
directed to review the Secure Flight program before it can move
past the developmental phase, GAO anticipates that this review
may not be completed until late November 2008, which is later
than planned by TSA.
In periodic updates to Congress on the status of Secure
Flight, GAO has expressed concern about the program's cost and
schedule, as well as its systems development progress. Most
recently, GAO noted that ``although TSA has developed a life
cycle cost estimate and an integrated master schedule for
Secure Flight, the program has not fully followed best
practices for developing reliable and valid estimates for both
the program costs and schedule''. In the area of costs, for
example, GAO noted the following concerns: (1) the detailed
cost estimated was produced between 2004 and 2006 and does not
reflect the current program plan; (2) the cost estimate is not
well documented; (3) there was no independent cost estimate
performed; and (4) there are no costs captured for this program
past 2012.
In the area of schedule, GAO notes that the current
schedule is not fully integrated; a risk analysis has not been
conducted to determine the level of confidence in meeting the
completion date; the schedule estimate may not provide a
meaningful benchmark from which to gauge progress, identify and
address potential problems, promote accountability, and make
informed decisions; and TSA has been unable to provide GAO with
sufficient evidence to show that the agency will successfully
achieve its integrated master schedule or the accelerated
schedule. GAO also noted that if TSA does not address key
challenges to systems development, including risk management,
planning, conducting end-to-end testing, and addressing
deferred system security requirements, ``the risk of the
program not being completed on schedule and within estimated
costs is increased, and the chances of it performing as
intended are diminished.''
Finally, GAO expressed concerns about the degree to which
air carriers will need to modify their systems and the length
of time it will take them to do it, which is necessary for TSA
to conduct parallel testing. GAO notes that, at this time, no
air carriers have been willing to participate in early parallel
testing, which is included in TSA's accelerated schedule, and
that TSA has delayed the start of parallel testing from May to
September 2008. TSA has much work to do to address these
concerns before this program can move beyond the development
phase and meet TSA's current accelerated timeline for full
implementation. The Committee reduces the budget request to
reflect these delays in the program and numerous concerns
raised by GAO.
The Committee continues a longstanding general provision
(Sec. 511) that directs GAO to continue to evaluate DHS and TSA
actions to meet the ten requirements listed in Section 522 of
Public Law 108-344, including Secretarial certification. Bill
language also prohibits the use of commercial data or the
development and testing of algorithms assigning risk to
passengers whose names are not on Federal watch lists.

CREW AND OTHER VETTING PROGRAMS

The Committee provides $33,807,000 for crew and other
vetting programs instead of $50,807,000 as requested. This
funding shall be used to support 15 FTEs working on a variety
of vetting activities, including crew vetting; the imposition
of temporary flight restrictions; reviews of non-scheduled
commercial operators (charters) to ensure a level of security
equivalent to regularly scheduled airlines; the vetting of
general aviation, charter, and business aircraft that fly into
Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport and the three
Maryland airports within 15 miles of Washington, D.C. (Potomac
Airpark, Washington Executive, and College Park); checks of
alien flight school pilots seeking training in the United
States; and infrastructure investments. Within the funds
provided, the Committee recommends $12,500,000 for vetting
infrastructure investments. None of this funding shall be used
in support of the Secure Flight program, which has a separate
appropriation. The Committee has included a new general
provision allowing the imposition of fees for the retraining of
students under the alien flight program.

VETTING INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS

The Committee provides $12,500,000 for vetting
infrastructure investments, a new item for fiscal year 2009,
instead of $30,000,000 as requested in the budget. Because TSA
has not clearly described the investments necessary to enhance
vetting infrastructure, the life cycle costs for this
infrastructure, or the timeline for awarding investment
contracts, the Committee has denied most of the funding for
this program. However, the Committee recognizes that
improvements must be made to the Office of Transportation
Threat Assessment and Credentialing's (TTAC) screening gateway
infrastructure to handle new requirements contained in the 9/11
Act to evaluate rail and transit employees, as well as other
requirements to evaluate chemical employees and people who
transport ammonium nitrate. A recent DHS report stated that TSA
plans to spend $7,800,000 of the funds provided in fiscal year
2008 to design an interface for web-based enrollment of
critical transportation sector employees and to integrate this
interface into the security threat assessment process. The
additional funding provided in this recommendation may be used
to begin making improvements to the screening gateway system
to, among other things, enhance the vetting process and expand
the number of adjudicators that can use this system at any one
time. TSA is directed to brief the Committee once the agency is
better able to clarify the necessary vetting infrastructure
investments to increase capacity.

CREDENTIALING

The Committee is concerned that TSA currently issues
multiple credentials (e.g. hazardous materials and
transportation worker identification credentials) to many
individuals instead of issuing those individuals a single
credential that provides all necessary authorizations. In
addition, the agency often requires individuals applying for
one TSA credential to provide personal information, including
biometrics, that may have already been collected as part of an
application for a different TSA credential. Finally, TSA
vetting processes for like programs, including the list of
disqualifying offenses, are inconsistent. The Committee is
aware of efforts TSA is undertaking to address these issues,
including efforts to: create a consistent security risk-based
framework across all credentials; eliminate redundant
credentialing activities; make better use of information
already collected; and improve the experience for individuals
applying for multiple credentials. TSA is directed to brief the
Committees on Appropriations on the status of these efforts no
later than October 1, 2008, and quarterly thereafter. The
briefings should include: the steps necessary to make
improvements; budget requirements; schedule and milestones; the
potential costs and benefits of program standardization;
challenges; and statutory roadblocks. The Committee directs TSA
to ensure that all current credentialing programs (TWIC,
registered traveler, secure identification display areas,
hazardous materials endorsements), as well as new vetting
requirements, are included in this effort.

Transportation Security Support

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008....................... $523,515,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009\1\.................. 926,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 950,235,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2008................... +426,720,000
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2009................. +24,235,000
\1\ Because the budget estimate assumes a realignment of many programs
within the Transportation Security Administration, a direct comparison
to previous fiscal years is not possible.

MISSION

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

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $950,235,000 for Transportation
Security Support, $24,235,000 above the amount requested and
$426,720,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. A
comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee recommended
level by budget activity is as follows:

HEADQUARTERS ADMINISTRATION

The Committee recommends $237,370,000 for headquarters
administration, $24,235,000 above the budget request and
$55,821,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. The
budget proposed realigning the background investigation and
physical security activities to the newly proposed law
enforcement account. Because the Committee has denied this
proposal, these activities and the associated funding remain
within headquarters administration. The budget also proposed
transferring 373 FTEs to other TSA accounts (183 FTE to human
capital services, 25 FTEs to checkpoint, 75 FTEs to EDS
procurement and installations, and 90 FTEs to information
technology) to better align with where the operations are
occurring. The Committee has approved these FTE transfers.

HUMAN CAPITAL SERVICES

The Committee recommends $218,105,000 for human capital
services, the same as the amount requested. Human capital
services is a new PPA that combines funding previously
appropriated for human resource services under the Aviation
Security appropriation and human resource activities within
headquarters administration. Activities to be conducted within
this new account include recruitment, leadership training and
development, and human resource administration.

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

The Committee recommends $472,799,000 for information
technology, the same amount as requested and $263,475,000 above
the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. The budget proposed
combining funding for information technology activities
previously funded under Aviation Security's Airport Management,
IT, and Support account with information technology activities
funded in the Transportation Security Support appropriation.
The Committee has approved this proposal, and the funding
recommendation reflects the transfer of 129 FTEs from these two
accounts. Of the funds provided for information technology,
$251,286,000 is for airport IT and $221,513,000 is for the core
IT programs centrally managed at TSA's headquarters, such as
telecommunications infrastructure; disaster recovery; time and
attendance; personnel and financial management systems; and
performance management information systems.

COVERT TESTING

The Committee is strongly supportive of covert testing,
which helps to identify vulnerabilities in critical systems,
and directs TSA to be more proactive in fiscal year 2009 in
developing innovative methods to test the weaknesses of our
transportation security systems, both domestically and
overseas. The Committee directs TSA to continue to report
biannually on its red teaming and covert testing activities, to
include specific discussions on the test results at airport
checkpoints, in secure areas of airports, at air cargo
facilities, and on other modes of transportation.

EXPENDITURE PLANS FOR THE PURCHASE AND DEPLOYMENT OF CHECKPOINT SUPPORT
AND EXPLOSIVE DETECTION EQUIPMENT

Similar to actions taken last year, the Committee has
included bill language requiring TSA to provide the Committee
with a detailed spending and deployment plan for checkpoint
support and explosive detection equipment. This plan shall be
submitted no later than 60 days after enactment of this Act and
shall detail expenditures for checkpoint support and explosive
detection procurement and installation on an airport-by-airport
basis for fiscal year 2009. In regards to explosive detection
equipment, the plan shall clearly delineate funding for next
generation systems and refurbishment. The Committee recognizes
that, after TSA has completed its EDS expenditure plan, TSA may
become aware of a high priority needs that must be addressed.
In those instances, TSA shall reassess the expenditure plan and
reallocate funds in order to address the new requirement after
providing notification to the Committees on Appropriations of
this change.

Federal Air Marshals

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008....................... $769,500,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 \1\................. 0
Recommended in the bill............................... 821,861,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2008................... +52,361,000
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2009................. +821,861,000
\1\ The budget request includes $786,000,000 for FAMs within the
Aviation Security account.

MISSION

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

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $821,861,000 for FAMs, $52,361,000
above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2008. The budget did
not request a separate appropriation for FAMs, but instead
proposed $786,000,000 for this activity within the Aviation
Security appropriation. Of the total funding provided,
$727,461,000 is for management and administration and
$94,400,000 is for travel and training. This funding level
maintains the increased staffing levels provided in 2008,
restores funding provided in the 2007 supplemental to maintain
mission coverage on international flights, and permits
additional flight coverage to reflect an estimated four percent
growth in air travel in 2009. The Committee continues to expect
quarterly reports on mission coverage, staffing levels, and
hiring rates as directed in previous years.

Coast Guard

Operating Expenses

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 \1\................... $5,891,347,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009..................... 6,213,402,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 6,201,830,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2008................... +310,483,000
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2009................. -11,572,000
\1\ Does not include $110,000,000 transfer from DoD, pursuant to PL 110-
181, for Operation Iraqi Freedom.

MISSION

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

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total appropriation of
$6,201,830,000 for Operating Expenses, including $340,000,000
for national security activities. The recommended funding level
is $11,572,000 below the amount requested and $310,483,000
above the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. The Committee
has included bill language, suggested by Coast Guard,
specifying that small boats with a service life of five years
or less may be purchased with Operating Expense funding. A
comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee recommended
level by budget activity is as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate Recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military pay and allowance:
Military pay and allowance................................ $2,590,635,000 $2,573,052,000
Military health care...................................... 352,368,000 351,986,000
Permanent change of station............................... 133,834,000 132,886,000
-------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, military pay and allowance.................. 3,076,837,000 3,057,924,000
Civilian pay and benefits..................................... 692,859,000 646,189,000
Training and recruiting:
Training and education.................................... 96,205,000 95,629,000
Recruitment............................................... 99,858,000 99,850,000
-------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, training and recruiting..................... 196,063,000 195,479,000
Operating funds and unit level maintenance:
Atlantic Command.......................................... 175,918,000 175,821,000
Pacific Command........................................... 195,957,000 195,891,000
1st District.............................................. 58,641,000 59,039,000
5th District.............................................. 21,619,000 21,760,000
7th District.............................................. 77,258,000 77,357,000
8th District.............................................. 46,317,000 46,877,000
9th District.............................................. 31,293,000 31,595,000
11th District............................................. 17,185,000 17,608,000
13th District............................................. 22,689,000 22,901,000
14th District............................................. 19,073,000 19,073,000
17th District............................................. 26,107,000 30,979,000
Headquarters directorates................................. 320,225,000 318,830,000
Headquarters managed units................................ 156,874,000 158,402,000
Other activities.......................................... 786,000 785,000
-------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, operating funds and unit level maintenance.. 1,169,942,000 1,176,918,000
Centrally managed accounts.................................... 262,795,000 258,547,000
Intermediate and depot level maintenance:
Aeronautical maintenance.................................. 310,207,000 310,207,000
Electronic maintenance.................................... 133,116,000 133,744,000
Civil/ocean engineering and shore facilities maintenance.. 176,124,000 178,363,000
Vessel maintenance........................................ 195,459,000 195,459,000
Maintenance backlog....................................... 0 10,000,000
-------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, intermediate and depot level maintenance.... 814,906,000 827,773,000
Port/vessel security and environmental response............... 0 29,000,000
Aviation mission hour gap..................................... 0 10,000,000
-------------------------------------------------
Total, operating expenses......................... 6,213,402,000 6,201,830,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

The Department's Inspector General testified that Coast
Guard ``has shown no discernable progress in its ability to
produce reliable financial statements or correct its material
weaknesses since the inception of the Department in 2003.'' For
example, in its 2007 drug control obligations report, Coast
Guard stated that it ``cannot provide assurances as to the
integrity of the financial data contained'' in its own report.
The Committee is concerned that Coast Guard has been unable to
make yearly progress in correcting critical financial
management and accounting weaknesses and finds it unacceptable
that Coast Guard cannot stand behind its own financial data.
According to the OIG, Coast Guard has no corrective action plan
with milestones to correct its material weaknesses. On March 5,
2008, the Commandant testified that he would provide a strategy
and initial implementation plan within 30 days, but no new plan
has been provided to the Committee. In fact, the Coast Guard
submitted a plan over two months later than promised that had
already been rejected by the OIG. Therefore, the Committee
includes bill language requiring that Coast Guard submit a
financial management improvement plan by December 1, 2008, that
has been approved by the OIG and contains yearly, measurable
milestones to correct financial weaknesses.

MARITIME SAFETY AND SECURITY

In fiscal year 2009, Coast Guard plans to obligate
$2,593,000,000 for ports, waterways, and coastal security,
$26,290,000 above the 2008 funding level. A portion of this
funding will be used to implement and enforce both the Maritime
Transportation Security Act (MTSA) and the SAFE Port Act.
Approximately 3,000 facilities and 11,000 vessels are required
to have security plans under MTSA.
Coast Guard has stated that some Coast Guard sectors lack
the resources required to meet Certain Dangerous Cargo (CDC)
vessel security requirements or other critical infrastructure
protection requirements of MTSA. The number of CDC vessels
entering U.S. ports is projected to increase, further
exacerbating the resource gap. At least 5,000 additional
vessels are expected to come into the inspection program as a
result of the small boat and towing regulations.
Coast Guard's Boat Analysis Tool (BAT) uses standard
methodology to quantify total mission required boat hours. The
BAT identified a shortage of 400,000 hours in the ports,
waterways, and coastal security mission. The 2008 appropriation
provided $29,400,000 above the request for additional small
boats and personnel to help minimize this gap. The Committee
recommendation includes the additional $26,290,000 requested in
fiscal year 2009 plus an additional $29,000,000 above the
request for additional watchstanders, boats, and marine
inspection staff, and for the conduct of additional oil spill
and environmental response exercises, as discussed below.
Within 60 days after enactment of this Act, Coast Guard shall
provide the Committees on Appropriations an expenditure plan
detailing how it will allocate the additional funding.
In a May 2008 review of Coast Guard's marine casualty
investigations program, the OIG found that the program was
short-staffed, ``hindered by unqualified personnel conducting
marine casualty investigations,'' ineffectively managed, and
did not conduct appropriate investigations. Coast Guard now has
a plan to enhance its marine safety program, and the Committee
recommendation fully funds the additional marine inspection
staff proposed in the 2009 budget. The Committee directs Coast
Guard to utilize some of the $29,000,000 provided above the
budget request to further improve this program.

ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE

Unfortunately, over the past year, Coast Guard's oil spill
response capability has been tested by significant oil spills,
including the large Cosco Busan oil spill in San Francisco Bay.
Coast Guard recently issued the Incident Specific Preparedness
Review (ISPR) of that spill, and the OIG is still working on
its report assessing Coast Guard's overall environmental
response capabilities. The ISPR report recommendations are
categorized under two general themes: the need for an effective
partnership of Federal, State and local governments and other
key stakeholders; and the need to test resources and decision-
making authority through the Area Contingency Planning process.
As the ISPR notes, it is unfortunate that ``many of the
recommendations found in this report echo similar findings and
recommendations of the M/V Cape Mohican spill ISPR conducted 12
years ago.'' Coast Guard leadership is responsible for ensuring
that these recommendations are implemented and that
capabilities are continuously tested. The Committee expects
Coast Guard to allocate some of the additional $29,000,000
provided to improve Coast Guard maritime security and
environmental response to conduct testing of Area Contingency
Plans.
One of the issues raised in first OIG report on the Cosco
Busan oil spill was that the San Francisco Vessel Traffic
System (VTS) operations center does not have the most up-to-
date traffic technology. The system used by the San Francisco
VTS operations center is the Coast Guard Vessel Traffic System,
which was installed in the 1990s. A newer and more advanced
vessel traffic management system, the Ports and Waterways
Safety System (PAWSS), was only partially installed at the San
Francisco VTS operations center due to funding constraints that
existed in 2003 and 2004, towards the end of the acquisition
program. With PAWSS capability, the VTS watchstanders could
improve their situational awareness of vessel proximity and
orientation to the individual bridge columns, which could help
prevent incidents like the Cosco Busan spill in the future. The
Committee understands that Coast Guard will use base operating
funds in fiscal year 2008 to support this upgrade to PAWSS and
that deployment of this upgrade will be complete by March 2009.
Coast Guard is directed to brief the Committees on
Appropriations by August 1, 2008, on the location of all VTS
that have not been upgraded to PAWSS and on Coast Guard's plans
to support upgrades of these systems. Coast Guard is also
directed to notify the Committees on Appropriations when the
San Francisco VTS upgrade is completed.

AVIATION MISSION HOUR GAP

The Committee is concerned about the significant shortfall
of maritime patrol aircraft (MPA) resource hours currently
confronting Coast Guard, which estimates that it will be nearly
50 percent below its MPA resource hour needs in 2008. This gap
is not expected to be eliminated until 2015. One example of
this gap is the absence of permanent maritime patrol aircraft
capability operating from Air Station Borinquen, Puerto Rico.
The Committee is concerned about the impact of this absence
upon Coast Guard's ability to patrol the highly trafficked
smuggling routes of the Caribbean Basin. Coast Guard is
directed to report to the Committee no later than February 16,
2009, on its plan to provide adequate resources for the
maritime surveillance mission needs in the Air Station
Borinquen area of responsibility.
Coast Guard is in the process of analyzing short term,
stop-gap measures to address its MPA capability needs until its
large-scale acquisitions are in full operation. The Committee
has included $10,000,000 to fund such stop-gap measures. Before
this funding may be obligated, Coast Guard shall submit an
expenditure plan for approval to the Committees on
Appropriations.

LEGACY CUTTER SUSTAINMENT

The Committee is concerned about Coast Guard's reliance
upon high endurance and medium endurance cutters that are
rapidly aging, many of which have completed over 30 years of
service life, and the implications this has for the mission
availability of these assets. As of the end of fiscal year
2007, the 378-foot, 270-foot, and 210-foot cutters had a
``percent time fully mission capable'' (PTFMC) combined average
of only 58.3 percent, 33.7 percent below the combined average
PTFMC target for these cutters. These concerns are punctuated
by recent major causalities, crew habitability issues, and
significant maintenance costs. According to Coast Guard's 2008
Revised Deepwater Implementation Plan, the 378-foot cutter
fleet will be operating through 2017; the 270-foot cutter fleet
will be operating through 2027; and the 210-foot cutter fleet
will be operating through 2022. In each case, the expected
operating life is much longer than forecast just two years ago.
The Committee directs Coast Guard to provide, no later than
February 16, 2009, a detailed analysis of maintenance costs for
the 378-foot, 270-foot, and 210-foot classes of cutters,
including: comparisons of pre and post mission effectiveness
projects (where applicable); examination of major engineering
causalities over the last three years; and an examination of
the costs and benefits of an intensive maintenance program upon
availability through the remainder of the cutters' remaining
service lives, as per the forecasts contained in the 2008
Revised Deepwater Implementation Plan.

MAINTENANCE BACKLOGS

Coast Guard's $814,900,000 fiscal year 2009 request for
intermediate and depot level maintenance would address current
needs only and not address its substantial cutter, aircraft,
and shore maintenance backlog, which is estimated to total
$745,000,000. As a result, the Committee provides additional
funding of $10,000,000 and directs Coast Guard to use these
funds to begin to address the backlog problem.

DIVERSITY

Coast Guard has acknowledged that changes in its culture
are necessary to develop an officer corps and workforce capable
of thriving in an increasingly multicultural national and
global society. A Coast Guard review of issues at the Coast
Guard Academy, however, found that the under-representation of
minority populations within the faculty may contribute to an
unhealthy racial climate. In addition, a 2006 survey of cadets
revealed that 33 percent of females reported being subjected to
gender discrimination or sexual harassment at the Academy. GAO
reported in January 2008 that Coast Guard had only assessed its
Academy's sexual harassment program on a limited basis, and did
not have guidance, requirements, or data collection standards
for its sexual harassment programs. After the release of the
GAO report, Coast Guard appointed a sexual assault response
coordinator and ``committed'' to adopting the assessment and
data reporting practices that are currently followed by
Department of Defense (DoD) service academies. The Committee
includes bill language requiring Coast Guard to follow these
DoD assessment and data reporting requirements.
Coast Guard is in the process of implementing a long-term
strategy that integrates and assesses compositional,
educational, programmatic and structural diversity. While Coast
Guard's strategy may be long-term, the Committee expects to see
shorter-term results. Last year, the Committee directed Coast
Guard to raise the recruiting office recruitment ceilings in
those offices with strong records of minority enlistments in
order to increase such enlistments. Coast Guard is directed to
continue this effort and to report to the Committee within six
months from the date of enactment of this Act on its results.
In addition, Coast Guard is directed to submit to the
Committees on Appropriations the ``Climate Management Plan'' it
plans to complete by spring 2009.

INLAND RIVER AIDS TO NAVIGATION

The Committee provides $4,000,000, as requested, to address
the deteriorating material condition and operational safety of
three different classes of Aids to Navigation cutters, the sole
federal presence on the inland waterways. This project, a
partial renovation focused on repairing critical subsystems,
will serve as a bridging strategy until the requirements for
recapitalization are determined.

COUNTER SMUGGLING

The Committee is concerned about the growth and evolution
of advanced smuggling techniques, including liquefied narcotics
and the use of highly-capable semi-submersible vessels. Coast
Guard is directed to brief the Committee no later than November
10, 2008, on the state and adequacy of its advanced inspection
and surveillance capabilities to detect, identify, and
interdict such emerging threats.

ACQUISITION PERSONNEL

The Committee denies the request to transfer personnel
devoted to overseeing and supporting Coast Guard acquisitions
to the Operating Expenses (OE) appropriation from the
Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements (AC&I)
appropriation. Because the GAO is currently reviewing the
benefits of such a transfer, it is premature to adopt this
budget request. Therefore, OE has been reduced by $86,074,000
from the requested amount and AC&I has been increased by a like
amount. In addition, $8,998,000 has been provided within AC&I
for an increased number of acquisition personnel to perform the
system integrator role for the Integrated Deepwater Program.
Coast Guard should manage the staffing levels in each of these
areas to maximize productivity and oversight. The funding
requested for LOGTECH procurement training is included in the
Committee recommendation.

MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY EFFICIENCIES

The Committee recommendation includes the $68,117,000
proposed in the President's budget for management and
technology efficiencies. Within six months of the enactment of
this Act, Coast Guard is directed to report in detail on how
such efficiencies will be achieved.

LORAN-C

The Department proposed moving the Long Range Aids to
Navigation (LORAN-C) program from Coast Guard to the National
Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD). Since Coast Guard
will remain responsible for operating LORAN-C until a
replacement system is developed, there is no logical reason to
transfer these funds at this time to NPPD, an agency that has
neither the preparation nor the experience to operate the
LORAN-C system. Therefore, the Committee recommendation
includes $34,500,000 for Coast Guard to continue to operate
this critical system.

INTELLIGENCE INTEGRATION

The Committee includes $12,300,000, as requested, for the
Maritime Awareness Global Network to consolidate information
from twenty separate data sources, including commercially
available personal information. However, no funding may be
obligated for this project until Coast Guard certifies that it
complies with all applicable laws, including privacy statutes,
and the OIG reviews such certification.

A-76 ACTIVITIES

Coast Guard intends to conduct A-76 reviews on 400 FTEs per
year through fiscal year 2012. From fiscal years 2003 through
2006, Coast Guard conducted A-76 reviews on only 339 FTEs, an
average of 85 FTEs per year. The Committee is concerned about
the sharp growth in planned A-76 program activities, and
provides no funding for such reviews in fiscal year 2009. In
light of the many pressing challenges facing Coast Guard, the
Committee does not believe scarce resources should be used on
A-76 studies.

POLAR ICEBREAKING OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS AND FUTURE POLAR
NEEDS

The Committee is concerned about Coast Guard's ability to
meet its polar operations mission requirements and provide the
United States with the capability to support national interests
in the polar regions. The Committee provides $200,000, as
requested, to conduct an analysis of national mission needs in
the high latitude regions to inform the national polar policy
debate.
In fiscal year 2006 the Committees on Appropriations
approved an Administration request for the National Science
Foundation (NSF), the primary user of the three Coast Guard
polar icebreaker vessels, to fund the costs of operating and
maintaining these aging vessels. Because it has become more
apparent that the national interest in the polar regions
extends beyond scientific research, the Committee questions
whether this arrangement should continue. Accordingly, the
Committee directs Coast Guard and NSF to renegotiate the
existing agreement in order to return the budget for operating
and maintaining these vessels to Coast Guard for fiscal year
2010. This change is consistent with a new joint plan for Coast
Guard support of scientific research by NSF and other Federal
agencies, which also is to be included in the 2010 budget
request. NSF shall retain responsibility for the contracting of
scientific support services that Coast Guard does not have the
capability to perform or cannot perform on a cost-competitive
basis. The Committee is aware of a $4,000,000 funding shortfall
related to the caretaker status of the POLAR STAR, and directs
Coast Guard to address this shortfall within the amounts
appropriated for fiscal year 2009.

BAY AREA LIGHTHOUSES

Five lighthouses collectively known as the ``Bay Area
lighthouses'' (Lime Point, Point Bonita, Point Diablo, Point
Montara, and Alcatraz) are under the control of Coast Guard
until they are declared excess to Coast Guard needs.
Authorizing law provides that if and when Coast Guard makes
such a declaration, these lighthouses will be transferred to
the jurisdiction of the National Park Service. Prior to such a
transfer, Coast Guard is responsible for evaluating any
potential environmental liabilities at the site in cooperation
with the accepting agency. Environmental remediation must be
completed prior to any transfer, unless the accepting agency
agrees to a different arrangement. The Committee understands
that Coast Guard has no need for these lighthouses and directs
it to report to the Committee within six months from the date
of enactment of this Act on: any issues with respect to the
excessing of these lighthouses; how it plans to evaluate any
potential environmental liabilities at the site; when it
intends to excess these lighthouses; and the projected dates
and milestones for conducting all necessary environmental
remediation required for the transfer of these lighthouses. The
Committee notes that funding for environmental restoration is
provided in a separate Coast Guard account.

Environmental Compliance and Restoration

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008....................... $13,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009..................... 12,315,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 13,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2008..................... 0
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2009................... +685,000
MISSION

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

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $13,000,000 for Environmental
Compliance and Restoration, the same as the amount provided in
fiscal year 2008 and $685,000 above the amount requested. The
Committee is aware of the $109,700,000 backlog in environmental
compliance projects and expects Coast Guard to prioritize
funding to clean up those facilities that are the most
environmentally damaging and time sensitive.

Reserve Training

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008....................... $126,883,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009..................... 130,501,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 130,501,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2008..................... +3,618,000
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2009................... 0
MISSION

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

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $130,501,000 for Reserve Training,
the same as the amount requested and $3,618,000 above the
amount provided in fiscal year 2008.

Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements

(INCLUDING RESCISSION)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2008....................... $992,634,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009..................... 1,205,118,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 1,339,068,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2008..................... +346,434,000
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2009................... +133,950,000
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 $1,339,068,000 for Acquisition,
Construction, and Improvements, $133,950,000 above the amount
requested and $346,434,000 above the amount provided in fiscal
year 2008. A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate Recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vessels and critical infrastructure:
Inland river tender recapitalization...................... $5,000,000 $5,000,000
Response boat medium...................................... 64,000,000 64,000,000
-------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, vessels and critical infrastructure......... 69,000,000 69,000,000
Deepwater:
Aircraft:
Maritime patrol aircraft.............................. 86,600,000 86,600,000
HH-60 conversions..................................... 52,700,000 52,700,000
HC-130H conversion/sustainment project................ 24,500,000 24,500,000
HH-65 conversions..................................... 64,500,000 64,500,000
Unmanned aircraft systems............................. 3,000,000 0
-------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, aircraft................................ 231,300,000 228,300,000
Surface ships:
National security cutter.................................. 353,700,000 300,000,000
Replacement patrol boat (FRC-B)........................... 115,300,000 115,300,000
IDS small boats........................................... 2,400,000 2,400,000
Patrol boats sustainment.................................. 30,800,000 30,800,000
Medium endurance cutter sustainment....................... 35,500,000 35,500,000
Offshore patrol cutter.................................... 3,003,000 3,003,000
-------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, surface ships............................... 540,703,000 487,003,000
Technology obsolescence prevention:........................... 1,500,000 1,500,000
C4ISR:........................................................ 88,100,000 88,100,000
Logistics:.................................................... 37,700,000 37,700,000
Systems engineering and integration:.......................... 33,141,000 33,141,000
Government program management:................................ 58,000,000 58,000,000
-------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Deepwater....................................... 990,444,000 933,744,000
Other equipment:
Automatic identification system........................... 14,600,000 14,600,000
Rescue 21................................................. 73,000,000 73,000,000
HF recap.................................................. 2,500,000 2,500,000
Defense messaging system.................................. 4,074,000 4,074,000
Command 21................................................ 1,000,000 1,000,000
-------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, other equipment............................. 95,174,000 95,174,000
Shore facilities and aids to navigation:
Survey and design, shore operational and support projects. 2,050,000 2,050,000
TISCOM-TSD Building....................................... 2,500,000 2,500,000
Air Station Cape Cod...................................... 5,000,000 5,000,000
Sector Delaware Bay....................................... 13,000,000 13,000,000
Cordova, Alaska housing................................... 11,600,000 11,600,000
Renovate USCGA Chase Hall, phase II....................... 10,300,000 10,300,000
Montauk Housing........................................... 1,550,000 1,550,000
Waterways aids to navigation.............................. 4,000,000 4,000,000
Rescue Swimmer Training Facility.......................... 0 15,000,000
Sector Buffalo............................................ 0 3,000,000
-------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, shore facilities and aids to navigation..... 50,000,000 68,000,000
Personnel and related support:
Direct personnel costs.................................... 0 95,072,000
AC&I core................................................. 500,000 500,000
-------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, personnel and related support............... 500,000 95,572,000
Coast Guard headquarters project.............................. 0 97,578,000
-------------------------------------------------
Total............................................. 1,205,118,000 1,359,068,000
Rescissions:
Prior year, UAV funding................................... 0 -20,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

QUARTERLY REPORT ON ACQUISITION PROJECTS

The Committee is pleased that Coast Guard's quarterly
acquisition report has recently improved. The report now
contains more detailed information on acquisition projects,
including a ranking of project risks. Coast Guard is directed
to continue submitting the report in this more comprehensive
manner and to include all significant acquisition projects
within it. The Committee also expects Coast Guard to improve
its oversight of the earned value management data reported to
it by the contractor.

DEEPWATER EXPENDITURE PLAN

Consistent with fiscal year 2008, the Committee includes
bill language requiring Coast Guard to submit a detailed
expenditure plan. A total of $500,000,000 of this appropriation
shall remain unavailable until GAO reviews and the Committees
on Appropriations approve the plan. The expenditure plan must
contain the following: lifecycle staffing and training needs;
identification of procurement competition, acquisition
strategy, and an explanation for indefinite delivery/indefinite
quality contracts for each procurement; activities, milestones,
yearly costs, and lifecycle costs of each major asset,
including independent cost estimates; DHS Chief Human Capital
Officer certification of sufficient human capital capabilities;
identification of project balances by fiscal year and
operational gaps for each asset; DHS Chief Procurement Officer
(CPO) certification of investment management process
compliance; status of open OIG and GAO recommendations; and
identification of the use of the Defense Contract Audit Agency.
GAO is directed to continue its oversight of the Deepwater
program, with a focus on reviewing the expenditure plan and
assessment of the operational gaps identified by Coast Guard
and plans to address these gaps. In addition, no funding may be
obligated for low rate or initial production of a Deepwater
asset until Coast Guard revises its Major Systems Acquisition
Manual procedures to require a formal design review prior to
the authorization of low rate initial production or initial
production.

DEEPWATER

The Committee recommends $933,744,000 for Deepwater,
$56,700,000 below the amount requested and $150,478,000 above
the amount provided in fiscal year 2008.

MARITIME PATROL AIRCRAFT (MPA)

The Committee recommends $86,600,000 for two additional
MPAs, the same as the amount requested. To date, $570,035,000
has been appropriated for 12 MPAs. In April 2003, Coast Guard
informed the Committee that the requirements for the MPA were
as follows: (1) the ability to arrive on the scene of 90
percent of search and rescue emergencies within two hours of
initial notification; and (2) the ability to travel 300
nautical miles in 90 minutes (212 knot ground speed, with time
to climb factored in), stay on scene for approximately four
hours, and return over 300 nautical miles with required fuel
reserves. However, the Committee understands that Coast Guard's
formal requirements for the MPA and a plan for operational
testing of those requirements have not been finalized yet. This
is surprising since the MPA entered the operational testing
phase in March 2008. The Committee directs Coast Guard to
withhold obligation of 2009 MPA funding until its formal
requirements for the MPA and the MPA's operational testing plan
are provided to the Committee.

UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS

The Committee does not provide the $3,000,000 requested to
study unmanned aerial vehicle solutions for meeting Deepwater's
maritime surveillance requirements. Instead, funding is
provided for this study within the Research, Development, Test,
and Evaluation account. The Vertical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
(VUAV) was originally conceived to be launched off of the
National Security Cutters (NSC), enhancing the NSC's
operational effectiveness by extending its surveillance range
to approximately 100 nautical miles for up to twelve hours per
day. In fact, the number of planned NSCs was reduced from 12 to
8 in part due to this anticipated extension of operational
effectiveness. Unfortunately, the VUAV has not worked as
planned, and Coast Guard has nothing to show for the
$114,550,590 it has obligated for this project. Because some of
this obligated amount has not yet been expended and Coast Guard
has no plans for its expenditure, the Committee rescinds
$20,000,000 currently unexpended for UAVs.

LONG RANGE SURVEILLANCE AIRCRAFT (HC-130J)

The first HC-130J was delivered in February 2008. However,
due to parallel design and installation activities resulting in
rework, changes in aircraft power requirements, late delivery
of government-furnished equipment, and other changes, costs are
likely to increase by 10 to 20 percent and additional costs are
currently unbudgeted. Coast Guard is directed to provide the
Committees on Appropriations with its finalized HC-130J
Remediation Plan no later than August 1, 2008, and to identify
unobligated funding that can be used to missionize all HC-
130Js.

NATIONAL SECURITY CUTTER

The Committee recommends $300,000,000 for the NSC,
$53,700,000 below the amount requested and $134,300,000 above
the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. The request of
$353,700,000 is primarily for production of the fourth NSC.
Technical reviews of the third NSC's fatigue enhancement design
changes are being conducted by the Coast Guard Technical
Authority, which is employing the services and expertise of the
Carderock Division of the Naval Surface Warfare Center. Coast
Guard anticipates completion of the design and technical
reviews of the third NSC by December 2008.
The Committee reduces NSC funding for two main reasons.
First, the Committee believes that construction of the fourth
NSC likely will be delayed, since the design and technical
changes made to the fourth NSC will require another substantive
technical review. Second, GAO found that Coast Guard plans to
proceed with issuance of a task order for long lead materials
on the fourth NSC despite not having reliable data on which to
base an evaluation of the contractor's proposed price. GAO has
pointed out to the Committee that because Coast Guard lacks
confidence in how the contractor is representing its cost and
schedule performance on the NSC, Coast Guard is likely to be in
the position of paying the contractor for future projects
without the understanding necessary to evaluate proposed
prices. The Committee directs Coast Guard to increase its
visibility into the contractor's earned value management data
before it enters into a contract to construct the fourth NSC.
The Committee expects this enhanced visibility to lead to cost
reductions.

FAST RESPONSE CUTTER (FRC-B)/REPLACEMENT PATROL BOAT

The Committee provides the requested $115,300,000 for
limited production of the FRC-B/Replacement Patrol Boat. Coast
Guard has proceeded with a competitive procurement for the FRC-
B, with award projected for July 2008. The lead cutter is
expected to be delivered two years later, in the second quarter
of fiscal year 2010. The Committee is concerned that this
$115,300,000, when combined with the $41,580,000 in prior year
funds that Coast Guard plans to use for the FRC-B, results in
an average cost for the three limited production vessels of
$52,000,000, well above earlier estimates provided by the Coast
Guard. The Committee understands that cost estimates for this
cutter are based on limited data and directs Coast Guard to
take all steps necessary to control costs, including conducting
a formal design review to ensure that at least 90 percent of
the design drawings are complete by the critical design review
stage.

OFFSHORE PATROL CUTTER (OPC)

The Committee recommends $3,003,000 for OPC requirements
analysis, as requested. The OPC is the replacement cutter for
the current 210-foot and 270-foot Medium Endurance cutters. In
March 2006, after spending $19,758,000, Coast Guard suspended
OPC design efforts due to cost concerns. The Committee
understands that in making a subsequent decision to proceed
with the OPC requirements analysis, the Coast Guard documented
the OPC's expected capabilities, a draft concept of operations,
and an initial assessment of cost and schedule. Coast Guard is
directed to provide this documentation to the Committees on
Appropriations by October 1, 2008. The Committee directs Coast
Guard to plan for a full and open competition for the OPC.

C4ISR

The Committee understands that Coast Guard does not have an
approved acquisition strategy for C4ISR. Coast Guard needs to
develop an architecture with common components for use on
assets and to decide whether to acquire C4ISR on an asset-by-
asset basis or at a system level. The Committee understands
that Coast Guard is revisiting the C4ISR approach proposed by
the Deepwater contractor and is analyzing requirements and
architecture. The Committee encourages such assessment and
provides the $88,100,000 requested for C4ISR. If not all of
this funding is required for C4ISR, Coast Guard may use the
remainder for additional modeling and simulation activities
that will help in determining the capabilities of existing and
planned assets and inform the number of Deepwater assets
required.

SHORE FACILITIES AND AIDS TO NAVIGATION

The Committee recommends $68,000,000 for shore facilities
and aids to navigation, $18,000,000 above the amount requested
and $27,003,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2008.
The shore maintenance backlog totals $631,000,000, which
consists of over 8,000 documented, deferred shore maintenance
requirements. The Committee provides funding for all of the
projects requested by Coast Guard plus two additional projects.
An additional $15,000,000 is recommended to fund a modular
egress training simulator as part of the Rescue Swimmer
Training Facility modernization. Coast Guard has listed this
project on its Unfunded Priorities List, and it is cost
effective to fund it as part of the current modernization of
the facility. An additional $3,000,000 is provided to continue
the consolidation of Sector Buffalo.

RESCUE 21

The Committee recommends $73,000,000 for Rescue 21, the
same as the amount requested. Rescue 21 will replace the
existing National Distress and Response System with improved
coastal communications and command and control capabilities.
The Rescue 21 system now stands watch along 10,042 miles of
coastline. The Committee is aware Coast Guard is currently
prototyping back-up solutions for Rescue 21 and urges Coast
Guard to consider existing private maritime communications
services, if appropriate, as part of this back-up solution.

PERSONNEL

The Committee recommends $95,572,000 for acquisition
personnel, $12,852,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year
2008. The total equals the amount requested for this purpose
when the budgets proposed in Operating Expenses and AC&I are
combined. Coast Guard faces at least three challenges as it
seeks to improve its acquisition management and oversight. The
first is a shortage of civilian acquisition staff, with an
almost 20 percent vacancy rate. Coast Guard is directed to
report to the Committees on any additional authorities or
bonuses needed to attract civilian acquisition expertise. The
second is the lack of acquisition career path for Coast Guard
military personnel. Coast Guard is directed to explore the
establishment of a dedicated acquisition and finance career
field for military personnel and to report to the Committee on
the benefits and costs of this option. The third challenge is
Coast Guard's reliance on contractors for technical and
programmatic expertise. The Committee is pleased to hear that
Coast Guard is currently analyzing its workforce to determine
which roles are appropriate for contractors. Such analysis
should be provided to the Committee upon its completion.

COAST GUARD HEADQUARTERS PROJECT

The Committee includes $97,578,000 for capital costs
related to the new Coast Guard headquarters. The General
Services Administration budget is responsible for the
construction costs of the headquarters facility. The Committee
expects the Department to limit the requirements for the new
Coast Guard building to those that are the most realistic and
necessary.

Alteration of Bridges

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008....................... $16,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009..................... 0
Recommended in the bill............................... 12,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2008................... -4,000,000
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2009................. +12,000,000
MISSION

The bill includes funding for alteration of bridges deemed
a hazard to marine navigation pursuant to the Truman-Hobbs Act.
The purpose of these alterations is to improve the safety of
marine navigation under the bridge rather than the improvement
of surface transportation on the bridge itself.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $12,000,000 for Alteration of
Bridges, $12,000,000 above the amount requested and $4,000,000
below the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. The Committee
directs funding to ongoing projects as follows: $5,000,000 for
the Fourteen Mile Bridge, Mobile, Alabama; $5,000,000 for the
Galveston Causeway Bridge, Galveston, Texas; and $2,000,000 for
the Burlington Northern Railway Bridge in Burlington, Iowa.

Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008....................... $25,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009..................... 16,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 16,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2008................... -9,000,000
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2009................. 0
MISSION

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

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $16,000,000 for Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, the same as the amount
requested and $9,000,000 below the amount provided in fiscal
year 2008. Funding is directed to priority research in the
following areas: aquatic nuisance species control; validation
testing of the protocol for the evaluation of ballast water
treatment technologies; oil spill response; and new technology
assessments, including UAV.

BALLAST WATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS

Aquatic invasive species are transported easily within
ballast water carried by ships from foreign waters. Any ship
sailing from a foreign port is required to exchange ballast
water outside of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone prior to
calling at a U.S. port. This method has proven insufficient in
preventing aquatic invasive species from entering U.S. waters
as sediment remains in the ballasts even after the exchange and
such sediment can still contain nuisance species. The Committee
is aware of ballast water treatment system testing being done
by a number of entities, including through the Great Ships
Initiative. The Committee urges Coast Guard to work with these
entities to test the efficacy of such system systems and
methods in both salt and fresh water and includes $2,000,000
for this effort.

UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMS

The Committee provides $3,000,000 for Coast Guard's efforts
to examine effective unmanned aerial systems (UAS) that pose
low developmental risks and demonstrate cost-effectiveness. The
Committee is pleased that Coast Guard is working with the
Department of Defense to leverage UAS development, testing, and
engineering efforts. Coast Guard is directed to report to the
Committee no later than February 16, 2009, on its findings to
date on determining the most effective UAS for maritime
applications and for use with flight deck-equipped cutters.

PORT OPEN SOURCE SECURITY ENFORCEMENT (POSSE)

POSSE consists of research and development efforts to
enhance the nation's ability to identify open-source chatter on
port security subjects relevant to terrorism, along with
investigations of threats to U.S. ports by terrorists posing as
legitimate business actors. The Committee directs Coast Guard
to evaluate the technical merits and capabilities of POSSE
within the total funding provided, and to report the evaluation
results to the Committees on Appropriation by March 2, 2009.

Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund Contribution

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 \1\................... $272,111,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 \1\................. 257,305,000
Recommended in the bill \1\........................... 257,305,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2008................... -14,806,000
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2009................. 0
\1\ While this expenditure requires no annual action by Congress, it
counts as discretionary spending.

MISSION

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

RECOMMENDATION

While this account requires no annual action by Congress,
the Committee provides the amount requested of $257,305,000 to
fund the Medicare-eligible retiree health care fund
contribution. Given the unexplainable fluctuations in the
amount Coast Guard is charged for the Medicare-eligible health
care fund, the Committee directs GAO to evaluate, by April,
2009, the process DoD uses to determine the amount charged to
Coast Guard and the relationship of this amount to the benefits
received by Coast Guard retirees.

Retired Pay

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008....................... $1,184,720,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009..................... 1,236,745,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 1,236,745,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2008................... +52,025,000
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2009................. 0
MISSION

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

RECOMMENDATION

The bill provides $1,236,745,000 for Retired Pay, the same
as the amount requested and $52,025,000 above the amount
provided in fiscal year 2008. The Committee includes bill
language allowing funds to remain available until expended.
This is scored as a mandatory appropriation in the
Congressional budget process.

United States Secret Service

Salaries and Expenses

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008....................... $1,381,771,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009..................... 1,410,621,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 1,366,620,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2008................... -15,151,000
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2009................. -44,001,000
MISSION

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

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,366,620,000 for Secret Service
Salaries and Expenses, $44,001,000 below the amount requested
and $15,151,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2008.
No funding is provided for replacement of locks and keys at the
White House, since this is a facilities management function
more appropriately carried out by the General Services
Administration. No funding is provided for the processing of
mail at the White House, since this activity is an
administrative duty that should be requested and financed
through the routine expenses of the Executive Office of the
President. The 2008 Appropriations Act specifically required
the Secret Service and the Executive Office of the President to
explain, in writing, the programmatic justification for funding
White House mail screening within the Secret Service budget,
rather than as part of the overhead costs of White House
operations. To date, the Committee has received a discussion of
the bureaucratic process used to assign these costs to the
Secret Service, but no explanation of why the Secret Service is
the appropriate agency to carry out this largely clerical
responsibility. As a result, the Committee has no justification
for funding this activity in the Secret Service budget.
A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee
recommended levels, by budget activity, is as follows:

PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN

The Committee recognizes that the 2008 presidential
campaign is very likely to be the most demanding in Secret
Service history. As a result, the Committee has funded the
entire $41,082,000 request for this activity in 2009, which
will include candidate protection for the last month of the
campaigns, protection for the President-elect and Vice
President-elect during the transition to the new
Administration, and security at the 2009 presidential
inauguration. Any additional funds required for campaign
protection must be approved by the Committee in advance of
obligation, pursuant to the regular reprogramming process.

POST PRESIDENTIAL DETAIL

The Committee provides $4,500,000, as requested, for a
protective detail for President Bush once he departs office.
The Committee does not include a requested general provision
allowing six months of protection for the Vice President after
leaving office. In the past this protection has been authorized
by joint resolution of Congress or Executive Order. In
addition, the House has already passed a bill authorizing this
protection.

DISCONTINUED PROTECTIVE DETAILS

The Secret Service discontinued the protective operations
for President Ford and First Lady Johnson following their
deaths, but the agency did not have an opportunity to adjust
its budget accordingly because the change occurred outside of
the normal budget development cycle. The Committee therefore
reduces the protective budget by $5,500,000 to account for
activities the Secret Service no longer performs.

DISCRIMINATION

The Secret Service has been accused in a lawsuit of
discriminatory human resource practices, including
discrimination in promotion selections. The discovery process
of that litigation has produced troubling allegations of
document destruction and inappropriate e-mail messages sent
between agents. Regardless of the outcome of this lawsuit, the
Committee emphatically believes that discrimination has no
place in the Federal workplace. The Committee therefore directs
the Secret Service to ensure that all employees receive
training upon hiring, and at least annually thereafter, on the
agency's prohibition on discrimination, including the means for
recourse or complaint for those who believe they have suffered
from or witnessed discriminatory action or practice.

WHITE HOUSE MAIL SCREENING

The budget proposes $36,701,000 to screen mail sent to the
White House and other Executive Office of the President
agencies. This includes $22,200,000 for contracted mail
processing services and facility rent, as well as $14,501,000
for purchase of equipment at the mail processing site.
As discussed in previous reports, the Administration has
not provided a compelling justification for why the Secret
Service should be responsible for processing White House mail.
The Secret Service does not screen incoming email messages for
malicious computer viruses, for example, or inspect the
ingredients delivered to the various dining facilities within
the Executive Office of the President compound.
To mitigate the unwarranted spread of Secret Service
activities into missions that are unrelated to its core
responsibilities and could be more economically handled by
administrative staff, the Committee provides none of the
requested funding for White House mail screening. The Committee
strongly encourages the Administration to submit a budget
amendment requesting these funds in the administrative accounts
for White House operations.

SECRET SERVICE OVERTIME

As requested in the budget, the Committee caps annual
overtime payments for any Secret Service employee at $35,000,
the same level as for CBP and ICE. The Secretary of Homeland
Security may waive this restriction for national security
purposes.

Acquisition, Construction, Improvements, and Related Expenses

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008....................... $3,725,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009..................... 3,725,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 4,225,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2008................... +500,000
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2009................. +500,000
MISSION

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

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $4,225,000, $500,000 more than
both the President's request and the amount provided in fiscal
year 2008. Of this increase, $250,000 is provided to fund
inflationary cost increases, and $250,000 is to fund a
perimeter security and noise abatement study for the Rowley
facility.

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

NATIONAL PROTECTION AND PROGRAMS DIRECTORATE

Management and Administration

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008....................... $47,346,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009..................... 54,600,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 50,100,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2008................... +2,754,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009................. -4,500,000
MISSION

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

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $50,100,000 for Management and
Administration, $4,500,000 below the amount requested, and
$2,754,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2008.

STAFFING LEVELS

The Committee notes high vacancy rates within NPPD for
important functions such as the Office of Emergency
Communications, which coordinates national interoperable
communications policies, and the Infrastructure Security
Compliance division, which implements the Department's chemical
facility anti-terrorism standards. Given the slow pace of
hiring across NPPD, it seems unlikely the Directorate will be
able to fill the new positions it has requested in 2009.
Therefore, the Committee provides $2,500,000 for Management and
Administration staffing growth, instead of the $5,000,000
requested.

INTERGOVERNMENTAL PROGRAMS

The Committee does not provide funding for an Office of
Intergovernmental Programs in NPPD. The Post-Katrina Emergency
Management Reform Act of 2006 established this office within
FEMA, which is where it continues to be funded.

Infrastructure Protection and Information Security

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008....................... $654,730,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009..................... 841,200,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 846,756,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2008................... +192,026,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009................. +5,556,000
MISSION

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

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $846,756,000 for IPIS, $5,556,000
above the amount requested, and $192,026,000 above the amount
provided in fiscal year 2008. The Committee withholds
$149,312,000 from obligation until the Department submits and
the Committee approves expenditure plans for three programs, as
described below. A comparison of the budget estimate to the
Committee recommended level by budget activity is as follows:

NPPD PROGRAM PLANNING

The 2009 budget proposes significant increases for several
programs within NPPD, most notably the National Cyber Security
Initiative (NCSI), Next Generation Networks (NGN), and the
National Command and Coordination Capability (NCCC). However,
the justification materials submitted by NPPD lack a thorough
explanation of how these proposed investments fulfill the
homeland security goals of the Department; on what, how and
when funds will be expended; and even the total cost to
complete these initiatives. The Committee has seen far too many
instances of troubled and ultimately wasteful investments made
by DHS agencies that have not properly planned for major
acquisitions. Therefore, the Committee withholds from
obligation half of the funds appropriated for NCSI
($121,212,000) and NGN ($24,000,000), and all of the funds
appropriated for NCCC ($14,100,000) until NPPD submits, and the
Committee approves, expenditure plans for each of these
projects. These plans shall each include a discussion of the
strategic context for the initiatives; the specific goals and
milestones NPPD has set for the programs; the funds allocated
to achieving each of those goals and milestones; and a detailed
analysis of investments in each program to date, as well as
total investments required by fiscal year, to complete the
projects as planned.

CHEMICAL FACILITY ANTI-TERRORISM STANDARDS AND REGULATION OF AMMONIUM
NITRATE

In the 2007 and 2008 Appropriations Acts, Congress
authorized DHS to regulate the security of chemical facilities
and the purchase and sale of ammonium nitrate, respectively.
The Infrastructure Protection component within NPPD has
promulgated chemical facility anti-terrorism standards, and is
also working to implement controls on the transfer of ammonium
nitrate. Since the number of locations subject to chemical
facility regulations is higher than estimated in original DHS
plans, the Committee provides $12,000,000 more than requested
for chemical facility regulation implementation. In addition,
since the costs to implement ammonium nitrate regulations were
largely unaccounted for in the budget request, the Committee
provides $5,000,000 to initiate this important effort.

NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PLAN MANAGEMENT

The Committee continues to hear from outside experts about
the importance of the collaborative working relationships
between industry and government to address infrastructure
security vulnerabilities. As envisioned in the National
Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP), DHS and other sector-
specific agencies work in conjunction with private
stakeholders, State governments, and other participants to
identify and mitigate the vulnerability of infrastructure to
terrorist attack or natural disaster. Given the value these
groups produce for the protection of our country's
infrastructure, the Committee provides $36,858,000 for NIPP
management and related Critical Infrastructure and Key Resource
partnerships, an increase of $15,865,000 over the requested
level.

ETHANOL TRANSLOADING FACILITIES

The Committee is concerned that the siting of ethanol
transloading facilities near high density communities may
create new security vulnerabilities, The Committee understands
the Department will soon review the vulnerabilities associated
with one such facility in Virginia. The Committee directs the
Department, in coordination with the Department of
Transportation and other relevant agencies, to report to the
Committee no later than 90 days after the date of enactment of
this Act on the results of this vulnerability assessment. The
report shall cover the risks associated with such transloading
facilities, recommended security procedures, recommended
coordination with local police, fire, health, and emergency
responder communities, and other recommended actions for the
Congress, the Executive Branch, or localities.

WATER SYSTEM SECURITY

The Committee is aware of a request from managers of the
nation's public water systems for the Federal government to
provide additional guidance about maintaining a resilient
drinking water infrastructure. As part of managing its
partnerships with other sector-specific agencies, the Committee
encourages NPPD to work with the Environmental Protection
Agency, which is the lead Federal agency for the water sector
under the National Infrastructure Protection Plan, to improve
Federal outreach to water system managers, increase support and
guidance on implementation of risk assessment techniques, and
publicize effective protective measures that can be taken to
increase water system security.

BUSINESS COUNTERINTELLIGENCE

A key element of the nation's knowledge economy is the
intellectual property developed by industries as diverse as
finance, computer software, entertainment, and pharmaceuticals.
While DHS has made progress identifying and mitigating the
threat of attacks on our nation's physical assets though
implementation of the NIPP, it has been less active in
protecting America's soft assets from theft or destruction
through espionage or sabotage. The Committee therefore directs
NPPD to review the federal government's efforts to increase
awareness of business counterintelligence, including efforts
made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation to assess the
threat of intelligence infiltration within the private sector,
and to incorporate best practices into its NIPP management
activities.

OFFICE OF BOMBING PREVENTION

A recent DHS assessment of terrorist methodologies
concluded that improvised explosive devices (IEDs) remain ``the
favored method for terrorist attack'' against ``critical
infrastructure and key assets.'' The Office of Bombing
Prevention (OBP) is responsible for implementing the DHS
National Strategy for Bombing Prevention, and also trains State
and local governments in how to identify and safely handle
bombs and IEDs. The Committee provides OBP $11,000,000 for
carrying out this important work, an increase of $1,841,000
over the requested level. Of this amount, $1,000,000 shall be
for the purchase of the IED-Geospatial Analysis Tool Plus,
which the Office of Bombing Prevention has informed the
Committee would be a useful addition to its TRIPwire field
assessment tool. The Committee also understands that OBP has
participated in a Technical Support Working Group effort to
develop IED countermeasures that could be used by state and
local law enforcement, and urges OBP, in conjunction with S&T,
to continue to support efforts to develop and implement
counter-IED solutions for use by the civil sector.

PHILADELPHIA VIDEO SURVEILLANCE

The Committee provides $2,000,000 for continued deployment
of infrastructure monitoring and crime cameras in the city of
Philadelphia. The Committee directs NPPD to work with city
administrators to use these funds in support of Philadelphia's
plan to integrate new and existing cameras into a citywide
surveillance system.

UNDERGROUND CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

Much of what allows the United States to operate goes
unnoticed below ground, in the network of tunnels hidden below
our streets, buildings, and parks. The pipes, wires, cables,
and other infrastructure that run through these tunnels are
often protected only by unsecured manhole covers. The Committee
provides $3,000,000 for NPPD to pilot methods for securing this
infrastructure by evaluating the effectiveness and drawbacks of
manhole cover locking systems.

MAPPING CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

The Committee is aware of collaborative efforts by
Infrastructure Protection alongside other Federal mapping and
geological survey agencies in support of the development of
reliable maps of critical infrastructure facilities. The
Committee urges NPPD to review these efforts to ensure that
critical needs are being met in this area.

US-CERT/NATIONAL CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE

The Committee provides $242,424,000 for NPPD's US-CERT
program, and the DHS share of the Administration's National
Cyber Security Initiative (NCSI), as requested. The goal of the
NCSI is to strengthen the security of government computer
networks and reduce their vulnerability to attacks by outside
forces. The appropriations provided by the Committee finance
the DHS costs of consolidating its Internet connections while
simultaneously developing and installing Internet traffic
monitoring systems on government networks. The budget for US-
CERT has increased by more than 500 percent since 2007,
indicating the seriousness with which the Committee takes the
need to improve cyber security. However, the Committee is
concerned that absent a well-developed acquisition plan, these
resources may not be used in the most effective manner
possible. As discussed above, the Committee requires NPPD to
submit an expenditure plan providing more details on the
purpose and goals of the NCSI and how proposed expenditures
will meet them.

PRIORITY TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES/NEXT GENERATION NETWORKS

The Committee recognizes the success of DHS and its
predecessor agencies in working with the telecommunications
industry to develop an effective emergency access system for
Federal, State and local officials to use in times of crisis,
and provides $58,740,000 for the Priority Telecommunications
Service program, at the requested level. The Committee also
recognizes that the dynamic nature of the telecommunications
industry requires on-going investment to ensure that current
capabilities are not lost when new technologies emerge.
However, the Committee is disappointed that the managers of the
National Security/Emergency Preparedness Telecommunications
program have not provided any detailed explanation or
discussion of key deliverables for investments made through the
Next Generation Networks (NGN) program. In particular, the
Committee is concerned that absent a defined set of goals, the
NGN program has the potential to become an open-ended financial
commitment of massive cost. Therefore, the Committee provides
$48,000,000 for the NGN program, $8,000,000 below the requested
level. As discussed above, the Committee requires NPPD to
submit an expenditure plan providing more details about the
purpose and goals of the NGN program.

NATIONAL COMMAND AND COORDINATION CAPABILITY

NPPD has proposed a $61,000,000 budget for a National
Command and Coordination Capability (NCCC), an increase of
1,592 percent over the 2008 enacted level. This extraordinary
increase in resources has not been accompanied by a detailed
explanation of how this project will be carried out, what
specific investments the funds will be used to make, or even
why such a large investment is necessary. As a result, the
Committee provides $14,100,000 for continued NCCC planning and
initial implementation, and requires NPPD to submit an
expenditure plan providing more details about the purpose and
goals of this initiative.

CYBER SECURITY TRAINING

The Committee includes $3,500,000 for the continued
development and implementation of the Community Cyber Security
Maturity Model at the University of Texas at San Antonio, a
training program designed to prepare State and local officials
for responding to cyber attacks.

CYBER SECURITY INFORMATION SHARING AND COLLABORATION PROGRAM

The Committee does not fund the Cyber Security Information
Sharing and Collaboration program, a $2,250,000 earmark for a
specific institution of higher education that was requested by
the President.

CONTROL SYSTEMS SECURITY

The Committee is concerned that the control systems that
ensure the efficient and reliable operation of much of the
nation's power, water, information and other critical systems
are potentially vulnerable to compromise. To address this
concern, the Committee provides $22,000,000 for the National
Cyber Security Division's efforts in this area, $4,000,000 more
than the request. This additional funding is to establish a
power and cyber system protection, analysis and testing program
at the Idaho National Laboratory.

E-LORAN

The Committee does not provide funding for the so-called e-
LORAN system in the budget for NPPD, and instead returns the
funds to the Coast Guard budget. Since Coast Guard will remain
responsible for operating the existing LORAN-C until a
replacement system is developed, there is no logical reason to
transfer these funds to NPPD, an agency that has neither the
preparation nor the experience to operate the LORAN system.

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS

The Committee is concerned about the effectiveness of the
Office of Emergency Communications, which is chiefly
responsible for coordinating at high levels throughout the
government to promote and enhance emergency communication
capabilities. The Committee directs the Secretary to establish
a senior-level director of the Office to ensure that the Office
has the high-level representation and executive independence
needed to coordinate emergency communication activities.

REAL ID HUB

The Committee provides $50,000,000 for development of a
REAL ID data hub, which will connect various State records
systems to enable their departments of motor vehicles to verify
the accuracy and authenticity of documents used for drivers
license applications. The Administration requested this funding
within the budget for United States Citizenship and Immigration
Services (USCIS). The Committee does not want the immigration
workload at USCIS to be overshadowed by other responsibilities,
especially since USCIS now confronts historic backlogs of
applications pending adjudication. To ensure that the REAL ID
hub is developed appropriately, the Committee includes
statutory prohibitions on retention of any data accessible
through the hub system, or for Federal use of the hub system.

United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008....................... $475,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009..................... 390,300,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 390,300,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2008................... -84,700,000
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2009................. 0
MISSION

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

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $390,300,000 for US-VISIT, the
same as the amount requested and $84,700,000 below the amount
provided in fiscal year 2008. The Committee includes:
$20,000,000 for identity management and screening services;
$66,368,000 to complete ten-print and interoperability
investments for the ``Unique Identity'' program; $55,553,000
for biometric exit planning and implementation; $128,327,000
for operations and maintenance (including $25,327,000 to move
US-VISIT operations from the current Department of Justice data
centers to a DHS data center, and the establishment of a
disaster recovery site at a second DHS data center); and
$120,052,000 for program management.

EXPENDITURE PLANS

The Committee denies the request to remove requirements for
a US-VISIT expenditure plan. Expenditure plans have been
indispensable in providing information that enables the
Committee to exercise its oversight responsibilities. To help
ensure funding is used effectively for US-VISIT program
management, and to support implementing 10-print standards,
interoperability, and identity management services, the
Committee recommends $300,300,000 be made available to the
program upon enactment of this Act, with $90,000,000 withheld
subject to expenditure plan approval.
The bill continues to require that the expenditure plan be
reviewed by the GAO, and that it include: (1) a detailed
account of program progress; (2) a plan of action showing how
the funding will meet future program commitments; (3) the
status of open GAO and OIG recommendations and actions taken or
planned to address them; (4) a Chief Procurement Officer
certification that the program has been approved through the
US-VISIT procurement risk management process and a DHS
investment management process that fulfills OMB capital
planning and investment control requirements; (5) a Chief
Information Officer certification that an independent
verification and validation agent for the US-VISIT project is
under contract, that US-VISIT system architecture is aligned to
the DHS information systems enterprise architecture, and that
US-VISIT has an investment risk management program that
includes a list of high risks and the status of efforts to
address them; (6) a Chief Human Capital Officer certification
that US-VISIT human capital needs are being adequately managed;
(7) a complete schedule for full implementation of a biometric
exit program, or certification that such implementation within
five years is not possible; and (8) a detailed account of costs
associated with identity services. The Committee directs that
the expenditure plan also include a schedule for the transition
of operations from the current Department of Justice data
centers to the new DHS data centers and a description of the
funding required for this transition.

EXIT SOLUTION

The exit component of US-VISIT remains behind schedule. DHS
has issued a notice of proposed rule making for a biometric
exit solution for air and sea ports that would require air and
sea carriers to collect and transmit biometric information to
DHS in order to implement an air and sea exit system by the end
of 2008. Section 711 of the 9/11 Act requires such a system to
be implemented by that time in order for the Secretary to
retain his authority to approve visa waiver program
participation.
The Committee is concerned that no pilot tests have been
carried out or are planned for the proposed assignment of
biometric collection responsibilities to private industry.
Previous exit pilots involved the use of kiosks by departing
passengers, but only on a voluntary basis. To ensure that the
final solution adopted is based on operational experience, the
Committee includes bill language making no funding available
for air exit implementation until US-VISIT conducts and submits
a report on pilot tests of the air exit solution for approval
by the Committees on Appropriations, to include at least two
scenarios: (1) where airlines collect and transmit biometric
exit data as proposed in the rule; and (2) where CBP collects
such information at the departure gates. The Committee asks
that the airline industry and the Department cooperate to
design and carry out such pilots as soon as possible. The
Committee expects the information gathered to include workload
information, cost data, the impact on passenger processing
time, and data related to the quality and security of traveler
information collected. Such pilots should be conducted over a
time period of not less than 30 days, with completion no later
than October 31, 2008. The final rule on air exit should
reflect information gathered through the pilots. The Committee
directs that the report on pilot results be reviewed by GAO,
which shall provide an independent assessment of the report.
The Department has provided no detailed and comprehensive
exit strategy, as required by the fiscal year 2008
Appropriations Act. Such a strategy is essential to inform
decisions about design, investment, staffing and funding.
Although the Department's budget materials state that DHS will
produce a biometric exit strategy and cost-benefit analysis for
the land border by the end of 2008, the Committee continues to
include language requiring a comprehensive strategic plan for
exit, along with details on incremental efforts to achieve
exit, within the fiscal year 2009 expenditure plan. The
Committee understands that the Department is continuing
discussions with Canadian and Mexican governments on
reciprocity in sharing immigration entry information (in lieu
of a U.S. exit process). The Committee directs the Department
to provide a briefing on the status of such discussions.

UNIQUE IDENTITY

Unique Identity is the name for the program to establish a
standard for collection of 10-print biometric information from
travelers to the United States; implement full, real-time
interoperability between the State Department, DHS and the
Justice Department in sharing and matching data from DHS'
automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT) and the FBI's
Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS);
and re-engineer IDENT to be fully compatible with new system
and data requirements. The Committee understands that pilot
testing of the 10-print system at U.S. international airports
has been going smoothly, and that 10-print collection is now
performed for all visa applicants at U.S. consulates overseas.
Current data show that collection of such information takes
only a few seconds on average, and that response to ``hits''
against relevant watchlist and database information is
generating new information that is relevant to the Department's
admissibility and status determinations and its enforcement
actions.
DHS stated in its budget justification that, by the end of
calendar year 2008, it would complete testing and national
deployment of 3,000 10-print scanners at 292 air, sea and land
ports of entry where 2-print scanners are currently used. DHS,
Justice and State have informed the Committee that they expect
to achieve initial interoperability of their databases and
systems in October 2008. DHS's fiscal year 2009 budget request
proposes to fund the design, build out and testing of full
interoperability for sharing biometric data with other
agencies, in particular the Departments of Justice and State.
The Committee includes $66,368,000, as requested, for Unique
Identity.
The Committee understands that one element of Unique
Identity, enumeration (assignment of a unique numerical
identifier for an individual's biometric and biographic records
and transactions), may be experiencing delay. In part, this may
be due to the fact that enumeration is still a pilot effort,
and that DHS has not yet developed a policy to promote
enumeration as a standard for data exchange and verification
throughout the Department.
The Committee directs US-VISIT, in coordination with the
Departments of Justice and State, to continue quarterly
briefings to the Committees on Appropriations on Unique
Identity, including the status of enumeration. The Department
is directed to submit a report on the prospects for
implementation of enumeration throughout the Department with
the submission of the fiscal year 2010 budget request.
The Committee is concerned that limitations within
Department of Justice systems have resulted in a backlog of DHS
biometric queries, requiring such queries to be prioritized.
While the Committee supports interim measures that give
priority to determining the status of high risk persons, such
delays in processing continue a vulnerability that unrecognized
persons may be missed simply because different government
databases cannot be compared. The Committee therefore directs
that the quarterly briefings on 10-print transition and
interoperability also report on the status of such gaps in
system interoperability and measures being taken to close them.

OVERSTAYS

The identification and resolution of ``overstays'' (foreign
visitors and immigrants who do not leave the U.S. when required
to do so based on the terms of their visa or temporary visitor
status) is a critical US-VISIT mission. The number of overstays
reported to ICE for enforcement in fiscal year 2007 was 12,618,
triple the number from fiscal year 2006, and the trend for
fiscal year 2008 is increasing. Not all overstay records
reported to US-VISIT are reviewed, although priority is given
to travelers from countries of interest. The consequence is
that the number of potential overstays is growing by
approximately 350,000 a year, and currently totals 945,000.
The Committee includes $20,000,000, as requested, for
identity management services, $4,200,000 above fiscal year
2008. The Department reports that this funding would only
increase the number of overstay cases being reviewed by 25
percent, and that $14,600,000 more would be required to review
all overstay reports. While additional staffing may be a
partial solution, the Committee understands that some
technological remedies, such as improved matching systems, may
be available to help speed up reviews. Regardless of whether
the solution lies in staff, technology, or a combination of the
two, the Committee expects to see more effort made to eliminate
this vulnerability, and directs DHS to submit a reprogramming
of fiscal year 2008 funding as soon as possible to enable the
review of all overstay reports.

STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT

US-VISIT has a growing mission to manage significant
biometric and biographic databases and services for the
Department and other federal agencies. GAO (GAO-08-361)
recommended the alignment of US-VISIT investments and
activities with the DHS enterprise architecture for every stage
of planning and budgeting. It also recommended full
coordination with related projects, such as the Western
Hemisphere Travel Initiative, the Electronic Systems for Travel
Authorization, and the Global Entry system. The Committee urges
the Department to act on its plans to implement a US-VISIT
governance board, and directs the Department to submit with the
fiscal year 2010 budget request a full description of the
internal DHS governance process, as well as a detailed report
on steps US-VISIT and the Department have taken to define,
manage and coordinate relationships between US-VISIT and other
immigration and border management programs.

STAFFING AND CONTRACTOR SUPPORT

The Committee understands that US-VISIT is making efforts
to address open GAO recommendations for contract and program
management. Such steps entail developing tools to help improve
acquisition methodology, implementing earned value management,
and establishing strong acquisition management capability.
Although contractor staff will likely remain a significant part
of US-VISIT, the Committee expects to see some reduction in
permanent contractor operations. As US-VISIT matures, the
Committee continues to be frustrated with continued US-VISIT
vacancies, despite increased workload and mission complexity.
As a result, it includes $4,343,000, as requested, for an
additional 35 positions for strategic planning, program and
human capital management, logistics and stakeholder
communication. The Committee directs US-VISIT to brief the
Committee not later than September 8, 2008, on the status of
its workforce analysis and its progress in filling vacancies.

Office of Health Affairs

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008....................... $116,500,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009..................... 161,339,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 134,404,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2008................... +17,904,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009................. -26,935,000
MISSION

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

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $134,404,000 for OHA, $26,935,000
below the amount requested and $17,904,000 above the amount
provided in fiscal year 2008. A comparison of the budget
estimate to the Committee recommended level by budget activity
is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of Health Affairs Budget estimate Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BioWatch.......................... $111,606,000 $88,806,000
National Biosurveillence 8,000,000 8,000,000
Integration System...............
Rapidly Deployable Chemical 2,600,000 2,600,000
Detection System.................
Planning and Coordination......... 9,923,000 5,775,000
Salaries and Expenses............. 29,210,000 29,223,000
-------------------------------------
Total......................... 161,339,000 134,404,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

SURVEILLANCE AND DETECTION

The Committee recommends $88,806,000 for BioWatch,
$22,800,000 less than the amount requested, and $11,698,000
above the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. BioWatch is an
early warning system, deployed in over 30 of the country's
major metropolitan areas, that can currently detect trace
amounts of nucleic-acid pathogens in the air. The Committee
continues to have concern about aspects of the BioWatch
program, including the efficiency and effectiveness of the
systems; the lack of a comprehensive deployment strategy,
including the relationship of generation 2.5 and 3.0 systems;
the lack of clarity related to post-detection characterization
and notification processes; and the use of multiple
technologies. In fiscal year 2008, the Committee directed the
National Academies of Science (NAS) to evaluate the program and
compare it to an enhanced surveillance system that relies on
U.S. hospitals and the U.S. public health system. The results
of the NAS evaluation are expected within a year. The
Committee's recommended level for fiscal year 2009 continues
current operations and allows OHA to expand the testing of next
generation systems. The Committee directs OHA to notify the
Committee 15 days prior to deploying any BioWatch device to new
locations.
The Committee recommends $8,000,000 for the National
BioSurveillance Integration Center, the same amount as
requested and the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. The
Committee also includes $500,000 for the Biological Warning and
Incident Characterization system, as requested.

PANDEMIC INFLUENZA

The GAO found in August 2007 that Federal government
leadership roles and responsibilities for preparing for and
responding to a pandemic will require further clarification and
testing before roles and responsibilities are understood. GAO
recommended that the Secretaries of Homeland Security and
Health and Human Services work together to develop and conduct
rigorous testing, training, and exercises for pandemic
influenza to ensure that the Federal leadership roles are
clearly defined and understood and that leaders are able to
effectively execute shared responsibilities to address emerging
challenges. DHS agreed with that recommendation and stated that
its Incident Management Planning Teams (IMPTs) were addressing
the shortfalls identified by GAO. While the Committee is
encouraged that DHS is taking GAO recommendations seriously, it
is concerned that the Department intends to rely on IMPT for
leadership related to pandemic flu, instead of OHA, which is
the Department's primary point of contact with other Federal
departments and agencies on medical and public health issues.
The Committee directs that OHA lead the Department's efforts
related to pandemic flu and implement the recommendations by
GAO to clarify and define roles and responsibilities.

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Committee recommends $29,223,000 for Salaries and
Expenses, $13,000 above the amount requested and $4,906,000
above the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. Within the total
funding available, $644,000 is for eight additional positions
to strengthen the administrative and financial reporting
capabilities of OHA, including oversight of Project BioShield,
and $750,000 is to continue an effort to standardize medical
policies across DHS. The Committee expects this effort to
minimize medical and public health incidents. Recent reports
have revealed serious problems with medical care within DHS,
including a tuberculosis patient who gained entry into the
United States multiple times, even though his name was given to
CBP by the Centers for Disease Control; the death of an infant
at an immigration checkpoint in Honolulu; and allegations of
substandard treatment and failure to provide necessary
treatment in ICE detention centers. OHA is directed to provide
to the Committee, within four months of enactment of this Act,
a plan to communicate and enforce medical standard policies
across DHS.

EMERGENCY PERSONNEL AND DISASTER RESPONSE

A February 2008 report from the Federal Communications
Commission's Joint Advisory Committee (JAC) on Communications
Capabilities of Emergency Medical and Public Health Care
Facilities looked comprehensively at the nation's current
communications capabilities across the continuum of emergency
medical and public health agencies. The JAC found that ``the
communications technologies upon which life-saving decisions
depend are often outdated, fragile, limited only to voice, and
woefully inadequate to respond to a mass casualty or disaster
event. Too often today, EMS responders, doctors, and nurses
must practice 21st century medicine with 20th century
communications technology.'' OHA is directed to work with
FEMA's Grants Preparedness Directorate and the emergency
medical services community to foster solutions to the problems
identified by the JAC.

PLANNING AND COORDINATION

The Committee recommends $5,775,000 for planning and
coordination activities, $4,148,000 below the amount requested
and $1,300,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2008.
Of the amount available for planning and coordination, the
Committee recommends $1,000,000 for the National Biodefense
Architecture (NBA), a new initiative designed to establish a
comprehensive framework of Federal, State, local and private
sector biodefense responsibilities and capabilities. The NBA
request is reduced by half, to reflect the lack of detail
provided. OHA can accomplish its broad fiscal year 2009 goal of
defining the future vision of NBA with the funding provided.
OHA is directed to brief the Committee quarterly on this
effort.
The Committee includes the requested $300,000 for the
Medical First Responder All-Hazards Best Practices program.
This program will foster interagency collaboration for the
development of best practices and protocol development. The
development of these best practices is intended to mitigate the
medical consequences of disasters of all hazards. As part of
this effort, the Committee expects OHA to develop best
practices for medical personnel to deal with the consequences
of anthrax following an attack. The Committee remains committed
to ensuring the Nation is adequately prepared for a potential
anthrax attack and includes this funding as well as $88,806,000
for BioWatch to detect air-borne pathogens, including anthrax.
The Committee notes that following the 2001 anthrax attack in
Florida, with the lack of rapid diagnostic tools, doctors
utilizing best practices were essential to diagnosing anthrax.
The Committee does not include additional funding to expand
the Knowledge Development and Dissemination Program; begin the
Biodefense Response and Recovery Demonstration Project; or to
begin medical readiness modeling and simulation programs.
Instead the Committee directs OHA to increase oversight of the
programs it currently oversees, including BioWatch and Project
BioShield.

ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE

The Committee understands that OHA is exploring ways to
integrate exposure science into response planning for terrorist
events and other disasters, and notes that major disasters,
such as the
9/11 terrorist attacks and Hurricane Katrina, have produced
environmental contaminants that resulted in significant adverse
health consequences for emergency responders and the public.
The Committee notes that environmental contaminants have also
affected individuals living in FEMA-provided housing. The
Committee believes that significant work must be done to better
understand environmental exposures following disasters and to
develop response protocols and technologies that will prevent
or mitigate such health effects. The Committee urges OHA to
continue its activities in this area and to coordinate a
Federal effort to apply exposure science to disaster response
by working with other Federal agencies that have expertise
related to environmental exposures, public health, and
occupational safety.

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

Management And Administration

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 \1\................... $664,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 \2\................. 957,405,000
Recommended in the bill \1\ \2\....................... 821,151,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2008................... +157,151,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009................. -136,254,000
\1\ Excludes transfer from Disaster Relief.
\2\ Request includes the United States Fire Administration appropriation
for which funding is provided in a separate account.

MISSION

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

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $821,151,000 for Management and
Administration, $136,254,000 below the amount requested and
$157,151,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. In
addition to this direct appropriation, $90,600,000 is
transferred from Disaster Relief. Included within the amount
provided is $5,000,000 to accelerate efforts at FEMA to develop
tools to measure the achievement and effectiveness of certain
grant programs. The Committee does not fund the $40,913,000
request for the United States. Fire Administration within this
account. Specific programs, projects, and activities are
detailed below.

STAFFING

The Committee agrees to transfer $90,600,000 from Disaster
Relief, $15,000,000 less than requested, to support the
conversion of temporary disaster employees to permanent status.
The funding shall remain unavailable until the Committee
receives and approves an implementation plan that contains an
expenditure plan, a hiring schedule, and a list of positions to
be filled by Cadre On-Call Response Employees (CORE), including
where they will be located. The reduction to the request is
based on delays in the planned conversion of employees and the
fact that previous funding provided for this effort has been
reprogrammed by FEMA.

REGIONAL OFFICES

The Committee recommends $6,000,000 for the relocation of
three regional offices due to expiring leases, $4,000,000 less
than the amount requested. Although FEMA's budget request
anticipated the relocation of five regional offices, FEMA
subsequently indicated to GAO that it now plans to relocate
three offices, at a cost of $2,000,000 each.

MT. WEATHER

The Committee recommends $45,530,000 for Mt. Weather
capital improvements, $3,419,000 below the amount requested and
the same as the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. FEMA has
no comprehensive ten-year capital improvement plan for Mt.
Weather, and additional funding will not be provided until such
a plan is developed and submitted to the Committee. The
Committee directs FEMA to provide a comprehensive ten-year
capital improvement plan for Mt. Weather. within six months
after the date of enactment of this Act. The Committee notes
that it has provided $65,202,200 for capital improvements since
fiscal year 2007.

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE

The Committee recommends $7,000,000 for the Emergency
Management Institute (EMI), $1,253,000 above the amount
provided in fiscal year 2008. EMI provides training to Federal,
State, local, tribal, public and private sector officials to
strengthen emergency management core competencies. The
Committee expects the additional funding to increase the
capacity of EMI and enable additional State and local officials
to attend courses.

NATIONAL DAM SAFETY PROGRAM

The Committee recommends $6,000,000 for the National Dam
Safety Program (NDSP), $500,000 above the amount provided in
fiscal year 2008. The NDSP provides support for the improvement
of the State dam safety programs that regulate most of the
79,500 dams in the United States.

URBAN SEARCH AND RESCUE RESPONSE SYSTEM

The Committee recommends $32,500,000 for the Urban Search
and Rescue (US&R) Response System, $7,500,000 above the amount
requested and the same as the amount provided in fiscal year
2008. The Committee is concerned with the readiness level of
US&R teams and provides additional funding to ensure the teams
are properly trained and equipped to respond to future
disasters. While FEMA estimated in 2006 that each team would
require $1,662,200 to operate, the 28 teams received an average
of only $1,036,143 in fiscal year 2008, leaving local agencies
responsible for meeting shortfalls.
The Committee directs FEMA to report, within six months
after the date of enactment of this Act, on the feasibility of
adding an additional team to the US&R program. If FEMA
determines it is feasible to add an additional team, the report
shall include a recommendation for the geographical location
and an estimate of the associated cost.

LOGISTICS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

The Committee recommends $119,078,000 for logistics
management, the same as the amount requested and $9,368,000
above the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. The additional
funding is for hiring 22 additional logistics planners, to
improve FEMA's tracking systems, and to hire six site managers
for FEMA's logistics centers. The Committee expects FEMA to
engage the private sector and incorporate industry best
practices, including adaptive planning technologies, in its
logistics program. The Committee directs FEMA to continue
quarterly briefings on its progress in developing its logistics
program, including efforts to reach out to the private sector.
Within logistics management, the Committee encourages FEMA to
ensure that its logistics personnel are appropriately trained
and encourages FEMA to explore training provided by LOGTECH.

EMERGENCY ALERT SYSTEM

The Committee recommends $28,400,000 for the Integrated
Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS), the same as the amount
requested. IPAWS uses digital and satellite technology to
expand alerts and warnings to new communication media. The
Committee directs FEMA to provide the Committee with a plan by
January 2009 to complete the conversion to IPAWS from the
current emergency alert system by the end of calendar year
2009.

READY CAMPAIGN

The Committee recommends $1,500,000 for the READY campaign
in FEMA. This program was previously funded within the Office
of the Secretary and Executive Management. The Committee
believes this program, aimed at providing appropriate tools to
citizens to increase individual preparedness, is intrinsic to
FEMA's preparedness mission, and therefore directs FEMA to
combine this program with ``Are You Ready?'' a similar
education program already managed by FEMA.
As part of the READY campaign, the Committee directs FEMA
to address the needs of special populations, especially those
of older adults. The Committee recognizes the unique challenges
that face older adults before, during, and after disasters and
encourages FEMA to devote resources to reaching that community
to ensure they are better prepared.

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET JUSTIFICATION

The Committee continues to be disappointed by FEMA's budget
justification. In fiscal year 2008 the Committee directed that
the fiscal year 2009 budget be detailed by office. Because of
what appears to be significant system deficiencies, FEMA
submitted the budget by office a month late. The Committee
continues the requirement for the submission of a budget by
office for fiscal year 2010.
In addition, the budget contains no information for many
programs below the program and project level. For fiscal year
2010, the Committee expects budget detail for the National Dam
Safety Program; the National Fire Academy; the National
Incident Management System; National Continuity programs; the
National Fire Data Center; the Emergency Management Assistance
Compact; the National Hurricane Program; the National
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program; the Disability
Coordinator; the Law Enforcement Advisor; the Mobile Emergency
Response System; the Disaster Housing Assistance Program; and
the Emergency Management Institute.

FIRST RESPONDER READINESS

The Committee is concerned about the nation's ability to
respond to all disasters in U.S. territories, especially
disasters that offer no warning. FEMA is directed to analyze
the response capabilities of the U.S. territories, including
the level of readiness of first responders and the availability
of adequate training programs. FEMA shall report to the
Committee on the results of this analysis within six months
after the date of enactment of this Act. The Committee also
directs FEMA to examine the utility of additional sites for
all-hazard first responder training and report to the Committee
on its findings no later than February 16, 2009.

INCREASED ACCOUNTABILITY

The Committee notes that GAO and OIG have made many
recommendations for improvements to FEMA's operations and
programs. Although FEMA has agreed to implement many of these
recommendations, the status of such implementation is unclear.
The Committee directs FEMA to provide GAO and OIG with a time-
frame for implementing all recommendations agreed to by FEMA.

STATE AND LOCAL COLLABORATION

The Committee is concerned that processes are not in place
to ensure a collaborative partnership with State, local, and
tribal officials in the development of critical plans and
systems. According to briefings by GAO, FEMA has not even
developed policies and procedures to ensure a collaborative
process for future updates to the National Response Framework.
Such policies and procedures for collaboration with State and
local officials should be developed immediately and shared with
FEMA's National Advisory Council for review and approval. The
Committee specifically encourages FEMA to include State, local,
and tribal representatives in the development of the Integrated
Planning System and any grants performance system developed by
the Department.

SPECIAL POPULATIONS

GAO recommended (GAO 08-369) that FEMA coordinate with the
National Council on Disability to ensure that the needs of
individuals with disabilities are fully addressed by FEMA's
programs. The Committee directs FEMA's Disability Coordinator
Office to implement this recommendation expeditiously.
The Committee continues to be concerned that individuals
with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) may be underserved
during disaster response efforts. The Committee directs FEMA to
coordinate with representatives of LEP populations on ways to
address their needs through the agency's preparedness and
response capabilities. FEMA is directed to provide a report on
its efforts to coordinate with LEP populations within six
months after the date of enactment of this Act.

IMPACT OF CLIMATE ON FUTURE DISASTERS

The Committee is concerned that FEMA does not have a robust
climate change program in place to assess the potential impact
of future disasters on its ability to prepare for, mitigate
against, and respond to natural disasters; its managing of the
National Flood Insurance Fund; and its efforts to help maintain
accurate maps of the nation's flood plains. To begin to address
the shortfall in information about the impact of climate
change, the Committee provides $5,000,000 for the State of
North Carolina to perform a risk assessment and mitigation
strategy demonstration of the potential impacts of sea level
rise in that state associated with long-term climate change.
FEMA is directed to use the study results to assess the long-
term fiscal implications of climate change as it affects the
frequency and impacts of natural disasters, and to disseminate
information from the study to other states to inform their
climate change mitigation efforts.

FLOOD CONTROL AND HAZARD MITIGATION DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM

The Committee is aware of several existing flood control
projects in the Upper Cumberland and Big Sandy watershed
undertaken by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers following the
flood of 1977 that can potentially serve as demonstrative
interagency flood control and hazard mitigation solutions. The
Committee provides $2,425,000 to conduct demonstration flood
control and hazard mitigation projects with interagency
stakeholders, including FEMA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, and State and local agencies.
Funds are provided to demonstrate a wide range of project
solutions across FEMA's multiple disaster preparedness and
mitigation programs, including: retrofitting and hardening of
existing flood walls and levees; pump refurbishment; land
acquisition; transportation infrastructure modifications; and
other flood damage reduction projects within this watershed.

FLORIDA HURRICANE RECOVERY

FEMA is directed to maintain the Florida long-term recovery
office as long as sufficient work remains to be completed
following the 2004 and 2005 hurricanes that struck the State.
FEMA is further directed to notify the Committees on
Appropriations 60 days prior to closing the office.

State and Local Programs

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2008....................... $3,177,800,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 \1\................. 1,900,000,000
Recommended in the bill \2\........................... 3,056,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2008....................... -121,800,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009..................... +1,156,000,000
\1\ Proposes to incorporate Emergency Management Performance Grants
into this account.
\2\ Does not incorporate Emergency Management Performance Grants into
this account.

MISSION

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

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $3,056,000,000 for State and Local
Programs, $1,156,000,000 above the amount requested and
$121,800,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. A
comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee recommended
level by budget activity is as follows:

The bill contains provisions: (1) allowing the transfer of
up to 2 percent of State and Local program appropriations to
FEMA's Management and Administration account for costs
associated with administering grants and training programs; (2)
designating certain timeframes for grant processing; and (3)
requiring grantees to provide additional reports as determined
necessary by the Secretary.
For the purposes of eligibility for funds, any county,
city, village, town, district, borough, parish, port authority,
transit authority, intercity rail provider, commuter rail
system, freight rail provider, water district, regional
planning commission, council of government, Indian tribe with
jurisdiction over Indian country, authorized tribal
organization, Alaskan Native village, independent authority,
special district, or other political subdivision of any State
shall constitute a ``local unit of government.''
The Committee includes a general provision requiring FEMA
to brief the Committee five days prior to any announcement of
State Homeland Security Grant Programs (SHSGP) and Urban Area
Security Initiative (UASI) grant awards. Such briefings shall
include detailed information on the risk analysis employed, the
process for determining effectiveness, the process or formula
used for selecting grantees, and any changes to methodologies
used in the previous fiscal year.

MEASURING PREPAREDNESS AND RISK

In testimony before the Committee, GAO noted that ``[DHS']
monitoring of homeland security grant expenditures does not
provide a means to measure the achievement of desired program
outcomes. FEMA's current efforts do not provide information on
the effectiveness of those funds in improving the nation's
capabilities or reducing risk.'' Therefore the Committee
includes $5,000,000 in Management and Administration to
accelerate efforts at FEMA to develop tools to measure the
achievement and effectiveness of certain grant programs. The
Committee also directs GAO to validate the tools developed by
FEMA. GAO should determine whether the measurement tools
developed are reasonable, fair, and able to measure how grants
increase the preparedness level of each State and Urban Area
and reduce risk.
The Committee is currently awaiting results of the National
Academy of Sciences risk study, and expects FEMA to work with
the National Protection and Programs Directorate to utilize the
results of that analysis. The Committee also continues the
requirement for GAO to review the risk methodology developed
and used by DHS to distribute SHSGP and UASI grants.

IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE 9/11 ACT

The Committee is concerned that FEMA has not adequately
notified grantees of all statutory requirements pertaining to
the transit security assistance program, the railroad security
assistance programs (including Amtrak and Freight Rail) and the
over-the-road bus security program, including those of
prevailing wage and employee protections. Congress added these
requirements in the 9/11 Act to assure, among other things,
that workers employed on construction projects assisted by
grant funds are paid not less than prevailing wage rates and
that workers at transit agencies and bus providers are
protected when grant funds are distributed. However, there is
no mention in the application kits and program guidance issued
by FEMA that grant recipients must adhere in these requirements
as a condition of receiving funds. The Committee is concerned
about this omission and directs FEMA to ensure that these and
all future grantees are aware of and comply with the
requirements of the law.

STATE HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM

The Committee recommends $950,000,000 for the State
Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP), the same as the amount
provided in fiscal year 2008 and $750,000,000 above the amount
requested. In accordance with the 9/11 Act, at least 25 percent
of SHSGP and Urban Area Security Initiative funds shall be used
for Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention activities. Each state
and Puerto Rico shall pass on no less than 80 percent of their
grant funding to local units of government within 45 days of
receiving the funds.
The Committee is aware that the fiscal year 2008 grant
guidance permits up to 25 percent of SHSGP and Urban Area
Security Initiative funds to be used to pay the salaries and
expenses for individuals to serve as intelligence analysts for
a period of up to three years. This limitation conflicts with
the 9/11 Act, which did not set a time limit on paying salaries
and expenses for new and existing intelligence analysts. The
Committee directs FEMA to fully comply with the 9/11 Act and
remove the time limitation for intelligence analysts.
Within the funds available, the Committee recommends
$60,000,000 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 land borders of the United
States to enhance the coordination between local and Federal
law enforcement agencies. The Committee notes that the Tohono
O'odham tribe, located along the U.S. southwest border, has
historically provided border-related law enforcement along the
approximately 75 miles of its land that is contiguous to the
U.S./Mexico border.
Operation Stonegarden's eligible costs include, but shall
not necessarily be limited to: overtime; vehicle maintenance;
vehicle and equipment rental costs; reimbursement for mileage;
fuel costs; equipment replacement costs; and travel costs for
law enforcement entities assisting other local jurisdictions in
law enforcement activities. The Committee directs that only CBP
and FEMA make award decisions. No administrative costs shall be
deducted from Operation Stonegarden award totals by States.

URBAN AREA SECURITY INITIATIVE GRANTS

The Committee recommends $850,000,000 for Urban Area
Security Initiative Grants, $25,000,000 above the amount
requested and $30,000,000 above the amount provided in fiscal
year 2008. The funds should be distributed based on terrorism
risk as called for in the 9/11 Act. Of the amount available,
$15,000,000 is for grants to non-profit organizations
determined by the Secretary to be at high risk of terrorist
attack.

METROPOLITAN MEDICAL RESPONSE SYSTEM

The Committee recommends $50,000,000 for the Metropolitan
Medical Response System, $50,000,000 above the amount requested
and $9,000,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2008.
The Committee directs FEMA to work with the Office of Health
Affairs to develop guidelines for the program. This funding
enables local jurisdictions to prepare for and respond to all-
hazards mass casualty incidents, including terrorism, epidemic
disease outbreaks, natural disasters, and large-scale hazardous
materials incidents.

CITIZEN CORPS PROGRAM

The Committee recommends $15,000,000 for the Citizen Corps
program, the same as the amount requested and the amount
provided in fiscal year 2008. This funding supports programs to
engage citizens in preventing, preparing for, and responding to
all hazards. Eligible activities include planning and
evaluation; public education and communication; training; and
participation in exercises.

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND RAILROAD SECURITY
ASSISTANCE

The Committee recommends $400,000,000 for Public
Transportation Security Assistance and Railroad Security
Assistance, $225,000,000 above the amount requested and the
same as the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. The Committee
includes a provision directing the Department to make grants
directly to public transportation agencies. The Committee also
prohibits any cost sharing requirement for public
transportation agencies and Amtrak.

PORT SECURITY GRANTS

The Committee recommends $400,000,000 for Port Security
grants, $190,000,000 above the amount requested and the same as
the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. GAO found in a
December 2007 report that Federal port security grants have
generally been directed at preventing attacks, not responding
to them. GAO noted that decisions about the need for more port
response capabilities are hindered by a lack of performance
measures tying resource needs to effectiveness in response. GAO
recommended that the Secretary of Homeland Security work with
Federal, State, and local stakeholders to develop explicit
performance measures for emergency response capabilities. These
performance measures should then be used in risk-based analyses
to set priorities for the use of grant funding. FEMA and Coast
Guard shall report to the Committee within 30 days of enactment
of this Act on plans for developing performance measures for
emergency response capabilities. The Committee directs Coast
Guard to make all final grant award allocations.

OVER-THE-ROAD BUS SECURITY ASSISTANCE

The Committee recommends $12,000,000 for Over-the-Road Bus
Security grants, the same as the amount requested and $500,000
above the amount provided in fiscal year 2008.

TRUCKING INDUSTRY SECURITY GRANTS

The Committee recommends $8,000,000 for trucking industry
security grants, the same amount as requested and $8,000,000
below the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. The funding is
to be competitively awarded. FEMA is directed to submit an
expenditure plan to the Committees on Appropriations within 30
days of enactment of this Act and prior to the obligation of
funds.

REAL ID GRANTS

The Committee recommends $50,000,000 for grants to assist
States in complying with the largely unfunded mandate of the
REAL ID Act, $50,000,000 above the amount requested and the
same as the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. DHS estimates
the total cost to States of implementing REAL ID to be
$3,965,000,000 over eleven years. This REAL ID grant program is
funded instead of the unauthorized National Security and
Terrorism Prevention grant program proposed by the Department.

INTEROPERABLE EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS GRANTS

The Committee recommends $50,000,000 for interoperable
emergency communications grants, $50,000,000 above the amount
requested and the same as the amount provided in fiscal year
2008. The Committee includes a provision mandating that
application kits be made available to States within 30 days
after enactment of this Act; that States have 45 days to apply
after a grant opportunity is announced; and that FEMA make
grant determinations within 60 days of the application
deadline. FEMA is directed to work with the Office of Emergency
Communications to develop program guidance for these grants.
The Committee is aware that fiscal year 2008 grant guidance
prohibits grantees from using awards for equipment acquisition.
This is in contravention of the Committee's fiscal year 2008
direction to FEMA to award funds pursuant to the 9/11 Act,
which does not preclude purchasing equipment. The Committee
understands that FEMA places priority on leadership and
governance, common planning and operational protocols, and
skills and capabilities. The Committee agrees with this
priority, but States and localities also should be given the
flexibility to purchase equipment if they have made progress or
have separate funding sources to address FEMA's priority areas.
Therefore, the Department is directed to allow States and local
governments to purchase equipment pursuant to requirements in
the 9/11 Act.

EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTERS

The Committee recommends $35,000,000 for Emergency
Operations Centers (EOCs), $35,000,000 above the amount
requested and $20,000,000 above the amount provided in fiscal
year 2008. Funding is available until expended. Funding is
provided for equipping, upgrading, and constructing EOCs
pursuant to section 614 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. The Committee recognizes
the vast needs for EOC funding and provides this funding in
addition to funding States and locals may use from other
Homeland Security grants for the same purpose.
The Committee provides funding for the following Emergency
Operations Center projects in the following amounts:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tensas Parish Police Jury, LA......................... $750,000
City of Rialto, CA.................................... 225,000
Village of Poynette, WI............................... 1,000,000
Sebastian County, AR.................................. 750,000
Lake County, FL....................................... 1,000,000
Sarasota County, FL................................... 1,000,000
Northumberland County, Department of Public Safety, PA 1,000,000
City of Detroit, MI................................... 1,000,000
San Diego Unified School District, San Diego, CA...... 400,000
City of Half Moon Bay, CA............................. 750,000
Chesterfield County, VA............................... 250,000
Spencer County Commissioners, Rockport, IN............ 1,000,000
City of Gladstone, OR................................. 60,000
City of Coral Springs, FL............................. 550,000
Snohomish County, WA.................................. 1,000,000
County of Atlantic, NJ................................ 750,000
City of Rio Vista, CA................................. 150,000
American Red Cross, Sacramento Sierra Chapter, CA..... 35,000
Village of Bellerose, NY.............................. 200,000
Town of Pomona Park, FL............................... 300,000
San Francisco Police Department, CA................... 1,000,000
North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public 1,000,000
Safety, NC...........................................
City of Del Rio, TX................................... 500,000
City of Bell Gardens, CA.............................. 175,000
City of Cudahy, CA.................................... 50,000
The County of Cook, IL................................ 1,000,000
Douglas County, GA.................................... 500,000
City of Richmond, VA.................................. 750,000
Hudson County, NJ..................................... 1,000,000
Marion County, FL..................................... 750,000
City of Miami Beach, FL............................... 1,000,000
Vermont Emergency Management Agency, VT............... 1,000,000
Crittenden County, KY................................. 750,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL PROGRAMS

The Committee recommends $236,000,000 for National
Programs, $91,000,000 above the amount requested and
$63,300,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2008.

NATIONAL DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS CONSORTIUM

Of the funds recommended for National Programs, the
Committee provides $92,000,000 for the National Domestic
Preparedness Consortium, $60,000,000 above the amount requested
and $4,000,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2008.
Consortium members funded in fiscal year 2008 shall each
receive $23,000,000.

CENTER FOR DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS

Of the funds recommended for National Programs, the
Committee provides $47,000,000 for the Center for Domestic
Preparedness, the same as the amount requested and $15,500,000
below the amount provided in fiscal year 2008.

NATIONAL EXERCISE PROGRAM

Of the funds recommended for National Programs, the
Committee provides $40,000,000 for the National Exercise
Program, the same as the amount requested and $10,000,000 below
the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. This program provides
the opportunity for key leaders at the Federal, State, local,
territory and Tribal levels, along with representatives of
nongovernmental organizations and the private sector, to gauge
the level of effectiveness of plans, policies and procedures
for responding to natural disasters and terrorist attacks.
In October 2007, DHS conducted the Top Officials 4 (TOPOFF
4) exercise, involving top officials at every level of
government. TOPOFF 4 used a radiological dispersal device
scenario to test the capabilities of Federal, State, and local
governments. The Department's after action preliminary results
showed difficulties in conducting and coordinating multiple
missions at incident sites and indicated that command
structures were used that did not follow the National Incident
Management System. The Committee is troubled by these results,
given that this exercise took place more than two years after
the response to Hurricane Katrina, for which similar problems
were identified. The Department is directed to provide a
detailed report to the Committee on the Federal, State, and
local issues related to incident management lapses during
TOPOFF 4. Further, OIG shall review changes made by DHS as a
result of problems identified through TOPOFF 4 and make
recommendations for any further improvements needed.

CONTINUING TRAINING GRANTS

Of the funds recommended for National Programs, the
Committee provides $31,000,000 for continuing training grants,
$31,000,000 above the amount requested and equal to the amount
provided in fiscal year 2008. The Committee recommends full
funding for the graduate-level homeland security education
programs currently supported by the Department. The Department
is directed to maintain its strong support for these proven
curricula, and to continue to leverage them where appropriate
as the Department meets the growing need for education within
its own ranks and by States and localities around the Nation.

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

Of the funds recommended for National Programs, the
Committee provides $10,000,000 for technical assistance, the
same as the amount requested and $2,000,000 below the amount
provided in fiscal year 2008. The Committee recognizes that
State and local officials require technical assistance to
ensure that equipment is used properly and to support effective
planning.

EVALUATIONS AND ASSESSMENTS

Of the funds recommended for National Programs, the
Committee provides $16,000,000 for evaluations and assessments,
the same as the amount requested and $3,000,000 below the
amount provided in fiscal year 2008. FEMA shall brief the
Committee every six months on results from completed
evaluations.

EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES

FEMA is directed, in conjunction with the Office of Health
Affairs, to report to the Committee regarding the current state
of disaster preparedness capabilities of emergency medical
service providers and the capabilities required to meet future
preparedness goals. This report is due no later than six months
after the enactment of this Act and shall include an analysis
of the gap between current and target capabilities. FEMA is
directed to include language in its grants guidance requiring
States to include EMS providers in their Statewide Homeland
Security Plans as well as their UASI plans. If a State provides
no funding to EMS providers, the State should justify lack of
funding through demonstrating that related targeted
capabilities have been met or identifying other pressing
priorities.

STOCKPILING OF CRITICAL SUPPLIES

The Committee is concerned with the ability of State and
local governments to provide emergency assistance for the first
72 hours following a large-scale catastrophe--a standard that
FEMA itself believes State and local governments must be
prepared to meet. Therefore, the Committee directs FEMA to
allow Federal homeland security grant recipients to allocate a
reasonable portion of grant funds, as determined by FEMA, for
the stockpiling of critical, emergency provisions, such as
shelf stable food products like Meals Ready to Eat, water, and
basic medical supplies. The Committee encourages FEMA to ensure
that grant applicants have a proper stockpile inventory
management plan in place prior to allocating grant funds for
stockpiling purposes.

Firefighter Assistance Grants

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008....................... $750,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009..................... 300,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 800,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2008................... +50,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009................. +500,000,000
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.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $800,000,000 for Firefighter
Assistance Grants, $500,000,000 above the amount requested and
$50,000,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. Of
this amount, $230,000,000 is for firefighter staffing, as
authorized by section 34 of the Federal Fire Prevention and
Control Act of 1974 (Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency
Response--SAFER). FEMA is directed to continue granting funds
directly to local fire departments and to include the United
States Fire Administration during the grant decision process.
FEMA is also directed to maintain an all-hazards focus and is
prohibited from limiting the list of eligible activities. Funds
are available until September 30, 2010, and no more than 3
percent may be used for administrative expenses.
The Committee continues the requirement for FEMA to peer-
review FIRE and SAFER grant applications that meet criteria
established by FEMA and the Fire Service; to clearly define the
criteria for peer-review in the grant application package; to
rank order applications according to peer-review; and to fund
applications according to their rank order. For those
applicants whose grant applications are not reviewed, FEMA must
provide an official notification detailing why the application
did not meet the criteria for review. The Committee directs
FEMA to encourage applications from multiple fire departments
to enhance regional approaches to firefighting. Such
applications shall not restrict the lead applicant from
submitting, or FEMA from fully considering, a separate
application for the lead applicant's fire department.

Emergency Management Performance Grants

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008....................... $300,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 \1\................. 0
Recommended in the bill \2\........................... 315,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2008................... +15,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009................. +315,000,000
\1\ Proposes to incorporate Emergency Management Performance Grants
into the State and Local Programs account.
\2\ Does not incorporate Emergency Management Performance Grants into
the State and Local Programs account and instead provides a separate
account.

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 $315,000,000 for EMPG,
$315,000,000 above the amount requested and $15,000,000 above
the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. The Committee does not
agree to transfer EMPG to the State and Local Programs account,
continuing instead to fund the EMPG program as a separate
appropriation. EMPG is the one true all-hazard source of
funding for emergency managers.
The Committee directs FEMA to continue EMPG grant practices
used in fiscal year 2007, including a continued emphasis on
all-hazards activities and the inclusion of personnel expenses
and Emergency Operations Centers as eligible uses of funding.

Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008....................... $-505,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009..................... -1,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... -1,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2008................... -495,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009................. 0
MISSION

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

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee provides for the receipt and expenditure of
REPP fees collected as authorized by Public Law 105-276. The
request estimates that fee collections will exceed expenditures
by $1,000,000 in fiscal year 2009.

United States Fire Administration

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008....................... $43,300,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 \1\................. 0
Recommended in the bill \2\........................... 44,979,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2008................... +1,679,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009................. +44,979,000
\1\ Proposes to incorporate the U.S. Fire Administration into the
Management and Administration account.
\2\ Does not incorporate the U.S. Fire Administration into the
Management and Administration account and instead provides a separate
account.

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 $44,979,000 for USFA, $44,979,000
above the amount requested and $1,679,000 above the amount
provided in fiscal year 2008. The Committee includes $1,179,000
to continue implementation of the National Fire Incident
Reporting System (NFIRS), the same amount as requested within
the FEMA Management and Administration account. The Committee
believes NFIRS is directly related to the mission of USFA and
should be managed and operated by USFA. In addition, $500,000
is included to address the deferred maintenance needs of
buildings and facilities on the USFA campus.

Disaster Relief

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 \1\................... $1,400,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009..................... 1,900,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 1,900,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2008................... +500,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009................. 0\1\ Excludes $2,900,000,000 provided as an emergency supplemental
appropriation in fiscal year 2008.

MISSION

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

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,900,000,000 for Disaster
Relief, the same as the amount requested and $500,000,000 above
the amount provided in fiscal year 2008, excluding emergency
funding. The Committee does not approve the separate Disaster
Readiness and Support account. Because the activities
contemplated for that proposed account would be directly
associated with future disasters, the Committee expects those
activities to continue to be funded within the Disaster Relief
account. The Committee includes a provision to allow the
transfer of up to $90,600,000 to FEMA Management and
Administration for the conversion of 298 CORE to permanent
positions. The transfer may not occur until the Committee
receives an implementation plan for converting CORE that
includes an expenditure plan; a hiring schedule; and a list of
positions to be filled by CORE employees, including where they
will be located. The Committee also includes a provision to
allow the transfer of $15,000,000 to OIG for disaster related
audits and investigations.
The Committee is concerned with the accuracy of FEMA's
estimates for Disaster Relief. GAO found (GAO 08-30) that
FEMA's estimates for the final cost of a particular disaster do
not come within ten percent of the actual cost until six months
after the disaster occurs. GAO also found that FEMA ``starts
from scratch'' after each disaster in developing cost
estimates, without using past disasters as a guide. FEMA is
directed to implement the GAO recommendations, including
developing models to estimate predictable costs of non-
hurricane disasters and evaluating the benefits of using
geographically specific averages.
FEMA uses mission assignments (MA) to request support from
other Federal agencies for response related activities.
According to the OIG, past reviews have found that FEMA's
management controls were generally not adequate to ensure that
costs were reasonable; invoices were accurate; deliverables
were met; and proper accounting of Federal property was made.
The Committee understands that FEMA has formed an intra/
interagency MA Working Group to review the system and make
recommendations for improvements. FEMA is directed to brief the
Committee on the group's recommendations by November 2008.
The Committee continues and modifies language requiring
monthly reports detailing information related to Hurricanes
Katrina, Rita, Wilma, and other disasters, including amounts
allocated, obligated and undistributed.

POST-DISASTER HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM (HMGP)

The Committee continues to believe that HMGP is an
effective tool for communities to rebuild in a way that will
prevent loss in future disasters. The total amount of HMGP
funds available to Louisiana under both Hurricane Katrina and
Rita is approximately $1.47 billion. The total amount of HMGP
funds available to Mississippi under Hurricane Katrina is
approximately $413,000,000.
Based on information submitted by FEMA, the Committee is
encouraged that there appears to be some progress in
implementing HMGP in the Gulf Coast. For instance, the
Committee understands that FEMA requested and received a waiver
from the Office of Management and Budget to allow those who
incurred mitigation costs after the hurricane, but before HMGP
was awarded, to recoup costs through HMGP. The State of
Louisiana plans to utilize this new retroactive authority to
provide $30,000 HMGP grants to homeowners for whom the cost of
elevating a home exceeded the elevation funding available under
the Road Home program. The State plans to use $750,000,000 of
its HMGP allocation for this retroactive elevation program. In
addition, the State has either received or been approved for
$250,000,000 in other traditional mitigation projects, such as
the purchase of generators for critical facilities. Mississippi
has identified a total of $413,000,000 in traditional
mitigation projects, including the construction of safe rooms,
elevations of properties, and buyouts of properties.
Although FEMA has made some progress in overcoming
administrative hurdles to evaluating and approving HMGP
applications, significant challenges remain, and the rate of
obligation for program funds in both Louisiana and Mississippi
continues to be low. To date approximately only $128,300,000
has been obligated in Louisiana and only $54,300,000 has been
obligated in Mississippi. The Committee notes that the deadline
for Louisiana and Mississippi to submit applications to FEMA
for HMGP projects is September 1, 2008. Given the continued
challenges related to the rate of project approval and
obligation, the Committee urges FEMA to consider extending this
deadline.

Disaster Assistance Direct Loan Program Account

SUBSIDY
Appropriation, fiscal year 2008....................... $295,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009..................... 295,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 295,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2008................... 0
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009................. 0
LIMITATION ON DIRECT LOANS
Appropriation, fiscal year 2008....................... $25,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009..................... 25,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 25,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2008................... 0
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009................. 0
MISSION

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

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $25,000,000 for the limitation on
direct loans from the Disaster Assistance Direct Loan Program,
pursuant to section 319 of the Stafford Act, and a subsidy of
$295,000 to cover the cost of loans. The Committee includes
$580,000 for the administrative expenses of the program, the
same as the amount requested in the FEMA Management and
Administration account.

Flood Map Modernization Fund

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008....................... $220,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009..................... 150,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 220,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2008................... 0
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009................. 70,000,000
MISSION

The mission of Flood Map Modernization is to modernize,
maintain, and digitize the inventory of over 100,000 of the
nation's flood maps. These flood maps are used to determine
appropriate risk-based premium rates for the National Flood
Insurance Program, complete hazard determinations required for
the nation's lending institutions, and develop appropriate
disaster response plans for Federal, State, and local emergency
management personnel.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $220,000,000 for the Flood Map
Modernization Fund, $70,000,000 above the amount requested and
the same as the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. The
Committee notes that with the funding provided in fiscal year
2008, FEMA will achieve its goal of modernizing maps for 92
percent of the country's population and 65 percent of the land
area. With fiscal year 2009 funding, the Committee expects FEMA
to focus on updating, reviewing, and maintaining maps that have
already been modernized to ensure that flood maps remain
current to accurately reflect flood hazards. The goal shall be
to review and, as necessary, update maps that are three years
past their modernized dates, and to complete necessary updates
no later than five years past their modernized dates to ensure
maps are accurately maintained. To support this goal and to
leverage the use of Federal resources for this activity, the
Committee directs that no less than 20 percent of the funds
provided under this heading be made available for map
maintenance conducted by Cooperating Technical Partners (CTP)
that provide a 25 percent cash match and have a strong record
of working effectively with FEMA on floodplain mapping
activities. Concurrent with the fiscal year 2010 budget
submission, FEMA shall submit to the Committees on
Appropriation a 5-year National Flood Map Maintenance Plan for
fiscal years 2010 to 2014.
When allocating map modernization funds, the Committee
encourages FEMA to prioritize as criteria the number of stream
and coastal miles within the State and the participation of the
State in leveraging non-federal contributions.
The Committee continues to be aware of concerns about the
decision by FEMA to include a note on some flood maps
recommending that property owners in areas behind certified
levees purchase flood insurance. These concerns stem from a
perception that the FEMA note may imply that FEMA is aware of
specific information that casts doubt on the structural
integrity or protection value of particular levees when no such
information exists. The Committee directs FEMA to consult with
stakeholder communities on the current wording of the FEMA note
to ensure that it (1) accurately reflects FEMA's state of
knowledge about the level of protection provided by the
particular levees to which the note is applied, including
identification of levees that provide protection from the 500-
year flood; and (2) clarifies whether or not property owners
are legally required to purchase flood insurance in areas
protected by such levees.
The Committee understands the need for FEMA to utilize
surveys to accurately identify flood plain areas. According to
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the
National Spatial Reference System (NSRS) replaces expensive,
labor-intensive field surveying projects, including flood plain
mapping, with new, timelier and more cost-efficient GPS
technology. NSRS reduces engineering errors and disasters
caused by changing land surfaces due to subsidence, floods,
earthquakes, and other natural events. Post Hurricane Katrina,
FEMA undertook an effort to improve the spatial reference
system for Southern Louisiana using GPS technology to survey
the coast and aid in rebuilding. The Committee notes that other
States are in need of similar surveying efforts and encourages
FEMA to aid States in improving their spatial reference
systems.
The Committee urges the Department of Homeland Security to
conduct flood plain mapping in areas where levees may be used
in the construction of a border wall after such construction.
The Committee understands that roads and other levee-like
structures can, in some cases, serve as effective barriers to
flooding. Where such structures can be shown to provide
protection from flooding, FEMA is directed to work with
communities to fully account for that protection in flood maps.

National Flood Insurance Fund

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008....................... $145,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009..................... 156,599,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 156,599,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2008................... +11,599,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009................. 0
MISSION

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

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee includes bill language providing up to
$49,418,000 for salaries and expenses to administer the NFIF,
the same as the budget request and $3,776,000 above the amount
provided in fiscal year 2008. The Committee includes bill
language providing up to $80,000,000 for the severe repetitive
loss property mitigation pilot program under section 1361A of
the National Flood Insurance Act; $10,000,000 for the
repetitive insurance claims properties under section 1323 of
the National Flood Insurance Act; and $35,700,000 for Flood
Mitigation Assistance under section 1366 of the National Flood
Insurance Act. No less than $107,181,000 is available for flood
plain management and flood mapping. Flood mitigation funds are
available until September 30, 2010, and funding is offset by
premium collections.
The Committee is supportive of FEMA's efforts to assess
coastal maps that are considered outdated and to expand program
management and oversight of the insurance companies and agents
who deliver insurance to customers.
The Committee recognizes the need for adequate flood
insurance, but also understands the effect that paying one
yearly installment has on low to moderate income families.
Thus, the Committee encourages FEMA to implement a pilot
program through which the NFIP would allow low to moderate
income individuals to pay their premium in quarterly
installments.

National Predisaster Mitigation Fund

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008....................... $114,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009..................... 75,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 75,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2008................... -39,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009................. 0
MISSION

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

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $75,000,000 for the National
Predisaster Mitigation Fund (PDM), the same as the amount
requested, and $39,000,000 below the amount provided in fiscal
year 2008. The Committee notes that this program is one of
several mitigation programs run by FEMA, including the
Repetitive Flood Claims grant program, the Flood Mitigation
Assistance program, the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, and
the Severe Repetitive Loss grant program. Each program has a
different authorization, but all aim to mitigate losses from
future disasters. The Committee directs FEMA to report to the
Committee within six months of enactment of this Act on a
mitigation strategy showing how each program contributes to
mitigation goals.
The Committee includes the following predisaster mitigation
projects in the following amounts:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Rainbow City, AL.............................. 1,000,000
Municipality of Murrysville, PA....................... 100,000
Bibb County, Emergency Management Agency, AL.......... 750,000
City of Wynne, AR..................................... 50,000
City of San Diego, CA................................. 1,000,000
Pinellas County, FL................................... 1,000,000
Brigham City (Corporation), UT........................ 650,000
City of Collidge, GA.................................. 80,000
Drywood Township, Garland, KS......................... 35,000
City of Merced, CA.................................... 500,000
City of Newark, DE.................................... 300,000
Adjutant General's Office of Emergency Preparedness, 1,000,000
SC...................................................
Alabama Department of Homeland Security, AL for 90,000
Jackson County.......................................
Harris County Flood Control District, TX.............. 1,000,000
Tarrant County, TX.................................... 1,000,000
City of Chula Vista, CA............................... 400,000
North West, MO Regional Council of Governments........ 300,000
Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL........... 300,000
City of Kannapolis, NC................................ 468,000
Town of Conklin, NY................................... 330,000
County of Hawaii, Civil Defense Agency, HI............ 400,000
City of Berlin, NH.................................... 100,000
City of Trenton, NJ................................... 500,000
Santa Clara Water Valley District, San Jose, CA....... 790,000
City of Houston, TX................................... 200,000
West Jefferson Medical Center, Marrero, LA............ 400,000
Erie County, Sandusky, OH............................. 399,000
Wayne County, Detroit, MI............................. 300,000
New York State Emergency Management Office, NY........ 1,000,000
City of Berkeley, CA.................................. 750,000
City of Taylorsville, KY.............................. 750,000
Westchester and Rockland Counties, NY................. 500,000
Town of Lake Placid, FL............................... 500,000
Tifton-Tift County Emergency Management Agency (EMA), 40,000
GA...................................................
Town of Pembroke Park, FL............................. 400,000
City of Miami, FL..................................... 1,000,000
City of Mission Viejo, CA............................. 850,000
Yardley Borough, PA................................... 500,000
Clark County Emergency Management, WI................. 300,000
County of Essex, NJ................................... 500,000
Val Verde County, Del Rio, TX......................... 500,000
County of Los Angeles, CA............................. 600,000
City of Los Angeles, CA............................... 500,000
City of New Braunfels, TX............................. 360,000
Brown Township Board of Trustees, Malvern, OH......... 247,728
City of Barberton, OH................................. 200,000
Mississippi Homeland Security Office, MS.............. 500,000
Town of North Andover, MA............................. 100,000
Cities of Lake Station and Hobart, IN................. 500,000
City of Owatonna, MN.................................. 400,000
City of Lake City, TN................................. 418,000
Putnam County, FL..................................... 450,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Emergency Food and Shelter

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008....................... $153,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009..................... 100,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 200,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2008................... +47,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009................. +100,000,000
MISSION

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

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $200,000,000 for the Emergency
Food and Shelter Program (EFSP), $100,000,000 above the amount
requested and $47,000,000 above the amount provided in fiscal
year 2008. Up to 3.5 percent may be used for administrative
expenses.
The EFSP provides assistance for those in need of food,
rental assistance, mortgage assistance and shelter. With recent
estimates showing foreclosure rates rising 75 percent from 2006
and food prices rising nearly five percent from last year, the
additional funding provided for EFSP will assist those most in
need of food and shelter assistance, with the goal of
preventing homelessness and hunger.

Cerro Grande Fire Claims

The Committee approves the budget request to rescind
$9,000,000.

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

UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008....................... $80,973,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009..................... 154,540,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 101,740,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2008................... +20,767,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009................. -52,800,000
MISSION

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

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $101,740,000 in discretionary
appropriations for USCIS, $52,800,000 below the requested level
and $20,767,000 above the amount provided in 2008. The
Committee does not fund REAL ID hub development within the
USCIS appropriation and instead funds it in the National
Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD). NPPD manages a
similar identity verification system and also has experience
with data integration projects. The Committee also does not
provide the $4,000,000 requested in the official budget
transmission that was not justified in any of the Department's
supporting materials, and which the Department has informed the
Committee was an error. The Committee provides the requested
$100,000,000 for the E-Verify program (previously called
Employment Eligibility Verification (EEV) or Basic Pilot),
which is $40,000,000 above the amount provided in 2008. The
Committee notes that the Congressional Budget Office recently
estimated that nationwide implementation of the E-Verify system
would cost billions of dollars at USCIS, the Social Security
Administration, and other agencies, and would take several
years to complete. The Committee encourages USCIS to develop a
detailed plan for projected use of the E-Verify system,
including an estimate of costs for each of the government
agencies responsible for managing key aspects of the program,
and a timeline for system completion. To support the mission of
the Office of Citizenship, which was created in USCIS by the
Homeland Security Act to further the rights and
responsibilities of citizenship, the Committee provides
$1,200,000 for grants to community-based organizations that are
located in areas of the country with the highest concentrations
of immigrants. Such grants shall be awarded competitively.

USER FEE FUNDED PROGRAMS

Current estimates of fee collections, which constitute the
majority of USCIS resources, are $2,539,186,000. These revenues
support adjudication of applications for immigration benefits
and fraud prevention activities, and are derived from fees
collected from persons applying for immigration benefits.
Within the total fees collected, the Committee directs USCIS to
provide no less than $53,747,000 to support Customer Service
Center operations, and to dedicate the entirety of premium
processing revenue to business system and information
technology transformation, including converting immigration
records to digital format. No more than $10,000 of the fees
collected shall be used for official reception and
representation expenses.
The Committee reiterates the concerns expressed last year
that fee increases that took effect in 2007 may put the dream
of citizenship out of the reach of many individuals and
families with limited income. In addition, the Committee has
become aware that fee waivers for extraordinary circumstances
are far less available under the new fee rule than under older
regulations. The Committee strongly encourages USCIS to
continue regular reviews of its fee structure to ensure that
revenues do not exceed the necessary costs of USCIS business
operations. The Committee also directs USCIS to review its
policies for fee waivers to ensure that appropriate
consideration is available for those who do not possess the
financial wherewithal to afford the new charges.

ACCURACY OF E-VERIFY

While the Committee provides the requested amount for the
E-Verify system, it is concerned with the high rate of
individuals falsely identified as ineligible to work, as
reported in a recent analysis of the E-Verify system by a
third-party auditing firm. Of particular concern is the
report's conclusion that nearly one in ten naturalized citizens
is reported by E-Verify as non-work authorized. To ensure USCIS
is taking appropriate steps to address these problems, the
Committee directs USCIS to report to the Committees on
Appropriations within 90 days of enactment of this Act on its
plans to improve the accuracy of the E-Verify system.

REFUGEE PROCESSING

The Committee is concerned that the U.S. refugee acceptance
process has not been as effective as it could be in assisting
those who require resettlement. In particular, the Committee
notes that non-government refugee assistance personnel working
in countries with large Iraqi refugee populations have been
given inadequate guidance by USCIS about how to evaluate cases
where refugee applicants may have provided material support to
extremist groups under duress or threat, or to other groups
that may have once been supportive of U.S. causes or
geopolitical goals. The Committee is concerned that provisions
enacted in the 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act expanding
the authorities of the Secretary of Homeland Security to
provide discretionary exemptions to material support
prohibitions on refugee resettlement have not yet been
formalized as departmental policy. The Committee directs USCIS,
in conjunction with the Department of State, to clarify U.S.
Government policy on refugee acceptance related to material
support prohibitions. The Committee further directs USCIS to
provide written policy to its adjudicators who determine
eligibility for discretionary exemptions to material support
prohibitions.

NONIMMIGRANT SPECIALTY WORKER VISA (H-1B) ANALYSIS

The Committee is concerned that the current cap on
nonimmigrant specialty worker (H-1B) visas negatively affects
the nation's ability to remain internationally competitive in
the applied sciences and high-technology industries. The
Committee also notes the importance of ensuring that U.S.
workers are not unfairly displaced or otherwise disadvantaged
by H-1B visa holders. The Committee directs GAO to conduct an
analysis on how the 2008 cap of 65,000 H-1B visas affects the
ability of domestic companies to continue to develop modern
technology and perform innovative scientific research and
development. That analysis, at a minimum, shall include an
assessment of the number of jobs outsourced to overseas
locations due to the H-1B visa cap; the effect of the cap on
domestic investment in basic research and development; an
assessment of the aggregate costs of the H-1B visa cap on U.S.
companies; and the correlation between the H-1B visa program
and the willingness of foreign companies to hire American
workers or work with American companies abroad. GAO should also
report on the current requirements for ensuring that American
workers are not displaced or otherwise disadvantaged by the H-
1B program, and provide an analysis of the expected impact of
an expanded H-1B program on domestic employment.

VISA PROGRAMS AUTHORIZED BY THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT

In the final version of its 2007 fee rule, USCIS provided
for the waiver of application fees for certain visas authorized
under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). These waivers were
provided in recognition that the circumstances in which VAWA
visa applicants often find themselves may make them unable to
pay fees required by the very programs designed to help them.
The Committee is concerned, however, that USCIS did not fully
consider the range of supporting forms required for VAWA visa
applicants. Since the fees associated with these underlying
forms, most notably the I-601 waiver of inadmissibility form
and the I-765 employment authorization form, are not subject to
fee waivers, applicants may still face a financial inability to
participate in a program Congress intended be available to them
for humanitarian reasons. The Committee directs USCIS to review
its policies for fee waivers on forms required to accompany
VAWA visa applications, and to brief the Committee within 60
days of enactment of this Act on steps it is taking to ensure
that financial conditions do not bar VAWA visa applicants from
humanitarian relief authorized by law.

NATURALIZATION CEREMONIES

The Committee directs USCIS to identify, in the 2010 budget
submission, all funds allocated to naturalization and oath of
allegiance ceremonies, including an analysis of historic
expenditures by fiscal year since 2006. In addition, the
Committee directs USCIS to work with local public and private
groups to ensure that naturalization and oath of allegiance
ceremonies are held as part of Independence Day celebrations.

ORPHANS FIRST PROGRAM

The Committee supports the efforts of USCIS and the
Department of State to ensure through the Orphans First program
that children adopted from Vietnam by U.S. parents have not
been fraudulently or erroneously identified as orphans. The
Committee is concerned, however, that significant delays in
verifying the eligibility of some Vietnamese children for
adoption are taking a significant toll on both these children
and the U.S. parents who wish to adopt them. The Committee
urges USCIS to devote additional resources to ensuring the
timely completion of investigations related to verifying the
status of children identified for adoption.

FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING CENTER

Salaries and Expenses

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008....................... $238,076,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009..................... 230,670,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 242,530,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2008................... +4,454,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009................. +11,860,000
MISSION

The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC)
provides the necessary facilities, equipment, and support
services to conduct advanced, specialized, and refresher
training for Federal law enforcement personnel. Specifically,
FLETC serves as an interagency law enforcement training
organization for 83 Federal agencies with personnel located
throughout the United States and its territories. FLETC also
provides services to State, local, and international law
enforcement agencies, and on a space available basis, to other
Federal agencies with related law enforcement missions.
FLETC is headquartered in Glynco, GA and has facilities in
Artesia, NM and Charleston, SC. Each of these facilities is
designed primarily for residential training operations. A
fourth training facility is located in Cheltenham, MD, and
provides in-service and re-qualification training for officers
and agents in the Washington, DC area.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $242,530,000 for FLETC,
$11,860,000 above the amount requested and $4,454,000 above the
amount provided in fiscal year 2008. Funding includes an
additional $2,000,000 to leverage Department of Defense
modeling and simulation technologies to improve FLETC's
simulated training capabilities; an additional $2,200,000 for
instructors for United States Capitol Police training needs;
and an additional $5,640,000 for basic training of 734
additional CBP Officers. The Committee also encourages FLETC to
examine new technology that allows for cost-effective
maintenance of firearms.
The Committee does not include the requested transfer of
$1,290,000 for the Office of Federal Law Enforcement Training
Accreditation Board and seven FTEs from FLETC to the Chief
Human Capital Officer. Additionally, the Committee does not
support the proposal to eliminate $730,000 in funding for the
FLETC Washington, DC Office.

Acquisitions, Construction, Improvements, and Related Expenses

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008....................... $50,590,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009..................... 43,456,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 43,456,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2008................... -7,134,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009................. 0
MISSION

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

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $43,456,000 for Acquisitions,
Construction, Improvements, and Related Expenses, the same as
the amount requested and $7,134,000 below the amount provided
in fiscal year 2008. The decrease is due to a deletion of one-
time costs.

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Management and Administration

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008....................... $138,600,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009..................... 132,100,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 132,100,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2008................... -6,500,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009................. 0
MISSION

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

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $132,100,000 for Science and
Technology Management and Administration, the same amount as
requested and $6,500,000 below the amount provided in fiscal
year 2008. The Committee recommendation includes the requested
transfer of 124 FTEs from this account to laboratory facilities
in the Research, Development, Acquisition, and Operations
appropriation. These 124 FTEs are Federal employees located at
the Plum Island Animal Disease Center, the Transportation
Security Laboratory and the Environmental Measurements
Laboratory. With this transfer, the Management and
Administration appropriation will be limited to headquarters
FTEs only. Within the level appropriated, sufficient funding
has been provided to annualize FTEs hired in 2008.

Research, Development, Acquisition, and Operations

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008....................... $691,735,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009..................... 736,737,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 754,897,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2008................... +63,162,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009................. +18,160,000
MISSION

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

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $754,897,000 for Research,
Development, Acquisition, and Operations (RDA&O), $18,160,000
above the amount requested and $63,162,000 above the amount
provided in fiscal year 2008. A comparison of the budget
estimate to the Committee recommended level by budget activity
is as follows:

BORDER AND MARITIME SECURITY

The Committee recommends $30,300,000 for border and
maritime security, $5,000,000 below the amount requested and
$4,821,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. The
Committee does not include the funding requested for new
maritime technologies. This work is more appropriately handled
by Coast Guard within its Research, Development, Test, and
Evaluation account.
The Committee continues to believe that a viable container
security device (CSD) is an essential tool within an effective
cargo supply chain security regime. The Committee is aware of
CBP's and S&T's current efforts to ``monitor the state of
technology to acquire and test the most promising commercial-
off-the-shelf solutions for container security and in-bond
shipments'', as per the Department's report submitted to the
Committee on April 10, 2008. Despite these efforts, however,
the progress of CSD development has been unacceptably slow. S&T
is directed, in conjunction with CBP, to provide quarterly
updates to the Committee beginning on October 15, 2008, on its
efforts to explore a viable CSD solution.

COMMAND, CONTROL, AND INTEROPERABILITY

The Committee recommends $62,390,000 for command, control,
and interoperability, the same level as requested and
$5,410,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2008.
Within the funds provided, the Committee includes $3,000,000 as
requested and encourages S&T to continue its web distributed
environment for critical infrastructure decision making
exercises. Well planned cyber attacks could have devastating
consequences on America's economy, especially if they were to
substantially disrupt the financial services,
telecommunications, transportation, energy, and other critical
infrastructures that are highly reliant on advanced computer
and information technology. This project addresses the
vulnerabilities of these key sectors of our economy to low
probability, high consequence attacks.

FIRST RESPONDER COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT STANDARDS

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

EXPLOSIVES

The Committee recommends $96,149,000 for explosives, the
same level as requested and $18,495,000 above the amount
provided in fiscal year 2008. This program has grown by
$32,400,000 over the past two years, largely for research and
development on improvised explosive devices (IED). With the
2009 funding increase, S&T plans to identify near-term
technological improvements to prevent, reduce or eliminate the
consequences of IEDs in less than five years. While the
Committee is extremely supportive of this effort, the Committee
urges S&T to accelerate its efforts to achieve results in the
nearer term, within the next one or two years.

INFRASTRUCTURE AND GEOPHYSICAL

The Committee recommends $48,816,000 for infrastructure and
geophysical, $11,000,000 above the amount requested and
$15,684,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2008.
Within the funds provided is $11,000,000 for the National
Institute for Hometown Security to support existing work in
research, development and application of technology for
community-based critical infrastructure protection solutions.
The Committee includes the requested $4,000,000 for
continued development of emergency responder tracking,
monitoring and rescue systems. Such systems would permit
incident commanders to wirelessly locate, track, and monitor
individual first responders throughout multi-story structures
in real-time. This would allow incident commanders to make
decisions that would save lives and help meet the 2005 U.S.
Fire Administration's goal of reducing line-of-duty deaths by
25 percent in 2010. The Committee encourages S&T to consider
providing additional resources to investigate alternative
technologies to ensure that monitoring can be successfully
carried out in diverse environments and under varied
circumstances. For instance, a successful monitoring technology
would be capable of accurately monitoring the location and
health status of an individual first responder who is isolated
from other first responders during an emergency response.

INNOVATION

The Committee recommends $38,660,000 for innovation,
$6,340,000 below the amount requested and $5,660,000 above the
amount provided in fiscal year 2008. A reduction to this
program has been made due to a lack of budgetary details on the
initiatives that will be funded in 2009.

NEW TECHNOLOGIES

New technologies may significantly help the Department as
it seeks to secure our homeland. The Committee encourages S&T
to assess technologies such as gallium nitride-based multi-
mission phased array radar; gunshot detection and
classification systems; passive and active biological chemical
sensors at seaports; handheld x-ray imaging devices; mono-
energetic gamma resonant imaging and detection systems;
technologies to thwart radio-controlled improvised explosive
devices using geospatial analysis tools; smart sensor and
microsystem technologies for high threat problem-solving;
remote border intrusion sensing technology; blast mitigation
modeling and simulation tools; maturation of existing command
and control systems using modular, distributable, standards-
based and information-centric decision architecture; enhanced
three dimensional backscatter x-ray for use in cargo container
inspection; near real-time interactive tools for mapping flood
hazards; and enzyme-based technology for explosive detection.

LABORATORY FACILITIES

The Committee recommends $151,940,000 for laboratory
facilities, $5,000,000 above the amount requested and
$48,126,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. The
Committee funds 124 existing FTEs within the laboratory
facilities account, as requested, because these individuals
work directly for S&T laboratories. In the past, these FTEs
have been funded within the Management and Administration
appropriation. Within this appropriation, $35,600,000 is
included to begin detailed design for the National Bio and
Agro-defense Facility (NBAF) and its supporting infrastructure
in 2009 and $15,000,000 is included for ongoing construction at
Area 300 of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, pursuant
to the multi-agency memorandum of understanding.
The Committee is concerned about a recent GAO report that
DHS has neither conducted nor commissioned a study to determine
whether work on foot-and-mouth disease can be done safely on
the U.S. mainland. Instead, DHS relied on a 2002 Department of
Agriculture study that addressed a different question and did
not assess the past history of releases of this virus or other
dangerous pathogens. New bill language prohibits the obligation
of funds for the new NBAF facility design and construction
until S&T completes a risk analysis of whether foot-and-mouth
disease work can be done safely on the mainland, and GAO
reviews this risk analysis.

MULTI-FUNCTION PHASED ARRAY RADARS

The Committee remains aware that many of the surveillance
radars used by a number of Federal agencies around the country
will near the end of their design life during the next decade.
The multi-agency Multifunctional Phased Array Radar Working
Group within the office of the Federal Coordinator of
Meteorological Services is charged with facilitating the
development of next-generation radars based on advanced
technologies, such as high efficiency radio frequency power
amplifiers, highly efficient power management systems, more
efficient radar transmit-receive modules, and improved
processing systems and algorithms. This new generation of radar
will have important applications for DHS missions and the
related missions of other Federal agencies, including
improvements in hazardous weather and flood forecasts; land-
falling hurricane and tornado prediction and warning; rapid
identification of chemical and biological contaminant plumes;
wildfire management; airspace surveillance for non-cooperative
aircraft incursions; and control of unmanned aerial systems.
While the Committee applauds this multi-agency initiative, it
is concerned that the pace of current efforts may not be
sufficient to achieve the Working Group's objectives. The
Committee encourages DHS to remain actively involved in the
activities of the Working Group and to contribute to the
development of requirements and competitive critical
demonstrations of key multi-function phased array radar
technologies.

TEST, EVALUATION AND STANDARDS

The Committee recommends $28,674,000 for test, evaluation
and standards, $4,000,000 above the budget request and $154,000
above the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. Within this
amount, the Committee provides $5,000,000 to develop an
operational test and evaluation program for first responder
technologies so that there is a unified effort to objectively
evaluate products against identified, minimum requirements.

TRANSITION

The Committee recommends $33,830,000 for transition,
$2,000,000 above the budget request and $8,565,000 above the
amount provided in fiscal year 2008. The Committee is aware of
numerous challenges confronting industry in keeping up with the
growing demand for critical homeland security equipment, and
the fact that such challenges have contributed to expenditure
delays in State and local first responder funding. Therefore,
within the funds provided is $2,000,000 to establish a pilot
program to identify and transition advanced technologies and
manufacturing processes that would achieve significant
productivity and efficiency gains in the homeland security
industrial base.

UNIVERSITY PROGRAMS

The Committee recommends $51,270,000 for university
programs, $7,500,000 above the amount requested and $1,973,000
above the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. Within this
funding level, a total of $36,720,000 has been provided for the
Centers of Excellence, $4,500,000 above the budget request. In
addition, the Committee provides $2,000,000 to continue an
ongoing memorandum of understanding with the Naval Postgraduate
School. Finally, the Committee has provided sufficient funding
to maintain the fellows program at the same level as provided
in fiscal year 2008.
The Committee is concerned that the office of university
programs does not request sufficient funding to support the
research missions of its Centers of Excellence. The Committee
notes that in each of the last two years, the budget either
proposed reductions in funding for previously established
Centers to establish new Centers and/or reductions to overall
program funding. This seriously undermines the ability of the
Centers to contribute to the research mission of the Department
and the protection of the homeland.
Within the recommended level for university programs is
$3,900,000 for minority serving institutions, as requested. S&T
should explore ways to prepare minority youth for careers in
homeland security by promoting skills and educational curricula
in this field, and report back to the Committee by February 25,
2009, on these efforts.
In addition, the Committee encourages S&T to consider
working with non-profit organizations that are focused on
preparing minority youth for civil service careers and that may
already be working with some of the participating institutions.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING PROJECTS

The Committee is aware of extensive efforts underway by the
Department of Defense Research and Engineering (DDRE)
Directorate that may have applications for homeland security
missions, including research into tunnel detection and
bioterrorism. S&T is directed to brief the Committee no later
than November 3, 2008, on how it is collaborating with DDRE on
the discovery of technical homeland security solutions.

UNOBLIGATED BALANCES

For the past few years, S&T has had high unexpended
obligations in its Research, Development, Acquisition and
Operations (RDA&O) account. The Committee understands that the
Directorate has made efforts to reduce these balances and has
initiated a quarterly review to identify unused funds for work
that has yet to be performed and funds where S&T has not been
billed but work has been completed. In the past, GAO has
identified high undelivered order balances for work S&T has
sponsored at the Department of Energy's national laboratories,
which accounts for 30 to 40 percent of total RDA&O funding.
Although it is unclear how much of the unexpended obligations
may be in excess of program needs, it is possible that some
funding may be identified and returned to the S&T account from
which it was originally derived. The Committee directs S&T to
report the results of its quarterly validation and verification
reviews, the amount available to deobligate, and identify how
S&T plans to use these funds. In addition, S&T shall submit,
with its 2010 budget justification, a report on its unexpended
obligated balances and justify instances where high undelivered
order balances occur.

DOMESTIC NUCLEAR DETECTION OFFICE

Management and Administration

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008....................... $31,500,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009..................... 38,900,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 35,475,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2008................... +3,975,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009................. -3,425,000
MISSION

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

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $35,475,000 for Management and
Administration, $3,425,000 below the amount requested and
$3,975,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. The
Committee has not funded the budget request for seven new full-
time equivalent (FTEs) employees in fiscal year 2009. Halfway
through fiscal year 2008, DNDO has not hired any of the new
FTEs funded in 2008 and is currently below the 2007 FTE level.
It is premature for the Committee to approve new FTEs until
DNDO can fill its current vacancies.

Research, Development, and Operations

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008....................... $323,500,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009..................... 334,200,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 333,200,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2008................... +9,700,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009................. -1,000,000
MISSION

The Research, Development, and Operations appropriation
funds all DHS nuclear detection research, development, test,
evaluation and operational support activities. DNDO has
developed a global nuclear detection architecture that the
Federal government will use to detect and report attempts to
import or transport a nuclear device or fissile or radiological
material intended for illicit use. DNDO is continuing to
improve the domestic portion of this architecture through an
integrated research, development, test, and evaluation program,
while providing support to current operations.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $333,200,000 for Research,
Development, and Operations, $1,000,000 below the amount
requested and $9,700,000 above amount provided in fiscal year
2008. A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:

NEXT THREATS

While DNDO has been able to expedite the procurement and
deployment of radiation detection technologies to scan cargo
for radioactive and nuclear materials at our seaports and land
ports of entry, other vulnerabilities still exist. Beginning
last year, the Committee funded pilots and assessments of new
technologies to reduce vulnerabilities at airports, from
general aviation aircraft, in the maritime environment, in rail
yards, and at non-ports of entry land borders. Consistent with
direction in the 2008 statement of managers, DNDO shall
continue to brief the Committees on Appropriations on the
progress it has made in identifying the necessary architecture
for these technologies, the strengths and weaknesses of these
technologies, and a timetable for developing and deploying
them. As part of the small maritime craft assessments, DNDO is
encouraged to assess underwater detection technologies that can
be used for security scanning at U.S. ports. The Committee is
aware of at least one technology that may be able to detect
special nuclear materials using submersible remotely operated
vehicles that would travel underneath vessels at ports or in
open waters.

SCREENING CARGO CONTAINERS

The Committee directs DNDO to submit a report to the
Committees on Appropriations by May 1, 2009, that explains the
plan for achieving 100 percent scanning of all cargo containers
entering the United States, as mandated by P.L. 109-347. This
report should specifically detail the progress of the cargo
advanced automated radiography system, which is intended to
test, deploy, and install x-ray scanning capability at the
nation's ports. This report should also explain the process for
soliciting requests from all eligible technology companies,
including minority, women, and veteran-owned technology
businesses, and the status of implementing that process.

SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT OF CRANE-BASED TECHNOLOGIES

Within the $108,100,000 provided for systems development,
the Committee provides $15,000,000 to support the development
of on-dock rail solutions as requested. Last year, the
Committee encouraged the testing of crane mounted radiation
detection technologies in cooperation with CBP. Depending on
the results of these performance tests, this technology may
support on-dock rail applications. The Committee encourages
DNDO, in conjunction with CBP, to continue development,
engineering, and testing efforts for both straddle carriers and
crane-mounted sensors and portals that can be used in the rail
environment as well as in shipyards.

RED TEAM EXERCISES AND ASSESSMENTS

Within the assessments budget, $9,900,000 is provided for
red teaming and net assessments, $100,000 above amount provided
in fiscal year 2008 and the same level as requested. DNDO
should continue to conduct covert operations to assess the
effect of preventative radiological and/or nuclear capabilities
on an adversary's behavior; conduct covert and overt operations
to measure performance of preventative radiological and/or
nuclear capabilities; test the effectiveness of operations,
protocols, training, communications and technical support; and
capture lessons learned to overcome weaknesses found. DNDO is
directed to continue to report quarterly on red team exercises
and assessments, vulnerabilities identified, and changes that
are being made to the system to address these vulnerabilities.

NATIONAL TECHNICAL NUCLEAR FORENSICS CENTER

The Committee recommends $16,900,000 for the National
Technical Nuclear Forensics Center, $1,000,000 below the amount
requested and $1,900,000 above the amount provided in fiscal
year 2008. Funding has been halved for the new fellowship
program proposed in this year's budget because this program
should be introduced on a small scale and grow based on
performance.
Within the amount recommended, the Committee fully funds
the National Technical Nuclear Forensics Center. The Committee
recognizes the important role that nuclear forensics plays in
the attribution of interdicted or detonated nuclear material to
its source. The research and analysis coordinated by the
National Technical Forensics Center supports law enforcement
and emergency response and deters prospective nuclear
proliferators.

RISK ASSESSMENT ON RADIOLOGICAL DISPERSION DEVICES

Radiological materials used in medical, industrial,
academic, and other facilities must be secured to prevent theft
of a radiological dispersion device for possible use by
terrorists. The Committee directs DNDO, in conjunction with the
Secretary of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, to
conduct a risk assessment regarding the threat, vulnerability,
and consequences related to the theft or other procurement of
radiological materials that could be used by a terrorist in a
radiological dispersion device. This assessment shall: (1)
consider relevant studies previously prepared by other Federal
agencies or other reputable sources; (2) focus on those
radiological materials that constitute the greatest risk; (3)
consider the potential radiological dispersion device value of
different radiological materials including availability,
dispersability, and ease of handling such materials; (4)
consider the vulnerability for theft or other procurement that
different facilities represent; and (5) consider the
consequences of a successful radiological dispersion device
attack, including risk of death or injury and economic losses.
This assessment shall be submitted to the Committees on
Appropriations no later than April 30, 2009, and may be
submitted in a classified format.

Systems Acquisition

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008....................... $129,750,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009..................... 190,700,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 175,700,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2008................... +45,950,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009................. -15,000,000
MISSION

The Systems Acquisition appropriation provides for the
acquisition and deployment of radiation detection technologies
to the Nation's ports of entry (POEs), along our borders, and
in urban areas. To carry out this mission, DNDO will acquire a
full range of radiation detection technologies, including
fixed, mobile, and relocatable radiation portal monitors and
backpack and handheld detection systems.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $175,700,000 for Systems
Acquisition, $15,000,000 below the amount requested and
$45,950,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. A
comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee recommended
level by budget activity is as follows:

RADIATION PORTAL MONITOR PROGRAM

The Committee recommends $142,700,000 for the radiation
portal monitor program, $15,000,000 below the amount requested
and $52,700,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2008.
Beginning with the fiscal year 2007 Appropriations Act, the
Committee has prohibited the obligation of funding to procure
advanced spectroscopic portal (ASP) systems until the Secretary
of DHS certifies that these systems are more effective than the
traditional radiation portal monitors. Certification has been
repeatedly delayed due to substantive issues that must be
addressed. At this time, DNDO does not anticipate that
certification will occur until the end of fiscal year 2008.
DNDO reports that the Secretary may certify one ASP
vendor's system while the others are still undergoing testing
and evaluation. This is likely to result in the procurement of
fewer systems in 2009 because of the time it will take the
vendors to ramp up their production lines after certification
occurs. As a result, the Committee has reduced funding for this
effort by $10,000,000. In addition, the Committee has not
included the $5,000,000 requested for the ASP block upgrade to
version 5.0. It is premature to provide this funding until it
is clear that ASPs will be certified as operationally more
effective than the current radiation portal monitors.
Consistent with direction in prior years, if the Secretary is
unable to certify that ASP systems are more effective than
current systems, DNDO should use its fiscal year 2009 funding
to acquire traditional polyvinyl toluene (PVT) radiation portal
monitors.

NORTHERN BORDER

Originally, DNDO planned to screen 100 percent of all
containerized cargo entering U.S. seaports for radiation by
2013. Using additional funding Congress provided in the 2007
supplemental and reallocated funding from previous
appropriations, DNDO now estimates that this goal can be
reached by the end of calendar year 2009. The Committee has
fully funded the 2009 budget request, totaling $39,300,000, to
procure 240 PVT systems and deploy them to all remaining
Northern border sites by the end of calendar year 2009.

SECURING THE CITIES

In total, the Committee provides $30,000,000 for the
Securing the Cities program, including $20,000,000 for systems
acquisition and $10,000,000 for research, development and
operations. This is the same level as requested in fiscal year
2009. With this funding, DNDO plans to conduct operational
tests and evaluations of the system, assess its effectiveness,
and analyze whether it should be applied to other cities in the
United States. DNDO is directed to keep the Committees on
Appropriations regularly informed about its efforts in this
area and urges the timely submission of the Securing the Cities
strategic plan.

HUMAN PORTABLE RADIATION DETECTION SYSTEMS

The Committee funds the $13,000,000 requested to acquire
human portable radiation detection systems. This funding level
will permit DNDO to acquire 339 portable radiation detection
units (handheld and backpacks) to be used by CBP officers, 149
back-pack and sodium iodide based detectors to be used by the
Coast Guard, and 114 backpack and hand held units to be used as
part of two small craft maritime pilot projects in San Diego,
California, and Puget Sound, Washington. The Committee also
encourages DNDO to begin discussions with TSA to determine if
this type of technology would be useful to the Visible
Intermodal Protection Response teams and, if so, to begin pilot
deployments.

TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Section 501. The Committee continues a provision providing
that no part of any appropriation shall remain available for
obligation beyond the current year unless expressly provided.
Section 502. The Committee continues a provision providing
that unexpended balances of prior appropriations may be merged
with new appropriation accounts and used for the same purpose,
subject to reprogramming guidelines.
Section 503. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision providing reprogramming authority for funds within an
account and not to exceed 5 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, 2009.
Section 504. The Committee continues a provision that
prohibits funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the
Department to make payment to the Department's Working Capital
Fund, except for activities and amounts allowed in the
President's fiscal year 2008 budget, excluding sedan service,
shuttle service, transit subsidy, mail operations, parking, and
competitive sourcing. Additional activities are subject to
approval.
Section 505. The Committee continues a provision providing
that not to exceed 50 percent of unobligated balances remaining
at the end of fiscal year 2009 from appropriations made for
salaries and expenses shall remain available through fiscal
year 2010 subject to reprogramming guidelines.
Section 506. The Committee continues a provision providing
that funds for intelligence activities are deemed to be
specifically authorized during fiscal year 2009 until the
enactment of an Act authorizing intelligence activities for
fiscal year 2009.
Section 507. The Committee continues a provision requiring
notification of the Committees on Appropriations three days
before grant allocations, discretionary grant awards,
discretionary contract awards, or a letter of intent totaling
$1,000,000 or more is announced by the Department. The
Department is required to brief the Committees on
Appropriations five full business days prior to announcing the
intention to make formula-based State Homeland Security grants
and Urban Area Security Initiatives. Notification shall include
a description of the project or projects to be funded,
including city, county and state.
Section 508. The Committee continues a provision providing
that no agency shall purchase, construct, or lease additional
facilities for federal law enforcement training without advance
approval of the Committees on Appropriations.
Section 509. The Committee continues a provision providing
that none of the funds may be used for any construction,
repair, alteration, and acquisition project for which a
prospectus, if required under chapter 33 of title 40, United
States Code, has not been approved except funds for the
development of a proposed prospectus.
Section 510. The Committee continues longstanding
provisions contained in previous Appropriations Acts into
fiscal year 2009. These provisions relate to the Buy American
Act; reporting requirements of the privacy officer; contracting
officer's technical representative training; Sensitive Security
Information; replacement patrol boat (FRC-B) program; federal
building performance and requirements outlined in title V of
the National Energy Conservation Policy Act or subtitle A of
title I of the Energy Policy Act of 2005; 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; use of
funds in conformance with section 303 of the Energy Policy Act
of 1992; Executive Order 13149, relating to fleet and
transportation efficiency; and linking all contracts that
provide award fees to successful acquisition outcomes.
Section 511. The Committee continues a provision regarding
Secure Flight.
Section 512. The Committee continues a provision mandating
that no funds can be used to contract out the services provided
by United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
immigration information officers, contact representatives, or
investigative assistants.
Section 513. The Committee continues a provision directing
the Secretary to research, develop, and procure new
technologies to inspect and screen air cargo and to utilize
existing checked baggage explosive detection equipment and
screeners to screen cargo on passenger aircraft where
practicable at each airport. In addition, language requires TSA
to work with air carriers and airports to ensure that the
screening of cargo carried on passenger aircraft, as required
by the 9/11 Act, increases incrementally each quarter. The
Committee requires quarterly submission of air cargo inspection
statistics detailing incremental progress.
Section 514. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision that directs that any funds appropriated or
transferred to TSA ``Aviation Security'', ``Administration'',
and ``Transportation Security Support'' in fiscal years 2004,
2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008, 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 section notification.
The Committee also requires quarterly reports on recovered or
deobligated funds.
Section 515. The Committee continues a provision that
extends the authorization of the Department's Working Capital
Fund through fiscal year 2009.
Section 516. The Committee continues a provision requiring
the Chief Financial Officer to submit monthly budget execution
and staffing reports within 45 days after the close of each
month.
Section 517. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision relating to undercover investigative operations
authority of the Secret Service for fiscal year 2009.
Section 518. The Committee continues a provision regarding
the enforcement of section 4025(1) of Public Law 108-458.
Section 519. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision prohibiting the Secretary of Homeland Secretary from
reducing the Coast Guard's civil engineering program except as
specifically authorized in statute after enactment of this Act.
Section 520. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision prohibiting the obligation of funds to the Office of
the Secretary and Executive Management, Office of the Under
Secretary, or Office of the Chief Financial Officer for grants
or contracts awarded by any means other than competitively.
Certain exceptions apply. The Secretary may waive the
application in a national emergency, with notification to the
Committees on Appropriations. The bill also requires the
Inspector General to review departmental contracts awarded
noncompetitively and report on the results to the Committees on
Appropriations.
Section 521. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision prohibiting funds for any position designated as a
Principal Federal Official (PFO). The position shall not be
designated for a Robert T. Stafford Act declared disaster or
emergency or at the same time as any Federal Coordinating
Officer (FCO). This prohibition on PFOs shall apply to PFOs,
any successors to that position and any similar position
created by the Department.
The Committee remains concerned that the Department has not
defined a clear role for the PFO and that the position
conflicts with the FCO's role during Presidentially-declared
disasters and emergencies. States and emergency management
officials have also expressed concern that use of both an FCO
and PFO lead to confusion in the field following disasters and
undermines FEMA's emergency management role. The prohibition
does not apply to major non-Stafford Act responses that may
include a Stafford Act component. In instances when a PFO is
designated, the Department is expected to work with State and
local governments and other Federal partners to clearly define
the role of the PFO and ensure there is no conflict with the
well-tested role of the FCO.
Section 522. The Committee continues a provision
prohibiting funding to grant an immigration benefit to any
individual unless the results of background checks legally
required to be completed prior to the grant of the benefit have
been received by DHS.
Section 523. The Committee continues a provision
prohibiting use of funds to destroy or put to pasture any horse
or other equine belonging to the Federal Government unless
adoption has been offered first.
Section 524. The Committee continues a provision
prohibiting funds made available to the Office of the Secretary
and Executive Management to be expended for any new hires that
are not verified through the basic pilot program under section
401 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act.
Section 525. The Committee continues a provision
prohibiting funds available in this Act from being used to
implement a rule or regulation which implements the notice of
proposed rulemaking related to Petitions for Aliens to Perform
Temporary Nonagricultural Services or Labor (H-2B) set out
beginning on 70 Federal Register 3984 (January 27, 2005).
Section 526. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision extending other transactional authority of DHS
through fiscal year 2009. Language requires the Secretary to
issue policy guidance detailing the appropriate use of other
transaction authority and provide additional training to each
employee that has authority to handle procurements under other
transaction authority. The Committee also includes reporting
requirements for projects in which this authority was used.
Section 527. The Committee includes a new provision
relating to the liquidation of Plum Island assets if the site
is not chosen for the new National Bio and Agro-defense
Facility and how proceeds from this sale may be applied.
Section 528. The Committee includes a new provision that
prohibits the delegation of authority unless delegation is
specifically authorized.
Section 529. The Committee includes a new provision
requiring the Secretary to submit a listing of programs,
projects, and activities by account, including amounts, from
which all reprogramming will be based.
Section 530. The Committee includes a new provision
pertaining to the human resource management system.
Section 531. The Committee includes a new provision
requiring the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consolidation
with the Secretary of Treasury, to notify the Committees on
Appropriations 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 532. The Committee includes a new provision
prohibiting funds for grants or contracts that do not comply
with subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 40.
Section 533. The Committee includes a new provision
pertaining to alien flight school training.
Section 534. The Committee includes a new provision on
unmanned aerial systems.
Section 535. The Committee continues a provision relating
to prescription drugs.
Section 536. The Committee includes a new provision
permitting the Secretary to utilize cost savings from any
recovered or deobligated funds or from staffing shortfalls for
fuel costs that exceed the amount requested in fiscal year
2009.
Section 537. The Committee includes a new provision
requiring the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security
(Transportation Security Administration) to certify that no
security risks will result if an airport does not participate
in the basic pilot program.

TITLE VI--ADDITIONAL DIASTER ASSISTANCE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008 FOR
MIDWESTERN UNITED STATES AND OTHER PURPOSES

The Committee includes a new Title VI providing emergency
funding for loans for additional disaster assistance for the
Midwestern United States.

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.

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.................. $15,000,000 Disaster Relief Fund........... $15,000,000
FEMA, Management and Administration.......... 90,600,000 Disaster Relief Fund........... 90,600,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acquisition, Construction and Improvements/Vertical $20,000,000
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle...............................
Cerro Grande Fire Claims............................... 9,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1)(B) of rule XIII 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

Clause 3(c)(2) of Rule XIII and 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
following table.

[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
302(b) allocation This bill
---------------------------------------------------
Budget Budget
authority Outlays authority Outlays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General purpose discretionary............................... 42,075 42,390 42,075 42,377
Mandatory................................................... 1,152 1,148 1,152 1,148
Total................................................... 43,227 43,538 43,227 43,525
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes outlays from prior year budget authority.

FIVE YEAR OUTLAY PROJECTIONS

In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of Rule XIII and section
308(a)(1)(B) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (Public
Law 93-344), as amended, the following table contains five-year
projections associated with the budget authority provided in
the accompanying bill:

[In millions of dollars]

Outlays:
2009................................................ \1\ 24,054
2010................................................ 7,537
2011................................................ 5,690
2012................................................ 2,321
2013 and future years............................... 1,230

\1\ Excludes outlays from prior year budget authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ASSISTANCE TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

In accordance with clause 3(c)(2) of Rule XIII and section
308(a)(1)(C) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (Public
Law 93-344), as amended, the financial assistance to state and
local governments is as follows:

[In millions of dollars]

FY 2009 New Budget Authority............................ 4,983
FY 2009 outlays resulting therefrom..................... 461

Constitutional Authority

Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives states that:

Each report of a committee on a bill or joint
resolution of a public character, shall include a
statement citing the specific powers granted to the
Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed
by the bill or joint resolution.

The Committee on Appropriations bases its authority to
report this legislation from Clause 7 of Section 9 of Article I
of the Constitution of the United States of America that
states:

No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in
consequence of Appropriations made by law . . .

Appropriations contained in this Act are made pursuant to
this specific power granted by the Constitution.

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII off 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.

Congressional Earmarks

The following table is submitted in compliance with clause
9 of Rule XXI, and lists the congressional earmarks (as defined
in paragraph (d) of clause 9) contained in the bill or in this
report. Neither the bill nor the report contain any limited tax
benefits or limited tariff benefits as defined in paragraph (e)
or (f) of 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

* * * * * * *

GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS CHAPTER

* * * * * * *

Sec. 1202. (a) The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
may, for a period ending not later than December 31, [2010]
2011, appoint and maintain a cadre of up to 350 Federal
annuitants: (1) without regard to any provision of title 5,
United States Code, which might otherwise require the
application of competitive hiring procedures; and (2) who shall
not be subject to any reduction in pay (for annuity allocable
to the period of actual employment) under the provisions of
section 8344 or 8468 of such title 5 or similar provision of
any other retirement system for employees. A reemployed Federal
annuitant as to whom a waiver of reduction under paragraph (2)
applies shall not, for any period during which such waiver is
in effect, be considered an employee for purposes of subchapter
III of chapter 83 or chapter 84 of title 5, United States Code,
or such other retirement system (referred to in paragraph (2))
as may apply.

* * * * * * *

----------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007

(Public Law 109-295)

AN ACT Making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes.

* * * * * * *

TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

* * * * * * *

Sec. 532. (a) United States Secret Service Use of Proceeds
Derived From Criminal Investigations.--During fiscal year
[2008] 2009, with respect to any undercover investigative
operation of the United States Secret Service (hereafter
referred to in this section as the ``Secret Service'') that is
necessary for the detection and prosecution of crimes against
the United States--
(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

----------

HOMELAND SECURITY ACT OF 2002

* * * * * * *

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

* * * * * * *

Subtitle D--Acquisitions

SEC. 831. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS.

(a) Authority.--[Until September 30, 2008,] Until September
30, 2009 and subject to subsection (d), the Secretary may carry
out a pilot program under which the Secretary may exercise the
following authorities:
(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(d) Additional Requirements.--
(1) In general.--The authority of the Secretary under
this section shall terminate September 30, 2008, unless
before that date the Secretary--
(A) issues policy guidance detailing the
appropriate use of that authority; and
(B) provides additional 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 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)] (e) 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).

* * * * * * *

----------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004

(Public Law 108-90)

AN ACT Making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes.

* * * * * * *

TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

* * * * * * *

Sec. 520. (a) Fees.--For fiscal year 2004 and thereafter, the
Secretary of Homeland Security shall charge reasonable fees for
providing credentialing and background investigations in the
field of transportation: Provided, That the establishment and
collection of fees shall be subject to the following
requirements:
(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(b) Recurrent Training of Aliens in Operation of Aircraft.--
(1) Process for reviewing threat assessments.--
Notwithstanding section 44939(e) of title 49, United
States Code, the Secretary shall establish a process to
ensure that an alien (as defined in section 101(a)(3)
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1101(a)(3)) applying for recurrent training in the
operation of any aircraft is properly identified and
has not, since the time of any prior threat assessment
conducted pursuant to section 44939(a) of such title,
become a risk to aviation or national security.
(2) Interruption of training.--If the Secretary
determines, in carrying out the process established
under paragraph (1), that an alien is a present risk to
aviation or national security, the Secretary shall
immediately notify the person providing the training of
the determination and that person shall not provide the
training or if such training has commenced that person
shall immediately terminate the training.
(3) Fees.--The Secretary may charge reasonable fees
under subsection (a) for providing credentialing and
background investigations for aliens in connection with
the process for recurrent training established under
paragraph (1). Such fees shall be promulgated by notice
in the Federal Register.

* * * * * * *

Compliance With Rule XIII, Clause 3(f)(1)

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

TITLE I--DEPARTMENT MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS

Office of the Secretary and Executive Management

The Committee includes language providing funds for
reception and representation expenses.

Office of the Under Secretary for Management

The Committee includes language providing funds for
reception and representation expenses and for costs necessary
to consolidate headquarters operations, including tenant
improvements and relocation costs.

Office of the Chief Financial Officer

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

Office of the Chief Information Officer

The Committee includes language providing funds for the
Chief Information Officer (CIO) and for the development and
acquisition of information technology equipment, software,
services, and related activities and prohibits the use of funds
to augment other automated systems. The Committee includes
reporting requirements for information technology acquisition
projects.

Analysis and Operations

The Committee includes language providing funds for
information analysis and operations coordination activities,
including funding for official representation expenses. The
Committee restricts the obligation of funds to begin operations
of a new office until certification that this program complies
with applicable laws.

Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding

The Committee includes language providing funds for the
Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding.

Office of Inspector General

The Committee includes language providing funds for certain
confidential operational expenses, including the payment of
informants.

TITLE II--SECURITY, ENFORCEMENT, AND INVESTIGATIONS

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Committee includes language making funds available for
border security, immigration, customs, and agricultural
inspections and regulatory activities; purchase or lease of
vehicles; contracting with individuals for personal services;
Harbor Maintenance Fee collections; official reception and
representation expenses; Customs User Fee collections; and
payment of rental space in connection with pre-clearance
operations; and compensation of informants. The Committee
includes provisions regarding average overtime limitations, and
a restriction on the obligation of funds to operate a new
intelligence framework until the Commissioner certifies that
this framework complies with applicable laws.

AUTOMATION MODERNIZATION

The Committee includes language making funds available
until expended for automated systems and includes language
requiring the submission of an expenditure plan prior to the
obligation of funds.

BORDER SECURITY FENCING, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND TECHNOLOGY

The Committee includes language making funds available
until expended for customs and border protection fencing,
infrastructure, and technology and includes language requiring
the submission of an expenditure plan prior to the obligation
of funds. In addition, the Committee prohibits funding for any
funding under this heading unless the Secretary certifies that
DHS has complied with the consultation provisions of the
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of
1996. Finally, the Committee prohibits funding for any project
or activity for which the Secretary has exercised authority to
waive environmental and other law until 15 days after notice of
the intent to exercise such waiver is published in the Federal
Register.

AIR AND MARINE INTERDICTION, OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE, AND PROCUREMENT

The Committee includes language making funds available for
the operation, maintenance and procurement of marine vessels,
aircraft, unmanned aircraft systems, and other equipment;
travel; rental payments for facilities; and assistance to other
law enforcement agencies and humanitarian efforts. The
Committee includes language prohibiting the transfer of
aircraft and related equipment out of the Customs and Border
Protection unless certain conditions are met.

CONSTRUCTION

The Committee includes language making funds available
until expended for the planning, construction, renovating,
equipping, and maintaining of buildings and facilities.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Committee includes language making funds available for
enforcement of immigration and customs laws, detention and
removals, and investigations; purchase of replacement vehicles;
special operations; official reception and representation
expenses; compensation to informants; public awareness of the
child pornography tipline and anti-child exploitation
activities; and reimbursement of other Federal agencies for
certain costs. The Committee includes language regarding
overtime compensation and forced child labor laws. In addition,
the Committee includes language that conditions agreements that
delegate immigration enforcement authority to States or
political subdivisions thereof. The Committee also includes
language prohibiting the use of funds for contracts at
detention centers that do not perform adequately. Finally, the
Committee includes reporting requirements pertaining to efforts
to identify and remove criminal aliens and nationwide expansion
of the alternatives to detention programs.

FEDERAL PROTECTIVE SERVICE

The Committee includes language making funds available
until expended for the operations of the Federal Protective
Service. The Committee permits the Secretary and OMB to adjust
security fees to maintain in-service field staffing levels
directly engaged in protecting and enforcing laws at Federal
buildings.

AUTOMATION MODERNIZATION

The Committee includes language making funds available
until expended for automated systems.

CONSTRUCTION

The Committee includes language making funds available
until expended for the planning, constructing, renovating,
equipping, and maintaining of buildings and facilities. The
Committee prohibits funds to solicit or consider privatizing
facilities owned by the U.S. Government to detain illegal
aliens until receipt of a privatization plan.

Transportation Security Administration

AVIATION SECURITY

The Committee includes language making funds available for
civil aviation security; and establishing conditions under
which security fees are collected, credited, and distributed.
The Committee also includes language providing funds for
reception and representation expenses.

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION SECURITY

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

TRANSPORTATION THREAT ASSESSMENT AND CREDENTIALING

The Committee includes language on the development and
implementation of screening programs. The Committee requires
the Assistant Secretary to notify the Committee that there are
no security risks if the Secure Flight program does not check
airline passenger names against the full terrorist watch list.

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY SUPPORT

The Committee includes language providing funds for
transportation security support and intelligence programs of
the Transportation Security Administration. The Committee
includes language requiring the submission of a detailed spend
plan for checkpoint support systems and explosive detection
systems refurbishment, procurement and installation.

FEDERAL AIR MARSHALS

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

Coast Guard

OPERATING EXPENSES

The Committee includes a provision regarding passenger
motor vehicles, minor shore construction projects, purchase of
small boats, recreation and welfare, the Oil Spill Liability
Trust Fund, and prohibits the use of funds for yacht
documentation except under certain circumstances and for
administrative expenses in connection with shipping
commissioners in the United States. The Committee includes
language on reception and representation expenses. The
Committee also prohibits the obligation of funds for operation
of the Maritime Awareness Global Network until the Commandant
certifies certain conditions have been met and such
certification is reviewed by the Inspector General. Finally,
the language requires the Coast Guard to comply with
requirements pertaining to their academy.

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE AND RESTORATION

The Committee includes language providing funds for
environmental compliance and restoration of the Coast Guard.

RESERVE TRAINING

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

ACQUISITIONS, CONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENTS

The Committee includes language providing for funds for
Coast Guard acquisition, construction, renovation, and
improvement of aids to navigation, shore facilities, vessels,
and aircraft as well as for maintenance, rehabilitation, lease
and operations of facilities and equipment. The Committee
authorizes the disposal of surplus real property. The Committee
prohibits funding for any Deepwater asset until it revises its
Major Systems Acquisition Manual. The Committee requires a
revised Integrated Deepwater Systems program plan that meets
certain conditions. The Committee includes a provision
requiring a capital investment plan for future appropriations
years with certain conditions.

ALTERATION OF BRIDGES

The Committee provides funds for bridge alteration
projects.

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

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

RETIRED PAY

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

United States Secret Service

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Committee includes language that provides funds for the
purchase and replacement of vehicles; the hire of aircraft;
purchase of motorcycles; services of expert witnesses as may be
necessary; rental of certain buildings; improvements to
buildings as may be necessary for protective missions; per diem
and subsistence allowances; firearms matches; presentation of
awards; protective travel; research and development; grants for
behavioral research; official reception and representation
expenses; technical assistance and equipment to foreign law
enforcement organizations; advance payment for commercial
accommodations; and for grants to activities of missing and
exploited children. The Committee provides for two year
availability of funds for protective travel. The Committee
authorizes the obligation of funds in anticipation of
reimbursements for training, under certain conditions. The
Committee also includes language regarding overtime
compensation.

ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENTS, AND RELATED EXPENSES

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

TITLE III--PREPAREDNESS AND RECOVERY

National Protection and Programs Directorate

MANAGEMENT AND EXPENSES

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

INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION AND INFORMATION SECURITY

The Committee includes language making funds available for
Information Protection and Information Security, a portion of
which is available until September 30, 2010. The Committee
conditions the obligation of funds for the development of the
REAL ID hub. Also, the Committee prohibits the obligation of
funds for the National Cyber Security Initiative, the Next
Generation Networks program, and the National Command and
Coordination Capability program until expenditure plans for
each project are submitted.

UNITED STATES VISITOR AND IMMIGRANT STATUS INDICATOR TECHNOLOGY

The Committee includes language making funds available
until expended for the US-VISIT program and includes language
requiring the submission of an expenditure plan prior to the
obligation of funds. The Committee also includes language
making no funding available for implementation of a final air
exit solution proposed by the Department until US-VISIT
conducts pilot tests of at least two scenarios, which shall be
reviewed by GAO.

OFFICE OF HEALTH AFFAIRS

The Committee includes language making funds available for
the health affairs, biosurveillance, BioWatch, chemical
response, and other activities. The Committee also includes
language providing funds for official reception and
representation expenses.

Federal Emergency Management Agency

MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

The Committee includes language that provides funds for
management and administration. The Committee also includes a
provision providing funds for reception and representation
expenses. The Committee also includes language limiting
administrative costs and providing funding for Urban Search and
Rescue Response System. The Committee also includes language
that provides funds for the Office of the National Capital
Region Coordination. The Committee also includes language
requiring the President's budget be detailed by office

STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS

The Committee includes language that provides funds for
grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other
activities. The Committee also includes provisions identifying
the amount of funds available for State Homeland Security
grants, including Operation Stonegarden; Urban Area Security
Initiative; Metropolitan Medical Response System; Citizen Corps
Program; Public Transportation Security Assistance and Railroad
Security Assistance; Port Security Grants; Over-the-Road Bus
Security Assistance; Trucking Industry Security grants;
Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program; Emergency
Operations Centers; REAL ID grants; training, exercises,
technical assistance, and other programs. The Committee
includes language specifying the conditions under which both
applications and grants are made to certain grants made in the
Act. The Committee also includes language specifying the
conditions for distribution of certain grants. The Committee
also includes language allowing for the transfer of funds for
program administration. The Committee also includes provisions
allowing training to emergency response providers and requiring
a report by the GAO.

FIREFIGHTER ASSISTANCE GRANTS

The Committee includes language providing funds until
September 30, 2010. The Committee also includes language
providing that not to exceed three percent of the total is
available for program administration.

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE GRANTS

The Committee includes language providing funds. The
Committee also includes language that not to exceed three
percent of the total appropriation is available for
administrative costs.

RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAM

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

UNITED STATES FIRE ADMINISTRATION

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

DISASTER RELIEF

The Committee includes language making funds available
until expended. The Committee requires monthly disaster reports
and details requests for reimbursement. The Committee includes
transfer language and withholds certain amounts for transfer
until submission of a plan. The Committee also includes
language requiring reports on disaster damage assessments. The
Committee includes language allowing funding transfers to FEMA
M&A and OIG.

DISASTER ASSISTANCE DIRECT LOAN PROGRAM ACCOUNT

The Committee includes a provision limiting gross
obligations for direct loans. The Committee also includes a
provision regarding the cost of modifying loans.

FLOOD MAP MODERNIZATION FUND

The Committee includes provisions regarding non-Federal
sums for cost-shared mapping activities and limiting total
administrative costs to 3 percent of the total appropriation.
The Committee also includes language making funds available
until expended.

NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE FUND

The Committee includes language limiting funds available
for salaries and expenses; language making funds available for
flood plain management and flood mapping until September 30,
2010. The Committee includes provisions limiting operating
expenses; for interest on Treasury borrowings; for agents'
commissions and taxes; for fees collected under section 1308 to
be available for floodplain management and flood mapping; and
for flood mitigation activities associated with sections 1361A
and 1323 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968. The
Committee includes language permitting fees collected pursuant
to section 1302 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973
and section 1366(i) of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968
be deposited to supplement other amounts. In addition, the
Committee includes language making funds for mitigation
activities available until expended. The Committee includes
language providing that not to exceed four percent of the total
appropriation is available for administrative costs.

NATIONAL PREDISASTER MITIGATION FUND

The Committee includes language making funds available
until expended. The Committee includes a provision limiting
total administrative costs to 3 percent of the total
appropriation.

EMERGENCY FOOD AND SHELTER

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

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

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

The Committee includes language making funds available for
citizenship and immigration services and permits funds to be
used to acquire, equip, and dispose of a limited number of
vehicles. The Committee also includes language authorizing
employee use of these vehicles.

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Committee includes language making funds available for
official representation expenses; purchase of police type
pursuit vehicles; student athletic and related recreational
activities; conducting and participating in firearms matches;
public awareness and community support; marketing; room and
board; services; services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; law
enforcement accreditation; reimbursements for certain mobile
phone expenses; and for reception and representation expenses.
The Committee includes language authorizing the training of
certain law enforcement personnel; authorizes the use of
appropriations and reimbursements for such training and
establishes a cap on total obligations. The Committee also
includes language authorizing funds for the compensation of
accreditation costs for participating agencies; and authorizing
the hiring of retired Federal employees until 2011. Language is
included directing the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
to lead the training accreditation process as well as to
measure and assess federal law enforcement training programs,
facilities, and instructors. Finally, the Committee includes
language requiring the Director of the Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center to ensure that all training facilities are
operated at highest capacity throughout the fiscal year.

ACQUISITIONS, CONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENTS AND RELATED EXPENSES

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

Science and Technology

MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

The Committee includes language providing funds for
reception and representation expenses.

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, ACQUISITION AND OPERATIONS

The Committee includes language making funds available
until expended. The Committee prohibits the obligation of funds
for the National Bio and Agro-defense Facility until a risk
analysis has been completed and reviewed by GAO.

Domestic Nuclear Detection Office

MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

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

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, ACQUISITION, AND OPERATIONS

The Committee includes language making funds for nuclear
detection research, development, testing and evaluation.
Language is included making funds available until expended.

SYSTEMS ACQUISITION

The Committee includes language providing funds for the
purchase and deployment of radiation detection equipment. The
Committee limits the full scale procurement of certain types of
these systems until the Secretary of Homeland Security
certifies a significant increase in operational effectiveness
as well as requires separate and distinct certifications for
primary and secondary procurements.

TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Section 501. The Committee continues a provision providing
that no part of any appropriation shall remain available for
obligation beyond the current year unless expressly provided.
Section 502. The Committee continues a provision providing
that unexpended balances of prior appropriations may be merged
with new appropriation accounts and used for the same purpose,
subject to reprogramming guidelines.
Section 503. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision providing reprogramming authority for funds within an
account and not to exceed 5 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, 2009.
Section 504. The Committee continues a provision that
prohibits funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the
Department to make payment to the Department's Working Capital
Fund, except for activities and amounts allowed in the
President's fiscal year 2008 budget, excluding sedan service,
shuttle service, transit subsidy, mail operations, parking, and
competitive sourcing. Additional activities are subject to
approval.
Section 505. The Committee continues a provision providing
that not to exceed 50 percent of unobligated balances remaining
at the end of fiscal year 2009 from appropriations made for
salaries and expenses shall remain available through fiscal
year 2010 subject to reprogramming guidelines.
Section 506. The Committee continues a provision providing
that funds for intelligence activities are deemed to be
specifically authorized during fiscal year 2009 until the
enactment of an Act authorizing intelligence activities for
fiscal year 2009.
Section 507. The Committee continues a provision requiring
notification of the Committees on Appropriations three days
before grant allocations, discretionary grant awards,
discretionary contract awards, or a letter of intent totaling
$1,000,000 or more is announced by the Department. The
Department is required to brief the Committees on
Appropriations five full day business days prior to announcing
the intention to make formula based State Homeland Security
grants and Urban Area Security Initiatives. Notification shall
include a description of the project or projects to be funded,
including city, county and state.
Section 508. The Committee continues a provision providing
that no agency shall purchase, construct, or lease additional
facilities for federal law enforcement training without advance
approval of the Committees on Appropriations.
Section 509. The Committee continues a provision providing
that none of the funds may be used for any construction,
repair, alteration, and acquisition project for which a
prospectus, if required under chapter 33 of title 40, United
States Code, has not been approved except funds for the
development of a proposed prospectus.
Section 510. The Committee continues longstanding
provisions contained in previous Appropriations Acts into
fiscal year 2009. These provisions relate to the Buy American
Act; reporting requirements of the privacy officer; contracting
officer's technical representative training; Sensitive Security
Information; replacement patrol boat (FRC-B) program; federal
building performance and requirements outlined in title V of
the National Energy Conservation Policy Act or subtitle A of
title I of the Energy Policy Act of 2005; classifying the
functions of the instructor staff at the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center as inherently governmental for
purposes of the of the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act;
use of funds in conformance with section 303 of the Energy
Policy Act of 1992; Executive Order 13149, relating to fleet
and transportation efficiency; and linking all contracts that
provide award fees to successful acquisition outcomes.
Section 511. The Committee continues a provision regarding
Secure Flight.
Section 512. The Committee continues a provision mandating
that no funds can be used to contract out the services provided
by United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
immigration information officers, contract representatives, or
investigative assistants.
Section 513. The Committee continues a provision directing
the Secretary to research, develop, and procure new
technologies to inspect and screen air cargo and to utilize
existing checked baggage explosive detection equipment and
screeners to screen cargo on passenger aircraft where
practicable at each airport. In addition, language requires TSA
to work with air carriers and airports to ensure that the
screening of cargo carried on passenger aircraft, as required
by the 9/11 Act, increases incrementally each quarter. The
Committee requires quarterly submission of air cargo inspection
statistics detailing incremental progress.
Section 514. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision that directs that any funds appropriated or
transferred to TSA ``Aviation Security'', ``Administration'',
and ``Transportation Security Support'' in fiscal years 2004,
2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008, 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 section notification.
The Committee also requires quarterly reports on recovered or
deobligated funds.
Section 515. The Committee continues a provision that
extends the authorization of the Department's Working Capital
Fund through fiscal year 2009.
Section 516. The Committee continues a provision requiring
the Chief Financial Officer to submit monthly budget execution
and staffing reports within 45 days after the close of each
month.
Section 517. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision relating to undercover investigative operations
authority of the Secret Service for fiscal year 2009.
Section 518. The Committee continues a provision regarding
the enforcement of section 4025(1) of Public Law 108-458.
Section 519. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision prohibiting the Secretary of Homeland Secretary from
reducing the Coast Guard's civil engineering program except as
specifically authorized in statute after enactment of this Act.
Section 520. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision prohibiting the obligation of funds to the Office of
the Secretary and Executive Management, Office of the Under
Secretary, or Office of the Chief Financial Officer for grants
or contracts awarded by any means other than competitively.
Certain exceptions apply. Bill language permits the Secretary
to waive the application in a national emergency, with
notification. The bill also requires the Inspector General to
review departmental contracts awarded noncompetitively and
report on the results to the Committees on Appropriations.
Section 521. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision prohibiting funds for any position designated as a
Principal Federal Official (PFO). The position shall not be
designated for a Robert T. Stafford Act declared disaster or
emergency or at the same time as any Federal Coordinating
Officer. This prohibition on PFOs shall apply to PFOs, any
successors to that position and any similar position created by
the Department.
Section 522. The Committee continues a provision
prohibiting funding to grant an immigration benefit to any
individual unless the results of background checks legally
required to be completed prior to the grant of the benefit have
been received by DHS.
Section 523. The Committee continues a provision
prohibiting use of funds to destroy or put to pasture any horse
or other equine belonging to the Federal Government unless
adoption has been offered first.
Section 524. The Committee continues a provision
prohibiting funds made available to the Office of the Secretary
and Executive Management to be expended for any new hires that
are not verified through the basic pilot program under section
401 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act.
Section 525. The Committee continues a provision
prohibiting funds available in this Act from being used to
implement a rule or regulation which implements the notice of
proposed rulemaking related to Petitions for Aliens to Perform
Temporary Nonagricultural Services or Labor (H-2B) set out
beginning on 70 Federal Register 3984 (January 27, 2005).
Section 526. The Committee continues a provision extending
other transactional authority of DHS through fiscal year 2009.
Certain training and reporting requirements are included.
Section 527. The Committee includes a new provision
relating to the liquidation of Plum Island assets if the site
is not chosen for the new National Bio and Agro-defense
Facility and how proceeds from this sale may be applied.
Section 528. The Committee includes a new provision that
prohibits the delegation of authority unless delegation is
specifically authorized.
Section 529. The Committee includes a new provision
requiring the Secretary to submit a listing of programs,
projects, and activities by account, including amounts, from
which all reprogramming will be based.
Section 530. The Committee includes a new provision
pertaining to the human resource management system.
Section 531. The Committee includes a new provision
requiring the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consolidation
with the Secretary of Treasury, to notify the Committees on
Appropriations 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
Committees approve the proposed transfers.
Section 532. The Committee includes a new provision
prohibiting funds for grants or contracts that do not comply
with subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 40.
Section 533. The Committee includes a new provision
pertaining to alien flight school training.
Section 534. The Committee includes a new provision on
unmanned aerial systems.
Section 535. The Committee continues a provision relating
to prescription drugs.
Section 536. The Committee includes a new provision
permitting the Secretary to utilize cost savings from any
recovered or deobligated funds or from staffing shortfalls for
fuel costs that exceed the amount requested in fiscal year
2009.
Section 537. The Committee includes a new provision
requiring the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security
(Transportatipn Security Administration) to certify that no
security risks will result if an airport does not participate
in the basic pilot program.

TITLE VI--ADDITIONAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008 FOR
MIDWESTERN UNITED STATES AND OTHER PURPOSES

The Committee includes a new Title VI providing emergency
funding for loans for additional disaster assistance for the
Midwestern United States.

DETAILED EXPLANATIONS IN REPORT

It should be emphasized again that a more detailed
statement describing the effect of the above provisions
inserted by the Committee which directly or indirectly change
the application of existing law may be found at the appropriate
place in this report.

ADDITIONAL VIEWS

On June 24, 2008, the full committee unanimously approved
the fiscal year 2009 Homeland Security Appropriations bill. At
that point, we were appreciative of the Majority's willingness
to listen to our concerns and accommodate as much as possible.
We were also pleased by what appeared to be continuance of the
Committee's traditions of bi-partisanship and commitment to
moving legislation through regular order. However, despite the
Majority's assurance this bill would move through the regular
appropriations process, including floor consideration under an
open rule, we are now dismayed by what has become a near
farcical process. Instead, the Majority has chosen to move this
legislation without ever subjecting the bill to an open and
fair debate on the floor of the People's House, let alone a
true conference committee between the House and Senate. This
so-called process is one of pure political convenience and it
contradicts the civilized and deliberative procedures of the
Appropriations Committee and the U.S. Congress.
Of particular distaste is the now-common use of
parliamentary gimmicks to circumvent the committee process and
avoid public meetings. By ducking the intent of House rules and
procedures, the Majority has succeeded in crafting massive
legislation behind closed doors with little input or oversight
from Members of Congress, the media, or the public.
In addition, the Majority has broken with Committee
tradition in order to limit floor consideration and debate on
Appropriations bills. This has included delaying bill filing
after Committee approval nearly three months ago (which limits
public disclosure of bill text and Committee reports), and
implementing limited or closed rules of floor debate and
amendments on Appropriations bills--something that has
historically been staunchly avoided and vehemently opposed by
both Republican and Democrat Committee members.
The workings of the Appropriations Committee have become
almost unrecognizable this year. Gone are the days when
Republicans and Democrats worked together to serve the best
interests of our country. By bypassing floor consideration, the
Majority of Members of the House have been completely left out
of the legislative process in crafting this legislation. It is
long past time that our Committee return to regular order. We
encourage colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join us in
rejecting the mismanagement of the Appropriations Committee and
what has become an irresponsible and unsustainable approach to
governing.
Regarding the Homeland Security bill specifically, we
remain dismayed by the Majority's party-line rejection during
the full committee mark-up of a series of amendments related to
securing the border, enhancing immigration and customs
enforcement, and supporting key intelligence programs during
the full committee mark-up. We will continue to voice our
concerns about these issues and attempt to work with the
Majority in an effort to further improve the bill as it moves
toward enactment, no matter how flawed the process.

Balancing Oversight With Results

While we are pleased by the bill's commitment to
oversight--a theme this Subcommittee has held constant since
its inception in 2003--we are concerned that the bill applies
overly pervasive and burdensome restrictions on several
critical programs which, in effect, delay vital operations,
exposes our Nation to undue risk, and provides a means for the
advancement of specific interests in lieu of the national
interest in safety and security.
The most onerous of such restrictions is applied to CBP's
border security, fencing, infrastructure, and technology
(BSFIT) account, including: a withholding of all funds from
obligation until the Department certifies consultation with
affected States and local communities, including an explicit,
lengthy requirement for the Department to consider the
proposals of local communities as an alternative to Federally
planned fencing and tactical infrastructure; a 15-day
prohibition on the obligation of funds for fencing and tactical
infrastructure when the Secretary invokes his waiver authority
as per section 102(c) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996; and a withholding of $400
million of the $775 million appropriated for the BSFIT account
until an extensively detailed expenditure plan is submitted and
approved. These limitations have a combined affect of a virtual
``stop-work order'' on border security infrastructure--an
assertion that is substantiated by the manner in which the
Majority has applied similar, but less stringent, funding
restrictions in fiscal year 2008. The protracted delay in
releasing the fiscal year 2008 funding places what is a
fundamental mission of DHS and a Congressional mandate to
secure the border at unnecessary risk. We believe that further
delaying construction of needed border security infrastructure
is a detriment to not only our homeland security and national
security, but also our national sovereignty.
We maintain that expenditure plan requirements and the
withholding of funds are essential oversight tools squarely
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations;
however, we vehemently oppose the use of such tools and
additional restrictions for impeding Congressional mandates,
delaying the use of essential security resources, and advancing
specific interests. Such misuse of oversight has been
demonstrated by the Majority's lethargic release of $650
million withheld in fiscal year 2008 from the BSFIT account.
This dangerously slow pace--which culminated in the full
release of funds some six months after enactment--was justified
by a continually evolving set of requirements not based upon
the letter of the law, but rather built upon the interests of a
few vocal critics of border security infrastructure. It was for
this reason that we offered an amendment to the fiscal year
2009 bill designed to instill robust oversight and
accountability from DHS, while at the same time, allowing for
what is perhaps the most critical outcome of this bill:
improved security. Unfortunately, our amendment to strike the
fiscal year 2009 bill's onerous border security restrictions
and insert the expenditure plan and oversight requirements
contained in the fiscal year 2007 Homeland Security
Appropriations Act was defeated on a party-line vote. While the
Majority claims the fiscal year 2009 requirements are ``simply
a follow-up'' or ``prudent expansion'' of the fiscal year 2007
bipartisan expenditure plan requirements, we strongly believe
that the current restrictions constitute a total expansion of
so-called fiscal oversight into the arena of policymaking. We
do not see this as the Committee's role and will continue to
voice our reservations on the abuse of such expenditure plan
requirements.
The fiscal year 2009 bill also includes restrictions on all
funding for the operations of critical information technology
systems that support intelligence operations in CBP and the
Coast Guard until privacy reviews of each program are certified
and such certifications are reviewed by the DHS Inspector
General. CBP's Analytical Framework for Intelligence and the
Coast Guard's Maritime Awareness Global Network--systems
designed to more efficiently and effectively provide
information to the Intelligence Community--have already
undergone privacy impact assessments (PIAs) and are essential
tools for DHS operations. While we certainly support the
Inspector General reviewing these PIAs as well as any
additional review of the programs for compliance with all
applicable privacy laws, we see no reason to restrict all
funding for operations and inhibit more effective information
sharing until such reviews are completed. Therefore, we offered
an amendment to strike the withholding of all funds for
operations for these two programs, while maintaining the bill's
direction for each agency to certify compliance with all
applicable laws, including those regarding privacy, and for
such certifications to be reviewed by the Inspector General.
Unfortunately, this amendment was defeated on a party-line
vote.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement

The bill completely restructures the fiscal year 2009
budget for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in an
effort to devote $800 million towards the identification and
removal of illegal aliens convicted of a crime. We are
supportive of this effort and agree that it is among ICE's top
priorities. However, we maintain that such a priority should
not be funded at the expense of other critical ICE missions,
including national security export enforcement; prevention and
investigation of human smuggling and trafficking; customs and
trade enforcement; worksite enforcement; prevention and
investigation of international crimes ranging from child
exploitation to money laundering; and enforcement of existing
immigration law. We believe ICE must be well-funded and
supported to enforce its full range of legal authorities and
are appreciative of the Majority's willingness to include bill
and report language clarifying the fiscal year 2009
distribution of resources does not, in any way, impede the
inherent immigration and customs authorities unique to ICE.
In an effort to fully support and enhance ICE's
investigative and enforcement resources, we offered amendments
to address the fiscal year 2009 bill's reductions below the
budget request to three critical programs: the 287(g) State and
Local training program; worksite enforcement; and ICE's cyber
crimes program. Amendments to restore the Majority's reductions
to 287(g) and worksite enforcement were defeated on party-line
votes; but the amendment to restore the Majority's reduction to
ICE's cyber crimes program was adopted, after the offset was
changed by the Majority from the Office of the Chief
Information Officer to the Office of the Secretary. While we
are pleased this amendment was adopted by the Committee, we
remain confused as to why the Majority would rather take
funding from an account that had already been reduced in the
bill by over 14 percent and is comprised entirely of salaries
and expenses in support of Departmental operations, versus an
account which can absorb what amounted to a 2.3 percent offset.
We maintain that the bill does not justifiably reduce the
287(g) and worksite enforcement programs and amendments to
restore these reductions should not have been necessary. We
will continue to voice our support for full funding for these
vital programs as the bill moves through the legislative
process.

Operational Needs

We are very concerned about growing operational costs
confronting DHS. This issue is most pronounced through the
skyrocketing costs of energy for the Department's operational
agencies. As of June 25, 2008, we are aware of a projected
shortfall in energy costs for DHS of over $187 million for
fiscal year 2009. Therefore, we offered an amendment to
partially address operational shortfalls in CBP and the Coast
Guard. The Majority offered a substitute to our amendment by
way of a new general provision that would allow DHS to apply
cost savings through deobligations towards such shortfalls.
While we are appreciative of the Majority correcting the bill's
deficiency in addressing energy cost shortfalls, we are
concerned that the new general provision will not generate
sufficient savings to fully cover what are constantly rising
energy costs. We will continue to work with the Majority in an
effort to ensure the operational needs of our front line
personal are fully supported in the bill.

Transportation Security

The reported bill maintains the absence of a cap on the
number of TSA screeners that was originally placed on TSA at
its inception. That cap, which was removed in the fiscal year
2008 consolidated Appropriations Act, was created for very good
reasons--reasons that still exist today. The cap was installed
because TSA was demonstrating a severe lack of discipline in
its planning, hiring, and use of technology. Originally, TSA
said it needed 35,000 screeners. Several months later they said
45,000. The line was drawn when they again came back and asked
for funds for 70,000 screeners. By requiring in law that TSA
could not exceed 45,000 screeners, TSA was forced to refocus
its decision making. More screeners and expensive, manpower-
intensive trace detection machines were not the answer. Rather,
more efficient and effective technology, such as advanced x-ray
machines and explosive detection systems, has proven itself
over time. The screener cap has worked, and TSA is slowly
getting the trace detection machines out of airport lobbies.
However, absent law that expressly prohibits exceeding 45,000
screeners, we are convinced that TSA will revert to its old
ways of solving screener problems, simply by adding more
people--a very short-sighted and costly solution. We will
continue to voice our support for restoration of the screener
cap.

Coast Guard

The bill includes a thoughtful combination of funding and
oversight for the Coast Guard. We fully support the bill's
operational enhancements to maritime security and marine
safety, as well as to the growing maintenance needs of the
Coast Guard's aging cutters. We are also supportive of the
bill's reasonable funding for Deepwater; though are mindful of
the bill's notation on the uncertainty surrounding the costs of
the fourth National Security Cutter. We support the Majority's
oversight of the Coast Guard's costing estimates and will
continue to monitor the agency's improvement of this crucial
capability. While the bill continues its aggressive and
stringent oversight of Coast Guard acquisitions, we are
confident the Coast Guard is leveraging these statutory
requirements to put into place the right controls and
organizational improvements to properly manage its large
procurements. We firmly believe that too much of our national
security is at stake for the Coast Guard to prolong the
operation of antiquated systems--some dating back to World War
II--and remain fully supportive of its modernization.

Emergency Preparedness and Response

This bill is $2.3 billion above the President's request,
with the vast majority of that increase used to maintain first
responder grants at what has been their highest level in 5
years. We are concerned about the annual expectations we are
setting for State and local grants. These funds are intended to
address counterterrorism needs and disaster preparedness--the
homeland security portion of local first responders' duties.
These cash-strapped agencies are certainly pleased to receive
these grant funds and now even expect it. What began as a
straightforward grant program has devolved into a revenue
sharing program--something it never was intended to be. Rather
than just adding billions to these grant programs--as this bill
does--what we ought to be doing is working with the relevant
authorizing committees to change the way these grant programs
are structured, authorized, and administered, and layout
specific, Federal expectations. Grants to States and local
communities are intended to reduce our vulnerabilities and are
not immune from fiscal discipline, especially in an arena as
critical as homeland security.
Therefore, we offered an amendment in bill language to
strengthen FEMA's ability to effectively measure the impact of
first responder grants through an additional $5 million, as
delineated in the Committee report, and a requirement for
improved planning. Currently, FEMA cannot explain how much more
capable or more prepared our Nation is thanks to over $23.7
billion in grant funding that has been appropriated since
fiscal year 2002. Because the program has carried a persistent
unexpended balance of $4 to $7 billion over the last few years,
FEMA must be held accountable for measuring the results of this
funding towards improved homeland security. We are appreciative
of the Majority's acceptance of our amendment and will continue
to monitor FEMA' s progress in measuring the impact of first
responder grants.

Policy and Authorizations

The bill includes a requirement for all grants and
contracts to comply with prevailing wage requirements as per
subchapter IV of chapter 31 of Title 40, U.S. Code--commonly
referred to as Davis-Bacon requirements. These requirements are
made permanent and apply to this and any other Act. We contend
that inclusion of such a broad special interest provision,
having not withstood a review of the policy's impact or its
relevancy towards achieving homeland security goals, lacks
sufficient justification for inclusion in this bill. We also
note our disappointment that an amendment re-authorizing the E-
Verify system was rejected by a party-line vote on the grounds
that the bill should not include authorizing language. We
remain confused at the apparent hypocrisy of including
permanent Davis-Bacon requirements, as well as other
authorizing language, but rejecting a re-authorization of an
expiring program that is directly germane to the underlying
bill and of vital importance to immigration enforcement and our
homeland security. Such a double standard suggests the aim of
the bill is tilting more towards specific interests rather than
furthering our homeland security.

Fiscal Responsibility

While we support the underlying functions supported by this
bill, we maintain that the issue of homeland security cannot be
simply solved by more money and more government. For the second
year in a row, the 302(b) discretionary allocation for the
Department of Homeland Security exceeds the amount proposed by
the President by over $2 billion and more than twice the rate
of inflation. The fiscal year 2009 302(b) allocation of $39.9
billion in discretionary funding is over 14.5% above last
year's discretionary level and over 6.0% above the request
(excluding emergency funding and BioShield advance
appropriations). We firmly believe that no Federal agency is
immune from fiscal discipline, even the Department of Homeland
Security.
In conclusion, we believe this bill has the potential to do
a lot of good. There are many provisions and funding
recommendations that we agree with, and applaud the bill's
efforts in keeping the Department on track to produce results,
as well as continuing the Committee's tradition of strict
accountability.

Jerry Lewis.
Harold Rogers.