[House Report 111-157]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


111th Congress                                                   Report
  1st Session    HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES                       111-157
                                                    

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



 
       DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2010

                                _______
                                

  June 16, 2009.--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. 2892]

    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, 2010.

                        INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT

_______________________________________________________________________


                                                            Page number

                                                            Bill Report
TITLE I--DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS
        Office of the Secretary and Executive Management...     2
                                                                     14
        Office of the Under Secretary for Management.......     2
                                                                     20
        Office of the Chief Financial Officer..............     3
                                                                     24
        Office of the Chief Information Officer............     3
                                                                     26
        Analysis and Operations............................     4
                                                                     28
        Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast 
            Rebuilding.....................................     4
                                                                     29
        Office of Inspector General........................     5
                                                                     30
TITILE II--SECURITY, ENFORCEMENT, AND INVESTIGATIONS
        U.S. Customs and Border Protection.................     5
                                                                     32
                Salaries and Expenses......................     5
                                                                     32
                Automation Modernization...................     7
                                                                     40
                Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, 
                    and Technology.........................     7
                                                                     41
                Air and Marine Interdiction, Operations, 
                    Maintenance, and Procurement...........    14
                                                                     46
                Facilities Management......................    15
                                                                     47
        U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement...........    15
                                                                     48
                Salaries and Expenses......................    15
                                                                     48
                Federal Protective Service.................    18
                                                                     57
                Automation Modernization...................    19
                                                                     59
                Construction...............................    20
                                                                     59
        Transportation Security Administration.............    20
                                                                     60
                Aviation Security..........................    20
                                                                     60
                Surface Transportation Security............    22
                                                                     68
                Transportation Threat Assessment and 
                    Credentialing..........................    23
                                                                     69
                Transportation Security Support............    24
                                                                     72
                Federal Air Marshals.......................    24
                                                                     73
        Coast Guard........................................    24
                                                                     74
                Operating Expenses.........................    24
                                                                     74
                Environmental Compliance and Restoration...    25
                                                                     79
                Reserve Training...........................    26
                                                                     80
                Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements    26
                                                                     80
                Alteration of Bridges......................    29
                                                                     85
                Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation    29
                                                                     85
                Medicare Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund 
                    Contribution...........................    30
                                                                     86
                Retired Pay................................    30
                                                                     87
        United States Secret Service.......................    30
                                                                     87
                Salaries and Expenses......................    30
                                                                     87
                Acquisition, Construction, Improvements, 
                    and Related Expenses...................    33
                                                                     91
TITLE III--PROTECTION, PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE, AND RECOVERY
        National Protection and Programs Directorate.......    33
                                                                     91
                Management and Administration..............    33
                                                                     91
                Infrastructure Protection and Information 
                    Security...............................    33
                                                                     92
                United States Visitor and Immigrant Status 
                    Indicator Technology...................    34
                                                                     96
        Office of Health Affairs...........................    38
                                                                    102
        Federal Emergency Management Agency................    38
                                                                    104
                Management and Administration..............    38
                                                                    104
                State and Local Programs...................    39
                                                                    108
                Firefighter Assistance Grants..............    44
                                                                    116
                Emergency Management Performance Grants....    45
                                                                    118
                Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program    46
                                                                    118
                United States Fire Administration..........    46
                                                                    119
                Disaster Relief............................    46
                                                                    119
                Disaster Assistance Direct Loan Program 
                    Account................................    48
                                                                    123
                Flood Map Modernization Fund...............    49
                                                                    124
                National Flood Insurance Fund..............    49
                                                                    125
                National Predisaster Mitigation Fund.......    51
                                                                    126
                Emergency Food and Shelter.................    52
                                                                    127
TITLE IV--RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, TRAINING, AND SERVICES
        United States Citizenship and Immigration Services.    52
                                                                    128
        Federal Law Enforcement Training Center............    53
                                                                    132
                Salaries and Expenses......................    53
                                                                    132
                Acquisitions, Construction, Improvements, 
                    and Related Expenses...................    55
                                                                    133
        Science and Technology.............................    56
                                                                    134
                Management and Administration..............    56
                                                                    134
                Research, Development, Acquisition, and 
                    Operations.............................    56
                                                                    134
        Domestic Nuclear Detection Office..................    57
                                                                    140
                Management and Administration..............    57
                                                                    140
                Research, Development, and Operations......    58
                                                                    140
TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS
        This Act...........................................    58
                                                                    144
        Compliance with House Rules........................
                                                                    151
        Tables.............................................
                                                                    151
        Summary of the Total Bill..........................
                                                                    180

    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 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, 
P.L. 111-5 is referenced as ARRA; the Department of Homeland 
Security is referenced as DHS; the Government Accountability 
Office is referenced as GAO; and the Office of Inspector 
General of the Department of Homeland Security is referenced as 
the IG.
    The accompanying bill contains recommendations for new 
budget (obligational) authority for fiscal year 2010 for the 
Department of Homeland Security. The following table summarizes 
these recommendations and reflects comparisons with the budget, 
as amended, and with amounts appropriated to date for fiscal 
year 2009:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Budget                            House compared with
                                    New budget     estimates of                  -------------------------------
                                  (obligational)        new
          Bureau/Agency              authority    (obligational)  Recommended by    New budget        Budget
                                    fiscal year     authority,       the House       authority       estimate,
                                   2009 enacted     fiscal year                     fiscal year     fiscal year
                                    to date\1\         2010                            2009            2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Departmental Management and            1,070,439       1,389,892       1,238,670         168,231        -151,222
 Operations.....................
Security, Enforcement and             28,714,570      30,760,707      30,758,323       2,043,753          -2,384
 Investigations.................
Protection, Preparedness,              8,294,360       8,691,755       8,777,241         482,881          85,486
 Response and Recovery..........
Research, Development, Training,       1,881,504       1,987,339       1,864,504         -17,000        -122,835
 and Services...................
General Purpose Appropriations..         100,000  ..............  ..............        -100,000  ..............
Rescission of Unobligated                -72,373  ..............         -13,738          58,635         -13,738
 Balances.......................
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Grand total.................      39,988,500      42,829,693      42,625,000       2,636,500       -204,693
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Does not include emergency funding provided in the Fiscal Year 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-8)
  or the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (P.L. 111-5).

              Summary of Major Recommendations in the Bill

    The Committee recommends $42,625,000,000 in discretionary 
resources for the Department of Homeland Security, $204,693,000 
below the amount requested and $2,636,500,000 above fiscal year 
2009 enacted levels (excluding emergency funding).
    In order to invest in the critical priorities identified in 
this bill, and in an effort to build an economy on a solid 
foundation for growth and put the Nation on a path toward 
prosperity, the Committee includes $406,788,000 in program 
terminations. In addition, the Committee recommends a number of 
reductions and other savings from the budget request totaling 
$855,489,000. These adjustments, no matter their size, in 
conjunction with the other directions to the Administration 
included in this bill are important in setting the right 
priorities within the spending allocation, for getting the 
deficit under control, and creating a government that is as 
efficient as it is effective.

                         Priorities in the Bill

    In this, the seventh annual appropriations bill produced by 
the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, the 
Committee 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 protective measures against 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.
    The bill reflects a period of information-gathering and 
analysis that involved probing areas of Departmental policy and 
procedure, the extent of which is only afforded during times of 
transition in the government. Because the Administration's 
fiscal year 2010 budget request was not presented to Congress 
until May 7, 2009, the 15 hearings that the Subcommittee 
conducted were not dominated by the budget request. Rather, the 
Committee tackled some of the broader questions and cross-
cutting issues that touch every component of the Department of 
Homeland Security--from preparing for a National Special 
Security Event to recovering from natural disasters; from 
acquiring technology to improve DHS operations to expeditiously 
obligating funds for critical grant programs; and from 
immigration enforcement to meeting the basic medical needs of 
those in the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement. On occasion, hearing panels paired departmental 
officials with experts from the Government Accountability 
Office, public organizations, and State governments to ensure 
that the Committee received a full range of information and 
analysis about departmental activities. After these topical 
hearings were completed, the Secretary presented the fiscal 
year 2010 budget request for DHS. By developing this broader 
perspective, culminating with the Secretary's testimony, the 
Committee was better equipped to set budget priorities that 
prepare the Department to face the diversity of challenges to 
our homeland.
    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 
made significant progress in each of these areas, and more work 
needs to be done.
    The Committee is pleased to note that, in general, the 
budget request for 2010 did not continue the disingenuous 
practice of leaving funding voids where the Administration 
knows Congress has strong interests, such as with State and 
local grants. In doing so, the Department made some hard 
decisions about investments that cannot move forward at this 
time because of technical problems, such as advanced 
spectroscopic portal monitors. Or it took a more pragmatic 
approach to solving complex problems, for example by requesting 
no additional funding for implementation of a biometric exit 
program under US-VISIT, at least until technical, regulatory 
and diplomatic issues can be resolved. This reality check makes 
it easier for the Committee to allocate resources to areas that 
have real needs, albeit in ways that may differ slightly from 
the Administration.
    The Committee understands the demanding nature of the 
Department's mission, as well as resource and technology 
limitations that make it difficult to consistently satisfy the 
wide range of expectations from Congress, State and local 
governments, industries, citizens, other federal Departments 
and foreign governments. However, the Committee expects the 
departmental leadership to be frank and clear about the 
limitations it faces as well as the unmet needs it has 
inherited, so that we can work together to address these 
challenges. Described below is how the Committee addressed some 
of these matters for fiscal year 2010.

                ENSURING TAXPAYER DOLLARS ARE WELL SPENT

    Since its establishment, DHS has at times had difficulty 
spending appropriated funds in an effective and timely manner. 
While some departmental components have improved their 
financial and management oversight, others continue to have 
problems. Some DHS components continue to maintain high 
unobligated balances, or are slow to spend funds Congress 
designated for specific tasks. Transit grants, public safety 
interoperable communications grants, Coast Guard financial 
problems, and research funding are some of the key areas this 
Committee has singled out for review this year.
    In the area of transit and rail security, ``funds available 
for draw-down'' has been the refrain heard throughout this 
hearing season. Based on the latest estimates from the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), about 90 percent of funds 
appropriated in fiscal year 2006 for rail and transit security 
grants are not drawn down. In trying to uncover reasons why 
critical homeland security funds were sitting in the U.S. 
Treasury waiting to be spent, this Committee was repeatedly 
presented with hazy responses, necessitating repeat appearances 
by FEMA and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to 
clarify the situation. Since those hearings, TSA and FEMA have 
changed their 2009 decision-making process so the project 
approval process takes place before grant awards, instead of up 
to 270 days afterwards. TSA and FEMA are also meeting with 
transit agencies to spur faster draw-down of previously 
appropriated funds. They are to report back to the Committee by 
August 2009 on their findings.
    Public safety interoperable communications grants have 
similar draw-down problems, with about 93 percent remaining 
unexpended from 2007. While much of this delay was caused by 
the need for States to complete their interoperability plans, 
the Committee remains concerned about the slow rate of 
expenditure, particularly because Congress repeatedly hears 
from many first responders and emergency managers about the 
outstanding needs for interoperable communications equipment.
    Questions about the effectiveness of investments by the 
Coast Guard have dogged the Department almost since its 
establishment. Cost growth has plagued the National Security 
Cutter, and false starts on developing the replacement for the 
110-foot patrol boat, the new offshore patrol cutter, and an 
unmanned aerial system intended for use at sea have cost the 
taxpayers tens of millions of dollars. The Coast Guard holds 95 
percent of the unauditable balances on the Department's books 
and the material weaknesses in its internal financial controls 
are the single largest obstacle standing in the way of the 
Department being able to get a clean audit. There have been 
signs of progress, however, with the Coast Guard submitting a 
comprehensive plan for putting their financial house in order--
the Financial Strategy for Transformation and Audit Readiness. 
Additionally, this year's budget request includes several 
initiatives to improve internal oversight, including 
$20,000,000 to modernize the Coast Guard's financial management 
structure. The Committee has fully funded these activities.
    On a positive note, Science and Technology (S&T) has made 
progress in reducing its unobligated balances by tracking 
research expenditures more closely to make sure they align with 
the Department's priorities, and by recovering or realigning 
funds that have lain dormant due to expired programs. The 
increased vigilance with which S&T is managing its projects is 
encouraging and should continue.

                        FOCUSING ON OUR BORDERS

    The Department's work to prevent illicit goods and 
unauthorized individuals from crossing our borders is more 
important than ever. Yet the challenge of border security 
remains daunting. DHS's resources must be targeted toward the 
most pressing threats to American communities, and our border 
challenges must be addressed in a comprehensive fashion that 
takes into account the various forces that feed the movement of 
people and goods.
    Southwest Border Initiative.--The Committee fully supports 
efforts to address the security needs of the Southwest Border. 
This includes improving the capability of U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement (ICE) to reduce the import of illegal narcotics to 
the United States as well as the smuggling of weapons and 
currency that feed violent Mexican drug cartels. These 
investments will help close a critical vulnerability in 
operations at ports of entry and in all the border areas in 
between. Initiated in fiscal year 2009 through the 
reprogramming of existing funds, the Southwest Border 
Initiative is an effort involving DHS, the Department of State, 
and the Justice Department, which attacks the organizations and 
resources of the Mexican drug cartels. The initiative also 
supports the Mexican government's efforts to go after the 
cartels where they are based, and it provides additional 
resources to the communities along the border whose authorities 
are playing a role in the crack-down.
    The bill includes $26,100,000, as requested, for an 
additional 65 CBP Officers and mission support staff, as well 
as security infrastructure such as license plate readers to 
cover the outbound lanes at ports of entry where no such 
enforcement capacity now exists. It also provides for 44 new 
Border Patrol agents and mission support staff to enhance 
outbound and other security operations on the Southwest Border. 
The bill funds the full costs of the planned target staffing 
level of 20,019 Border Patrol agents, of whom over 17,000 will 
be based on the Southwest Border--an increase of 6,000, or more 
than 50 percent, since 2006.
    The Committee also provides $97,809,000 for ICE programs 
that support the Southwest Border Initiative, $27,809,000 more 
than requested. These funds will support expansion of critical 
ICE efforts to target the cartels, such as the Border 
Enforcement Security Task Force (BEST) initiative; Southwest 
Border intelligence analysis; criminal gang, drug, weapons 
smuggling and human trafficking investigations; and Mexico-
based investigatory agents who will coordinate U.S. efforts 
with Mexican law enforcement agencies.
    The bill also includes $732,000,000 for the Border Security 
Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology (BSFIT) appropriation, 
of which $692,000,000 is for Southwest Border investments. This 
will bring total BSFIT funding for the Southwest Border to $4.3 
billion since the program began in 2006. The Committee expects 
this funding to be used for the testing, validation, and 
deployment of technological solutions for border security, 
including additional tactical communications capability for the 
Border Patrol. This sizable appropriation should help maintain 
and operate the substantial infrastructure investment already 
placed on the Southwest Border. The bill also provides the 
resources for the Department to employ the most effective means 
of environmental planning and mitigation in the execution of 
the Secure Border Initiative along the Southwest Border.
    Northern Border.--The Committee strongly supports efforts 
to secure the 4,000 miles of the sparsely populated, often 
remote Northern Border between Canada and the 48 continental 
States, which presents unique challenges. The Committee 
includes full funding for Border Patrol staffing and 
recruitment efforts to bring the number of agents stationed 
along the border to 2,212 by 2010. This will amount to more 
than six times the 350 agents stationed on that border in 2001 
and an increase of more than 140 percent above the number 
stationed there in 2006.
    Technological solutions are essential in this vast area, 
and the Committee includes an additional $40,000,000 in BSFIT 
funding as requested to continue investments in mobile and 
remote video surveillance systems. The Committee also supports 
the effort to integrate all CBP technology investment along the 
border, to include legacy systems of monitors, sensors, and 
communications. As CBP Air and Marine is a key part of the 
effort to maintain operational control of the Northern Border, 
the Committee includes the funding requested to add 144 new 
pilots, interdiction agents, and mission support staff to 
enable full staffing for the new air branches established along 
the Northern Border.
    In addition, the Committee observes that ARRA included 
$420,000,000 in new funding to rebuild and upgrade CBP-owned 
ports of entry. Most of those are on the Northern Border, and 
the Committee will be carefully monitoring those projects to 
ensure they are on time and within budget. Related to this, the 
Committee provides $140,000,000 for the Western Hemisphere 
Travel Initiative, including $16,000,000 for new initiatives 
such as communications and outreach for the 2010 Vancouver 
Olympics, auditing enhanced drivers licenses, and improving the 
technical infrastructure at ports of entry to expedite secure 
processing for passengers and pedestrians.

                     SETTING IMMIGRATION PRIORITIES

    Immigration Enforcement.--In fiscal year 2008, DHS's 
immigration agencies set several new records: deporting the 
most people in any year in U.S. history (369,409); holding more 
people in immigration detention per day than ever before 
(30,429); and initiating 1,191 worksite enforcement 
investigations that resulted in 6,287 arrests, the largest 
numbers since the formation of DHS. These figures reflect the 
billions of dollars the Committee has invested in immigration 
enforcement activities since 2003. But rather than simply 
rounding up as many illegal immigrants as possible, which is 
sometimes achieved by targeting the easiest and least 
threatening among the undocumented population, DHS must ensure 
that the government's huge investments in immigration 
enforcement are producing the maximum return in actually making 
our country safer. A closer examination of the data may give 
some pause:
      Since 2002, ICE has increased the deportation of 
non-criminals by 400 percent, while criminal deportations have 
only gone up 60 percent.
      Of the nearly 370,000 deported by ICE in fiscal 
year 2008, less than a third, or 114,358, were ever convicted 
of a criminal offense. This, despite the fact that up to 
450,000 criminals eligible for deportation are in penal custody 
in any given year, according to ICE estimates.
      Less than one-quarter of those interdicted by 
ICE's Fugitive Operations Teams last year were actually 
convicted of criminal offenses.
      Over three-quarters of those arrested in ICE 
worksite enforcement raids last year were not charged with any 
crime.
    Since 2007, the Committee has emphasized how ICE should 
have no higher immigration enforcement priority than deporting 
those who have proved their intent to do harm and have been 
convicted of serious crimes. In fiscal year 2008, ICE received 
$200 million to identify incarcerated criminal aliens and 
remove them once judged deportable. In fiscal year 2009, ICE 
was directed to use $1 billion of its resources to identify and 
remove aliens convicted of crimes, whether in custody or at 
large, and the Congress mandated this be ICE's number one 
mission. In this bill, the Committee directs ICE to use $1.5 
billion of its budget to expand efforts to locate and remove 
those criminal aliens who have proved they are a threat to our 
communities.
    Over the past 18 months, ICE has developed a promising 
collaborative approach, working with State and local law 
enforcement agencies to streamline the identification of 
individuals who have been convicted of serious crimes and who 
may be in the country illegally. Known as ``Secure 
Communities,'' this program allows local law enforcement 
agencies to check the fingerprints of individuals booked on 
criminal charges against both national criminal and immigration 
databases. It is planned for nation-wide deployment by 2011. 
When individuals are identified as illegally present in the 
United States, ICE can take appropriate steps to ensure the 
most dangerous of these criminals are deported upon completion 
of their jail sentences, while those convicted of lesser crimes 
are identified and deported as resources allow. This approach 
respects the traditional separation of local law enforcement 
responsibilities from the Federal role of enforcing immigration 
law, and requires no specialized training in Federal 
immigration law for local officials. The Committee is 
optimistic that Secure Communities will eventually prove more 
effective than many of the agreements ICE has established to 
delegate immigration enforcement authority to local patrol 
officers. The Committee also encourages ICE to ensure it is 
consistently measuring the results of Secure Communities 
deployments and other State and local partnerships so that 
these different approaches can be adequately evaluated in the 
future.
    Effective and Humane Immigration Detention.--The ICE 
detention program has expanded dramatically since the creation 
of the Department of Homeland Security, from an average daily 
capacity of 19,922 in 2002 to 33,400 in 2009, an increase of 
more than 67 percent. Based on recent and repeated reports 
about detainee deaths that appear to have been preventable, the 
Committee is concerned that ICE has not made adequate 
improvements in programs that manage and oversee ICE detention 
activities, particularly those that ICE procures through 
contracts. Certainly not every death is preventable or 
avoidable. However, the incidence of deaths among ICE 
detainees, as well as the conditions under which some of these 
deaths occurred, raises serious questions about the health care 
provided by ICE for those it detains and whether the 
individuals who died were given appropriate and timely medical 
attention. When ICE holds individuals in federal custody, it 
has a responsibility to treat those people fairly and humanely, 
and to provide access to necessary medical care when requested. 
Unfortunately, ICE and the local and contract prisons it uses 
to detain illegal immigrants do not always seem able or willing 
to fulfill that responsibility.
    Last year, Congress provided $2,000,000 for ICE and the DHS 
Office of Health Affairs to hire outside experts to review the 
ICE medical system and offer recommendations on how it could be 
improved. The Committee is disappointed that it took ICE more 
than six months to award the contract for this study, and as a 
result, that evaluation has not yet been completed. This year, 
the Committee provides $8,800,000 to expand ICE detention 
oversight in its field offices and $20,400,000 to initiate 
acquisition of an electronic health records system for ICE 
detainees. In addition, the Committee denies a request from ICE 
to authorize the sale of Federally-owned detention centers to 
pay for consolidation of ICE field offices, which would result 
in all ICE detention being provided as a contracted service. 
The Committee believes this proposal is unwise given the 
serious questions about ICE's ability to oversee the health 
care provided to its detainees at some contract facilities. 
Until ICE is able to prove that it can adequately oversee 
compliance with detention standards, including the delivery of 
timely and appropriate medical care by all of its detention 
contractors, the Committee will not support the liquidation of 
Federal detention facilities.
    Ensuring a Legal Workforce.--United States Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) has created and maintains an 
internet-based system through which employers can verify the 
work eligibility of their new hires. As of May 2009, USCIS had 
enrolled over 125,000 companies in this system, which is 
commonly known as E-Verify. The Committee continues to 
recognize the need for a voluntary computer-based employment 
verification system, and therefore provides $112,000,000 for 
the on-going operation, maintenance and enhancement of the E-
Verify system. In addition, the Committee includes a 2-year 
extension of the E-Verify authorization, as requested in the 
budget.

       STRENGTHENING TRANSPORTATION AND MARITIME SECURITY EFFORTS

    Transportation 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, cargo, and carried by individuals. Yet, the screening 
systems still employed at many airports are inefficient and not 
well-suited to meet 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. This year, the President recognized 
the importance of addressing these needs and requested a record 
amount of funding. The Committee has provided $1.05 billion, 
including $250,000,000 in mandatory funding, to procure and 
install explosive detection systems in-line at our nation's 
airports. This funding, coupled with the $700,000,000 provided 
in ARRA, will more than fully fund the $1.5 billion in high 
priority needs TSA identified earlier this year. According to 
TSA, more than two dozen airports had completed the necessary 
design work to move forward with the installation of these more 
efficient systems. With funding provided in this bill, TSA 
expects to acquire and install 41 in-line systems so that 
additional airports have optimal systems installed at some or 
at all terminals, as well as retain 100 percent electronic 
checked baggage screening compliance at airports that otherwise 
may not be maintained due to anticipated growth or 
recapitalization needs.
    In the area of air cargo, TSA has met the 9/11 Act mandate 
requiring 50 percent of air cargo carried on passenger aircraft 
be screened for explosives. However, the more challenging 
mandate of screening 100 percent of that cargo looms ahead, 
with a deadline of August 2010. TSA has informed Congress that, 
by that date, it will be able to screen all air cargo that 
originates domestically before it is carried on passenger 
aircraft but it may not be able to meet the deadline with 
international air cargo. Screening international air cargo 
poses unique challenges since TSA would need to place personnel 
overseas to screen U.S.-bound cargo and/or strengthen relations 
with foreign airports and companies to screen cargo before it 
is placed on an aircraft heading to the United States. This 
Committee believes that assuring 100 percent of air cargo 
carried on passenger aircraft is screened is an important 
mandate, one that TSA can meet within the timeframe Congress 
has set. Therefore, the Committee has provided $122,849,000 in 
fiscal year 2010 for these efforts. This recommendation 
includes funding for TSA to address the international 
challenge, as well as for increased oversight activities to 
make sure that the certified shippers, freight forwarders, 
companies and other entities screening air cargo domestically 
adhere to our stringent security requirements.
    Transit systems are vulnerable to terrorist attack, as 
demonstrated in London, Madrid, and other locations around the 
world. Since 9/11, $1.67 billion has been provided to protect 
those 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 $250,000,000 provided in this bill for 
transit and rail security, coupled with the $150,000,000 
provided in ARRA that has not yet been awarded, puts us one 
step closer to meeting these identified security needs.
    In addition to grant dollars provided directly to transit 
systems, both TSA and S&T have stepped up their efforts in this 
area. TSA requested additional surface transportation 
inspectors to participate on Visible Intermodal Protection and 
Response teams, which conduct unannounced, high-visibility 
exercises in mass transit or passenger rail facilities. The 
Committee has provided $25,000,000 for these activities. In 
addition, the Committee has fully funded 
9/11 Act activities for surface transportation, including 
funding to continue vulnerability and threat assessments of 
high risk entities, to conduct additional security exercises 
and training programs, and for critical information sharing 
activities. S&T has begun a new research program that focuses 
on the risk of explosives in rail and transit facilities. Prior 
research has focused on finding effective methods to 
counteract, defeat, and mitigate the threat of improvised 
explosive devices (IEDs), with a heavy emphasis on deterring 
the threat to commercial aviation. Within an overall increase 
of $24,660,000 in fiscal year 2010 for explosives research is 
$5,000,000, as requested by the Administration, to expand those 
efforts to address the specific threat of IEDs to mass transit. 
As recent attacks worldwide have shown, the threat to mass 
transit from IEDs must be addressed, and the investments in 
this bill provide a step forward in that direction.
    Maritime Security.--Our nation's ports are critical to 
ensuring that individuals and businesses have access to the 
many products on which they rely. Port security is in the hands 
of CBP, Coast Guard, port authorities and local police 
agencies. In 2002 Coast Guard estimated that $7 billion was 
needed to implement the sea port security improvements mandated 
in the Maritime Transportation Security Act. To date, Congress 
has appropriated $2.18 billion for grants to help ports meet 
these requirements. The Committee has provided an additional 
$250,000,000 for port security grants in this bill.
    In addition to these grants, over the last two years, the 
Committee has provided $93,800,000 in additional resources for 
Coast Guard efforts to increase maritime safety and security, 
over and above the Administration's requests. These investments 
brought on more watchstanders and boat and marine inspectors, 
and increased capacity for security-related activities and 
investigations. As a result, the Coast Guard has a more robust 
capability to ensure the safety and security of U.S. ports 
through domestic and international activities. For example, the 
Coast Guard helps reduce risk to the U.S. by verifying the use 
of effective anti-terrorism measures in foreign ports. Out of 
500 ports screened in 135 countries, seven were found to have 
serious flaws, requiring vessels from those ports to take 
additional security steps as a condition of entry into U.S. 
ports. The Committee fully funded the Administration's request 
for $7,500,000 in new investments to improve marine safety by 
filling the gap between the size of its workforce and the 
growth of the shipping industry. The Coast Guard is already in 
the process of using resources provided in previous years to 
add more qualified marine inspectors and other personnel to 
their ranks under the Marine Safety Enhancement Plan the 
Commandant submitted to Congress in 2007. This year's funding 
will deploy 25 apprentice marine inspectors to 11 ports, 
establish Senior Marine Inspector Training Officers in seven 
critical ``feeder ports,'' and expand the Coast Guard's 
capacity to train inspectors and investigators. This bill also 
makes permanent the highly successful biometrics at sea pilot 
program. This tool has helped ensure that known felons, those 
already deported, or those on terrorist watchlists who are 
attempting to enter our country illegally are tried and 
punished, rather than simply being sent back to try again.
    Maritime Cargo Security.--The Committee remains strongly 
supportive of efforts to secure the nation's economic lifelines 
by detecting dangerous cargo and preventing it from reaching 
U.S. soil. The bill includes $804,000,000 in funding for work 
at CBP and the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) to 
develop and deploy systems to screen cargo for weapons or 
nuclear precursor materials. The Committee is aware that there 
are monumental obstacles to meeting the 2012 deadline set by 
the 9/11 Act for 100 percent scanning of U.S.-bound cargo and 
welcomes the Administration's candor in this regard. However, 
there should be no diminution of the effort to strengthen the 
overseas operation to monitor and target cargo, and to develop 
better technology to accomplish this mission. In addition, the 
Committee expects to see tangible results from CBP's new secure 
filing rule, also known as ``10+2'', which will bring about 
improved information for both enforcement and facilitation of 
cargo.
    The bill provides $162,000,000, a nine percent increase 
over fiscal year 2009, for the Container Security and Secure 
Freight Initiatives, which are designed to ``push the borders 
out'' by basing cargo inspection and monitoring activity at 
overseas ports. These initiatives target high risk cargo for 
appropriate action, either before it is loaded on vessels or 
before those vessels reach the U.S. The Committee also includes 
$143,563,000, as requested, for inspection and detection 
technology, which will fund 12 replacement and 5 new large-
scale nonintrusive inspection (NII) systems, as well as 600 
smaller NII systems for ports of entry. The bill continues to 
support robust research and development for newer, more 
effective technologies to improve container security. The 
Committee also includes funding as requested to bolster 
staffing at the National Targeting Center, as well as to staff 
the Import Safety and Trade Enforcement Initiative, both which 
should contribute to improved supply chain security and better 
protection of the country from illegal and dangerous imports.

                REDUCING CYBER SECURITY VULNERABILITIES

    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. Furthermore, the expertise necessary to protect 
vulnerable computer infrastructure has not generally kept pace 
with the escalating sophistication and intensity of cyber 
attacks. In order to protect the government's computer networks 
from sabotage or attack, the Committee provides $381,904,000 to 
carry out the DHS portion of the National Cyber Security 
Initiative. These funds will help improve the security of 
federal computer networks and strengthen Federal assistance to 
States, localities, and the private sector, all of which face 
similar threats of disruptive and potentially costly cyber 
attacks. As the confusion surrounding the 2009 computer virus 
called ``Conficker'' showed, there is still a large gap in the 
understanding of the behavior and anatomy of malware. In order 
to better protect against future attacks, the bill provides the 
Administration's request of $19,500,000 to invest in next 
generation technologies to enhance DHS's capability to deal 
with cyber attacks.

             MEETING THE NEEDS OF STATE AND LOCAL PARTNERS

    The Committee is pleased DHS's budget finally recognizes 
State and local emergency planners and responders as equal 
partners in homeland security by requesting $3,867,000,000 for 
grants that assist them with everything from planning to 
equipping first responders. The Committee strengthens that 
commitment to State and local partners by providing 
$3,959,000,000 for comparable grant programs, including an 
increase of $15,000,000 for Emergency Management Performance 
Grants, the one true all-hazards preparedness grant program. 
The Committee also requires FEMA to post changes to policies 
online in order to afford State and local partners the 
opportunity for input. FEMA's National Advisory Council, which 
is comprised of various emergency management stakeholders, must 
also review all policy changes.

                    CORRECTING LONGSTANDING PROBLEMS

    Food and Shelter.--The Committee recognizes some shortfalls 
in the Department of Homeland Security budget request, in part 
due to the poor economic condition we are currently 
experiencing. For example, an increasing number of Americans 
are relying on food and housing assistance to meet basic needs. 
Since the recession began in December 2007, the U.S. has lost a 
net total of 5.7 million jobs. As of April 2009, the nationwide 
unemployment rate stands at 8.9 percent, a quarter-century 
high. Recent estimates show foreclosure rates rising 30 percent 
from 2008 as food prices continue to rise. In April 2009, food 
prices rose nearly 1.5 percent. Yet, the budget proposed 
cutting the Emergency Food and Shelter Program funding to 
$100,000,000, or half the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. The 
Committee has restored funding for this program.
    Housing.--More than 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. Based on the latest estimates from FEMA, nearly 30,000 
households are still receiving disaster housing assistance, of 
which nearly 3,000 are in trailers and about 27,000 are in 
rental units as part of the joint Department of Housing and 
Urban Development (HUD)/FEMA program called the Disaster 
Housing Assistance Program. In fiscal year 2009 the Committee 
required the Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast 
Rebuilding to consult experts to draw up a framework for 
developing and sustaining affordable rental housing in affected 
Gulf Coast communities. The panel was tasked to provide 
recommendations for how HUD, the private sector, and the States 
could achieve a sufficient stock of affordable rental housing 
to meet the needs of all those displaced after the hurricanes 
who still lack permanent housing options. The Office's report 
focused on issues specific to the Gulf Coast, but several of 
its recommendations should be studied and incorporated by 
Federal, State and local governments to deal with future 
disasters, including improved case management services for 
families in interim housing and the need for new sources of 
funding for long-term, post-disaster housing. The Committee is 
committed to ensuring this type of post-disaster housing 
disaster never happens again. This bill directs FEMA and HUD to 
formalize an agreement to bring HUD's expertise to bear for if 
another Hurricane Katrina-like disaster forces tens of 
thousands from their homes.
    Firefighter Assistance Grants.--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 Assistance for Firefighters (AFG) grants by 70 
percent compared to fiscal year 2009 even though, for fiscal 
year 2008 alone, FEMA received 21,022 applications for AFG 
funds, with requests totaling $3,137,121,053. The Committee 
provides $800,000,000 for firefighter assistance grants to help 
address these and other unmet needs of the nation's Fire 
Service including $380,000,000 for AFG grants.
    In conclusion, the bill seeks to push the Department to 
practice better financial and program management; to set clear 
and well-reasoned priorities and goals in areas ranging from 
the security needs of our borders to immigration enforcement, 
from transportation and maritime security to cyber security 
vulnerabilities, from improved disaster management to helping 
our citizens who are most at risk; and to strengthen 
partnerships with international, federal, state, local and 
private sector entities. The new Administration faces many 
homeland security challenges, and this Committee will be its 
partner as we take on these challenges together.

            TITLE I--DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS


            Office of the Secretary and Executive Management

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2009.......................      $123,456,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2010......................       160,760,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       147,427,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2009...................       +23,971,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2010..................       -13,333,000
                                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's efforts to 
achieve its strategic goals: preventing terrorist attacks 
within the United States; reducing America's vulnerabilities to 
terrorism and natural disasters; minimizing the damage from 
attacks and disasters that may occur; responding to attacks and 
disasters, in cooperation with states and local governments; 
and assisting in recovery following disasters and attacks.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $147,427,000 for the Office of the 
Secretary and Executive Management, $13,333,000 below the 
amount requested and $23,971,000 above the amount provided in 
fiscal year 2009. To adequately oversee expenditures and 
personnel changes within each office of the Office of the 
Secretary and Executive Management, the Committee has provided 
separate funding recommendations as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget estimate      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immediate Office of the Secretary.         $5,061,000         $3,783,000
Immediate Office of the Deputy              1,810,000          1,440,000
 Secretary........................
Chief of Staff....................          2,595,000          2,926,000
Office of Counternarcotics                  3,912,000          3,712,000
 Enforcement......................
Executive Secretariat.............          8,344,000          7,578,000
Office of Policy..................         61,564,000         51,564,000
Office of Public Affairs..........          6,539,000          6,039,000
Office of Legislative Affairs.....          7,097,000          6,797,000
Office of Intergovernmental                 2,800,000          2,800,000
 Programs.........................
Office of General Counsel.........         24,028,000         24,028,000
Office of Civil Rights and                 22,104,000         22,104,000
 Liberties........................
Citizenship and Immigration                 6,935,000          6,685,000
 Services Ombudsman...............
Privacy Officer...................          7,971,000          7,971,000
                                   -------------------------------------
    Total.........................        160,760,000        147,427,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee notes with dismay that the Department ignored 
explicit Congressional direction and reconfigured several 
programs, projects, and activities (PPAs) in its budget 
request. Without consulting with the Committee, the Department 
merged the Immediate Office of the Secretary, the Immediate 
Office of the Deputy Secretary, Chief of Staff and Executive 
Secretariat into a single new budget line entitled ``Executive 
Leadership and Direction.'' The Department also created another 
new line item called ``Stakeholder Relations,'' which would 
have included the Office of State and Local Law Enforcement, 
the Private Sector Coordination Office, intergovernmental 
functions from a number of other components in the Department's 
executive management, and the Office of Intergovernmental 
Affairs (to be transferred from FEMA). Since the budget was 
submitted, the Committee has been told that the creation of the 
second PPA was canceled, although the transfer of the Office of 
Intergovernmental Affairs from FEMA is still a part of the 
request, appearing as the Office of Intergovernmental Programs 
listed above. This incomplete last minute change has made it 
difficult to review the budgets for the affected functions with 
clarity. This is not the first time DHS has submitted budget 
requests with such deficiencies. The Committee reiterates that 
structural alterations to the request should only be made after 
advance consultation with the Committee on Appropriations; and 
if they are approved for use in the budget request, the budget 
should carry a complete table comparing new and old elements to 
allow for seamless tracking of the use of taxpayer dollars.
    Many of the activities that the Office of Counternarcotics 
Enforcement undertakes closely align with actions being 
reviewed by the Office of Policy. While the Committee 
recognizes that the Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement is a 
separately authorized office, there are synergies among these 
two entities that, if combined, could provide more effective 
oversight of DHS activities within its component agencies, with 
other federal agencies, and in working with other governments. 
As such, the Committee directs the Secretary to evaluate 
whether it would be appropriate to shift the functions of the 
Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement into the Office of 
Policy, and report to the Committee no later than January 15, 
2010 on its conclusions.

          NATIONAL SOUTHWEST BORDER COUNTERNARCOTICS STRATEGY

    The Committee just received the National Southwest Border 
Counternarcotics Strategy on June 5, 2009, which is to guide 
the joint efforts and policy planning of the Department of 
Homeland Security, the Justice Department, the Office of 
National Drug Control Policy, and other agencies. The Committee 
directs DHS to brief the Committee not later than July 15, 
2009, on how it will implement the policy in 2009 and 2010, to 
include any impacts on the fiscal year 2010 budget request for 
the Department and its component agencies.

                   IMMEDIATE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

    The Committee recommends $3,783,000 for the Immediate 
Office of the Secretary, $1,278,000 below the amount requested 
and $643,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. 
Funding has been reduced from the request as the Committee 
rejects the proposed transfer of $1,278,000 from other accounts 
to pay in advance for projected travel by component agency 
personnel with the Secretary. The Committee directs the 
Department to continue to manage travel in the same fashion as 
the current fiscal year.

                IMMEDIATE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SECRETARY

    The Committee recommends $1,440,000 for the Immediate 
Office of the Deputy Secretary, $370,000 below the amount 
requested and $40,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 
2009. Funding has been reduced from the request as the 
Committee rejects the proposed transfer of $370,000 from other 
accounts to pay in advance for projected travel by component 
agency personnel with the Deputy Secretary. The Committee 
directs the Department to continue to manage travel in the same 
fashion as the current fiscal year.

                      OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF STAFF

    The Committee recommends $2,926,000 for the Office of the 
Chief of Staff, $331,000 above the amount requested and 
$233,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. The 
increase above the request is due to the rejection of the 
proposed transfer of $1,278,000 from other accounts, including 
$331,000 from this office, to pay in advance for projected 
travel by component agency personnel with the Secretary.

                 OFFICE OF COUNTERNARCOTICS ENFORCEMENT

    The Committee recommends $3,712,000 for the Office of 
Counternarcotics Enforcement, $200,000 below the amount 
requested and $6,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 
2009. The Committee has made a slight reduction to the request 
due to vacancies in this office that are expected to continue 
through the remainder of fiscal year 2009 and into fiscal year 
2010.

                         EXECUTIVE SECRETARIAT

    The Committee recommends $7,578,000 for the Executive 
Secretariat, $766,000 below the amount requested and $130,000 
above amount provided in fiscal year 2009. 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 2009 and into fiscal year 2010.

                            OFFICE OF POLICY

    The Committee recommends $51,564,000 for the Office of 
Policy, $10,000,000 below the amount requested and $8,301,000 
above the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. This funding 
level includes $2,000,000 for the Administration's new program 
to coordinate assessment of the Department's mission 
requirements across components, $3,000,000 less than the 
request. While the Committee supports this effort, this should 
be an organic function of the Department's leadership, not a 
separate office. In addition, the Committee provides $3,000,000 
for the new Intermodal Security Coordination Office, a joint 
initiative between the Department of Homeland Security and the 
Department of Transportation (DOT), $7,000,000 less than the 
request. While addressing concerns about security at maritime 
and intermodal facilities is important, the Committee notes 
that there are already existing structures and arrangements in 
place among DHS component agencies to coordinate efforts with 
DOT, and urges the Department to ensure this funding does not 
create parallel structures or needlessly duplicate efforts.

                        OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

    The Committee recommends $6,039,000 for the Office of 
Public Affairs, $500,000 below the amount requested and $48,000 
above the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. The Committee 
has made a slight reduction to the request due to the continued 
vacancies in this office.

                     OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS

    The Committee recommends $6,797,000 for the Office of 
Legislative Affairs, $300,000 below the amount requested and 
$1,800,000 above the level provided in fiscal year 2009. The 
Committee has made a slight reduction to the request due to 
unjustified increases in Working Capital Fund expenses. The 
name of this office has been changed to avoid confusion with 
the newly proposed Office of Intergovernmental Programs.

                  OFFICE OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL PROGRAMS

    The Committee supports the shifting of $2,000,000 and 17 
FTE from FEMA as requested in the budget for the Office of 
Intergovernmental Programs, as well as the $800,000 requested 
for information technology infrastructure. The Committee 
requires that the Secretary present a detailed organizational 
plan for the new office within 60 days of enactment of this 
bill. The plan should outline the cost savings and efficiencies 
this reorganization is expected to create.

                       OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL

    The Committee recommends $24,028,000 for the Office of 
General Counsel, as requested, and $3,914,000 above the amounts 
provided in fiscal year 2009. The Committee fully funds the 10 
new full-time employee equivalents (FTEs) requested for fiscal 
year 2010 within this recommended level.

             CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN

    The Committee recommends $6,685,000 for the Citizenship and 
Immigration Services Ombudsman, $250,000 below the amount 
requested and $214,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 
2009. The Committee has made a slight reduction to the request 
due to the continued vacancies in this office.

                               USER FEES

    The Committee understands that user fee collections, which 
help pay for several key component activities, have fallen, 
significantly in some cases. The Committee takes special note 
that CBP's collections of immigration and customs inspection 
fees, which fund about 6,500 FTEs and as recently as 2008 
exceeded $1,000,000,000, have declined and will likely decrease 
further if travel continues to decline. The CBP budget 
estimates that air travel will be five percent lower in fiscal 
year 2010 than in fiscal year 2009. In addition, the Committee 
is concerned that FEMA has overestimated fee collection from 
flood insurance policies for fiscal year 2010 and that the 
agency will not be able to support the 330 FTE funded with 
those fees or sustain critical flood plain management 
activities. During the current fiscal year, FEMA expressed 
concern to the Committee that fees would not keep up with 
estimates and that reprogramming actions may be needed. While 
the Administration is planning to offer legislation to 
consolidate several currently separate user fees, such action 
would not address the underlying vulnerability of staffing and 
operations to resource reductions. The Committee directs the 
Secretary to report not later than November 1, 2010 on actual 
fiscal year 2009 collections and projected 2010 collections for 
all impacted entities at DHS, along with a contingency plan for 
making up any difference between expected collections and 
budgeted activities.

                         BUDGET JUSTIFICATIONS

    For fiscal year 2011, the Committee directs that the 
congressional budget justifications for the Office of the 
Secretary and Executive Management include the same level of 
detail as the table contained in the back of the Committee 
report. All funding and staffing changes for each individual 
office must be highlighted and explained. The Committee expects 
this level of detail to include separate discussions for 
personnel, compensation, and benefits; travel; training; and 
other services.

                          WORKING CAPITAL FUND

    Consistent with prior years, the Committee directs the 
Department to include a separate appropriation justification 
for the Working Capital Fund (WCF) in the fiscal year 2011 
budget request. This should include a description of each 
activity funded by the WCF; the basis for the pricing; the 
number of full-time federal employees funded in each activity; 
a list of each departmental organization that is allocating 
funds to the activity; and the funding each organization is 
providing in fiscal years 2010 and 2011. If a project contained 
in the WCF is a multi-year activity with a defined cost, scope, 
and schedule, the estimated costs and schedule shall be clearly 
delineated.
    The Committee expects all initiatives funded by multiple 
DHS organizations to be included in the WCF. The Committee does 
not support taxing departmental organizations for cross-cutting 
initiatives outside 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.
    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 House or Senate 
Committees on Appropriations have disapproved either in report 
language or in their responses to reprogramming requests.

                      RECEPTION AND REPRESENTATION

    Within the Office of the Secretary and Executive 
Management, the Committee provides $60,000 for official 
reception and representation expenses, as requested, the same 
level provided in fiscal year 2009. Within this total, $20,000 
shall be for international programs within the Office of Policy 
for activities related to the visa waiver program.

                   DEPARTMENTAL RESPONSIVENESS TO GAO

    The Committee is pleased to note that the Department is 
working with GAO to improve its responsiveness to information 
requests, and is examining the models of interaction offered by 
other agencies. In order to improve transparency and oversight, 
the Committee urges DHS to adopt the practices of most other 
federal agencies regarding interaction with GAO. These include: 
ensuring that GAO representatives have direct access to program 
officials and other relevant DHS employees, including 
contractors, for purposes of requesting records and obtaining 
information; expediting the internal review process for 
requested information by eliminating unnecessary or redundant 
levels of review; directing program officials and other 
relevant DHS employees, including contractors, to provide GAO 
with immediate access to agency records upon request when such 
records are readily available and do not require further 
internal review; and providing GAO representatives with access 
to draft or other non-final agency records when pertinent to 
GAO's review, consistent with GAO's statutory right of access 
to agency records and its obligation to handle such information 
appropriately.

                        GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

    The Committee still expects the Secretary to provide 
Congress, by September 30, 2009, with a detailed inventory of 
the Department's greenhouse gas emissions, and a plan for how 
the Department will reduce these emissions. The Committee 
expects a report every six months thereafter on the progress 
the Department has made in emission reductions.

              Office of the Under Secretary for Management

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2009\1\....................      $191,793,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2010......................       337,990,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       268,690,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2009...................       +76,897,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2010..................       -69,300,000 
\1\Excludes $200,000,000 in appropriations provided in the American
  Recovery and Reinvestment Act (P.L. 111-5).

                                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 $268,690,000 for the Office of the 
Under Secretary for Management, $69,300,000 below the amount 
requested and $76,897,000 above the amount provided in fiscal 
year 2009. In order to adequately oversee expenditures for each 
office, the Committee has provided separate funding 
recommendations as detailed in the following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget estimate      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under Secretary for Management....         $2,864,000         $2,864,000
Office of Security................         95,193,000         95,193,000
Office of the Chief Procurement            71,038,000         66,538,000
 Officer..........................
Office of the Chief Human Capital          44,404,000         43,604,000
 Officer..........................
Office of the Chief Administrative        124,491,000         60,491,000
 Officer..........................
                                   -------------------------------------
    Total.........................        337,990,000        268,690,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           OFFICE OF SECURITY

    The Committee recommends $95,193,000 for the Office of 
Security, as requested and $34,311,000 above the amount 
provided in fiscal year 2009. This increase includes 
$25,000,000 for the Department to begin issuing smart identity 
cards for large numbers of Departmental employees. The 
Committee directs the Office of Security to provide a report on 
its progress in issuing new identity cards and remaining needs 
for additional infrastructure and materials needed to complete 
the project. The Committee is pleased to note a large number of 
new hires approaching the end of the clearance process, and the 
expected significant reduction in vacancies in this office. 
Funding is also provided to create a special access program 
control office, which will improve oversight of sensitive 
compartmentalized information, and to improve the timeliness of 
processing background investigations.

                OFFICE OF THE CHIEF PROCUREMENT OFFICER

    The Committee recommends $66,538,000 for the Office of the 
Chief Procurement Officer (OCPO), $4,500,000 below the amount 
requested and $27,535,000 above the amount provided in fiscal 
year 2009. The increase above fiscal year 2009 supports three 
efforts: the third year of the DHS-wide acquisition workforce 
intern program, setting up a classified program support office, 
and expanding the acquisition program management division.

           ACQUISITION PROFESSIONAL CAREER INTERNSHIP PROGRAM

    The Committee fully funds the request of $7,000,000 to 
expand the acquisition career professional internship program 
in its third year, creating 100 more full-time positions. 
Congress has been highly critical of the performance of DHS 
acquisition programs in the past. Across the government, 
Federal agencies are experiencing shortages of procurement 
managers as employees retire or move to the private sector. Of 
the more than 1,300 people managing acquisition at DHS, 300 are 
eligible to retire in the next three years. These are 
inherently governmental positions that cannot be filled by 
contractors. It takes at least four years to train a fully 
capable acquisition official. This internship program helps 
recruit and train the procurement staff needed to fill those 
gaps on the horizon. The Department has indicated that without 
funding for this program, programs will be short-staffed, 
leading to schedule delays, cost overruns and decreased 
performance.
    Recognizing the competing demands for this type of staff in 
government service and the private sector, OCPO shall submit to 
the Committee no later than 60 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act a report outlining all Departmental 
efforts aimed at decreasing the attrition rate of the DHS 
acquisition workforce. This report shall include each specific 
project funded, key milestones, all funding sources for each 
project, details of annual and lifecycle costs, and projected 
cost savings or cost avoidance to be achieved by each project. 
The Committee also directs OCPO to provide a breakdown of where 
the interns and graduates of the acquisition career 
professional internship program are serving within 60 days of 
enactment, and on an annual basis accompanying the budget 
request.

                   CLASSIFIED PROGRAM SUPPORT OFFICE

    The Committee recommends $6,500,000 and six FTEs to 
establish an office to provide support for DHS acquisitions 
requiring classified contracts, a capacity the Department does 
not currently possess. As it stands, if an acquisition required 
a classified contract, the Department would run the risk of 
either not getting the goods and services it paid for due to 
the vagueness required by unclassified contracts, or disclosing 
details of classified programs through the procurement process.

                ACQUISITION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT DIVISION

    The Committee provides $7,000,000 and five FTEs to increase 
capacity in the acquisition program management division. This 
division is responsible for creating reviews and analysis 
procedures for major acquisition programs at the Department to 
help control costs and ensure success. Currently the office 
only has the resources to review twenty of the Department's 
seventy major programs. This funding will allow the Department 
to increase the number of reviews it conducts on major 
programs, and provide additional support to ongoing 
acquisitions by identifying problems earlier in the process. 
The Committee recommends that the reduction from the 
Administration's request should come from contractor support 
rather than in-house expertise.

          DHS INVESTMENT REVIEW PROCESS FOR MAJOR PROCUREMENTS

    In fiscal year 2008, DHS obligated more than $13.75 billion 
for the procurement of goods and services to support homeland 
security missions, making it the fifth-largest federal 
government agency in terms of procurement. GAO recently 
reported (GAO-09-29) that while DHS's investment review process 
calls for executive decision-making at several points in the 
life cycle of major programs, the implementation of the 
investment review process at DHS has failed to identify and 
remediate cost, schedule, and performance problems in a number 
of its major investments. GAO has found that that the DHS 
Investment Review Board (IRB) and Joint Requirements Council 
have been under-powered and under-resourced to address problems 
once identified. GAO also found that key acquisition documents 
needed to help illuminate cost, schedule and performance 
problems were not prepared and approved for several major 
investments. Specifically, GAO reported in November 2008 that 
94 percent of DHS's major investments lacked reviews in 
accordance with the Department's investment review policy, and 
68 percent lacked a life-cycle cost estimate. In fiscal year 
2008, $681.2 million of taxpayer dollars were spent on capital 
assets without a Mission Needs Statement--a document that 
verifies that the investment is needed and supported by the 
Department. That reflects 18 of DHS's 57 major investments that 
year. GAO's key finding was most troubling: ``DHS cannot ensure 
that its investment decisions are appropriate and will 
ultimately address capability gaps.''
    While DHS has begun to improve the investment review 
process, including issuance of a November 2008 interim 
acquisition directive, the Committee is anxious to see positive 
results. This Administration has not had a chance to 
demonstrate a track record on this issue, but the Committee is 
heartened by the concepts outlined in the Secretary's recent 
report outlining the top 25 acquisition programs under the 
Department's purview and how those will be reviewed, as well as 
the proposed investments in the Administration's budget to 
improve oversight of DHS acquisitions. The Deputy Secretary 
shall provide a report to the Committees on Appropriations by 
October 1, 2009, updating the list of the Department's top 25 
investments and their status in the acquisition review process. 
Furthermore, the report should include information on what 
progress has been made on improving overall compliance with the 
reformed investment review policies of the Department, 
including strengthening the capacities of the Acquisition 
Review Board and other oversight mechanisms, such as portfolio 
and component-level reviews.

               OFFICE OF THE CHIEF HUMAN CAPITAL OFFICER

    The Committee recommends $43,604,000 for the Office of the 
Chief Human Capital Officer, $800,000 below the amount 
requested and $4,777,000 above the amount provided in fiscal 
year 2009. Of this total, $33,604,000 is recommended for the 
salaries and expenses of the Office of the Chief Human Capital 
Officer and $10,000,000 is recommended for human resource 
activities to enhance employee morale and create a more 
satisfying work environment.
    The Committee is pleased to note the progress made in 
hiring in several component offices where hiring is 
administered by the Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer. 
The Office is directed to continue providing monthly reports to 
the Committees on Appropriations, summarizing the vacancy 
situation at the Department, and urges the Office to provide 
the reports in a more timely fashion. These monthly reports 
should include the number of new hires brought on-board for 
each headquarters office in the previous month, as well as the 
number of applications received as a ratio to the number of 
vacancies closed. Each report should also include an end-of-
the-month snapshot for each headquarters office, with the 
number of new hires pending security or suitability clearance, 
the number of open vacancies, and the number of selection 
referral lists pending with management.

               OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER

    The Committee recommends $60,491,000 for the Office of the 
Chief Administrative Officer, $64,000,000 below the amount 
requested and $10,064,000 above the amount provided in fiscal 
year 2009. Of this total, $44,491,000 is recommended for the 
salaries and expenses of the Office of the Chief Administrative 
Officer, $6,000,000 is for costs associated with DHS 
headquarters needs at the Nebraska Avenue Complex, and 
$10,000,000 is for the DHS headquarters consolidation project. 
Within the funding level for salaries and expenses is 
$1,000,000 for logistics and procurement personnel from across 
the Department to receive training and education through 
LOGTECH and related programs, which have benefitted Coast Guard 
personnel. The Committee approves the requested transfer of 
$10,800,000 and 5 full-time employee equivalents to the 
Directorate of Operations Coordination for continuity of 
operations oversight.

                      DHS HEADQUARTERS FACILITIES

    The Committee is well aware of the expansive needs for 
departmental facilities, which will exceed what can be provided 
at the new headquarters slated to be built on the St. 
Elizabeths campus. While the Committee recognizes that 
consolidation of some DHS facilities could take place as 
existing leases expire, before components begin to move to the 
new site in 2013, the Committee finds the proposal to spend 
$75,000,000 for this purpose insufficiently justified at this 
time. Therefore, the Committee instead provides $10,000,000 to 
begin the needed improvements and security enhancements once 
leased space is acquired, and directs the Office of the Chief 
Administrative Officer to provide a detailed briefing to the 
Committee on the plans for lease consolidation.

                   ST. ELIZABETHS CAMPUS DEVELOPMENT

    The Committee is aware of continuing concerns about the 
potential impact of the St. Elizabeths campus development on 
the surrounding infrastructure and community. The Committee 
directs DHS to continue to work with the local community and 
the National Capital Planning Commission to ensure parking and 
traffic management issues are properly dealt with so that the 
new headquarters has a positive impact on the neighborhood 
while meeting the requirements of DHS and its personnel.

                  DHS FACILITIES AND RENEWABLE ENERGY

    The Department of Homeland Security has facilities in a 
wide range of geographic locations across the country. This 
puts the Department in a unique position to seek out 
opportunities to capitalize on distributed power generation 
using alternative and renewable energy sources as a means of 
ensuring operational energy security, saving money, and 
reducing the Department's environmental impact. The Department 
is directed to provide a report to the Committee prior to the 
submission of the Administration's fiscal year 2011 budget 
request that outlines the best opportunities for each component 
of the Department to take advantage of distributed power 
generation using alternative and renewable energy sources, and 
accounts for the possible risks and rewards involved.

                 Office of the Chief Financial Officer

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2009.......................       $55,235,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2010......................        65,530,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        63,530,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2009...................        +8,295,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2010..................        -2,000,000
                                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 $63,530,000 for the Office of the 
Chief Financial Officer (CFO), $2,000,000 below the amount 
requested and $8,295,000 above the amount provided in fiscal 
year 2009. In support of more robust internal controls and more 
well-planned budgets, the Committee has fully funded the new 
FTEs requested for the Office of Financial Management.

                TRANSFORMATION AND SYSTEMS CONSOLIDATION

    The Committee is concerned that the Department continues to 
struggle to produce reliable, timely and useful financial 
management information and that, to date, auditors have been 
unable to issue a clean opinion of the Department's financial 
statements. Within the funding provided for the CFO is 
$17,800,000 for the Transformation and Systems Consolidation 
(TASC) project, $2,000,000 below the requested level, due to 
high unobligated program balances resulting from program 
delays. 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 departmental components.
    The Committee is concerned that the cost estimate for TASC 
may be significantly understated, and that the timeline for 
implementing this needed reform may continue to be stalled by 
bid protests and lawsuits. In light of these concerns, the 
Committee directs the Department to report to the Committee 
within 90 days of the enactment of this bill, and every six 
months thereafter on consolidating their financial management 
system. The report shall include the following matters: a 
detailed accounting of the Department's progress in assessing, 
selecting, transitioning to, and implementing a consolidated 
financial management system; a schedule showing when components 
will transition to the new financial system, accompanied by an 
explanation of how the transitions were prioritized; a 
breakdown of the resources needed to meet the human capital 
needs of the Department in transitioning to and fully 
implementing this system; the Department's plans to use an 
independent validation and verification agent to actively 
review the program once implementation has begun; and a risk 
management analysis for the system that identifies and 
evaluates ongoing risks for the Department, including a list of 
the program's most significant risks and the status of efforts 
to mitigate them.
    Since 2003, the Coast Guard has had severe weaknesses in 
its financial management. Recent IG reports indicate that the 
Coast Guard's financial management practices may be worsening 
and remain the largest single contributor to the Department's 
inability to receive a clean audit. The Coast Guard claims that 
many of its problems will be ameliorated by the implementation 
of the consolidated financial system. In light of this, the 
Committee urges the CFO to consider transferring the Coast 
Guard to the new financial management system as soon as 
possible to help rectify these longstanding problems.

                  CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET JUSTIFICATIONS

    The Committee directs the Department to submit all of its 
fiscal year 2011 budget justifications on the first Monday in 
February, 2010, concurrent with the official submission of the 
President's budget to Congress. This should include all 
classified budgets as well as non-classified budgets. These 
justifications should have the customary level of detailed data 
and explanatory statements to support the appropriations 
requests, including tables that detail each agency's programs, 
projects, and activities for fiscal years 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 2011. The CFO should also ensure 
that each item directed by the Committee to be provided as part 
of the fiscal year 2011 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, one of 
note is the Coast Guard's Capital Investment Plan, a document 
this Committee depends on each year.
    The CFO shall submit, as part of the 2011 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.

IMPACT OF CHANGING IMMIGRATION LAW FOR GUAM AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE 
                        NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS

    The Committee is aware that on November 28, 2009, the 
Department will implement new rules affecting the entry and 
departure of travelers to and from Guam and the Commonwealth of 
the Northern Mariana Islands, pursuant to Title VII of Public 
Law 110-229, the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008, 
and associated changes in immigration law and rules 
administered by the Department. The Committee understands that 
this change in law and regulation will increase workload and 
resource requirements for Departmental components who are 
responsible for administering immigration and travel laws, but 
the Department included no request for additional funding in 
its fiscal year 2010 budget request. The Committee therefore 
directs the Secretary to report to the Committee not later than 
January 15, 2010, on fiscal year 2010 resource requirements for 
carrying out the changes mandated in Public Law 110-229, 
including any required reprogramming or transfer of funds; 
acquisition or leasing of property; and relocation or hiring of 
additional personnel.

                     MONTHLY REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

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

                Office of the Chief Information Officer

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2009.......................      $272,169,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2010......................       338,393,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       299,593,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2009...................       +27,424,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2010..................       -38,800,000
                                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 $299,593,000 for the Office of the 
Chief Information Officer, $38,800,000 below the requested 
level and $27,424,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 
2009. The majority of the reduction from the requested funding 
level is due to concerns over the data center migration 
initiative.
    A comparison of the budget request to the Committee 
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget estimate      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salaries and Expenses.............        $86,912,000        $86,912,000
Information Technology Activities.         51,417,000         51,417,000
Security Activities...............        152,403,000        113,603,000
Homeland Secure Data Network......         47,661,000         47,661,000
                                   -------------------------------------
    Total, Chief Information              338,393,000        299,593,000
     Officer......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          SECURITY ACTIVITIES

    The Committee recommends $113,603,000 for Security 
Activities, $38,800,000 below the amount requested and 
$20,980,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. The 
Administration requested a total of $200,000,000 throughout DHS 
to pay for migration of component resources to the Department's 
two consolidated data centers, including $58,800,000 for the 
CIO's share. The purpose of operating two data centers is to 
help manage the significant risk associated with locating all 
of the Department's data at a single site.
    The Committee is disturbed by the recent report from the 
Department's Inspector General entitled ``DHS's Progress in 
Disaster Recovery Planning for Information Systems.'' The 
report notes several problems with the CIO's plans to migrate 
and consolidate the Department's data centers into two 
centralized locations for efficiency, security and 
survivability in the event of a disaster. It notes that the 
data centers are still missing key infrastructure, such as 
interconnecting circuits and redundant hardware to allow them 
to act as effective backups. Some component agencies have plans 
to migrate their data to one of the centers, but lack an 
alternate site to actually process the data in the event of a 
disaster. Guidance provided to or developed by participating 
components does not conform to government standards, and 85 
percent of components had not fully tested their contingency 
plans that would allow them to continue to operate in the 
aftermath of a significant event.
    The IG found a number of alarming problems and 
vulnerabilities at these two data centers. Notably, risk 
assessments for both centers are out of date and are not 
expected to be updated until the end of the year. Equally 
disturbing was the failure of the last risk assessment to 
recommend action plans to deal with a possible hurricane, 
despite one facility's 20-mile proximity to the Gulf Coast. 
Among the vulnerabilities identified in the report were single 
points of failure for telecommunications and power, inadequate 
security, guards that lacked adequate clearances to protect 
such sensitive facilities, use of water-based fire 
extinguishers in computing and power facilities, lack of a 
perimeter fence, and failure to consider the risks from being 
located next to a testing facility for rocket engines.
    This report was made public the day the budget was 
released. The Office of the CIO was aware of the shortcomings 
identified in this report for months and agreed with its 
findings. Yet at no point in outlining their budget before the 
Committee did the Department acknowledge the shortcomings 
identified in the report, or indicate that its budget was 
responsive to these concerns. Until that happens, the Committee 
cannot in good conscience continue funding migration of 
component data centers to these sites. Within the funds 
appropriated for Security Activities is $20,000,000 to update 
the risk assessments and take steps to remedy the problems 
identified in the report. The CIO is directed to provide an 
expenditure plan to the Committee within 60 days of enactment 
of this Act outlining how these funds will be allocated, and to 
supply quarterly reports thereafter on the progress in 
mitigating the risks identified in the report.

                     HOMELAND SECURITY DATA NETWORK

    The Committee provides $47,661,000, as requested, for the 
Homeland Security Data Network (HSDN) project, which is the 
secure computer network for DHS and its State and local 
partners. Recent press reports have detailed a security breach 
found in the system that has since been remedied. The Committee 
encourages the CIO to continue to take proactive steps to 
ensure the integrity of this investment, and to keep Congress 
informed of similar threats as they develop.

              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 2009.......................     $ 327,373,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2010......................       357,345,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       345,556,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2009...................       +18,183,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2010..................       -11,789,000
                                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 $345,556,000 for Analysis and 
Operations, $11,789,000 below the amount requested and 
$18,183,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2009.

                     STATE AND LOCAL FUSION CENTERS

    The Committee provides the funding requested to expand 
support to all existing State and Local Fusion Centers, but 
notes that the Office of Intelligence and Analysis has failed 
to submit the quarterly reports on this activity, as required 
in the 2009 Appropriations Act. The Committee directs the 
Office of Intelligence and Analysis to re-establish this 
quarterly reporting requirement immediately, and to include a 
national review of fusion center distribution, evaluating the 
potential for overlapping roles and jurisdictions.

   NATIONAL APPLICATIONS OFFICE AND NATIONAL IMMIGRATION INFORMATION 
                           SHARING OPERATION

    As specified in the classified annex to this report, the 
Committee has reduced the funding requested for the National 
Applications Office (NAO) and National Immigration Information 
Sharing Operation (NIISO) below the levels requested. The 
Committee is concerned that although the Department has had at 
least 18 months to develop and submit operating documents and 
certifications showing that these programs can be conducted 
within existing privacy and civil liberties statutes, it has 
failed to adequately do so. While the Committee strongly 
supports programs that the Department believes are necessary 
for the security of the country, it is pointless to sustain 
funding for programs that are not operational and have been 
unable to demonstrate they can function within existing law. If 
the Department continues to promote the necessity of NAO or 
NIISO, it should use funding provided in the Analysis and 
Operations appropriation for planning, legal reviews and 
consultation with the relevant authorizing committees of 
jurisdiction to ensure these initiatives will operate in 
compliance with the law.

                 DIRECTORATE OF OPERATIONS COORDINATION

    The Committee has reduced funding 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 2009 expenditure plan, and 
therefore does not fund the requested increase for additional 
personnel in 2010.
    The Committee supports the transfer of DHS Continuity of 
Operations (COOP) activities from the Office of Administration 
to the Directorate of Operations Coordination. However, the 
Committee strongly believes that cross-government COOP planning 
should remain at the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA), and directs the Directorate of Operations Coordination 
to make no attempt to assume control of cross-government COOP 
responsibilities currently carried out by FEMA.

                          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 2009.......................        $1,900,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.....................         2,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................         2,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2009...................          +100,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.................             - - -
                                MISSION

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

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for the Office of the 
Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding (OFCGCR), the 
same as the amount requested and $100,000 above the amount 
provided in fiscal year 2009.
    The Committee is concerned by the lack of adequate 
healthcare for the people of south Louisiana who have relied on 
Charity Hospital to provide health care to the poor and 
indigent since 1732. The hospital has been closed since 
Hurricane Katrina caused severe flooding and wind damage in 
2005. The Committee is aware that FEMA Region VI recently 
denied the State's latest appeal on the level of reimbursement 
for Charity. The Committee believes the appeals process or 
arbitration, pursuant to section 601 of ARRA, should be 
utilized to bring a conclusion to this matter. OFCGCR shall 
work with FEMA, the Department of Health and Human Services, 
and the State of Louisiana to identify and pursue the path 
forward to bring Charity hospital back on-line.

                      Office of Inspector General


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2009\1\....................      $114,513,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2010......................       127,874,000
Recommended in the bill\2\............................       127,874,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2009...................       +13,361,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2010..................             - - - 
\1\Includes a $16,000,000 transfer from the Disaster Relief Fund.
  Excludes $5,000,000 provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment
  Act (P.L. 111-5).
\2\Includes a $16,000,000 transfer from the Disaster Relief Fund.

                                MISSION

    The Homeland Security Act of 2002 established an Office of 
Inspector General (IG) 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 for keeping 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 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, the 
Inspector General is to report dually to the Secretary of 
Homeland Security and to the Congress.
    While oversight of DHS disaster response is included in the 
IG's mission, Hurricane Katrina brought a renewed focus and a 
major shift in IG resources to that mission area. In October 
2005, in response to the need for enhanced oversight, the 
Inspector General 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 were spent 
wisely. In April 2009, the Administration closed down the 
office amid public criticism of its performance. FEMA officials 
characterized the move as one that would speed decision making 
and improve efficiency in relief efforts. The Committee hopes 
that this is the case, but urges the IG to maintain its 
oversight of the continuing relief and reconstruction efforts 
on the Gulf Coast.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $127,874,000 for the Office of 
Inspector General, $111,874,000 in a direct appropriation and 
$16,000,000 by transfer from the Disaster Relief Fund. This 
total amount is in line with the budget request and $13,361,000 
above the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. Consistent with 
prior years, funding transferred from the Disaster Relief Fund 
is to continue and expand audits and investigations related to 
disasters, including the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes.

                             AUDIT REPORTS

    The Committee directs the IG 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. The Committee notes that distribution on 
several key reports has not been timely, and urges the IG to 
take full advantage of opportunities for electronic 
distribution to help remedy this situation. In addition, the 
Committee notes that the IG missed the deadline for submission 
of two audit reports specifically requested in the report 
accompanying the fiscal year 2009 Appropriations Act. Delays 
such as this hinder the Committee's ability to make the best 
decisions regarding matters under review, and as such are 
unacceptable.
    The Committee directs IG to withhold any 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


              United States Customs and Border Protection


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2009\1\....................    $7,603,206,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.....................     7,623,068,000
Recommended in the bill...............................     7,576,897,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2009...................       -26,309,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.................       -46,171,000 
\1\Excludes $160,000,000 in appropriations in the American Recovery and
  Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5).

                                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, including weapons and bulk 
cash; 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 58,000, 
including CBP Officers, Air Interdiction Agents, Marine 
Interdiction Agents, canine enforcement officers, Border Patrol 
agents, Agriculture Specialists, trade specialists, 
intelligence analysts, and mission support staff.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $7,576,897,000 for Salaries and 
Expenses, $46,171,000 below the amount requested and 
$26,309,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. The 
net reduction in funding from 2009 is chiefly due to the 
realignment of funding for real property construction, rent and 
management into the new Facilities Management account. This 
recommendation provides $981,850,000 for Headquarters 
Management and Administration, which includes an additional 
$5,000,000 to protect classified and sensitive CBP internet and 
computer systems, but no funding for data center migration; 
Border Security Inspections and Trade Facilitation is funded at 
$2,250,310,000, including $225,000,000 to annualize the cost of 
law enforcement officer retirement conversion for CBP Officers; 
$140,000,000 for the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative 
(WHTI); and increases as follows: $9,340,000 for import safety; 
$18,100,000 to combat southbound smuggling crime and violence, 
and $3,000,000 for a Global Advance Passenger Information/
Passenger Name Record initiative.
    Border Security and Control between Ports of Entry is 
funded at $3,557,559,000, reflecting adjustments for pay 
annualization for the recent increase of Border Patrol agents 
to 20,019, more than twice the number of agents onboard in 
2001. The funding will also support deployment of 367 new 
Border Patrol agents to the Northern Border for a total 
deployment of 2,212 by the end of fiscal year 2010, nearly 
seven times the number deployed to the Northern Border in 2001. 
The bill will support deployment of over 17,000 to the 
Southwest Border, almost 90 percent above the number onboard in 
2001.
    Air and Marine Operations are funded at $309,629,000, as 
requested, $37,950,000 above fiscal year 2009 funding, and 
include a net increase of $19,115,000 to hire 144 additional 
pilots, interdiction agents and support staff to expand and 
improve patrols and surveillance operations.
    A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee 
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget estimate      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Headquarters, Management, and
 Administration:
    Management and Administration,       $522,825,000       $503,500,000
     Border Security Inspections
     and Trade Facilitation.......
    Management and Administration,        497,675,000        478,350,000
     Border Security and Control
     between Ports of Entry.......
                                   -------------------------------------
        Subtotal, Headquarters          1,020,500,000        981,850,000
         Management and
         Administration...........
                                   =====================================
Border Security Inspections and
 Trade Facilitation:
    Inspections, Trade, and Travel      2,255,210,000      2,250,310,000
     Facilitation at Ports of
     Entry........................
    Harbor Maintenance Fee                  3,226,000          3,226,000
     Collection (Trust Fund)......
    International Cargo Screening.        165,421,000        162,000,000
    Other international programs..         11,181,000         11,181,000
    Customs-Trade Partnership              62,612,000         62,612,000
     Against Terrorism............
    Trusted Traveler Programs.....         11,274,000         11,274,000
    Inspection and Detection              143,563,000        143,563,000
     Technology Investments.......
    Automated Targeting Systems...         32,560,000         32,560,000
    National Targeting Center.....         26,355,000         26,355,000
    Training......................         24,778,000         24,778,000
                                   -------------------------------------
        Subtotal, Border Security       2,736,180,000      2,727,859,000
         Inspections and Trade
         Facilitation.............
                                   =====================================
Border Security and Control
 between Ports of Entry:
    Border Security and Control...      3,505,008,000      3,505,808,000
    Training......................         51,751,000         51,751,000
                                   -------------------------------------
        Subtotal, Border Security       3,556,759,000      3,557,559,000
         and Control between POEs.
                                   =====================================
Air and Marine Operations.........        309,629,000        309,629,000
                                   =====================================
            Total.................      7,623,068,000      7,576,897,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                MIGRATION TO NEW DEPARTMENT DATA CENTERS

    Consistent with funding recommendations contained 
throughout this report, the Committee provides no new funding 
for CBP data center migration activities. This is due to the 
Inspector General's recent findings, described in the Chief 
Information Officer section of the report, regarding possible 
unmitigated risks at the destination data center sites. As any 
failure of CBP systems could have devastating effects on 
critical customs and immigration enforcement and regulatory 
programs, it is essential this risk be minimized before 
migration goes forward. To the extent that any of the proposed 
funding is not directly related to the migration, but is 
preparatory acquisition or services, the Committee encourages 
CBP to submit reprogramming proposals if appropriate.

                   LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER CONVERSION

    The Committee commends the Department for requesting 
funding for the costs associated with retirement and pay costs 
due to the conversion of CBP Officers to law enforcement 
officer status, which began on July 1, 2008. This is a critical 
requirement and the Committee expects the positive impact will 
result in improved CBP retention and recruitment of the most 
qualified and dedicated officers. The Committee is aware that 
there is a potential for retirement and benefit costs 
associated with conversion to exceed the $225,000,000 
requested, but that CBP is planning to manage such a 
contingency by reallocating funds within accounts. The 
Committee asks to be notified if such additional costs are 
incurred, and of the steps taken to fill the shortfall.

            SOUTHWEST BORDER OUTBOUND ENFORCEMENT INITIATIVE

    The Committee has included an increase of $26,132,000, as 
requested, to augment efforts begun in 2009 as part of the 
Southwest Border Initiative, a targeted effort to stop 
smuggling of the drugs, weapons and bulk cash on which violent 
drug cartels depend. This funding includes $16,132,000 for an 
additional 65 CBP Officers, 44 Border Patrol agents, and 16 
support personnel, as well as $10,000,000 for additional 
license plate readers to be installed at southbound vehicle 
lanes where such technology is still lacking. In order to stay 
informed about the progress of this initiative, the Committee 
directs CBP to include statistics about its outbound 
enforcement progress in the quarterly Strategic Border 
Initiative report to the Committees on Appropriations.

             IMPORT SAFETY AND TRADE ENFORCEMENT INITIATIVE

    The Committee has included $9,340,000, as requested, for an 
initiative to implement import safety requirements of Executive 
Order 13439, as well as to better staff CBP's Office of 
International Trade to carry out critical trade functions, and 
help protect the nation against unsafe food and products, such 
as recently experienced in melamine-contaminated food, and toys 
painted with lead paint. Although the overall volume of trade 
may decline this year, the growth in the workload driven by the 
increase in entities engaged in trade and the increase in trade 
agreements make this initiative an important one. The Committee 
directs CBP to provide a briefing not later than December 1, 
2009, on the plans for implementing this initiative.

 GLOBAL ADVANCE PASSENGER INFORMATION/PASSENGER NAME RECORD INITIATIVE

    The Committee provides an additional $3,000,000, as 
requested, for the effort to collaborate with foreign 
governments on sharing travel information. The Committee 
directs CBP to provide a classified briefing not later than 
December 1, 2009, on this program.

                  WESTERN HEMISPHERE TRAVEL INITIATIVE

    The Committee includes $140,000,000 for the continued costs 
of infrastructure, technology and operations for WHTI, which 
went into effect on June 1, 2009. This includes an increase of 
$16,000,000 for: (1) expanded program support for the 2010 
Winter Olympics and at additional ports of entry; (2) audits of 
enhanced drivers licenses and wait time studies; (3) deployment 
of WHTI technology to novel configurations, such as dual use 
lanes and straddle booths; and (4) coverage of pedestrians and 
passengers in modes of transportation other than personally 
operated vehicles.
    The Committee expects the WHTI effort will become 
integrated within the regular inspection and trade/travel 
facilitation functions, and directs CBP to report not later 
than December 1, 2009, on the status of WHTI implementation, 
the transition to regular operations, and the elements and 
funding that will be non-recurred when WHTI processes are the 
norm.

                  INSPECTION AND DETECTION TECHNOLOGY

    The Committee includes $143,563,000, as requested, for 
Inspection and Detection Technology. The Committee understands 
that, in addition to ongoing operation and maintenance of CBP's 
inventory of technology systems, this funding will include 12 
new replacement large scale nonintrusive inspection (NII) 
systems, five additional NII systems for upgraded ports of 
entry, and approximately 600 small scale and hand-held NII for 
replacement or to deploy where shortages exist. The Committee 
expects CBP to award procurement for these items on a fully 
competitive basis, with the focus for award being on attaining 
the performance goals for which technology is to be used.

                         BORDER PATROL STAFFING

    The Committee funds the request for Border Patrol hiring 
and operations, and strongly supports the plan to achieve a 
target of 2,212 agents on the Northern Border by the end of 
fiscal year 2010. As the Border Patrol gains experience with 
its expanded presence on both borders, it will be doing so in 
the context of new technology and infrastructure from the 
Secure Border Initiative, which in turn may affect the 
operational requirements for the numbers of agents and perhaps 
lead to changes in how they are deployed. The Committee 
strongly encourages CBP and the Border Patrol to look carefully 
at its requirements and provide a briefing to the Committee not 
later than February 1, 2010, on its planning for long term 
staffing for the Border Patrol, including the methodology for 
determining optimal size as well as patterns of deployment.

                   NORTHERN BORDER STRATEGIC EFFORTS

    The Committee has urged that more resources and attention 
be devoted to closing vulnerabilities on the extended Northern 
Border, and as a result, there have been many tangible changes. 
Border Patrol presence has grown from 336 agents in 2001 to a 
planned 2010 deployment of 2,212; Air and Marine units have 
grown to include five primary air branches and additional 
marine units; and CBP field operations has received more 
Officers for border processing and initiatives such as WHTI. 
The number of border enforcement task forces is increasing, as 
is the tempo of their work. SBInet will soon deploy mobile and 
remote video surveillance systems, and improved tactical 
communications for the Border Patrol. CBP's aging and 
inadequate ports of entry will be replaced or upgraded with 
ARRA funding. The implementation of WHTI brings a more robust 
inspection process to the Northern Border, with new 
infrastructure, technology, and staffing to support it.
    These enhancements will change significantly the way CBP 
works on the Northern Border, including programs to enforce 
border security and expedite trade and travel with our Canadian 
neighbor. To take stock of where the agency is and where it 
will go, the Committee requests a report, not later than 
January 15, 2010, that will provide an accounting of Northern 
Border initiatives, staffing and funding; an assessment of the 
impact such investments and initiatives have had on CBP's 
execution of its dual missions to secure the border and 
facilitate trade and travel; and the priorities CBP has for its 
operations and programs on the Northern Border going forward.

               ELECTRONIC SYSTEM FOR TRAVEL AUTHORIZATION

    The Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) 
provides automated electronic vetting of travelers from 35 visa 
waiver countries, eight of them added in fiscal year 2008. The 
Committee understands that CBP projects it will process over 17 
million ESTA applications in fiscal year 2009, with an 
estimated rejection rate of 0.2 percent. As ESTA transitions to 
an ``operations and maintenance'' phase, the Committee directs 
CBP to include, as part of its fiscal year 2011 budget request, 
details on ESTA staffing, funding, and implementation schedule, 
to include an assessment of ESTA performance in its first two 
years of operation.

                       TRUSTED TRAVELER PROGRAMS

    CBP currently operates four ``trusted traveler'' programs: 
the Secure Electronic Network for Travelers Rapid Inspection 
(SENTRI) for travelers on the Southwest border, the NEXUS air 
and land programs for travelers on the Northern Border, the 
Free and Secure Trade (FAST) program for commercial travel 
facilitation, and Global Entry (GE), an expedited clearance 
program for pre-approved international air travelers. While it 
has not requested additional funding for the purpose in fiscal 
year 2010, CBP informed the Committee that it is developing a 
global enrollment system that will, when fully operational, 
serve as the application gateway to a single trusted traveler 
program.
    The established systems--SENTRI, FAST, and NEXUS--are all 
seeing growth in part because, by participating, a traveler 
will satisfy the requirements of WHTI. GE, by comparison, is 
yet a fairly small program. GE was initiated in June 2008 on a 
pilot basis and currently operates at seven U.S. international 
airports. GE is scheduled to be extended to an additional 13 
airports with funding provided by this Committee in fiscal year 
2009. The Department reports it had approved 6,100 GE members 
as of January 2009 and estimates there will be 13,500 by 
October 2009. Initially limited to U.S. citizens and residents, 
GE is being expanded on a reciprocal, pilot basis, to 
participants in Privium, the Dutch expedited clearance program.
    While the Department reports GE has the potential to exceed 
this estimated enrollment--to more than 800,000, the number of 
frequent international travelers projected by DHS--initial 
registration efforts are clearly proceeding more slowly than 
expected. Furthermore, while the program collects fees from 
participants, it is not clear whether GE--or an eventual 
comprehensive ``trusted traveler'' program--could operate 
exclusively on a fee basis and still meet the needs of a 
significant growth in membership. The Committee needs to 
understand CBP's capacity and requirements to make this program 
a success and so directs CBP to provide, not later than January 
15, 2010, a detailed report on: (1) its progress in expanding 
the GE program; (2) the status of efforts to facilitate the 
migration of NEXUS and SENTRI users into Global Entry; (3) its 
progress in integrating FAST with the Automated Commercial 
Environment; and (4) prospects for developing a global 
enrollment system through a unified trusted traveler program. 
The report should also identify relevant implementation 
considerations and resource requirements for these efforts.

                   SENTRI LANES AT PORT OF SAN YSIDRO

    The Committee recognizes the San Ysidro port of entry as 
one of the busiest border crossings in the world, which 
continues to need major renovation and reengineering to handle 
its massive processing and security requirements. The Committee 
encourages CBP to explore the possibility of conducting a 
demonstration project to determine the effectiveness of 
operating up to ten SENTRI lanes at San Ysidro during peak 
hours, seven days a week, with the option of opening an 
additional SENTRI lane during peak crossing times of 5 a.m. to 
10 a.m. and 3 p.m. to 9 p.m. whenever wait times exceed 15 
minutes.

                     INTERNATIONAL CARGO SCREENING

    The Committee has great interest in the success of the 
International Cargo Screening program, which consists of the 
Container Security Initiative (CSI) and the Secure Freight 
Initiative (SFI), and funds it at $162,000,000, nine percent 
above the fiscal year 2009 level. The CSI has deployed CBP 
Officers and specialists to 58 major international seaports, 
scanning U.S.-bound cargo in a targeted fashion, based on 
estimated risk. CBP has been working to establish more 
permanent positions at its CSI locations, as well as to place 
more resources at the National Targeting Center. The Committee 
strongly encourages these efforts.
    The SFI, by contrast, is a pilot program to determine the 
feasibility of 100 percent scanning of U.S.-bound cargo in 
foreign ports. While these pilots have produced useful data and 
shown the potential of a 100 percent scanning approach for some 
ports and trade lanes, they have also revealed considerable 
challenges. Both the Secretary and the Acting CBP Commissioner 
have stated they do not expect to be able to meet the 
statutorily mandated target for 100 percent overseas scanning 
of U.S.-bound cargo by 2012, and have expressed misgivings 
about the feasibility of such a goal given the formidable 
financial, technical and diplomatic obstacles. The Committee 
welcomes this candor. It has become increasingly clear that, at 
least for now, a 100 percent scanning goal is not feasible, and 
even if it were, would come at an unacceptably high cost 
monetarily and in the displacement of other efforts.
    While cargo security efforts should not be tied to one 
model, the threat of trade supply chains being used to move 
weapons, or to be themselves a target for economic disruption, 
remains. A number of programs help contribute to security in 
this regard, including the Customs-Trade Partnership Against 
Terrorism (C-TPAT), the new security filing (10+2) rule, and 
improved exchange of information with friendly governments. 
However, assuming that 100 percent overseas scanning is not 
likely soon, if ever, to be achieved, it is not clear what mix 
of measures the Department assumes it should work toward to 
take its place. Might SFI be the best approach, based on the 
risk, for ports in high threat areas? How permanent a solution 
is CSI, and what is its optimal end-state? The Committee 
directs CBP to report, not later than January 15, 2010, on its 
strategy to achieve meaningful cargo and supply chain security 
in the absence of the total scanning requirement.

                          MODEL PORTS OF ENTRY

    The Committee strongly desires to see the Model Ports of 
Entry (MPOE) program significantly improve the quality of the 
arrival experience for both international visitors to the U.S. 
as well as returning U.S. citizens and residents. While 
Congress funded additional CBP Officers for airports in fiscal 
years 2008 and 2009, the Committee understands CBP has not 
adjusted staffing allocation and scheduling systems to most 
effectively improve the efficiency of passenger processing. As 
a result, additional CBP Officers has not translated into 
shorter wait times for international visitors at the 20 MPOE 
airports. The Committee recognizes that CBP schedulers have 
limited flexibility as they face a complex scheduling 
environment, with significant and erratic variation in the 
number and mix of arriving international passengers, both daily 
and hourly. Nevertheless, the Committee expects CBP to correct 
any staffing model deficiencies, improve its scheduling 
capacity, and if required, automate its scheduling system and 
employ industrial engineering services to improve its MPOE 
passenger operations. The Committee is willing to consider 
reprogramming or reallocation requests to achieve this goal. 
The Committee directs CBP to report, not later than December 1, 
2009, on its progress in making such improvements, to include 
an update on the information required in the fiscal year 2009 
Committee report on MPOE implementation and performance.

                  IN-BOND CARGO AND CONTAINER SECURITY

    CBP continues to gather information from its tests of 
commercial off-the-shelf technology as a means to track 
shipments that transit the United States under CBP bond, 
including its radio frequency transponder technology 
demonstration for in-bond shipments. The Committee directs CBP 
to provide, not later than January 15, 2010, an updated status 
report on its study of potential technology solutions for 
tracking and managing in-bond shipments, including the number 
of such in-bond shipments for fiscal years 2007-2009, and the 
number of times in-bond documents were not fully reconciled 
between arrival and destination ports.

                   TEXTILE TRANSSHIPMENT ENFORCEMENT

    The Committee includes $4,750,000, as in previous years, to 
continue textile transshipment enforcement. The Committee 
directs CBP to ensure that the activities of the Textile and 
Apparel Policies and Programs Office, specifically seizures, 
detention, and special operations, are maintained at least at 
the level of those activities in prior years. The Committee 
directs CBP to submit a report with the fiscal year 2011 budget 
on execution of its five-year strategic plan. The report should 
include information covering enforcement activities; textile 
production verification team exercises and special operations; 
numbers of seizures; penalties imposed; and the numbers and 
types of personnel responsible for enforcing textile laws 
(including headquarters staff in the Textile Enforcement 
Operations Division).

                            PROJECT SEAHAWK

    The Committee encourages CBP to continue its work with the 
Department of Justice and local law enforcement on the Project 
SeaHawk law enforcement task force to the maximum extent 
possible.

                       CONTAINER SECURITY DEVICE

    The Committee continues to believe a viable Container 
Security Device (CSD) is an essential element of an effective 
supply chain security framework. The Committee is disappointed 
by the failure of CBP and S&T to develop and deploy a viable 
CSD, despite years of effort and the expenditure of 
considerable resources. As numerous security experts have 
attested and CBP itself has noted such a CSD could be of value 
in high-risk trade lanes. The Committee remains strongly 
interested in seeing if this technology can advance, and 
directs CBP to continue to explore possible solutions with S&T 
for CSD testing and deployment, and to provide quarterly 
updates of its progress to the Committee.

                             FRESNO AIRPORT

    The Committee encourages CBP to review the port-of-entry 
status of Fresno Yosemite International Airport, which is 
currently operating at user-fee status, to determine if the 
airport meets the international flight threshold necessary to 
be designated a non-reimbursable Port-of-Entry. Further, the 
Committee asks CBP to provide an estimate on the costs the 
agency would incur should the status be adjusted at Fresno 
Yosemite International Airport and report to the Committee 
whether an increase in programmatic funds is necessary to 
achieve this change in status, if appropriate.

            JOINT OPERATIONS WITH THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

    The Committee recognizes the Department's exceptional 
coordination with the National Park Service along the border, 
specifically the joint operations and projects at Big Bend 
National Park and Amistad National Recreation Area. These joint 
operations are essential to combat illegal activity and keep 
park visitors safe. Furthermore, the Committee encourages 
expeditious completion of these projects.

          PORTABLE SOLAR CHARGING RECHARGEABLE BATTERY SYSTEM

    The Border Patrol is frequently required to operate for 
extended periods of time in remote locations where access to 
electric power can only be provided by heavy auto and marine 
type batteries. The Committee includes $800,000 to meet the 
requirement of the Border Patrol for a quiet, lightweight power 
source. Solar rechargeable systems will enable agents to access 
wider areas and to remain deployed for longer periods of time 
on border observation and criminal interdiction operations. 
Funding shall be competitively awarded.

                        Automation Modernization

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2009.......................      $511,334,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.....................       462,445,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       462,445,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2009...................       -48,889,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.................             - - -
                                MISSION

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

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $462,445,000 for Automation 
Modernization, the same as the amount requested and $48,889,000 
below the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. Not less than 
$267,960,000 is for ACE development. CBP is directed to provide 
an expenditure plan detailing how it will distribute this 
funding to ACE/ITDS, COPPS, TECS, and TPSE, and the Committee 
includes bill language making $167,960,000 unavailable for 
obligation for ACE until 30 days after it receives a detailed 
expenditure plan.

                           ACE PROGRAM DELAYS

    The Committee is greatly concerned by delays in completing 
critical releases for ACE, in particular Entry Summary, 
Accounts, and Revenue (ESAR) and e-Manifest, which are now 
scheduled to be completed in 2012 and 2013 respectively. The 
need to field ACE with all its major functionality, and thereby 
automate all critical customs and trade transactions, has been 
a Committee priority since the inception of the program at the 
beginning of the decade. While ACE requirements changed 
initially due to the increased focus on security after the 9/11 
attacks, continued delays in implementing critical functions 
are disappointing and costly to the efficiency of trade. While 
the reduction in funding for ACE development may be consistent 
with technical or other development delays, promised ACE 
functionality would be a boon for the beleaguered trade sector 
in this economy. To ensure the Committee has information it 
needs to assess the effectiveness of the ACE effort, the 
Committee continues to require an expenditure plan to maintain 
effective oversight of this important modernization effort.

                    INTERNATIONAL TRADE DATA SYSTEM

    The International Trade Data System (ITDS) is a multi-
agency initiative designed to establish a single ``window'' for 
the collection and sharing of data and statistics on trade, to 
be developed along with the Automated Commercial Environment 
(ACE). CBP has been named the ``managing partner'' for ITDS, 
which presently includes 46 participating government agencies 
(PGAs). However, CBP says that in order to achieve the 
effective ``single window'' objective for trade data, there 
needs to be participation from all 79 key agencies with policy 
or regulatory roles affecting the collection and use of trade 
data. Until all 79 agencies are participating, the benefits of 
ITDS will be limited, as there will continue to be multiple and 
overlapping requirements for similar trade data. The Committee 
directs CBP to include in its expenditure plan a report on 
progress in implementing ITDS, with regard to the technical 
features of ITDS as well as the recruitment of all PGAs needed 
to enable ITDS to achieve the benefits of a ``single window.''

                                  TECS

    Funding for TECS modernization in the amount of 
$50,000,000, as requested, is included within the COPPS 
program, project and activity line, and covers the 
modernization program to replace existing mainframe elements of 
TECS with a sustainable modern architecture and graphical user 
interfaces. A joint effort between CBP and U.S. Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement (ICE), TECS modernization is to be 
completed in the next five years. The Committee directs CBP to 
brief the Committee not later than December 1, 2010 on the 
status of modernization efforts.

        Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2009\1\....................      $775,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.....................       779,452,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       732,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2009...................       -43,000,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.................       -47,452,000 
\1\Excludes $100,000,000 in appropriations in the American Recovery and
  Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5).

                                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 $732,000,000 for Border Security 
Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology (BSFIT), $47,452,000 
below the amount requested and $43,000,000 below the amount 
provided in fiscal year 2009. The Committee recommends 
$440,000,000 for development and deployment, which will fund 
technology and tactical infrastructure investment, including 
$40,000,000 for Northern Border technology and $40,000,000 for 
tactical communications; $200,000,000 for operations and 
maintenance; and $92,000,000 for program management, including 
$40,000,000 for environmental assessment and mitigation. Of 
this total, $150,000,000 may not be obligated until an 
expenditure plan is approved by the Committees on 
Appropriations and reviewed by GAO. The Committee retains 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 stating no BSFIT funds may be obligated until the 
Secretary certifies that DHS has complied with the consultation 
provisions of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
Responsibility Act of 1996.
    A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee 
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget estimate      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Development and Deployment
     Technology and               454,000,000        400,000,000
     Infrastructure Investment....
     Northern Border               40,000,000         40,000,000
     Technology Investment........
                                   -------------------------------------
        Subtotal, Development and         494,000,000        440,000,000
         Deployment...............
                                   =====================================
Operations, Maintenance and               200,000,000        200,000,000
 Support (Integrated Logistics)...
Program Management
     Personnel Operations   .................         52,000,000
     and Support..................
     Regulatory and         .................         40,000,000
     Environmental Requirements...
                                   -------------------------------------
        Subtotal, Program                  85,452,000         92,000,000
         Management...............
                                   =====================================
            Total.................        779,452,000        732,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           QUARTERLY REPORTS

    The Committee directs the Department to continue its 
quarterly Secure Border Initiative status reports. The report 
should include an update on Northern Border and tactical 
communication investments.

                  SECURE BORDER TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENT

    Congress has appropriated over $3,500,000,000 for BSFIT 
activities since 2006. To date, this has resulted in completion 
of about 624 miles (of 670 deemed appropriate and necessary by 
the previous administration) in pedestrian and vehicle fencing. 
Initial SBInet technology deployment is scheduled to begin in 
the Tucson area in summer 2009. This is a year later than 
originally planned, due in part to the need to ensure systems 
pass technology qualification testing and to avoid installing 
technology prematurely. Because this deployment has been 
delayed, the Committee has included $440,000,000 for 
Development and Deployment funding, a reduction of $54,000,000 
from the request. The Committee will consider reprogramming of 
funds to accelerate technology deployment should that prove 
feasible.

                 NORTHERN BORDER TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENT

    The Committee is encouraged to see deployment of technology 
investments to the Northern Border, with mobile and remote 
video surveillance systems scheduled to be installed in 
Detroit, Swanton, and Buffalo this year. The Committee includes 
$40,000,000, as requested, for continued technology investments 
to address Northern Border vulnerabilities, and directs that 
quarterly SBI reports include a status report on technology 
investments on the Northern Border.

                  OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE, AND SUPPORT

    The Committee includes $200,000,000, as requested, for the 
operation and maintenance of systems and infrastructure 
deployed with BSFIT funding. This represents a 33 percent 
increase over the fiscal year 2009 appropriated level. Within 
this amount, the Committee understands that $75,000,000 is for 
operation and maintenance costs for tactical infrastructure, 
with the remaining $125,000,000 for support of technology, 
including tactical communications and integrated logistics 
support of newly deployed systems. The Committee expects to see 
a detailed rationale for the application of this funding in the 
fiscal year 2010 expenditure plan, and directs CBP to continue 
to provide a monthly report on operations, maintenance, and 
support obligations and expenditures.

        ENVIRONMENTAL AND REGULATORY ASSESSMENTS AND MITIGATION

    The Committee includes $40,000,000 for regulatory and 
environmental assessments and mitigation. The Committee 
continues to support a policy of minimizing adverse 
environmental and other negative impacts from SBI construction, 
and expects CBP to use these funds to work in coordination with 
the Department of Interior and other government agencies with 
responsibilities for environmental policy on the border, as 
well as with State and local governments and subject matter 
experts from the scientific and environmental community. The 
funding should, as appropriate, be used for science-based 
approaches to monitor and mitigate environmental and ecological 
impacts. In particular, the Committee directs CBP to examine 
the use of ``buffer areas'' to accommodate both mitigation and 
security objectives for detecting and responding to illegal 
border crossing, such as those employed by the Department of 
Defense around bases and testing areas, and to report its 
findings with the submission of the fiscal year 2010 
expenditure plan. The Committee also directs CBP to include a 
detailed environmental mitigation plan and report on mitigation 
efforts with its fiscal year 2010 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. The plan should also 
address mitigating and minimizing the impact not only of SBI 
construction and infrastructure, but also of increasingly 
intensive Border Patrol operations in sensitive border 
ecosystems.
    The Committee expects the Department to continue to limit 
any future exercise of the Secretary's waiver authority to 
specific, narrow, unaggregated segments of the border, and 
retains 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 fiscal year 2009 BSFIT expenditure plan represented an 
improvement over previous submissions. There remain some gaps, 
however, as identified by the Government Accountability Office, 
including a failure to adequately show how proposed spending 
corresponded with the accomplishment of specific strategic 
objectives, and the lack of a documented comparison of 
construction alternatives in terms of their impacts, unintended 
or otherwise, on local communities. To help ensure future BSFIT 
investment decisions are transparent, maintain a foundation for 
effective investment, document performance against promises, 
and support a balanced approach to all threats along the 
borders, the Committee continues to include bill language 
restricting the availability of some funding for obligation 
until approval of an expenditure plan.
    The Committee understands that the Department has indicated 
it does not currently plan to initiate any significant new 
pedestrian or vehicle fence construction in 2010. Therefore the 
statutory requirements to explain and justify such decisions, 
and document the consultation and analytic processes that 
underlie them, should not pose any significant administrative 
burden for CBP or the Department. However, the Committee 
retains existing statutory language so that the process of 
identifying and pursuing any additional tactical infrastructure 
will be guided by the same requirements for transparency and 
rigor. In addition, the future size and growth of funding 
planned for the complex SBInet technology portion of BSFIT 
demands the level of accountability that the expenditure plan 
provides to the Committee. The Committee therefore makes 
$150,000,000 unavailable for obligation until an expenditure 
plan has been submitted to the Committee that:
          1. Defines activities, milestones, and costs for 
        implementing the program;
          2. Demonstrates how specific projects will further 
        the goals and objectives of the Secure Border 
        Initiative (SBI) and how funding will be allocated to 
        the highest priority border security needs;
          3. Includes an explicit plan of action for meeting 
        program commitments;
          4. Identifies funding and staffing requirements;
          5. Describes how the plan addresses Northern Border 
        and Port of Entry security needs;
          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 Office of Inspector General 
        recommendations and describes status of efforts to 
        address them;
          8. Includes Chief Procurement Officer certification 
        that investment management and acquisition requirements 
        are met;
          9. Includes Chief Information Officer certification 
        that information technology and risk management 
        requirements are met;
          10. Includes Chief Human Capital Officer 
        certification that the human capital needs are met;
          11. Includes a detailed analysis, with comparison of 
        alternatives, for any segment of border for which fence 
        or tactical infrastructure solutions are proposed, and 
        includes evaluation of stakeholder-proposed 
        alternatives as potential substitutes for tactical 
        infrastructure; and
          12. Is reviewed by GAO.

                         ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

    To the extent that additional fencing is proposed, the 
Committee expects the fiscal year 2010 expenditure plan to 
contain analyses of alternatives for effective control of the 
border. These analyses should document the decision process 
that led to selection of fencing as the optimal solution. The 
Committee directs that such comparisons include the following:
          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 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 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 unlikely to be used 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

    Section 564(2) of Public Law 110-161 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 
continues bill language 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.

             BORDER INTEROPERABILITY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

    The fiscal year 2009 BSFIT appropriation included 
$30,000,000, as authorized in section 320 of the 9/11 Act, for 
Border Interoperability Demonstration Projects in Northern and 
Southwestern border communities. A report on the implementation 
of this program was due on April 6, 2009, but has not yet been 
received. Indeed, the Committee understands no funding has been 
obligated for this program, and therefore no grants have been 
made to border communities, although funds were appropriated 
over eight months ago. The Committee directs the Department to 
proceed immediately to carry out this program and to report to 
the Committee as soon as possible on its status.

 Air and Marine Interdiction, Operations, Maintenance, and Procurement

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2009.......................      $528,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.....................       505,826,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       513,826,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2009...................       -14,174,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.................        +8,000,000
                                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. CBP Air and Marine also supports counter-
terrorism efforts of many other law enforcement agencies.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $513,826,000 for Air and Marine 
Interdiction, Operations, Maintenance, and Procurement, 
$8,000,000 above the amount requested and $14,174,000 below the 
amount provided in fiscal year 2009. The funding includes 
$374,217,000 for operations and maintenance, and $139,609,000 
for procurement. Within the latter, $65,000,000 is included, as 
requested, to continue P-3 Service Life Extension. The 
Committee includes $66,600,000, as requested, for continued 
acquisition of items in the CBP Air and Marine strategic 
acquisition plan. In addition, the Committee provides 
$8,000,000 to undertake modernization of the Air and Marine 
Operations Center (AMOC).

                              MARINE BOATS

    The Committee is aware that there has been an increase in 
efforts to smuggle illegal drugs and immigrants into the United 
States by sea. CBP Air and Marine has approximately 200 marine 
vessels in its inventory, including new interceptor and 
riverine vessels funded in the past three years. At the same 
time, the Committee understands that the mission of the fleet 
has expanded, along with patrol areas, and that such intensive 
usage is degrading the current fleet. The Committee has 
included funding, as requested, for marine vessels, and directs 
CBP to report, not later than January 15, 2010, with an update 
on its strategic acquisition plan with regard to vessel 
procurement. The report should describe the operational status 
of its fleet, requirements to retire or replace vessels, and 
associated resource implications.

                    AIR AND MARINE OPERATIONS CENTER

    The Committee recognizes that the U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection Air and Marine Operations Center (AMOC) has 
developed the necessary expertise, technical capability, joint 
agency framework, and law enforcement foundation to serve the 
nation's needs for general aviation air interdiction and 
security operations, as well as air investigations support. The 
Committee has included $8,000,000 towards the cost of upgrading 
the software and systems needed for AMOC to fulfill its role as 
a national air security center, and direct CBP to report to the 
Committee on the role and operation of the AMOC, its place in 
coordinating homeland security operations, and the status of 
efforts to modernize the AMOC and fully staff its operations.

                      NORTHERN BORDER AIR BRANCHES

    The Committee includes funding, as requested, to fill 
remaining gaps in assets and resources for the five primary air 
branches established on the Northern Border: Bellingham, 
Washington; Great Falls, Montana; Grand Forks, North Dakota; 
Detroit Michigan; and Plattsburg, New York.

                         Facilities Management

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2009\1\....................      $403,201,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.....................       678,633,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       682,133,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2009...................      +278,932,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.................        +3,500,000 
\1\Excludes $420,000,000 in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
  of 2009 (P.L. 111-5).

                                MISSION

    The Facilities Management account is a new account that 
funds all CBP real estate and facilities, including 
consolidating all funding for construction, leasing 
acquisition, rent, facility program support, operations, 
management, headquarters support, and tunnel remediation 
activities. This consolidates funding previously carried in the 
Construction account and the Salaries and Expenses activities 
for rent, leasing, and program management costs. This includes 
the planning, design, and assembly of Border Patrol 
infrastructure, including Border Patrol stations, checkpoints, 
temporary detention facilities, mission support facilities, 
training facilities, and CBP-owned ports of entry. 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 $682,133,000 for Facilities 
Management, $3,500,000 above the amount requested and 
$278,932,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. The 
funding includes $242,857,000 for Facilities Construction and 
Sustainment, $402,263,000 for Rent, chiefly related to leases 
with the General Services Administration (GSA) and rent-related 
services; and $37,013,000 for Program Oversight and Management.

                    LAND PORT OF ENTRY MODERNIZATION

    As part of ARRA, $420,000,000 was provided to replace or 
modernize the 43 land ports of entry owned by CBP. Most land 
ports of entry are owned by GSA, particularly the largest urban 
crossings, and the projected cost to upgrade these ports has 
been estimated by CBP to be as high as $1,500,000,000. The 
Committee directs CBP to continue working with GSA to 
prioritize funding for modernizing these facilities.

                        RURAL AND REMOTE HOUSING

    Over the last five years, the number of Border Patrol 
agents has nearly doubled. There has also been a major increase 
in hiring of Customs and Border Protection Officers and other 
personnel. The border areas where many of these new agents and 
officers serve are in very rural and remote regions of the 
country, and in order for them to maintain a satisfactory 
quality of life, they need adequate access to housing for 
themselves and their families. These border areas already face 
housing challenges, which are exacerbated by the influx of new 
CBP personnel. The Committee recommends the Department provide 
a Quarters Management Plan that lays out in detail how it will 
ensure that its agents and officers have adequate housing 
opportunities in rural and remote areas of the border.

                AIR AND MARINE OPERATIONS EL PASO HANGAR

    The Committee includes $3,500,000 for demolition and 
replacement of a hangar and office space at El Paso 
International Airport that will facilitate CBP air operations 
in a high priority mission area; will permit direct access to 
the longest runway at the airport; and enable CBP to establish 
a dedicated taxiway for a fully-secured site if required.

                U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2009.......................    $4,927,210,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.....................     5,348,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................     5,311,493,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2009...................      +384,283,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.................       -36,507,000
                                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 20,000 employees 
within four major program areas: Office of Investigations; 
Federal Protective Service; Office of Intelligence; and 
Detention and Removal Operations.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $5,311,493,000 for Salaries and 
Expenses, $36,507,000 below the amount requested and 
$384,283,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. 
Within these amounts, the Committee allocates $1,500,000,000 to 
finance ICE's various efforts to identify undocumented 
individuals with criminal records who are incarcerated or at-
large and to remove those who are judged deportable in 
immigration court. Of this amount, $200,000,000 is provided for 
continued expansion of the Secure Communities program. The 
Committee believes that ICE should have no greater immigration 
enforcement priority than to remove deportable aliens with 
serious criminal histories from the United States, and applauds 
ICE's efforts to develop productive relationships with local 
law enforcement and corrections agencies to implement this 
initiative.
    The Committee provides $1,643,360,000 for ICE's domestic 
investigatory responsibilities, $27,809,000 above the requested 
amount. In addition to funding the requested expansion of 
cyber-related investigations of child pornography and on-line 
fraud, the Committee has increased funding for ICE 
investigations aimed at disrupting drug-related violence along 
the Southwest border by providing more than the request for 
investigations related to transnational criminal gangs, illegal 
export of firearms, cross-border drug smuggling, and human 
smuggling and trafficking.
    A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee 
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget estimate      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Headquarters Management and
 Administration:
    Personnel, Services and Other        $321,850,000       $276,973,000
     Costs........................
    Headquarters-Managed                  243,264,000        209,414,000
     Information Technology
     Investments..................
Legal Proceedings.................        221,666,000        221,666,000
Domestic Investigations...........      1,615,551,000      1,643,360,000
International Investigations:
    International Operations......        112,872,000        112,872,000
    Visa Security Program.........         30,186,000         30,186,000
                                   -------------------------------------
        Subtotal, International           143,058,000        143,058,000
         Investigations...........Intelligence......................         67,842,000         67,842,000
Detention and Removal Operations:
    Custody Operations............      1,771,168,000      1,771,168,000
    Fugitive Operations...........        229,682,000        229,682,000
    Criminal Alien Program........        192,539,000        192,539,000
    Alternatives to Detention.....         63,913,000         73,913,000
    Transportation and Removal            281,878,000        281,878,000
     Program......................
                                   -------------------------------------
        Subtotal, Detention and         2,539,180,000      2,549,180,000
         Removal Operations.......Identification and Removal of             195,589,000        200,000,000
 Criminal Aliens..................
                                   =====================================
            Total, ICE Salaries         5,348,000,000      5,311,493,000
             and Expenses.........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

          ICE PROGRAMS TO IDENTIFY AND REMOVE CRIMINAL ALIENS

    Over the past two years, Congress has emphasized that ICE 
must have no higher immigration enforcement priority than to 
identify foreign-born individuals who have been convicted of 
crimes and sentenced to imprisonment, and to remove those 
people from the country once they have been judged deportable 
by immigration court. In the 2008 and 2009 Appropriations Acts, 
Congress provided $350,000,000 in unrequested funding to 
initiate the Comprehensive Identification and Removal of 
Criminal Aliens (CIRCA) program, which ICE has renamed ``Secure 
Communities.'' In addition, in the 2009 Appropriations Act, 
Congress directed that at least $1,000,000,000 of ICE's budget 
be used to identify aliens convicted of crimes, and to ensure 
their removal once they have been judged deportable.
    Using the funds previously appropriated for Secure 
Communities, ICE has instituted an effective pilot program that 
locates criminal aliens through coordination with local jail 
facilities, while maintaining the clear division between the 
law enforcement roles of Federal and local officers. In brief, 
the ICE system known as ``Interoperability'' allows local law 
enforcement agencies to check fingerprints of individuals 
booked on criminal charges against both national criminal and 
immigration databases. If an individual is identified through 
this system as illegally present in the United States, ICE can 
take appropriate steps to ensure the most dangerous of these 
criminals are deported upon completion of their jail sentences, 
while those convicted of lesser crimes are identified and 
deported as resources allow.
    The Committee is strongly supportive of this approach, 
since it respects the traditional separation of local law 
enforcement responsibilities from the Federal role of enforcing 
immigration law. Because the Interoperability system locates 
the criminal records of those identified as in the country 
illegally, it allows ICE to target its resources to remove 
those illegal aliens who have proved their intent to do harm to 
U.S. communities. The system also provides important and timely 
information to local authorities on the criminal backgrounds 
and identities of individuals in their custody. Furthermore, 
the program is an economical solution because it requires no 
specialized training in Federal immigration law for local law 
enforcement officers. Considering these advantages, the 
Committee fully expects the Secure Communities program will 
prove more effective than many of the agreements ICE has 
established to delegate immigration enforcement authority to 
local patrol officers, an approach that can be effective but 
has also generated significant controversy when inappropriately 
implemented.
    Given the advantages of the Secure Communities approach, 
the Committee provides an additional $200,000,000 in the bill 
to continue the program's expansion, with the ultimate goal of 
deploying Interoperability on a nation-wide basis and equipping 
ICE with adequate personnel and mission support to identify and 
remove all convicted criminal aliens from the country after 
they have been judged deportable but before they are released 
from custody. Consistent with past appropriations for this 
program, the Committee requires ICE to report every three 
months on the status of the program. Given problems with these 
reports being delivered to the Committee on a timely basis, the 
bill includes a statutory requirement making the reports due 30 
days after the end of each quarter of the fiscal year.
    While the Committee supports Secure Communities, it also 
believes ICE must work to make sure the program's 
implementation does not negatively impact other aspects of the 
judicial system and allows for appropriate transparency for 
those prosecuted for immigration violations. In particular, the 
Committee has heard concerns from some jurisdictions that ICE 
detains individuals in immigration custody while criminal 
charges are still pending against them, effectively trumping 
the administration of criminal justice. To minimize this 
occurrence, it is imperative for ICE field agents to maintain 
regular communication with local jails and courts on the 
actions ICE takes relative to individuals who are identified 
through the local booking process. Furthermore, in order to 
track the program's performance and effectiveness, the 
Committee expects ICE to maintain and regularly update 
performance data from the locations where the Secure 
Communities program has been implemented, and to report 
frequently on the results of the program, both to the public 
and the Congress.
    In addition to its Secure Communities initiative, the 
Committee believes ICE must do more with its existing programs 
to ensure that it is focusing its efforts on those who 
represent the greatest threats to society and civil order. 
Whether it be efforts to locate at-large criminals through the 
Fugitive Operations program, disrupt transnational criminal 
gangs through targeted investigations, or more effective use of 
the Interoperability system at prisons where ICE personnel are 
already stationed, the agency must make sure it is doing all 
that it can to find and remove criminals who have been judged 
deportable. In an analysis of its 2009 budget, ICE reported to 
the Committee that it will spend $1,411,795,000 on these 
efforts, well in excess of the $1,000,000,000 Congress directed 
be allocated to these activities. Recognizing the increased 
funding provided both for the Secure Communities program and 
other activities related to apprehending criminal aliens, the 
Committee directs ICE to use not less than $1,500,000,000 of 
its 2010 budget to address this issue.

                        STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS

    The Committee provides $117,394,000, as requested, for ICE 
State and Local programs, which is $17,741,000 more than 
provided in fiscal year 2009. Within this total, $68,047,000 is 
for the 287(g) program; $14,357,000 is for the Forensics 
Document Laboratory, which supports all ICE investigatory 
programs and offers specialized assistances to State and local 
law enforcement agencies; and $34,990,000 is for the Law 
Enforcement Support Center.
    Since the 287(g) program delegates federal immigration 
enforcement authority to local law enforcement officers, ICE 
must provide appropriate oversight of how this authority is 
exercised. After reviewing the 287(g) program, GAO reported 
that ICE oversight was not consistently applied at the various 
jurisdictions with delegated authority, and in some cases ICE 
provided little to no oversight at all. Congress has expressed 
significant concern about the 287(g) program over the past 
several years. Therefore, the Committee is pleased that over 
half of the increase to State and Local Programs will be used 
to expand oversight and outreach for the 287(g) program.
    GAO also reported that ICE had not communicated specific 
program objectives to the local agencies involved in the 287(g) 
program. For example, GAO found four locations out of 29 
jurisdictions it reviewed where delegated authority was 
exercised in a manner inconsistent with ICE's immigration 
enforcement goals. This, in addition to minimal federal 
oversight, has resulted in a program that has not been 
consistently implemented at the various jurisdictions with 
which ICE has signed Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs). The 
Committee understands that DHS has begun to develop a standard, 
legally-enforceable 287(g) contract for new enrollees in the 
system, and directs ICE to replace existing 287(g) MOAs with 
new agreements that reflect the accountability measures 
contained in the standard 287(g) contract as soon as it has 
been finalized.
    The Committee continues a provision enacted in the 2009 
Appropriations Act that requires ICE to cancel any 287(g) 
agreements where the DHS IG has determined the terms of the 
agreement have been violated. The Committe also continues to 
direct the IG to review 287(g) agreements for any violation of 
the terms of such agreements. The IG should consult with GAO to 
ensure its reviews include the execution of agreements 
identified as problematic by GAO.

                SOUTHWEST BORDER ENFORCEMENT INITIATIVE

    The Committee provides $97,809,000 to expand several ICE 
investigatory programs aimed at reducing the drug-related 
violence currently plaguing areas along our country's Southwest 
border. This is an increase of $27,809,000 over the levels 
requested in the budget, including: a $10,000,000 expansion of 
ICE investigations of transnational gangs; an additional 
$10,000,000 for ICE to improve investigations of cross-border 
weapons smuggling, including expansion of Operation Armas 
Cruzadas; $5,000,000 more for ICE drug smuggling 
investigations; and $2,809,000 to expand human smuggling and 
trafficking investigations. In addition, the Committee approves 
the funding increases requested in the budget for the ICE 
Offices of Investigation, Intelligence, and International 
Affairs to implement the Administration's Southwest Border 
Enforcement Initiative. These funds will support ICE's 
expansion of the Border Enforcement Security Task Force 
program, additional financial and export investigations, 
additional overseas ICE agents working directly with Mexican 
government officials, and increased analytical support from the 
Border Violence Intelligence Cell.

             COORDINATION OF ILLEGAL WEAPONS INVESTIGATIONS

    The Committee is aware of growing concerns in Mexico that 
many of the firearms and military-grade weapons used in violent 
attacks by drug cartels have been acquired in the United States 
and illegally exported to Mexico. While ICE has authority to 
enforce restrictions on the international trade of firearms and 
munitions, the Committee believes more can and should be done 
to ensure that arms sales in the Southwest border region are 
made legally and in accordance with all applicable regulations. 
Unfortunately, the Committee has discovered that the 
interagency Memorandum of Understanding governing investigatory 
coordination between ICE and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 
Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has not been updated to reflect 
either agency's current operations. The Committee directs ICE 
to work expeditiously with ATF to update this important 
agreement, and to update Congress immediately about any 
impediments that arise in this process.

                         ICE CUSTODY OPERATIONS

    The Committee provides $1,771,168,000 for ICE custody 
operations, as requested, which is $49,900,000 over the 2009 
appropriations level. This increase will allow ICE to maintain 
an aggregate annual detention capacity for 33,400 individuals, 
and funds the full-year salaries and benefits for staff added 
to Detention and Removals Operations over the past several 
years. At this point, ICE detention capacity is at the highest 
level in the agency's history, having grown more than 67 
percent since 2002. While there will always be need for ICE to 
detain individuals who are apprehended while in the country 
illegally, the Committee believes that further expansion of ICE 
detention must be based on a rigorous analysis illustrating 
what compelling need will be met by placing yet more 
individuals in Federal custody. Furthermore, given that ICE has 
been unable to implement a nation-wide Alternatives to 
Detention program despite strong interest and increased funding 
from the Congress, the Committee questions whether ICE is 
adequately and equitably evaluating the need to detain every 
individual the agency apprehends, particularly those without 
criminal histories and who do not pose a flight risk. At a 
minimum, until ICE can prove that its low-risk detainees have 
nation-wide access to supervision programs or bonded parole, 
the Committee will remain skeptical of expanding detention 
capacity further.

                     MEDICAL CARE FOR ICE DETAINEES

    A recent GAO report (GAO 09-308R) highlighted differences 
in the structure and quality of care provided across ICE 
detention facilities. In particular, the GAO analysis revealed 
varying degrees of ICE oversight of contract agreements with 
non-Federal detention providers, and highlighted the potential 
for inadequate or inconsistent medical care across the ICE 
detention system. Further, GAO noted the absence of almost any 
performance data about ICE detainees' medical conditions or 
treatments. The Committee believes that if ICE must detain 
individuals in government custody, it should do so in a manner 
that provides all detainees equal access to necessary medical 
care, regardless of the location at which they are held. In 
addition, ICE detention staff should maintain detailed medical 
information about the health of their detained populations, not 
only to better inform management and investment decisions by 
ICE executives, but also to guard against the outbreak of 
epidemics and to identify emerging medical needs. The Committee 
directs ICE to report within 30 days of the end of each quarter 
of the fiscal year on actions it has taken to address 
inadequacies in its medical services to detainees.
    The Committee is especially concerned about cases of 
detainee death where it appears detainees did not receive 
appropriate emergency medical treatment or continuing medical 
care. The Committee directs the Department to review its 
medical care standards for all detention facilities, 
specifically evaluating the enforceability of current 
standards. Additionally, the Department should revise any 
standards that do not ensure appropriate medical treatment, the 
ability to access counsel and family, effective medical 
grievance procedures, or any other standards necessary for 
humane treatment of detainees. The Committee also directs the 
Department to notify the Congress and the DHS IG within 48 
hours of any death that occurs in ICE custody.

              DETENTION STANDARDS OVERSIGHT AND COMPLIANCE

    The Committee supports ICE's proposal to expand the Office 
of Professional Responsibility (OPR) and Detention Facilities 
Inspection Group (DFIG), and provides an additional $12,400,000 
for these programs in 2010, as requested. These funds will 
support deployment of DFIG personnel to ICE field offices 
throughout the country, growth of the OPR Management 
Investigations Unit, and associated mission support costs. As a 
means improve compliance with ICE performance standards, the 
Committee continues a provision prohibiting ICE expenditure of 
funds for any contracted detention facilities that receive two 
consecutive evaluations of less than ``acceptable'' or the 
equivalent median score of any subsequent evaluation system, a 
requirement established by the fiscal year 2009 Homeland 
Security Appropriations Act.
    The Committee understands that ICE is considering 
restructuring and possibly renaming the DFIG and other 
detention oversight programs. The Comittee directs ICE to work 
with the Department's Chief Financial Officer to ensure this 
restructuring complies with all applicable provisions in the 
fiscal year 2009 Homeland Security Appropriations Act.

              DEPORTATION OF PARENTS OF U.S.-BORN CHILDREN

    In February 2009, the DHS IG estimated that more than 
100,000 parents of U.S.-born children were deported from the 
country between 1998 and 2007. The IG also reported that ICE 
does not consistently track information about the U.S.-born 
children of those it deports. As a result, the Committee 
directs ICE to begin collecting data to track: the number of 
instances in which both parents of a particular child were 
removed; the length of time a parent lived in the United States 
before removal; and whether the U.S. citizen children remained 
in the United States after the parents' removal. ICE should 
provide this data annually to the Office of Immigration 
Statistics, as well as to Congress with the annual budget 
submission.

                       ALTERNATIVES TO DETENTION

    The Committee provides $73,913,000 for ICE Alternatives to 
Detention programs, which is $10,000,000 more than requested. 
The Committee continues to recognize the value of Alternatives 
to Detention programs which have yielded a 98-percent 
appearance rate at immigration proceedings. When properly 
implemented and managed, Alternatives to Detention programs 
augment ICE's regular detention capacity and provide a cost 
effective means of accounting for individuals accused of being 
in the country illegally but who do not require administrative 
custody during their immigration proceedings. The Committee is 
very concerned that ICE has not complied with the 2009 
Appropriations Act, which required the agency to submit a plan 
for nation-wide deployment of the Alternatives to Detention 
program by January 5, 2009. The Committee directs ICE to submit 
this plan immediately.
    As a matter of principle, DHS should use the least 
restrictive and least costly means required to supervise 
individuals in removal proceedings. Whenever practical and 
appropriate, individuals who cannot be paroled without 
supervision or on bond should be enrolled in Alternatives to 
Detention programs, particularly those that are community-based 
and which emphasize the personal responsibility of the 
individual. These programs, which cost less per day than 
detention, are a more humane method for monitoring individuals 
who may have legitimate immigration claims but for whom 
detention is unreasonably burdensome, such as asylum seekers, 
families, and the elderly.
    The Committee has heard significant concerns from immigrant 
advocates about how ICE is using electronic monitoring programs 
for individuals who would otherwise be eligible for release on 
parole or bond, or would be eligible to enroll in intensive 
supervision programs that are not based on technology. The 
Committee directs ICE to develop a benefit-cost analysis of its 
various Alternatives to Detention approaches, and include this 
information in the 2011 budget submission for the program.

                       CHILD AND FAMILY DETENTION

    The Committee believes that detention is not generally 
appropriate for families and is concerned that the Department 
does not routinely make Alternatives to Detention available to 
families it takes into custody. In addition, while the 
Committee is pleased that ICE developed and implemented 
detention standards for families held in its custody, it 
remains concerned that ICE family detention standards are based 
on adult prison standards. The Committee directs the Department 
to prioritize the use of Alternatives to Detention program for 
families who do not need to be held in immigration detention. 
The Committee further directs the Office of Professional 
Responsibility to conduct a review of families detained in ICE 
custody since 2007 and determine whether ICE complied with its 
own internal guidance for when to hold families in custody and 
when to release them to Alternatives to Detention programs. The 
Committee directs ICE to report on the results of this review 
no later than the submission of the 2011 budget.
    In addition, the Committee has heard reports of ICE 
prosecutors inappropriately using personal information about 
children when presenting cases in immigration court, such as 
medical records and psychological reviews. The Committee 
directs ICE to respect the privacy and confidentiality of 
detained children's case information, including privileged 
medical, psychological and social worker reports, and only to 
request access to those files when relevant to the case.

           INAPPROPRIATE TREATMENT OF CHILDREN IN ICE CUSTODY

    In last year's appropriation report, the Committee directed 
ICE to report quarterly on any incidents involving strip 
searches of children, placement of children in restraints, or 
use of disciplinary weapons against children. ICE has not 
provided the Committee any report on these techniques, 
indicating that they have not been used to date in fiscal year 
2009. As a result, the Committee directs ICE to review the 
necessity of retaining these practices within its child 
detention standards, and update the Committee on any changes to 
the policies by November 2, 2009. In addition, ICE is directed 
to continue to provide reports 30 days after the end of each 
quarter of the fiscal year on any incidents involving strip 
searches of children, placement of children in restraints, or 
use of disciplinary weapons against children.
    As in past years, the Committee provides no funding for ICE 
bone and dental forensic examinations to determine the age of 
children in ICE custody. This questionable methodology is not 
based on credible scientific principles, and puts children at 
risk of erroneous classification as adults and transfer to 
adult detention centers. The Committee directs the IG to 
continue 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 uses bone or dental 
forensic examinations.

             TRANSPORTATION OF UNACCOMPANIED ALIEN CHILDREN

    In the 2009 Appropriations Act, the Committee directed ICE, 
the Office of Management and Budget, and the Department of 
Health and Human Services (HHS) to determine the appropriate 
agency for managing child transportation between DHS and HHS 
custody. To date, the Committee has not received this report, 
which has apparently been under review at the Department of 
Health and Human Services for several months. As a result, the 
Committee expects ICE will continue to pay for the cost of 
child transportation between DHS and HHS custody until the 
agencies determine the appropriate method for funding this 
activity.

               HUMANITARIAN REVIEW OF IMMIGRATION ARRESTS

    The Committee continues to support ICE's policies that 
allow for humanitarian review of those arrested in worksite 
enforcement actions affecting 150 or more individuals. Many who 
have been arrested in past worksite enforcement actions were 
primary care givers to infant children or elderly parents, 
meaning their detention would have harmed those unable to care 
for themselves. The Committee continues to believe ICE should 
expand this policy to cover all worksite enforcement 
activities. If ICE is unable to expand this policy, it must 
brief the Committee no later than November 2, 2009, about the 
impediments to doing so.

                   TEXTILE TRANSSHIPMENT ENFORCEMENT

    Section 352 of the Trade Act of 2002 authorizes funding for 
Customs Service textile transshipment enforcement, and 
specifies how the funds must be spent. The Committee includes 
$4,750,000, as requested, to continue these important 
activities. The Committee directs ICE to provide a report with 
its fiscal year 2011 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, and a five-year enforcement plan for transshipment 
violations.

                     ICE DATA CENTER CONSOLIDATION

    Consistent with recommendations contained throughout this 
report, the Committee provides no funding for ICE data center 
migration activities due to the IG's recent findings described 
in the Chief Information Officer section of the report 
regarding possible unmitigated risks at the destination data 
center sites.

                      ICE FIELD OFFICE CO-LOCATION

    The Committee provides $47,123,000 for ICE field office co-
location. This level includes $45,000,000 for the costs to 
consolidate disparate field offices, approximately half the 
requested amount, and $2,123,000 for personnel to manage the 
ICE field office co-location program. These funds should allow 
ICE to significantly improve field office coordination by 
integrating various legacy field locations into single ICE 
facilities in major U.S. cities, especially those located along 
or near the Southwest border region. The need to strengthen ICE 
operations by improving field office efficiencies was last 
highlighted by the Committee in the 2006 Appropriations Act.

                       Federal Protective Service

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2009.......................      $640,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010\1\..................     1,115,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................     1,115,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2009...................      +475,000,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.................             - - - 
\1\In the 2010 budget, the Administration proposed realigning FPS
  responsibilities to the National Protection and Programs Directorate.
  Additionally, CBO re-structured FPS collections in its 2010 re-
  estimate of the President's budget to include reimbursable contract
  guard service collections, which had not been included in previous
  year appropriations.

                                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: Protection Services to all Federal 
facilities throughout the United States and its territories; 
expanded intelligence and anti-terrorism capabilities; and 
Special Programs, including weapons of mass destruction 
detection, hazardous material detection and response, and 
canine programs.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $1,115,000,000, the same as the 
amount requested for fiscal year 2010. At this time, the 
Committee denies the proposed transfer of FPS managerial 
oversight from ICE to the National Protection and Programs 
Directorate (NPPD).

              MANAGEMENT OF THE FEDERAL PROTECTIVE SERVICE

    For the past two years Congress has been forced to set in 
law the staffing levels for the Federal Protective Service 
since there was no effort made by the Administration to 
determine the resources required to provide adequate security 
for Federal buildings. This neglect of the agency charged with 
protecting Federal workers from risks both small and large is 
unacceptable, particularly given the fact that Federal 
buildings have historically been a target of terrorists. As a 
result, in the 2009 Appropriations Act, the Committee directed 
the Government Accountability Office to make recommendations 
about what resources are required for the FPS to be able to 
adequately protect Federal facilities. That analysis is 
ongoing.
    It is unfortunate that rather than explicitly identifying 
the staff and funding levels necessary for FPS to perform its 
mission, the 2010 budget proposes to transfer responsibility 
for the agency to NPPD. In theory, the FPS mission is probably 
better aligned with that of NPPD, which is the DHS component 
responsible for protecting the nation's critical 
infrastructure. Furthermore, it is true that the managerial 
relationships between FPS and ICE have been strained, and that 
the growing significance of ICE enforcement of immigration and 
customs law does not particularly complement the FPS 
responsibility to protect Federal offices. However, the 
justification documents for this proposed transfer include no 
practical details about how the change will be implemented and 
identify no particular transition costs associated with the 
realignment. Furthermore, the justification fails to recognize 
the host of new and growing programs that NPPD currently 
manages, such as the National Cyber Security Initiative and the 
regulation of Ammonium Nitrate. Finally, the justification does 
not explain whether NPPD managers have the capacity to absorb a 
law enforcement responsibility like FPS, which would involve 
extensive field operations and contract oversight. Currently, 
NPPD field staff is limited, and the contracts it manages do 
not have the same nation-wide reach as those at FPS.
    If the Committee is to take the Administration's FPS 
realignment proposal seriously, the Department must provide a 
more detailed discussion of the managerial steps that will be 
taken to ensure the transition functions smoothly and 
efficiently. There are too many examples of failed bureaucratic 
restructuring in the short history of the Department of 
Homeland Security to allow the Committee to proceed without 
further detail: the fruitless realignment of the Federal Air 
Marshals into ICE, the costly restructuring of the DHS 
Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate, 
and the calamitous dissolution of the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency to form the Emergency Preparedness and 
Response Directorate.
    The Committee therefore directs the Department to submit, 
no later than July 30, 2009, a detailed transition plan for the 
realignment of the Federal Protective Service, including an 
identification of the resources necessary to support a robust, 
nation-wide security presence at Federal facilities. Absent 
further information, it is premature to act on the proposed 
restructuring.

                        Automation Modernization

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2009\1\....................       $57,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.....................       110,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       105,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2009...................       +48,000,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.................        -5,000,000\1\Excludes $20,000,000 in appropriations in the American Recovery and
  Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5).

                                MISSION

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

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $105,000,000 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:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Project name               Budget estimate    Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATLAS.................................       $9,000,000       $9,000,000
Detention and Removals Modernizations.       22,000,000       22,000,000
Homeland Enforcement Communications          16,400,000       16,400,000
 System (HECS)........................
Field Investigations Support Systems..       23,600,000       23,600,000
Electronic Health Records (eHR).......       20,400,000       20,400,000
Unspecified Reduction.................            - - -       -5,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS

    The Committee is pleased that ICE is tackling a persistent 
problem for all medical systems: the fallibility of paper-based 
patient records. Since ICE detainees can often be transferred 
between several detention facilities before their immigration 
cases are decided, portable medical records are an important 
part of ensuring the health of all those held in ICE custody. 
The Committee understands ICE will use funds provided for this 
project in 2010 to assess the Division of Immigrant Health 
Services electronic health records needs, and to initiate an 
acquisition of the most cost effective electronic health 
records system that meets those needs. The Committee directs 
ICE to review the electronic health records systems already 
used by other Federal agencies such as the Department of 
Veterans Affairs or the Bureau of Prisons, and to evaluate 
whether it would be cost effective to procure medical records 
management services from another Federal agency through an 
Economy Act transaction. In addition, the Committee directs ICE 
to ensure that whatever system of electronic health records it 
decides to implement, the system should be available and 
required to be used by all detention facilities that house ICE 
detainees.

                              Construction

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2009.......................        $5,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.....................             - - -
Recommended in the bill...............................        11,818,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2009...................        +6,818,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.................       +11,818,000
                                MISSION

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

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $11,818,000 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 directs ICE to use the funds provided to address 
the highest-priority repair and alteration needs at the SPCs.
    The budget proposed a general provision allowing ICE to 
sell its SPCs and retain the proceeds to pay for the cost of 
consolidating field offices for ICE agents and officers. The 
Committee does not include this provision. Until ICE is able to 
prove that it can adequately provide for the medical care and 
oversight of detention standards at its existing contract 
detention facilities, the Committee believes it would be 
premature to move to an exclusively contract detention model.

                 Transportation Security Administration


                           AVIATION SECURITY
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2009\1\....................    $4,754,518,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.....................     5,310,850,000
Recommended in the bill...............................     5,265,740,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2009...................      +511,222,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.................       -45,110,000 
\1\Excludes $1,000,000,000 in appropriations in the American Recovery
  and Reinvestment Act (P.L. 111-5).

                                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 $5,265,740,000 for Aviation 
Security, $45,110,000 below the amount requested and 
$511,222,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. 
Funds within this account are partially offset through the 
collection of security user fees paid by aviation travelers and 
airlines. A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee 
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Budget estimate    Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Screening operations..................   $4,475,117,000   $4,409,776,000
Aviation security direction and             835,733,000      855,964,000
 enforcement..........................
Mandatory aviation security capital         250,000,000      250,000,000
 fund\1\..............................
                                       ---------------------------------
    Subtotal, aviation security.......    5,310,850,000   5,265,740,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The Aviation Security Capital Fund is a non-add because it is not
  directly appropriated and is paid for entirely from user fees.

                         AVIATION SECURITY FEES

    In total, the Committee assumes the collection of 
$2,100,000,000 in aviation security user fees, $128,941,000 
less than the budget. This level is based on a re-estimate of 
fees by the Congressional Budget Office that reflects the 
downward trend in air travel due to current economic 
conditions. These fees will be collected from both aviation 
passengers and the airlines and will partially offset the 
federal appropriation for aviation security.

                          SCREENING OPERATIONS

    The Committee recommends $4,409,776,000 for passenger and 
baggage screening operations, $65,341,000 below the amount 
requested and $474,066,000 above amount provided in fiscal year 
2009. A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee 
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget estimate      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Screener Workforce:
    Privatized screening..........       $149,643,000       $149,643,000
    Screener personnel,                 2,788,575,000      2,788,575,000
     compensation and benefits....
                                   -------------------------------------
        Subtotal, screener              2,938,218,000      2,938,218,000
         workforce................
                                   =====================================
    Screener training and other...        203,463,000        204,713,000
    Checkpoint support............        128,739,000        128,739,000
EDS/ETD Systems:
    EDS procurement and                   856,591,000        800,000,000
     installation.................
    Screening technology                  326,625,000        316,625,000
     maintenance and utilities....
    Operation integration.........         21,481,000         21,481,000
                                   -------------------------------------
        Subtotal, EDS/ETD systems.      1,204,697,000      1,138,106,000
                                   =====================================
            Total, screening            4,475,117,000      4,409,776,000
             operations...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PRIVATIZED SCREENING

    The Committee recommends $149,643,000 for privatized 
screening, the same as the amount requested and $1,629,000 
below the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. This reduction 
reflects cost savings in contracts that were recently 
renegotiated. To date, nine airports and one heliport 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, but which are now in the final 
process of joining the privatized screening program. When this 
is completed, a total of 17 airports and heliports will be 
participating in SPP, and the Committee recommendation fully 
funds that level of activity. If additional airports are 
federalized, the Committee expects TSA to continue to provide 
screener service to airports, either through SPP or with 
federal screeners, in fiscal year 2010. 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.

             SCREENER PERSONNEL, COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS

    The Committee recommends $2,788,575,000 for screener 
personnel, compensation, and benefits, the same as the amount 
requested and $72,561,000 above the amount provided in fiscal 
year 2009. This level fully funds the pay and cost of living 
adjustments for all screeners and permits the agency to hire 55 
new full-time equivalent bomb appraisal officers (BAOs). BAOs 
are highly trained individuals who are able to more accurately 
identify potential improvised explosive devices and their 
components and are trained in the disposal of these threat 
objects. After a screener identifies an item of concern, using 
a BAO for further analysis of the potential threat object can 
permit the resolution of the situation without the need to call 
in local law enforcement's bomb disposal unit, thereby reducing 
airport delays and closures. With the additional FTEs, TSA 
expects to have BAOs deployed at 158 airports throughout the 
United States by the end of 2010. TSA is encouraged to ensure 
that BAOs have all the appropriate tools to do their job 
effectively.

                      SCREENER TRAINING AND OTHER

    The Committee recommends $204,713,000 for screener training 
and other, $1,250,000 above the amount requested and $7,395,000 
above the amount appropriated in 2009. The Committee notes the 
continued threat posed by rudimentary and ever evolving 
improvised explosive devices and recognizes the valuable 
security testing and evaluation provided by the Safe Skies 
Alliance. To further these efforts, the Committee provides 
$1,250,000 to develop and enhance research and training 
capabilities for Transportation Security Officer improvised 
explosive detection recognition training by the Safe Skies 
Alliance.

                           CHECKPOINT SUPPORT

    The Committee recommends $128,739,000 for checkpoint 
support, the same amount as requested and $121,261,000 below 
the amount appropriated in 2009. The reduction in funding 
reflects $300,000,000 provided in ARRA for checkpoint support 
activities, which permitted TSA to accelerate the testing, 
piloting, and deployment of next-generation checkpoint 
technologies. TSA has informed the Committee that with the 
infusion of ARRA funding, the agency will meet its current 
nationwide requirements for advanced technology screening 
systems and liquid bottle scanners at the checkpoint and make 
significant headway in procuring and deploying other next 
generation devices. With the funds recommended in 2010, TSA 
plans to procure 895 additional systems, including whole body 
imagers, credential authentication technologies, shoe scanners, 
stand off detectors, enhanced metal detectors, next generation 
explosive trace machines, and technologies that may permit 
passengers to carryon larger sized liquids. These funds will 
also allow the agency to reconfigure airports to accommodate 
the ``checkpoint of the future'' layout.
    Over the past few years, the Committee has made significant 
investments in next-generation checkpoint technologies to 
increase TSA's ability to detect concealed weapons and 
explosives. It is critically important that these screening 
technologies are deployed in order to address changing and 
evolving threats to air passengers and crew members. While new 
technologies provide protection to the traveling public, it 
remains critically important to safeguard privacy. Within 45 
days of enactment, the Committee directs TSA to report to the 
Committees on Appropriations the details and strategy for a 
comprehensive program to ensure passenger privacy related to 
whole body imaging (WBI). At a minimum, this strategy should 
include: off-site monitoring; a spend plan for upgrading the 
existing software to include new privacy algorithms; procedures 
to prohibit storing, transferring, or copying any images 
produced by the machines; and a concept of operations plan for 
those passengers that choose a physical search rather than the 
WBI screening.
    Consistent with fiscal year 2009, 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. Also, TSA shall 
continue to update the Committees quarterly on checkpoint 
technology expenditures, on an airport-by-airport basis. These 
updates shall include information on the specific technologies 
for purchase, project timelines, a schedule for obligation, and 
a table detailing actual versus anticipated unobligated 
balances at the close of the fiscal year, with an explanation 
of any deviation from the original plan.

        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. 
Although all commercial airports have explosive detection 
machines, many airports have older generation systems, which 
often occupy large amounts of lobby space, are more labor 
intensive, and are much less efficient than newer explosive 
detection system (EDS) machines. In 2006, TSA developed the EDS 
Strategic Plan that identified optimal screening solutions at 
the top 250 commercial airports, including the installation of 
in-line EDS and the replacement of explosive trace detection 
machines, which would address the challenges identified above. 
Earlier this year, TSA informed the Committee that it had 
approximately $1.5 billion in identified needs to procure and 
install in-line EDS machines at airports based on priorities 
established in the Strategic Plan. According to TSA, these 
airports had completed a significant amount of design work and 
could spend the funding expeditiously. As a result, 
$700,000,000 was provided in ARRA to address these needs. With 
this funding, TSA expects to acquire and install 41 in-line 
systems so that additional airports have optimal systems 
installed at some or at all terminals.
    The Committee recommends $800,000,000 for EDS procurement 
and installation, $56,591,000 below the budget request and 
$506,000,000 above the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2009. 
This funding will permit TSA to modify airport facilities to 
install about 20 additional in-line systems at some or all 
airport terminals. Including the existing mandatory Aviation 
Security Capital Fund of $250,000,000, the total appropriation 
(both mandatory and discretionary) for EDS procurement and 
installation is $1,050,000,000 in fiscal year 2010. This 
funding, coupled with the $700,000,000 provided in ARRA earlier 
in the year, fully satisfies TSA's list of airports that have 
approved optimal screening designs that could be funded. Within 
the $800,000,000 of discretionary appropriations, 25 percent 
shall be applied to the needs of medium and small sized 
airports.
    When finalizing the cost agreements with airports using 
these funds, TSA may be able to achieve unanticipated cost 
savings during facility modifications and installation of EDS 
machines at airports. For example, TSA has already informed the 
Committee that with the ARRA funding provided earlier this 
year, airports have calculated project costs below their 
original estimates. As a result, TSA anticipates savings of 
between $50,000,000 and $150,000,000. These funds will be 
applied to the airports that are next on the optimal baggage 
screening list with completed designs. In addition, it has come 
to the attention of the Committee that installing an optimal 
baggage screening solution using a pre-engineered structure 
outside an existing airport terminal can significantly reduce 
costs when compared to placing the system inside the terminal. 
At least three airports are exploring this design. In addition 
to being cost effective, this approach also speeds 
implementation while creating minimal disruptions to existing 
TSA and airline baggage operations. Because this is an eligible 
activity under 49 U.S.C. 44923, the Committee encourages TSA to 
consider using some of the recommended funds for dedicated pre-
engineered structures related to optimal baggage screening 
solutions for EDS installations. This may save the Federal 
government significant time and money.
    Last year, the Committee encouraged TSA to continue 
studying the efficacy of consolidating checked and carryon 
baggage screening systems at smaller and medium sized airports 
and to provide a progress report by February 16, 2009. This 
report has not been received. The Committee remains interested 
in the topic and urges TSA to provide this report 
expeditiously.
    Consistent with prior years, 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. If new 
requirements occur after the plan is submitted, TSA shall 
reassess and reallocate funds after notifying the Committees of 
any change. Also, TSA shall continue to update the Committees 
quarterly on EDS expenditures, on an airport-by-airport basis. 
These updates shall include information on the specific 
technologies for purchase, project timelines, a schedule for 
obligation, and a table detailing actual versus anticipated 
unobligated balances at the close of the fiscal year, with an 
explanation of any deviation from the original plan.

             SCREENING TECHNOLOGY MAINTENANCE AND UTILITIES

    The Committee recommends $316,625,000 for screening 
technology maintenance and utilities, $10,000,000 below the 
amount requested and $11,000,000 more than the amount provided 
in fiscal year 2009. The Committee notes that the funding 
requirement for maintenance and utilities of explosive 
detection systems, checkpoint systems, and other technologies 
has grown by 7 percent from fiscal year 2009 to 2010. The 
maintenance increase is driven primarily by increases in 
deployed security equipment. Although TSA uses long-term 
maintenance contracts with fixed prices to try to safeguard the 
government against potential cost increases for maintaining 
aging technology systems, the agency nonetheless incurs double 
digit growth in this area year after year. Because of this, 
last year the Committee directed 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. That report is delinquent. Without an 
understanding of why these costs have escalated so dramatically 
and what TSA is doing about it, the Committee cannot fully 
support a 7 percent cost escalation.
    TSA plans to renegotiate its long term maintenance contract 
late in 2009 or perhaps in 2010. The Committee encourages TSA 
to undertake this renegotiation expeditiously and has taken an 
$11,000,000 reduction from the budget request to reflect cost 
savings anticipated under this new contract.

              AVIATION SECURITY DIRECTION AND ENFORCEMENT

    The Committee recommends $855,964,000 for aviation security 
direction and enforcement, $20,231,000 above the amount 
requested and $57,156,000 above the amount provided in fiscal 
year 2009. The following table highlights funding levels by 
program, project, and activity:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget estimate      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aviation regulation and other            $254,064,000       $254,064,000
 enforcement......................
Airport management and support....        448,424,000        453,924,000
Federal flight deck officer and            25,127,000         25,127,000
 flight crew training.............
Air cargo.........................        108,118,000        122,849,000
                                   -------------------------------------
    Subtotal, aviation security           835,733,000        855,964,000
     direction and enforcement....
------------------------------------------------------------------------

               AVIATION REGULATION AND OTHER ENFORCEMENT

    The Committee recommends $254,064,000 for aviation 
regulation and other enforcement, the same level as the budget 
request and $8,796,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 
2009. Within this funding is $8,696,000 to annualize 9/11 Act 
activities and to support implementation of new general 
aviation regulatory activities. Of the funding provided for 
general aviation, and consistent with prior years, $275,000 
shall be used for activities to train and alert general 
aviation pilots to proper security measures and best practices. 
Since 2008, this funding has been available to be awarded 
competitively; however, TSA has been quite slow in doing so. 
TSA does not plan to award the 2008 funds until late May or 
June 2009. The Committee is disappointed with the delay in 
awarding this program and directs the agency to move more 
expeditiously with the 2009 and 2010 funds.
    The Committee understands that TSA is currently working 
with stakeholders to develop a modified Large Aircraft Security 
Program rule that minimizes adverse effects on general aviation 
while addressing security concerns. We also understand that 
after this consultation TSA plans to issue a new notice of 
proposed rulemaking to ensure additional public comment. The 
committee applauds TSA for taking a deliberative approach to 
this issue and urges TSA to weight all the costs and benefits 
associated with new security mandates for general aviation 
operators and airports.

                     AIRPORT MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT

    The Committee recommends $453,924,000 for airport 
management and support, $5,500,000 above the budget request and 
$52,258,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. 
Within this total is $5,500,000 for the flight data initiative, 
to continue development, analysis and testing of deployable 
flight data recorders and other technologies to implement 
section 1620(2)(b) of the 9/11 Act. This initiative will 
provide near real-time access to data for immediate analysis of 
potential terrorist threats, provide secondary storage of 
flight data if the flight data and cockpit voice recorders do 
not survive, and overcome the delay in recovery of critical 
flight data from accident locations. This funding will support 
on aircraft installation and flight testing for all associated 
technologies by September 30, 2011.

                               AIR CARGO

    The Committee recommends $122,849,000 for air cargo, 
$14,731,000 above the amount requested and the same amount 
provided in fiscal year 2009. Funding above the budget request 
shall be for additional domestic and international inspectors, 
for international air cargo activities to strengthen the 
development of a global air cargo security strategy, to 
continue air cargo pilots using emerging technologies that are 
being developed to screen larger sized items, and to convert 
law enforcement canine teams to TSA proprietary teams.
    The 9/11 Act required DHS to establish a system to screen 
50 percent of cargo transported on passenger aircraft by 
February 2009 and 100 percent by August 2010. Screening 100 
percent of air cargo carried on passenger aircraft is an 
important mandate, one that TSA can meet within the timeframe 
Congress has set for domestic activities.
    In February 2009, TSA stated that it was able to meet the 
50 percent deadline because of a variety of initiatives the 
agency undertook, including requiring its personnel to screen 
100 percent of cargo carried on passenger aircraft at the 
nation's 250 smallest airports, removing almost all cargo 
screening exemptions, and mandating that all nonexempt cargo 
carried on narrow body aircraft be screened. However, on March 
18, 2009, GAO testified that TSA cannot verify that 50 percent 
of all nonexempt air cargo carried on passenger aircraft is 
actually being screened. This stems from the fact that TSA did 
not have a system in place to provide verification and to 
collect data from screening entities. Since then, TSA has 
developed a system to verify that this level of cargo screening 
is occurring.
    It will be significantly more difficult to achieve 100 
percent screening mandated by August 2010. To do so, TSA is 
developing the Certified Cargo Screening Program, which would 
permit certified supply chain facilities to screen air cargo 
using a variety of technologies prior to its consolidation onto 
pallets or into containers before it leaves these facilities. 
The certified cargo screening facilities are required to ensure 
that the chain of custody for this 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 palletized and 
shrink-wrapped cargo, is subject to screening.
    Earlier this year, TSA began a limited Phase One rollout in 
the eighteen major gateways, focusing on shippers in nine 
cities and freight forwarders in all eighteen airport markets. 
This work is all being done domestically; a similar program 
will need to occur overseas. TSA plans to evaluate the success 
of the Phase One program before expanding the program 
nationwide later this year. Consistent with the explanatory 
language accompanying Public Law 110-329, TSA shall brief the 
Committee on the results of this pilot before it moves to a 
nationwide rollout. This briefing should detail the processes 
for securing air cargo through the supply chain and include the 
schedule, milestones, and performance measures for the program. 
Assuming that most domestic air cargo screening will 
permanently move away from the airports to certified off-site 
facilities (e.g. manufacturers, indirect air carriers, and 
freight forwarders), the Committee has included additional 
funds to hire domestic inspectors above the 450 already on 
board, to validate that these entities are screening 
appropriately and consistently before they consolidate the air 
cargo into pallets. Funding may also be used to hire additional 
personnel to support policy development, rollout, and program 
management oversight of the Certified Cargo Screening Program, 
specifically in the areas of enrollment, assessment, and 
certification; technology management; and international policy 
coordination/harmonization.
    To date, air cargo security has focused almost exclusively 
on the domestic market. However, a large amount of air cargo, 
particularly perishable items, is shipped from overseas 
locations to the United States. At this time, this cargo will 
be screened once it reaches the United States; however, TSA, in 
conjunction with U.S. Customs and Border Protection and 
international agencies, is developing a program to ensure the 
security of inbound cargo from outside the United States. 
Screening international air cargo poses unique challenges since 
TSA would need to place personnel overseas to screen U.S.-bound 
cargo and/or strengthen relations with foreign airports and 
companies to screen cargo before it is placed on an aircraft 
heading to the United States. TSA testified earlier this year 
that this problem would not be resolved by August 2010. The 
Committee has provided funding to hire and deploy international 
cargo transportation security inspectors to examine cargo 
operations at last points of departure to the United States, to 
enhance databases that assess risks and vulnerabilities of the 
air cargo being transported, and to develop a global air cargo 
security strategy. This additional funding should help TSA 
strengthen air cargo security throughout the worldwide supply 
chain.
    In addition to funding provided for personnel, the 
Committee includes $5,000,000 to support the testing, 
evaluation, and qualification of emerging screening 
technologies to screen larger sized items for inclusion on 
TSA's Qualified Technology List. This list will identify 
appropriate screening technologies for industry to procure to 
enable TSA to meet the 100 percent screening requirement.
    Finally, within the total funding level for air cargo is 
$7,000,000 to convert 35 canine teams from local law 
enforcement officer teams to TSA proprietary teams. To date, 
TSA has been unable to place 35 of the 85 canine teams 
previously allocated for placement with local law enforcement 
entities. These funds will enable TSA to convert these 35 teams 
such that they will be TSA owned and managed. This requires 
additional funding for TSA handlers, training, and logistics, 
and for other administrative support. These teams will work 
predominantly in the air cargo arena.

                          NEW FEE COLLECTIONS

    The budget requested $16,900,000 in new fee collections 
under Aviation Security for such activities as the certified 
cargo screening program ($5,200,000), large aircraft security 
program ($1,600,000), secure identification display area checks 
($10,000,000), and other security threat assessments 
($100,000). The Committee has provided this fee authority under 
the Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing program, 
which manages similar programs.

                    Surface Transportation Security

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2009.......................       $49,606,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.....................       128,416,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       103,416,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2009...................       +53,810,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.................       -25,000,000
                                MISSION

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

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $103,416,000 for Surface 
Transportation Security, $25,000,000 below the amount requested 
and $53,810,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. 
Within this total, $42,293,000 is for surface transportation 
staffing and operations and $61,123,000 is for rail security 
inspectors and canines. Within the amounts provided, the 
Committee has fully funded activities mandated by the 9/11 Act, 
including funding to continue vulnerability and threat 
assessments of high risk entities, to conduct additional 
security exercises and training programs, and to continue 
information sharing activities.
    In addition to the funds provided for surface 
transportation security under this heading, the Committee has 
provided $262,000,000 for rail, transit, and bus security 
grants under the Federal Emergency Management Agency's ``State 
and Local Programs'' appropriation and $5,000,000 for new 
counter-explosive research and development activities in 
Science and Technology. S&T has other ongoing research 
activities that may be utilized to enhance security in the mass 
transit, rail, and bus environments.

            VISIBLE INTERMODAL PROTECTION AND RESPONSE TEAMS

    The Committee recommends $25,000,000 for new rail 
inspectors to create new Visible Intermodal Protection and 
Response (VIPR) teams, half of the amount requested. These 
teams conduct unannounced, high-visibility exercises in mass 
transit or passenger rail facilities. TSA has informed the 
Committee that the requested funding reflects the entire cost 
to create 15 new teams. Past experience has shown that TSA has 
had substantial difficulty in hiring rail inspectors. In fact, 
TSA carried over about 47 percent of its fiscal year 2008 
surface transportation appropriation into fiscal year 2009 in 
part because of delays in hiring inspectors for VIPR teams. At 
this time, of the total 175 rail inspectors authorized, TSA has 
65 inspector positions that remain unfilled. Until TSA can show 
progress in hiring additional inspectors, it is premature to 
approve an additional 338 positions.
    Over the past two years, a number of entities have 
expressed concern about the effectiveness of VIPR teams. For 
example, a February 2009 DHS IG, report noted that surface 
transportation security inspectors do not add as much value in 
a VIPR exercise as other TSA participants, such as air marshals 
or screeners, because they are not trained in behavior 
detection, have no training in passenger screening, are unable 
to detect explosives, and are not law enforcement authorities. 
One year earlier, the IG reported that ``participants and 
outside observers question the value of VIPR exercises.'' In 
particular, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association 
described the VIPR exercises as ``clearly a waste of scarce 
Federal Air Marshal resources''. Transportation security 
inspectors (TSI) also considered their participation in VIPR 
exercises ``unproductive''. The IG noted that in their survey 
of TSIs, 70 percent selected VIPR exercises as one of two 
duties they performed that were the least effective use of 
their time.
    Because of these concerns, last year the report 
accompanying the fiscal year 2009 Appropriations Act required 
TSA to report on performance standards to measure the success 
of its VIPR teams in detecting and disrupting terrorism. In 
addition, the report was also to identify the methodology used 
to determine the distribution of VIPR resources and personnel 
among the various modes of transportation. To date, the 
Committee has not received this report and cannot determine 
what is necessary to address these concerns and to make these 
teams more effective. These issues must be resolved before the 
agency increases staffing for VIPR teams by over 200 percent as 
requested.

           Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2009.......................      $116,018,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.....................       191,999,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       171,999,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2009...................       +55,981,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.................       -20,000,000
                                MISSION

    The mission of Transportation Threat Assessment and 
Credentialing (TTAC) is to reduce the probability of a 
successful attack on the transportation system through the 
application of threat assessment methodologies 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 and the 
following screening programs: Secure Flight; Crew Vetting; 
Transportation Worker Identification Credential; Registered 
Traveler; Hazardous Materials; and Alien Flight School.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a direct appropriation of 
$171,999,000 for TTAC, $20,000,000 below the amount requested 
and $55,981,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. 
In addition, the Committee anticipates TSA will collect 
$44,900,000 in fees, including $16,900,000 in a variety of new 
fees TSA proposed under Aviation Security. Because these new 
fees will be paid for by users undergoing background and 
credential checks, it is more appropriate to have these 
activities administered by the TTAC program, which already 
manages similar activities for transportation workers and 
hazardous materials truck drivers. A comparison of the budget 
estimate to the Committee's recommended level by budget 
activity is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget estimate      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Appropriation:
    Secure flight.................        $84,363,000        $84,363,000
    Crew and other vetting                107,636,000         87,636,000
     programs.....................
                                   -------------------------------------
        Subtotal, direct                  191,999,000        171,999,000
         appropriations...........
Fee Collections:
    Transportation worker                   9,000,000          9,000,000
     identification credential....
    Hazardous materials...........         15,000,000         15,000,000
    Alien flight school (transfer           4,000,000          4,000,000
     from DOJ)....................
    Certified cargo screening                   - - -          5,200,000
     program......................
    Large aircraft security                     - - -          1,600,000
     program......................
    Secure identification display               - - -         10,000,000
     area checks..................
    Other security threat                       - - -            100,000
     assessments..................
                                   -------------------------------------
        Subtotal, fee collections.         28,000,000         44,900,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             SECURE FLIGHT

    The Committee recommends $84,363,000 for Secure Flight, the 
same amount as requested and $2,152,000 above the amount 
provided in fiscal year 2009. Secure Flight became operational 
in late-January 2009. At that time, TSA began to assume the 
watch-list matching function for a limited number of domestic 
flights for one airline, and has since phased in additional 
flights and airlines. Once Secure Flight's advanced technology 
is fully implemented, enhanced watch list matching will be done 
solely by the government. Airlines will gather a passenger's 
full name, date of birth, and gender when making an airline 
reservation to determine if the passenger is a match to the No 
Fly or Selectee lists. By providing the additional data 
elements of gender and date of birth, Secure Flight will more 
effectively help prevent misidentification of passengers who 
have similar names to individuals on the watch-list and better 
identify individuals who may pose a known or suspected threat 
to aviation. TSA plans to assume the watch-list-matching 
function for all domestic flights by March 2010. The agency 
will then take on the watch-list-matching function for 
international flights departing to and from the United States 
by the end of 2010, which is currently the responsibility of 
CBP.
    Since 2005, GAO has been evaluating TSA's progress in 
developing the Secure Flight program. In May 2009, GAO issued 
its most recent evaluation of this program (GAO-09-292). The 
evaluation found that TSA had generally achieved nine of the 10 
statutory conditions related to the development of the Secure 
Flight program and had conditionally achieved one condition. 
For that one condition, which pertains to life cycle cost 
estimates and program plans, GAO notes that TSA had defined 
plans, but had not completed all activities for this condition 
to be satisfied. GAO also expressed concern that TSA had not 
yet developed plans to periodically assess the performance of 
the Secure Flight system's name-matching capabilities, which 
would help ensure that the system is working as intended. GAO 
is directed to continue reviewing the Secure Flight program 
until all ten conditions are generally achieved and 
periodically update the Committee on its findings.

                    CREW AND OTHER VETTING PROGRAMS

    The Committee provides $87,636,000 for crew and other 
vetting programs instead of $107,636,000 as requested. This 
funding shall be used to support personnel working on a variety 
of vetting activities, including vetting flight crew members 
and employees with access to secure areas in the airports; 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 fully funds the annualization of 9/11 
Act vetting activities; includes funding for 33 new positions 
as requested; and recommends $56,500,000 for vetting 
infrastructure investments, as discussed below. None of this 
funding shall be used in support of the Secure Flight program, 
which has a separate appropriation.

                   VETTING INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS

    The Committee provides $56,500,000 for vetting 
infrastructure investments instead of $76,500,000 as requested 
in the budget. Because TSA has not clearly detailed in its 
budget justification the investments necessary to enhance its 
current vetting infrastructure in 2010, and the requested 
amount does not match data provided to the Committee earlier 
this spring, numerous questions remain unanswered about this 
modernization program. As such, the Committee has denied about 
one-third of the requested increase for this program. However, 
the Committee recognizes that improvements must be made to the 
Office of Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing's 
screening infrastructure, including prototype development as 
well as software and hardware procurements. These investments 
will consolidate a number of arbitrarily separate screening 
systems into one system and address new requirements contained 
in the 9/11 Act to vet a variety of transportation employees.

                    Transportation Security Support

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2009.......................      $947,735,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.....................     1,004,580,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       992,980,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2009...................       +45,245,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.................       -11,600,000
                                MISSION

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

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $992,980,000 for Transportation 
Security Support, $11,600,000 below the amount requested and 
$45,245,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. A 
comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee recommended 
level by budget activity is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget estimate      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Headquarters administration.......       $248,929,000       $248,929,000
Human capital services............        226,338,000        226,338,000
Information technology............        501,110,000        489,510,000
Intelligence......................         28,203,000         28,203,000
                                   -------------------------------------
    Subtotal, transportation            1,004,580,000        992,980,000
     security support.............
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

    The Committee recommends $489,510,000 for information 
technology, $11,600,000 below the amount requested and 
$16,711,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. 
Consistent with funding recommendations contained throughout 
this report, the Committee provides no funding for Data Center 
Migration activities due to the IG's recent findings described 
in the Chief Information Officer section of this report 
regarding possible unmitigated risks at the destination data 
center sites.

                             COVERT TESTING

    The Committee continues to support covert testing, which 
helps to identify vulnerabilities in critical systems, and 
directs TSA to continue developing innovative methods to test 
the weaknesses of our transportation security systems. 
Consistent with prior years, TSA shall continue to report 
biannually on its red teaming and covert testing activities, 
including specific discussions on the test results at airport 
checkpoints, in secure areas of airports, at air cargo 
facilities, and in other transportation modes. This testing is 
particularly critical in the air cargo arena to ensure that 
screening conducted at indirect air carriers, certified cargo 
shipping facilities, and by shippers and distribution centers 
consistently meets federal security requirements before air 
cargo is placed on passenger aircraft.

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 the date of enactment of 
this Act. The Committee withholds $5,000,000 from obligation 
until receipt of the plan, which has consistently been received 
late. As previously discussed, the plan shall detail 
expenditures for checkpoint support and explosive detection 
procurement and installation on an airport-by-airport basis for 
fiscal year 2010. The Committee recognizes that, after TSA has 
completed its expenditure plan, TSA may become aware of a high 
priority need 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 2009.......................      $819,481,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.....................       860,111,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       860,111,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2009...................       +40,630,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.................             - - -
                                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 $860,111,000, as requested, for 
the Federal Air Marshals, $40,630,000 above the amounts 
provided in fiscal year 2009. Of the total funding provided, 
$762,569,000 is for management and administration and 
$97,542,000 is for travel and training. The Committee continues 
to expect quarterly reports on mission coverage, staffing 
levels, and hiring rates as directed in previous years.
    After September 11th, thousands of FAMs were deployed 
throughout the United States to detect, deter, and defeat 
hostile acts targeted against U.S. air carriers, airports, 
airline passengers, and air crews. FAMs protect both domestic 
and international flights. The federal government as well as 
airports and airlines have invested billions of dollars to 
develop and deploy a wide variety of security measures to make 
it increasingly difficult to attack the aviation sector. These 
activities include hardening cockpit doors on all aircraft; 
screening all checked baggage for explosives; deploying next 
generation technologies at airport checkpoints to look for 
explosives, weapons, or other threat objectives on a person or 
in their carry-on baggage; deploying screeners to identify 
suspicious behavior; random checks of passengers, air crew, and 
airport employees; perimeter screening at airports; and 
security threat assessments or background checks against a wide 
range of workers throughout the airport and airline system. In 
the meantime, FAMs has been developing a new risk assessment 
model to better target staff deployments, with a focus on high-
risk flights.
    The Committee recognizes that the aviation sector continues 
to be an area of interest for those who wish to do us harm, and 
has recommended the amount requested for FAMs for 2010, which 
anticipates continuation of the present FTE level. However, the 
Committee believes it is time for the Department to reassess 
the appropriate long term staffing level for FAMs in light of 
the significantly enhanced security posture described above. 
This reassessment should include a determination of the 
appropriate mix of staff required on a day-to-day basis; an 
identification of the kinds and numbers of flights to which 
FAMs should be regularly assigned; whether legislative changes 
may be necessary to better tailor how FAMs deploys its marshals 
on a daily basis; and a detailed discussion on the methodology 
used to justify this optimal staffing mix. The results of this 
assessment should be provided to the Committees no later than 
February 1, 2010.

                              Coast Guard


                           Operating Expenses

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2009\1\....................    $6,194,925,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.....................     6,556,188,000
Recommended in the bill...............................     6,822,026,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2009...................      +627,101,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.................      +265,838,000 
\1\Excludes $110,000,000 transfer from DoD, pursuant to PL 110-181, for
  Iraqi war costs.

                                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 
$6,822,026,000 for Operating Expenses. The recommended funding 
level is $265,838,000 above the amount requested and 
$627,101,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. 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....     $2,708,923,000     $2,727,521,000
    Military health care..........        371,372,000        373,569,000
    Permanent change of station...        164,566,000        164,153,000
    Counterdrug enforcement                         0          5,735,000
     initiative...................
                                   -------------------------------------
        Subtotal, military pay and      3,244,861,000      3,270,978,000
         allowance................
                                   =====================================
Civilian pay and benefits.........        699,594,000        700,490,000
Training and recruiting:
    Training and education........        103,388,000        103,847,000
    Recruitment...................        102,582,000        102,929,000
                                   -------------------------------------
        Subtotal, training and            205,970,000        206,776,000
         recruiting...............
                                   =====================================
Operating funds and unit level
 maintenance:
    Atlantic Command..............        177,474,000        177,474,000
    Pacific Command...............        195,943,000        195,943,000
    1st District..................         60,074,000         60,205,000
    5th District..................         21,941,000         22,011,000
    7th District..................         78,338,000         78,394,000
    8th District..................         49,276,000         49,737,000
    9th District..................         31,672,000         31,795,000
    11th District.................         17,641,000         17,898,000
    13th District.................         23,060,000         23,193,000
    14th District.................         19,289,000         19,289,000
    17th District.................         29,829,000         31,233,000
    Headquarters directorates.....        285,193,000        291,970,000
    Headquarters managed units....        158,901,000        159,509,000
    Other activities..............            882,000            911,000
                                   -------------------------------------
        Subtotal, operating funds       1,149,513,000      1,159,562,000
         and unit level
         maintenance..............
                                   =====================================
Centrally managed accounts........        353,071,000        331,058,000
Intermediate and depot level
 maintenance:
    Aeronautical maintenance......        365,291,000        365,291,000
    Electronic maintenance........        155,101,000        156,767,000
    Civil/ocean engineering and           180,929,000        182,743,000
     shore facilities maintenance.
    Vessel maintenance............        201,858,000        206,858,000
                                   -------------------------------------
        Subtotal, intermediate and        903,179,000        911,659,000
         depot level maintenance..
                                   =====================================
    Overseas Contingency                           --        241,503,000
     Operations (OIF/OEF Support).
                                   =====================================
            Total, operating            6,556,188,000      6,822,026,000
             expenses.............
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS

    The Committee includes $241,503,000 under operating 
expenses for the costs of the Coast Guard's support for 
overseas contingencies, including operations in the Persian 
Gulf and against pirates off the coast of Somalia. These funds 
in the past had been carried in supplemental appropriations 
bills under the Department of Defense then transferred to the 
Coast Guard. The Committee believes moving these funds to 
regular order appropriations bills and providing them to the 
Coast Guard directly rather than as a transfer improves 
transparency and opportunities for effective oversight.

                          FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

    The Coast Guard's ongoing struggle with internal financial 
controls is a persistent area of concern. The Committee notes 
that the Coast Guard lags behind all other DHS components in 
terms of addressing material weaknesses in these systems, and 
it is the single largest holder of unauditable balances in the 
Department of Homeland Security, according to the IG.
    At the Committee's direction, in December 2008 the Coast 
Guard produced an extensive financial management improvement 
plan for fiscal years 2009 and 2010. The Financial Strategy for 
Transformation and Audit Readiness (FSTAR) plan should help 
lead the Coast Guard and DHS out of the financial wilderness. 
The Committee therefore directs the Coast Guard to provide a 
report on the progress of this initiative no later than six 
months after the date of enactment of this Act, and every six 
months thereafter. This report should include an assessment of 
the performance of the Coast Guard against the milestones 
outlined in the FSTAR plan, identify any remaining major 
roadblocks to achieving a clean audit, and outline proposals on 
how to remove those roadblocks.

                      MARITIME SAFETY AND SECURITY

    According to the Coast Guard's posture statement for fiscal 
year 2010, it plans to obligate $1,924,760,000 for ports, 
waterways, and coastal security, $137,239,000 above the 2009 
funding level, and the largest single increase in any mission 
area of the Coast Guard. Over the last two years, the Committee 
has provided nearly $93,800,000 in additional resources for 
these activities over and above the past Administration's 
requests, investing in watchstanders, boat and marine 
inspectors, and increasing capacity for security-related 
activities and investigations. As a result, the Coast Guard has 
a more robust capability to ensure the safety and security of 
U.S. ports through domestic and international activities. For 
example, the Coast Guard helps reduce risk to the U.S. by 
verifying the use of effective anti-terrorism measures in 
foreign ports. Out of 500 ports screened in 135 countries, 
seven were found to have serious security flaws, requiring 
vessels from those ports to take additional security steps as a 
condition of entry into U.S. ports. The Committee has fully 
funded the budget request of $7,500,000 in new investments to 
improve marine safety by filling the gap between the size of 
its workforce and the growth of the shipping industry. The 
Coast Guard's Marine Safety program inspects 70,000 domestic 
vessels and examines 11,000 foreign vessel examinations yearly. 
It is in the process of using resources this Committee provided 
to add more qualified marine inspectors and personnel to their 
ranks under the Marine Safety Enhancement Plan developed in 
2007. This year, the Coast Guard will continue to grow the 
force by deploying 25 apprentice marine inspectors to 11 ports, 
and establish Senior Marine Inspector Training Officers in 
seven ``feeder ports.'' Also, these new investments will expand 
training capacity and availability for Coast Guard personnel, 
and complete staffing for seven centers of expertise around the 
country to act as resources for inspectors and investigators.
    The Committee has provided $1,183,000 to make permanent the 
highly successful Biometrics at Sea program, as requested. The 
Coast Guard is directed to brief the Committee on their plans 
for the future growth of this program within 60 days of the 
enactment of this bill.
    Finally, the Committee has provided $1,088,000 as requested 
for the sustainment of the Seahawk Charleston Interagency 
Operations Center.

                      COUNTERNARCOTICS ENFORCEMENT

    This year, the Coast Guard anticipates spending 
$1,288,285,000 in support of its role as the lead federal 
agency for maritime narcotics interdiction. The Coast Guard 
reports that fiscal year 2008 was a record year for drug 
seizures, despite smugglers' attempts to use new tactics. The 
Committee has provided $5,735,000 for counternarcotics 
enforcement above the budget's proposed $57,116,000 increase in 
this mission area. Funding includes a total of $2,970,000 to 
expand the deployment of Airborne Use of Force capabilities in 
the Coast Guard's helicopter fleet, $2,125,000 above the amount 
requested. This will increase the capacity of the Helicopter 
Interdiction Squadron from 1,000 deployment days to 2,200 
deployment days per year. The Committee has also provided 
$3,610,000 above the request to standardize the size of Law 
Enforcement Detachments, increasing them to 12 members per 
detachment, and to provide four additional civilian trainers to 
meet sustainment requirements.

                INTERMEDIATE AND DEPOT LEVEL MAINTENANCE

    The Committee recommends $911,659,000 for intermediate and 
depot level maintenance, $8,480,000 above the budget request 
and $87,866,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2009. 
The Committee has expressed concern in the past about the high 
demands being placed on a Coast Guard Cutter fleet whose key 
elements, such as the High Endurance Cutter (HEC), are in many 
cases reaching the end of their expected service lives. The 
Coast Guard reports a $5,000,000 backlog of maintenance on HECs 
based on the west coast, while the two HECs based on the east 
coast are currently not operational and are awaiting completion 
of structural work before they can return to service. Without 
investment in sustainment plans or service life extension 
programs, these vessels will no longer be able to meet the 
demand for their services. Medium Endurance Cutters and patrol 
boats have benefitted from such plans and programs, but still 
face unforseen maintenance issues. Therefore, the Committee has 
provided an additional $5,000,000 to address priority 
maintenance needs for all three classes of cutters.

                                LORAN-C

    Once again, the budget proposed terminating the Long Range 
Aids to Navigation (LORAN-C) program, as was proposed and 
rejected two years ago. Last year the Committee rejected 
another proposal to transfer LORAN-C from Coast Guard to the 
National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), an agency 
that had neither the preparation nor the experience to operate 
the LORAN-C system.
    In late 2006, the Department of Transportation convened an 
Independent Assessment Team to determine the future of LORAN in 
cooperation with DHS, whose final report was released to the 
public this year as the result of a Freedom of Information Act 
request. It concluded that eLORAN, a fully modernized and 
upgraded version of LORAN-C, should serve as a long-term backup 
for GPS for positioning, navigation and timing for twenty 
years. On the basis of the report's findings, DHS announced in 
February 2008 that eLORAN would be the backup system for GPS, 
and the Coast Guard testified later that year that the 
existing, upgradable LORAN-C infrastructure was the logical 
support system for eLORAN. The immediate implementation of a 
long-term, robust backup system is vital, given the GAO's 
recent finding that it is unclear whether new GPS satellites 
can be purchased and put in orbit in time to maintain 
uninterrupted GPS service to private and public sector 
consumers. Therefore, the Committee once again rejects 
termination of LORAN-C, denies the authority to sell existing 
LORAN-C sites as sought by the Administration, provides 
$36,000,000 for continuing operation and maintenance, and 
directs the Coast Guard to provide a plan to the Committee 
within 30 days of enactment of this Act for upgrading the 
existing LORAN-C system to eLORAN in a cost-efficient fashion 
that complies with existing international agreements.

                 MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY EFFICIENCIES

    Due to the continuation of the LORAN-C signal, the 
Committee recommendation includes only $19,723,000 of the 
proposed $55,723,000 of management efficiencies. Within 60 days 
of enactment of this Act, the Coast Guard is directed to report 
in detail on what management efficiencies will be implemented, 
and what their projected total cost/benefit is for Coast Guard 
and the American public over the next five years.

                            A-76 ACTIVITIES

    The Committee continues to provide no funding for A-76 
activities in fiscal year 2010. In light of the ongoing 
challenges facing the Coast Guard, the Committee does not 
believe scarce resources should be used on A-76 studies.

                         DATA CENTER MIGRATION

    The Committee does not provide $22,400,000 requested for 
data center migration activities due to the IG's recent 
findings described in the Office of the Chief Information 
Officer section of the report regarding possible unmitigated 
risks at the destination data center sites.

  POLAR ICEBREAKING OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS AND FUTURE POLAR 
                                 NEEDS

    The Committee continues to be 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. These interests extend 
well beyond the realm of scientific research. As such, last 
year the Committee directed the Coast Guard and the National 
Science Foundation (NSF) to renegotiate the existing agreement 
on polar icebreaking in order to return the budget for 
operating and maintaining these vessels to the Coast Guard for 
fiscal year 2010, and to provide a new joint plan for Coast 
Guard support of scientific research by NSF and other Federal 
agencies, which was to be included in the 2010 budget request. 
No agreement was reached, and no plan was submitted. 
Negotiations are apparently underway between the Coast Guard 
and NSF, but the budget has yet to be returned to the Coast 
Guard accounts. Therefore, the Committee directs the Coast 
Guard to continue negotiating the agreement for the return of 
icebreaking in the 2011 budget, and to provide the joint plan 
for Coast Guard support as soon as possible.
    The Committee further directs the Coast Guard to use 
existing appropriations to continue its analysis of national 
mission needs in the high latitude regions to inform national 
polar policy.

                      INVASIVE SPECIES PROTECTION

    The Committee is concerned about the threat that harmful 
invasive species, such as the Asian carp, pose to the Great 
Lakes ecosystem. The Committee is aware that the Chicago 
Sanitary and Ship Canal second dispersal barrier is not yet 
operating at maximum capacity and that the voltage could be 
increased to provide maximum effectiveness. The Coast Guard is 
directed to initiate safety testing of the second barrier at 
operational strength of up to 4 volts per inch, in coordination 
with the US Army Corps of Engineers, within 180 days of 
enactment of this Act.

                Environmental Compliance and Restoration

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2009.......................       $13,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.....................        13,198,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       +13,198,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2009...................          +198,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.................             - - -
                                MISSION

    The Environmental Compliance and Restoration appropriation 
assists in bringing Coast Guard facilities into compliance with 
applicable 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 $13,198,000 for Environmental 
Compliance and Restoration, the same amount as requested and 
$198,000 more than the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. The 
Committee is aware of the continuing backlog in environmental 
compliance projects and expects the Coast Guard to provide a 
prioritized list outlining the backlog and a five-year 
remediation plan for the most environmentally damaging and 
time-sensitive of the contaminated sites within six months of 
the date of enactment of this Act.

                            Reserve Training

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2009.......................      $130,501,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.....................       133,632,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       133,632,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2009...................        +3,131,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.................             - - -
                                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 $133,632,000 for Reserve Training, 
the same as the amount requested and $3,131,000 above the 
amount provided in fiscal year 2009.

              Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2009\1\....................    $1,494,576,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.....................     1,383,980,000
Recommended in the bill...............................     1,347,480,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2009...................      -147,096,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.................       -36,500,000 
\1\Excludes $98,000,000 in appropriations in the American Recovery and
  Reinvestwent Act (P.L. 111-5).

                                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 $1,347,480,000 for Acquisition, 
Construction, and Improvements, $36,500,000 below the amount 
requested and $147,096,000 below the amount provided in fiscal 
year 2009. A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee 
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget estimate      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vessels and critical
 infrastructure:
    Response boat medium..........       $103,000,000       $103,000,000
                                   -------------------------------------
            Subtotal, vessels and         103,000,000        103,000,000
             critical
             infrastructure.......
                                   =====================================
Deepwater:
    Aircraft:
        Maritime patrol aircraft..        175,000,000        138,500,000
        HH-60 conversions.........         45,900,000         45,900,000
        HC-130H conversion/                45,300,000         45,300,000
         sustainment project......
        HH-65 conversions.........         38,000,000         38,000,000
        H-C130J missionization....         $1,300,000          1,300,000
                                   -------------------------------------
            Subtotal, aircraft....        305,500,000        269,000,000
                                   =====================================
    Surface ships:................
        National security cutter..        281,480,000        281,480,000
        Offshore patrol cutter....          9,800,000          9,800,000
        Fast Response Cutter/             243,000,000        243,000,000
         Replacement Patrol Boat..
        IDS small boats...........          3,000,000          3,000,000
        Patrol Boats sustainment..         23,000,000         23,000,000
        Medium endurance cutter            31,100,000         31,100,000
         sustainment..............
                                   -------------------------------------
            Subtotal, surface             591,380,000        591,380,000
             ships................
                                   =====================================
    Technology obsolescence                 1,900,000          1,900,000
     prevention...................
    C4ISR.........................         35,000,000         35,000,000
    Logistics.....................         37,700,000         37,700,000
    Systems engineering and                35,000,000         35,000,000
     integration..................
    Government program management.         45,000,000         45,000,000
                                   -------------------------------------
            Subtotal, Deepwater...      1,051,480,000      1,014,980,000
                                   =====================================
Other equipment:
    Rescue 21.....................        117,000,000        117,000,000
    HF recap......................          2,500,000          2,500,000
                                   -------------------------------------
            Subtotal, other               119,500,000        119,500,000
             equipment............
Shore facilities and aids to
 navigation:
    Survey and design, shore                6,000,000          6,000,000
     operational and support
     projects.....................
    Waterways aids to navigation..          4,000,000          4,000,000
                                   -------------------------------------
            Subtotal, shore                10,000,000         10,000,000
             facilities and aids
             to navigation........
Personnel and related support:
    Direct personnel costs........         99,500,000         99,500,000
    AC&I core.....................            500,000            500,000
                                   -------------------------------------
            Subtotal, personnel           100,000,000        100,000,000
             and related support..
                                   =====================================
                Total.............      1,383,980,000      1,347,480,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     QUARTERLY REPORTS ON ACQUISITION PROJECTS AND MISSION EMPHASIS

    The Committee continues to find Coast Guard's quarterly 
acquisition reports and mission emphasis reports extremely 
useful, and as such, directs Coast Guard to continue submitting 
these comprehensive reports in a timely fashion. The Coast 
Guard is directed to continue to include in the acquisition 
reports information on small boat purchases and leases made 
within the Operating Expenses appropriation.

                    STATUTORY REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

    The Committee is frustrated that the Coast Guard failed to 
provide several reports required in law that were to accompany 
the 2010 budget request. Specifically, P.L. 110-329 requires 
the Coast Guard to submit a Deepwater expenditure plan and a 
capital investment plan, yet neither was received. While these 
are not simple documents, these are not new requests. The Coast 
Guard has been required to submit a capital investment plan 
every year since the agency moved to DHS. Similarly, the Coast 
Guard has been required to submit an annual expenditure plan 
using the fiscal year 2006 revised Deepwater Implementation 
Plan as the base document since fiscal year 2007. These reports 
are critical because they provide the Committee with needed 
data to assess the effectiveness of one of the country's 
largest annual investments in homeland security. The 
explanation provided in the budget justification for the lack 
of data from a Capital Investment Plan is wholly inadequate in 
satisfying the requirement. Although the Committee had chosen 
not to carry a withholding provision in the bill this year out 
of consideration for possible dislocations in the reporting 
process due to the transition of administrations, these 
documents should be provided to the Committee immediately, or 
there is little question that the question of withholdings will 
be revisited.

                               DEEPWATER

    The Committee recommends $1,014,980,000 for Deepwater, 
$36,500,000 below the amount requested and $19,014,000 below 
the amount provided in fiscal year 2009.

                        MARITIME PATROL AIRCRAFT

    The Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA) serves as the Coast 
Guard's lead fixed-wing extended surveillance and quick 
response platform. The Committee recommends $138,500,000 for 
two additional MPAs, mission pallets, spares, and logistics 
support as requested. The Committee does not include 
$36,500,000 requested for accelerating the purchase of a MPA 
flight simulator ahead of its original schedule.

                         MARITIME SURVEILLANCE

    The Committee has consistently voiced its concerns over the 
gap between the Coast Guard's stated mission hour needs for 
maritime surveillance and available resource hours of 
surveillance assets. These concerns are based upon the Coast 
Guard's quantitative analysis of mission requirements and 
repeated testimony by operational personnel and security 
experts on the need for increased maritime surveillance 
capabilities, especially in the source and transit zones of the 
eastern Pacific Ocean and the Caribbean basin. The Committee is 
pleased the fiscal year 2010 budget request partially addresses 
this issue through funding for aircraft acquisition, conversion 
and sustainment. However, the Committee is concerned by the 
absence of requested funding to support operational testing and 
evaluation of either land-based or cutter-based unmanned aerial 
systems (UAS) in fiscal year 2010 given the unrealized 
potential of such assets for enhanced maritime surveillance. 
Furthermore, the Committee notes that even with these 
additional surveillance resources requested for fiscal year 
2010, the Coast Guard's available maritime surveillance hours 
will only be at approximately 65 percent of stated mission 
needs. The Coast Guard is directed to report to the Committee 
no later than November 1, 2009, on its planned efforts to 
leverage available interagency resources and other temporary 
surveillance capabilities, including the operational testing 
and evaluation of UAS, in fiscal year 2010 to address the 
maritime surveillance mission hour gap.

                        NATIONAL SECURITY CUTTER

    The National Security Cutter (NSC) is the replacement for 
the 378-foot High Endurance Cutter, and as such, is capable of 
worldwide operations, extended on-scene presence, long transit 
and forward deployments. The Committee recommends $281,480,000 
for the NSC as requested, $72,220,000 below the amount provided 
in fiscal year 2009. The Committee does this despite persistent 
concerns regarding cost controls and the production schedule 
for this class of cutter. These concerns are predicated on the 
fact that the cost of the fourth NSC is more than $73,700,000 
and fourteen percent higher than the previous two cutters in 
this class and that the Coast Guard's current schedule delays 
the award for the fifth NSC until 2011. The Committee is 
troubled by a projected production schedule for the remaining 
NSCs that delays fulfillment of known operational needs and 
appears to enable further cost growth and delays in cutter 
delivery. These concerns are exacerbated by the absence of 
requested funding for known, immediate maintenance needs of the 
legacy high endurance cutters (HECs) in fiscal year 2010. The 
Committee views the confluence of the NSC's extended production 
schedule with the uncertain long-term availability of the 
legacy HEC fleet as a detriment to offshore maritime security 
operations and directs the Coast Guard to: prioritize 
maintenance needs of the HEC fleet, as addressed elsewhere in 
this report, and inform the Committee no later than July 1, 
2009, of its efforts to put in place a contractual structure 
for the remaining NSCs that will provide expeditious delivery 
at the least cost and risk to the taxpayer.

                         OFFSHORE PATROL CUTTER

    The Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC) is the replacement vessel 
for the current 210-foot and 270-foot Medium Endurance cutters. 
The Committee provides the requested $9,800,000 to complete 
alternatives analysis and required acquisition documentation 
for the OPC, as well as beginning Phase I of preliminary 
design. The Committee understands from the Coast Guard that 
this approach will help reduce the risk of program cost growth. 
Given that such cost growth was behind the decision to stop 
work on the initial OPC, the Coast Guard is directed to brief 
the Committee on the result of the requirements analysis prior 
to initiating Phase I work on the new OPC.

                          FAST RESPONSE CUTTER

    The Fast Response Cutter (FRC) is the more capable 
replacement for the Coast Guard's legacy 110-foot patrol boats. 
The Committee provides the requested $243,000,000 for full-rate 
production of four FRCs, $127,700,000 above the amount provided 
in fiscal year 2009. The Coast Guard is expected to take 
delivery of the first FRC in fiscal year 2010. The Committee 
directs the Coast Guard to include in its quarterly briefings 
to the Committee on the FRC's progress information on the 
effectiveness of its various efforts to control cost growth.

                       LEGACY CUTTER SUSTAINMENT

    The Committee continues to be concerned about legacy cutter 
sustainment as new vessels are being slowly brought into 
service. The Committee understands that the funding level in 
the request for cutter sustainment allows for these programs to 
continue on schedule, with the shipyards working at optimal 
capacity. The Committee is pleased by the increases in vessel 
availability resulting from the sustainment programs in place 
for patrol boats and Medium-Endurance Cutters. Coast Guard 
reporting indicates that the Medium Endurance Cutter 
Sustainment Program has increased the fully-capable mission 
availability of 270-foot cutters by 62 percent, and 210-foot 
cutters by 75 percent. Also, the Committee notes that attention 
to critical maintenance needs in the 378-foot High Endurance 
Cutter fleet has resulted in more marginal improvements in 
availability, and urges the Coast Guard to move ahead on a more 
robust sustainment option for the High Endurance Cutter.

              DEEPWATER REVIEW AND CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN

    The Committee notes that neither the Secretary's review of 
the Revised Deepwater Implementation Plan nor the future-years 
capital investment plan mandated in P.L. 110-329 were provided 
with the budget request. The Committee strongly urges the 
Department to produce those items expeditiously, and make sure 
that similar mandates carried in this legislation are met.

                SHORE FACILITIES AND AIDS TO NAVIGATION

    The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for shore facilities 
and aids to navigation as requested, which is $58,000,000 below 
the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. In 2009, Congress 
provided a major investment to address the maintenance backlog 
for the Coast Guard's shore facilities totaling $166,000,000, 
including funding under ARRA. The Coast Guard shall provide the 
Committee with a prioritized list of projects in the backlog 
and the Coast Guard's plan to address them by January 15, 2010.
    In addition, a general provision is included to authorize 
the Coast Guard to use previously appropriated funds for the 
consolidation of Sector Buffalo to enhance public access to 
Buffalo Lighthouse. The Coast Guard is directed to brief the 
Committee within 90 days of the date of enactment of this Act 
on how this aspect of the project will be completed by the end 
of fiscal 2011.

                               RESCUE 21

    The Committee recommends $117,000,000 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 22,292 miles of 
coastline, and is deployed at 41 percent of Coast Guard 
sectors. The Committee is aware of problems with siting some 
Rescue 21 towers that have resulted in cost increases and 
program delays, and urges the Coast Guard to be diligent in its 
planning processes to avoid such problems.

                     PERSONNEL AND RELATED SUPPORT

    The Committee recommends $100,000,000 for acquisition 
personnel, as requested, and $7,170,000 above the amount 
provided in fiscal year 2009. The Committee is supportive of 
the efforts the Coast Guard has made in confronting problems 
with its acquisition management and oversight, especially the 
establishment of an acquisition career path for Coast Guard 
military personnel.

                         Alteration of Bridges

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2009\1\....................       $16,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.....................             - - -
Recommended in the bill...............................        10,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2009...................        -6,000,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.................      +10,000,000\1\Excludes $142,000,000 in appropriations in the American Recovery and
  Reinvestment Act (P.L. 111-5).

                                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 $10,000,000 for Alteration of 
Bridges, $10,000,000 above the amount requested and $6,000,000 
below the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. The Committee 
directs the Coast Guard to fund bridges with the most critical 
needs, giving priority to ongoing projects that have received 
appropriations in the past but have not attained the Coast 
Guard's threshold to begin construction.

              Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2009.......................       $18,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.....................        19,745,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        19,745,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2009...................        +1,745,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.................             - - -
                                MISSION

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

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $19,745,000 for Research, 
Development, Test, and Evaluation, the same as the amount 
requested and $1,745,000 above the amount provided in fiscal 
year 2009. The Committee notes the aggressive research agenda 
laid out in the budget request and requires a report from the 
Coast Guard within 90 days of the date of enactment of this Act 
describing how the research projects outlined in the request 
will be supported with the resources provided.
    The report should include Coast Guard activities in support 
of the development of freshwater ballast treatment 
technologies.

                        UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMS

    The Committee recognizes the Coast Guard's efforts to 
examine effective unmanned aerial systems (UAS) that pose low 
developmental risks and demonstrate cost-effectiveness. 
Furthermore, the Committee is pleased to see the Coast Guard 
working with the Department of Defense in an effort to leverage 
UAS development, testing, and engineering efforts. However, the 
Committee is concerned the National Security Cutter (NSC) is 
commencing operations without a viable UAS solution and 
therefore will not provide its projected surveillance 
capabilities. The Coast Guard is directed to report to the 
Committee no later than December 1, 2009, on its efforts and 
findings to date on determining the most effective UAS for 
maritime applications, including long range surveillance, mid-
altitude/mid-range surveillance, and for use with flight deck 
equipped cutters. The Coast Guard is further directed to 
include in this report a projected timeline for the integration 
and operation of a UAS with the NSC.

        Medicare Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund Contribution

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2009\1\....................      $257,305,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010\1\..................       261,000,000
Recommended in the bill\1\............................       261,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2009...................        +3,695,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.................             - - - 
\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, 
retiree dependents, and their potential survivors. The 
authority for Coast Guard to make this payment on an annual 
basis was provided in the Department of Defense Appropriations 
Act for Fiscal Year 2005.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    While this account requires no annual action by Congress, 
the Committee provides $261,000,000 to fund the Medicare-
eligible retiree health care fund contribution. This number is 
based on a Congressional Budget Office re-estimate.

                              Retired Pay

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2009.......................    $1,236,745,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.....................     1,361,245,000
Recommended in the bill...............................     1,361,245,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2009...................      +124,500,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.................             - - -
                                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 $1,361,245,000 for Retired Pay, the same 
as the amount requested and $124,500,000 above the amount 
provided in fiscal year 2009. 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 2009\1\....................    $1,408,729,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.....................     1,485,609,000
Recommended in the bill...............................     1,457,409,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2009...................       +48,680,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.................       -28,200,000 
\1\Does not include $100,000,000 in emergency funding provided in P.L.
  111-8, the Fiscal Year 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act.

                                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 $1,457,409,000 for Secret Service 
Salaries and Expenses, $28,200,000 below the amount requested 
but $48,680,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. 
Excluding $26,082,000 of one-time Presidential campaign costs 
funded in fiscal year 2009, the 2010 funding level provides a 
5.4 percent increase in Secret Service operating budgets, 
significantly above the rate of inflation.
    The Committee does not provide the $4,040,000 requested to 
establish a new compensation framework for the Secret Service 
Uniformed Division, as discussed below. The Committee also 
denies $21,260,000 requested for Secret Service computer 
network investments until the agency develops a plan that 
integrates Secret Service information technology systems with 
the Department's long-term plan for data center consolidation. 
Finally, the Committee reduces the requested budget for White 
House mail processing by $2,900,000 to reflect one-time 
equipment purchases made in 2009.
    A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee 
recommended levels, by budget activity, is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Budget estimate
                                                          Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Headquarters Management and             $221,045,000        $199,785,000
 Administration.................
Protection:
    Protection of Persons and            759,561,000         755,521,000
     Facilities.................
    Protective Intelligence               67,824,000          67,824,000
     Activities.................
    National Special Security              1,000,000           1,000,000
     Event Fund.................
    White House mail screening..          25,315,000          22,415,000
                                 ---------------------------------------
        Total, Protection.......         853,700,000         846,760,000
                                 =======================================
Investigations:
    Domestic field operations...         260,892,000         260,892,000
    International field office            30,705,000          30,705,000
     administration operations..
    Electronic Crimes Special             56,541,000          56,541,000
     Agent Program and
     Electronic Crimes Task
     Forces.....................
    Support for missing and                8,366,000           8,366,000
     exploited children.........
                                 ---------------------------------------
        Total, Investigations...         356,504,000         356,504,000Training:
    Rowley Training Center......          54,360,000          54,360,000
                                 =======================================
            Total, Salaries and        1,485,609,000       1,457,409,000
             Expenses...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN AND INAUGURATION

    The Committee congratulates the Secret Service on its 
accomplishments in the 2008 presidential campaign, which was 
the most demanding in the agency's history. Given the 
unprecedented interest in the campaign, and the large number of 
voters who turned out at rallies for both candidates, the 
Secret Service screened over five million people during the 
campaign, including nearly half-a-million at the party 
conventions. These statistics represent a 77 percent increase 
over the number of attendees at 2004 campaign events. The 
Secret Service is to be commended for its diligence and 
professionalism in ensuring the safety and civil rights of 
those who participate in our democracy, as well as for ensuring 
the security of the candidates and their families.
    Apart from this otherwise sterling record, the Committee 
was disappointed by a series of missteps in the orchestration 
of the security plan for the 2009 presidential inauguration. A 
variety of factors, not all of which were under direct control 
of the Secret Service, led to thousands of ticketed guests 
being unable to witness the inauguration from the observation 
areas to which they were supposed to have been admitted. 
Problems such as insufficient pedestrian traffic direction, 
inadequate crowd control, and narrow entry gates that became 
bottlenecks all led to significant delays in processing 
attendees through ticket checkpoints and security screening. 
The Committee strongly urges the Secret Service, in conjunction 
with the Capitol Police, to further study the issues 
highlighted in the ``Multi-Agency Response to Concerns Raised 
by the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies 
for the 56th Presidential Inauguration'' and develop a plan for 
implementing that report's major recommendations so that these 
mistakes are not repeated at any future inaugural celebration.

                FISCAL YEAR 2009 OMNIBUS APPROPRIATIONS

    In response to operational requirements identified by the 
Secret Service, the Committee provided $61,470,000 in the 2009 
Omnibus Appropriations Act for the Secret Service to expand its 
protective operations, including hiring 150 new Special Agents 
and 204 technical, administrative and support staff. Buried 
within the 2010 budget request, the Secret Service proposed 
altering the number of personnel it planned to hire using these 
funds, unilaterally reducing the expansion of programs 
previously directed by Congress. The Committee notes that it is 
the role of the Congress, not the Executive Branch, to 
determine the appropriate resource levels for agency programs, 
and directs the Secret Service to ensure that all staff funded 
in the 2009 Omnibus Appropriation Act (P.L. 111-8) are indeed 
hired. The Committee directs the Secret Service to be more 
forthcoming about its hiring plans in future annual budget 
briefs. In addition, the Committee directs the Secret Service 
to provide an immediate briefing on its hiring plans for 2009 
and 2010, including its schedule for filling any vacancies 
created by attrition or retirement, its schedule for hiring and 
annualizing new personnel funded in the 2009 Omnibus 
Appropriations Act, and its planned hiring to fill positions 
proposed in the 2010 budget.

                       WHITE HOUSE MAIL SCREENING

    The Committee recommends $22,415,000 to screen mail sent to 
the White House and other Executive Office of the President 
agencies, which is $2,900,000 below the amount requested. The 
budget proposed $25,315,000 for mail screening, a reduction of 
$8,386,000 below the 2009 level. The request includes a cut of 
$11,600,000 for one-time equipment purchases funded in 2009 
that is partially offset by an increase of $3,214,000 to 
annualize the rental budget for the facility. However, the 2009 
appropriation actually included $14,500,000 to equip the White 
House mail screening facility. As a result, the Committee 
reduces the White House mail screening budget by an additional 
$2,900,000 to account for all of the one-time equipment costs 
funded in 2009.

                 SECRET SERVICE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

    The budget proposes $33,960,000 for Secret Service 
information technology recapitalization, including new network 
infrastructure, system security, and application stability 
investments. The Committee is well aware of the threats posed 
by inadequate network controls and out-of-date technology since 
it has invested more than $400,000,000 in DHS cybersecurity 
programs over the past two years. Furthermore, the Committee 
has also appropriated significant amounts for the construction 
of two state-of-the-art data centers that are supposed to 
consolidate all Departmental information storage at highly 
secure and protected locations. Although work remains to be 
done to ensure the Department's data centers can provide the 
robust level of service planned, there is no compelling 
justification to exempt the Secret Service from this 
consolidation. Therefore, the Committee provides only 
$12,700,000 of this request, which will allow the agency to 
stabilize and secure its mission-critical applications through 
the database architecture and maintenance, information 
assurance, and cross-domain application/data environment 
initiatives. The Committee directs that none of this funding be 
used for planning or acquiring a stand-alone Secret Service 
data center. Further, the Committee directs the Secret Service 
to work with the Office of the Chief Information Officer for 
the Department of Homeland Security to develop immediately a 
transition plan to integrate the agency's network systems and 
data into the Department's data center consolidation effort 
after the risk assessment and mitigation work discussed 
elsewhere in this report is complete.

                    UNIFORMED DIVISION MODERNIZATION

    Included in the budget is a request for $4,040,000 to 
restructure the Secret Service Uniformed Division's salary and 
benefits package. Many of the Uniformed Division's governing 
authorities, including its salary tables, are codified as a 
section of the District of Columbia code because the White 
House police force (the ancestor agency of the Uniformed 
Division) was originally a part of the Metropolitan Police 
Department. As a result, Secret Service Uniformed Division 
officers are subject to both Federal and District of Columbia 
work regulations, which makes administration of the Uniformed 
Division both complex and burdensome. To address this issue, 
the Administration has proposed the ``Uniformed Division 
Modernization Act of 2010,'' which would establish a new pay 
schedule for Uniformed Division employees as part of the United 
States Code, and rectify anomalies between the Uniformed 
Division's personnel authorities and those that apply to other 
Federal law enforcement agencies. While the Committee is 
sympathetic to the need to modernize the personnel laws that 
govern the Uniformed Division, it has no jurisdiction to do so, 
and therefore has not included the modernization proposal in 
the 2010 Appropriations bill. Furthermore, there appear to be 
equity and fairness issues related to other Federal law 
enforcement agencies also governed by the District of Columbia 
code that have not been fully addressed in the proposed 
legislation. As a result of these concerns, the Committee 
provides no funding to implement a new Uniformed Division pay 
and benefits system, and encourages the Department to work with 
the authorizing Committees of jurisdiction to address this 
issue through regular Congressional processes.

     Acquisition, Construction, Improvements, and Related Expenses

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2009.......................        $4,225,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.....................         3,975,000
Recommended in the bill...............................         3,975,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2009...................          -250,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.................             - - -
                                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 $3,975,000, the same levels as 
requested in the budget, and $250,000 below the 2009 enacted 
level.

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


              National Protection and Programs Directorate


                     Management and Administration

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2009.......................      $ 51,350,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.....................        44,577,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        44,577,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2009...................        -6,773,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.................             - - -
                                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 Under 
Secretary 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 $44,577,000 for Management and 
Administration, as requested. This amount is $6,773,000 below 
the amount provided in fiscal year 2009 due to the reallocation 
of several administrative budgets to the Infrastructure 
Protection and Information Security account, as described 
below.

           Infrastructure Protection and Information Security

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2009.......................      $806,913,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.....................       918,166,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       883,346,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2009...................       +76,433,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.................       -34,820,000
                                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 levels.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $883,346,000 for IPIS, $34,820,000 
below the amount requested, and $76,433,000 above the amount 
provided in fiscal year 2009. The Committee withholds 
$180,000,000 from obligation until the Department submits and 
the Committee approves expenditure plans for two programs, as 
described below. Given the lateness of the 2010 budget 
submission, the Committee is unable to re-arrange the Program, 
Project, and Activity display for the IPIS account, and instead 
presents funding in the same arrangement as past years. In 
addition, regardless of any restructuring proposals planned for 
the 2011 budget, the NPPD Chief Financial Officer is directed 
to submit the budget in a structure identical to that enacted 
in the 2010 Appropriations Act so that the Committee can easily 
compare funding levels for the myriad programs managed by NPPD. 
A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee 
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget estimate      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Infrastructure Protection:
    Identification and Evaluation.        $86,610,000        $86,610,000
    Coordination and Information           50,582,000         62,912,000
     Sharing......................
    Mitigation Programs...........        196,111,000        196,961,000
National Cyber Security Division:
    US-Computer Emergency Response        333,629,000        310,629,000
     Team.........................
    Strategic Initiatives.........         57,679,000         64,179,000
    Outreach and Programs.........          9,346,000          7,096,000
Office of Emergency Communications         44,060,000         45,060,000
Nat'l Security/Emergency
 Preparedness Telecom:
    Priority Telecommunications            56,773,000         56,773,000
     Services.....................
    Next Generation Networks......         50,250,000         25,000,000
    National Command and                            0    \1\[-5,963,000]
     Coordination Capability
     (rescission, non-add)........
    Programs to Study and Enhance          19,274,000         16,774,000
     Telecommunications...........
    Critical Infrastructure                13,852,000         11,352,000
     Protection Programs..........
                                   =====================================
        Total, Infrastructure             918,166,000       883,346,000
         Protection and
         Information Security.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Note: Rescission of balances for the National Command and
  Coordination Capability included in Title V.

                             FACILITY RENT

    As requested, the Committee includes the 2010 budgets for 
facility rental payments in the various IPIS program budgets. 
In previous fiscal years, this funding was reflected in the 
Management and Administration account.

 CHEMICAL FACILITY ANTI-TERRORISM STANDARDS AND REGULATION OF AMMONIUM 
                                NITRATE

    For fiscal year 2010, the Committee provides $103,363,000 
for the costs of regulating the security of chemical facilities 
and ammonium nitrate transactions, an increase of $25,363,000, 
or nearly 33 percent over 2009. Of this increase, $12,000,000 
will pay for implementation of new Ammonium Nitrate 
regulations, $7,000,000 will be used to continue expansion of 
the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) program, 
and $6,363,000 will fund inflationary increases and staff pay 
raises. The Committee is pleased that the Administration 
appears to be taking the security of chemical facilities and 
the control of potentially dangerous chemicals seriously by 
requesting these additional funds.

           NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PLAN MANAGEMENT

    The 2010 request proposes a 40 percent cut to the budget 
for NPPD's partnership efforts to implement the National 
Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP) and its subsidiary 
Sector-Specific Agency (SSA) plans. The previous Administration 
proposed similar cuts to NIPP and SSA plan implementation 
programs. As envisioned in the 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. The nation's private 
sector infrastructure owners continue to inform the Committee 
of the value of collaborative working relationships between 
industry and government to address infrastructure security 
vulnerabilities. The Committee believes that such a cooperative 
approach to the security of the nation's infrastructure is much 
more cost-effective than either the total absence of government 
involvement in security planning or the direct application of 
government security regulations. Given the value of these 
groups to the protection of our country's infrastructure, the 
Committee provides $51,390,000 for NIPP and SSA plan 
partnerships, an increase of $12,390,000 over the requested 
level.

                      OFFICE OF BOMBING PREVENTION

    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 
$14,618,000 to carry out this important work.

                 PHILADELPHIA INFRASTRUCTURE MONITORING

    The Committee provides $1,000,000 for NPPD to continue 
deployment of infrastructure monitoring and crime cameras in 
the city of Philadelphia. The Committee directs the agency to 
work with city administrators to position new cameras in areas 
of high threat or crime, to ensure that both the local and the 
Federal governments can benefit from their deployment.

                             CYBER SECURITY

    The Committee provides $381,904,000 for the Cyber Security 
Division (CSD), which includes the DHS share of the 
Administration's National Cyber Security Initiative (NCSI). 
This amount is $68,404,000 more than was provided in fiscal 
year 2009, reflecting the Committee's support of a robust 
effort to secure government networks and sensitive private 
networks, especially those related to critical infrastructure.
    The goal of the NCSI is to strengthen the security of 
government computer networks and reduce their vulnerability to 
attacks by outside forces by consolidating internet connection 
points while simultaneously developing and installing 
monitoring devices that examine network traffic across 
government computer systems. The Committee is concerned by 
recent reports from the Department that show costs for the NCSI 
have risen while schedules for deploying the network devices 
and consolidating internet connection points have been delayed 
by approximately one year. In the 2009 Appropriations Act, 
Congress required DHS to submit an expenditure plan showing how 
the funds provided for the NCSI would be used to achieve the 
program's goals, and restricted from obligation half of the 
budget for the U.S. Computer Emergency Response Team (US-CERT) 
until the plan was approved. The 2009 expenditure plan for the 
NCSI, which was submitted on April 29, 2009, provided the 
Committee with valuable insight into the goals, milestones, and 
costs of the program. To ensure continued discipline in program 
execution, the Committee withholds $155,000,000 of the 2010 US-
CERT budget until it receives and approves an updated 
expenditure plan for the NCSI, reflecting any changes in the 
plan since the submission of the last report and discussing how 
appropriations provided in this bill will be used.
    Because of lack of justification, the Committee has 
provided none of the $15,250,000 requested for ``Cyber Security 
Coordination'' and the ``Cyber Security Information Sharing and 
Collaboration Program.'' Consistent with funding 
recommendations contained throughout this report, the Committee 
also provides none of the $10,000,000 requested for data center 
migration activities due to the IG's recent findings described 
in the Chief Information Officer section of the report 
regarding possible unmitigated risks at the destination data 
center sites. These reductions are offset by funding for 
several specific projects discussed below.

                  CYBER SECURITY INTELLIGENCE ANALYSIS

    The 2010 budget proposed to fund a new cadre of cyber 
security intelligence analysts in the Office of Intelligence 
and Analysis. While the Committee does not dispute the 
potential value of a dedicated team of analysts focused on 
emerging cyber security threats, it believes the expertise 
necessary for such analysis is best evaluated by the program 
managers for the NCSI. As a result, if CSD believes it requires 
additional cyber security analysts focused on intelligence 
activities, the Committee directs it to enter into a 
reimbursable agreement with the Office of Intelligence and 
Analysis to establish this function.

                        CYBER SECURITY TRAINING

    The Committee provides $5,847,000 for Cyber Security 
Training and Education, $1,000,000 more than requested. The 
Committee recognizes that protecting our country's cyber 
infrastructure requires a workforce that is aware of and 
skilled in protecting computer networks. Therefore, within the 
total provided, $3,500,000 is for continued development and 
implementation of State and local cyber security training at 
the University of Texas at San Antonio, $500,000 is for 
Virginia's Operational Integration Cyber Center of Excellence 
(VOICCE) in Hampton, Virginia, and $100,000 is for the Upstate 
New York Cyber Initiative at Clarkson University.

                        CONTROL SYSTEMS SECURITY

    Computerized control systems are an often unnoticed but 
critically important aspect of the nation's physical and cyber 
infrastructure. These devices ensure the efficient and reliable 
operation of much of the nation's power, water, information and 
other critical systems, and many have been shown to be 
unacceptably vulnerable to malicious attacks. To address this 
concern, the Committee provides $26,563,000 for Control Systems 
Security efforts, including $3,000,000 to conduct vulnerability 
analysis, testing, and protection of full-scale power systems 
and cyber-connected systems for the Department of Homeland 
Security, utilizing the range of unique resources available at 
the Idaho National Laboratory.

             CYBER SECURITY TEST BED AND EVALUATION CENTER

    While the Department has made significant progress reducing 
the vulnerabilities of government computer networks, much 
remains to be done to mitigate the threats to privately-owned 
computer systems. Given that many companies have similar 
network vulnerabilities but are prevented by competitive 
strategies from sharing security tactics, a trusted third-party 
organization may be effective at providing both expertise and a 
neutral forum for information sharing. To address these 
challenges, the Committee provides $3,500,000 for the Research 
Triangle Institute in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 
to initiate a Cyber Security Test Bed and Evaluation Center 
demonstration project focused on creating strong partnerships 
between the government and private sector companies to promote 
the security of private information networks.

          MULTI-STATE INFORMATION SHARING AND ANALYSIS CENTER

    The New York State Office of Cyber Security and Critical 
Infrastructure Coordination has developed an effective program 
to monitor and ensure the security of State and municipally-
owned computer networks. This group, known as the Multi-State 
Information Sharing and Analysis Center (MS-ISAC), is the 
premier State and local government cyber security entity. While 
DHS has a current contract with MS-ISAC to support these 
efforts, the center requires capital investment to expand its 
operations. In addition to the amounts requested by DHS to 
continue MS-ISAC operations, the Committee provides $3,000,000 
for expansion of the Managed Security Services effort, which 
will allow the center to protect several more States and 
localities from cyber attack.

                   OFFICE OF EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS

    The Committee recommends $45,060,000 for the Office of 
Emergency Communications, $1,000,000 over the requested level 
and $6,760,000 more than provided in fiscal year 2009. Of this 
amount, $1,000,000 is for SEARCH to provide interoperable 
communications training, certification, technical assistance, 
and outreach programs to State, regional, and local first 
responder communications coordinators.

      NATIONAL SECURITY/EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS

    The National Security/Emergency Preparedness 
Telecommunications budget incorporates a group of programs 
focused on ensuring the availability of land-line and wireless 
telecommunications channels to Federal, State and local 
government employees to use in times of emergency. The 
Committee provides the requested $56,773,000 for the Priority 
Telecommunications System. The Committee recommends $16,774,000 
for the Program to Study and Enhance Telecommunications, 
$2,500,000 below the request because no funding is provided for 
the Continuity Communications Architecture due to inadequate 
justification. The Committee recommends $11,352,000 for 
Critical Infrastructure Protection Programs, a reduction of 
$2,500,000 below the request since no funding is provided for 
Regional Communications Coordinators, which would be 
duplicative of activities already carried out by FEMA. In the 
2009 Appropriations Act, Congress required DHS to submit an 
expenditure plan showing how $50,250,000 provided for the Next 
Generation Networks (NGN) program would be used to achieve the 
program's goals. Half of this amount was restricted from 
obligation until the plan was approved by the Committees on 
Appropriations. To date, this plan has not been submitted. As a 
result, the Committee recommends only $25,000,000 for the NGN 
program in 2010, withholding the entire amount from obligation 
until an expenditure plan is provided. Since the unspent 2009 
appropriations remain available through the end of fiscal year 
2010, the Committee expects that this reduction will not 
significantly affect execution of the NGN program.

              NATIONAL COMMAND AND COORDINATION CAPABILITY

    The fiscal year 2010 budget reports that the National 
Command and Coordination Capability (NCCC) has been 
discontinued. Since this program was never adequately explained 
or justified, the Committee supports this decision. 
Furthermore, given that NCCC appears never to have produced any 
meaningful results or products, the Committee also rescinds the 
2009 NCCC appropriation, as discussed in Title V of the bill.

    United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2009.......................      $300,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.....................       356,194,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       351,800,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2009...................       +51,800,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.................        -4,394,000
                                MISSION

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

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $351,800,000 for US-VISIT, 
$4,394,000 below the amount requested and $51,800,000 above the 
amount provided in fiscal year 2009. The Committee includes: 
$118,692,000 for Program Management Services; $128,126,000 for 
Operations and Maintenance; $31,000,000 for Identity Management 
and Screening Services; $28,738,000 for Unique Identity/
Interoperability; and $45,244,000 for the costs of mirroring 
and preparing for the migration of data operations from the 
current Department of Justice data centers to a DHS data 
center, and establishing a disaster recovery site at a second 
DHS data center.

                           EXPENDITURE PLANS

    The Committee denies the request to remove requirements for 
an expenditure plan. Expenditure plans have proved to be 
effective means to provide information needed by the Committee 
to carry out productive oversight, particularly for projects 
that are long term in nature and where funding requests lack 
necessary detail. To help ensure funding is used effectively 
for US-VISIT program management and to support continued 
implementation of 10-print standards, interoperability, and 
identity management services, the Committee recommends that 
$276,800,000 be made available to the program upon enactment of 
this Act, with $75,000,000 withheld subject to receipt of an 
expenditure plan.
    The bill continues to require that the plan 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 Government Accountability Office and 
Inspector General recommendations and actions to address them; 
(4) certifications by the Chief Procurement, Chief Information, 
and Chief Human Capital Officers that the program satisfies 
investment and information technology risk management and 
acquisition control requirements, and reflects adequate human 
capital planning; and (5) a detailed account of costs 
associated with identity services. The Committee directs that 
the expenditure plan also include a current schedule for the 
transition of operations from the current Department of Justice 
data centers to the new DHS data centers, and a description of 
remaining funding required for this transition.

                 COMPREHENSIVE BIOMETRIC EXIT SOLUTION

    For the past two years, this Committee has called upon DHS 
to either provide a meaningful plan to implement an exit 
solution within five years or else explain why an exit solution 
is not feasible. In this budget, the Department clearly has 
taken a conservative and realistic position. No additional 
funding was requested for biometric exit in fiscal year 2010, 
and the Committee does not recommend any in this bill.
    Despite longstanding Congressional direction through 
appropriations language and authorization statute for such a 
system to be developed, tested, and deployed, the United States 
currently has no biometric exit system in place. At present the 
only way to know whether a visitor departs the U.S. timely is 
for US-VISIT to analyze information from the Arrival and 
Department Information System (ADIS) and other records of 
travel to see if an exit corresponds with a recorded entry. 
This is clearly not a ``real-time'' system, and requires 
intensive analysis by US-VISIT's Data Integrity Group (DIG) to 
identify and forward leads for further investigation or for 
amending databases to indicate a traveler has overstayed. The 
9/11 Act called for implementation of a biometric system as a 
prerequisite for expansion of the visa waiver program, although 
the former Administration deemed that the law was satisfied by 
the existing, non-biometric exit record system.
    DHS has conducted pilot tests of some exit procedures, 
using kiosks at selected U.S. international airports (with no 
effective enforcement mechanism and no real-time capability) 
and testing radio frequency technology embedded in immigration 
forms for land ports of entry. These efforts provided some 
helpful information but did not provide a satisfactory 
permanent solution. Rather than test other approaches, 
including mandatory screening, DHS in 2008 issued a notice of 
proposed rulemaking 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. This received many 
objections from the airline industry, in particular because 
they believed cost projections were unrealistic and because 
there had been no realistic field testing of the proposed 
policy. The rule has not been implemented.
    To better inform rulemaking, Congress provided that no 
fiscal year 2009 US-VISIT appropriation funding could be 
obligated to implement a final air exit solution until the 
Committees on Appropriations received a report on at least two 
pilot tests, one where the airlines would collect biometric 
information and another where U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection would collect the information at airport departure 
gates. US-VISIT is currently beginning two pilots. One will be 
at Transportation Security Administration checkpoints, and the 
other conducted by CBP as described above. The Committee 
understands that no airline industry pilot will be conducted at 
this time, and that $34,000,000 in prior year appropriations 
will be used to conduct the pilot tests, evaluate their 
findings, and determine how to proceed on a final rule, 
consistent with 9/11 Act requirements. The Committee recognizes 
that US-VISIT will use approximately $6,000,000 to complete 
planning and design for a land exit solution, and $3,600,000 
will be used for a kiosk-based pilot test for H-2 Visa 
agricultural workers. US-VISIT is also planning to deliver a 
Land Exit Planning document to DHS this year, which will 
address the viability of a land exit solution, the range of 
potential solutions under consideration, and any possible 
timeline for a future land exit solution.
    The Committee notes that CBP is undertaking significant 
efforts that could facilitate a land exit solution: the 
substantial renovation of CBP-owned ports of entry, and new 
investments in infrastructure and personnel to staff outbound 
lanes on the Southwest Border. The Department and US-VISIT 
should leverage these CBP initiatives to the extent possible to 
ensure that they are compatible with and facilitate planning, 
testing and implementing biometric exit solutions at land ports 
of entry.
    The Committee expects the Department to conduct its planned 
pilot tests and evaluations so as to establish a realistic 
policy and plan for addressing exit information. The Committee 
directs the Department to provide the Committee with its land 
exit planning document as soon as it is completed. It also 
directs US-VISIT to report not later than January 15, 2010, on 
the results of its exit pilot programs and prospects for 
implementing any broader exit solutions. In addition, the 
report should describe the status of continuing discussions 
with Canadian and Mexican governments on sharing immigration 
entry information (in lieu of a U.S. exit process).

                            UNIQUE IDENTITY

    The Unique Identity program was established to standardize 
collection of 10-print biometric information from travelers to 
the United States; share and compare biometric information 
collected and held by the Justice and State Departments, as 
well as other law enforcement agencies such as ICE; and make 
DHS's automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT) fully 
compatible with new system and data requirements. Pilot testing 
of the 10-print system at U.S. international air-, sea-, and 
land-ports of entry was completed in 2008, and 10-print 
collection is in place at virtually all ports of entry into the 
U.S. It is also performed for all visa applicants at U.S. 
consulates overseas. In 2009, DHS is expanding its support of 
the ICE Secure Communities program, which may add substantially 
to the US-VISIT/IDENT workload, with as many as 30,000 new 
biometric transactions daily. The Department is also developing 
interoperability with the Defense Department by entering data 
about known or suspected terrorists into IDENT, as well as 
helping DOD make near real-time checks of biometric information 
it collects.
    Funding in fiscal year 2009, including $112,000,000 in 
carry-forward funding, is $178,000,000. The fiscal year 2010 
request for $28,700,000 is less than one-sixth of fiscal 2009 
spending, which reflects the substantial completion of purchase 
and deployment of 10-print readers by DHS and CBP, and 
accomplishment of the initial interoperable capacity between 
the DOJ's Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification 
System (IAFIS) and the IDENT system. The Committee recommends 
funding this request level, which will continue expanding 
interoperability between IAFIS and IDENT, support expansion of 
ICE's Secure Communities, and provide ``wrap back'', whereby 
authorized agencies will receive notifications of subsequent 
criminal activity by individuals with whom an initial encounter 
has occurred.
    One reason for the significant reduction in funding for 
Unique Identity in fiscal year 2010 is that US-VISIT has only a 
limited amount of work it can undertake toward achieving full 
operating capacity (FOC) with the Justice Department. The 
Justice Department and the FBI have said that they will not 
have completed necessary work on the Next Generation 
Identification biometric/fingerprint system (the successor to 
IAFIS) until 2014. Therefore, FOC will be delayed until that 
time. In the meantime, the ability of US-VISIT and its users to 
check records in the Justice databases will continue to be 
hampered by delays in checking and confirming biometric record 
matches. So for the time being, the potential benefits of real-
time data sharing will not be realized for the purposes of 
border inspections or encounters with law enforcement or 
security personnel. Because of the importance of achieving this 
full interoperability as soon as possible, for border and 
travel security, as well as for counter terrorism and law 
enforcement, the Committee directs US-VISIT and its 
counterparts at the Justice Department to continue providing 
quarterly interoperability briefings. These should indicate the 
remaining gaps in system interoperability, the operational 
impacts such gaps have on agency operations, and measures being 
taken to close them in the near term.

                              ENUMERATION

    The fiscal year 2009 US-VISIT appropriation called for the 
2010 budget request to report on efforts to implement 
enumeration within the Department--the assignment of a unique 
numerical identifier for an individual's biometric and 
biographic records and transactions. The Department has stated 
that IDENT will provide a unique identifier to any DHS or other 
U.S. government agency upon their submission of a new set of 
fingerprints to IDENT, which will enable IDENT to conduct one 
to one matching in the case of subsequent encounters against 
records associated with that unique identifier. However, DHS 
also has taken the position that it will not use any single 
enumerator for any ``public-facing'' use, due to potential 
risks to privacy and security for both DHS and individuals 
seeking license, privilege or status, without concomitant 
benefits. It instead has stated that use of multiple 
identifiers offers more options for individuals interacting the 
DHS while mitigating security and privacy risks. The Committee 
understands that the Department is in the process of 
establishing a policy with regard to its use of identifiers, 
and directs DHS to report not later than January 15, 2010, on 
the status of this policy and the steps it will take to ensure 
compliance of DHS components and programs with such policy.

               IDENTITY MANAGEMENT AND SCREENING SERVICES

    The Committee includes $31,000,000 for Identity Management 
and Screening Services, $11,000,000 above the level funded in 
fiscal year 2009. This comprises four service activities: (1) 
the Biometric Support Center, which verifies matching 
fingerprints, processes latent prints, and provides enrollment 
services for candidates submitted by law enforcement users to 
include in watchlist or recidivist databases; (2) the Data 
Integrity Group, which matches arrival, departure, and status 
adjustments for individuals who overstay their terms of 
admission to the United States; (3) Law Enforcement and 
Intelligence, which reviews biometric watchlist encounters, 
supports U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services anti-fraud 
efforts, and shares information with international partners; 
and (4) Information Sharing and Technical Assistance, which 
partners with foreign governments on promoting standards for 
biometric use and data sharing for common border control and 
immigration enforcement efforts. These activities are likely to 
attract more demand for service support as the value of such 
biometric and analytical services is recognized. The Committee 
directs US-VISIT to brief the Committee not later than December 
1, 2009 on its workload and performance in meeting demand for 
these services.

                               OVERSTAYS

    The Committee has been concerned about the growing backlog 
in 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), which is a critical US-VISIT mission carried out by 
the agency's DIG. The number of overstays reported to ICE for 
enforcement in fiscal year 2008 was 13,343--a thousand more 
than in 2007. This resulted in 715 arrests and 13,276 out of 
country lookouts--double the numbers in 2007. The number of 
Port or Visa refusals based on lookouts placed by US-VISIT/DIG 
tripled to 1,441.
    These are encouraging figures, and the Committee is pleased 
to note that US-VISIT is experiencing efficiencies in DIG 
operations as it has filled positions and established a stable, 
experienced workforce. The Committee is troubled, however, by 
the huge backlog in overstay records that US-VISIT has been 
unable to review--a number that exceeds 750,000 and is growing. 
This gap represents a major vulnerability. In the absence of an 
effective ``exit'' system, this overstay review process is the 
only means to detect whether individuals comply with the terms 
of their presence in the country, and to perhaps determine 
whether such a person is of concern to national security or 
general law enforcement. On the other hand, failure to correct 
a record of overstay that is inaccurate or nonthreatening could 
have the effect of incorrectly retaining derogatory immigration 
records on individuals, possibly jeopardizing their ability to 
enter or visit the United States. The Committee strongly 
supports efforts to extend overstay calculation to all 
travelers to the United States, while maintaining or improving 
the accuracy of its investigative leads. The Committee directs 
US-VISIT to report not later than December 1, 2009, on steps 
that are being taken to reduce the backlog of ``unreviewed'' 
overstay records. The report should also include a summary of 
DIG performance in meeting targets for credibility and cost 
identified in the 2010 budget submission.

                    STAFFING AND CONTRACTOR SUPPORT

    The budget includes $8,600,000 in funding for 62 positions 
currently filled by contractors that will be converted to 
government employee positions in fiscal year 2010, a change 
needed to enable US-VISIT to more effectively carry out its 
governmental operational and contract oversight 
responsibilities. The Committee is pleased to see this effort, 
and directs US-VISIT to include a status report on its hiring 
and conversion effort as part of its quarterly briefings to the 
Committees.

                        Office of Health Affairs

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2009.......................      $157,191,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.....................       138,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       128,400,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2009...................       -28,791,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.................        -9,600,000
                                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 $128,400,000 for OHA, $9,600,000 
below the amount requested and $28,791,000 below the amount 
provided in fiscal year 2009. A comparison of the budget 
estimate to the Committee recommended level by budget activity 
is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget Estimate      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BioWatch..........................        $94,513,000        $79,413,000
National Biosurveillance
 Integration System:
    National Biosurveillance                8,000,000          8,000,000
     Integration Center...........
    North Carolina Collaboratory                    0          5,000,000
     for Bio-Preparedness.........
                                   -------------------------------------
        Subtotal..................          8,000,000         13,000,000
Rapidly Deployable Chemical                 2,600,000          2,600,000
 Detection System.................
Planning and Coordination.........          2,476,000          2,976,000
Salaries and Expenses.............         30,411,000         30,411,000
                                   =====================================
            Total.................        138,000,000        128,400,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       BIOSURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES

    The Committee recommends $79,413,000 for BioWatch, 
$15,100,000 less than the amount requested, and $32,193,000 
below the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. The Committee 
has expressed concerns regarding the management and 
functionality of BioWatch for two years. Unfortunately the 
Committee's concerns have only increased over the past six 
months with revelations that Generation 2.5 systems, which were 
purchased without the direct consent of the Committee and 
described as necessary and emergency, were recently turned off 
because of concerns that their sensor readings were not 
accurate. The Committee understands that the next generation 
testing, funded last year at $34,498,000, has also fallen 
short. Specifically, the technology sought by OHA was not as 
developed as previously described and will require more 
extensive testing.
    The Committee is losing patience with the development of 
next generation systems and must take action to ensure that the 
taxpayers' dollars are spent judiciously. The Committee directs 
S&T to lead the testing for Generation 3 systems. The Committee 
does not fund the Generation 3 testing in OHA as requested, but 
instead provides the requested $15,100,000 for Generation 3 
testing within S&T. In addition, OHA is to transfer all of its 
activities related to Generation 3 testing to S&T, where S&T 
shall apply it in the same manner as originally appropriated. 
This transfer can be effectuated through a Memorandum of 
Understanding between OHA and S&T.
    In fiscal year 2009, the Committee required OHA to provide 
an expenditure plan on the BioWatch base program and an 
expenditure plan on the BioWatch Generation 3 field testing 
program within 60 days after enactment of that Act. The 
Committee has yet to receive either of these plans, which leads 
to the conclusion that OHA is directionless in its management 
of this program. It is unthinkable that OHA cannot provide the 
Committee with a complete reporting of its base program, which 
consists of Generation 1 and 2, after two years of steady 
state. The Committee expects to receive the long overdue 
expenditure plan for the base BioWatch program immediately. 
Fiscal year 2010 funding for BioWatch will be unavailable for 
obligation until OHA submits that plan. The Committee notes the 
slow obligation rate of these funds and expects no interruption 
in the operation of this program due to this withholding.
    The Committee continues its requirement for OHA to notify 
the Committee 15 days prior to deploying any BioWatch device to 
new locations.
    The Committee understands that State and local governments 
are allowed to purchase chemical and biological sensors as part 
of certain DHS grant programs. The Committee is concerned that 
these systems are not fully validated and will be unable to 
detect deadly pathogens. The Committee directs OHA to work with 
the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Grants Directorate to 
validate systems prior to FEMA's approval of such equipment 
requests.

              NATIONAL BIOSURVEILLANCE INTEGRATION CENTER

    The Committee recommends $8,000,000 for the National 
BioSurveillance Integration Center, the same amount as 
requested and the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. The 
Committee also includes $5,000,000 for the North Carolina 
Collaboratory for Bio-Preparedness. The funds will support a 
demonstration project to support the development of a 
comprehensive, statewide system to analyze public health trends 
and detect incidents that may threaten homeland security. The 
Committee expects the OHA to utilize this demonstration to 
diversify its biosurveillance activities to include more robust 
syndromic surveillance, given the lack of confidence in certain 
BioWatch sensors, and to use the experience to potentially 
develop a model for a nationwide bio-preparedness system.

                       PLANNING AND COORDINATION

    The Committee recommends $2,976,000 for planning and 
coordination activities, $500,000 above the amount requested 
and $2,799,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. 
The Committee supports OHA's role in planning for pandemic flu 
and provides the increase for OHA's Office of Medical Readiness 
in support of its pandemic planning and coordination 
activities.

                  Federal Emergency Management Agency


                     Management and Administration

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2009.......................      $837,437,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.....................       852,200,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       844,500,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2009...................        +7,063,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.................        -7,700,000
                                MISSION

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) manages and 
coordinates the Federal response to major domestic disasters 
and emergencies of all types in accordance with the Robert T. 
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. It 
supports the effectiveness of emergency response providers at 
all levels of government in responding to terrorist attacks, 
major disasters, and other emergencies. FEMA also administers 
public assistance and hazard mitigation programs to prevent or 
reduce the risk to life and property from floods and other 
hazards. Finally, FEMA leads all Federal incident management 
preparedness and response planning through a comprehensive 
National Incident Management System that involves Federal, 
State, Tribal, and local government personnel, agencies, and 
regional authorities.
    FEMA provides for the development and maintenance of an 
integrated, nationwide capability to prepare for, mitigate 
against, respond to, and recover from the consequences of major 
disasters and emergencies of all types in partnership with 
other Federal agencies, State, local and Tribal governments, 
volunteer organizations, and the private sector. 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 $844,500,000 for Management and 
Administration, $7,700,000 below the amount requested and 
$7,063,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. In 
addition, up to $90,080,000 may be transferred from the 
Disaster Relief fund, compared to $50,000,000 requested. As 
requested, $35,000,000 is to resolve employee pay shortfalls 
resulting from lax hiring and budgeting guidelines at FEMA. The 
Committee is perplexed at the notion that FEMA could hire 
employees at rates above what its budget could support. The 
Committee directs the IG to investigate the hiring practices of 
FEMA as it pertains to this issue and report to the Committee 
within three months after the date of enactment of this Act. As 
part of the investigation, the IG shall evaluate whether or not 
the budget request of $35,000,000 is sufficient to rectify 
FEMA's pay deficiencies. Funding is unavailable for transfer 
from the Disaster Relief fund until the Committee receives an 
expenditure plan as specified in the Disaster Relief account.

                        NATIONAL CAPITOL REGION

    The Committee provides $6,995,000 for the Office of the 
National Capitol Region Coordination (ONCRC), the same amount 
as requested and $653,000 above the amount provided in fiscal 
year 2009. The Committee is supportive of ONCRC's credentialing 
activities in the capitol region to ensure that first 
responders and emergency managers have appropriate access to 
disaster areas. FEMA is directed to capitalize on ONCRC's 
credentialing program as it works with other parts of the 
country to implement similar concepts.

                              MT. WEATHER

    The Committee recommends $36,300,000 for the Mt. Weather 
facility, $13,600,000 below the amount requested and 
$23,600,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. The 
denial of funding at the requested level is due to FEMA's 
reluctance to develop and submit to the Committee a 
comprehensive ten-year capital improvement plan for Mt. 
Weather, a failure that is contrary to prior Congressional 
direction and unsuitable in terms of the Committee's standards 
for the proper justification of funding and for the planning of 
costly, multi-year capital improvement projects. Until such 
time as an adequate ten-year capital improvement plan is 
developed and submitted to the Committee, additional funding 
will not be provided. Given the strategic importance of this 
facility and considering that $125,102,000 has been provided 
for its capital improvements since fiscal year 2007, the 
Committee believes there is no excuse for insufficient planning 
and such poor compliance with Congressional oversight.

                     EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE

    The Committee recommends $9,000,000 for the Emergency 
Management Institute (EMI), $1,840,000 above the amount 
requested. EMI provides training to Federal, State, local, 
Tribal, public and private sector officials to strengthen 
emergency management core competencies. The additional funding 
is for emergency management course development and to increase 
the capacity of EMI to train additional State and local 
officials.

                      INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS OFFICE

    The Committee understands FEMA is working with certain 
countries to develop international disaster agreements. To 
support this effort the Committee provides an additional 
$300,000 for FEMA to establish an exchange program with partner 
countries. Funding shall be used to support FEMA staff to 
travel to countries after disasters to offer and receive best 
practices and solutions. This program is not meant to establish 
diplomatic presence or to arrange international aid.

                            TANK REMEDIATION

    The Committee provides the requested $10,000,000 increase 
for FEMA to manage its inventory of fuel tanks in compliance 
with the law, some of which may be leaking and require 
remediation. The Committee understands this effort may require 
additional resources in future years. FEMA shall report 
regularly to the Committee as the Agency updates its estimates 
on remediating all leaking tanks. To the extent feasible, FEMA 
is directed to work with the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, which has vast experience with the issue of storage 
tank remediation.

                         DATA CENTER MIGRATION

    Consistent with funding recommendations contained 
throughout this report, the Committee denies FEMA's request of 
$7,900,000 for data center migration activities due to the IG's 
recent findings, described in the Chief Information Officer 
section of this report, regarding possible unmitigated risks at 
the destination data center sites. Beyond the problems 
identified by the IG, the Committee is concerned that FEMA does 
not have a plan for migrating data and has not accounted for 
the full cost of this project. FEMA shall submit a data 
migration plan to the Committee prior to any approval of data 
migration. The plan shall detail the types of data that FEMA 
will move, safeguards needed to protect that data, and costs 
associated with moving the data.

                      CONGRESSIONAL JUSTIFICATION

    The Committee continues bill language requiring FEMA to 
submit its fiscal year 2011 budget request by office. The 
Committee is pleased that this year's budget submission 
provided fiscal year 2010 budget request levels for many 
programs of interest, including: $8,997,000 for the National 
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program; $2,156,000 for the 
National Hurricane Program; $10,281,000 for the National Dam 
Safety Program; $16,800,000 for the Integrated Public Alert and 
Warning System; and $16,218,000 for the Mobile Emergency 
Response System. For the fiscal year 2011 budget submission, 
FEMA is directed to continue to provide the same level of 
budget information for programs and activities identified in 
the fiscal year 2010 budget request.

                URBAN SEARCH AND RESCUE RESPONSE SYSTEM

    The Committee recommends $32,500,000 for Urban Search and 
Rescue (US&R) response system, $4,500,000 above the amount 
requested and the same as the amount provided in fiscal year 
2009. 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 $1,022,474 in fiscal year 2009, leaving local agencies 
responsible for meeting shortfalls. In fiscal year 2009, FEMA 
was directed to report to the Committees on the feasibility of 
adding an additional team along with geographical preference 
and any associated costs. This report has not been received. 
The Committee directs FEMA to submit this report immediately.

                              TRANSPARENCY

    The Committee is concerned that FEMA utilizes grant 
guidance and policies instead of the regulations process to 
alter the policies of major programs. That results in little to 
no public input, even though most changes affect State and 
local partners. As an example, the Committee notes that no 
regulations have ever been issued to guide the Predisaster 
Mitigation Grant Program, and the Agency's annual grant 
guidance changes eligibility guidelines every year. Also, FEMA 
recently published a National Disaster Housing Plan for 
hurricane season and indicated that it could be changed every 
year without public input. The Committee directs FEMA to put 
all policies, including grant guidance that contains policy 
changes, online for five days prior to implementation. FEMA 
shall give the public a forum in which to comment. FEMA shall 
also present all new policies or policy changes to the National 
Advisory Council prior to approval.

                          SPECIAL POPULATIONS

    In fiscal year 2009, the Committee directed FEMA to report 
on its efforts to coordinate with Limited English Proficiency 
populations to address their needs following a disaster. The 
report has not been provided to the Committee. The Committee is 
especially concerned that translation of materials is 
insufficient to ensure that all disaster victims receive 
necessary information prior to, during, and after disasters. 
The Committee directs FEMA to consider utilizing the National 
Virtual Translation Center (NVTC) to enhance its translation 
services. FEMA is to report to the Committee within six months 
after enactment of this Act on its translation services and 
possible uses of NVTC.

                        EMERGENCY ALERT SYSTEMS

    The Committee remains committed to ensuring that emergency 
alert and notification systems are present in areas at high 
risk of natural and manmade disasters. The Committee supports 
the administration's request of $16,800,000 for the Integrated 
Public Alert and Warning System. FEMA is directed to work with 
States and urban areas to ensure that alert systems are in 
place in high risk areas such as New York.

                     ENHANCING INCIDENT MANAGEMENT

    The National Incident Management System (NIMS) provides a 
systematic, proactive approach to guide departments and 
agencies at all levels of government, nongovernmental 
organizations, and the private sector to work seamlessly to 
prevent, protect against, respond to, recover from, and 
mitigate the effects of incidents, regardless of cause, size, 
location, or complexity. NIMS is the backbone of effective 
emergency management, and the Committee directs FEMA to ensure 
that all communities are educated and trained on the system. 
The Committee provides an additional $9,000,000 to support and 
enhance ongoing incident management efforts that shall include: 
mutual aid, simulated and virtual emergency operations support, 
information systems development, technology integration, 
training on best-practices and standardization guidelines, as 
well as test and evaluation of first responder tools.
    Furthermore, the Committee urges FEMA to examine existing 
NIMS resources as part of their ongoing efforts with S&T to 
improve and standardize multi-jurisdictional emergency 
operations centers.

                      TERRORISM AWARENESS TRAINING

    The Committee recognizes ongoing security officer terrorism 
awareness training programs, which have been used by over 
10,000 security officers from all 50 states. Providing 
professional security officers with critical security, fire 
prevention, crowd management, and emergency response training 
is essential in deterring potential criminal and terrorist 
activity.

                        State and Local Programs


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2009\1\....................    $3,105,700,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010\2\..................     3,867,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................     2,829,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2009...................      -276,700,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.................    -1,038,000,000 
\1\Excludes $300,000,000 in appropriations in the American Recovery and
  Reinvestment Act (P.L. 111-5).
\2\The Administration proposed moving Emergency Management Performance
  Grants and Firefighter Assistance Grants under State and Local
  Programs. In fiscal year 2009, these grant programs had separate
  appropriations totaling $1,090,000,000 within FEMA, not within this
  program.

                                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 $2,829,000,000 for State and Local 
Programs, $1,038,000,000 below the amount requested and 
$276,700,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. As 
part of the budget request, the Administration proposed 
including the Firefighter Assistance Grants and Emergency 
Management Performance Grants under this program. The Committee 
has denied this proposal and provides funding for both of these 
grant programs as separate appropriations, consistent with 
prior years. A comparison of the budget estimate to the 
Committee recommended level by budget activity is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget estimate      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Homeland Security Grant            $950,000,000       $950,000,000
 Program..........................
    Operation Stonegarden.........       [60,000,000]       [60,000,000]
Urban Area Security Initiative....        887,000,000        887,000,000
Regional Catastrophic Preparedness         35,000,000                  0
 Grants...........................
Metropolitan Medical Response              40,000,000         40,000,000
 System...........................
Citizen Corps program.............         15,000,000         15,000,000
Public Transportation Security            250,000,000        250,000,000
 Assistance and Railroad Security
 Assistance.......................
Port Security Grants..............        250,000,000        250,000,000
Over-the-Road Bus Security                          0         12,000,000
 Assistance.......................
Buffer Zone Protection Program             50,000,000         50,000,000
 grants...........................
Real ID grants....................         50,000,000         50,000,000
Interoperable Emergency                    50,000,000         50,000,000
 Communications Grant Program.....
Emergency Operations Centers......                  0         40,000,000
Firefighter Assistance Grants\1\..        590,000,000                  0
    Fire Grants...................      [170,000,000]                  0
    Staffing for Adequate Fire and      [420,000,000]                  0
     Emergency Response (SAFER)
     grants.......................
Emergency Management Performance          315,000,000                  0
 Grants\1\........................
National Programs:
    National Domestic Preparedness         51,500,000         92,000,000
     Consortium...................
        Center for Domestic                62,500,000         40,000,000
         Preparedness.............
    National Exercise Program.....         42,000,000         40,000,000
    Technical Assistance..........         13,000,000         13,000,000
    Continuing Training Program...         23,000,000         31,000,000
    Evaluations and Assessments...         18,000,000         16,000,000
    Rural Domestic Preparedness                     0          3,000,000
     Consortium...................
                                   -------------------------------------
            Subtotal, National            210,000,000        235,000,000
             Programs.............
                                   =====================================
Management and Administration.....        175,000,000                  0
                                   =====================================
                Total State and         3,867,000,000     2,829,000,000
                 Local Programs...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Funded in a separate account.

    The Committee includes bill language allowing the transfer 
of up to three percent of State and Local program dollars to 
FEMA's Management and Administration account for costs 
associated with administering grants and training programs, 
instead of the request for a direct appropriation of 
$175,000,000. FEMA is required to submit an expenditure plan 
within 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act on the 
use of the administrative funds. The Committee continues bill 
language mandating timeframes for the application process of 
certain grants to ensure that funds do not languish at DHS.
    For the purposes of eligibility for funds, any county, 
city, village, town, district, borough, parish, port authority, 
transit authority, intercity rail provider, commuter rail 
system, freight rail provider, water district, regional 
planning commission, council of government, Indian tribe with 
jurisdiction over Indian country, authorized tribal 
organization, Alaskan Native village, independent authority, 
special district, or other political subdivision of any State 
shall constitute a ``local unit of government.''
    The Committee includes a general provision requiring FEMA 
to brief the Committee five days prior to any announcement of 
State and Local Programs 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.

                 STATE HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM

    The Committee recommends $950,000,000 for the State 
Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP), the same as the amount 
requested and provided in fiscal year 2009. 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 previous grant guidance 
conflicted with the 9/11 Act by limiting the amount of funds 
that can be used to pay the salaries and expenses for 
intelligence analysts. The restriction is not in line with the 
9/11 Act, which did not set a limit on paying salaries and 
expenses for new and existing intelligence analysts. The 
Committee understands the FEMA has taken steps to correct this 
in current guidelines and expects FEMA to continue to comply 
with the 9/11 Act.
    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 borders of the United States 
to enhance the coordination between local and Federal law 
enforcement agencies. Operation Stonegarden's eligible costs 
include, but shall not necessarily be limited to: overtime; 
vehicle maintenance; vehicle and equipment rental costs; 
reimbursement for mileage; fuel costs; equipment replacement 
costs; and travel costs for law enforcement entities assisting 
other local jurisdictions in law enforcement activities. The 
Committee directs that only the U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection 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 $887,000,000 for Urban Area 
Security Initiative Grants, the amount as requested and 
$49,500,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. 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, the same 
amount as requested.

                  METROPOLITAN MEDICAL RESPONSE SYSTEM

    The Committee recommends $40,000,000 for the Metropolitan 
Medical Response System, the same as the amount requested and 
$1,000,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. 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. The Committee does not agree to change the 
structure of this program to only focus on medical surge 
capacity. Instead, DHS should work with the Department of 
Health and Human Services' Assistant Secretary for Preparedness 
and Response to develop medical surge guidelines for 
communities.

                         CITIZEN CORPS PROGRAM

    The Committee recommends $15,000,000 for the Citizen Corps 
program, the same as the amount requested and provided in 
fiscal year 2009. 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 $250,000,000 for Public 
Transportation Security Assistance and Railroad Security 
Assistance, the same amount as requested and $150,000,000 below 
the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. These funds are in 
addition to the $150,000,000 provided in the recently passed 
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, which 
have yet to be awarded. The Committee notes that ARRA grant 
guidance was only published by DHS on May 29, 2009. Awards will 
not be made until late fiscal year 2009 and early fiscal year 
2010. The Committee continues the requirement that grants be 
made directly to transit agencies. The Committee is also aware 
that States serve an integral role in coordinating regional 
interests in regard to transit security and therefore directs 
FEMA to allow transit agencies to permit States to act as sub-
grantees to better facilitate regional planning and programs.
    Since 2002, and including the recently enacted economic 
recovery package, Congress has appropriated a total of $1.67 
billion for mass transit and passenger rail grants. These funds 
are used for security enhancements, including infrastructure 
protection, deterrence, facility hardening, and employee 
training. There are numerous statutory requirements placed on 
TSA and FEMA as to how quickly this funding must be awarded and 
provided to transit and passenger rail agencies; however, once 
the award has been made, the funding commonly remains unspent 
for up to two years. Based on latest estimates from FEMA, about 
90 percent of funds appropriated in fiscal year 2006 for rail 
and transit have not been drawn down. Partly to address this 
concern, the 9/11 Act and last year's appropriations bill 
required grant awards to be made directly to transit and 
passenger rail agencies instead of being administered through 
the States. The Committee notes that after two recent hearings, 
FEMA and TSA understand that they must work diligently to 
comprehend this issue and provide solutions. The Committee 
expects FEMA and TSA to report on their progress, by August 
2009, in working with the transit agencies to get funds drawn 
down from fiscal years 2006, 2007 and 2008.

                          PORT SECURITY GRANTS

    The Committee recommends $250,000,000 for Port Security 
grants, the same amount as requested and $150,000,000 below the 
amount provided in fiscal year 2009. These funds are in 
addition to the $150,000,000 provided in the recently passed 
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which have yet 
to be awarded. The Committee notes that ARRA grant guidance was 
only published by DHS on May 29, 2009. Awards will not be made 
until late fiscal year 2009 and early fiscal year 2010. The 
Committee includes bill language waiving the cost-share 
requirement for these grants.

                 OVER-THE-ROAD BUS SECURITY ASSISTANCE

    The Committee recommends $12,000,000 for Over-the-Road Bus 
Security grants, $12,000,000 above the amount requested and the 
same as the amount provided in fiscal year 2009.

                     BUFFER ZONE PROTECTION GRANTS

    The Committee includes $50,000,000 for the Buffer Zone 
Protection (BZP) grants, the same as the amount requested and 
provided in fiscal year 2009. The Committee is concerned that 
these grants have done little to eliminate vulnerabilities 
among critical infrastructure and have instead provided funding 
to localities for basic security costs. While that is 
important, the Committee funds other grant programs, such as 
SHSGP and UASI, for communities to use for security costs. The 
Committee directs FEMA and The National Protection and Programs 
Directorate to provide an expenditure plan to the Committee 
prior to award of any BZP grants. The expenditure plan shall 
include a new approach to awarding these grants with a focus on 
eliminating vulnerabilities at high risk assets.

                             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, the same as the amount requested and provided in 
fiscal year 2009. DHS estimates the total cost to States of 
implementing REAL ID to be $3,965,000,000 over eleven years. An 
additional $25,000,000 is available in the United States 
Citizenship and Immigration Services appropriations to support 
REAL ID hub activities.

             INTEROPERABLE EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS GRANTS

    The Committee recommends $50,000,000 for interoperable 
emergency communications grants, the same as the amount 
requested and provided in fiscal year 2009. FEMA is directed to 
work with the Office of Emergency Communications to develop 
program guidance for these grants.
    The Committee agrees with FEMA's priority on leadership and 
governance, common planning and operation protocols, and skills 
and capabilities. However, 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, FEMA 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 $40,000,000 for Emergency 
Operations Centers (EOCs), $40,000,000 above the amount 
requested and $5,000,000 above the amount provided in fiscal 
year 2009. 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 provides funding for the Emergency Operations 
Center projects in the following amounts:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Emergency Operations Centers                    Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Winston County Commission, AL...........................         $20,000
Lincoln Parish Sheriff Department, LA...................         300,000
City of Las Vegas, NV...................................         600,000
Mobile County Commission, AL............................         800,000
City of Moreno Valley, CA...............................         400,000
Benton County Emergency Management Commission, IA.......         500,000
City of Green Cove Springs, FL..........................         400,000
Lake County, FL.........................................         800,000
Dorchester County, SC...................................         400,000
Sarasota County, FL.....................................         300,000
City of Greenville, NC..................................         600,000
New Orleans Emergency Medical Services, LA..............         750,000
Lycoming County, PA.....................................         250,000
Mercer County Emergency Management Agency, KY...........         300,000
Jackson County Sheriff's Office, MO.....................         500,000
Williamsburg County, SC.................................       1,000,000
City of Brookings, OR...................................         350,000
Johnson County, TX......................................         750,000
City of Minneapolis, MN.................................         750,000
Howell County Emergency Preparedness, MO................         250,000
City of Brawley, CA.....................................         500,000
City of Hopewell, VA....................................         250,000
Morris County, New Jersey Office of Emergency                  1,000,000
 Management, NJ.........................................
City of Tavares, FL.....................................         500,000
Tohono O'odham Nation...................................         500,000
Minooka Fire Protection District, IL....................         250,000
Township of Old Bridge, NJ..............................         500,000
City of Cupertino, CA...................................         300,000
Calvert County Department of Public Safety, MD..........         338,000
City of Detroit, MI.....................................       1,000,000
Scotland County, NC.....................................         650,000
The City of Maitland, FL................................         158,000
County of Union, NJ.....................................         500,000
Providence Emergency Management Agency & Office of               500,000
 Homeland Security, RI..................................
City of Hartford, CT....................................         800,000
City of Torrington, CT..................................         400,000
City of Ames, IA........................................         600,000
Fulton County (Atlanta) Emergency Management Agency, GA.         200,000
City of Brigantine, NJ..................................         300,000
Village of Elmsford, NY.................................         165,000
Town of Harrison, NY....................................         275,000
City of Elk Grove, CA...................................         750,000
City of Palm Coast, FL..................................         350,000
Somerset County, ME.....................................         500,000
Macomb County Emergency Management and Communications,           250,000
 MI.....................................................
City of La Habra, CA....................................         254,500
City of Scottsdale, AZ..................................         500,000
Westmoreland County Department of Public Safety, PA.....         900,000
Brazoria County Emergency Management, TX................         100,000
Township of Irvington, NJ...............................         750,000
San Francisco Department of Emergency Management, CA....         800,000
North Carolina Office of Emergency Management, NC.......       1,000,000
Butte-Silver Bow, MT....................................         800,000
Middle Rio Grande Development Council, TX...............       1,000,000
Town of Shorter, AL.....................................         500,000
Kentucky Emerency Management, KY........................         500,000
Monroe County, FL.......................................         200,000
City of Newark, NJ......................................       1,000,000
Passaic County Prosecutor, NJ...........................         250,000
City of Commerce, CA....................................       1,000,000
State of Maryland, MD...................................       1,500,000
City of Alamosa Fire Department, CO.....................         425,000
City of Whittier, CA....................................         500,000
Washington Parish Government, LA........................         350,000
City of Monterey Park, CA...............................         375,000
Towamencin Township, PA.................................          75,000
Upper Darby Township Police Department, PA..............         500,000
North Hudson Regional Fire and Rescue, NJ...............         500,000
City of Boerne, TX......................................         250,000
Lea County, NM..........................................         600,000
City of Port Gibson, MS.................................         750,000
City of Wichita, KS.....................................         500,000
City of Lauderdale Lakes, FL............................         750,000
City of Sunrise, FL.....................................         750,000
Columbia County, OR.....................................         500,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The remaining funds, not directed by the Committee, shall 
be used for program administration.

                           NATIONAL PROGRAMS

    The Committee recommends $235,000,000 for National 
Programs, $25,000,000 above the amount requested and 
$29,200,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2009.

               NATIONAL DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS CONSORTIUM

    Included within the amount provided for National Programs, 
the Committee recommends $132,000,000 for the National Domestic 
Preparedness Consortium, $18,000,000 above the amount requested 
and $32,500,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. 
Of the total amount, $23,000,000 is for the National Energetic 
Materials Research and Testing Center, New Mexico Institute of 
Mining and Technology; $23,000,000 is for the National Center 
for Biomedical Research and Training, Louisiana State 
University; $23,000,000 is for the National Emergency Response 
and Rescue Training Center, Texas A&M University; $23,000,000 
is for the National Exercise, Test, and Training Center, Nevada 
Test Site; and $40,000,000 is for the Center for Domestic 
Preparedness (CDP). Because the 9/11 Act recognizes CDP as a 
consortium member, the Committee has reduced funding for this 
center to make it more in line with funding levels elsewhere 
under this program.

                       NATIONAL EXERCISE PROGRAM

    Included within the amount provided for National Programs, 
the Committee recommends $40,000,000 for the National Exercise 
Program, $2,000,000 below the amount requested and the same as 
the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. This program provides 
the opportunity for key leaders at the Federal, State, local, 
territory and Tribal levels, along with representatives of 
nongovernmental organizations and the private sector, to gauge 
the effectiveness of plans, policies and procedures for 
responding to natural disasters and terrorist attacks. In 
fiscal year 2009, the Committee required FEMA to provide a 
report on incident management lapses during the Top Officials 4 
exercise. The Committee is still awaiting that report and 
directs FEMA to provide the report immediately.

                          TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

    Included within the amount provided for National Programs, 
the Committee recommends $13,000,000 for technical assistance, 
the same as the amount requested and $2,000,000 above the 
amount provided in fiscal year 2009. The Committee recognizes 
that State and local officials require technical assistance to 
ensure that equipment is used properly and to support effective 
planning.

                       CONTINUING TRAINING GRANTS

    Included within the amount provided for National Programs, 
the Committee recommends $31,000,000 for continuing training 
grants, $8,000,000 above the amount requested and equal to the 
amount provided in fiscal year 2009. 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.

                      EVALUATIONS AND ASSESSMENTS

    Included within the amount provided for National Programs, 
the Committee recommends $16,000,000 for evaluations and 
assessments, $2,000,000 below the amount requested and the same 
as the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. FEMA shall brief 
the Committee every six months on results from completed 
evaluations.

                 RURAL DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS CONSORTIUM

    Included within the amount provided for National Programs, 
the Committee recommends $3,000,000 for the Rural Domestic 
Preparedness Consortium. Funds will be used to provide and 
deliver training to rural first responders consistent with the 
National Preparedness Goal.

                   TRUCKING INDUSTRY SECURITY GRANTS

    The Committee is aware that of the $8,000,000 appropriated 
for trucking industry security grants in fiscal year 2009, only 
$2,200,000 was awarded due to the lack of worthy applications. 
Therefore, the Committee includes a provision rescinding the 
balance of programmatic funds, $5,572,000, from fiscal year 
2009. The Committee notes that funds appropriated in fiscal 
year 2008 are supporting a three year education and training 
program. The Committee will revisit the needs of that program 
at the conclusion of that project period.

                     MEASURING THE IMPACT OF GRANTS

    In fiscal year 2009, the Committee provided $5,000,000 to 
accelerate efforts at FEMA to develop tools to measure the 
achievement and effectiveness of certain grant programs. The 
Committee is aware that the department is developing a system 
called Cost-to-Capabilities (C2C) aimed at measuring the impact 
of grants on State and local capabilities. GAO has told the 
Committee that C2C, as currently designed, would not directly 
measure preparedness. That revelation gives the Committee grave 
concerns and directs FEMA to brief the Committee on how it 
plans to achieve the fiscal year 2009 mandate to develop tools 
that measure the achievement and effectiveness of certain grant 
programs within one month after the date of enactment of this 
Act. GAO shall continue to monitor the development of any DHS 
system to measure the effectiveness of grant programs and 
report regularly to the Committee with updates.

                       EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES

    The Committee supports the Department's efforts to complete 
capability assessments for emergency medical service (EMS) 
providers. However, the Committee remains concerned that 
current funding levels for the EMS community for training and 
equipment for disaster preparedness may be insufficient to meet 
capability requirements. Of particular concern is that EMS 
providers do not have essential personal protection equipment, 
such as powered air purifying respirators. 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 EMS providers. 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. FEMA shall 
also make States aware that EMS personal protection equipment 
is an allowable expense under the State and UASI grant 
programs. If a State provides no funding to EMS providers, the 
State should justify its lack of funding by demonstrating that 
related capabilities have been met or by identifying other 
pressing priorities.

                        DISASTER COMMUNICATIONS

    The Committee is aware of the capability gap that exists 
for resilient communications at the State and local level. This 
gap has exacerbated the impact of many recent disasters, 
especially in communities with limited vehicle access and 
during the first 72 hours following the onset of a disaster 
event. While the Committee is aware of the efforts of FEMA, 
DHS's Office of Emergency Communications (OEC), and SAFECOM to 
address communications gaps at the national level, more can be 
done to leverage the next generation of communications 
technologies currently available at the State and local level. 
Therefore, the Committee directs FEMA, OEC, and SAFECOM to 
report to the Committee no later than 90 days after enactment 
of this Act on their collective efforts to provide technical 
assistance to States and localities on effective disaster and 
resilient communications systems. The report should also 
identify efforts to encourage States and localities to 
incorporate resilient communications into their emergency 
response planning and training. This report shall include a 
description of completed and planned tests and evaluations of 
resilient communications systems currently available for 
purchase or lease by States and localities. Furthermore, the 
report shall include data on the percentage of Public Safety 
Interoperable Communications grant funding allocated by States 
and localities for resilient communications.

                     Firefighter Assistance Grants

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2009\1\....................     $ 775,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010\2\..................             - - -
Recommended in the bill...............................       800,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2009...................       +25,000,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.................      +800,000,000 
\1\Excludes $210,000,000 in appropriations in the American Recovery and
  Reinvestment Act (P.L. 111-5).
\2\The budget request includes $590,000,000 for Firefighter Assistance
  Grants within State and Local Programs.

                                MISSION

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

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $800,000,000 for Firefighter 
Assistance Grants, $25,000,000 above the amount provided in 
fiscal year 2009. The budget did not include a separate 
appropriation for Firefighter Assistance Grants but instead 
proposed $590,000,000 for this activity within State and Local 
Programs.
    The budget proposed a significant reallocation of funding 
for the two Firefighter Assistance Grant programs, the 
Assistance for Firefighters Grants (AFG) and the Staffing for 
Adequate Firefighter Response (SAFER) programs. The budget 
requests a cut of almost 70 percent for AFG, from $565,000,000 
in fiscal year 2009 to $170,000,000. This level is woefully 
inadequate given the vast needs of fire departments across the 
nation for equipment. For the fiscal year 2008 alone, FEMA 
received 21,022 applications for AFG funds, with requests 
totaling $3,137,121,053. Therefore, the Committee recommends 
$380,000,000 for AFG grants, an increase of $210,000,000 above 
the request. The Committee provides the budget request, of 
$420,000,000, a $210,000,000 increase above fiscal year 2009, 
for the SAFER program. The Committee recognizes that 
communities are in need of assistance during this recession 
with maintaining critical public safety staff, including 
firefighters. The additional funding is part of a targeted and 
temporary effort to stem the tide of layoffs and ensure our 
communities are protected by an adequate number of 
firefighters. The Committee urges FEMA to consider the prospect 
and occurrence of firefighter layoffs at a local fire 
department when evaluating SAFER grant applications. In 
addition to the funding, the pending supplemental 
appropriations bill contains language allowing the waiver of 
certain restrictions and broadens the use of SAFER to allow the 
grants to be used for the hiring, rehiring, and retaining of 
firefighters for fiscal years 2009 or 2010. Also, the cost-
share requirements for SAFER were waived for fiscal years 2009 
and 2010 in ARRA.
    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, including those 
related to wellness. According to the National Institute for 
Occupational Safety and Health, sudden cardiac death represents 
the most common cause of fire fighter fatalities. Funds are 
available until September 30, 2011, and no more than five 
percent may be used for administrative expenses. FEMA is 
required to submit an expenditure plan within 60 days after the 
date of enactment of this Act on the use of the administrative 
funds.
    The Committee continues the requirement for FEMA to peer-
review 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.

                Emergency Management Performance Grants

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2009.......................     $ 315,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010\1\..................             - - -
Recommended in the bill...............................       330,000,000
Bill compared with:...................................
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2009...................       +15,000,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.................      +330,000,000 
\1\The budget request includes $315,000,000 for Emergency Management
  Performance Grants within State and Local Programs.

                                MISSION

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

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $330,000,000 for EMPG, $15,000,000 
above the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. The budget did 
not include a separate appropriation for EMPG but instead 
proposed $315,000,000 for this activity within State and Local 
Programs. The Committee does not agree to transfer EMPG to 
State and Local Programs, continuing instead to fund the EMPG 
program as a separate appropriation. EMPG is the one true 
source of funding for emergency managers that is focused on 
preparing for all hazards. EMPG is the only grant program 
within FEMA that requires a 50/50 match at the State and local 
level, which is evidence of the commitment by State and local 
governments to make emergency management a top priority, 
especially while most are experiencing financial crisis. Many 
of the EMPG funds help pay for the personnel to run key 
programs and funds for this program must remain flexible to 
ensure they support the full gamut of responsibilities required 
of emergency managers.
    The Committee directs FEMA to continue EMPG grant practices 
used in fiscal year 2007, including a continued emphasis on 
all-hazards activities and the inclusion of personnel expenses 
and Emergency Operations Centers as eligible uses of funding. 
Up to three percent may be used for program administration.

              Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2009.......................         $-505,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.....................          -265,000
Recommended in the bill...............................          -265,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2009...................          +240,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.................             - - -
                                MISSION

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

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee provides for the receipt and expenditure of 
REPP fees, which are collected as authorized by Public Law 105-
276. The request estimates that fee collections will exceed 
expenditures by $265,000 in fiscal year 2010.

                   United States Fire Administration

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2009.......................       $44,979,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.....................        45,588,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        45,588,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2009...................          +609,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.................             - - -
                                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 $45,588,000 for USFA, the same as 
the amount requested and $609,000 above the amount provided in 
fiscal year 2009. The Committee includes $1,419,000 to continue 
implementation of the National Fire Incident Reporting System, 
as requested, and $9,304,000 for the National Fire Academy, as 
requested. The Committee expects the overdue facilities plan to 
be submitted immediately.

                            Disaster Relief


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2009\1\....................    $1,400,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.....................     2,000,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................     2,000,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2009...................      +600,000,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.................             - - - 
\1\Excludes the $7,960,000,000 appropriated in Public Law 110-329.

                                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 $2,000,000,000 for Disaster 
Relief, the same as the amount requested and $600,000,000 above 
the amount provided in fiscal year 2009, excluding emergency 
funding. The Committee includes a provision to allow the 
transfer of up to $90,080,000 to the FEMA Management and 
Administration account. FEMA shall provide the Committee with 
an expenditure plan detailing the uses of these funds prior to 
transfer. The Committee also includes a provision to allow the 
transfer of $16,000,000 to IG for disaster related audits and 
investigations.
    The Disaster Relief fund (DRF) was appropriated 
$13,157,000,000 in fiscal year 2008 and $1,400,000,000 has been 
provided, to date, in fiscal year 2009. Close to 80 percent of 
these funds were emergency appropriations to respond to floods, 
tornadoes, hurricanes, and ice storms. Congress often provided 
these funds in the absence of a formal request from the 
Administration but based on analysis by FEMA at the request of 
the Committee. The Committee expects the current Administration 
to properly monitor the fund and provide timely budget requests 
that are adequate to continue to support disaster response and 
recovery costs.
    FEMA spends approximately $300,000,000 annually on disaster 
readiness and support costs from the DRF. FEMA shall submit an 
expenditure plan to the Committees detailing the use of funds 
for disaster readiness and support costs within 60 days after 
the date of enactment of this Act. FEMA shall provide a 
quarterly report detailing obligations against the expenditure 
plan and a justification for any changes in spending.
    FEMA is directed to notify the Committees prior to 
transferring funds to the United States Agency for 
International Development for international disaster 
assistance. Further, FEMA is to notify the Committees prior to 
closing or moving logistics distribution centers.
    The Committee directs FEMA to continue to submit the 
monthly report detailing allocations, obligations, and 
undistributed amounts related to all disasters, including 
Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. The report shall maintain 
the same level of data as currently presented to the Committee.
    Beginning July 1, 2009, FEMA shall report monthly to the 
Committee on the number of individuals and households in need 
of and denied Federal disaster assistance as a result of severe 
storms, tornados, flooding and mudslides in the Commonwealth of 
Kentucky in May 2009 (FEMA-1841-DR). The report shall detail 
the reason and circumstance for each denial.
    The Committee is concerned about the costs associated with 
the establishment of multiple Joint Field Offices (JFOs) after 
disasters. The Committee directs FEMA to report back to the 
Committee, no later than 90 days after the date of enactment of 
this Act, on whether cost efficiencies can be achieved by 
collocating JFO offices for disasters, especially for disasters 
that affect multiple States in the same region.

                ECONOMIC HARDSHIP AND DISASTER RECOVERY

    The Committee is concerned that States and localities that 
are already suffering from economic crisis are unable to 
adequately recover when hit by a natural disaster. With many 
States facing dramatic widespread budget cuts due to the 
economic downturn, reductions in public services may diminish a 
state's preparedness and response capabilities. Many governors 
are eyeing federal funding to offset and supplement these 
shortfalls. That is especially true after disasters. States 
that receive Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
Assistance Act Disaster Declarations often receive a 75 percent 
Federal cost-share for Public Assistance projects. The 
Committee notes that FEMA can recommend adjustments in Federal-
state cost-sharing agreements to assist State and local 
governments and certain nonprofit entities that incur 
extraordinary expenses in the wake of disasters. In many cases 
that assistance can be adjusted to a 100 percent Federal cost-
share. However, it is unclear to the Committee and many 
communities how often, if at all, FEMA takes into consideration 
a state's economic hardship. FEMA shall report to the Committee 
on how economic factors contribute to cost-share decisions and 
on how the agency plans to deal with cost-share adjustments 
during the recession. The report is due within three months 
after the date of enactment of this Act.

             REMAINING CHALLENGES IN POST-DISASTER HOUSING

    The Committee continues to be concerned with the post-
disaster housing situation in the Gulf Coast as a result of 
hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Based on the latest estimates from 
FEMA, nearly 30,000 households are still receiving disaster 
housing assistance, of which nearly 3,000 are in trailers and 
about 27,000 are in rental units as part of the joint 
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)/FEMA program 
called the Disaster Housing Assistance Program (DHAP). In 
fiscal year 2009 the Committee required the Office of the 
Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding to host a panel 
of experts to develop a framework for developing and sustaining 
affordable rental housing in affected Gulf Coast communities. 
The panel was tasked to provide recommendations for how HUD, 
the private sector, and the States could achieve a sufficient 
stock of affordable rental housing to meet the needs of all 
those displaced after the hurricanes who still lack permanent 
housing options. The Office's report focused on issues specific 
to the Gulf Coast, but several of its recommendations should be 
studied and incorporated by Federal, State and local 
governments to deal with future disasters, including improved 
case management services for families in interim housing and 
the need for new sources of funding for long-term, post-
disaster housing.
    The Committee remains committed to addressing the many 
challenges that face our citizens in the Gulf Coast and to 
ensuring this type of failure to provide a long-term, post-
disaster housing solution never occurs again. FEMA was never 
equipped to sustain much more than a short-term housing effort 
after disasters, focused on travel trailers and mobile homes. 
HUD must use its expertise following disasters that clearly 
overwhelm the capacity of FEMA and local governments to provide 
adequate housing.
    The Committee notes that the last administration developed 
the National Disaster Housing Strategy, as mandated by the 
Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006. The 
Strategy states that FEMA and HUD will partner to provide 
Federal interim housing assistance, each bringing its expertise 
and experience to bear. It goes on to state that when Federal 
permanent housing assistance is needed, HUD will have the lead 
responsibility under this Strategy and will coordinate with its 
partners to provide housing and community development 
resources; legislative authority, staffing, and other resources 
may be required for HUD's new responsibilities.
    While the Committee supports the concept of the Strategy, 
it simply does not go far enough to prepare a response for the 
next major disaster that displaces large numbers of people over 
a long period of time. The Committee notes that there are no 
formal agreements between the agencies and there are no 
executive orders specifying HUD's role after disasters. The 
Committee firmly believes that HUD must bring its experience to 
bear after catastrophic disasters that overwhelm the 
traditional FEMA mission of providing short-term provisional 
housing. Therefore, the Committee directs FEMA to formalize an 
agreement with HUD, outlining the roles and responsibilities of 
both agencies following a disaster and clearly delineating when 
and how HUD should take the lead role in the Federal housing 
response. FEMA is also directed to report to the Committee on 
the resources and legislative authority needed for HUD to take 
a formal role in disaster housing. The Committee expects that 
FEMA would continue to support disaster costs under an 
agreement between HUD and FEMA, as it does for DHAP in the Gulf 
Coast.
    The Committee is pleased to note that FEMA and HUD have 
recognized that there must be some interplay between the 
agencies after disaster. The two agencies work in tandem to 
operate DHAP in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas following 
Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Ike. The Committee expects FEMA 
to use DHAP as a model as it develops its agreements with HUD.
    The Committee remains concerned about FEMA trailers that 
have high levels of formaldehyde emissions, possibly leading to 
adverse health effects. The Committee understands FEMA is 
pursuing alternative housing solutions and demonstration 
projects and directs FEMA to work with multiple technologies 
and building solutions during this phase.

                         CHILDREN AND DISASTERS

    The Committee is aware that Central Elementary School, 
located on the banks of the Illinois River, in Ottawa, Illinois 
was flooded in September 2008 during a record flood. Water 
levels rose two feet above the floor elevation of the building, 
causing damage throughout the building and flooding the 
crawlspace below the building. The flooding also revealed 
severe environmental hazards, including the presence of 
hazardous chemicals on the surface of the grounds and asbestos. 
The school has since been condemned by the Illinois State Board 
of Education until such time as the asbestos issues are 
addressed. A presidential declaration was issued to allow 
Federal assistance for this community and to address damages 
such as those at Central Elementary School. Children who attend 
this school are now attending classes in an abandoned Wal-Mart, 
attempting to learn in this ill-suited venue. While the 
Committee understands the pace of public assistance and hazard 
mitigation is often slow to ensure integrity in the process, 
the pace of FEMA approval for relocation or repair of this 
facility is unacceptably slow, given that these children have 
been in an unfit learning environment for most of the school 
year.
    FEMA should prioritize its disaster work to ensure that 
decisions on critical facilities are made in a time frame that 
is least harmful to those who are affected, especially when 
children and other vulnerable populations are involved. The 
Committee directs FEMA to expedite its discussions with Ottawa 
and to come to resolution on this project so that children will 
not return to an abandoned Wal-Mart for school next year. As 
they deliberate, FEMA and the affected community should address 
the continued flooding of this school and area. FEMA and the 
community should consider taking the mitigation action of 
moving the school from the floodplain.
    The Committee will continue to monitor this situation. FEMA 
shall act with due haste and report to the Committee when the 
final project is approved.

                      EVALUATING FEMA'S READINESS

    The Committee has heard anecdotal evidence from disasters 
in 2008 and 2009 that the Agency is much improved from the FEMA 
that responded to Hurricane Katrina. However, unlike government 
programs that are easily assessed against specific performance 
goals, FEMA does not lend itself to simple evaluation. The 
agency is best judged during disaster response and, 
unfortunately, it is not an option to wait until the next 
catastrophic disaster to determine FEMA's capabilities. 
Therefore, the Committee directs GAO to conduct red team 
exercises during the hurricane season and report to the 
Committee on its findings. GAO shall evaluate how well the 
agency provides disaster assistance to survivors and, if 
possible, to States and localities.

            Disaster Assistance Direct Loan Program Account


                                Subsidy

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2009.......................          $295,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.....................           295,000
Recommended in the bill...............................           295,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2009...................             - - -
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.................             - - -
                       Limitation on Direct Loans

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2009.......................       $25,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.....................        25,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        25,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2009...................             - - -
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.................             - - -
                                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.

                      Flood Map Modernization Fund

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2009.......................      $220,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.....................       220,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       220,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2009...................             - - -
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.................             - - -
                                MISSION

    The mission of the Flood Map Modernization Program 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, the same as the amount requested and 
provided in fiscal year 2009. In fiscal year 2010, FEMA will 
continue to focus these funds on reviewing, updating, and 
maintaining maps to accurately reflect flood hazards. The goal 
shall be to review and, where necessary, to update and maintain 
data, methodologies, models and maps that have been modernized, 
and to issue map updates no later than five years past the 
modernized dates of the maps. To support this goal, FEMA is 
directed to provide no less than 20 percent of the funds 
provided under this heading for map updates and maintenance 
conducted by Cooperating Technical Partners that provide at 
least a 25 percent cash match and have a strong record of 
working effectively with FEMA on floodplain mapping activities. 
With the fiscal year 2011 budget request, FEMA shall submit to 
the Committee a status report on the progress made towards the 
five year Risk Mapping, Assessment, and Planning strategy.
    As noted in a recent National Academies of Science report, 
high resolution elevation data is the cornerstone of quality 
floodplain maps. FEMA is directed to develop a National Digital 
Elevation Acquisition and Utilization plan for the purposes of 
supporting floodplain map updates. FEMA shall collaborate with 
the United States Geological Survey, the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration, the National Aeronautics Space 
Administration, and States that have experience in acquiring 
and incorporating high resolution elevation data in the 
floodplain map updates. FEMA shall submit this plan to the 
Committee within six months after the date of enactment of this 
Act.
    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.

                     National Flood Insurance Fund

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2009.......................      $156,599,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.....................       159,469,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       159,469,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2009...................        +2,870,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.................             - - -
                                MISSION

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

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee includes bill language providing up to 
$52,149,000 for salaries and expenses to administer the NFIF, 
the same as the budget request and $2,731,000 above the amount 
provided in fiscal year 2009. The Committee includes bill 
language providing up to $70,000,000 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 $40,000,000 for Flood 
Mitigation Assistance under section 1366 of the National Flood 
Insurance Act. No less than $107,320,000 is available for flood 
plain management and flood mapping. Flood mitigation funds are 
available until September 30, 2011, and funding is offset by 
premium collections.
    FEMA requests fee authority in the amount of $159,469,000 
for fiscal year 2010, an increase of $2,870,000 above the 
fiscal year 2009 level. The Committee is concerned that FEMA's 
fee estimates are too optimistic, given that the Agency has 
acknowledged that flood insurance policies may not increase as 
expected. A decline in fees would threaten valuable flood plain 
management and mitigation activities. Given the uncertainty in 
the fee collection, the Committee includes language allowing 
FEMA to restructure its budget for salaries and expenses and 
flood plain management if fee collection does not rise as 
projected in the budget.
    The Community Assistance Program (CAP) is a product-
oriented financial assistance program directly related to the 
flood loss reduction objectives of the National Flood Insurance 
Program (NFIP). States that are participating in the NFIP are 
eligible for this Federally funded assistance. The CAP is 
intended to help States identify, prevent, and resolve 
floodplain management issues in participating communities 
before a flood event. The Committee encourages FEMA to give 
ample consideration to population growth when determining grant 
awards to States. The Committee believes this will ensure that 
States most at risk of flooding because of rapid growth receive 
adequate funds to mitigate flood losses through increased 
floodplain management.

                  National Predisaster Mitigation Fund

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2009.......................       $90,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.....................       150,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       100,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2009...................       +10,000,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.................       -50,000,000
                                MISSION

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

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $100,000,000 for the National 
Predisaster Mitigation Fund (PDM), $50,000,000 below the amount 
requested, and $10,000,000 above the amount provided in fiscal 
year 2009. The Committee notes that FEMA has $143,000,000 in 
unobligated balances in its regular program and therefore 
reduces the request.
    As part of the budget, FEMA requested to drastically change 
the distribution methodology used for awarding PDM grants. 
However, the Agency was unable to adequately articulate to the 
Committee the ramifications or benefits of their new approach 
and signaled that the proposal was still being developed. Due 
to this lack of forethought, as well as pending legislation 
that is vastly different from FEMA's new approach, the 
Committee will not approve the proposed change. Instead, the 
Committee directs FEMA to continue this program as it operated 
last fiscal year. The Committee includes bill language 
extending the authorization of the PDM Grant Program for one 
year to continue the current program. Up to three percent may 
be used for program administration.
    The Committee includes the following predisaster mitigation 
projects in the following amounts:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Predisaster mitigation projects                  Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Hartselle, AL...................................        $245,000
City of Colton, CA......................................         200,000
Alabama Emergency Management Agency, AL.................         200,000
Arkansas Department of Emergency Management, AR.........         750,000
Brigham City Corporation, UT............................         250,000
Town of Shelter Island, NY..............................         200,000
City of Camanche, IA....................................         187,500
City of Prattville, AL..................................         500,000
City of Venice, FL......................................         200,000
Orange County Fire Authority, CA........................         252,000
City of Kannapolis, NC..................................         425,000
Shelby County, Memphis, TN..............................         325,000
Town of Occoquan, VA....................................          25,000
City of Hidalgo, TX.....................................         500,000
Harris County Flood Control District, TX................       1,000,000
City of Brooksville, KY.................................          18,500
City of Maryville, MO...................................         175,000
City of Reno, NV........................................         500,000
Town of Union and City of Binghamton, NY................         462,000
Westport Fire Department, CT............................         265,000
City of Trenton, NJ.....................................         300,000
Lucas County Engineer, OH...............................         500,000
City of Coconut Creek, FL...............................         500,000
Lake County Stormwater Management Agency, OH............         725,000
City of Emeryville, CA..................................         600,000
Village of La Grange Park, IL...........................         150,000
Village of Pelham, NY...................................         562,500
San Miguel County, NM...................................         400,000
DeKalb County, IL.......................................         350,000
Town of Winthrop, MA....................................         500,000
City of Santa Clarita, CA...............................         500,000
City of Miami, FL.......................................         600,000
City of Flagler Beach, FL...............................         750,000
Town of Hambleton and Town of Davis, WV.................         450,000
City of Robstown, TX....................................         500,000
CHRISTUS St. Elizabeth Hospital, Beaumont, TX...........         250,000
North Carolina Office of Emergency Management, NC.......         165,000
King County, WA.........................................         750,000
Kentucky Emergency Management, KY.......................         500,000
Drew County, AR.........................................         366,564
City of Los Angeles, CA.................................       1,000,000
State of Maryland, MD...................................       1,000,000
City of Burbank, CA.....................................         225,000
Henry County, GA........................................         275,000
City of Los Angeles, CA.................................         500,000
McDowell Hospital, NC...................................         220,000
City of New Braunfels, TX...............................         500,000
Arkansas State University-Beebe, AR.....................         452,000
Lorain County, OH.......................................         200,000
City of Davis, CA.......................................         275,000
Mississippi Homeland Security Office, MS................         500,000
City of Rockville, MD...................................         650,000
City of Hokah, MN.......................................         590,000
City of Miami Beach, FL.................................         750,000
Jackson Health System, FL...............................         500,000
Russell County Fiscal Court, KY.........................         200,000
Ohio University, OH.....................................         200,000
Louisville-Metro Government, KY.........................         500,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       Emergency Food and Shelter

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2009\1\....................      $200,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.....................       100,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       200,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2009...................             - - -
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.................      +100,000,000 
\1\Excludes $100,000,000 in appropriations in the American Recovery and
  Reinvestment Act (P.L. 111-5).

                                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 the same as the amount provided in fiscal year 
2009. Since the recession began in December 2007, the U.S. has 
lost a net total of 5.7 million jobs. As of April 2009, the 
nationwide unemployment rate is 8.9 percent--a quarter-century 
high. Behind these statistics are people who are in need of the 
very services provided through EFSP. This funding helps local 
community organizations provide food, shelter, and support 
services to the nation's hungry, homeless, and people in 
economic crisis. EFSP uses measures of unemployment and poverty 
to allocate the funds it receives from FEMA to city and county 
jurisdictions around the country. Up to 3.5 percent may be used 
on administrative costs.

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


           United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2009.......................      $101,740,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.....................       364,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       248,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2009...................      +146,260,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.................      -116,000,000
                                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 $248,000,000 in discretionary 
appropriations for USCIS, $116,000,000 below the requested 
level and $146,260,000 above the amount provided in 2009. As 
requested, the Committee provides $25,000,000 to complete REAL 
ID hub development within the USCIS appropriation, but 
withholds the funds from obligation until USCIS, in conjunction 
with the State or States responsible for developing the system, 
submits an expenditure plan showing how these funds will be 
utilized. As discussed below, the Committee provides 
$100,000,000 of the requested $206,000,000 to pay for 
processing refugee applications and asylum claims. Consistent 
with recommendations contained throughout this report, the 
Committee provides no funding for data center migration 
activities because of the IG's recent findings described in the 
Chief Information Officer section of the report regarding 
possible unmitigated risks at the destination data center 
sites.

                        USER FEE FUNDED PROGRAMS

    The budget estimates that USCIS will make $2,503,232,000 in 
fee-funded expenditures in fiscal year 2010, which assumes the 
Congress funds the entire discretionary request for processing 
asylum, refugee, and military naturalization. Revenues from 
fees paid by persons applying for immigration benefits 
constitute the majority of USCIS's resources, and support 
adjudication of applications for immigration benefits and fraud 
prevention activities.
    The Committee is concerned about several aspects of this 
fee-funded expenditure estimate. Most significantly, USCIS 
revenues have fallen 6.2 percent below projections for the 
first six months of fiscal year 2009, and economic and 
sociological indicators suggest that fee revenue will continue 
to be below projections well into fiscal year 2010. Based on 
the Committee's analysis, without operational changes, fiscal 
year 2010 processing costs may exceed fee collections by at 
least $100,000,000. While the Committee does not directly 
control USCIS fee authorities, it believes that the agency 
should construct its budget based on anticipated revenue, not 
anticipated cost. Unlike agencies for which Congress determines 
appropriate resource levels by legislating specific 
appropriations, USCIS is supposed to balance its operations 
with the revenues it collects from its customers. As a result, 
the Committee cannot in good conscience provide USCIS the 
authority to expend more on its fee-funded operations than 
would be supported by projected revenue.
    The Committee is also troubled that USCIS has not provided 
the public with a detailed analysis of whether or how it plans 
to adjust application fees to finance its 2010 expenditure 
estimates. The March 2009 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) 
baseline estimate projects 2010 fee collections at 
$2,511,000,000, which is roughly equivalent to the 2010 budget 
estimate, even though the CBO projection assumes the current 
schedule of immigration application charges and does not 
account for a change in financing the cost to process refugee 
applications, asylum claims, or military naturalizations. 
Alternatively, the USCIS budget assumes that no fee collections 
will be expended to process refugee applications, asylum 
claims, and military naturalizations, and that other processing 
costs will increase due to inflationary cost growth, pay 
raises, and staff annualizations. These conflicting estimating 
methodologies, combined with a lack of detailed regulatory 
analysis on the part of USCIS, make it exceptionally difficult 
for the Committee and the public to understand the revenue 
outlook for USCIS.
    In recognition of these concerns and the general 
correlation between CBO's March 2009 estimate of USCIS's 
collections and the fiscal year 2010 budget estimate, the 
Committee provides for the requested level of fee-funded 
expenditures with modest adjustments to reflect only partial 
approval of the requested appropriation for processing asylum, 
refugee, and military naturalization applications. Pursuant to 
Section 503 of the bill, USCIS will be required to submit a 
reprogramming request if it believes that its expenses will be 
substantially different from what the Committee has provided. 
In addition, within 60 days of enactment of this bill, the 
Committee directs USCIS to provide an operating plan for fiscal 
year 2010 that reflects how CIS activities will be financed for 
the year under its current schedule of fees, any additional 
revenue the agency expects to collect if it implements a new 
schedule of fees, any prior-year balances the agency plans to 
spend in 2010 to fund operations, and how discretionary 
appropriations will be used. The following table illustrates 
for historical purposes CIS's estimates of prior year fee 
expenditures in the new budget structure the Committee has 
included in table at the back of this report:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        2004         2005         2006         2007         2008         2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District Operations...............      606,388      649,203      755,726      745,570    1,015,722    1,041,687
Service Center Operations.........      346,025      367,941      409,057      418,213      536,397      519,334
International Operations..........      135,977      140,256      143,043      140,638      174,227      168,728
Records Operations................       86,890       86,599       88,174       88,080      113,324      109,920
Business Transformation...........  ...........  ...........  ...........       53,000      139,000      139,000
National Customer Service Centers.       50,997       46,000       47,000       48,000       55,600       53,747
Information Services..............      101,996       92,001       94,000       95,999      112,199      114,052
Administration....................      235,727      233,000      237,000      214,500      373,899      373,899
SAVE..............................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........       18,504       18,818
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Within the total fees collected, the Committee directs 
USCIS to provide no less than $29,000,000 to convert 
immigration records to digital format, as requested in the 
budget. No more than $10,000 of the fees collected shall be 
used for official reception and representation expenses.

   REFUGEE APPLICATIONS, ASYLUM CLAIMS, AND MILITARY NATURALIZATIONS

    USCIS does not currently charge application fees to 
individuals who apply for refugee status or make asylum claims, 
and likewise processes without charge naturalization 
applications from active-duty military members. Instead of 
collecting fees from these individuals, the agency imposes a 
surcharge on all other immigration applications to pay for 
these special programs. In its 2007 fee rule, USCIS estimated 
this surcharge at $40 per application.
    The 2010 budget proposes that the cost of processing 
refugee applications, asylum claims, and military 
naturalizations be paid by direct appropriations rather than 
the surcharge on other immigration applications. As a national 
policy, it may be appropriate for the costs of these programs 
to be paid from general tax revenues since they support 
fundamental values of the United States such as freedom from 
persecution, compassion for the disadvantaged, and gratitude 
for those who serve our country in the military. However, 
because the Administration has published no Federal Register 
notice detailing how discontinuing the surcharge will affect 
the schedule of fees for other application types, it is 
impossible for the Committee to evaluate the practicality of 
the proposal or to comprehend the full impact of a new and 
large appropriation on agency operations that historically have 
been funded by fees.
    In addition, GAO reported in January 2009 that the 
methodology used by USCIS to develop its 2007 fee rule included 
several significant flaws that led to an overstatement of 
agency processing costs. GAO encouraged USCIS to conduct timely 
fee reviews to ensure that the agency is making regular efforts 
to identify and reduce processing costs (GAO reports 09-70 and 
09-180). The Committee itself has urged USCIS to make every 
attempt to lower its costs and application fees so that legal 
immigration is available to all who seek it. Moreover, the 
current economic downturn has likely decreased the number of 
people who can afford to become U.S. citizens. The Committee 
strongly encourages USCIS to conduct regular reviews of fee 
rules, as recommended by GAO, and to incorporate equitable 
processes for fee waivers and other consideration for those who 
may not possess the financial wherewithal to afford application 
charges.
    Since it will take the Administration at least several 
months to effectuate a new schedule of immigration application 
fees, the Committee provides USCIS $100,000,000 in 
discretionary appropriations to process refugee applications 
and asylum claims, which is half the requested amount. The 
Committee provides none of the requested $5,100,000 for 
military naturalizations, and instead expects USCIS to be 
reimbursed by the Department of Defense for the foregone 
revenue associated with military naturalization fee waivers. In 
order to make sure the public and Congress have an accounting 
of how this direct appropriation will reduce the amounts USCIS 
charges immigration applicants, and of how the agency will 
further adjust fees to address issues raised by GAO, the 
Committee restricts obligation of the $100,000,000 until the 
Administration publishes a final rule in the Federal Register 
implementing a new schedule of fees for immigration 
applications.

                          BASIC PILOT/E-VERIFY

    While the Committee provides $112,000,000, as requested, 
for the Basic Pilot/E-Verify system, it is concerned that USCIS 
does not have an updated analytical audit for the system. The 
most recent audit, which is nearly two years old, shows an 
unacceptably high rate of individuals falsely identified as 
ineligible to work. Of particular concern is the report's 
conclusion that nearly 1 in 10 naturalized citizens is reported 
by Basic Pilot/E-Verify as non-work authorized. While USCIS 
claims these results have improved as the system's 
functionality has evolved, new evidence of increased accuracy 
has been largely anecdotal. The Committee strongly urges USCIS 
to update and publish regular Basic Pilot/E-Verify accuracy and 
performance audits, so that Congress and Administration policy 
makers can remain informed of the system's strengths and 
weaknesses.
    The Committee strongly supports efforts by USCIS to 
establish a compliance group to monitor use of the Basic Pilot/
E-Verify system and to ensure that companies enrolled in the 
program are not using it to take inappropriate or illegal 
employment actions. Within the additional funds provided for 
Basic Pilot/E-Verify in the Bill, USCIS will hire 40 Monitoring 
and Compliance staff to ensure the system is not used for 
prohibited purposes.
    In the budget, the Administration proposed a 3-year 
extension of the Basic Pilot/E-Verify program. The Committee 
has included an extension in the general provisions section of 
the bill.

                    IMMIGRATION INTEGRATION PROGRAMS

    An important responsibility for USCIS is the promotion of 
legal paths to U.S. citizenship and outreach to immigrant 
communities. Encouraging individuals to seek naturalized 
citizenship not only helps non-native-born residents better 
assimilate into their communities, but also affirms our 
country's policy of welcoming those who chose to become 
Americans. The Committee notes the unprecedented demand from 
approximately 700 non-profit and immigrant-serving 
organizations that filed notices of intent to apply for the 
$1,200,000 appropriated for immigration integration grants in 
fiscal year 2009. As a result, the Committee provides 
$11,000,000 for this program in 2010, $1,000,000 more than 
requested. These additional funds shall be used by the USCIS 
Office of Citizenship to hire up to 10 additional staff to 
support the review, award, and oversight of the grants and 
other activities related to immigration integration.

                               VISA FRAUD

    The budget included a request to expand the use of H and L 
Visa Fraud collections to include fraud investigations in other 
programs, pursuant to the priorities identified by the Fraud 
Detection and National Security Division of USCIS. The 
Committee has included this revision in the general provisions 
section of the Bill.

    CHANGES TO FEES CHARGED TO TEMPORARY PROTECTED STATUS APPLICANTS

    The budget included a request to raise the statutorily-
capped $50 application fee for those seeking Temporary 
Protected Status (TPS), and to clarify that USCIS is permitted 
to charge TPS applicants for related application services such 
as fingerprint collection. In the general provisions section of 
the Bill, the Committee has clarified that USCIS is allowed to 
charge fees for services related to TPS applications. The 
Committee has not acted to raise the $50 application charge 
since Congress has determined in the past that this 
humanitarian program should be available for a modest fee.

                       NATURALIZATION CEREMONIES

    The Committee directs USCIS to identify, in the 2011 budget 
submission, all funds allocated to naturalization and oath of 
allegiance ceremonies. In addition, the Committee directs USCIS 
to work with local public and private groups to ensure that 
naturalization and oath of allegiance ceremonies are held as 
part of Independence Day celebrations.

                Federal Law Enforcement Training Center


                         Salaries and Expenses

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2009.......................      $246,530,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.....................       245,356,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       239,356,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2009...................        -7,174,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.................        -6,000,000
                                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 over 80 Federal agencies with personnel 
located throughout the United States and its territories. FLETC 
also provides services to State, local, and international law 
enforcement agencies, and on a space available basis, to other 
Federal agencies with related law enforcement missions.
    FLETC is headquartered in Glynco, GA and has facilities in 
Artesia, NM and Charleston, SC. Each of these facilities is 
designed primarily for residential training operations. A 
fourth training facility is located in Cheltenham, MD, and 
provides in-service and re-qualification training for officers 
and agents in the Washington, D.C. area.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $239,356,000 for FLETC, $6,000,000 
below the amount requested and $7,174,000 below the amount 
provided in fiscal year 2009. Within the funds provided is 
$1,309,000 for the Federal Law Enforcement Training 
Accreditation Board and $4,100,000 for the Train21 program, a 
business training and transformation initiative to examine the 
best training and business practices across the Agency. Since 
2001, CBP has doubled its number of Border Patrol agents and 
has begun to slow additional hiring of Border Patrol agents in 
2010. Accordingly, the President's budget decreased funding for 
basic training requirements by $12,512,000. The Committee 
provides no funding for Data Center Migration activities due to 
the recent IG report findings regarding possible unmitigated 
risks at the destination data center sites, as described in the 
Chief Information Officer section of this report This action is 
consistent with funding recommendations contained throughout 
this report.

     Acquisition, Construction, Improvements, and Related Expenses

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2009.......................       $86,456,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.....................        43,456,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        43,456,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2009...................       -43,000,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.................             - - -
                                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 Acquisition, 
Construction, Improvements, and Related Expenses, the same as 
the amount requested and $43,000,000 below the amount provided 
in fiscal year 2009. The decrease is due to a deletion of one-
time costs.

                         Science and Technology


                     Management and Administration

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2009.......................      $132,100,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.....................       142,200,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       142,200,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2009...................       +10,100,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.................             - - -
                                MISSION

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

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $142,200,000 for Science and 
Technology Management and Administration, the same amount as 
requested and $10,100,000 above the amount provided in fiscal 
year 2009. Within this total, the Committee provides $10,000 
for reception and representation costs.
    The Committee is pleased with the progress that S&T has 
made in filling vacant positions within the agency and hopes 
that S&T can reach a steady-state of employment in fiscal year 
2010.

           Research, Development, Acquisition, and Operations

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2009.......................      $800,487,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.....................       826,191,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       825,356,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2009...................       +24,869,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.................          -835,000
                                MISSION

    The mission of Science and Technology 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 $825,356,000 for Research, 
Development, Acquisition, and Operations (RDA&O), $835,000 
below the amount requested and $24,869,000 above the amount 
provided in fiscal year 2009. A comparison of the budget 
estimate to the Committee recommended level by budget activity 
is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget estimate      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Border and Maritime Security......        $40,181,000        $40,181,000
Chemical and Biological...........        206,800,000        221,900,000
Command, Control and                       80,264,000         80,764,000
 Interoperability.................
Explosives........................        120,809,000        120,809,000
Human Factors.....................         15,087,000         16,887,000
Infrastructure and Geophysical....         44,742,000         52,093,000
Innovation........................         44,000,000         44,000,000
Laboratory Facilities.............        154,500,000        123,188,000
Test and Evaluations/Standards....         28,674,000         29,000,000
Transition........................         45,134,000         46,134,000
University Programs...............         46,000,000         50,400,000
                                   -------------------------------------
                                          826,191,000        825,356,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      BORDER AND MARITIME SECURITY

    The Committee recommends $40,181,000 for border and 
maritime security, the same as the amount requested and 
$7,131,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. 
Included in this amount is $4,000,000 for a pilot to develop a 
replicable port security system that would improve maritime 
domain awareness. The Committee denies the Administration's 
request for additional funding for basic research in border and 
maritime security. The Committee continues to believe that 
funding for basic research on new maritime technologies is 
better conducted within the Coast Guard's Research, 
Development, Test, and Evaluation account. The Committee 
recognizes that it is in S&T's mission to provide science and 
technology management to all components of DHS, and encourages 
S&T to maintain a working relationship with the Coast Guard 
despite this denial of funds.
    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 
disappointed that it has taken so long to produce a viable 
container security device. The Committee maintains its interest 
in both the container security device, and the advanced 
container security device as possible solutions, and is eager 
to see progress from S&T on both of those efforts, as well as 
the mobile asset tag tracking system and the hybrid-composite 
container project. S&T is directed to continue its quarterly 
updates on its efforts to explore a viable CSD solution.

                        CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL

    The Committee recommends $221,900,000 for chemical and 
biological, $15,100,000 above the amount requested, and 
$21,492,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. The 
Committee approves the additional funding requested to enable 
DHS to provide the basic research needed to help secure food 
and agricultural sectors from potential security threats in 
support of Homeland Security Presidential Directive 9.

                                BIOWATCH

    As previously discussed under the Office of Health Affairs, 
the Committee is frustrated with the slow development and 
testing of the next generation BioWatch program. It appears 
that since this program was transferred from S&T to OHA two 
years ago, development and testing efforts have fallen 
significantly behind where S&T planned to be at this time, 
largely because OHA decided to instead focus on an alternative 
technology that has since been deactivated. As a result, 
$15,100,000 is included within S&T's Chemical and Biological 
program to resume developmental testing of the BioWatch 
Generation 3 systems. In addition, S&T shall assume control of 
all activities related to Generation 3, and shall enter into a 
Memorandum of Understanding with OHA so that any monies 
provided to OHA in fiscal year 2009 shall be utilized by S&T 
for the originally intended purpose of Generation 3 testing.
    The Committee recognizes a troubling lack of coordination 
across the federal government with regards to development of 
the BioWatch program. Therefore, S&T is directed to coordinate 
with the Department of Health and Human Services, specifically 
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in 
developing assays for use in any BioWatch system. Additionally, 
CDC shall approve any assays developed for a final Generation 3 
system.

                 COMMAND, CONTROL, AND INTEROPERABILITY

    The Committee recommends $80,764,000 for command, control, 
and interoperability, $500,000 above the amount requested and 
$5,874,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. 
Included in this amount is $500,000 for a demonstration project 
to develop situational awareness and decision support 
capabilities through remote sensing technologies. Within the 
funds provided, the Committee includes $19,498,000 to invest in 
next generation technologies to improve cyber security and 
$2,000,000, as requested, for S&T to continue its web-
distributed environment for critical infrastructure decision 
making exercises.

           FIRST RESPONDER COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT STANDARDS

    Federal funding for first responder communications 
equipment shall comply with common system standards for public 
safety communications (voice and data), as appropriate, to 
ensure interoperability. Where programs exist, standards-based 
equipment must be assessed for compliance to existing 
standards. This includes, but is not limited to, the Project 25 
Compliance Assessment Program for P25 products and the National 
Incident Management System Supporting Technology Evaluation 
Program for Emergency Data Exchange Language products. The 
Office for Interoperability and Compatibility, in conjunction 
with the Director of the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology, shall continue assessing the compliance of first 
responder communications equipment, and shall establish 
additional compliance assessment programs for emerging 
technology as necessary.

                               EXPLOSIVES

    The Committee recommends $120,809,000 for explosives, the 
same as the amount requested and $24,660,000 above the amount 
provided in fiscal year 2009. Within the amount provided, 
$5,000,000 is to improve detection capabilities of improvised 
explosive devices (IEDs) specifically in non-aviation, mass 
transit settings. The Committee eagerly awaits the development 
of new technologies that can preemptively detect, effectively 
mitigate, and defeat IEDs.
    Over the past two years, the explosives program has 
received strong support from this Committee, as reflected in a 
56 percent growth in funding (+$43,155,000). In light of this 
large investment, S&T is encouraged to accelerate its efforts 
to achieve results in the nearer term, specifically within the 
next one or two years, and is directed to brief the Committee 
no later than January 15, 2010 on the status of new 
technologies and research within the explosives program.

                             HUMAN FACTORS

    The Committee recommends $16,887,000 for human factors, 
$1,800,000 above the request and $4,427,000 above the amount 
provided in fiscal year 2009. Within this total, $4,000,000 is 
for the biometrics program in the Personal Identification 
Thrust Area of S&T, $1,200,000 above the request; and 
$1,000,000 is for the credentialing program, $600,000 above the 
request. Advanced capabilities in the field of biometrics would 
have positive effects across all DHS components, and the 
Committee provides a corresponding investment in order to 
develop new techniques as well as improve flexibility of 
biometric apparatus and the overall capability of biometric 
detectors, screening capabilities, and credentialing.

                     INFRASTRUCTURE AND GEOPHYSICAL

    The Committee recommends $52,093,000 for infrastructure and 
geophysical, $7,351,000 above the amount requested and 
$23,723,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. 
Included within these funds is $10,000,000 for the National 
Institute for Hometown Security to support existing work in 
research, development and application of technology for 
community-based critical infrastructure protection. The 
Committee includes $5,979,000, as requested, 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.

                            NEW TECHNOLOGIES

    New technologies may significantly help the Department as 
it seeks to secure our homeland. The Committee encourages S&T 
to assess technologies and evaluate research opportunities in 
areas such as energy and sensor informatics; rural community 
resiliency to disaster; large scale high wind infrastructure 
resistance testing; 3D simulation environment technologies to 
help first responders with coordination and planning; large-
scale graph analytic technologies; energetic materials and the 
structure and behavior of explosives; and threat analysis 
techniques to better understand and predict potential terrorist 
behavior.

                   MULTI-FUNCTION PHASED ARRAY RADARS

    The Committee notes that S&T has been engaged with a 
working group on the development of a Multi-Function Phased 
Array Radar that includes the Department of Defense, the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the 
Federal Aviation Administration. The Committee encourages S&T 
to continue its involvement with this working group and to 
contribute to the development of this technology if it is 
determined to provide clear advantages to DHS components.

                         LABORATORY FACILITIES

    The Committee recommends $123,188,000 for laboratory 
facilities, $31,312,000 below the amount requested, and 
$38,752,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. 
Included in the amount provided for laboratory facilities is 
$12,000,000 for ongoing construction at Area 300 of the Pacific 
Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). This will fully fund the 
last year of DHS's obligations to PNNL pursuant to the multi-
agency memorandum of understanding.
    The Committee recommends no funding for construction of the 
National Bio and Agro defense Facility (NBAF), instead of the 
$36,312,000 requested. In January 2009, DHS published an 
Environmental Impact Statement which detailed the site 
selection process, including a risk assessment for the proposed 
NBAF site. A recent GAO review has found the design and 
execution of that study to be seriously flawed, specifically as 
it relates to the risk of researching Foot-and-Mouth Disease 
(FMD) on the U.S. mainland. Therefore, the Committee cannot 
currently support construction of the NBAF as proposed.
    The bill contains language that continues to prohibit 
obligation of funds for NBAF design and construction until a 
third party risk analysis is completed to determine whether FMD 
research can be done safely on the U.S. mainland. The Committee 
provides $5,000,000 for DHS to contract with a third party to 
conduct and complete another risk assessment before any funding 
can be obligated. The Committee expects that such third party 
should have the appropriate expertise to conduct an in-depth 
analysis of whether FMD work can be done safely on the 
mainland, should have access to validated plume modeling 
capabilities, and should have experience with or could contract 
for experts who have worked with FMD.

                           BIOLOGICAL SURETY

    With the increased use of and need to manage biological 
select agents and toxins at DHS laboratories, the Committee 
recognizes the need for a reliable and consistent method for 
maintaining biological surety. The Committee recommends that 
DHS develop a Department-wide bio-surety policy and program to 
be implemented across all DHS laboratories. S&T is directed to 
brief the Committee, no later than January 15, 2010, on the 
development and implementation of such a plan.

                     TEST AND EVALUATIONS/STANDARDS

    The Committee recommends $29,000,000 for Test and 
Evaluations/Standards, $326,000 above the budget request and 
the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. Included within this 
funding is $5,000,000 to continue work supporting the first 
responder community through objective assessments and 
validations of emergency responder equipment. This initiative 
provides valuable information to decision-makers in the 
selection, procurement, use and maintenance of equipment 
available to the first responder community including urban 
search and rescue, law enforcement, fire services, and 
hazardous material response. The Committee believes this to be 
a cost- and time-saving asset to federal, State and local 
emergency responders.

                               TRANSITION

    The Committee recommends $46,134,000 for transition, 
$1,000,000 above the budget request and $17,304,000 above the 
amount provided in fiscal year 2009. Included in the funds 
provided is $2,000,000, the same as requested, for DHS to 
continue its work with the Naval Postgraduate School regarding 
field experiments for first responder technologies. 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 
$1,000,000 to continue a pilot program to identify, research, 
develop 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 $50,400,000 for university 
programs, $4,400,000 above the amount requested and $130,000 
above the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. Within this 
funding level, a total of $39,380,000 has been provided for the 
Centers of Excellence, $4,400,000 above the budget request.
    The Committee is concerned that the office of university 
programs continues to request inadequate funding to support the 
research missions of its Centers of Excellence. The Committee 
notes that in each of the last three years, the budget either 
proposed reductions in funding for previously established 
Centers in order 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 
$3,870,000 for minority serving institutions, as requested. S&T 
should continue to explore ways to prepare minority youths for 
careers in homeland security by promoting skills and 
educational curriculum in this field.

                          UNOBLIGATED BALANCES

    The Committee is pleased that S&T has been making progress 
in reducing high unexpended obligations throughout its RDA&O 
account. The increased level of detail that S&T uses to track 
both its obligations and expenditures is encouraging, and 
should continue as a means of both efficiency and oversight to 
better track S&T funds. Furthermore, the Committee is pleased 
with the efforts that S&T has made to recover and realign funds 
that have lain dormant due to expired programs, or lack of 
expenditure. S&T is directed to continue briefing the Committee 
on the results of its quarterly validation and verification 
reviews, report the amount available to de-obligate, and 
identify how S&T plans to use these funds.

                   Domestic Nuclear Detection Office


                     Management and Administration

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2009.......................       $37,500,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.....................        39,599,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        39,599,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2009...................        +2,099,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.................             - - -
                                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 $39,599,000 for Management and 
Administration, the amount requested and $2,099,000 above the 
amount provided in fiscal year 2009. The Committee funds the 
full request for 130 FTE positions. Although DNDO currently has 
16 vacancies, it has identified candidates for those positions 
who are either awaiting clearance or in the hiring process at 
this time. The Committee encourages the Department to expedite 
the background investigations and related clearance process to 
fill these positions as soon as possible.

                 Research, Development, and Operations

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2009.......................      $323,200,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.....................       326,537,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       326,537,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2009...................        +3,337,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010.................             - - -
                                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 (GNDA) 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 $326,537,000 for Research, 
Development, and Operations, the amount requested, and 
$3,337,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. A 
comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee recommended 
level by budget activity is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget estimate      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Systems Engineering and                   $25,448,000        $25,448,000
 Architecture.....................
Systems Development...............        100,000,000        100,000,000
Transformational Research and             110,537,000        110,537,000
 Development......................
Assessments.......................         32,416,000         32,416,000
Operational Support...............         38,436,000         38,436,000
National Technical Nuclear                 19,700,000         19,700,000
 Forensics Center.................
                                   -------------------------------------
    Total.........................        326,537,000        326,537,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

               DEFINING AND RESPONDING TO FUTURE THREATS

    While DNDO has been heavily engaged in acquiring and 
deploying radiation detection technology to scan cargo for 
radioactive and nuclear materials at ports of entry, it has 
moved to fulfill more broadly its preventive radiation/nuclear 
detection (PRND) mission. DNDO plans for and designs 
architecture for nuclear detection, and supports pilot studies 
and assessments of new technologies to reduce vulnerabilities 
from aircraft, both commercial and general aviation; small 
vessels and other potential risk in the maritime environment; 
land border threats, including rail and in areas beyond ports 
of entry; and to threats in urban areas and critical locations 
in the nation's interior. DNDO is also guiding and implementing 
strategies for the GNDA, both at home and internationally. In 
addition to cross-cutting research and development work, DNDO 
has adopted an approach to align systems development work to 
four principal mission areas: the maritime domain, aviation, 
land borders, and the interior. The Committee directs DNDO to 
continue quarterly briefings to the Committees on 
Appropriations on its progress designing architecture to 
underpin technology research and applications; the status of 
such technologies, with their strengths and weaknesses; and 
timetables to develop and deploy such technologies.

                          SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT

    The Committee includes $100,000,000, as requested, for 
Systems Development. Within this, the Committee provides 
$43,000,000 for mission-directed efforts, including $18,000,000 
for maritime projects such as maritime standoff detection, on-
dock rail detection, and architecture for other challenging 
maritime environments, including inland waterways, the Great 
Lakes, and non-container modes of commercial shipping. The 
Committee believes it is important to continue the advancement 
of next generation technology that will address the 
vulnerability gaps that exist in rail cargo and transshipment 
without interruptions to productivity at the port. The 
Committee understands work towards solutions for on-dock rail 
detection will proceed in 2010 to further testing of straddle 
portal prototypes and mobile radiation detection systems. The 
Committee also urges DNDO to consider additional testing of 
spreader bar configurations for monitors, including by 
demonstrating this technology in a port environment, as it 
understands that there have been significant improvements in 
the capability of such systems since prototypes were tested in 
2008. The Committee encourages this work to proceed apace, and 
notes that the experience gained in managing testing at the 
Tacoma test site and various national laboratory sites should 
facilitate the ability of DNDO to initiate and carry out tests 
of promising systems and technologies in the cargo environment.

 CARGO ADVANCED AUTOMATED RADIOGRAPHY SYSTEM AND THE JOINT INTEGRATED 
                        NON INTRUSIVE INSPECTION

    Among several major systems development efforts, the Cargo 
Advanced Automated Radiography System and the Joint Integrated 
Non Intrusive Inspection program are scheduled to move into 
test and evaluation of prototypes, including cost/benefit 
analyses, and broad area announcements to manufacturers for the 
production of prototype systems, with the potential award of 
contracts for such work in fiscal year 2010. The Committee 
encourages DNDO to meet these test and evaluation objectives, 
and includes $29,000,000, as requested, for this effort. The 
Committee expects to receive information about the status of 
this endeavor as part of quarterly project update briefings.

                   RED TEAM EXERCISES AND ASSESSMENTS

    Within the assessments budget, $10,000,000 is provided as 
requested for red teaming and net assessments. The Committee 
expects this will support red teaming through covert and overt 
exercises, including key initiatives such as the West Coast 
Maritime pilot. The Committee directs DNDO to continue 
providing quarterly reports on exercises and assessments, 
including vulnerabilities identified and recommendations for 
addressing such vulnerabilities.

                  NATIONAL TECHNICAL NUCLEAR FORENSICS

    The Committee includes $19,700,000 as requested for the 
National Technical Nuclear Forensics Center. Collection, 
analysis, evaluation and interpretation of pre- and post-
detonation evidence are critical to enable accurate attribution 
for such an incident and to enhance deterrence against an 
event. DHS and DNDO play a critical role in this mission by 
integrating the federal government effort across domestic and 
international activities, as well as through law enforcement, 
regulatory, defense, and intelligence communities. The 
Committee supports technical improvements in the ability to 
identify and track materials, and encourages joint 
demonstrations to test forensic capabilities. In addition, the 
Committee supports the initiative to expand the development 
program by increasing the number of graduate and post-doctoral 
fellowships and enhancing recruitment from academia.
    In addition, the Committee includes $3,000,000 as requested 
under System Development to expand and demonstrate new tools 
for Nuclear Forensics pattern analysis and predictive modeling, 
including the Knowledge Management and Assessment System. The 
Committee directs DNDO to report, along with its fiscal year 
2011 budget submission, on its progress in employing this 
system.
    The Committee understands that DNDO, along with the Defense 
and Energy Departments, is sponsoring a study through the 
National Academies on sustaining and improving the nation's 
nuclear forensics capabilities that is expected to be completed 
in 2009. The results of this study should be shared with the 
Committee.

           HUMAN PORTABLE RADIATION DETECTION SYSTEMS (HPRDS)

    The Human Portable Radiation Detection Systems (HPRDS) 
systems development effort is funded, as requested, at 
$12,000,000. The Committee strongly supports the effort to 
develop handheld and backpack systems, including tripwire and 
wide area search programs. The Committee understands this 
funding will support operational testing for handheld systems, 
including production of a new technology for advanced 
operations. The Committee directs DNDO to report on this effort 
as part of quarterly update briefings provided to the 
Committees on Appropriations.

               TRANSFORMATIONAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

    The Committee is extremely interested in research to find 
alternatives to existing detection materials and systems, 
including scintillators and semiconductors that might result in 
smaller, more reliable, and more accurate radiation and nuclear 
detection devices. In addition, the Committee strongly supports 
DNDO efforts to accelerate development of alternatives to 
neutron detectors that are based on Helium-3, and directs DNDO 
to report on its progress in this area with its 2011 budget 
submission.

                           System Acquisition


                    RADIATION PORTAL MONITOR PROGRAM

    The Committee agrees with the Department's decision to 
request no new funding for the advanced spectroscopic portal 
(ASP) systems in fiscal year 2010. DNDO has informed the 
Committee to expect Secretarial certification of the ASP 
systems--originally promised for 2008--to be completed by first 
quarter of fiscal year 2010, and that prior year funding 
balances will be sufficient for 2010 acquisition and 
deployment. The Committee continues bill language prohibiting 
full scale procurement of ASP systems until the Secretary has 
certified and reported to the Committees that a significant 
increase in operational effectiveness merits such a decision. 
Separate and distinct certification must be made for primary 
and secondary deployments. Should certification not occur or be 
further delayed, the Committee expects the Department to submit 
a reprogramming proposal, to include additional procurement of 
polyvinyl toluene (PVT) monitors, if requirements remain.
    The Committee underscores that it wants the Department to 
make the best possible decision about future portal monitor 
solutions, with no rush to judgment, and so urges the 
Department to ensure certification decisions are based on 
adequate test information, to include appropriate use of 
modeling, and robust cost-benefit analysis. To the extent 
existing low rate initial production ASP systems (improved as 
necessary and feasible) can be deployed in operational 
environments to generate data to inform this decision, the 
Committee encourages DNDO to work with CBP to undertake such 
deployments.
    Should this funding be used for ASP procurement in fiscal 
year 2010, the Committee will regard it as base funding for 
purposes of comparison against any additional funding 
considered in fiscal year 2011.

                          SECURING THE CITIES

    The request includes no funding for further development or 
acquisition costs associated with the Securing the Cities (STC) 
pilot program. The Committee agrees with this decision, as the 
activity undertaken by DNDO--structured as a three-year pilot 
test of an approach to urban detection systems--has run its 
course for that purpose. The Committee does not disagree with 
advocates for continued funding of the program who point to the 
distinct improvements STC has brought to cooperative efforts to 
detect and defend against nuclear and radiological threats in 
the greater New York City area, one of the most critical and 
potentially vulnerable urban complexes in the world.
    However, the scope of the work within DNDO was for a test, 
and the testing stage is completed. By the end of fiscal year 
2009, DNDO will have deployed over 4,000 personal radiation 
detectors, 50 radioisotope identifiers with associated 
communications and computer support, 100 backpack detectors, 
and 30 mobile detection systems, along with associated 
training. The issue at this point is whether this should 
continue as an operational program. DNDO has indicated, 
properly, that it plans to take the results of the pilot 
program and incorporate them into development of the next 
version of architecture and systems that could be applied to 
these efforts, to include examining the possibility of pilot 
efforts in other urban centers. It has also made the argument, 
and the Committee agrees, that DNDO's mission is not to manage 
ongoing, operational regional PRND programs.
    The Committee believes that a decision to continue STC is 
the responsibility of the greater New York City community, to 
include whether and how to apply homeland security grants to 
the costs of continuing operations. In November 2008 the 
Department issued guidance to State, local, and tribal 
governments on the potential application of Homeland Security 
Grant Program funding for planning, equipment, training and 
exercise support. In addition, the Committee understands that 
DNDO will continue to provide technical guidance and other 
informational support on a 24/7 basis. The Committee supports 
this potential use of grant funding, as ongoing acquisition and 
operations costs for STC should properly be borne by the 
regional governments using the system. DNDO, which has been 
assigned the mission to design and test technologies, should be 
permitted to build on its STC experience in developing yet more 
advanced and effective PRND architecture and systems, including 
ones that New York may benefit from in the future.

                 TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS ACT

    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, 2010.
    The Department shall submit reprogramming requests on a 
timely basis and provide complete explanations of the 
reallocations proposed, including detailed justifications of 
the increases and offsets, and any specific impact the proposed 
changes will have on the budget request for the following 
fiscal year and future-year appropriations requirements. Each 
request submitted to the Committees on Appropriations should 
include a detailed table showing the proposed revisions at the 
account, program, project, and activity level to the funding 
and staffing (full-time equivalent position) levels for the 
current fiscal year and to the levels requested in the 
President's budget for the following fiscal year.
    The Department shall manage its programs and activities 
within the levels appropriated. The Department should only 
submit reprogramming or transfer requests in the case of an 
unforeseeable emergency or situation that could not have been 
predicted when formulating the budget request for the current 
fiscal year. When the Department submits a reprogramming or 
transfer request to the Committees on Appropriations and does 
not receive identical responses from the House and Senate, it 
is the responsibility of the Department to reconcile the House 
and Senate differences before proceeding, and if reconciliation 
is not possible, to consider the reprogramming or transfer 
request unapproved.
    The Department is not to submit a reprogramming or transfer 
of funds after June 30 except in extraordinary circumstances 
that imminently threaten human life or the protection of 
property. If a reprogramming or transfer is needed after June 
30, the notice should contain sufficient documentation as to 
why it meets this statutory exception.
    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 (WCF), except for activities and amounts allowed in the 
President's fiscal year 2010. Funds provided to the WCF are 
available until expended. The Department can only charge 
components for direct usage of the WCF and these funds may be 
used only for the purposes consistent with the contributing 
component. Any funds paid in advance or reimbursed must reflect 
the full cost of each service. The WCF shall be subject to the 
requirements of section 503 of this Act.
    Section 505. The Committee continues a provision providing 
that not to exceed 50 percent of unobligated balances remaining 
at the end of fiscal year 2010 from appropriations made for 
salaries and expenses shall remain available through fiscal 
year 2011 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 2010 until the 
enactment of an Act authorizing intelligence activities for 
fiscal year 2010.
    Section 507. The Committee continues and modifies a 
provision requiring notification of the Committees on 
Appropriations three days before grant allocations, grant 
awards, contract awards, letters of intent, or other 
transactional agreements totaling $1,000,000 or more are 
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 a grant under 
State and Local Programs. Notification shall include a 
description of the project or projects to be funded, including 
city, county and state.
    Section 508. The Committee continues a provision providing 
that no agency shall purchase, construct, or lease additional 
facilities for federal law enforcement training without advance 
approval of the Committees on Appropriations.
    Section 509. The Committee continues a provision providing 
that none of the funds may be used for any construction, 
repair, alteration, and acquisition project for which a 
prospectus, if required under chapter 33 of title 40, United 
States Code, has not been approved.
    Section 510. The bill continues a provision that 
consolidates by reference prior year statutory bill language 
into one provision. These provisions relate to reporting 
requirements of the privacy officer; contracting officer's 
technical representative training; sensitive security 
information; 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; 
use of funds in conformance with section 303 of the Energy 
Policy Act of 1992; and Executive Order 13149 relating to fleet 
and transportation efficiency.
    Section 511. The Committee continues a provision that none 
of the funds may be used in contravention of the Buy American 
Act.
    Section 512. The Committee continues a provision regarding 
competitive sourcing.
    Section 513. The Committee continues and modifies a 
provision directing TSA to research, develop, and procure new 
technologies to inspect and screen air cargo. In the interim, 
TSA shall utilize existing checked baggage explosive detection 
equipment and screeners to screen cargo on passenger aircraft 
when practicable. TSA shall work with air carriers and airports 
to ensure the screening of cargo carried on passenger aircraft, 
as required by the 9/11 Act, increases incrementally each 
quarter. TSA shall take all possible measures to ensure air 
carriers are submitting data consistent with current security 
directives, including enforcement actions for non-compliance. 
TSA is required to report air cargo inspection statistics 
detailing how incremental progress is being made to the 
Committees within 45 days of the end of each quarter of the 
fiscal year. Finally, TSA shall submit a report on how they 
plan to meet the 100 percent mandate contained in the 9/11 Act.
    Section 514. The Committee continues a provision that 
directs that any funds appropriated or transferred to TSA 
``Aviation Security'', ``Administration'', and ``Transportation 
Security Support'' in fiscal years 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007, 
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 requiring 
any funds appropriated to the Coast Guard's 110-123 foot patrol 
boat conversion that are recovered, collected, or otherwise 
received as a result of negotiation, mediation, or litigation, 
shall be available until expended for the Fast Response Cutter 
program.
    Section 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 a provision relating 
to undercover investigative operations authority of the Secret 
Service for fiscal year 2010.
    Section 518. The Committee continues and modifies a 
provision 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.
    Section 519. The bill continues a provision pertaining to 
the human resource management system.
    Section 520. The Committee continues a provision regarding 
the enforcement of section 4025(1) of Public Law 108-458.
    Section 521. The Committee continues a provision 
prohibiting the Secretary of Homeland Secretary from reducing 
operations within the Coast Guard's civil engineering program 
except as specifically authorized in statute after enactment of 
this Act.
    Section 522. The Committee continues a provision 
prohibiting the obligation of funds to the Office of the 
Secretary and Executive Management, the Office of the Under 
Secretary for Management, and the Office of the Chief Financial 
Officer for grants or contracts awarded by any means other than 
full and open competition. Certain exceptions apply, and this 
provision does not require new competitions of existing 
contracts during their current terms. The bill also requires 
the IG to review Departmental contracts awarded 
noncompetitively and report on the results to the Committees.
    Section 523. The Committee continues a provision that 
prohibits funding for any position designated as a Principal 
Federal Official (PFO) during a Stafford Act declared disaster 
or emergency.
    This prohibition shall apply to any PFO, successors to that 
position, and any similar position created by the Department. 
The Committee is concerned that the Department has not defined 
a clear role for a PFO and that the position conflicts with the 
Federal Coordinating Official's (FCO) role during 
Presidentially-declared disasters and emergencies. States and 
emergency management organizations have also expressed concern 
that use of both an FCO and PFO leads to confusion in the field 
following disasters and undermines FEMA's emergency management 
role. The Committee understands there may be instances in which 
FEMA should not be the lead agency in charge of response, such 
as pandemic outbreak or an Olympic event, and therefore limits 
the prohibition to Presidentially-declared disasters or 
emergencies that require Stafford Act assistance. The 
Department must work with all homeland security partners to 
achieve common understanding regarding incident management.
    Section 524. The Committee continues a provision 
prohibiting funding to grant an immigration benefit to any 
individual unless the results of background checks required in 
statute to be completed prior to the grant of the benefit have 
been received by DHS.
    Section 525. The Committee continues a provision 
prohibiting use of funds to destroy or put out to pasture any 
horse or other equine belonging to the Federal government 
unless adoption has been offered first to its trainer or 
handler.
    Section 526. The Committee continues a provision that 
precludes the Secretary from using funds in this Act to carry 
out unilateral reorganization of the Department.
    Section 527. The Committee continues a provision 
prohibiting funds to be used to conduct or implement the 
results of a competition under Office of Management and Budget 
Circular A-76 with respect to the Coast Guard National Vessel 
Documentation Center.
    Section 528. The Committee continues a provision that 
requires the Secretary to link all contracts that provide award 
fees to successful acquisition outcomes.
    Section 529. The Committee continues a provision 
prohibiting the obligation of funds for the Office of Secretary 
and Executive Management for any new hires at DHS if they are 
not verified through the basic pilot program (E-Verify).
    Section 530. The Committee continues a provision related to 
prescription drugs.
    Section 531. 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 532. The Committee continues and modifies a 
provision relating to other transactional authority of the DHS 
through fiscal year 2010. Language continues to require the 
Secretary to issue policy guidance detailing the appropriate 
use of other transactional authority and provide training to 
each employee that has authority to handle procurements under 
this authority. The Secretary shall report on projects for 
which this authority was used.
    Section 533. The Committee continues a provision 
prohibiting funds for planning, testing, piloting or developing 
a national identification card.
    Section 534. The Committee continues a provision that 
requires a report summarizing damage assessment information 
used to determine whether to declare a major disaster.
    Section 535. The Committee continues and modifies a 
provision relating to the liquidation of Plum Island assets and 
how the proceeds from this sale may be applied to construction 
costs of the new National Bio and Agro-defense Facility.
    Section 536. The Committee continues a provision directing 
that any official required by this Act to report or certify to 
the Committees on Appropriation may not delegate any authority 
unless expressly authorized to do so in this Act.
    Section 537. The Committee continues a provision requiring 
the Secretary of Homeland Security, in conjunction with the 
Secretary of the Treasury, to notify the Committees of any 
proposed transfers from the Department of Treasury Forfeiture 
Fund to any agency within the Department of Homeland Security. 
No funds may be obligated until the Subcommittees approve the 
proposed transfers.
    Section 538. The Committee continues a 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.
    Section 539. The Committee rescinds $2,203,000 from the 
unobligated balances of prior year appropriations made 
available for ``Analysis and Operations''.
    Section 540. The Committee includes a new provision on 
fiscal year 2008 predisaster mitigation grants.
    Section 541. The Committee continues and modifies a 
provision extending the authority of the Predisaster Mitigation 
Fund until September 30, 2010.
    Section 542. The Committee rescinds $5,963,000 from 
unobligated balances of prior year appropriations made 
available to Infrastructure Protection and Information 
Security.
    Section 543. The Committee includes a new provision 
permitting unobligated amounts of appropriations made available 
to the Coast Guard in fiscal years 2008 and 2009 for Sector 
Buffalo to be used to make improvements to the land for public 
access to Buffalo Lighthouse.
    Section 544. The Committee includes a new provision that 
permits the Secretary to extend certain travel benefits and 
reimbursements for those overseas personnel consistent with the 
Foreign Service Act of 1980.
    Section 545. The Committee continues a provision that 
extends E-Verify until September 30, 2011, ensures the 
protection of Social Security benefits and requires two GAO 
studies.
    Section 546. The Committee includes a new provision on the 
use of H and L visa fraud prevention and detection fees.
    Section 547. The Committee includes a new provision 
clarifying the Temporary Protected Status fee.
    Section 548. The Committee includes a new provision that 
extends the date of the chemical security program.
    Section 549. The Committee includes a new provision that 
permits the Department to collect fees from non-Federal 
participants in a conference, seminar, exhibition, symposium, 
or similar meeting and those fees will be credited to the costs 
of the conference, seminar, exhibition, symposium, or meeting. 
Any excess fees will be deposited into the treasury as 
miscellaneous receipts.
    Section 550. The Committee rescinds $5,572,000 from 
unobligated balances of fiscal year 2009 appropriations made 
available to Federal Emergency Management Agency ``Trucking 
Industry Security Grants''.
    Section 551. The Committee continues a provision that 
prohibits full scale procurement of ASPs until the Secretary 
certifies and reports that they are operationally more 
effective. Separate certifications are required for primary and 
secondary screening.
    Section 552. The Committee includes a new provision that 
requires an individualized threat assessment of each and every 
individual detained at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as 
of April 30, 2009; inclusion of the names of such detainees on 
the No Fly List; and a limitation on funds from being used to 
grant an immigration benefit to such detainees, except for the 
purposes of prosecution.

    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...................      16,000,000  Disaster Relief Fund............      16,000,000
FEMA, Management and Administration...........      90,080,000  Disaster Relief Fund............      90,080,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          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                                      Recissions
Analysis and Operations.......................................$2,203,000
Infrastructure Protection and Information Security............$5,963,000
State and Local Programs/Trucking Industry Security Grants....$5,572,000

                  APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW

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


                   COMPARISON WITH BUDGET RESOLUTION

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

                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  302(b) Allocation             This Bill
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Budget                    Budget
                                                               Authority     Outlays     Authority     Outlays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations
 to its subcommittees of amounts in the First Concurrent
 Department of Homeland Security appropriations Act, 2010:
    General purpose discretionary...........................       42,384       46,062       42,625    \1\46,256
    Mandatory...............................................        1,265        1,262        1,265        1,262
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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:

Projection of outlays associated with the recommendation:
    2010...................................................... \2\26,330
    2011......................................................     8,453
    2012......................................................     5,259
    2013......................................................     1,982
    2014 and future years.....................................     1,421

\2\Excludes outlays from prior year budget authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

               ASSISTANCE TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

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

Budget Authority..............................................     4,813
Outlays.......................................................    \2\482

\2\Excludes outlays form prior year budget authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Revenues and Compliance With Pay-as-You-Go Rule


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

       DIRECTED SPENDING BY CONGRESS AND BY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH

    This bill contains $2.7 billion in grant funding awarded 
solely at the discretion of the Administration, and $112.6 
million in funding requested by the President for specific 
projects. The Committee has taken unprecedented action to 
increase transparency and reduce funding for member earmarks. 
In this bill since 2006, the total funding earmarked solely at 
the request of members has been reduced by 50 percent as seen 
in the table below. When combined with earmarked funding from 
the Senate, it is expected that the total member requested 
earmark funding will be nearly 5 percent below last year, and 
will equal just over one half of one percent of the cost of the 
bill. It should also be noted that under the policies adopted 
by the Committee the use of member earmarks awarded to for-
profit entities as a functional equivalent of no bid contracts 
is ended. In cases where the Committee funds an earmark 
designated for a for-profit entity, the Committee includes 
legislative language requiring the Executive Branch to 
nonetheless issue a request for proposal that gives other 
entities an opportunity to apply and requires the agency to 
evaluate all bids received and make a decision based on merit. 
This gives the original designee an opportunity to be brought 
to the attention of the agency, but with the possibility that 
an alternative entity may be selected.

                                              [Dollars in Millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          FY 2006                      FY 2008                      FY 2009                FY 2010 Committee
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   $469                         $242                         $231                        $110
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   DISCLOSURE OF EARMARKS AND CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS

    The following table is submitted in compliance with clause 
9 of rule XXI, and lists the congressional earmarks (as defined 
in paragraph (e) 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 paragraphs 
(f) or (g) of clause 9 of rule XXI.

                                                                                 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
                                                                            [Presidentially Directed Spending Items]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                                 Requester(s)
    Agency                          Account                                               Project                                Amount      ---------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                Administration                 House
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CG              Operating Expenses                               Project Seahawk, SC                                              $1,088,000  The President
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CG              Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements      Shore and Operational Support projects, various locations        $6,000,000  The President
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA            State and Local Programs                         National Domestic Preparedness Consortium, various              $92,000,000  The President       Edwards (TX); Carter;
                                                                  locations                                                                                        Alexander
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA            State and Local Programs                         Center for Domestic Preparedness, AL                            $40,000,000  The President       Rogers (AL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S&T             Research, Development, Acquisition, and          Naval Postgraduate School, CA                                    $2,000,000  The President       Farr
                 Operations
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S&T             Research, Development, Acquisition, and          Physical Science Facility, Pacific Northwest National           $12,000,000  The President       Dicks; Hastings (WA)
                 Operations                                       Laboratory, WA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                                                 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
                                                                            [Congressionally Directed Spending Items]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Agency                                 Account                                                 Project                                Amount                   Requester(s)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS                         Office of the Under Secretary for Management       Center of Excellence in Logistics and Technology                  $1,000,000  Price (NC)
                                                                                (LOGTECH), Institute for Defense and Business, The
                                                                                University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CBP                         Salaries and Expenses                              Portable Solar Charging Rechargeable Battery System,                $800,000  Pastor (AZ)
                                                                                Global Solar, AZ
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CBP                         Facilities Management                              Hangar and Offices for U.S. Customs and Border Patrol,            $3,500,000  Reyes
                                                                                City of El Paso, TX
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TSA                         Aviation Security                                  Transportation Security Research and Training Center,             $1,250,000  Duncan
                                                                                National Safe Skies Alliance, TN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPPD                        Infrastructure Protection and Information          Philadelphia Buffer Zone Protection Video Surveillance            $1,000,000  Fattah
                             Security                                           Expansion Project, City of Philadelphia, PA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPPD                        Infrastructure Protection and Information          Multi-State Information Sharing and Analysis Center (MS-          $3,000,000  Lowey; Clarke
                             Security                                           ISAC), NY, Office of State Cyber Security & Critical
                                                                                Infrastructure Coordination
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPPD                        Infrastructure Protection and Information          The Upstate NY Cyber Initiative, Clarkson University, NY            $100,000  McHugh
                             Security
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPPD                        Infrastructure Protection and Information          Cyber Security Test Bed & Evaluation Center, RTI                  $3,500,000  Price (NC)
                             Security                                           International, NC
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPPD                        Infrastructure Protection and Information          State and Local Cyber Security Training, University of            $3,500,000  Rodriguez
                             Security                                           Texas, San Antonio, TX
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPPD                        Infrastructure Protection and Information          SEARCH, Sacramento, CA                                            $1,000,000  Rothman (NJ)
                             Security
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPPD                        Infrastructure Protection and Information          Power and Cyber Systems Protection, Analysis, and Testing         $3,000,000  Simpson
                             Security                                           Program at the Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho National
                                                                                Laboratory, ID
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPPD                        Infrastructure Protection and Information          Virginia Operational Integration Cyber Center of                    $500,000  Nye; Wittman
                             Security                                           Excellence (VOICCE), City of Hampton, VA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS                         Office of Health Affairs                           North Carolina Collaboratory for Bio-Preparedness (NC B-          $5,000,000  Price (NC); Etheridge; Miller (NC)
                                                                                Prepared), School of Information & Library Science, The
                                                                                University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NC
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Rural Domestic Preparedness Consortium, Eastern Kentucky          $3,000,000  Rogers (KY)
                                                                                University, KY
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, Winston County Commission, AL           $20,000  Aderholt
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, Lincoln Parish Sheriff                 $300,000  Alexander
                                                                                Department, LA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, City of Las Vegas, NV                  $600,000  Berkley; Titus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, Mobile County Commission, AL           $800,000  Bonner
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, City of Moreno Valley, CA              $400,000  Bono Mack
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, Benton County Emergency                $500,000  Boswell
                                                                                Management Commission, IA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, City of Green Cove Springs,            $400,000  Brown, Corrine
                                                                                FL
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, Lake County, FL                        $800,000  Brown, Corrine; Stearns
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, Dorchester County, SC                  $400,000  Brown (SC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, Sarasota County, FL                    $300,000  Buchanan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, City of Greenville, NC                 $600,000  Butterfield
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, New Orleans Emergency Medical          $750,000  Cao; Scalise
                                                                                Services, LA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, Lycoming County, PA                    $250,000  Carney
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, Mercer County Emergency                $300,000  Chandler
                                                                                Management Agency, KY
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, Jackson County Sheriff's               $500,000  Cleaver
                                                                                Office, MO
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, Williamsburg County, SC              $1,000,000  Clyburn
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, City of Brookings, OR                  $350,000  DeFazio
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, Johnson County, TX                     $750,000  Edwards (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, City of Minneapolis, MN                $750,000  Ellison
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, Howell County Emergency                $250,000  Emerson
                                                                                Preparedness, MO
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, City of Brawley, CA                    $500,000  Filner
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, City of Hopewell, VA                   $250,000  Forbes
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, Morris County, New Jersey            $1,000,000  Frelinghuysen
                                                                                Office of Emergency Management, NJ
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, City of Tavares, FL                    $500,000  Grayson
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, Tohono O'odham Nation                  $500,000  Grijalva
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, Minooka Fire Protection                $250,000  Halvorson
                                                                                District, IL
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, Township of Old Bridge, NJ             $500,000  Holt
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, City of Cupertino, CA                  $300,000  Honda
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, Calvert County Department of           $338,000  Hoyer
                                                                                Public Safety, MD
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, City of Detroit, MI                  $1,000,000  Kilpatrick (MI); Conyers
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, Scotland County, NC                    $650,000  Kissell
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, The City of Maitland, FL               $158,000  Kosmas
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, County of Union, NJ                    $500,000  Lance
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, Providence Emergency                   $500,000  Langevin
                                                                                Management Agency & Office of Homeland Security, RI
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, City of Hartford, CT                   $800,000  Larson (CT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, City of Torrington, CT                 $400,000  Larson (CT); Murphy (CT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, City of Ames, IA                       $600,000  Latham
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, Fulton County (Atlanta)                $200,000  Lewis (GA), Scott (GA)
                                                                                Emergency Management Agency, GA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, City of Brigantine, NJ                 $300,000  LoBiondo
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, Village of Elmsford, NY                $165,000  Lowey
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, Town of Harrison, NY                   $275,000  Lowey
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, City of Elk Grove, CA                  $750,000  Lungren, Dan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, City of Palm Coast, FL                 $350,000  Mica
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, Somerset County, ME                    $500,000  Michaud
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, Macomb County Emergency                $250,000  Miller (MI)
                                                                                Management and Communciations, MI
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, City of La Habra, CA                   $254,500  Miller, Gary
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, City of Scottsdale, AZ                 $500,000  Mitchell
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, Westmoreland County                    $900,000  Murtha
                                                                                Department of Public Safety, PA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, Brazoria County Emergency              $100,000  Paul
                                                                                Mangement, TX
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, Township of Irvington, NJ              $750,000  Payne
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, San Francisco Department of            $800,000  Pelosi
                                                                                Emergency Management, CA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, North Carolina Office of             $1,000,000  Price (NC)
                                                                                Emergency Management, NC
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, Butte-Silver Bow, MT                   $800,000  Rehberg
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, Middle Rio Grande Development        $1,000,000  Rodriguez
                                                                                Council, TX
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, Towm of Shorter, AL                    $500,000  Rogers (AL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, Kentucky Emergency                     $500,000  Rogers (KY)
                                                                                Management, KY
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, Monroe County, FL                      $200,000  Ros-Lehtinen
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, City of Newark, NJ                   $1,000,000  Rothman (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, Passaic County Prosecutor, NJ          $250,000  Rothman (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, City of Commerce, CA                 $1,000,000  Roybal-Allard
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, State of Maryland, MD                $1,500,000  Ruppersberger
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, City of Alamosa Fire                   $425,000  Salazar
                                                                                Department, CO
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, City of Whittier, CA                   $500,000  Sanchez, Linda
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, Washington Parish Government,          $350,000  Scalise
                                                                                LA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, City of Monterey Park, CA              $375,000  Schiff
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, Towamencin Township, PA                 $75,000  Schwartz
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, Upper Darby Township Police            $500,000  Sestak
                                                                                Department, PA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, North Hudson Regional Fire             $500,000  Sires
                                                                                and Rescue, NJ
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, City of Boerne, TX                     $250,000  Smith (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, Lea County, NM                         $600,000  Teague
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, City of Port Gibson, MS                $750,000  Thompson (MS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, City of Wichita, KS                    $500,000  Tiahrt
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, City of Lauderdale Lakes, FL           $750,000  Wasserman Schultz; Hastings (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, City of Sunrise, FL                    $750,000  Wasserman Schultz; Wexler; Hastings
                                                                                                                                                              (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        State and Local Programs                           Emergency Operations Center, Columbia County, OR                    $500,000  Wu
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        Predisaster Mitigation                             City of Hartselle, AL                                               $245,000  Aderholt
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        Predisaster Mitigation                             City of Colton, CA                                                  $200,000  Baca
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        Predisaster Mitigation                             Alabama Emergency Management Agency, AL                             $200,000  Bachus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        Predisaster Mitigation                             Arkansas Department of Emergency Management, AR                     $750,000  Berry
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        Predisaster Mitigation                             Town of Shelter Island, NY                                          $200,000  Bishop (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        Predisaster Mitigation                             Brigham City Corporation, UT                                        $250,000  Bishop (UT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        Predisaster Mitigation                             City of Camanche, IA                                                $187,500  Braley (IA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        Predisaster Mitigation                             City of Prattville, AL                                              $500,000  Bright
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        Predisaster Mitigation                             City of Venice, FL                                                  $200,000  Buchanan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        Predisaster Mitigation                             Orange County Fire Authority, CA                                    $252,000  Calvert
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        Predisaster Mitigation                             City of Kannapolis, NC                                              $425,000  Coble
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        Predisaster Mitigation                             Shelby County, Memphis, TN                                          $325,000  Cohen
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        Predisaster Mitigation                             Town of Occoquan, VA                                                 $25,000  Connolly (VA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        Predisaster Mitigation                             City of Hidalgo, TX                                                 $500,000  Cuellar
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        Predisaster Mitigation                             Harris County Flood Control District, TX                          $1,000,000  Culberson
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        Predisaster Mitigation                             City of Brooksville, KY                                              $18,500  Davis (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        Predisaster Mitigation                             City of Maryville, MO                                               $175,000  Graves
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        Predisaster Mitigation                             City of Reno, NV                                                    $500,000  Heller
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        Predisaster Mitigation                             Westport Fire Department, CT                                        $265,000  Himes
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        Predisaster Mitigation                             Town of Union and City of Binghamton, NY                            $462,000  Hinchey
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        Predisaster Mitigation                             City of Trenton, NJ                                                 $300,000  Holt; Smith (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        Predisaster Mitigation                             Lucas County Engineer, OH                                           $500,000  Kaptur
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        Predisaster Mitigation                             City of Coconut Creek, FL                                           $500,000  Klein (FL); Wexler
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        Predisaster Mitigation                             Lake County Stormwater Management Agency, OH                        $725,000  LaTourette
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        Predisaster Mitigation                             City of Emeryville, CA                                              $600,000  Lee (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        Predisaster Mitigation                             Village of La Grange Park, IL                                       $150,000  Lipinski
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        Predisaster Mitigation                             Village of Pelham, NY                                               $562,500  Lowey
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        Predisaster Mitigation                             San Miguel County, NM                                               $400,000  Lujan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        Predisaster Mitigation                             DeKalb County, IL                                                   $350,000  Manzullo
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        Predisaster Mitigation                             Town of Winthrop, MA                                                $500,000  Markey (MA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        Predisaster Mitigation                             City of Santa Clarita, CA                                           $500,000  McKeon
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        Predisaster Mitigation                             City of Miami, FL                                                   $600,000  Meek (FL); Ros-Lehtinen
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        Predisaster Mitigation                             City of Flagler Beach, FL                                           $750,000  Mica
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        Predisaster Mitigation                             Town of Hambleton and Town of Davis                                 $450,000  Mollohan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        Predisaster Mitigation                             City of Robstown, TX                                                $500,000  Ortiz
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        Predisaster Mitigation                             CHRISTUS St. Elizabeth Hospital, Beaumont, TX                       $250,000  Poe (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        Predisaster Mitigation                             North Carolina Office of Emergency Management, NC                   $165,000  Price (NC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        Predisaster Mitigation                             King County, WA                                                     $750,000  Reichert
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        Predisaster Mitigation                             Kentucky Emergency Management, KY                                   $500,000  Rogers (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        Predisaster Mitigation                             Drew County, AR                                                     $366,564  Ross
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        Predisaster Mitigation                             City of Los Angeles, CA                                           $1,000,000  Roybal-Allard
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        Predisaster Mitigation                             State of Maryland, MD                                             $1,000,000  Ruppersberger
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        Predisaster Mitigation                             City of Burbank, CA                                                 $225,000  Schiff
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        Predisaster Mitigation                             Henry County, GA                                                    $275,000  Scott (GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        Predisaster Mitigation                             City of Los Angeles, CA                                             $500,000  Sherman
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        Predisaster Mitigation                             McDowell Hospital, NC                                               $220,000  Shuler
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        Predisaster Mitigation                             City of New Braunfels, TX                                           $500,000  Smith (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        Predisaster Mitigation                             Arkansas State University-Beebe, AR                                 $452,000  Snyder
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        Predisaster Mitigation                             Lorain County, OH                                                   $200,000  Sutton
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        Predisaster Mitigation                             City of Davis, CA                                                   $275,000  Thompson (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        Predisaster Mitigation                             Mississippi Homeland Security Office, MS                            $500,000  Thompson (MS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        Predisaster Mitigation                             City of Rockville, MD                                               $650,000  Van Hollen
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        Predisaster Mitigation                             City of Hokah, MN                                                   $590,000  Walz
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        Predisaster Mitigation                             City of Miami Beach, FL                                             $750,000  Wasserman Schultz
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        Predisaster Mitigation                             Jackson Health System, FL                                           $500,000  Wasserman Schultz; Meek (FL); Diaz-
                                                                                                                                                              Balart, Mario; Ros-Lehtinen
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        Predisaster Mitigation                             Russell County Fiscal Court, KY                                     $200,000  Whitfield
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        Predisaster Mitigation                             Ohio University, OH                                                 $200,000  Wilson (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA                        Predisaster Mitigation                             Louisville-Metro Government, KY                                     $500,000  Yarmuth
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S&T                         Research, Development, Acquisition, and            Homeland Security Research, Development, and Manufacturing        $1,000,000  Israel; King (NY)
                             Operations                                         Pilot, Long Island Forum for Technology, NY
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S&T                         Research, Development, Acquisition, and            Remote Sensing for Situational Awareness and Decision               $500,000  Maffei; Lee (NY)
                             Operations                                         Support, Rochester Institute of Technology, NY
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S&T                         Research, Development, Acquisition, and            National Institute for Hometown Security, KY                     $10,000,000  Rogers (KY)
                             Operations
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S&T                         Research, Development, Acquisition, and            Maritime Domain Awareness and Maritime Security Technology        $4,000,000  Young (FL)
                             Operations                                         Pilot, SRI International, FL
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Provisions                                                             Town of Branchville, SC                                                       Clyburn
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Provisions                                                             Monterey County Water Resource Agency, CA                                     Farr
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Provisions                                                             Sector Buffalo, NY, Coast Guard                                               Higgins
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Provisions                                                             Office of Environmental Health and Safety, Umass, MA                          Olver
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Provisions                                                             Town of Lanesborough, MA                                                      Olver
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Provisions                                                             Franklin Regional Council of Governments, MA                                  Olver
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          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 italics, existing law in which no change 
is proposed is shown in roman):

               SECTION 1202 OF THE ACT OF AUGUST 2, 2002

                          (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.

  Sec. 1202. (a) The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center 
may, for a period ending not later than [December 31, 2011] 
December 31, 2012, 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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


               SECTION 532 OF THE ACT OF OCTOBER 4, 2006

                          (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.

  Sec. 532. (a) United States Secret Service Use of Proceeds 
Derived From Criminal Investigations.--During fiscal year 
[2009] 2010, 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, 2009] Until September 
30, 2010, 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, 2009,] 
        September 30, 2010, unless before that date the 
        Secretary--
                  (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


ROBERT T. STAFFORD DISASTER RELIEF AND EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE ACT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE II--DISASTER PREPAREDNESS AND MITIGATION ASSISTANCE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 203. PREDISASTER HAZARD MITIGATION.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (m) Termination of Authority.--The authority provided by this 
section terminates [September 30, 2009] September 30, 2010.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


  SECTION 143 OF THE CONSOLIDATED SECURITY, DISASTER ASSISTANCE, AND 
                  CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2009

  Sec. 143. Section 401(b) of the Illegal Immigration Reform 
and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1324a note) 
shall be applied by substituting [September 30, 2009] September 
30, 2011 for ``the 11-year period beginning on the first day 
the pilot program is in effect''.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


DIVISION J--OTHER MATTERS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE IV--VISA REFORM

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Subtitle B--H-1B Visa Reform

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 426. FRAUD PREVENTION AND DETECTION FEE.

  (a)  * * *
  (b) Establishment of Account; Use of Fees.--Section 286 of 
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1356) is amended 
by adding at the end the following:
  ``(v) H-1B and L Fraud Prevention and Detection Account.--
          ``(1) In general.--There is established in the 
        general fund of the Treasury a separate account, which 
        shall be known as the `H-1B and L Fraud Prevention and 
        Detection Account'. Notwithstanding any other provision 
        of law, there shall be deposited as offsetting receipts 
        into the account all fees collected under section 
        214(c)(12).
          ``(2) Use of fees to combat fraud.--
                  [``(A) Secretary of state.--One-third of the 
                amounts deposited into the H-1B and L Fraud 
                Prevention and Detection Account shall remain 
                available to the Secretary of State until 
                expended for programs and activities at United 
                States embassies and consulates abroad--
                          [``(i) to increase the number 
                        diplomatic security personnel assigned 
                        exclusively to the function of 
                        preventing and detecting fraud by 
                        applicants for visas described in 
                        subparagraph (H)(i) or (L) of section 
                        101(a)(15);
                          [``(ii) otherwise to prevent and 
                        detect such fraud pursuant to the terms 
                        of a memorandum of understanding or 
                        other cooperative agreement between the 
                        Secretary of State and the Secretary of 
                        Homeland Security; and
                          [``(iii) upon request by the 
                        Secretary of Homeland Security, to 
                        assist such Secretary in carrying out 
                        the fraud prevention and detection 
                        programs and activities described in 
                        subparagraph (B).
                  [``(B) Secretary of homeland security.--One-
                third of the amounts deposited into the H-1B 
                and L Fraud Prevention and Detection Account 
                shall remain available to the Secretary of 
                Homeland Security until expended for programs 
                and activities to prevent and detect fraud with 
                respect to petitions under paragraph (1) or 
                (2)(A) of section 214(c) to grant an alien 
                nonimmigrant status described in subparagraph 
                (H)(i) or (L) of section 101(a)(15).
                  [``(C) Secretary of labor.--One-third of the 
                amounts deposited into the H-1B and L Fraud 
                Prevention and Detection Account shall remain 
                available to the Secretary of Labor until 
                expended for enforcement programs and 
                activities described in section 212(n).]
                  ``(A) Secretaray of state.--One-third of the 
                amounts deposited into the Fraud Prevention and 
                Detection Account shall remain available to the 
                Secretary of State until expended for programs 
                and activities--
                          ``(i) to increase the number of 
                        consular and diplomatic security 
                        personnel assigned primarily to the 
                        function of preventing and detecting 
                        fraud by applicants for visas described 
                        in subparagraph (H)(i), (H)(ii), or (L) 
                        of section 101(a)(15);
                          ``(ii) otherwise to prevent and 
                        detect visa fraud, including fraud by 
                        applicants for visas described in 
                        subparagraph (H)(i), (H)(ii), or (L) of 
                        section 101(a)(15), as well as the 
                        purchase, lease, construction, and 
                        staffing of facilities for the 
                        processing of these classes of visa, in 
                        consultation with the Secretary of 
                        Homeland Security as appropriate; and
                          ``(iii) upon request by the Secretary 
                        of Homeland Security, to assist such 
                        Secretary in carrying out the fraud 
                        prevention and detection programs and 
                        activities described in subparagraph 
                        (B).
                  ``(B) Secretary of homeland security.--One-
                third of the amounts deposited into the Fraud 
                Prevention and Detection Account shall remain 
                available to the Secretary of Homeland Security 
                until expended for programs and activities to 
                prevent and detect immigration benefit fraud, 
                including fraud with respect to petitions filed 
                under paragraph (1) or (2)(A) of section 214(c) 
                to grant an alien nonimmigrant status described 
                in subparagraph (H) or (L) of section 
                101(a)(15).
                  ``(C) Secretary of labor.--One-third of the 
                amounts deposited into the Fraud Prevention and 
                Detection Account shall remain available to the 
                Secretary of Labor until expended for wage and 
                hour enforcement programs and activities 
                otherwise authorized to be conducted by the 
                Secretary of Labor that focus on industries 
                likely to employ nonimmigrants, including 
                enforcement programs and activities described 
                in section 212(n) and enforcement programs and 
                activities related to section 214(c)(14)(A)(i).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


  Sec. 550. (a) * * *
  (b) Interim regulations issued under this section shall apply 
until the effective date of interim or final regulations 
promulgated under other laws that establish requirements and 
standards referred to in subsection (a) and expressly supersede 
this section: Provided, That the authority provided by this 
section shall terminate [three years after the date of 
enactment of this Act] October 4, 2010.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


             SECTION 44903 OF TITLE 49, UNITED STATES CODE

Sec. 44903. Air transportation security

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (j) Short-Term Assessment and Deployment of Emerging Security 
Technologies and Procedures.--
          (1) * * *
          (2) Computer-assisted passenger prescreening 
        system.--
                  (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                  (C) Advanced airline passenger 
                prescreening.--
                          (i) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                          (v) Inclusion of detainees on no fly 
                        list.--The Assistant Secretary, in 
                        coordination with the Terrorist 
                        Screening Center, shall include on the 
                        No Fly List any individual who was a 
                        detainee held at the Naval Station, 
                        Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, unless the 
                        President certifies in writing to 
                        Congress that the detainee poses no 
                        threat to the United States, its 
                        citizens, or its allies. For purposes 
                        of this clause, the term ``detainee'' 
                        means an individual in the custody or 
                        under the physical control of the 
                        United States as a result of armed 
                        conflict.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


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

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

             TITLE I--DEPARTMENT MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS

            Office of the Secretary and Executive Management

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

              Office of the Under Secretary for Management

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

                 Office of the Chief Financial Officer

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

                Office of the Chief Information Officer

    The Committee includes language providing funds for the 
Chief Information Officer (CIO) and for the development and 
acquisition of information technology equipment, software, 
services, and related activities.

                        Analysis and Operations

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

      Office of 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

                     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; compensation of informants.

                        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 border security fencing, infrastructure, and 
technology and includes language requiring the submission of an 
expenditure plan prior to the obligation of funds. In addition, 
language is included requiring Committee notification on the 
award of task orders requiring an obligation of greater than 
$25,000,000 or a task order that would cause cumulative 
obligations of funds to exceed 50 percent of the total amount 
appropriated. Finally, the Committee prohibits obligating any 
funds unless the Department complies with consultation 
requirements in the law.

 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 U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection unless certain conditions are met.

                         FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

    The Committee includes language making funds available 
until expended for the planning, construction, renovating, 
equipping, and maintaining of buildings and facilities and 
permits payment for rental space in conjunction with 
preclearance operations.

                  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; and reimbursement of 
other Federal agencies for certain costs. The Committee 
includes language regarding overtime compensation and forced 
child labor laws. The Committee also includes language that 
requires the Secretary to identify illegal aliens held in 
custody who are eligible for removal and initiate their removal 
when such individuals are released from custody. The Committee 
prohibits the delegation of law enforcement authority for the 
287(g) program if terms of the agreement have been violated. 
The Committee prohibits funds to continue any contract for 
detention services if two recent evaluations are less than 
adequate. Finally, the Committee prohibits funds to be 
obligated to co-locate field offices until receipt of a nation-
wide Alternatives to Detention plan.

                       FEDERAL PROTECTIVE SERVICE

    The Committee includes language making funds available 
until expended for the operations of the Federal Protective 
Service. The Committee prohibits funds provided in this Act, 
previous appropriations Act or any revenue or collections of 
security fees credited to the Federal Protective Service to be 
used to reduce the number of in-service police officers unless 
certain conditions are met. The Committee prohibits the 
restructuring of the Federal Protective Service.

                        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 any request to 
privatize facilities and to detain aliens unlawfully in the 
United States until receipt of a plan for carrying out such 
privatization.

                 Transportation Security Administration


                           AVIATION SECURITY

    The Committee includes language making funds available 
until expended for civil aviation security; and establishing 
conditions under which security fees are collected and 
credited. The Committee also includes language providing funds 
for reception and representation expenses. Finally, the bill 
includes language clarifying a variety of people are not exempt 
from screening.

                    SURFACE TRANSPORTATION SECURITY

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

           TRANSPORTATION THREAT ASSESSMENT AND CREDENTIALING

    The Committee includes language 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, small boats, repairs and service life-
replacements, minor shore construction projects, 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 
also includes language on reception and representation 
expenses, and on reporting sexual assaults.

                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 the 
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 
includes a provision requiring a capital investment plan for 
future appropriations years with certain conditions. The 
Committee includes language requiring that the Commandant of 
the Coast Guard submit revisions to the acquisition schedule of 
the Deepwater program with the fiscal year 2011 budget request, 
as well as other Deepwater related reporting requirements.

                         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 uniforms. The Committee provides for two 
year availability of funds for protective travel. The Committee 
authorizes the obligation of funds in anticipation of 
reimbursements for training, under certain conditions. The 
Committee also restricts the obligation of funds to compensate 
employees for overtime in an annual amount in excess of $35,000 
except under certain conditions. Finally the Committee 
prohibits funds to be available for the protection of the head 
of a Federal agency other than the Secretary of Homeland 
Security unless the Secret Service has entered into a 
reimbursable agreement.

     ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENTS, AND RELATED EXPENSES

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

                  TITLE III--PREPAREDNESS AND RECOVERY


              National Protection and Programs Directorate


                     MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

    The Committee includes language providing funds for the 
Office of the Under Secretary for National Protection and 
Programs 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 
until September 30, 2010. The Committee limits the amount of 
funds available for obligation for cyber security activities 
until an expenditure plan is provided.

    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.

                        OFFICE OF HEALTH AFFAIRS

    The Committee includes language making funds available for 
biosurveillance, BioWatch, medical readiness planning, and 
chemical detection. 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, a provision limiting administrative costs for Urban 
Search and Rescue response system, and funding for the Office 
of National Capital Region Coordination.

                        STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS

    The Committee includes language that provides funds for 
grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, other activities, 
including grants to State and local governments for terrorism 
prevention. The Committee also includes a provision identifying 
the amount of funds available for homeland security grants, 
including State Homeland Security Grants and Operation 
Stonegarden; urban area security initiative grants, nonprofit 
security grants; rail and transit security grants; port 
security grants; intercity bus security grants; buffer zone 
protection grants; Metropolitan Medical Response System; 
Citizen Corp; interoperable communication grants, REAL ID; 
emergency operations centers; 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 and the availability of funds.

                     FIREFIGHTER ASSISTANCE GRANTS

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

                EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE GRANTS

    The Committee includes language providing that 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 and requires a variety of reporting 
requirements. The Committee includes language permitting the 
transfer of these funds to FEMA management and administration 
and by the IG.

            DISASTER ASSISTANCE DIRECT LOAN PROGRAM ACCOUNT

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

                      FLOOD 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 
floodplain management and flood mapping available until 
September 30, 2011; and language authorizing the transfer of 
funds to the National Flood Mitigation Fund. The Committee 
includes provisions limiting operating expenses; for interest 
on Treasury borrowings; for agents' commissions and taxes; for 
fees collected and available for floodplain management; and for 
flood mitigation activities associated with sections 1361A and 
1323 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968. The Committee 
includes language permitting additional fees collected be 
credited as an offsetting collection and available for 
floodplain management. The Committee includes language 
providing that not to exceed four percent of the total 
appropriation is available for administrative costs.

                  NATIONAL PREDISASTER MITIGATION FUND

    The Committee includes language authorizing grant awards to 
be available until expended. The Committee includes a provision 
limiting total administrative costs to 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, E-Verify, REAL ID hub 
development, and for replacement 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. 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; authorizing the 
hiring of retired Federal employees until 2011; and on the 
scheduling of basic or advanced law enforcement training.

      ACQUISITION, 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 and prohibits funds for construction of the 
National Bio and Agro-defense Facility until a risk assessment 
of foot-and-mouth disease work being studied on the mainland is 
prepared.

                   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.

                      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, 2010.
    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 2010. Funds provided to the WCF are 
available until expended. The Department can only charge 
components for direct usage of the WCF and these funds may be 
used only for the purposes consistent with the contributing 
component. Any funds paid in advance or reimbursed must reflect 
the full cost of each service. The WCF shall be subject to the 
requirements of section 503 of this Act.
    Section 505. The Committee continues a provision providing 
that not to exceed 50 percent of unobligated balances remaining 
at the end of fiscal year 2010 from appropriations made for 
salaries and expenses shall remain available through fiscal 
year 2011 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 2010 until the 
enactment of an Act authorizing intelligence activities for 
fiscal year 2010.
    Section 507. The Committee continues and modifies a 
provision requiring notification of the Committees on 
Appropriations three days before grant allocations, grant 
awards, contract awards, letters of intent, or other 
transactional agreements totaling $1,000,000 or more are 
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 a grant under State 
and Local Programs. Notification shall include a description of 
the project or projects to be funded, including city, county 
and state.
    Section 508. The Committee continues a provision providing 
that no agency shall purchase, construct, or lease additional 
facilities for federal law enforcement training without advance 
approval of the Committees on Appropriations.
    Section 509. The Committee continues a provision providing 
that none of the funds may be used for any construction, 
repair, alteration, and acquisition project for which a 
prospectus, if required under chapter 33 of title 40, United 
States Code, has not been approved.
    Section 510. The bill continues a provision that 
consolidates by reference prior year statutory bill language 
into one provision. These provisions relate to reporting 
requirements of the privacy officer; contracting officer's 
technical representative training; sensitive security 
information; 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; 
use of funds in conformance with section 303 of the Energy 
Policy Act of 1992; and Executive Order 13149 relating to fleet 
and transportation efficiency.
    Section 511. The Committee continues a provision that none 
of the funds may be used in contravention of the Buy American 
Act.
    Section 512. The Committee continues a provision regarding 
competitive sourcing.
    Section 513. The Committee continues and modifies a 
provision directing TSA to research, develop, and procure new 
technologies to inspect and screen air cargo. The Committee 
also requires the quarterly submission of air cargo inspection 
statistics and a report on how TSA will meet the 100 percent 
mandate contained in the 9/11 Act.
    Section 514. The Committee continues a provision that 
directs that any funds appropriated or transferred to TSA 
``Aviation Security'', ``Administration'', and ``Transportation 
Security Support'' in fiscal years 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007, 
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 requiring 
any funds appropriated to the Coast Guard's 110-123 foot patrol 
boat conversion that are recovered, collected, or otherwise 
received as a result of negotiation, mediation, or litigation, 
shall be available until expended for the Fast Response Cutter 
program.
    Section 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 a provision relating 
to undercover investigative operations authority of the Secret 
Service for fiscal year 2010.
    Section 518. The Committee continues and modifies a 
provision classifying the functions of the instructor staff at 
the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center as inherently 
governmental for purposes of the Federal Activities Inventory 
Reform Act.
    Section 519. The bill continues a provision pertaining to 
the human resource management system.
    Section 520. The Committee continues a provision regarding 
the enforcement of section 4025(1) of Public Law 108-458.
    Section 521. The Committee continues a provision 
prohibiting the Secretary of Homeland Security from reducing 
operations within the Coast Guard's civil engineering program 
except as specifically authorized in statute after enactment of 
this Act.
    Section 522. The Committee continues a provision 
prohibiting the obligation of funds to the Office of the 
Secretary and Executive Management, the Office of the Under 
Secretary for Management, and the Office of the Chief Financial 
Officer for grants or contracts awarded by any means other than 
full and open competition. Certain exceptions apply. The bill 
also requires the IG to review Departmental contracts awarded 
noncompetitively and report on the results to the Committees.
    Section 523. The Committee continues a provision that 
prohibits funding for any position designated as a Principal 
Federal Official (PFO) during a Stafford Act declared disaster 
or emergency.
    Section 524. The Committee continues a provision 
prohibiting funding to grant an immigration benefit to any 
individual unless the results of background checks required in 
statute to be completed prior to the grant of the benefit have 
been received by DHS.
    Section 525. The Committee continues a provision 
prohibiting use of funds to destroy or put out to pasture any 
horse or other equine belonging to the Federal government 
unless adoption has been offered first.
    Section 526. The Committee continues a provision that 
precludes DHS from using funds in this Act to carry out 
reorganization authority.
    Section 527. The Committee continues a provision 
prohibiting funds to be used to conduct or implement the 
results of a competition under Office of Management and Budget 
Circular A-76 with respect to the Coast Guard National Vessel 
Documentation Center.
    Section 528. The Committee continues a provision that 
requires the Secretary to link all contracts that provide award 
fees to successful acquisition outcomes.
    Section 529. The Committee continues a provision 
prohibiting the obligation of funds for the Office of Secretary 
and Executive Management for any new hires at DHS if they are 
not verified through the basic pilot program (E-Verify).
    Section 530. The Committee continues a provision related to 
prescription drugs.
    Section 531. 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 532. The Committee continues and modifies a 
provision relating to other transactional authority of the DHS 
through fiscal year 2010. Language continues to require the 
Secretary to issue policy guidance detailing the appropriate 
use of other transactional authority and provide training to 
each employee that has authority to handle procurements under 
this authority. The Secretary shall report on projects for 
which this authority was used.
    Section 533. The Committee continues a provision 
prohibiting funds for planning, testing, piloting or developing 
a national identification card.
    Section 534. The Committee continues a provision that 
requires a report summarizing damage assessment information 
used to determine whether to declare a major disaster.
    Section 535. The Committee continues and modifies a 
provision relating to the liquidation of Plum Island assets and 
how the proceeds from this sale may be applied to construction 
costs of the new National Bio and Agro-defense Facility.
    Section 536. The Committee continues a provision directing 
that any official required by this Act to report or certify to 
the Committees on Appropriation may not delegate any authority 
unless expressly authorized to do so in this Act.
    Section 537. The Committee continues a provision requiring 
the Secretary of Homeland Security, in conjunction with the 
Secretary of the Treasury, to notify the Committees of any 
proposed transfers from the Department of Treasury Forfeiture 
Fund to any agency within the Department of Homeland Security. 
No funds may be obligated until the Subcommittees approve the 
proposed transfers.
    Section 538. The Committee continues a 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.
    Section 539. The Committee rescinds $2,203,000 from the 
unobligated balances of prior year appropriations made 
available for ``Analysis and Operations''.
    Section 540. The Committee includes a new provision on 
fiscal year 2008 predisaster mitigation grants.
    Section 541. The Committee continues and modifies a 
provision extending the authority of the Predisaster Mitigation 
Fund until September 30, 2010.
    Section 542. The Committee rescinds $5,963,000 from 
unobligated balances of prior year appropriations made 
available to Infrastructure Protection and Information 
Security.
    Section 543. The Committee includes a new provision 
permitting unobligated amounts of appropriations made available 
to the Coast Guard in fiscal years 2008 and 2009 for Sector 
Buffalo to be used to make improvements to the land for public 
access to Buffalo Lighthouse.
    Section 544. The Committee includes a new provision that 
permits the Secretary to extend certain travel benefits and 
reimbursements for those overseas personnel consistent with the 
Foreign Service Act of 1980.
    Section 545. The Committee continues a provision that 
extends E-Verify until September 30, 2011, ensures the 
protection of Social Security benefits and requires two GAO 
studies.
    Section 546. The Committee includes a new provision on the 
use of H and L visa fraud prevention and detection fees.
    Section 547. The Committee includes a new provision 
clarifying the Temporary Protected Status fee.
    Section 548. The Committee includes a new provision that 
extends the date of the chemical security program.
    Section 549. The Committee includes a new provision that 
permits the Department to collect fees from non-Federal 
participants in a conference, seminar, exhibition, symposium, 
or similar meeting and those fees will be credited to the costs 
of the conference, seminar, exhibition, symposium, or meeting. 
Any excess fees will be deposited into the treasury as 
miscellaneous receipts.
    Section 550. The Committee rescinds $5,572,000 from 
unobligated balances of fiscal year 2009 appropriations made 
available to Federal Emergency Management Agency ``Trucking 
Industry Security Grants''.
    Section 551. The Committee continues a provision on 
operational effectiveness and certification requirements for 
ASP monitors.
    Section 552. The Committee includes a new provision that 
requires an individualized threat assessment of each and every 
individual detained at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as 
of April 30, 2009; inclusion of the names of such detainees on 
the No Fly List; and a limitation on funds from being used to 
grant an immigration benefit to such detainees, except for the 
purposes of prosecution.

                    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 OF JERRY LEWIS AND HAROLD ROGERS

    On June 12, 2009, the full committee unanimously approved 
the fiscal year 2010 Homeland Security Appropriations bill. 
This bill continues the Subcommittee's bipartisan tradition, 
and we sincerely appreciate the majority's willingness to 
listen to our concerns and accommodate them as much as 
possible. We are especially appreciative of the majority's 
commitment to move this bill through the regular appropriations 
process, including floor consideration under an open rule. 
However, we note with disappointment the apparent decision to 
stifle debate through the requirement to have all potential 
amendments pre-printed in the Congressional Record prior to the 
bill being considered on the floor of the House of 
Representatives. Such arbitrary and unnecessary rules inhibit a 
fair and open airing of views on this important bill and are 
contrary to the best traditions of the Committee on 
Appropriations.

                           BUDGET PRINCIPLES

    We remain concerned about the overall funding level of the 
President's fiscal year 2010 budget request for the Department 
of Homeland Security (DHS) and note a 302(b) allocation for 
this bill that is nearly half a billion dollars lower than the 
request. We not the majority's insistence to compare a 302(b) 
allocation that includes $241.5 million in overseas contingency 
operations funding for the Coast Guard to a discretionary 
request that does not include such funding. This flawed 
comparison gives the misleading impression that the majority's 
fiscal year 2010 allocation for this homeland security bill is 
a smaller reduction below the President's request. On the 
contrary and as previously noted, a direct and accurate 
comparison shows a larger, near half billion dollar reduction 
below the budget request.
    The President's request for and the majority's subsequent 
endorsement of marginal funding for security relative to 
enormous and poorly justified increases on domestic spending, 
constitutes a prioritization of government functions and a 
fiscal outlook that we do not share. At a time of such economic 
turmoil, we maintain that a much more fiscally disciplined 
fiscal year 2010 budget is a far more prudent and responsible 
course of action. We are supportive of budget priorities that 
invoke fiscal discipline, reduce overall spending, provide 
greater support for defense and security-related activities, 
and limit other government functions to sufficient, 
inflationary gains.

                         CONCERNS WITH THE BILL

    As for the substance of the fiscal year 2010 Homeland 
Security Appropriations bill, we are supportive of this 
thoughtful and reasonable piece of legislation. The bill 
provides funding for critical security functions ranging from 
overseas contingency operations and interdiction efforts, to 
fortification of our borders and immigration enforcement to 
improvement of our Nation's preparedness. However, we do have a 
few specific concerns for homeland security in fiscal year 2010 
we wish to note, including: relatively large funding increases 
for administrative and policy functions compared to marginal 
gains for operations; a lack of clear planning and 
consideration of the security implications of the closure of 
the detention facility at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; 
an overstatement of the prioritization of immigration 
enforcement resources upon criminal aliens; and an incomplete 
commitment to the vital E-Verify system. All of these concerns 
were addressed during the Committee's consideration of the bill 
through either an amendment or the statements of several 
Republication Members.

                       BUREAUCRACY VS. OPERATIONS

    We note the President's misguided priorities contained in 
his fiscal year 2010 budget proposal that requested a more than 
30 percent increase for administrative and policy functions at 
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), but a more than 11 
percent decrease in CBP's procurement of operational assets 
and, for the first time we can recall, a decrease in active 
duty Coast Guard personnel. These flawed priorities are 
contradicted by the Administration's strategy on Southwest 
Border enforcement and combating the Mexican drug cartels, 
released on June 5, 2009 (approximately one month after the 
fiscal year 2010 budget was submitted to Congress). This 
strategy professes the need to enhance our intelligence and 
drug interdiction capabilities; and yet, the President's budget 
proposal only marginally increases DHS's intelligence office 
and Border Patrol and actually proposes resource reductions to 
the very agencies responsible for drug interdiction along our 
borders and in the source and transit zones, as noted. Given 
the current threat environment and the pervasive aggression of 
the Mexican drug cartels, we maintain that now is perhaps the 
absolute worst time to shortchange operations and to espouse 
such blatant hypocrisy in the support of such critical security 
functions. While the majority has endeavored to significantly 
improve an extremely imbalanced and poorly prioritized request 
from the President through this spending bill, we continue to 
believe much more can be done to support our front line Coast 
Guardsmen, Border Patrol agents, CBP Officers, and ICE and 
Secret Service investigators.
    The fiscal year 2010 Homeland Security Appropriations bill 
endeavors to make some notable efforts to correct the 
President's imbalanced request by curtailing increases in 
bureaucratic functions and somewhat enhancing operations. 
Therefore, we applaud the majority's increases to ICE's 
Southwest Border enforcement operations, CBP's Air and Marine 
Operations Center, and to the Coast Guard's airborne use of 
force and law enforcement detachment operations. However, we 
note that the bill still supports a 15.8 percent increase for 
DHS's administrative offices and that increase is on top of 
$205 million provided for such functions in the American 
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). We maintain that under 
the prevailing economic conditions, and with known, yet 
unfunded operational priorities, it is certainly more than 
reasonable to ask the headquarters and policy functions of DHS 
to make due with a funding increase for fiscal year 2010 that 
is much closer to inflation than a disproportional 15.8 percent 
increase.
    CBP and the Coast Guard both have known personnel and 
acquisition needs unfunded by both the budget request and by 
this bill. Whether it is additional aerial surveillance assets 
or more operational personnel, these resources are absolutely 
vital to the safety and security of our Nation. Insufficient 
funding for priorities such as the operational test and 
evaluation of unmanned aerial systems for cutter applications, 
additional land-based unmanned aerial systems for maritime and 
coastal applications, and additional manned surveillance and 
transport assets along our border, increase the risk of 
contraband smuggling and illicit penetration of our territorial 
waters and borders. We maintain that more can and should be 
done and we will continue to voice our support for the further 
enhancement of operations.

   SECURITY IMPLICATIONS OF CLOSING THE DETENTION FACILITY AT NAVAL 
                      STATION GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA

    As the President moves forward with his pledge to close the 
detention facility at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the 
Congress has voiced a near unanimous concern over the lack of 
planning for this effort. Given the complexities surrounding 
this facility and the diplomatic, legal, and security 
implications of its closure, we strongly believe it is only 
prudent for the Administration to present its plan to Congress 
and the American people before undertaking piecemeal efforts to 
satisfy a campaign promise. Furthermore, we are troubled by the 
Administration's actions to release and transfer detainees 
without regard for the concerns currently being expressed by 
Congress through the pending fiscal year 2009 supplemental 
appropriations bill and the recently filed fiscal year 2010 
Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations 
bill. Such blatant disregard for Congress by the Administration 
is unacceptable. Therefore, we are sincerely appreciative of 
the bipartisan and thoughtful manner in which the Committee 
approached the debate and adoption of our amendment pertaining 
to disposition of detainees at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, 
Cuba. This amendment requires the Secretary of Homeland 
Security to conduct a thorough threat assessment of each and 
every individual detained at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, 
Cuba, as of April 30, 2009, as part of the plan for disposition 
of the detention facility. The amendment also requires the 
names of all detainees be placed on the No Fly list and 
prevents direct appropriations from being used to grant an 
immigration benefit. We perfected this amendment to allay the 
majority's concerns and clarify that the limitation on direct 
appropriations from being used to grant an immigration benefit 
would not inhibit transfers for the purposes of prosecution.

    PRIORITIZING CRIMINAL ALIENS AT THE EXPENSE OF HOMELAND SECURITY

    Over the past few years, the majority has undertaken an 
effort to concentrate ICE's resources upon the identification 
and removal of illegal aliens who are convicted of a crime and 
judged deportable. We fully support this laudable effort, but 
maintain that an emphasis upon criminal aliens must not come at 
the expense of other, critical immigration enforcement 
functions such as fugitive operations, worksite enforcement, 
terrorist travel, and transnational criminal investigations. We 
vigorously oppose efforts to ``prioritize'' immigration 
enforcement resources as a means to reform the immigration 
system. We also remind those who wish to prioritize immigration 
enforcement resources that none of the 9/11 hijackers could 
have been classified as ``criminal aliens'' and that all of 
those terrorists exploited our legal immigration system. We 
believe immigration enforcement plays a critical role within 
our homeland security and should not be inhibited or confined 
to one subset of illegal aliens. Therefore, we respectfully 
disagree with the majority's position that, ``. . . Congress 
has emphasized that ICE must have no higher immigration 
enforcement priority . . .'' in reference to criminal aliens 
and as stated on page 49 of the report accompanying the bill.

               SUPPORTING E-VERIFY AND LAWFUL EMPLOYMENT

    The electronic employment eligibility verification system 
known as E-Verify is the best and only tool available for 
employers to determine whether potential employees are lawful 
applicants. We believe that such a system is absolutely 
essential to the American economy as unemployment remains 
unacceptably high. We appreciate the bill's inclusion of $112 
million, as requested, for E-Verify, but are disappointed by 
the bill's truncation of the requested three-year extension of 
E-Verify's underlying authorization to only two years. We are 
further dismayed that this reduction is based upon a projected 
timeline for the ``completion of comprehensive immigration 
reform''. We do not see this as a realistic timeline or a 
justifiable excuse for reducing the President's request for a 
three-year extension. therefore, we were fully supportive of a 
thoughtful amendment offered during the Committee's 
consideration of the bill to include a permanent 
reauthorization of this vital system. Unfortunately, this 
amendment was defeated on a party-line vote. In addition, we 
are supportive of efforts to mandate the Federal Government to 
require its contractors to participate in E-Verify and fail to 
understand why the current Administration has postponed 
implementation of such a requirement three times in the last 
five months. Another thoughtful amendment was offered during 
the Committee's consideration of the bill that would have 
required all DHS contractors to participate in E-Verify. 
Unfortunately, this amendment was also defeated on a party-line 
vote. Given the sensitivity of the security-related work of 
DHS, it is only prudent that its contractors be required to 
verify the eligibility of their employees.

                          OTHER FUNDING ISSUES

    We note the bill continues to fund State and local first 
responder grants at a total of nearly $4 billion, or almost ten 
percent of the bill's discretionary funding. While we are 
absolutely committed to assisting our State and local homeland 
security partners and improving our National preparedness, we 
remain concerned at the slow expenditure of these grants. 
Including the funds provided in the bill, more than $30 billion 
have been provided via first responder grants since 9/11 and 
more than a third of that total is unspent. Unfortunately, 
there is no way to measure the effectiveness of these funds in 
terms of how they have either improved our preparedness or 
reduced our known vulnerabilities. While we appreciate the 
nascent efforts of FEMA to assess the impacts of grant monies, 
we believe more can and should be done in that regard. The 
American people deserve a reasonable, measurable security 
return on an investment of this magnitude.
    We note that the Administration requested no funding for 
procuring and deploying additional radiation detection 
equipment and that the bill supports this request. We 
understand that the decision to provide no funding for the 
procurement of the still unproven Advanced Spectroscopic Portal 
monitors was made on the basis of compelling budgetary reasons 
as opposed to a policy determination. We believe that it is 
crucial to note, however, that the decision to provide 
absolutely no funding for additional detection equipment that 
is presently in use (using the current generation of proven 
technology) can potentially result in a security liability at a 
time of persistent threat. We maintain that more can and 
perhaps should be done in this regard.
    While we have been very direct in voicing our concerns, 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 DHS on track to 
produce results, as well as continuing the Committee's 
tradition of strict accountability. We look forward to working 
with the majority as this bill continues to move through the 
fiscal year 2010 appropriations cycle.
                                   Jerry Lewis.
                                   Harold Rogers.

                                  
