42–667 

110TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 110–862 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2009 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2008.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina, from the Committee on 

Appropriations, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 6947] 

The Committee on Appropriations submits the following report in 

explanation of the accompanying bill making appropriations for the 

Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009. 

INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT 

Page number 

Bill Report 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS 

Office of the Secretary and Executive Management ........................ 2 11 

Office of the Under Secretary for Management ............................... 2 16 

Office of the Chief Financial Officer .................................................. 3 20 

Office of the Chief Information Officer .............................................. 3 23 

Analysis and Operations .................................................................... 4 24 

Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding .......... 5 26 

Office of Inspector General ................................................................. 5 27 

TITLE II—SECURITY, ENFORCEMENT, AND INVESTIGATIONS 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection ................................................. 5 29 

Salaries and Expenses ................................................................. 5 29 

Automation Modernization ......................................................... 7 39 

Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology ....... 8 41 

Air and Marine Interdiction, Operations, Maintenance, and 

Procurement ............................................................................. 14 48 

Construction ................................................................................. 15 50 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ................................... 15 50 

Salaries and Expenses ................................................................. 15 50 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
2 

Page number 

Bill Report 

Federal Protective Service .......................................................... 18 59 

Automation Modernization ......................................................... 19 59 

Construction ................................................................................. 19 60 

Transportation Security Administration ........................................... 20 61 

Aviation Security ......................................................................... 20 62 

Surface Transportation Security ................................................ 22 69 

Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing ............ 22 70 

Transportation Security Support ................................................ 22 73 

Federal Air Marshals .................................................................. 23 75 

Coast Guard ......................................................................................... 23 76 

Operating Expenses ..................................................................... 23 76 

Environmental Compliance and Restoration ............................. 25 83 

Reserve Training .......................................................................... 25 83 

Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements .......................... 25 84 

Alteration of Bridges ................................................................... 31 89 

Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation .......................... 31 90 

Retired Pay ................................................................................... 32 92 

United States Secret Service .............................................................. 32 92 

Salaries and Expenses ................................................................. 32 92 

Acquisition, Construction, Improvements, and Related Expenses ........................................................................................ 35 95 

TITLE III—PROTECTION, PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE AND DIRECTORATE RECOVERY 

National Protection and Programs .................................................... 35 95 

Management and Administration ............................................... 35 95 

Infrastructure Protection and Information Security ................. 35 96 

United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology ........................................................................................ 36 101 

Office of Health Affairs ....................................................................... 40 106 

Federal Emergency Management Agency ......................................... 41 109 

Management and Administration ............................................... 41 109 

State and Local Programs ........................................................... 42 114 

Firefighter Assistance Grants ..................................................... 47 121 

Emergency Management Performance Grants .......................... 47 122 

Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program ....................... 48 122 

United States Fire Administration ............................................. 49 123 

Disaster Relief .............................................................................. 49 123 

Disaster Assistance Direct Loan Program Account .................. 51 125 

Flood Map Modernization Fund ................................................. 51 126 

National Flood Insurance Fund .................................................. 51 127 

National Predisaster Mitigation Fund ....................................... 53 128 

Emergency Food and Shelter ...................................................... 54 130 

Cerro Grande Fire Claims ........................................................... 54 130 

TITLE IV—RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, TRAINING, AND 

SERVICES 

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ...................... 54 130 

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center ...................................... 55 134 

Salaries and Expenses ................................................................. 55 134 

Acquisitions, Construction, Improvements, and Related Expenses ........................................................................................ 57 134 

Science and Technology ...................................................................... 57 135 

Management and Administration ............................................... 57 135 

Research, Development, Acquisition, and Operations .............. 57 135 

Domestic Nuclear Detection Office .................................................... 58 141 

Management and Administration ............................................... 58 141 

Research, Development, and Operations ................................... 59 141 

Systems Acquisition ..................................................................... 59 144 

TITLE V—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

This Act ................................................................................................ 60 145 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
3 

Page number 

Bill Report 

Compliance with House Rules ........................................................... ........ 165 

Tables ................................................................................................... ........ 185 

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

The accompanying bill contains recommendations for new budget 

(obligational) authority for fiscal year 2009 for the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS). The following table summarizes these 

recommendations and reflects comparisons with the budget, as 

amended, and with amounts appropriated to date for fiscal year 

2008: 

Bureau/agency 

New budget 

(obligational) authority fiscal year 

2008 enacted to date 1

Budget estimates of new (obligational) authority, fiscal year 2009 2

Recommended in the bill 2

Bill compared with..... 

New budget authority fiscal year 2008 

Budget estimate, 

fiscal year 2009 

Departmental Management 

and Operations ................... $982,802 $1,185,492 $1,050,489 $67,687 ¥$135,003 

Security, Enforcement and Investigations ........................ 27,010,451 27,549,634 28,201,428 1,190,977 651,794 

Protection, Preparedness, Response and Recovery .......... 8,100,046 7,020,139 8,828,985 728,939 1,808,846 

Research, Development, Training, and Services ................ 1,684,724 1,861,303 1,819,098 134,374 ¥42,205 

Rescission of Unobligated Balances .................................. ¥106,100 .......................... .......................... 106,100 ..........................

Grand total ..................... 37,671,923 37,616,568 39,900,000 2,228,077 2,283,432 

Note.—Dollars in thousands. 

1 Includes $110,000,000 transferred from DoD; excludes $2,900,000,000 emergency supplemental disaster relief appropriations. 

2 Excludes $2,175,000,000 Project BioShield advance appropriations available in fiscal year 2009. 

SUMMARY OF MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE BILL

The Committee recommends $39,900,000,000 in discretionary resources (excluding BioShield advance appropriation) for the Department of Homeland Security, $2,283,432,000 above the amount 

requested and $2,228,077,000 above fiscal year 2008 enacted levels 

(including emergency border security appropriations). 

The Committee report refers to the following laws and organizations as follows: Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, Public Law 110–53, is referenced as the 9/11 

Act; Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006, Public 

Law 109–347, is referenced as the SAFE Port Act; the Intelligence 

Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Public Law 108– 

458, is referenced as the Intelligence Reform Act; the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2008, Public Law 110–161, is referenced as the 

2008 Appropriations Act; the Government Accountability Office is 

referenced as GAO; and the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security is referenced as OIG. 

PRIORITIES IN THE BILL

The formation of the Department of Homeland Security after the 

catastrophic events of September 11, 2001, represents the most ambitious governmental reorganization since the formation of the Department of Defense after World War II. The House and Senate 

Appropriations Committees concurrently reorganized themselves to 

create subcommittees with exclusive funding jurisdiction over the 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
4 

new Department. This report accompanies the sixth appropriations 

bill produced by the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security. 

The bill addresses the multiple challenges faced by this Department—challenges of coordination and management, to be sure, but 

also the substantive challenges of policy-making and priority setting in the post–9/11 world. The bill aims to strengthen the nation’s protection against terrorist attacks, reduce vulnerabilities to 

a full range of catastrophic events, and enhance recovery from such 

events. The bill will equip our country with necessary new capabilities while enhancing the conventional capabilities of the Department’s constituent agencies, some of which have deteriorated since 

9/11. 

Congress has directed substantially increased resources toward 

homeland security since 9/11; indeed, the accompanying bill increases the fiscal year 2008 appropriations level, including fiscal 

year 2008 emergency border security funding, by $2.3 billion. But 

the bill reflects a careful allocation of resources based on the Committee’s best estimate of risk and priorities. The bill contains 

spending reductions as well as increases, and the expenditure of 

some $1.4 billion is made conditional on the fulfillment of critical 

management and planning goals. 

The bill reflects an extended period of information-gathering and 

analysis. The Subcommittee conducted 15 hearings over three 

months to inform the contents of this legislation. The Committee 

first heard from the Inspector General and the Comptroller General, with a focus on the many management and system improvements that each have recommended, but which have not yet been 

fully implemented by the Department. The Committee held hearings on virtually every component and agency of the Department 

and received testimony from every high-level departmental administrator, including the Secretary. Hearing panels frequently paired 

departmental officials with experts from GAO and the OIG to ensure that the Committee received a full range of information and 

analysis about departmental activities. The Committee also heard 

from private individuals and organizations about the Department’s 

efforts and challenges related to a wide array of areas, including 

preparedness, border consultation, and technology and research. 

Citizens look to their government to make good use of taxpayer 

dollars by planning appropriately; targeting scarce resources to 

meet the most urgent and compelling needs; and carefully measuring program performance. The Department has significant 

progress to make in each of these areas. As a result, much of the 

emphasis of this fiscal year 2009 DHS appropriations bill is on 

spurring the Department to plan more efficiently, articulate its 

goals better, and develop more precise methods of measuring 

progress towards these goals. The Committee understands that the 

demanding nature of the Department’s mission, as well as resource 

and technology limitations, make it difficult for DHS to consistently 

meet these expectations. However, the Committee continues to expect departmental leadership to be frank and clear about the limitations it faces. Described below is how the Committee addressed 

these issues within the programs of the Department. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
5 

ENSURING TAXPAYER DOLLARS ARE WELL SPENT

The Committee is concerned that, despite evidence of progress by 

some departmental components in improving financial and procurement management, other components continue to struggle. The 

OIG questioned a total of $112,700,000 in DHS expenses in the 

first six months of fiscal year 2008 alone, more than double the 

$53,300,000 questioned for the first six months of 2007 and approximately six times more than the $19,000,000 questioned for the 

first six months of 2006. This is a trend in the wrong direction. 

Perhaps the most serious example is Coast Guard, which determined last year that it could not certify its own financial statements, and therefore had no confidence that the financial statements it reported to the Congress and the American people were 

accurate. 

In addition, the Department’s procurement review mechanism— 

the Investment Review Board—is not succeeding. This process was 

set up to oversee and review the need for large, critical procurements, but it is unclear which investments the IRB will review, 

how decisions will be overseen and monitored, and how follow-up 

action will be tracked. Through this report, the Committee directs 

the Deputy Secretary to specify the top 25 investments the IRB 

will oversee. 

For large programs and procurements, the Committee has on numerous occasions found that departmental plans lack specificity, 

both in defining the expected outcomes to be measured and in estimating costs and timelines. Therefore, the Committee has required 

the submission of several expenditure plans, which are basic tools 

for clarifying a program’s strategic context, specific goals and milestones, and lifecycle costs. For example, the GAO has reported that 

the managers of Coast Guard’s Deepwater recapitalization program 

do not have good visibility into the costing process of program contractors, and therefore cannot establish appropriate cost controls. 

The Committee requires a Deepwater expenditure plan that includes a procurement strategy, competition, and cost oversight. 

The bill also requires expenditure plans for the following additional programs, and makes some program funding unavailable for 

obligation until these plans are submitted to and, in some cases, 

approved by the Committees on Appropriations: Secure Border Initiative; Deepwater; National Cyber Security Initiative; Disaster Relief Core Employee Conversion; Emergency Communications Next 

Generation Networks; National Command and Coordination Capability; the Automated Commercial Environment; United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology; and explosive detection systems for checkpoint and checked baggage systems. 

CORRECTING CURRENT SHORTFALLS

The Department and Congress are both aware of challenges facing Department of Homeland Security operations, many of which 

would remain unaddressed under the President’s proposed 2009 

budget. For instance, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and 

Coast Guard have numerous staffing shortfalls that must be addressed; Coast Guard environmental response capabilities need 

more vigorous exercise and attention; the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) efforts to retool its operations to better 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
6 

respond to disasters are incomplete; the pace of post-Katrina recovery in the Gulf Coast is still too slow; and the current economic climate has increased the need for more food and shelter resources. 

The Committee has attempted to address these and many other 

shortfalls of the proposed budget through its funding allocations in 

the fiscal year 2009 bill and report. 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) current workload 

staffing model indicates that the agency needs several thousand 

more Officers and Agriculture Specialists to meet its border security responsibilities. CBP’s 2009 budget justification noted that it 

lacks 850 CBP Officers for land port of entry passenger processing 

alone. The Committee has provided an additional $28,292,000 to 

meet this need, as well as $8,750,000 to meet officer shortfalls at 

airports and $5,100,000 for needed agricultural specialists. Similarly, Coast Guard has stated that some Coast Guard sectors lack 

the resources required to meet certain dangerous cargo vessel requirements. The Committee has provided $29,000,000 for additional watchstanders and marine inspection staff. 

Unfortunately, Coast Guard’s oil spill response capability has 

been tested by significant oil spills over the past year, including the 

large Cosco Busan oil spill in San Francisco Bay. Coast Guard’s 

own review of actions in response to this spill uncovered many 

problems for which solutions were recommended 12 years earlier in 

a similar oil spill case. The two key recommendations focus on the 

need to exercise and test resources and decision-making authority 

through the Area Contingency Planning process. The Committee 

has provided additional funding to Coast Guard to ensure that additional testing and exercising of the environmental response process occurs in fiscal year 2009. 

As the challenges to the economy continue, an increasing number 

of Americans are relying on food and housing assistance to meet 

basic needs. Recent estimates show foreclosure rates rising 75 percent from 2006 and food prices up nearly five percent from 2007. 

Yet, the President proposed cutting Emergency Food and Shelter 

Program funding to $100,000,000, 35 percent below the fiscal year 

2008 level. The Committee instead has provided $200,000,000 for 

this program, an increase of $47,000,000 above the current funding 

level. 

Almost three years after Hurricane Katrina devastated the Gulf 

Coast, the recovery effort continues to be significantly hampered by 

what can only be called a housing crisis. The Committee provides 

funding to support the development of a comprehensive strategy for 

replenishing the stock of affordable rental housing in Gulf Coast 

communities. 

The needs of the nation’s firefighters, who are among the first 

emergency responders for most disasters, remain great. Yet, the 

President’s request would cut firefighter assistance grants by 60 

percent compared to fiscal year 2008. The Second Needs Assessment done by the United States Fire Administration in 2006 

showed that approximately 26,000 fire stations (54 percent) have 

no backup power to continue operations during electrical outages; 

and an estimated 737,000 firefighters serve in fire departments 

with no program to maintain basic firefighter fitness and health. 

The Committee provides $800,000,000 to help address these and 

other deficiencies in the nation’s firefighting capabilities. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
7 

SETTING PRIORITIES FOR LONG-TERM PROGRESS

DHS must address a number of homeland security 

vulnerabilities in a sustained manner so that critical, incremental 

actions will contribute to the achievement of long term homeland 

security goals. Among these needed efforts are on-going investments in transit systems and ports, aviation, border security, and 

systems for identifying criminal aliens who are deportable. 

Borders.—The Committee provides $9.7 billion, $207,000,000 

more than requested, for programs and operations to help ensure 

the integrity of our nation’s borders, including activities to prevent 

terrorism, smuggling, crime and illegal immigration. Security at 

our nation’s borders, both north and south, is among the most basic 

responsibilities of the Federal government. While DHS has made 

some progress in gaining operational control of our borders, its border-related technology development initiative has so far failed to 

live up to expectations, and a resulting reliance on tactical infrastructure risks a significant investment in an incomplete solution 

that may not achieve expected results. 

In addition, our investments in border security remain uneven, 

with the bulk of resources devoted to our Southwest border and focused on illegal immigration. By the end of fiscal year 2009, the 

Border Patrol will employ a record 20,019 agents, 5,096 more than 

at the end of fiscal year 2007, and 7,670 more than at the end of 

fiscal year 2006. Ninety percent (18,109) of these agents will be deployed on our Southwest border. By the end of fiscal year 2009, the 

Department will have invested $3.5 billion in border infrastructure 

and technology, only $130,000,000 of which will be for the Northern 

border. While illegal immigration from across the Northern border 

is not as prevalent as that which occurs over the Southwest border, 

the Northern border is a source of significant vulnerability for terrorist infiltration. DHS must better prioritize the elements of its 

border control strategy to address that vulnerability. 

It is important that our investments not only deal with the control of our vast land borders but also help monitor the entry and 

exit of legal visitors to the United States. That is why the Committee has included direction for the Department to pilot test options for monitoring the exit of visitors who depart through air 

ports of entry, rather than simply implement a proposed air exit 

solution that has never been tested. To facilitate security and expedite the processing of legal visitors, the Committee also includes 

$10,000,000 to expand a new system for international registered 

travelers. 

Immigration Enforcement.—During the past year, the Committee 

has attempted to focus the Administration’s immigration enforcement efforts on those individuals who are in the country illegally 

and have been convicted of serious and often dangerous crimes. 

Just one year ago, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 

did not have a plan for identifying such individuals who are incarcerated in our nation’s prisons and jails. Although ICE developed 

such a plan, based on the Committee’s direction, the President’s 

budget proposed no dedicated resources to make sustained progress 

in executing this plan. As a result, the Committee has provided 

$800,000,000 to ICE for plan implementation in 2009. This funding 

will allow ICE to identify the most dangerous criminal aliens who 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
8 

are in custody or at-large, and to prioritize those individuals for removal from our country once they are judged deportable. The Committee believes that ICE should have no greater immigration enforcement priority than locating and removing criminal aliens who 

have proven that they are a threat to our communities. 

The Department’s detention programs have expanded dramatically over the past four years, from a total detention capacity of 

20,800 detainees in 2006 to 33,000 detainees funded in this bill for 

2009. Unfortunately, ICE’s ability to ensure the provision of appropriate medical care to detainees does not appear to have kept pace 

with this growth in detention space. The Committee is extremely 

concerned by allegations that individuals held at ICE detention 

centers have died because of neglected medical conditions; needlessly suffered from medically treatable conditions; been the victims of bureaucratic mix-ups caused by lost medical records; or otherwise been denied appropriate medical care. The Committee has 

therefore directed ICE, in conjunction with the Office of Health Affairs, to initiate a comprehensive review of medical care for detainees by third-party medical experts. 

Aviation security.—Since 9/11, known threats to our aviation system have led to improved explosive detection technologies and better mechanisms to detect other threats in baggage and cargo and 

in items carried by individuals. Yet, the screening systems still employed at many airports are inefficient and not well-suited to meet 

growing aviation demand. A baggage screening investment study 

concluded that capital funding requirements to procure and install 

new optimal screening systems would cost $8.2 billion over 20 

years. Yet, the President requested only $404,000,000 to help meet 

these requirements, $140,000,000 below the level provided in 2008. 

The Committee has provided $544,000,000, including $250,000,000 

in mandatory funding, to keep the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) on this 20-year investment path. This additional 

funding will help airports with sub-optimal screening solutions address security and traffic flow problems, as well as retain 100 percent electronic checked baggage screening compliance at airports 

that may not be otherwise maintained due to anticipated growth or 

recapitalization needs. 

Not all air cargo carried on passenger aircraft is screened for explosives, which is a longstanding concern of Congress. Last year, 

the 9/11 Act sought to address this vulnerability permanently by 

mandating 100 percent screening of air cargo carried on passenger 

aircraft by August 2010. The Committee provides a total of 

$110,000,000 for TSA to meet this requirement. 

Earlier this year, TSA began developing and implementing a certified cargo screening program to meet this mandate. Assuming 

successful completion of the pilot, this program will fundamentally 

change how air cargo is screened. Currently, TSA relies exclusively 

on its personnel and air carriers to screen cargo at airports prior 

to loading it onto passenger aircraft. Under the new program, certified facilities will be allowed to screen cargo prior to its consolidation onto pallets or into containers before it leaves these facilities; 

most screening will occur well before the cargo arrives at an airport. An additional $5,000,000 above the budget request has been 

provided for air cargo inspectors to audit these certified facilities to 

ensure that they consistently meet all necessary security requireVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:07 Sep 19, 2008 Jkt 044458 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR862.XXX HR862

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
9 

ments to participate in this program. The President’s proposed 

budget failed to address this important requirement for ensuring 

program integrity. 

Port and transit security.—Transit systems are vulnerable to terrorist attack, as demonstrated in London and Madrid. Since 9/11, 

$1.1 billion has been provided to protect transit systems in the 

United States, and the transit industry has estimated that a total 

of $6 billion is needed for security training, radio communications 

systems, security cameras, and access controls. The $400,000,000 

provided in this bill for transit and rail security puts the nation on 

a path toward meeting the majority of these identified security 

needs within five years. This amount is $225,000,000 more than requested by the President. 

Likewise, our nation’s ports are critical to ensuring that individuals and businesses have access to many of the products on which 

they rely. Port security lies in the hands of CBP, Coast Guard, 

local port authorities and local police agencies. In 2002 Coast 

Guard estimated that $7 billion in infrastructure improvements 

and operating costs was needed to implement the sea port security 

requirements of the Maritime Transportation Security Act. To date, 

Congress has appropriated $1.6 billion for grants to help ports 

meet these requirements. The Committee has provided an additional $400,000,000, equal to the fiscal year 2008 level and 

$190,000,000 above the President’s requested level. 

Cyber security.—Technological advances have strengthened our 

government’s ability to respond to citizens’ needs and conduct its 

work efficiently. However, the broad-based interconnectedness of 

information technology networks also makes unprotected systems 

vulnerable to attack and exploitation by those who seek to harm 

our nation, or those who seek simply to disrupt government operations for political or social notoriety. In order to protect the government’s computer infrastructure from attack or sabotage, the 

Committee provides $298,750,000, $5,250,000 above the request, to 

carry out the DHS portion of the National Cyber Security Initiative 

and improve the security of Federal computer networks. 

Privacy.—Many departmental security programs involve information and intelligence systems that collect data and produce ‘‘actionable’’ information. Some of this data is subject to privacy requirements, and the Department has in numerous instances failed to address privacy protections early in the development of new programs. The result is that many such programs are needlessly delayed and resources are wasted. Therefore, the Committee directs 

DHS to ensure that privacy analyses are begun during the planning stages for all new programs and that all such programs are 

in compliance with privacy requirements before they become operational. 

Projects.—Congress has made significant reforms in the way it 

reviews funding for the Federal government, reforms which the 

Committee takes very seriously as it executes its constitutional authority. Earmarking or directed spending of Federal dollars does 

not begin with Congress. It begins with the Executive Branch. For 

example, following is a list of projects submitted by the Administration: $2,250,000 for the Institute for Information Infrastructure 

Protection at Dartmouth College; $13,000,000 for Coast Guard Sector Delaware Bay; $11,600,000 for Coast Guard Cordova, Alaska 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
10 

housing; $5,000,000 for Coast Guard Air Station Cape Cod; 

$1,550,000 for Coast Guard Montauk housing; $2,500,000 for the 

Coast Guard TISCOM-TSD Building; $32,000,000 for the four existing members of the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium; $47,000,000 for the Center for Domestic Preparedness in Anniston, AL; $120,000,000 for a new departmental headquarters at 

St. Elizabeths in Washington, DC; $4,000,000 for training at the 

National Cyber Forensics Institute in Hoover, AL; $31,000,000 for 

a border patrol station in Boulevard, CA; $28,900,000 for a border 

patrol station in Blythe, CA; $28,000,000 for a border patrol station 

in Calexico, CA; $18,000,000 for a border patrol station in Indio, 

CA; $47,000,000 for a border patrol station in Naco, AZ; 

$27,000,000 for a border patrol station in Sonoita, AZ; $25,000,000 

for a border patrol station in Comstock, TX; $3,000,000 for a border 

patrol station in Presidio, TX; $17,800,000 for a border patrol 

checkpoint in Tucson, AZ; $1,500,000 for a border patrol checkpoint 

in El Paso, TX; $4,000,000 for a border patrol checkpoint in Swanton, VT; and $18,000,000 for a vehicle maintenance facility in El 

Centro, CA. The Administration, in selecting these projects, goes 

through a process that is the functional equivalent of earmarking. 

When the Committee reviews the budget request, it goes through 

a process of rigorous review and may alter or modify this list to reflect additional priorities. 

DEFINING RESPONSIBILITIES

After 9/11, our nation tasked first responders—police, firefighters, and other emergency response personnel—with the openended responsibility for being the nation’s first line of defense 

against, and response to, terrorist attacks. When added to their 

traditional responsibilities, such as responding to natural disasters 

and otherwise keeping their communities safe, this new homeland 

security role is a significant burden on first responders that the 

Federal government must not take for granted. We must do a better job defining the homeland security roles we expect first responders to play, and we must provide sufficient grant resources to 

aid them in planning, training, and equipping for those roles. Unfortunately the Administration would put first responders in an untenable situation by cutting grant programs by $1.8 billion, or 49 

percent, while asking them to be better trained, equipped, and able 

to respond at any time. The Committee rejects this impractical approach, and provides $3.7 billion for first responder grants. 

The Committee’s fundamental goal in providing grant funds is to 

ensure that investments for first responders will lead to a safer 

homeland. GAO reported to the Committee that FEMA’s current efforts do not provide information on the effectiveness of grant funds 

in improving the nation’s capabilities or reducing risk. Therefore, 

the Committee includes $5,000,000 to accelerate efforts by FEMA 

to develop tools to measure the effectiveness of grant funds. The 

Committee expects the Department to ensure that grant funding is 

used for projects and activities that make the country better prepared. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
11 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY AND EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 ......................................................... $97,353,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2009 ....................................................... 127,229,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 117,413,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 .................................................. +20,060,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2009 ................................................ ¥9,816,000 

MISSION

The mission of the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management is to provide efficient services to the Department of Homeland Security and to support the Department in its achievement of 

its strategic goals: preventing terrorist attacks within the United 

States; reducing America’s vulnerabilities to terrorism and natural 

disasters; minimizing the damage from attacks and disasters that 

may occur; responding to attacks and disasters, in cooperation with 

States and local governments; and assisting in recovery following 

disasters and attacks. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $117,413,000 for the Office of the 

Secretary and Executive Management, $9,816,000 below the 

amount requested and $20,060,000 above the amount provided in 

fiscal year 2008. To adequately oversee expenditures and personnel 

changes within each office of the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management, the Committee has provided separate funding 

recommendations on an office-by-office basis as follows: 

Budget estimate Recommended 

Immediate Office of the Secretary .......................................................... $3,378,000 $2,904,000 

Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary .............................................. 1,505,000 1,235,000 

Chief of Staff ........................................................................................... 2,693,000 2,693,000 

Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement ................................................. 4,018,000 4,018,000 

Executive Secretariat ............................................................................... 5,848,000 7,778,000 

Office of Policy ........................................................................................ 43,693,000 43,963,000 

Office of Public Affairs ............................................................................ 8,291,000 5,991,000 

Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs ............................... 5,697,000 4,900,000 

Office of General Counsel ....................................................................... 20,914,000 18,439,000 

Office of Civil Rights and Liberties ........................................................ 17,917,000 17,917,000 

Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman ............................... 6,471,000 6,471,000 

Privacy Officer ......................................................................................... 6,804,000 6,804,000 

Adjustment ............................................................................................... 0 ¥5,700,000 

Total ................................................................................................ 127,229,000 117,413,000 

IMMEDIATE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

The Committee recommends $2,904,000 for the Immediate Office 

of the Secretary, $474,000 below the amount requested and 

$364,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. Funding 

has been reduced from the request due to the large number of vacancies in this office that are estimated to continue through the remainder of fiscal year 2008 and into fiscal year 2009. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
12 

IMMEDIATE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SECRETARY

The Committee recommends $1,235,000 for the Immediate Office 

of the Deputy Secretary, $270,000 below the amount requested and 

$113,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. Funding 

has been reduced from the request due to vacancies in this office 

that are estimated to continue through the remainder of fiscal year 

2008 and into fiscal year 2009. The Committee has fully funded the 

rent increases and transfers proposed in the budget request. 

EXECUTIVE SECRETARIAT

The Committee recommends $7,778,000 for the Executive Secretariat, $1,930,000 above the amount requested and $3,056,000 

above the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. This funding level 

reflects the formal transfer of 14 full-time equivalent employees 

and four contractors from the Directorate of Operations Coordination to the Executive Secretariat, which DHS proposed after submission of the fiscal year 2009 budget request. These employees, 

who work on the Secretary’s daily briefing, coordination with components, and other ancillary activities, are currently being detailed 

to the Executive Secretariat via a memorandum of understanding 

with the Directorate of Operations Coordination. The Committee 

has made a slight reduction to the request due to vacancies in this 

office that are estimated to continue through the remainder of fiscal year 2008 and into fiscal year 2009. 

OFFICE OF POLICY

The Committee recommends $43,963,000 for the Office of Policy, 

$270,000 above the amount requested and $10,963,000 above the 

amount provided in fiscal year 2008. This funding level reflects the 

formal transfer of three full-time equivalent (FTE) employees from 

the Office of Policy to the Directorate of Operations Coordination, 

which DHS proposed after submission of the fiscal year 2009 budget. These employees, who work on counterterrorism planning, are 

currently detailed to the Directorate of Operations Coordination via 

a memorandum of understanding with the Office of Policy. In addition, the Committee has provided $1,000,000 for the Office of International Enforcement to review visa waiver program requests to 

ensure that they meet statutory and security criteria. The Committee is concerned that the Office of Policy does not currently 

have sufficient staff to adequately oversee these reviews in a timely 

manner. 

CREDENTIALING

The Committee is concerned about the duplication of efforts imposed on people who need various DHS credentials. For example, 

DHS often requires individuals applying for one credential to provide information, including biometrics that has already been collected by DHS for another credential (e.g. hazardous materials and 

transportation worker identification credentials). DHS also issues 

multiple credentials to individuals rather than associating multiple 

licenses, privileges or status in a single credential. In addition, 

these credentials do not all include the same tamper proof or tamper resistant features. Finally, DHS vetting processes and lists of 

disqualifying offenses for similar programs are inconsistent. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
13 

The Office of Policy, including the Screening Coordination Office, 

is well aware of these concerns. A recent GAO report on background check investigations found that the Office of Policy awarded 

a contract to develop an implementation plan for coordinated DHS 

screening and credentialing programs, including: the creation of a 

consistent, security risk-based framework across all DHS credentials; the improvement of credentialing processes to eliminate redundant activities; the more effective use of existing information; 

and an improved experience for individuals applying for credentials. The Committee directs the Office of Policy to brief the Committees on Appropriations on the status of these efforts no later 

than September 8, 2008, including the steps necessary to make improvements; the schedule, milestones, and budget requirements for 

making improvements; the potential costs and benefits of program 

standardization; and statutory roadblocks and other challenges facing this effort. The Committee directs DHS to ensure that all 

credentialing programs (including, but not limited to, TWIC, registered traveler, secure identification display areas, hazardous materials endorsements, free and secure trade, and merchant mariner 

documents) are included in this effort. 

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

The Committee recommends $5,991,000 for the Office of Public 

Affairs, $2,300,000 below the amount requested and $659,000 

below the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. The Committee has 

made a slight reduction to the request due to vacancies in this office that are estimated to continue through the remainder of fiscal 

year 2008 and into fiscal year 2009. In addition, the Committee has 

not provided funding for the Ready campaign within this office. 

The Committee is aware of a program within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) called ‘‘Are You Ready?’’ that 

conducts activities that are similar to those of the Ready campaign. 

The Committee has provided $1,500,000 within FEMA and directs 

DHS to combine the Ready campaign with the ‘‘Are You Ready?’’ 

campaign in 2009 to better achieve economies of scale. In total, the 

Committee provides $2,120,000 for these activities in 2009, including $1,500,000 in FEMA and $620,000 requested under the Working Capital Fund. 

OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

The Committee recommends $4,900,000 for the Office of Legislative Affairs, $797,000 below the amount requested and the same 

level as provided in fiscal year 2008. The Committee recommends 

sufficient funding for 36 staff, equal to the current on-board 

strength, which is well below the staffing level for which funding 

was appropriated for fiscal years 2007 and 2008. The Committee is 

aware that DHS has established a career deputy within the Office 

of Legislative Affairs, a position that has not been formally proposed or approved. While career deputies make sense in many DHS 

offices, Legislative Affairs is a truly political office, and its leadership should be provided by political appointees. The Committee 

knows of no other Executive Department with a career deputy in 

the legislative office. Non-management positions within this office 

can and should be filled, in part, with career employees. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
14 

OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL

The Committee recommends $18,439,000 for the Office of General Counsel, $2,475,000 below the amount requested and 

$4,939,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2008. The 

Committee fully funds the 10 new FTEs requested for fiscal year 

2009 within this recommended level. 

The Office of General Counsel comprises all lawyers within DHS, 

and the General Counsel has the authority to oversee and supervise those lawyers. However, the operating components within 

DHS, such as Coast Guard, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 

the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the Transportation Security Administration, fund their legal staff out of their 

own operating budgets. In contrast, headquarters components, such 

as the National Protection and Programs Directorate and the 

Science and Technology Directorate, have traditionally utilized lawyers funded out of the Office of General Counsel budget. Last year 

the Committee encouraged the General Counsel to have DHS headquarters components fund their own attorneys. This effort was not 

intended to create independent legal offices for each headquarters 

component, but to shift attorney funding to headquarters component offices. For fiscal year 2009, the Committee assumes that such 

arrangements will be made, and, therefore, has reduced funding for 

the Office of General Counsel by $2,475,000. The Committee assumes that each component agency will pay for the cost of General 

Counsel lawyers working solely for it. 

OFFICE OF COUNTERNARCOTICS ENFORCEMENT

The Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement (OCE) was originally 

intended to support the Nation’s drug control policy, as well as the 

Department’s missions to stop the entry of illegal drugs into the 

United States and track and sever the connections between drug 

trafficking and terrorism. The Committees notes that, to date, the 

OCE’s performance has been difficult to quantify and assess. 

Among other concerns, the office’s reports to Congress, which are 

the primary method for demonstrating how the office is fulfilling 

its mission, are often late and not sufficiently substantive. In addition, this report is prepared by contractors instead of by staff within OCE. The Committee directs OCE to discontinue the practice of 

relying on contractors to meet reporting requirements. Furthermore, the Committee directs the Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement, as part of the 2010 budget request, to provide a more 

detailed explanation on how its funds will be used to support its 

mission. 

BUDGET JUSTIFICATIONS

In fiscal year 2009, the Committee directs that the congressional 

budget justifications for the Office of the Secretary and Executive 

Management include the same level of detail as the table contained 

at the end of the Committee report. All funding and staffing 

changes for each individual office must be highlighted and explained. The Committee expects this level of detail to include separate discussions for personnel, compensation, and benefits; travel; 

training; and other services. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
15 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND

Consistent with prior years, the Committee directs the Department to include a separate appropriation justification for the Working Capital Fund (WCF) in fiscal year 2010. This justification 

should include a description of each activity funded by the WCF; 

the basis for the pricing; the number of full-time federal employees 

funded in each activity; a list of each departmental organization 

that is allocating funds to the activity; and the funding each organization is providing in fiscal years 2009 and 2010. If a project contained in the WCF is a multi-year activity with a defined cost, 

scope and schedule, the estimated costs and schedule shall be 

clearly delineated. 

The Committee expects all cross-cutting initiatives funded by 

multiple DHS organizations to be included in the WCF. The Committee does not support taxing departmental organizations for 

cross-cutting initiatives outside of the WCF. As such, the justification should identify any cross-cutting initiatives or activities that 

benefit more than one organization that are not included in the 

WCF, and should explain the omission. 

This year, the Committee has heard repeatedly from component 

agencies within DHS about problems with the WCF. For example, 

some agencies have expressed concern about how WCF fees are formulated and that they are assessed fees for services they do not 

use. Other components have expressed concern that WCF charges 

may be altered mid-year, reflecting unexpected costs that were not 

included in their 2008 budget requests. Yet, nine months into the 

fiscal year, the Department has not yet submitted a revised 2008 

WCF report for congressional approval. Because of this uncertainty, some component agencies have delayed expenditures, while 

others may need to reprogram to cover these unexpected costs. The 

Committee expects to be notified promptly of any additions, deletions, or changes that are made to the WCF during the fiscal year. 

Furthermore, the Department should not fund any activities within 

the WCF that the Committees on Appropriations have disapproved 

either in report language or in their responses to reprogramming 

requests. The Committee understands that DHS is studying the 

authority, structure, governance, organization, business practices, 

and management of the WCF. The Committee directs DHS to provide the Committee with a copy of this study when it is completed 

and to address any recommendations regarding cost allocation and 

billing consistency as part of the 2010 budget request. 

RECEPTION AND REPRESENTATION

Within the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management, 

the Committee provides $60,000 for official reception and representation expenses, $20,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 

2008. Within this total, $20,000 shall be for international programs 

within the Office of Policy. 

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

The Committee directs the Secretary to provide Congress, by 

September 30, 2009, with a detailed inventory of the Department’s 

greenhouse gas emissions and a plan to reduce these emissions. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
16 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR MANAGEMENT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 1 ....................................................... $145,238,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2009 ....................................................... 320,093,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 189,695,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 .................................................. +44,457,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2009 ................................................ ¥130,398,000 

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

MISSION

The Office of the Under Secretary for Management’s primary 

mission is to deliver quality administrative support services for 

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

is also in charge of implementing a mission support structure for 

the Department of Homeland Security to deliver administrative 

services while eliminating redundancies and reducing support 

costs. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $189,695,000 for the Office of the 

Under Secretary for Management, $130,398,000 below the amount 

requested and $44,457,000 above the amount provided in fiscal 

year 2008. In order to adequately oversee expenditures for each office, the Committee has provided separate funding recommendations as detailed in the following table: 

Budget estimate Recommended 

Under Secretary for Management ............................................................ $2,654,000 $2,404,000 

Office of Security ..................................................................................... 60,882,000 59,682,000 

Office of the Chief Procurement Officer ................................................. 42,003,000 38,355,000 

Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer ............................................. 46,827,000 38,827,000 

Office of the Chief Administrative Officer .............................................. 167,727,000 50,427,000 

Total ................................................................................................ 320,093,000 189,695,000 

FUNDING LEVELS

The Committee notes that the proposed bill language for the 

Under Secretary for Management did not correspond with the congressional budget justification, with the statutory funding request 

being $1,376,000 below the figures reflected in the justification. 

The Committee is required to abide by the statutory budget submission unless the Department amends its budget request. As a result, funding levels for the Office of Security and the Chief Human 

Capital Officer reflect the lower amount. This is not the first time 

that DHS has submitted this type of error. The Committee expects 

DHS to do a better job ensuring that all budgetary decisions are 

incorporated into the President’s budget submission. 

UNDER SECRETARY FOR MANAGEMENT

The Committee recommends $2,404,000 for the Under Secretary 

for Management, $250,000 below the amount requested and 

$392,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. Within 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
17 

this funding level, the Committee has approved the conversion of 

four contractors to permanent FTEs but has denied funding for one 

new FTE. 

OFFICE OF SECURITY

The Committee recommends $59,682,000 for the Office of Security, $1,200,000 below the amount requested and $6,192,000 above 

the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. Funding has been reduced 

from the request due to the large number of vacancies in this office 

that are estimated to continue through the remainder of fiscal year 

2008 and into fiscal year 2009. This funding level will support 108 

FTEs, equal to the 2008 level. 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF PROCUREMENT OFFICER

The Committee recommends $38,355,000 for the Office of the 

Chief Procurement Officer, $3,648,000 below the amount requested 

and $9,860,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. Of 

this increase, $6,700,000 supports 26 additional FTEs to focus on 

high risk acquisitions and expand the centralized acquisition development (intern) program. 

The Committee has heard numerous complaints about the slowness of the Office of Procurement Operations in working with DHS 

components to award necessary procurements. Over the years, the 

Committee has added numerous staff to this office to try to speed 

up the procurement process, but discontent within component 

agencies remains. The Committee is aware that all DHS contracting activity is conducted under the oversight of the Head of 

Contracting Activity (HCA) for each component. The legacy components, such as TSA, Coast Guard, and CBP, have their own HCAs, 

who are employees of the component and have contract warrant 

delegation from the Department’s Chief of Procurement Operations. 

The legacy components also hire their own contracting officers. 

For those components formed when DHS was created, the Director of the Office of Procurement Operations (OPO) serves as the 

HCA. OPO also provides all contracting officers for these newer 

components (including the headquarters offices, OHA, S&T, DNDO, 

NPPD, and I&A). United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is an exception to this rule, as it has been delegated 

authority to hire its own contracting officers, who are responsible 

for meeting USCIS performance metrics but also report to the Director of OPO. This arrangement allows the Department to review 

USCIS activities to ensure that all procurement actions are aligned 

with DHS policies and procedures, while also permitting USCIS to 

directly adjust staffing to meet workload requirements. 

The Committee is very dissatisfied with the amount of time it 

takes OPO to review and approve contracts and studies for components that were formed when DHS was created. It appears that 

while these component agencies are efficient in completing their 

work and making recommendations on contracting matters, OPO 

routinely fails to act on those recommendations in a timely fashion. 

As a result, the Committee directs OPO to expand the arrangement 

it has with USCIS in fiscal year 2009 to other component DHS 

agencies in the hopes of improving the timeliness of the procurement process. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
18 

The Committee is also dissatisfied that procurements from minority and small business enterprises are very few. It is critical 

that our country utilize the full capability of our national talent in 

the development of products and technologies for homeland security. OPO is directed to identify more opportunities for these enterprises in DHS procurements. 

DHS INVESTMENT REVIEW PROCESS FOR MAJOR PROCUREMENTS

In fiscal year 2006, DHS obligated $15.7 billion for the procurement of goods and services, making it the third largest department 

in the Federal government in terms of procurement spending. GAO 

recently reported (GAO–08–263) that several contracts for the Department’s major investments lack well-defined requirements and 

measurable performance standards and that the DHS Chief Procurement Officer lacks reliable data by which to review these procurements. Previous GAO work has reported that DHS does not 

have clear and transparent policies for all acquisitions, including 

major investments and service contracts. For example, GAO found 

that of 138 contract reviews by Coast Guard, CBP, ICE and TSA, 

51 percent had no performance work statement, measurable performance standard, or method for assessing the contractor’s performance. 

The Committee is very concerned that the Department’s Investment Review Board (IRB), established to ensure investment oversight, is not performing satisfactorily. It is unclear to the Committee which investments the IRB will review, how it intends to 

oversee decisions on large procurements, how the IRB decisions 

will be monitored, and how necessary follow-up action will be 

taken. Any plan the Deputy Secretary produces for the IRB will be 

useless unless and until the policies, processes and procedures for 

departmental review of major procurements, including ‘‘service’’ 

procurements, are in place and utilized. 

The Committee realizes that the IRB will be able to focus on only 

a limited number of critical procurements while the Department attempts to get the investment review process on-track. With this in 

mind, the Committee directs the Deputy Secretary to ensure that 

the IRB reviews and oversees the top 25 DHS investments, measured either by total cost, criticality of the item, or service being 

procured, and/or other means determined by DHS. In addition, the 

Committee directs the Deputy Secretary to provide a report listing 

these top 25 investments and laying out the formal investment review processes the IRB will follow to the Committees on Appropriations by October 1, 2008. Included within this list of top 25 procurements should be the five top Coast Guard Deepwater procurements, including the National Security Cutter, the Fast Response 

Cutter (B), the Maritime Patrol Aircraft, the Offshore Patrol Cutter, and Deepwater C4ISR. Also included should be CBP’s MultiRole Aircraft. The Committee also directs the Secretary to rescind 

the delegation of acquisition authority provided to Coast Guard for 

Deepwater in order to align all such oversight within OPO. 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF HUMAN CAPITAL OFFICER

The Committee recommends $38,827,000 for the Office of the 

Chief Human Capital Officer, $8,000,000 below the amount requested and $20,016,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
19 

2008. Of this total, $28,827,000 is recommended for the salaries 

and expenses of the Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer 

(CHCO) and $10,000,000 is recommended for human resource activities to enhance employee morale and create a more satisfying 

work environment. The Committee denies the request to transfer 

the accreditation board from the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center to CHCO, consistent with action taken in fiscal year 

2008. The Committee has provided $2,500,000 for the new learning 

initiatives proposal. Finally, while the Committee has provided 

$17,131,000 for human resource information technologies, the Committee is troubled that the request to fund this within CHCO, instead of within the Office of the Chief Information Officer, was not 

clearly detailed in the budget request. In the future, the Committee 

directs that all proposals to move programs and funding from one 

office to another be clearly outlined in congressional budget justifications and include: the preceding year funding level; a detailed 

description of the work; a rationale for the movement; and a detailed breakdown of the budget request. The Committee noted similar problems in TSA’s budget. 

The Committee is concerned about reports by numerous DHS 

agencies of delays in the hiring process administered by CHCO, 

which should be the most efficient departmental office in this area. 

The Office is directed to provide monthly reports to the Committees 

on Appropriations detailing: vacancies requested, by office, that 

have not been processed; vacancies announced, by office; and the 

amount of time after a vacancy has closed before a selection list is 

sent back to the requesting entity. 

The Committee has included a new general provision (Sec. 530) 

that prohibits the obligation of funds to develop, test, deploy, or operate any portion of a new human resources management system 

for employees. In addition, the provision requires DHS to collaborate with employee representatives in the planning, testing, and 

development of any portion of a human resources management system for persons excluded from the definition of ‘‘employee.’’ 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER

The Committee recommends $50,427,000 for the Office of the 

Chief Administrative Officer, $117,300,000 below the amount requested and $2,997,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 

2008. Of this total, $44,427,000 is recommended for the salaries 

and expenses of the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer and 

$6,000,000 is for costs associated with DHS headquarters needs at 

the Nebraska Avenue Complex. Within this funding level, the Committee fully supports the additional 11 FTEs proposed to manage 

the relocation of Coast Guard headquarters and consolidation of 

other DHS components on the St. Elizabeths west campus. 

The Committee has provided $97,578,000 within the Coast 

Guard’s Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements appropriation for the first phase of the proposed consolidated DHS headquarters campus at the St. Elizabeths Hospital site in Washington, 

DC. All of the costs associated with phase one of the St. Elizabeths 

project are Coast Guard specific. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
20 

DHS HEADQUARTERS FACILITIES

The Committee believes the Department must balance its current needs at the Nebraska Avenue Complex against investment in 

future facilities that will be available at the proposed St. Elizabeths campus facility. Since a significant portion of departmental 

offices is scheduled to move to St. Elizabeths by 2016, with the first 

moves beginning in 2013, the Committee directs the Chief Administrative Officer to minimize investment in improvements at the Nebraska Avenue Complex that will be replicated at the new headquarters campus. 

MOVE TO ST ELIZABETHS CAMPUS

The Committee is aware of concerns expressed by historic preservationists about the amount of parking planned for the St. Elizabeths campus and urges DHS to limit the number of parking places 

provided to DHS employees to preserve as much of the historic nature of this complex as practicable. The Committee directs DHS to 

strive for the National Capital Planning Commission standard 

parking rate recommended for core metropolitan Washington, DC 

development. 

RENT TRANSFER

In the first few years of DHS’s existence, rent for all offices within the Office of the Under Secretary for Management was centrally 

funded in the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer. However, 

as these offices grew, new space costs were funded within each office’s budget. The 2009 budget request proposed assigning all rental costs to the budget of each occupant so that they are more easily 

identified. The Committee agrees, and has fully funded the rent 

transfers contained in the budget request for each office. 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 ......................................................... $31,300,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2009 ....................................................... 56,235,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 55,235,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 .................................................. +23,935,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2009 ................................................ ¥1,000,000 

MISSION

The primary responsibilities and functions of the Office of the 

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

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $55,235,000 for the Office of the 

Chief Financial Officer (CFO), $1,000,000 below the amount requested and $23,935,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 

2008. The Committee has fully funded the new FTEs requested to 

consolidate and integrate legacy resource management systems; to 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
21 

increase oversight of and accountability for DHS grants and assistance awards; and to support the quadrennial homeland security review. The Committee notes that the CFO has improved the process 

by which the Department responds to questions submitted by Committee members and directs that this improved process be continued. The Committee does not provide funding for appropriations liaison positions as it has received no benefit from these positions. 

TRANSFORMATION AND SYSTEMS CONSOLIDATION

Within the funding provided is $19,189,000 for the Transformation and Systems Consolidation (TASC) project, $15,500,000 

above the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. This funding shall 

be used to consolidate the Department’s multiple legacy financial 

management systems, which are obsolete and expensive to maintain, into fewer systems that are able to meet the needs and missions of multiple DHS components. The Committee is aware that, 

in April 2008, the United States Court of Federal Claims ruled that 

DHS’s decision to use two current DHS financial systems was an 

improper sole source procurement in violation of the Competition 

in Contracting Act. As a result, DHS must conduct a competitive 

procurement in accordance with the law to select financial management system applications software. DHS has informed the Committee that a new competitive decision is expected in the fall of 

2008. Because of the challenges the vendor will face to transition 

DHS components from existing systems to the new solutions, the 

Committee urges the CFO to begin the transition with smaller 

agencies before attempting to transition the larger, more financially complex agencies. This will permit the CFO to apply any lessons learned and to correct any problems before transferring larger 

DHS components, with the exception of Coast Guard. 

Since 2003, Coast Guard has had severe weaknesses in its financial management. Recent OIG reports indicate that Coast Guard’s 

financial management practices are worsening and are the largest 

contributor to the Department’s inability to receive a clean audit. 

The Committee urges the CFO to consider transferring Coast 

Guard to the new financial management system as soon as possible 

to help rectify these longstanding problems. 

FINANCIAL SYSTEM TRANSFORMATION

In June 2007, GAO recommended a variety of steps the Department should take to improve management of its financial system 

consolidation projects. In particular, GAO highlighted the need to 

follow best practices so that future efforts to transform its financial 

management systems do not replicate the failures of the Department’s abandoned eMerge2 project. Since the Department is moving forward with its TASC project, the Committee believes it would 

be worthwhile for GAO to update its study to ensure its prior recommendations are being implemented. The Committee therefore directs GAO to review the TASC project, specifically examining 

whether DHS has implemented those recommendations that will 

help the project succeed. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
22 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET JUSTIFICATIONS

The Committee directs the Department to submit all of its fiscal 

year 2010 budget justifications with the customary level of detailed 

data and explanatory statements to support the appropriations requests, including tables that detail each agencies programs, 

projects, and activities for fiscal years 2009 and 2010. The Committee directs the CFO to ensure that adequate justification is 

given to each increase, decrease, transfer, and staffing change proposed in fiscal year 2010. The CFO should also ensure that each 

item directed by the Committee to be provided as part of the fiscal 

year 2010 budget justification is delivered as mandated. There 

have been several instances in which statutory reporting requirements or other required budget details have not been included in 

the congressional justifications, particularly in the case of justifications for the FEMA budget. 

In addition, the Committee has struggled with a lack of programmatic details for realignments proposed in the budget. Of particular concern were the proposed move of the human resource information technology activity from the CIO to CHCO and the realignment proposals presented by TSA and the National Protection 

and Programs Directorate (NPPD). None were clearly explained in 

congressional budget justifications and, in TSA’s case, the underlying assumptions and costs for the realignment changed depending on what was included in each program, project, and activity 

(PPA). The Committee directs the Department not to alter its programs, projects, and activities or organize its budget in 2010 into 

any structure other than the accounts contained under the ‘‘funding recommendations’’ table at the back of this report. 

The CFO shall submit, as part of the 2010 budget justifications, 

a detailed table identifying the last year that authorizing legislation was provided by Congress for each program, project, or activity; the amount of the authorization; and the appropriation in the 

last year of the authorization. 

BELOW ACCOUNT LEVEL DETAIL PLAN

The Committee has included new bill language (Sec. 529) that requires the Secretary to submit, within 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, a spending plan laying out PPAs by account 

to serve as a baseline for reprogramming for the Department of 

Homeland Security for fiscal year 2009. The Committee reiterates 

that a PPA is defined as any dollar amount contained in the bill 

or report. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND

Since the inception of DHS, law enforcement agencies within the 

Department (including Coast Guard, CBP, and ICE, and the Secret 

Service) have received funds from the Department of the Treasury’s 

Forfeiture Fund. This fund is replenished by nonevidentiary cash 

subject to forfeiture, including seized cash, proceeds from pre-forfeiture sales of seized property, and income from property under 

seizure. DHS received $17,060,000 from this fund in 2007 and 

$36,846,000 in 2008. Because the Department of the Treasury disburses these funds, the Subcommittee on Homeland Security has 

not been consistently notified when Forfeiture Funds have been 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
23 

made available to DHS and has at times been unaware of how 

these resources are being used. The Committee therefore includes 

a new general provision (Sec. 531) requiring DHS, in consultation 

with the Department of the Treasury, to notify the Committees on 

Appropriations of any Forfeiture Fund amounts DHS receives. DHS 

is prohibited from obligating these funds until the Committees approve the proposed expenditures. 

MONTHLY REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

The Committee is pleased that the Department has improved its 

monthly budget execution reporting so that it is now timely. The 

Committee relies on these reports to provide early warning of financial problems. To ensure that these reports continue to be received on time, the Committee continues bill language requiring 

monthly budget and staffing reports within 45 days after the close 

of each month. 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 ......................................................... $295,200,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2009 ....................................................... 247,369,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 247,369,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 .................................................. ¥47,831,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2009 ................................................ 0 

MISSION

The Chief Information Office (CIO) has oversight of information 

technology projects in the Department. The CIO reviews and approves all DHS information technology (IT) acquisitions estimated 

to cost over $2,500,000, and also approves the hiring and oversees 

the performance of all DHS component CIOs. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $247,369,000 for the Office of the 

Chief Information Officer, the same as the amount requested and 

$47,831,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. The 

majority of the reduction from the 2008 funding level is due to onetime investments in the National Center for Critical Information 

Processing and Storage that will be completed by 2009. The Committee shifts $17,131,000 from the CIO to CHCO to fund various 

human resources systems, as requested. 

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

Budget estimate Recommended 

Salaries and Expenses ............................................................................ $86,928,000 $86,928,000 

Information Technology Activities ............................................................ 42,445,000 42,445,000 

Security Activities .................................................................................... 70,323,000 70,323,000 

Homeland Secure Data Network .............................................................. 47,673,000 47,673,000 

Total, Chief Information Officer ..................................................... 247,369,000 247,369,000 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Committee provides $86,928,000, as requested, for CIO Sala- ries and Expenses, an increase of $5,928,000 over the 2008 enacted 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
24 

level. More than half of this additional funding is for strengthening 

DHS network security architecture and improving the security of 

DHS financial systems. The Committee supports DHS efforts to 

protect its networks, given the wide range of reports issued by 

OIG, GAO, and others that have repeatedly criticized the Department’s network security. 

The Committee notes that the budget for the CIO includes no additional Federal staff in its request, even though the office dedicates over one third of its budget to contract services and has a 

mission that will almost certainly continue indefinitely. The Committee directs the CIO to provide a briefing on plans to transition 

long-term contract services to government employees, including a 

cost comparison of maintaining contract services versus employing 

Federal staff. 

SECURITY ACTIVITIES

The Committee recommends $70,323,000 for Security Activities, 

the same as the amount requested and $54,577,000 below the 

amount provided in fiscal year 2008. The vast bulk of funds in the 

Security Activities program pays for the Department’s two data 

centers. The purpose of operating two data centers is to help manage the significant risk, reduce the vulnerability, and avoid the potential consequences that would be associated with locating all of 

the Department’s data at a single site. To ensure that the Department takes full advantage of the benefits of a second data center, 

the Committee includes a statutory requirement for the CIO to utilize these two centers in the most effective and economical means 

possible. 

HOMELAND SECURITY DATA NETWORK

The Committee provides $47,673,000 for the Homeland Security 

Data Network (HSDN) project, which is the secure computer network for DHS and its State and local partners. The Committee understands that DHS has decided to eliminate a similar system, 

known as the Homeland Security Information Network—Secret 

(HSIN–S), and to enroll all HSIN–S users into HSDN. HSIN–S is 

being replaced largely because the system has not fulfilled the 

needs of its users. To avoid this type of lost investment in the future, the Committee directs the CIO to ensure that user requirements are reviewed and carefully addressed in every new system 

acquisition. 

CIO-LED INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACQUISITIONS

The Committee continues an existing requirement that the CIO 

report on all IT acquisitions financed directly or managed by the 

CIO. 

ANALYSIS AND OPERATIONS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 ......................................................... $297,300,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2009 ....................................................... 333,262,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 324,423,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 .................................................. +27,123,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2009 ................................................ ¥8,839,000 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
25 

MISSION

Analysis and Operations houses the Office of Intelligence and 

Analysis and the Directorate of Operations Coordination, which together collect, evaluate, and disseminate intelligence information, 

as well as provide incident management and operational coordination. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $324,423,000 for Analysis and Operations, $8,839,000 below the amount requested and $27,123,000 

above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2008. 

STAFF TRANSFERS

The Committee has transferred funding from the Directorate of 

Operations Coordination to the Executive Secretariat, to reflect the 

reassignment of the Secretary’s briefing staff between those accounts. In addition, the Committee has transferred three staff from 

the Office of Policy to the Directorate of Operations Coordination 

to work on counterterrorism issues. 

DIRECTORATE OF OPERATIONS COORDINATION

The Committee has reduced the funding level for the Directorate 

of Operations Coordination below the levels requested. The Committee notes that the Directorate has not been able to hire staff at 

the pace projected in its 2008 expenditure plan, and therefore does 

not fund the requested increase for additional personnel in 2009. 

OFFICE OF INTELLIGENCE AND ANALYSIS

The Committee has reduced the funding level for Intelligence 

and Analysis below the levels requested. The Committee notes that 

the Office of Intelligence and Analysis is still developing the operational plans for two new programs, as discussed below, and therefore provides reduced funding levels for those activities. 

NATIONAL APPLICATIONS OFFICE AND NATIONAL IMMIGRATION

INFORMATION SHARING OFFICE

In the 2008 Appropriations Act, the Committee required the Secretary of Homeland Security to submit, and GAO to review, a certification that the National Applications Office (NAO) and the National Immigration Information Sharing Office (NIISO) comply 

with all existing laws, including applicable privacy and civil liberties standards. The Department was prohibited from using any 

funds appropriated in the 2008 Act until GAO completed its work. 

While the Department provided details about two of the three 

major program areas of the NAO, information about the NAO’s 

Law Enforcement Domain was not provided. Additionally, no certification for NIISO has been submitted. As a result, the Committee includes a statutory prohibition on the operations of the 

NAO Law Enforcement Domain and NIISO in 2009 until the Secretary certifies that these programs comply with all laws, and that 

certification is reviewed by GAO. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
26 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS

Recommended adjustments to classified programs are addressed 

in a classified annex accompanying this report. 

OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL COORDINATOR FOR GULF COAST

REBUILDING

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 ......................................................... $2,700,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 ..................................................... 291,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 341,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 ..................................................... ¥2,359,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 ................................................. +50,000 

MISSION

The Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding 

coordinates Federal rebuilding efforts in the Gulf Coast and works 

with State and local officials to identify the priority needs for longterm rebuilding. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $341,000 for the Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding (OFCGCR), $50,000 

above the amount requested and $2,359,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. The Committee notes that the justification for the budget request was based on the planned closing of 

OFCGCR on November 1, 2008, as directed by the original Executive Order creating the Office. The President has issued a separate 

Executive Order to extend OFCGCR until February 28, 2009. The 

Department is directed to use the reprogramming authority contained in this Act if additional funding is needed. 

The Committee is displeased that, more than two years and nine 

months after Hurricane Katrina, a shortage of affordable rental 

housing continues to leave more than 22,000 households in FEMA 

trailers and other temporary housing in the Gulf Coast region. Because many of the travel trailers that FEMA has relied on for temporary housing have been shown to contain unhealthy levels of 

formaldehyde, FEMA has closed its group sites and is attempting 

to move individuals in commercial group sites into other temporary 

housing. In New Orleans alone, Hurricane Katrina destroyed an estimated 50,000 rental units and damaged thousands more apartments, affecting two-thirds of the city’s rental stock. In New Orleans and Mississippi, 6,600 public housing units are being demolished, of which about 5,300 units were occupied before Hurricane 

Katrina. 

In addition, the number of subsidized rental units associated 

with HUD programs to assist the elderly (section 202) and the disabled (section 811) has dramatically decreased, especially in the 

City of New Orleans. Only 190 units of housing for the elderly and 

disabled remain in New Orleans, compared to 752 such units before Hurricane Katrina. Problems are numerous, and innovative 

long-term solutions are lacking. 

The overall slow progress in repairing and rebuilding owner-occupied dwellings is putting additional pressure on the already 

strained rental housing market. The Road Home program, a HUDfunded initiative designed to help Gulf Coast homeowners repair 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
27 

and rebuild their hurricane-damaged houses, had provided funding 

to only 31 percent of applicants as of mid-December 2007, according to the RAND Corporation. Funding for FEMA’s Post-Disaster 

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), which can be used to 

elevate houses and other structures to mitigate against future flood 

damage, is being obligated at a relatively lackluster pace. Of the 

$1.883 billion available to the States of Louisiana and Mississippi 

under HMGP, only approximately $182,600,000 has been obligated 

to date. 

Addressing the shortage of rental housing in the Gulf Coast region will require a deliberate targeting of resources toward subsidizing or otherwise encouraging the construction of new rental 

housing stock, along with appropriate subsidies to ensure that a 

sufficient number of new rental units are affordable. The Committee includes $50,000 for OFCGCR to host a panel of housing experts, disaster response experts, and urban planning exerts to develop a framework for developing and sustaining affordable rental 

housing in affected Gulf Coast communities. As part of the framework, the panel shall include recommendations for how HUD, the 

private sector, and the States can achieve a sufficient stock of affordable rental housing to meet the needs of all those displaced 

after the storm who still lack permanent housing options in the region. These experts shall be chosen in consultation with HUD, the 

States of Louisiana and Mississippi, and the City of New Orleans. 

The Committee directs OFCGCR to report to the Committees on 

Appropriation on the recommendations of this panel, and to submit 

a strategy and timeline for implementing the most promising recommendations, by December 30, 2008. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriation, fiscal year 20081 ........................................................ $92,711,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2009 ....................................................... 101,013,000 

Recommended in the bill2 .................................................................. 101,013,000 

Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 ..................................................... +$8,302,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2009 ................................................... 0 

1 Excludes a $16.0 million transfer from the Disaster Relief Fund. 

2 Excludes a $15.0 million transfer from the Disaster Relief Fund. 

MISSION

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 established an Office of Inspector General (OIG) in the Department of Homeland Security by 

amendment to the Inspector General Act of 1978. This office was 

established to provide an objective and independent organization 

that would be effective in: (1) preventing and detecting fraud, 

waste, and abuse in departmental programs and operations; (2) 

providing a means to keep the Secretary of Homeland Security and 

the Congress fully and currently informed of problems and deficiencies in the administration of programs and operations; (3) fulfilling statutory responsibilities for the annual audit of the Department’s financial statements; (4) ensuring the security of the Department of Homeland Security’s information technology pursuant 

to the Federal Information Security Management Act; and (5) reviewing and making recommendations regarding existing and proposed legislation and regulations to the Department’s programs 

and operational components. According to the authorizing legislaVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:07 Sep 19, 2008 Jkt 044458 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR862.XXX HR862

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
28 

tion, OIG is to report dually to the Secretary of Homeland Security 

and to the Congress. 

While oversight of DHS disaster response is included in the 

OIG’s mission, Hurricane Katrina brought a renewed focus and a 

major shift in OIG resources to that mission area. In October 2005, 

in response to the need for enhanced oversight, OIG established 

the Gulf Coast Hurricane Recovery Office to focus exclusively on 

preventing problems through a proactive program of internal control reviews and contract audits to ensure that disaster assistance 

funds are spent wisely. The Gulf Coast Recovery Office has initiated numerous monitoring activities, reviews, investigations, and 

audits of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s disaster response and recovery activities, as well as disaster-related activities 

of other DHS components. In addition, this office is coordinating 

the work of 23 other Federal Inspectors General through the President’s Commission on Integrity and Efficiency to review all federal 

spending on Gulf Coast relief. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total of $116,013,000 for the OIG, 

$101,013,000 in a direct appropriation and $15,000,000 by transfer 

from Disaster Relief. The additional $15,000,000 is to continue and 

expand audits and investigations related to disasters, particularly 

the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes. OIG disaster-related audit reports 

warrant continued funding based on fiscal year 2007 audit results 

identifying $36,936,392 in questioned costs; $3,129,086 in unsupported costs; and $860,000 in funds that should have been put to 

better use. 

AUDIT REPORTS

The Committee directs the OIG to forward copies of all audit reports to the Committee when they are issued and to immediately 

make the Committee aware of any review that recommends cancellation of, or modification to, any major acquisition project or 

grant, or that recommends significant budgetary savings. In addition, the Committee directs the OIG to provide reports to the Committees on Appropriations on the following: Coast Guard certification required in this Act that the Maritime Awareness Global 

Network complies with all applicable laws, including laws protecting privacy; the sufficiency of Coast Guard financial management improvement plan, which must be submitted by December 1, 

2008; Federal Emergency Management Agency’s implementation of 

recommendations resulting from the TOP Officials 4 exercise; the 

CBP Commissioner’s certification of the Analytical Framework for 

Intelligence Officers; the CBP Commissioner’s certification of enhancements to the Automated Targeting Systems-Passenger; the 

performance of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 

287(g) agreements; and ICE practices for determining the age of 

those in its custody. The Committee directs OIG to withhold these, 

and any other final audit or investigation reports requested by the 

House Committee on Appropriations, from public distribution for a 

period of 15 days. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
29 

TITLE II—SECURITY, ENFORCEMENT, AND 

INVESTIGATIONS 

U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 ......................................................... $6,802,560,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 ..................................................... 7,309,354,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 7,534,346,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 ..................................................... +731,786,000 

Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2009 ................................................ +224,992,000 

MISSION

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

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

and deterring threats against the U.S. through ports of entry and 

by interdicting illegal crossing between ports of entry. CBP’s mission integrates homeland security, safety, and border management 

in an effort to ensure that goods and persons cross the borders of 

the U.S. in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, while 

posing no threat to the country. The priority of CBP is to prevent 

terrorists and their weapons from entering the United States, and 

to support related homeland security missions affecting border and 

airspace security. CBP is also responsible for apprehending individuals attempting to enter the U.S. illegally; stemming the flow of illegal drugs and other contraband; protecting U.S. agricultural and 

economic interests from harmful pests and diseases; protecting 

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

and enforcing U.S. trade laws. CBP has a workforce of over 47,800, 

including CBP Officers, Air Interdiction Agents, Marine Interdiction Agents, canine enforcement officers, Border Patrol agents, Agriculture Specialists, trade specialists, intelligence analysts, and 

mission support staff. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $7,534,346,000 for Salaries and Expenses, $224,992,000 above the amount requested and 

$731,786,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. This 

recommendation provides $1,266,651,000 for Headquarters Management and Administration, which includes an additional 

$24,000,000 for 27 intelligence officers to enhance CBP intelligence 

watch and coordination capacity; an additional $5,300,000 for 24 

investigators and five support staff for integrity and conduct oversight; and an additional $1,000,000 to expand the CBP regulatory 

program. Border Security Inspections and Trade Facilitation is 

funded at $2,496,146,000, including $217,000,000 to annualize the 

cost of law enforcement officer retirement conversion for CBP Officers; $139,973,000 for the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (of 

which $106,900,000 is new funding for systems, infrastructure, and 

an additional 89 CBP Officers); an additional $39,900,000 to fund 

operations and maintenance of US–VISIT scanners and systems at 

ports of entry; $27,300,000 for an additional 238 CBP Officers and 

57 other professional and support personnel to staff radiation porVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:07 Sep 19, 2008 Jkt 044458 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR862.XXX HR862

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
30 

tal monitors; $25,000,000 for an additional 212 CBP Officers and 

22 support positions to enhance passenger screening at land ports 

of entry; $28,292,000 for an additional 561 CBP Officer positions 

(140 FTE) for land ports of entry positions identified by the Workload Staffing Model; $10,000,000 to support expansion of the Global 

Entry system; $8,750,000 for 173 CBP Officer positions (43 FTE) 

at air ports of entry; $5,100,000 for 100 Agricultural Specialist positions (25 FTE) at the busiest land ports of entry; $113,944,000 for 

non-intrusive inspection technology replacement and support; and 

$32,550,000 for Automated Targeting Systems. In addition, CBP is 

directed to utilize $20,000,000 from unobligated balances of prior 

year Salaries and Expenses appropriations in fiscal year 2009 to 

fund planned activities in Inspections, Trade, and Travel Facilitation at Ports of Entry. Border Security and Control between Ports 

of Entry is funded at $3,517,270,000, including an additional 

$442,432,000 for 2,200 additional Border Patrol agents and supporting positions; and $1,950,000 for additional transfers of 65 Border Patrol agents to the Northern border. Air and Marine Personnel Costs are funded at $254,279,000, including $4,000,000 for 

24 additional pilots to reduce the current staffing shortage for UAS 

operations, and to enable CBP to operate the six systems that will 

be deployed in fiscal year 2009. This funding will enable CBP to 

operate the UAS for 14-hour missions, rather than be limited to the 

current 10-hour missions. The additional positions will be initially 

deployed to Northern and Southern border locations, as requested 

and consistent with CBP plans to expand support for border security operations. 

A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee recommended level by budget activity is as follows: 

Salaries and expenses Budget estimate Recommended 

Headquarters, Management, and Administration: 

Management and Administration, Border Security Inspections 

and Trade Facilitation ................................................................ $644,351,000 $644,351,000 

Management and Administration, Border Security and Control 

between Ports of Entry ............................................................... 622,300,000 622,300,000 

Subtotal, Headquarters Management and Administration ... 1,266,651,000 1,266,651,000 

Border Security Inspections and Trade Facilitation: 

Inspections, Trade, and Travel Facilitation at Ports of Entry ....... 1,834,793,000 2,061,035,000 

Harbor Maintenance Fee Collection (Trust Fund) .......................... 3,154,000 3,154,000 

Container Security Initiative ........................................................... 149,450,000 149,450,000 

Other international programs ......................................................... 10,984,000 10,984,000 

Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism .............................. 64,496,000 64,496,000 

Free and Secure Trade (FAST)/NEXUS/SENTRI ................................ 11,274,000 11,274,000 

Inspection and Detection Technology Investments ........................ 117,144,000 113,944,000 

Automated Targeting Systems ........................................................ 32,550,000 32,550,000 

National Targeting Center .............................................................. 24,481,000 24,481,000 

Training ........................................................................................... 24,778,000 24,778,000 

Subtotal, Border Security Inspections and Trade Facilitation 2,273,104,000 2,496,146,000 

Border Security and Control between Ports of Entry: 

Border Security and Control ........................................................... 3,440,505,000 3,442,455,000 

Training ........................................................................................... 74,815,000 74,815,000 

Subtotal, Border Security and Control between POEs .......... 3,515,320,000 3,517,270,000 

Air and Marine Personnel Compensation and Benefits .......................... 254,279,000 254,279,000 

Total .............................................................................. 7,309,354,000 7,534,346,000 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
31 

LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER CONVERSION

Last year the Committee recognized that CBP Officers do not receive the same level of compensation and other benefits accorded 

to other federal law enforcement officers, despite the fact that they 

have arrest powers, 24-hour weapon carrying responsibility, and 

conduct investigations. As a result, new authority was included in 

section 535 of the fiscal year 2008 Homeland Security Appropriation Act to permit CBP Officers to convert to law enforcement officer status. The law requires this conversion to begin July 1, 2008, 

and it included funding for fiscal year 2008 conversion costs. The 

President’s budget proposed to repeal section 535, rescind fiscal 

year 2008 funding for law enforcement officer conversion, and provided no funding to annualize these costs in 2009. The Committee 

rejects these proposals and has included an additional 

$217,000,000 for fiscal year 2009 law enforcement officer status 

conversion costs. Based on testimony and other reporting provided 

to the Committee, such conversion will help CBP retain and recruit 

the most qualified and dedicated officers, and contribute to maintaining and increasing the staffing needed at ports of entry and 

other areas critical to CBP’s missions. 

BORDER PATROL STAFFING

The Committee has included an increase of $362,000,000 for an 

additional 2,200 Border Patrol agents, as requested. With this increase, the total number of Border Patrol agents on board by the 

end of fiscal year 2009 will reach 20,019. This is a significant milestone, a more than one-third increase in the number of agents as 

a result of increased appropriations provided by this Committee in 

the past two years. This growth, authorized in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, is essential to help ensure the security of our borders and make the Border Patrol a more 

effective instrument of deterrence and enforcement. The Committee 

directs CBP to continue to include Border Patrol hiring and deployment statistics in the quarterly Secure Border Initiative reports, 

and to continue to include updates on progress in recruitment, hiring and retention in the quarterly briefings provided to the Committees on Appropriations. 

WORKLOAD AND STAFFING

The Committee has reviewed the CBP Workload Staffing Model 

(WSM). As an improvement over previous methodology, the WSM 

should provide CBP more accurate information to address shortfalls at ports of entry and other locations. As reported by GAO in 

GAO–08–219, the model indicates that CBP needs several thousand more Officers and Agriculture Specialists to meet its border 

security responsibilities. CBP noted in its budget justification that 

it lacks at least 850 CBP Officers for land port of entry passenger 

processing alone. These estimates are consistent with information 

the Committee has received from CBP field officials. Despite this 

staffing gap, the 2009 budget includes an increase of just 289 CBP 

Officers at land ports of entry, and none for airport operations (although CBP explains that airport inspection has traditionally been 

funded through fees). The Committee therefore provides an additional $28,892,000 for an additional 561 CBP Officers (140 FTE) to 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
32 

bring the net increase for such positions to 850 for the final quarter 

of fiscal year 2009, and $8,750,000 for an additional 173 CBP Officers (43 FTE) for air ports of entry. The Committee directs CBP to 

use the new staffing model as it allocates these positions and to 

provide updated information on its hiring progress for those positions as part of the quarterly staffing briefings provided to the 

Committees on Appropriations. 

The Committee also directs CBP to provide the Committees on 

Appropriations, as part of its quarterly briefings on hiring, the current and optimal staffing levels (as indicated by the Workload 

Staffing Model) for each CBP location. 

The Committee is aware that, as wait times at airports and land 

ports of entry have continued to increase, port authorities and carriers have sought more detailed information about projected CBP 

staffing resources than is publicly available in order to help them 

make informed decisions about meeting anticipated growth in 

international arrivals to the United States. To the extent security 

considerations are not limiting factors, the Committee urges CBP 

to share staffing and resource information with port authorities 

and other stakeholders. 

Border Patrol hiring continues to challenge CBP, which is working to maintain a rate of recruitment sufficient to have 17,819 

agents on-board by the end of fiscal year 2008. In order for CBP 

to sustain its recruitment efforts for all positions and offset continued high attrition rates (11 percent for Border Patrol agents and 

8.9 percent for CBP Officers), it must look for innovative solutions, 

such as pay adjustments for Border Patrol and CBP Officers with 

fluency in critical languages. The Committee directs CBP to report 

no later than September 8, 2008, on how such an incentive could 

be used to attract and keep a workforce with such skills. 

TUCSON SECTOR CHECKPOINTS

The Committee is aware that CBP is planning a permanent interior checkpoint in the Tucson Sector on Interstate Highway 19, and 

that the agency continues to consult with residents and community 

groups in this area as it develops and implements its planning. 

After months of local meetings in 2007, CBP stated that it had not 

yet determined the exact location for a permanent checkpoint, 

agreed to abandon its initial design for a large-scale permanent 

checkpoint modeled on the one in Laredo, Texas, and adjusted its 

plans for an upgraded interim checkpoint on I–19 based on input 

from the community. In addition, the Committee understands that 

GAO is beginning a congressionally-requested study of the effectiveness of existing interior checkpoints near the U.S.-Mexico border. The Committee directs CBP to not finalize planning for the design and location of a permanent checkpoint until the findings from 

the completed GAO study and data on the performance of the upgraded interim checkpoint have been collected and incorporated 

into such planning. The Committee also directs CBP, as appropriate, to make all interim checkpoint performance data available 

on an ongoing basis to affected communities and stakeholders, as 

part of full and transparent consultation with the public. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
33 

INTERNAL AFFAIRS

The Committee includes $5,300,000, as requested, for new investigative staff for CBP internal affairs’ operations, bringing the total 

number of investigators to 101. This expanded capacity should help 

CBP address misconduct and criminal activity, as well as work 

with the Office of Inspector General on allegations of corruption 

along the border. The need for this internal affairs capacity is 

made more urgent by the rapid growth in the CBP workforce. The 

Committee understands that processing of misconduct cases has 

been delayed due to a shortage of investigators, with potentially 

adverse effects on workforce integrity and morale. The Committee 

urges CBP to increase efforts to eliminate such backlogs, and directs CBP to include performance data on internal affairs productivity, including time required from intake to final disposition for 

cases, in the fiscal year 2010 budget request. 

INTELLIGENCE STAFFING

The Committee includes $42,750,000 for the CBP Office of Intelligence and Operations Coordination (OIOC), an increase of 

$24,000,000 as requested, for: an additional 27 positions associated 

with standing up a 24/7 Intelligence Watch capability; the development of an Analytical Framework for Intelligence Officers to improve access to CBP and DHS databases that currently must be 

accessed through separate channels; and the deployment of Homeland Security Data Network access to critical field sites. The growing role of OIOC in intelligence support is apparent in the fact that 

OIOC accounts for 75 percent of all DHS intelligence output. The 

Committee includes bill language directing that no funding may be 

obligated for the operation of the Analytical Framework for Intelligence Officers until the Commissioner certifies that this Framework complies with all applicable laws, including section 552a of 

title 5, U.S. Code, and other laws protecting privacy, and such certification is reviewed by OIG. The certification should include a discussion of how the funding will be used by CBP to integrate its operations under the intelligence governance and sharing systems of 

the Department and the intelligence community; the privacy and 

security protections that will be part of this system; and how procedures and policies will ensure the appropriate use of the law enforcement, economic and other information generated by CBP. 

WESTERN HEMISPHERE TRAVEL INITIATIVE

The Committee includes $139,973,000, as requested, to implement the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) at all ports 

of entry by June 2009. This includes funding for 89 new CBP Officers, bringing total CBP WHTI staffing to 294. The Committee remains concerned that the program may not be fully integrated and 

ready for enforcement of the WHTI document requirements. The 

Committee is aware that CBP is conducting time and motion studies at the busiest land border ports and plans to use information 

from these studies to improve both the quality and speed of data 

verification and processing. However, operational testing will not 

begin until September 2008 at the ports of Blaine and Nogales. 

Notwithstanding these efforts and the proposed WHTI staffing increase, the overall shortage of CBP personnel at ports of entry 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
34 

could lead to passenger processing delays and security gaps. Similarly, as the Committee noted last year, continued deferral of port 

infrastructure improvements also contributes to delays at ports of 

entry. The Committee expects DHS to ensure that WHTI does not 

exacerbate such problems, and directs CBP and the Office of Policy 

to brief the Committee not later than September 15, 2008, and 

quarterly thereafter, on the status of WHTI. 

NORTHERN BORDER STAFFING

As noted in previous years, the Committee strongly supports 

statutory requirements in the USA PATRIOT Act (Public Law 107– 

56), section 402 of the Trade Act of 2002 (Public Law 107–210) and 

the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 

(IRTPA) related to increasing the number of Border Patrol agents 

and CBP Officers on the Northern border. Threat information continues to point to Northern border vulnerabilities to terrorist action 

and intrusion. CBP has stated, however, that its target is to deploy 

no less than ten percent of the Border Patrol agent workforce to 

the Northern border, below the statutory requirements. Specifically, CBP has testified that it would deploy at least 1,845 Border 

Patrol agents on the Northern border by the end of fiscal year 

2009, 375 over the projected fiscal year 2008 level, but 65 less than 

is needed to comply with the IRTPA requirement that at least 20 

percent of the overall net increase in Border Patrol agents be assigned to the Northern border. The Committee expects CBP to 

meet statutory requirements and has included $1,950,000 for the 

cost of transferring an additional 65 agents to the Northern border. 

The Committee directs CBP to continue to include, as part of its 

quarterly hiring briefings, progress reports on hiring, training, and 

deploying Northern border staffing. 

ELECTRONIC SYSTEM FOR TRAVEL AUTHORIZATION

The Committee provided $36,000,000 in fiscal year 2008 for costs 

of planning, staffing, and system development of the Electronic 

System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) for screening and processing travelers from visa waiver program countries. The Committee understands that an ESTA project plan, schedule and funding have been approved, that four positions have been filled, and 

that CBP is recruiting additional personnel for its program management office and National Targeting Center. The Committee expects the Department to keep to its current plan to implement 

ESTA by summer 2008 that is commercially available, uses currently deployed technology, and is compatible with existing systems 

used by the global air transport industry. The Committee directs 

CBP to submit a report on ESTA implementation with its fiscal 

year 2010 budget request, and to include details on staffing, schedule and funding, as well as initial performance experience. 

MODEL PORTS OF ENTRY PROGRAM

The Committee directs CBP to submit a report on the establishment of the Model Ports of Entry program authorized by Section 

725 of Public Law 110–53 not later than six months after enactment of this Act. The report shall show how CBP is providing a 

more efficient and welcoming arrival process for international visiVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:07 Sep 19, 2008 Jkt 044458 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR862.XXX HR862

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
35 

tors at the top 20 international airports and include a CBP Officer 

staffing plan that considers the use of overtime and flexible work 

scheduling. In addition, the report should describe: (1) efforts by 

CBP for additional employee recruitment, retention, and training; 

(2) the process for disseminating entry requirements to international travelers before arrival into the U.S.; (3) improvements to 

queue management techniques; (4) the use of instructional and 

welcome videos and private sector representatives with multiple 

language capabilities at entry; (5) improvements to CBP signage; 

(6) the integration of private sector customer service programs into 

the CBP training curriculum; (7) the best practices developed at existing Model Ports of Entry to be expanded to remaining Model 

Ports of Entry; and (8) results of surveys of air travelers used to 

assess satisfaction with CBP performance. 

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED TRAVELER/GLOBAL ENTRY

Section 565 of the fiscal year 2008 Homeland Security Appropriation Act established a new International Registered Traveler pilot 

program, which CBP has named Global Entry. Global Entry will 

give pre-approved, low-risk travelers expedited clearance upon arrival into the United States by utilizing automated kiosks located 

at three international airports: John F. Kennedy International Airport, Washington-Dulles International Airport, and George Bush 

Intercontinental Airport. The Committee understands the pilot was 

to have begun accepting applicants in May 2008 and will run for 

six months. The Committee directs CBP to report on its findings 

from the pilot airports, with recommendations for funding and 

staffing a permanent program, not later than January 1, 2009. The 

Committee strongly supports prioritizing inspection efforts by expediting processing of low-risk travelers, and includes an additional 

$10,000,000 to enable CBP to continue and expand this program to 

the top 20 U.S. international airports. The Committee encourages 

CBP to work with the Transportation Security Administration to 

explore whether efficiencies can be gained by integrating enrollment processes for Global Entry and the Registered Traveler program for U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents who wish to 

participate in both programs. 

CARGO AND CONTAINER SECURITY

The Committee is concerned about staffing and implementation 

of the Container Security Initiative (CSI) and Secure Freight Initiative (SFI), which the Committee funds at the requested level of 

$149,450,000. Although CSI has been expanded to 58 ports worldwide, and SFI is being conducted at three primary and four other 

international seaports, CBP has yet to ensure that it fills these important posts with appropriately senior personnel who have requisite language skills and experience, and that its assignment and 

rotation schedule allows for continuity. During recent visits to CSI 

and SFI ports, the Committee learned that one port had four different team leaders in as many months, and that a lack of Arabic 

speaking personnel there necessitated moving a senior officer from 

another important port. GAO reported in January (GAO–08–187) 

that CBP is filling positions at CSI seaports, but (1) is still dependent on a temporary workforce; (2) needs to optimize staffing resources as the CSI program expands; and (3) needs to identify and 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
36 

recruit sufficient numbers of qualified individuals for the program. 

GAO noted that collaboration with host governments varies, leading in some cases to limited access to port areas and restrictions 

on participation or observation of cargo inspection. Until CBP corrects these critical deficiencies, it is unlikely to make tangible 

progress towards meeting the 100 percent screening requirement 

contained in the 9/11 Act. The Committee directs CBP to brief the 

Committee not later than January 8, 2009, on concrete steps it is 

taking, including the use of foreign national employees, to resolve 

problems in staffing and host country relations. 

SUPPLY CHAIN SECURITY

The Committee understands CBP is reviewing public comments 

on its proposed new security filing requirements (also described as 

‘‘10+2’’) for importers, shippers and carriers. CBP expects this new 

filing system to provide a more complete picture of supply chain 

elements and help CBP better target high risk cargo and containers. The fiscal year 2008 Appropriation Act included 

$13,000,000 to help CBP begin work on a global trade exchange 

(GTX) system to gather, process, analyze and maintain a database 

of sensitive information covering long supply chain segments for 

which no information is currently available or would be available 

under the new 10+2 requirements. CBP decided not to proceed 

with a GTX pilot effort until it had implemented the 10+2 security 

filing protocol. While the Committee understands CBP’s caution in 

not moving ahead with a new system while continuing to implement a new data collection initiative, it is concerned about the significant gaps that will remain in CBP’s information about cargo 

and containers in the supply chain. The Committee therefore directs CBP to report no later than January 8, 2009, on the state of 

its information and intelligence about international supply chain 

operations, gaps to be filled, and efforts underway to close them, 

including costs and implementation issues associated with such 

measures. 

IN-BOND CARGO AND CONTAINER SECURITY

CBP has initiated a new phase in its tests of commercial off-theshelf (COTS) technology as a means to track shipments that transit 

the United States under CBP bond. One current test uses radio frequency (RF) transponder technology combined with digital imaging 

as a way to reconcile in-bond transactions. The initial demonstration is being applied to in-bond shipments between the Ports of LA/ 

Long Beach, California, and Laredo, Texas. The Committee directs 

CBP to provide a status report on that demonstration, including information on the use of optical character recognition systems and 

integrated tracking and security systems. The report should also 

include the number of in-bond shipments for fiscal years 2006 

through 2009 (to date), and the number of times in-bond documents 

were not fully reconciled between arrival and destination ports. 

US-VISIT FUNCTION SUPPORT

The Committee includes $39,900,000 for maintenance, engineering and operations support for US-VISIT, a reduction of 

$22,900,000 from the request. The budget explanation did not jusVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:07 Sep 19, 2008 Jkt 044458 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR862.XXX HR862

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
37 

tify full funding, given that detailed breakouts of fiscal year 2007 

and 2008 costs were not provided, and current estimates for 2008 

appear well below the costs projected for fiscal year 2009. The 

Committee expects CBP to cover these costs from within its Salaries and Expenses appropriation or through further US-VISIT reimbursements, if necessary. The Committee also directs CBP to 

provide a detailed report on the prior year budget for this support, 

by account, purpose and fiscal year, with the fiscal year 2010 budget submission. 

SYSTEMS FOR TARGETING

The Committee funds the requested level of $32,550,000 for systems for targeting. No funding shall be obligated for the enhancement of Automated Targeting Systems-Passenger until the Commissioner certifies that such enhancement complies with all applicable laws, including section 552a of title 5 U.S. Code, and other 

laws protecting privacy, and such certification has been reviewed 

by OIG. The certification should demonstrate how such enhancements will improve targeting while fully complying with statutory 

requirements for handling and securing personal data. 

TEXTILE TRANSSHIPMENT ENFORCEMENT

The Committee includes $4,750,000, as requested, to continue 

textile transshipment enforcement. The Committee directs CBP to 

ensure that the activities of the Textile and Apparel Policies and 

Programs Office, specifically seizures, detention, and special operations, are maintained at least at the level of those activities in 

prior years. The Committee directs CBP to submit a report with 

the fiscal year 2010 budget on execution of its five-year strategic 

plan. The report should include information covering fiscal years 

2003–2008 on enforcement activities; textile production verification 

team exercises and special operations; numbers of seizures; penalties imposed; and the numbers and types of personnel responsible 

for enforcing textile laws (including headquarters staff in the Textile Enforcement Operations Division). 

AGRICULTURAL SPECIALISTS

The Committee recognizes that CBP needs additional Agriculture 

Specialists to minimize and reduce wait times associated with agricultural inspections. The Committee therefore includes $5,100,000 

for 100 additional Agricultural Specialists and directs that first priority be given to fully staffing the busiest land cargo ports of entry, 

as determined by the CBP Workforce Staffing Model. 

UNIFORM COMPLAINT SYSTEM

CBP testified that it currently lacks a consolidated system to collect complaints made regarding operations at ports of entry, but 

that it is working towards a uniform complaint system among all 

its ports. The Committee directs CBP to move quickly to develop 

such a system, and to submit a report with the fiscal year 2010 

budget request on the status of this effort, needed funding, and a 

timetable for completion. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
38 

UNACCOMPANIED ALIEN CHILDREN

The Committee remains troubled by reports that unaccompanied 

alien children continue to languish in CBP custody without access 

to appropriate nutrition, health care, recreation, education, or receipt of form I–770 notification of rights, including the right to a 

phone call. CBP has testified that it has developed standards for 

treatment of unaccompanied children and that CBP’s policy is to 

provide I–770 notifications. CBP has also testified that it follows 

specific standards for juvenile treatment under 8 CFR 236.3, Detention and Release of Juveniles, as well as the Flores v. Reno Settlement Guidance and CBP’s Secure Detention Procedures at Ports of 

Entry. Nonetheless, the Committee continues to receive reports of 

abuse and misconduct towards unaccompanied alien children, and 

is concerned with what happens between the time CBP processes 

such children and the time the children are transferred to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, which has primary responsibility for 

the care and placement of such children. The Committee encourages CBP to implement periodic training for CBP staff, led by reputable non-governmental organizations with child welfare expertise. CBP’s efforts should include education and testing of employees concerning departmental policies and procedures regarding 

children. The Committee also directs CBP to submit a report with 

its 2010 budget request on results of the annual Border Patrol SelfInspection Program. The report should include data on the number 

of unaccompanied minors processed by the Border Patrol; the degree to which policy on child care was followed in each event; and 

whether all unaccompanied alien children received their Form I– 

770 and related information in a timely fashion. 

CARRIZO CANE

The Committee is aware that DHS and CBP have been working 

with the Departments of Interior and Agriculture, as well as the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), on efforts to eradicate and 

control the growth of Arundo donax, also known as Carrizo Cane. 

Carrizo Cane has proven to be a significant obstacle to Border Patrol efforts to gain effective control of the Texas border. The Committee understands that pilot programs are either underway or 

planned to use chemical and mechanical eradication techniques, as 

well as biological agents such as wasps, and that the USACE is 

preparing an environmental impact statement concerning eradication along 111 miles of the Rio Grande River. The Committee directs CBP to submit, with its fiscal year 2010 budget request, a 

comprehensive plan to eradicate Arundo donax and other invasive 

plants that inhibit security efforts along the U.S.-Mexico border, including in Eagle Pass and other Texas border areas not now included in the pilot programs. The plan should evaluate all available 

methods for eradication to include, but not be limited to, mechanical, chemical, and biological agents. The plan should include recommendations for the quickest and most environmentally sound 

eradication methods, and include timetables and funding needed to 

implement them. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
39 

PANDEMIC FLU AND INFECTIOUS DISEASE

The Committee is aware that in 2006 CBP developed plans and 

procedures to guide CBP’s role in a pandemic outbreak. CBP’s goal 

is to decrease the smuggling and distribution of prohibited agricultural commodities and products with influenza risk. In related efforts, CBP developed bird importation handling procedures and deployed related Internet-based training modules. The Committee encourages CBP to explore with the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention Division of Global Migration and Quarantine the potential of further efforts to improve CBP officer training related to infectious disease interdiction and control at U.S. ports of entry. Such 

training could include enhanced training at FLETC, distance learning programs, and the use of technology, such as personal data assistants for CBP Officers to provide algorithm-based decision-making tools. 

RADIATION PORTAL MONITORS

CBP has reported that the staffing required to operate radiation 

portal monitors (RPMs) and control the gates where RPMs are deployed has come by reducing other positions, chiefly inspectors. To 

address this deficiency, the Committee has included $34,332,000 to 

fund 350 positions, including 293 CBP Officers, as well as scientists, specialists and support positions. 

The Committee has also included $4,968,000, $3,200,000 less 

than requested, for costs of RPM operation and maintenance, which 

have become the responsibility of CBP following transfer of the systems from the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office. Funding was reduced from the request because the delivery of the Advanced 

Spectroscopic Portal systems is not expected until mid to late fiscal 

year 2009. 

PROJECT SEAHAWK

The Committee includes $2,000,000 for the containerized cargo 

inspection demonstration project as part of Operation SeaHawk at 

the Port of Charleston, South Carolina. The Committee encourages 

CBP, along with Coast Guard and ICE, to continue its work with 

the Department of Justice on the Project SeaHawk law enforcement task force. The Committee directs CBP to report not later 

than February 16, 2009, on the impact of Project SeaHawk to date, 

and to include details of how the project will be funded and supported beyond fiscal year 2009. 

CONTAINER SECURITY DEVICE (CSD)

The Committee directs CBP to join the Science and Technology 

(S&T) Directorate to provide quarterly updates on its efforts to explore a viable CSD solution, as described in the S&T section. 

AUTOMATION MODERNIZATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 ......................................................... $476,609,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 ..................................................... 511,334,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 511,334,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 .................................................. +34,725,000 

Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2009 ............................................. 0 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
40 

MISSION

Automation Modernization includes funding for major information technology projects for CBP, including the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) system; support and transition of the 

legacy Automated Commercial System (ACS); the integration and 

connectivity of information technology within CBP and DHS as 

part of Current Operations Protection and Processing Support 

(COPPS); and modernization of the Traveler Enforcement and 

Compliance System (TECS). 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $511,334,000 for Automation Modernization, the same as the amount requested and $34,725,000 

above the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. Not less than 

$316,851,000 is for ACE development. CBP is directed to provide 

an expenditure plan detailing how it will distribute this funding to 

ACE, COPPS, and TECS, and the Committee includes bill language 

making $216,851,000 unavailable for obligation for ACE until 30 

days after it receives a detailed expenditure plan for that program. 

ACE PLAN

CBP is beginning to make progress in implementing the ACE 

program to automate complex customs processes. The Committee 

directs that CBP continue to provide the level of detail within the 

ACE expenditure plan as required in previous years. These shall 

include: 

(1) a detailed accounting of the program’s progress, up to the 

date of the report, in meeting prior commitments made to the 

Committees on Appropriations relative to system capabilities 

or services, system performance levels, mission benefits and 

outcomes, milestones, cost targets, and program management 

capabilities; 

(2) an explicit plan of action defining how all funds are to be 

obligated to meet future program commitments, with the 

planned expenditure of funds linked to the milestone-based delivery of specific capabilities, services, performance levels, mission benefits and outcomes, and program management capabilities; 

(3) a listing of all open GAO and OIG recommendations related to ACE, the status of DHS efforts to address the recommendations, and milestones for fully addressing them; 

(4)(a) a certification by the DHS Chief Procurement Officer 

that (1) the ACE program has been reviewed and approved in 

accordance with the investment management process of the 

Department, (2) the process fulfills all capital planning and investment control requirements and reviews established by 

OMB, including Circular A–11, part 7, and (3) the plans for the 

program comply with the Federal acquisition rules, requirements, guidelines, and practices; 

(b) supporting analyses generated by and used in the DHS 

investment management process; and 

(c) a description of the actions being taken to address areas 

of non-compliance, risks associated with such areas, plans for 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
41 

addressing these risks and the status of the implementation of 

such plans; 

(5)(a) a certification by the DHS Chief Information Officer 

that (1) an independent validation and verification agent has 

reviewed and will continue to review the program, (2) the ACE 

system architecture is sufficiently aligned with the DHS information systems enterprise architecture to minimize future rework, including a description of all aspects of the architectures 

that were or were not assessed in making the alignment determination, the date of the alignment determination, and any 

known areas of misalignment together with associated risks 

and corrective actions to address any such areas, and (3) the 

ACE program has a risk management process that regularly 

and proactively identifies, evaluates, mitigates, and monitors 

risks throughout the system life cycle, and communicates highrisk conditions to CBP and DHS investment decision-makers; 

and 

(b) a listing of the ACE program’s high risks and the status 

of efforts to address them; and 

(6) a certification by the DHS Chief Human Capital Officer 

that the human capital needs of the ACE program are being 

strategically and proactively managed, and that current 

human capital capabilities are sufficient to execute the plan. 

TECS MODERNIZATION

The Committee includes $50,000,000, as requested, to fund the 

second ‘‘wave’’ of a six-year development effort to modernize TECS, 

a 38-year-old system used extensively by DHS (especially CBP and 

ICE) as well as other federal, state and local law enforcement agencies. TECS is a critical law enforcement system used for border enforcement and sharing of information about individuals who may 

be inadmissible to, or represent a security threat to, the United 

States. The fiscal year 2009 request, along with the $25,000,000 

appropriated in fiscal year 2008, comprises about 20 percent of the 

total projected cost of $343,000,000. To ensure that this important 

project is carried out effectively, the Committee directs CBP to submit a detailed expenditure plan not later than January 8 2009, to 

include: (1) a description of each project in the modernization program; (2) a certification by the Department’s Chief Information Officer that the system architecture for TECS is aligned with the 

DHS Enterprise Architecture; (3) a status report on actions taken 

and approvals granted by the TECS Governance Committee, as 

well as the DHS Investment Review Board; (4) a description of 

timelines and milestones for the development and implementation 

of each project, achievements in fiscal year 2008, and performance 

to date against targets and (5) current cost estimates for the total 

modernization effort, as well the remaining project ‘‘waves’’. 

BORDER SECURITY, FENCING, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND TECHNOLOGY

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 ......................................................... $1,225,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 ..................................................... 775,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 775,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 .................................................. ¥450,000,000 

Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2009 ............................................. 0 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
42 

MISSION

The Border Security, Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology 

(BSFIT) account funds the technology and tactical infrastructure 

solutions to achieve effective control of the U.S. borders and coastlines. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $775,000,000 for Border Security, 

Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology (BSFIT), the same as the 

amount requested and $450,000,000 below the amount provided in 

fiscal year 2008. Of the funds provided, $400,000,000 may not be 

obligated until an expenditure plan is approved by the Committees 

on Appropriations and reviewed by GAO. The Committee includes 

bill language making no funds available for obligation for fencing 

or tactical infrastructure for which the Secretary intends to waive 

environmental or other legislation until 15 days after the intention 

to invoke such authority is published in the Federal Register. In 

addition, the Committee continues bill language making no BSFIT 

funds available for obligation until DHS has complied with the consultation provisions of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. The bill also requires Secretarial 

certfication of this compliance. 

A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee recommended level by budget activity is as follows: 

Budget estimate Recommended 

Development and Deployment ................................................................. $275,000,000 $245,000,000 

• Technology and Infrastructure Investment ................................. 0 175,000,000 

• Border Interoperability Demostration Project ............................. 0 30,000,000 

• Northern Border Technology Investment ..................................... 0 40,000,000 

Operations and Support (Integrated Logistics) ....................................... 410,000,000 410,000,000 

Program Management ............................................................................. 90,000,000 120,000,000 

• Personnel Operations and Support ............................................. 0 70,000,000 

• Regulatory and Environmental Requirements ............................ 0 50,000,000 

Total ....................................................................................... 775,000,000 775,000,000 

QUARTERLY REPORTS

The Committee directs the Department to continue its Secure 

Border Initiative status reports on a quarterly, versus the current, 

bi-monthly, schedule. The report should include an update on 

Northern border SBInet investments. 

SECURE BORDER INVESTMENT

The Committee has provided over $2,700,000,000 in appropriations for BSFIT activities since 2006. Combined with the 

$775,000,000 included in this bill, BSFIT will have received more 

funding in this account over four years than the entire Border Patrol budget for fiscal year 2009. DHS currently estimates the cost 

to construct its proposed additional 225 miles of pedestrian fence 

(to achieve a total of 370) to be $930,000,000, or over $4,000,000 

per mile. 

The Committee is concerned that the rapid growth in border 

technology and tactical infrastructure (fencing, roads and lighting) 

deployed since 2007 and projected for fiscal years 2008–09 may 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
43 

lead to systems and structures that are expensive, fail to perform 

as promised, and do not result in a more secure border. Today, 

there are 325 miles of pedestrian and vehicle fencing along the 

Southwest border, compared to 119 miles of such fencing at the beginning of fiscal year 2006. Despite this increase, however, BSFIT 

results overall to date have failed to meet expectations. 

Fencing in and of itself does not lead to the border being under 

‘‘effective control,’’ as has been recently seen in San Diego, where 

illegal border crossing traffic has increased despite having a fence. 

CBP estimates that only 486 miles of the 1,954 mile Southwest 

border are currently under ‘‘effective control.’’ On the largely 

unpatrolled Northern border, the number of miles under ‘‘effective 

control’’ remains at 12—unchanged from 2005—and a pilot program funded in 2007 only now is getting underway. 

Unfortunately, deployment of commercially available technology 

to leverage CBP’s border enforcement capability has been disappointingly slow. Project 28, which was to set the pace for rolling 

out technology solutions, was completed almost ten months behind 

schedule, and its payoff has been very limited. The disappointing 

results of Project 28 demonstrated that technology development 

must have meaningful participation by end-users from the start. 

The Committee is concerned that the planned deployment of 

SBInet technology in the Tucson and Ajo areas of Arizona, presently scheduled for 2008, is being rushed and may result in cost 

overruns and underperformance. Until there is more tangible 

progress in developing and testing the underlying technology, the 

risks associated with committing funding for this deployment are 

significant. The effort to implement a Common Operating Picture 

version 0.5 in 2008 may also be premature. The Committee notes 

that the former manager of SBInet publicly stated serious concerns 

with the program, including ‘‘cost overruns and lack of a system design by prime contractor’’ as well as ‘‘constantly changing requirements, the lack of a program baseline, and an unrealistic schedule.’’ 

CBP testified that it plans to have completed work on 370 miles 

of pedestrian fencing and 300 miles of vehicle barriers on the 

Southwest border by the end of calendar year 2008. While CBP 

proposes to use development and deployment funding for additional 

tactical infrastructure in fiscal year 2009 beyond the 670 miles currently planned, it has not indicated where it would be deployed, or 

even its priorities for such funds. The Department must effectively 

demonstrate the positive impact of currently planned infrastructure on the security and well-being of the Southwest Border region. 

NORTHERN BORDER TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENT

CBP has invested only 1.7 percent of total BSFIT resources appropriated to date for improving Northern border security. It plans 

to use about $46,000,000 for Northern border investments in fiscal 

year 2008 (including $20,000,000 in fiscal year 2007 funds for the 

Detroit pilot), and proposes a similar funding level for this activity 

in 2009. This is a meager effort, particularly given that our land 

border with Canada is more than twice the length of the Southwest 

border and, as the Secretary of Homeland Security has said, is 

more vulnerable to terrorist infiltration or smuggling. The Committee includes $40,000,000 specifically for new technology investVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:07 Sep 19, 2008 Jkt 044458 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR862.XXX HR862

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
44 

ments to address Northern border vulnerabilities and for efforts to 

follow up on the Detroit area maritime pilot project. Quarterly SBI 

reports must include a report on technology investments on the 

Northern border. 

BORDER INTEROPERABILITY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

A key element of border security is the integration of efforts by 

all levels of government present at the borders—federal, State, 

local and tribal. At present, the lack of fully interoperable communications among those levels in border areas places real limits on 

the ability to coordinate activities and leverage efforts related to 

threat detection, operations, and public safety. To begin to address 

this problem, the Committee includes $30,000,000, as authorized in 

section 302 of the 9/11 Act, for a Border Interoperability Demonstration Project in Northern border and Southwestern border 

communities, with participants to be selected by the Secretary and 

funding distributed through the State or States in which the communities are located. The Committee directs the Secretary to report 

by January 8, 2009, on the Department’s plans for use of this funding, including selection of participating communities and a timetable for conducting the pilots. 

OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT

The Committee includes $410,000,000, as requested, for the operation and maintenance of systems and infrastructure deployed with 

BSFIT funding. This represents a 460 percent increase over the fiscal year 2008 appropriated level. Within this amount, the Committee understands that $75,000,000 is for operation and maintenance costs for tactical infrastructure, with the remaining 

$335,000,000 for support of technology. The Committee is concerned that such a large increase is not consistent with the current 

pace of implementation of SBI technology solutions, and that the 

$75,000,000 seems far beyond the requirements for maintenance of 

the 670 miles in total fencing and vehicle barriers CBP is planning 

to have in place by the end of 2008, let alone the 325 miles of such 

fencing and barriers currently in place. 

The Committee recommends this funding level to make certain 

that the program does not lack basic operational resources despite 

the fact that the Department provided inadequate information to 

justify it. To ensure these funds are necessary, the Committee directs CBP to provide a detailed report on operations and support 

obligations and expenditures on a monthly basis, beginning January 8, 2009. The first such report shall include all obligations and 

expenditures to date. 

ENVIRONMENTAL AND REGULATORY ASSESSMENTS

The Committee includes $50,000,000 for regulatory and environmental assessments and mitigation, $40,000,000 above the amount 

requested. In April 2008, when the Secretary waived the environmental and other laws affecting as much as 470 miles of Southwest 

border, the Department stated it would mitigate or avoid damaging 

impacts where possible. The Committee is concerned, therefore, 

that CBP has rejected proposals to use science-based approaches to 

develop and monitor mitigation efforts, for example by comparing 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
45 

the impact of new infrastructure with similar areas where such infrastructure is absent, or by using existing authority to establish 

‘‘buffer areas’’ to accommodate both mitigation and security objectives. The Committee includes $50,000,000 to enable more meaningful efforts for environmental assessment and mitigation. The 

Committee directs CBP to include an environmental mitigation 

plan and report on mitigation efforts with its fiscal year 2009 expenditure plan submission. The plan should be science-based; include an extensive monitoring protocol; incorporate best practices 

developed in consultation with relevant Federal, State, local and 

tribal authorities; and support land acquisition efforts for mitigation purposes, where applicable. 

Furthermore, the Committee expects the Department to limit 

any future exercise of the Secretary’s waiver authority to specific, 

narrowly-defined, unaggregated segments of the border. The Committee retains existing bill language requiring the Secretary to provide 15 days’ notice in the Federal Register in those instances 

where a decision is made to invoke such authority. 

EXPENDITURE PLAN

The Committee has been disappointed with the initial fiscal year 

2008 BSFIT expenditure plan, which did not provide the information and level of detail required. Some requirements were completely ignored, including the comparison of alternatives to fencing 

as a means to achieve effective control on the border. The Committee directs CBP to comply fully with the requirements of the 

law in its fiscal year 2009 expenditure plan. 

The Committee is also concerned that DHS has not taken actions 

identified by GAO to reduce investment risk, leaving over $3.5 billion in current and proposed investment at risk. To ensure that a 

foundation for effective investment is in place, a track record of 

performance is established, and a balanced approach is taken to 

address all threats along the borders, $400,000,000 is unavailable 

for obligation until the Committee has received and approved an 

expenditure plan that: 

1. Defines activities, milestones, and costs for implementing 

the program to date for all investments, including technology 

and tactical infrastructure; identifies the maximum investment 

related to the SBInet contract; estimates lifecycle costs; and describes the methodology used to obtain these cost figures; 

2. Demonstrates in detail how specific projects will further 

the goals and objectives of the Secure Border Initiative (SBI), 

as defined in the DHS Secure Border Plan, and how the expenditure plan allocates funding to the highest priority border 

security needs; 

3. Includes an explicit plan of action for meeting current and 

future program commitments, specifically showing the current 

year investment and estimated maximum investment (including lifecycle costs) for funding under the plan; 

4. Identifies funding and staffing requirements by office and 

function within the SBI program; 

5. Describes in detail how the plan addresses Northern border and Port of Entry security needs (including infrastructure, 

technology, and design and operations requirements); how plan 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
46 

components rely on BSFIT funding; and how SBI has 

prioritized its Northern border activities; 

6. Reports on budgeting, obligations and expenditures, activities completed, and progress made related to obtaining effective operational control of the border; 

7. Lists all open GAO and OIG recommendations, status of 

efforts to address them, and a timetable for doing so; 

8. Includes Chief Procurement Officer certification (1) of the 

investment management process; (2) that the plan complies 

with all applicable federal acquisition rules and best practices, 

reflects contracting administration improvements, and addresses procurement risk; and (3) that there are no conflicts of interest between the prime integrator and subcontractors. This certification should append all relevant documents and memoranda, including documentation and definitions related to the 

investment review processes used to obtain said certification; 

9. Includes Chief Information Officer certification that (1) the 

program system architecture aligns with the information systems architecture of DHS and (2) the program has a risk management process. This certification should append all relevant 

documents and memoranda, including a description of processes used to obtain said certification; 

10. Includes Chief Human Capital Officer certification that 

the human capital needs of the program are being addressed 

in a way that ensures adequate staff and resources are available to effectively manage SBI, along with a description of SBI 

staffing priorities. This certification should include all relevant 

documents or memoranda, including a description of processes 

used to obtain said certification; 

11. Includes a detailed analysis by the Secretary for each 

segment, defined as 15 or fewer border miles, comparing a 

fence or tactical infrastructure solution with alternative means 

to achieve operational control, such as additional staffing, 

other technology or infrastructure, or a combination of such 

components; and 

12. Is reviewed by GAO. 

The Committee retains and modifies bill language setting thresholds for notifying the Committee of task orders, including obligations and expenditures. This notification requirement is necessary 

because of the procurement risk, identified by GAO, stemming from 

the lack of a contract minimum or maximum in the SBInet contract. 

ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

The Committee expects the analysis of alternatives for effective 

control of the border that is contained in the fiscal year 2009 expenditure plan to provide a meaningful basis for comparing different means to achieve border security. It should fully document 

the decision process that led to selection of fencing as the optimal 

solution. The Committee directs that such comparison include the 

following information: 

1. A methodology section to explain how CBP determined 

ratings and weightings, and the standard guidance applied to 

all segment analyses; 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
47 

2. A description of the baseline costs of each segment, broken 

out by personnel, infrastructure, and technology, and a detailed comparison of the cost of each alternative against that 

baseline; 

3. A comparison of the estimated level of border control, by 

segment, under each alternative (deterrence and time/distance) 

relative to the current level of border control; in defining the 

latter, CBP’s estimates should incorporate natural barriers or 

other features of the landscape as appropriate and fully describe the contribution of such features in the plan. 

Alternatives should consist of reasonable combinations of elements (e.g., agents, sensors, and cameras), instead of being limited 

to individual elements that are unlikely to be fielded in isolation. 

CBP should also include alternatives proposed by communities or 

other stakeholder groups, such as eradication of vegetation; enhancement of natural barriers; or incorporation of security features 

into projects. 

CONSULTATION WITH FEDERAL AGENCIES AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES

Public Law 110–161 Section 564(b) required the Secretary to consult with other Cabinet secretaries, State, local and tribal governments, and local landowners to minimize the impact of proposed 

fencing on the environment, culture, commerce and quality of life 

of the affected communities. The Committee is aware of the Department’s documented outreach efforts with organizations, local 

government officials and landowners. In many cases, however, such 

outreach consisted of limited conversations or briefings, rather 

than transparent public dialogue that solicited, acknowledged or 

addressed concerns or proposals offered by those with whom CBP 

is charged with consulting. While the Committee understands that 

the consultation process does not grant stakeholders a veto over 

DHS authority to construct tactical infrastructure, the Department 

should engage in a meaningful process that attempts to address 

stakeholder concerns and fully consider viable alternatives. To support such consultation, the Committee directs CBP, as part of the 

alternatives analysis in the 2009 expenditure plan, to identify and 

evaluate alternatives proposed by stakeholders as potential substitutes for tactical infrastructure. The Committee also retains and 

modifies bill language from the fiscal year 2008 Homeland Security 

appropriation that makes no BSFIT funding available for obligation until the Secretary certifies that DHS has complied with the 

consultation provisions of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 and the Secretary certifies to 

such. 

To help improve the consultation process in the future, the Committee also directs GAO to assess the consultation process CBP 

used in fiscal year 2008 for projects planned for the Texas border, 

with particular attention to (1) the standards used to achieve 

meaningful consultation and consistent execution of consultation 

requirements throughout CBP and the Border Patrol; (2) the communication of those standards within CBP; (3) the training, as appropriate, of CBP personnel to carry out the consultations; and (4) 

the processes used to address issues or alternative proposals that 

were introduced or raised as part of the consultation process. The 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
48 

report should be submitted to the Committee not later than March 

1, 2009. 

AIR AND MARINE INTERDICTION, OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE, AND

PROCUREMENT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 ......................................................... $570,047,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 ..................................................... 528,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 510,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 .................................................. ¥60,047,000 

Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2009 ............................................. ¥18,000,000 

MISSION

CBP Air and Marine provides integrated and coordinated border 

interdiction and law enforcement support for homeland security 

missions; provides airspace security for high risk areas or National 

Special Security Events upon request; and combats efforts to smuggle narcotics and other contraband into the United States. Air and 

Marine also provides aviation and marine support for the counterterrorism efforts of many other law enforcement agencies. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $510,000,000 for Air and Marine 

Interdiction, Operations, Maintenance, and Procurement, 

$18,000,000 below the amount requested and $60,047,000 below 

the amounts provided in fiscal year 2008. The funding includes 

$380,022,000 for operations and maintenance; $56,000,000 to continue P–3 Service Life Extension; $35,600,000 for Multi-Role Enforcement Aircraft; $9,000,000 to upgrade one Black Hawk helicopter; $11,600,000 for Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) ground 

control and spares; $7,700,000 for C–550 sensor upgrades; and 

$10,078,000 for marine vessels (including $7,369,000 to acquire 49 

marine interceptor vessels for the Northern border). Within the 

above amounts, the Committee funds $26,600,000 for Northern Air 

branches, as requested. 

MULTI-ROLE ENFORCEMENT AIRCRAFT

The Committee is aware that the contract for the DHC–8/Q300, 

expected to be the principal medium-range asset for CBP surveillance and counterdrug missions, will end production in 2009, and 

that CBP will only take delivery of seven such aircraft. The Committee understands that the replacement for this mission area will 

likely be another twin-engine aircraft. The Committee directs CBP 

to brief the Committee on steps it has taken and is planning for 

this replacement, including associated timetables and costs, not 

later than January 8, 2009. The Committee is supportive of this effort and recognizes the need to recapitalize. However, if CBP does 

not plan to obligate the funding provided for this aircraft in fiscal 

year 2009, it may utilize this funding instead for additional Black 

Hawk helicopters. 

UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS

The Committee understands CBP is working with the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) and Coast Guard to expand the 

ability to operate and test the use of unmanned aircraft systems 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
49 

(UAS) in national airspace beyond the limited areas along the 

Southwest border, where operations have been generally restricted 

to date. CBP is preparing to certify its Grand Forks, North Dakota 

Air Branch as a location for UAS deployment in 2008, and has undertaken a deployment demonstration in the Gulf Coast area as it 

begins to work on a strategy for marine UAS deployment. 

The Committee does not include $18,000,000, as requested, to enable CBP to complete acquisition and deployment of a seventh UAS 

system. Despite the potential value of UAS as a surveillance tool, 

there are many practical limitations of expanded UAS deployment 

beyond current levels. While the Predator B model is approved to 

operate in certain restricted airspace, there remain FAA limitations on extending such operation to national airspace more broadly. In addition, there are staffing limitations at the Air and Marine 

Operations Center (AMOC), which is intended to house the centrally controlled operations for all UAS. The relatively high unit acquisition and operating cost for UAS, roughly $6,000,000 for the 

aircraft and $18,000,000 for a complete system, are high compared 

to manned aircraft of similar size. Furthermore, DHS has reported 

it currently cannot make a valid comparison of the cost of operating its three aircraft types, which makes a meaningful cost effectiveness assessment difficult. 

The size and cost of the UAS component of the CBP Air and Marine program, and its exact deployment and mission profile and 

performance, are still being developed. The Committee directs CBP 

to provide a more comprehensive report on the plans for deployment of the UAS, to include: the concept of operations for the border and coastal regions, and international operations, if relevant; 

a detailed report on operational costs, to include staffing and maintenance; basing and range of deployment of UAS; mission performance statistics; and status of FAA certification and approval for national airspace operations. The report should be submitted not later 

than January 8, 2009. 

PRIVATE AIRCRAFT ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM NONCOMPLIANCE

CBP has testified that private aircraft may routinely enter the 

U.S. over the Northern border without reporting their entry via 

CBP form 178, as required by law, and are doing so without repercussion. CBP is directed to brief the Committee not later than September 1, 2008, on steps being taken to end this vulnerability. To 

help in this effort, the Committee includes $5,000,000 to fund the 

deployment of the Wireless Airport Surveillance Platform (WASP) 

at small or untowered airports. The Committee is aware that CBP’s 

Air and Marine Operations Center (AMOC) participated in a WASP 

demonstration associated with a Science & Technology Directorate 

initiative. The Committee was informed by AMOC staff that this 

system could help detect the use of private airports by smugglers 

or other private aircraft that have entered U.S. airspace without 

authorization. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
50 

CONSTRUCTION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 ......................................................... $348,363,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 ..................................................... 363,501,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 363,501,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 .................................................. 15,138,000 

Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2009 ............................................. 0 

MISSION

The Construction account funds the planning, design, and assembly of Border Patrol infrastructure, including Border Patrol stations; checkpoints; temporary detention facilities; mission support 

facilities; and construction costs at CBP-owned ports of entry. Tactical infrastructure (fencing, barriers, lighting and road improvements at the border) is funded through the Border Security, Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology account. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $363,501,000 for Construction, the 

same as the amount requested and $15,138,000 above the amount 

provided in fiscal year 2008. The funding includes $255,300,000 for 

Border Patrol construction; $16,600,000 for Air and Marine facilities; $10,000,000 to modernize CBP-owned ports of entry; 

$25,400,000 for minor construction; $15,000,000 for housing; 

$39,200,000 for lease acquisition, operations and maintenance, and 

repairs; and $2,015,000 for planning. 

LAND PORT OF ENTRY MODERNIZATION

Traditionally, funding within the Construction account has supported Border Patrol and Air and Marine facilities construction and 

maintenance. Most land ports of entry are owned by the General 

Services Administration, which leases them to CBP and is responsible for modernizing or expanding those facilities. CBP has identified the upgrading of these GSA-owned inspection facilities as a 

high priority, and has reported that the cost could be as high as 

$1,800,000,000. The Committee directs CBP to continue working 

with GSA to prioritize funding for modernizing these facilities. 

In addition to GSA facilities, the 43 land ports of entry owned 

and maintained by CBP require significant recapitalization, which 

CBP estimates could cost $150,000,000. The Committee includes 

$10,000,000, as requested, to begin this recapitalization, and directs CBP to submit a detailed plan for modernizing all 43 ports 

of entry with its 2010 budget request. 

U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 ......................................................... $4,687,517,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 ..................................................... 4,690,905,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 4,746,171,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 .................................................. +58,654,000 

Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2009 ............................................. +55,266,000 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
51 

MISSION

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is the lead 

agency responsible for enforcement of immigration laws, customs 

laws, and the security of Federal facilities. ICE protects the United 

States by investigating, deterring, and detecting threats arising 

from the movement of people and goods into and out of the country. 

ICE consists of more than 17,000 employees within four major program areas: Office of Investigations; Federal Protective Service; Office of Intelligence; and Detention and Removal Operations. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $4,746,171,000 for Salaries and Expenses, $55,266,000 above the amount requested and $58,654,000 

above the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. 

Within these amounts, the Committee provides $800,000,000 to 

finance ICE’s identification of undocumented individuals with 

criminal records who are incarcerated or at large, and the removal 

of those aliens with criminal records who have been judged deportable in immigration court. The Committee believes that ICE should 

have no greater immigration enforcement priority than to remove 

violent, deportable criminal aliens from the United States. 

The Committee provides $1,322,219,000 for ICE’s investigatory 

responsibilities, and funds many of the requested increases in customs and trade enforcement activities. The Committee has developed a new investigatory budget structure for ICE in 2009 to provide transparency into the agency’s various law enforcement missions. As ICE’s investigatory program has matured since its creation five years ago, its investigatory budgets have increased dramatically. Along with this budgetary growth comes the responsibility for accountability and prioritization of the investigatory 

workload. 

A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee recommended level by budget activity is as follows: 

Budget estimate Recommended 

Headquarters Management and Administration ..................................... $374,537,000 $360,968,000 

Identification and Removal of Criminal Aliens (IRCA): 

Criminal Alien Program* ................................................................ 189,069,000 189,069,000 

Fugitive Operations* ....................................................................... 226,477,000 226,477,000 

Custody Operations* ....................................................................... 46,000,000 46,000,000 

State and Local Programs** .......................................................... 83,380,000 78,474,000 

Immigration Investigations** ......................................................... 164,905,000 164,905,000 

Other Criminal Investigations** .................................................... 40,545,000 40,545,000 

Additional IRCA funding ................................................................. 0 54,530,000 

Subtotal, IRCA ....................................................................... 750,376,000 800,000,000 

Detention and Removal Operations: 

Custody Operations ......................................................................... 1,650,495,000 1,650,495,000 

Alternatives to Detention ................................................................ 55,791,000 63,000,000 

Transportation and Removal Program ........................................... 281,399,000 281,399,000 

Subtotal, Detention and Removal Operations ....................... 1,987,685,000 1,994,894,000 

Legal Proceedings .................................................................................... 214,332,000 215,134,000 

Domestic Investigations: 

Customs and Trade ........................................................................ 757,000,000 758,120,000 

Counterterrorism/JTTF Support ........................................................ 66,734,000 66,734,000 

Human Smuggling and Trafficking ................................................ 109,991,000 109,991,000 

Immigration Investigations ............................................................. 124,783,000 124,783,000 

Gang Enforcement .......................................................................... 35,070,000 47,070,000 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
52 

Budget estimate Recommended 

Worksite Enforcement ..................................................................... 92,300,000 90,000,000 

Subtotal, Domestic Investigations ......................................... 1,185,878,000 1,196,698,000 

International Investigations: 

International Operations ................................................................. 106,741,000 107,021,000 

Visa Security Program .................................................................... 18,400,000 18,500,000 

Subtotal, International Investigations ................................... 125,141,000 125,521,000 

Intelligence .............................................................................................. 52,956,000 52,956,000

Total, ICE Salaries and Expenses ................................ 4,690,905,000 4,746,171,000 

* Previously displayed within Detention and Removal Operations. 

** Previously displayed within Domestic Investigations. 

PRIORITIZING THE REMOVAL OF DEPORTABLE CRIMINAL ALIENS

In the 2008 Appropriations Act, the Congress provided ICE $200,000,000 to identify aliens convicted of crimes and sentenced 

to imprisonment, and to remove such individuals from the country 

who are judged deportable. Along with these funds, ICE was instructed to submit an expenditure plan to the Committee describing the strategy and process the agency would use to carry out this 

responsibility. 

Within the agency’s plan to identify and remove deportable 

criminal aliens, ICE developed a conceptual methodology to find 

the most violent and dangerous criminals in an effort to ensure 

that those who are the greatest threat to society are the first priority for removal. The Committee believes this type of risk-based 

prioritization is critical to successful execution of the ICE mission, 

and encourages ICE to adopt the same approach to locating and arresting dangerous, at-large criminal aliens. 

ICE estimates that identification and removal of the most dangerous criminal aliens would cost at least $900,000,000 and take 

more than three years to achieve. Of the $200,000,000 provided in 

2008, ICE’s plan deferred $175,000,000 of expenditures until 2009, 

partly in anticipation of a lengthy program implementation. 

The Committee recognizes the need for resources to carry out the 

ICE plan, and therefore allocates $800,000,000 in 2009 to finance 

the agency’s efforts to identify and remove the most violent and 

dangerous criminals from the United States. The Committee also 

includes a statutory requirement for ICE to provide quarterly briefings on its progress in doing so. Combined with the $175,000,000 

that ICE chose to reserve from 2008, this funding should be adequate for the agency to establish a full-scale, nationwide program. 

To support this effort further, the Committee establishes a consolidated program budget so that ICE is able to build upon its existing 

resources to ensure comprehensive coverage of the entire nation. 

Included within this program budget is funding for Fugitive Operations teams and the Criminal Alien Program, previously reflected 

as part of the Detention and Removal Operations function, along 

with funding for State and Local Programs, Criminal Investigations, and a portion of Immigration Investigations, previously reflected in the Office of Investigations function. The Committee also 

adds $54,530,000 in unrequested funding for this initiative. 

The State and Local Programs budget, which is part of the $800,000,000 allocated to the identification and removal of criminal 

aliens, includes funding to support the delegation of immigration 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
53 

enforcement authority to State and local law enforcement agencies 

through 287(g) agreements and funding for the Law Enforcement 

Support Center, which helps State and local agencies determine 

the immigration status of criminals and non-criminals alike. By allocating the budgets for these programs to ICE’s efforts to identify 

and remove criminal aliens, the Committee intends that ICE make 

this its first immigration enforcement priority. However, the Committee does not preclude ICE from the enforcement of immigration 

laws pertaining to non-criminal aliens, or limit the exercise of delegated 287(g) authorities to the exclusive apprehension of criminal 

aliens. Similarly, while funding for Fugitive Operations teams, 

which will also be part of the criminal alien budget in 2009, should 

primarily be used to focus on locating criminal absconders, the 

Committee does not preclude these teams from enforcing immigration laws when they encounter non-criminal aliens during their activities. While the Committee directs ICE to prioritize activities related to criminal aliens, it also provides $1,190,998,000 for ICE to 

conduct investigations not specifically targeted at criminal aliens. 

QUARTERLY PROGRESS REPORTS

ICE is required to submit quarterly progress reports on its efforts to identify and remove deportable criminal aliens. The report 

shall include funds obligated during the previous quarter; the number of ICE staff dedicated to this effort, by duty location; the number of criminal aliens identified in correctional institutions and 

elsewhere, by location identified; the number of days such aliens 

are held in detention before removal proceedings; and the number 

of criminal aliens deported. The first such quarterly report shall 

also include a description of the staffing model used by ICE to determine the number of ICE personnel assigned to state and local 

prisons in fiscal years 2008 and 2009, and the number of ICE personnel at such facilities prior to fiscal year 2008, compared with 

the number of criminal aliens detained and processed at these facilities. 

ICE RESOURCE ALLOCATION

The Committee is concerned that information on funding spent 

for ICE investigations and enforcement initiatives cannot easily be 

provided to the Committee by ICE budget office staff. When such 

information is provided, it often appears to be based on projections 

rather than explicit budget allocations made to operational managers. While this is partly the result of out-dated ICE financial and 

management systems, the Committee is concerned that ICE financial management processes may lack adequate control of field expenditures and resource prioritization. Further, the Committee is 

concerned that inadequate budget transparency may result in field 

staffing and equipment allocations that are not aligned with workloads. As a result, the Committee directs GAO to review ICE processes for resource and staffing allocations, including an assessment 

of ICE’s ability to adjust resource levels based on workload trends. 

DETENTION BED SPACES

The Committee funds the requested $46,000,000 increase for detention capacity within the budget for identifying and removing 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
54 

criminal aliens. With these additional resources, ICE will have a 

total 2009 detention capacity for 33,000 individuals per day, an increase of 1,000 spaces over 2008. The Committee directs ICE to 

place priority on the detention of violent criminal aliens who are 

awaiting deportation. The Committee expects ICE will have sufficient detention capacity in 2009 to make significant improvements 

in the detention and removal of criminal aliens, particularly since 

the Department has noted significant declines in the apprehension 

of illegal crossers along the Southern border as evidence of the success of the ‘‘catch and return’’ policy. 

DETENTION CENTER MEDICAL SERVICES

The Committee is concerned about media reports alleging substandard treatment of individuals in the custody of ICE. While no 

medical system is without error or problems, detainee medical care 

must be well-managed, sufficiently resourced, and provided in a 

manner meeting medical standards and ethics. Given the apparent 

shortfalls in the care provided, the Committee directs ICE to undertake immediately a comprehensive review of the medical care 

provided to people detained by DHS, and increases the budget for 

the Office of Professional Responsibility by $2,000,000 over the request level to fund this effort. The review should be conducted by 

appropriate independent medical experts, selected with the advice 

of the Office of Health Affairs, who can identify deficiencies in the 

provision of medical care to detainees and make recommendations 

to correct problems. 

DETENTION STANDARDS OVERSIGHT AND COMPLIANCE

The Committee is concerned about recent reports issued by the 

OIG and GAO concerning the Department’s failure to comply with 

standards for providing safe, secure and humane treatment of 

those detained in ICE custody. The Committee directs the ICE Office of Professional Responsibility to continue to expand its detention oversight programs in 2009. 

The Committee is pleased that ICE has moved to a third-party 

compliance audit program for contract detention facilities. Detention facilities are now evaluated annually and on a random basis 

for compliance with ICE detention standards (although these audits do not review the quality of healthcare provided), and receive 

assessments ranging from ‘‘superior’’ to ‘‘good’’ to ‘‘acceptable’’ to ‘‘at 

risk’’ to ‘‘deficient.’’ Of the 317 facilities for which 2007 reviews 

were completed as of March 2008, 55 were judged deficient. While 

ICE rightly gives contract facilities the opportunity to correct cases 

of non-compliance with its standards, it is important that chronic 

failures to meet detention standards are not ignored. Therefore, the 

Committee includes a provision prohibiting ICE expenditure of 

funds for any contracted detention facilities that receive two consecutive evaluations of less than ‘‘acceptable’’. 

CRIMINAL GANG INVESTIGATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT

ICE’s unique criminal and immigration enforcement authorities 

provide the agency with an effective means of combating crime associated with transnational criminal gangs. ICE’s ‘‘Operation Community Shield’’ has been effective at working with State and local 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
55 

communities to disrupt organized criminal activity carried out by 

groups with connections to Central and South America, Central 

and Eastern Europe, Asia, and Africa. The Committee provides 

$47,070,000 for ICE gang enforcement efforts, an increase of 

$12,000,000 over the requested level. 

STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS

The Committee has provided $78,474,000 for State and local programs, the same as the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. The 

Committee is concerned that ICE has not established adequate 

oversight of State and local law enforcement agencies that are delegated authority to enforce Federal immigration laws. In particular, 

the Committee notes that lawsuits have been filed accusing some 

of ICE’s State and local partners of not following the procedures 

outlined in the Memoranda of Agreement that govern the terms of 

delegated immigration enforcement authority. The Committee directs ICE to submit a comprehensive strategy for ensuring adequate oversight and regulation of all State and local immigration 

enforcement agreements. Furthermore, bill language is included requiring ICE to prioritize the delegation of Federal immigration enforcement authorities to State and local correctional agencies, and 

to preclude the use of any funds for the delegation of Federal authorities to organizations that fail to comply with the terms of their 

agreements. The Committee also directs the OIG to audit the performance of agreements between ICE and State and local officials, 

specifically investigating whether violations of the terms of the 

agreements have occurred. 

CUSTOMS AND TRADE INVESTIGATIONS

In addition to enforcing immigration laws and regulations, ICE 

is responsible for investigating and disrupting various illegal traderelated schemes. ICE investigators also monitor the export of strategic technologies and products to ensure that American innovation 

is not exploited by those who would do our country harm. To support these important activities, the Committee provides 

$11,500,000 for the expansion of ICE’s Arms and Strategic Technology investigations; Commercial Fraud investigations; National 

Security Integration Center; Counterterrorism Unit and Joint Terrorist Task Force Support; Human Smuggling and Trafficking investigations; Commercial Fraud and Intellectual Property investigations; and Outbound Trade Enforcement investigations, as requested. The bill fully funds the President’s request for ICE’s cyber 

crime related investigations, including, but not limited to, child exploitation, identity and benefit theft investigations, money laundering investigations, and the ICE National Digital Forensics Document Laboratory. The Committee does not fund requested increases to Identity and Benefit Theft investigations; Financial investigations; Cyber Crimes investigations; the Forensics Document 

Laboratory; or the ICE Asset Forfeiture Fund staff, since these activities are also conducted by other Federal law enforcement agencies. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
56 

TEXTILE TRANSSHIPMENT ENFORCEMENT

Section 352 of the Trade Act of 2002 authorizes funding for Customs Service textile transshipment enforcement, and specifies how 

the funds must be spent. The Committee includes $4,475,000 to 

continue these important activities. The Committee directs ICE to 

provide a report with its fiscal year 2010 budget request on its actual and projected obligations of this funding, covering fiscal years 

2005 to 2010. The report should include staffing levels by fiscal 

year since 2005. The report should also include a five-year enforcement plan for transshipment violations. 

ICE LEGAL PROGRAMS

In order to efficiently investigate and prosecute individuals accused of customs and immigration violations, ICE requires an active and effective legal staff. The Committee provides $215,134,000 

for the ICE Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA), $802,000 

more than requested. Of this amount, $500,000 is for the ICE 

Human Rights Law Division to continue to expand its vigorous 

prosecution of human rights violators who have managed to enter 

the United States. 

ALTERNATIVES TO DETENTION

Alternative to Detention programs are a cost-effective approach 

for maintaining contact with non-dangerous individuals being prosecuted for immigration violations or whose cases are under judicial 

appeal. Through a variety of means, these programs contribute to 

more effective enforcement of immigration laws at far lower cost 

than detention. The Committee recommends $63,000,000 for Alternatives to Detention programs, an increase of $7,209,000 above the 

request. The Committee understands that ICE will re-compete 

some of the contracts for Alternatives to Detention programs in 

2009, and instructs ICE to ensure the review process for any new 

contracts includes an analysis of the nationwide expandability of 

the program, as well as a review of the suitability of the proposals 

for families and asylum-seekers. 

The Committee is aware of claims that ICE is using the Alternatives to Detention program as a means to track individuals who 

would otherwise be eligible for release on parole or bond, rather 

than as a true humanitarian alternative that allows the agency to 

keep track of non-dangerous people during their immigration court 

proceedings. ICE is directed to provide a briefing to the Committee 

on the criteria for enrollment of detainees in Alternatives to Detention programs, including detailed information about the demographics of those enrolled in the various Alternatives to Detention 

programs, and the specific funds allocated to each approach for Alternatives to Detention. The Committee further directs ICE to ensure it is using the Alternatives to Detention program in lieu of 

using detention facilities. 

CHILD AND FAMILY DETENTION

The Committee remains concerned that, contrary to clear direction in the explanatory statement accompanying the 2008 Appropriation Act, families continue to be held in prison-like conditions, 

and that alternatives to detention are not being made broadly 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
57 

available to families. In addition, while the Committee notes that 

ICE has developed and implemented detention standards for families held in custody, it is concerned that these standards permit detention officers to execute strip searches of children, place children 

in restraints, and use disciplinary weapons such as steel batons 

against children held in custody. The Committee directs ICE to 

cease housing families in prison-like settings, to provide a briefing 

to the Committee on its future plans for family detention facilities, 

and to report quarterly on any incidents involving strip searches of 

children, placement of children in restraints, or use of disciplinary 

weapons against children. 

INAPPROPRIATE TREATMENT OF CHILDREN IN ICE CUSTODY

The Committee is concerned by the lack of ICE progress in working with the Department of State and the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) at the Department of Health and Human Services 

to develop safe and secure repatriation programs for juveniles who 

are foreign nationals. Children who are deported from the United 

States deserve special care so that they are protected from harm 

upon repatriation, and are successfully reintegrated into their 

home countries. The Committee directs ICE to brief the Committees on Appropriations by November 1, 2008, on its plans for improving this activity in 2009. 

The Committee is concerned that the Department has not ceased 

its reliance on bone and dental forensics for child age determination, as directed in House report 110–181. This practice has led to 

the erroneous placement of children in facilities commingled with 

adults who may seek to prey upon young children. The Committee 

directs the Department to cease immediately its reliance on fallible 

forensic evidence as determinative of a child’s age, and provides no 

funding for this activity. The Committee also directs the OIG to review ICE practices for determining the age of those in its custody, 

and to report to the Committees on Appropriations on any cases 

where ICE used these practices in 2008 or 2009. 

Recognizing these and other concerns about the treatment of 

children in ICE custody, the Committee directs the Department to 

conduct periodic training for all staff who may encounter children 

during their duties. This training should be implemented by reputable, non-governmental organizations with child welfare expertise and include, at a minimum: laws and department procedures 

for caring for children in Federal custody; policies and restrictions 

on removal of children from the United States; and complaint procedures and appeal mechanisms available to children in Federal 

custody. The Committee directs the Department to provide a briefing on its training program for employees who encounter children, 

concurrent with the submission of the 2010 budget. 

TRANSPORTATION OF UNACCOMPANIED ALIEN CHILDREN

The Committee expressed interest last year in the transfer of responsibility for transportation of unaccompanied alien children 

from ICE to the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). Contrary to 

information provided during development of the 2008 Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, however, the Committee has learned that ORR 

was not allocated a budget to carry out such transportation services, does not have the necessary infrastructure in place, and is 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
58 

therefore unable to accept such responsibility in 2008. The Committee believes that this function may be transferred to ORR if 

ORR agrees it is able to assume this responsibility and the transfer 

is cost-effective; ICE reimburses ORR for the cost of this function 

as determined by an independent entity; and a joint transition plan 

for the orderly reassignment of this function is developed by ICE 

and ORR. The Committee directs ICE to provide a briefing on this 

matter within 90 days of enactment of this Act. 

WORKSITE ENFORCEMENT

The Committee supports ICE’s policies that allow for humanitarian review of those arrested in worksite enforcement actions affecting 150 or more individuals, and directs ICE to expand this 

guidance to cover all worksite enforcement activities. The Committee encourages ICE to allow non-governmental organizations 

and State and local social service agencies to participate in humanitarian screening. 

REDUCING THE SOCIAL COSTS OF IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT

The Committee is concerned by reports that high-visibility immigration enforcement efforts have caused alarm in several communities. The impact of these unsettling events has apparently resulted in parents withdrawing children from schools, people avoiding medical care, and individuals reducing their presence and role 

in the community at large. The Committe understands that ICE 

has stated it does not regularly conduct immigration enforcement 

actions at schools, hospitals, and religious centers, but believes that 

policy is not widely understood by the public. The Committee directs ICE to publicize clear policies describing how immigration enforcement actions at schools, hospitals, and religious centers are 

limited because of the important role these institutions play in our 

society. 

TREATMENT OF INDIVIDUALS SEEKING ASYLUM

The Committee is concerned that ICE and CIS have not addressed many of the issues identified by the U.S. Commission for 

International Religious Freedom’s 2005 report on the treatment of 

asylum seekers who are detained in ICE custody. In particular, 

ICE has made little progress in reforming its parole and bond processes for those who claim asylum, leading both to cases of inappropriate detention of individuals with subsequently adjudicated asylum claims, and inconsistent treatment of asylum seekers nationwide. The Committee directs DHS to institute a standard, comprehensive policy for expeditious review of asylum claims by detained individuals, including a transparent parole and bond process 

for asylum seekers. In addition, the Committee directs the Immigration Services Ombudsman to publish annual statistics on the 

detention, parole, and bonding of asylum seekers. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
59 

FEDERAL PROTECTIVE SERVICE

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 ......................................................... $613,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 ..................................................... 616,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 616,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 .................................................. +3,000,000 

Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2009 ............................................. 0 

MISSION

The Federal Protective Service (FPS) is responsible for the protection of federally owned and leased buildings and properties, particularly those under the charge and control of the General Services Administration. Funding for FPS is provided through a security fee charged to all GSA building tenants in FPS-protected buildings. FPS has three major law enforcement initiatives, including: 

Protection Services to all Federal facilities throughout the United 

States and its territories; expanded intelligence and anti-terrorism 

capabilities; and Special Programs, including weapons of mass destruction detection, hazardous material detection and response, and 

canine programs. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $616,000,000, the same as the 

amount requested and $3,000,000 above the amounts provided in 

fiscal year 2008. The Committee notes that in February 2008, the 

Secretary of Homeland Security announced increased FPS fees for 

fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2009 to support the expanded staffing levels mandated in the 2008 Appropriations Act, and encourages the Department to update the fiscal year 2009 FPS collections 

estimates in the 2009 mid-session review update. 

FEDERAL PROTECTIVE SERVICE POLICE

In the 2008 Appropriations Act, Congress mandated that FPS 

employ at least 1,200 full-time personnel, including at least 900 inservice field staff. While the budget justification submitted by ICE 

claims that ‘‘the Department intends to seek repeal of the minimum staffing level provision,’’ there has been no official submittal 

of a repeal proposal and ICE has developed no analysis to show the 

staffing level required to meet the FPS workload. In early March 

2008, ICE increased fees charged to FPS customers for 2008 and 

2009. As a result, the Committee continues the 2008 provision for 

minimum staffing levels, and directs the GAO to complete an analysis of the resource levels required for FPS to be able to adequately 

protect federal facilities. 

AUTOMATION MODERNIZATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 ......................................................... $30,700,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 ..................................................... 57,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 57,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 .................................................. +26,300,000 

Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2009 ............................................. 0 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
60 

MISSION

The Automation Modernization account funds major information 

technology (IT) projects. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $57,000,000 for Automation Modernization, which funds a variety of ICE technology investments 

critical to the future of the agency. The following table illustrates 

funding by specific investment project: 

Budget estimate Recommended 

ATLAS ....................................................................................................... $13,000,000 $13,000,000 

Detention and Removals Modernizations ................................................ 11,300,000 11,300,000 

Homeland Enforcement Communications System (HECS) ...................... 15,700,000 15,700,000 

Tactical Communications Hub ................................................................ 10,000,000 10,000,000 

ICE Financial Systems ............................................................................. 7,000,000 7,000,000 

ICE FINANCIAL SYSTEMS

Although the Committee understands the Department is soliciting new bids for the financial systems consolidation project known 

as the Transformation and Systems Consolidation (TASC), it is concerned that ICE financial systems remain in need of significant improvement. While the budget requested $7,000,000 to initiate replacement of ICE’s financial systems in conjunction with TASC, 

that effort is unlikely to occur in 2009. In light of the need to improve ICE’s financial systems, however, the Committee provides 

the requested amount and directs ICE to provide a briefing on the 

planned use of these funds. 

CONSTRUCTION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 ......................................................... $16,500,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 ..................................................... 0 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 10,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 .................................................. ¥6,500,000 

Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2009 ............................................. +10,000,000 

MISSION

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

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for Construction instead of no funding as proposed in the budget. This funding will 

provide for basic and emergency maintenance at ICE-owned detention facilities, called Service Processing Centers (SPCs). The Committee notes that ICE has used the poor condition of many of its 

SPCs as justification for a proposal to privatize the facilities. ICE 

makes this assertion while simultaneously neglecting maintenance 

by not requesting funds to perform it. A recent ICE-commissioned 

study of the SPCs estimated the need for nearly $400,000,000 in 

repairs and alterations between 2007 and 2016. The Committee directs ICE to use the funds provided to address the highest-priority 

repair and alteration needs at the SPCs. The Committee includes 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
61 

a statutory restriction on obligation of funds to carry privatization 

of ICE-owned detention facilities until ICE provides the Committees on Appropriations a plan for carrying out that privatization. 

STUDENT AND EXCHANGE VISITOR PROGRAM

The Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) collects fees 

from student and exchange visitor visa applications to operate and 

maintain the Student and Exchange Visitor System (SEVIS) and 

carry out domestic enforcement of student and exchange visitor 

visa laws. In the 2009 budget and subsequent regulatory filings, 

DHS and the managers of SEVP proposed nearly doubling the visa 

application fees charged for student and exchange visitors, while 

increasing the fees charged to enrolled educational institutions by 

an even greater amount. This increased revenue is supposed to enable ICE to streamline student record-keeping, improve oversight 

of educational institutions, and strengthen the support available 

for both students and academic administrators. The Committee directs ICE to ensure this new revenue produces equivalent improvement in service provided to its academic partners by continuing its 

outreach work with the communities affected by increased fees and 

by enabling more direct access to records by students and administrators alike. In addition, the Committee directs ICE to evaluate 

the role of the academic liaison officers it plans to hire using this 

additional revenue, making sure these new officials are trained and 

empowered to assist academic institutions with problems that arise 

with SEVP. 

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

BUDGET FORMAT AND REALIGNMENT PROPOSAL

The 2009 request proposes to significantly rearrange programs, 

projects, and activities (PPAs) within the Transportation Security 

Administration’s (TSA) budget and to establish new programs, such 

as law enforcement and human capital services. TSA has stated 

that this realignment is necessary to consolidate like functions 

within various appropriations accounts; to realign functions between PPAs to more closely mirror the current organizational 

structure; and to integrate the Federal Air Marshals (FAMs) into 

the Aviation Security appropriation. The Committee has rejected 

many of the realignment proposals contained in the budget request, 

including the proposal to combine air cargo activities with aviation 

regulation. It is critical that air cargo remain a separate and distinct program so that Congress can track how TSA is meeting the 

9/11 Act mandate to screen 100 percent of air cargo carried on passenger aircraft by August 2010. In addition, the Committee has denied the proposal to move FAMs into the Aviation Security appropriation because it is critical that the FAMs budget continue to be 

delineated clearly. The Committee adopted proposed realignments 

that made sense financially or enhanced program accountability. 

The most notable of these are the combination of all human resource programs into a new ‘‘human capital services’’ account and 

the expansion of the information technology (IT) account to reflect 

IT purchases and programs that were previously contained within 

the Aviation Security appropriation. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
62 

AVIATION SECURITY

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 ......................................................... $4,808,691,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 1 ................................................... 5,289,535,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 4,743,018,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 .................................................. ¥65,673,000 

Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2009 ............................................. ¥546,517,000 

1 Because the budget estimate assumes a realignment of many programs including Federal Air Marshals funding of $786,000,000 within this account, a direct comparison to previous fiscal years is not possible. 

MISSION

Aviation Security is focused on protecting the air transportation 

system against terrorist threats, sabotage and other acts of violence 

through the deployment of passenger and baggage screeners; detection systems for explosives, weapons, and other contraband; and 

other effective security technologies. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $4,743,018,000 for Aviation Security, $546,517,000 below the amount requested and $65,673,000 

below the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. Funding has been 

reduced from the fiscal year 2009 budget request because the Committee does not agree to move the Federal Air Marshals program 

to Aviation Security. FAMs is funded as a separate and distinct appropriation, consistent with prior years. Funds within this account 

are partially offset through the collection of security user fees paid 

by aviation travelers and airlines. A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee recommended level by budget activity is as 

follows: 

Budget estimate Recommended 

Screening operations ............................................................................... $3,678,287,000 $3,940,710,000 

Aviation security direction and enforcement .......................................... 825,248,000 792,308,000 

Federal Air Marshals ............................................................................... 786,000,000 0 

Additional 9/11 Act requirements ........................................................... 0 10,000,000 

Mandatory aviation security capital fund 1 ............................................. 250,000,000 250,000,000 

Subtotal, aviation security ............................................................. 5,289,535,000 4,743,018,000 

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 $2,320,000,000 

in aviation security user fees, of which $1,872,000,000 will be collected from aviation passengers and $448,000,000 will be collected 

from airlines. These fees partially offset the federal appropriation 

for aviation security. 

SCREENING OPERATIONS

The Committee recommends $3,940,710,000 for passenger and baggage screening operations, $262,423,000 above the amount requested and $172,221,000 above amount provided in fiscal year 

2008. While TSA refers to the screener workforce as ‘‘Transportation Security Officers,’’ these personnel are referred to as ‘‘passenger and baggage screeners’’ for the purposes of this bill and reVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:07 Sep 19, 2008 Jkt 044458 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR862.XXX HR862

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
63 

port. A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee recommended level by budget activity is as follows: 

Budget estimate Recommended 

Screener Workforce: 

Privatized screening ....................................................................... $151,272,000 $151,272,000 

Passenger and baggage screener, personnel, compensation and 

benefits ...................................................................................... 2,716,014,000 2,716,014,000 

Subtotal, screener workforce ................................................. 2,867,286,000 2,867,286,000 

Screening training and other .................................................................. 197,318,000 197,318,000 

Checkpoint support .................................................................................. 127,683,000 250,000,000 

EDS/ETD Systems: 

EDS procurement and installation ................................................. 153,894,000 294,000,000 

Screening technology maintenance and utilities ........................... 310,625,000 310,625,000 

Operation integration ...................................................................... 21,481,000 21,481,000 

Subtotal, EDS/ETD systems ................................................... 486,000,000 626,106,000 

Total, screening operations .......................................... 3,678,287,000 3,940,710,000 

PRIVATIZED SCREENING

The Committee recommends $151,272,000 for privatized screen- ing, the same as the amount requested and $7,887,000 above the 

amount provided in fiscal year 2008. To date, 11 airports across the 

country have chosen to ‘‘opt out’’ of federalized screening and participate in the Screening Partnership Program (SPP). The Committee is aware of seven airports in Montana that were federalized 

in early 2008, after the 2009 budget was submitted, which currently have no screeners in place but have submitted applications 

to participate in the SPP. The Committee directs TSA to approve 

those applications and quickly implement screening at these airports. Furthermore, the Committee expects TSA to continue to provide screener service to airports which become eligible in fiscal year 

2009. Should TSA seek to modify some element of an airport’s security apparatus, the Committee expects all stakeholders at the affected airport to be fully informed and consulted prior to implementation. 

Consistent with prior years, TSA is directed to notify the Committees on Appropriations if it expects to spend less than the appropriated amount for privatized screening due to instances in 

which no additional privatized screening airports are added or airports currently using privatized screening convert to federal screeners. TSA shall adjust its PPAs within ten days of any changes to 

personnel, compensation, or benefit levels resulting from the award 

of SPP contracts, a change in such contracts, or the movement of 

airports from the SPP to federalized screening. 

PASSENGER AND BAGGAGE SCREENER PERSONNEL, COMPENSATION

AND BENEFITS

The Committee recommends $2,716,014,000 for passenger and 

baggage screener personnel, compensation, and benefits, the same 

as the amount requested and $79,910,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. This level fully funds the pay and cost 

of living adjustments for all passenger and baggage screeners and 

annualizes specialized screeners hired as part of the original 2008 

and amended 2008 budget requests (e.g. travel document checkers, 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
64 

behavior detection officers, bomb appraisal officers, and officers to 

randomly screen more airport and airline employees). 

SCREENING WAIT TIMES

The Committee continues to be concerned that screening wait 

times vary disproportionately by airport. Based on wait time information, several large airports consistently experience wait times 

well above average, including Atlanta Hartsfield International airport, Miami International airport, Las Vegas McCarran airport, 

San Juan’s Luis Munoz Marin International airport, Newark International airport, Seattle-Tacoma International airport, John Wayne 

airport, Tampa International airport, Washington Dulles International airport, Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County airport, and 

Philadelphia International airport. Consistent with prior years, the 

Committee directs TSA to submit wait time data on a quarterly 

basis for domestic airports with above-average wait times and for 

the top 40 busiest airports in the United States. TSA shall annotate this report to explain any dramatic shift in wait times at any 

airport and explain what is being done to reduce wait times at 

these airports. 

CHECKPOINT SUPPORT

The Committee recommends $250,000,000 for checkpoint support, $122,317,000 above the amount requested and equal to the 

mandatory amount in 2008. Because checkpoint support was a 

mandatory program in 2008, it did not require a direct appropriation. The Committee approves TSA’s proposed movement of 31 

FTEs from headquarters administration and operations integration 

to checkpoint support because these personnel work on the operational concepts of this program. 

Over the past year, TSA has made some advances in testing, piloting, and deploying next-generation checkpoint technologies that 

will be used to screen airline passengers and carry-on baggage for 

explosives, weapons, and other threats. Even with this progress, 

however, additional funding is necessary to expedite pilot testing 

and deployment of advanced checkpoint explosive detection equipment and screening techniques to determine optimal deployment as 

well as preferred operational and equipment protocols for these 

new systems. Eligible systems may include, but are not limited to, 

advanced technology screening systems; whole body imagers; liquid 

explosives detectors; automated explosive detection systems (EDS); 

cast and prosthesis screening systems; and necessary reconfiguration at airports to accommodate the ‘‘checkpoint of the future’’ layout. The Committee expects TSA to give the highest priority to deploying next-generation technologies to designated Tier One threat 

airports. Consistent with fiscal year 2008, not later than 60 days 

after enactment of this Act, TSA shall provide the Committees on 

Appropriations a checkpoint support expenditure plan outlining 

how these funds will be spent. 

STERILE AREA ACCESS SYSTEMS FOR AIRLINE CREWS

The 9/11 Act requires TSA to move expeditiously on a security 

screening process for flight crews and report to Congress on the 

status of efforts to ‘‘institute a sterile area access system.’’ A report 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
65 

to Congress was due on January 30, 2008, with implementation of 

the system required a year later. To date, TSA has not met the reporting deadline. The Committee urges TSA to submit this report 

as expeditiously as possible. The Committee acknowledges that instituting a sterile area access system is a complex undertaking that 

requires several factors to be taken into consideration, including 

the overall cost, the definition of ‘‘expedited access’’, and the appropriate locations for such systems. Given these complexities, TSA 

should test the feasibility of any sterile area access system on a 

pilot basis at selected airports before widely instituting them on a 

national level. Pilot testing will allow TSA to test concepts and adjust or enhance any system to make wider deployment feasible. 

Funding within the checkpoint support appropriation may be used 

for these pilots. TSA shall notify the Committees on Appropriations 

within 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act on how 

funding will be used and identify the airports that will be participating in the pilot. TSA shall provide an interim briefing to the 

Committee on Appropriations on progress and final results of these 

pilots not later than September 8, 2009. 

EXPLOSIVE DETECTION SYSTEMS PROCUREMENT AND INSTALLATION

The Aviation and Transportation Security Act made the Federal 

government responsible for the electronic screening of all checked 

baggage using explosive detection machines. A recently completed 

TSA baggage screening investment study concluded that the capital funding requirements to procure new optimal screening systems, install these systems, modify facilities to expand existing systems, and acquire new systems to support new airport terminals 

would cost $8.2 billion over the next 20 years (by 2025). The fiscal 

year 2009 budget request assumes that a temporary, four-year EDS 

recapitalization surcharge will be enacted by the authorizing Committees to accelerate the deployment of optimal checked baggage 

screening systems and address the need to recapitalize existing 

equipment deployed immediately after the September 11th attacks. 

Without the adoption of this surcharge, TSA has informed the 

Committee that it will enter into fewer facility modification agreements. To date, only about half of the largest airports (45 out of 

82 in Category X and I airports) have optimal systems at some or 

all terminals. These include 18 airports that have optimal systems 

installed at all terminals and 27 airports that have optimal systems installed at some, but not all, terminals. The remaining large 

airports have sub-optimal screening solutions, with some having 

large EDS machines in lobby areas, creating security and traffic 

flow problems. 

No later than 60 days after enactment of this Act, TSA shall report to the Committee on the timeline and process the agency will 

utilize to replace the existing ETD machines at medium and small 

airports with EDS machines. 

The Committee recommends $294,000,000 for EDS procurement 

and installation, $140,106,000 above the budget request and the 

same as the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. Including the existing mandatory Aviation Security Capital Fund, the total appropriation (both mandatory and discretionary) for EDS procurement 

and installation is $544,000,000 in fiscal year 2009. As part of this 

funding recommendation, the Committee approves the realignment 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
66 

of 93 FTEs from headquarters administration and operation integration into EDS procurement and installation, as proposed in the 

budget request. Not later than 60 days after enactment of this Act, 

TSA shall provide the Committees on Appropriations an expenditure plan outlining how the EDS procurement and installation 

funds will be spent. 

With the funding provided, TSA is directed to enter into airport 

facility modification agreements that deploy EDS equipment optimally to airports that would benefit the most, leveraging emerging 

screening technologies to the maximum extent practicable. Priority 

should be given to airports for which 100 percent electronic checked 

baggage screening compliance may not be otherwise maintained 

due to anticipated growth or recapitalization needs. The Committee 

continues to encourage TSA to reduce its dependence on the more 

labor-intensive methods to screen checked baggage, such as explosives trace detection (ETD) machines. ETDs screen fewer bags per 

hour, utilize more screeners per system, have a higher rate of onthe-job injuries, and have a poor return-on-investment (ROI). TSA 

should make every effort to achieve extra staff savings and a better 

ROI by eliminating the slow, and therefore costly, process of 

screening by ETDs. 

Over the past year, TSA has been studying the consolidation of 

checkpoint and checked baggage screening systems at smaller and 

medium sized airports, and has allocated a limited amount of funding for these efforts in its recent EDS expenditure plan. This approach has the potential to maximize the use of limited resources 

and increase efficiency in airport screening. Therefore, the Committee encourages TSA to continue to pursue the consolidation of 

checkpoint and checked baggage screening systems and to update 

the Committee no later than February 16, 2009, on its progress in 

this area. 

SCREENING TECHNOLOGY MAINTENANCE AND UTILITIES

The Committee recommends $310,625,000 for screening technology maintenance and utilities, the same level as requested and 

$46,625,000 more than the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. 

The Committee notes that the funding requirement for maintenance and utilities of explosive detection systems, checkpoint systems, and other technologies has grown by 18 percent from fiscal 

year 2008 to 2009. The maintenance increase is driven primarily 

by increases in fielded security equipment. While TSA uses longterm maintenance contracts with fixed prices to safeguard the government against potential cost increases associated with maintenance of aging technology systems, the agency seems to incur double digit growth in this area on a regular basis. While TSA entered 

into a new maintenance contract in 2005 to control these escalating 

costs, it is questionable if cost control is still occurring. The Committee directs TSA to provide a detailed report on maintenance and 

utility costs for screening technologies and to identify ways that 

costs may be controlled in the future. 

THREAT CONTAINMENT UNITS

The Committee understands that TSA has a number of bomb 

threat containment units that are not utilized today. TSA is directed to report to the Committee on whether threat containment 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
67 

units should be part of its explosive detection operations and if so, 

whether additional units are needed. 

AVIATION SECURITY DIRECTION AND ENFORCEMENT

The Committee recommends $792,308,000 for aviation security 

direction and enforcement, $32,940,000 below the amount requested and $217,669,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 

2008. This reduction reflects the movement of information technology projects to the Transportation Security Support appropriation and the denial of the newly proposed law enforcement account. 

A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee recommended level by budget activity is as follows: 

Budget estimate Recommended 

Aviation regulation and other enforcement ............................................ $209,991,000 $246,268,000 

Airport management and support ........................................................... 373,010,000 407,166,000 

Federal flight deck officer and flight crew training ............................... 0 25,025,000 

Air cargo .................................................................................................. 0 109,849,000 

Perimeter security .................................................................................... 0 4,000,000 

Law enforcement ..................................................................................... 242,247,000 0 

Subtotal, aviation security direction and enforcement .................. 825,248,000 792,308,000 

AVIATION REGULATION AND OTHER ENFORCEMENT

The Committee recommends $246,268,000 for aviation regulation 

and other enforcement, $36,277,000 above the budget request and 

$9,685,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. The 

budget proposed to split regulatory and enforcement activities into 

two separate accounts, realigning 203 FTEs and 92 canine teams 

into this new structure. The Committee denies the new law enforcement account, thereby keeping the enforcement FTEs and canines in aviation regulation and other enforcement. The budget 

also proposed to merge the air cargo program with regulatory activities under this account structure, including 325 FTEs. The 

Committee denies this proposal as well. 

The Committee has had a longstanding concern about the number of aviation security inspectors TSA has on board, a figure that 

has fluctuated widely. For example, the number of TSA aviation inspectors increased from approximately 700 in 2004 to 825 in 2005, 

but then decreased to 715 in 2007, at the same time that Congress 

required TSA to begin inspecting aircraft repair stations and international operations. Although TSA planned to have 836 aviation 

security inspectors (excluding air cargo inspectors) on board in 

2008, this figure decreases to 771 in the 2009 request. The Committee is perplexed by these vast swings in inspector numbers at 

a time in which workload is rising. TSA is directed to maintain, at 

a minimum, the same number of aviation security inspectors in 

2009 as planned for in 2008. 

AIRPORT MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT

The Committee recommends $407,166,000 for airport manage- ment and support, $34,156,000 above the budget request and 

$244,767,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. The 

Committee has adopted the budget’s proposed realignment of all information technology (IT) projects and 39 associated FTEs, totaling 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
68 

$251,286,000, from the airport management, IT and support account to the information technology account in the Transportation 

Security Support appropriation. Because the Committee has denied 

the newly proposed law enforcement account, the Committee has 

retained 128 FTEs in the airport management and support account. 

FEDERAL FLIGHT DECK OFFICER AND FLIGHT CREW TRAINING

The Committee recommends $25,025,000 for the federal flight 

deck officer and flight crew training program, $66,000 below the 

amount provided in fiscal year 2008. The budget request proposed 

realigning this program into a new law enforcement PPA, which 

the Committee has denied. Within this total, $21,784,114 is for the 

federal flight deck officer training program and $3,240,886 is for 

flight crew training. 

AIR CARGO

The Committee recommends $109,849,000 for air cargo, 

$36,849,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. The 

budget request proposed combining air cargo programs into aviation regulation and other enforcement, which the Committee has 

denied. It is imperative that air cargo remain a separate and distinct PPA so that Congress can more effectively oversee TSA’s 

plans to screen 50 percent of air cargo carried on passenger aircraft 

for explosives by February 2009 and 100 percent by August 2010, 

as required by the 9/11 Act. 

TSA has informed the Committee that it plans to meet the 9/11 

mandate by developing and implementing a certified cargo screening program. Under this program, all certified cargo screening facilities, including certain indirect air carriers, shippers, and distribution centers, will be allowed to screen cargo prior to its consolidation onto pallets or into containers before it leaves these facilities. At this time, TSA relies exclusively on its personnel and air 

carriers to screen cargo at airports prior to loading it onto passenger aircraft. The certified cargo screening facilities will be required to ensure that the chain of custody of that cargo is maintained after it is screened. In the event of a break in the chain of 

custody, the affected cargo will be rescreened. All certified cargo 

screening facilities must meet stringent screening, facility, and personnel security standards, which will be validated by TSA. Under 

this program, all cargo, including pallet and shrink wrapped cargo, 

is subject to screening. 

TSA rolled out the first phase (or pilot) of the certified cargo 

screening program in January 2008. This phase is designed to test 

and refine the proposed security measures prior to a nationwide 

roll-out. The pilot is anticipated to conclude in the fourth quarter 

of fiscal year 2008. The certified cargo screening program is currently focused on domestic originating cargo, and TSA does not currently anticipate certifying overseas entities. The Committee directs TSA to brief the Committees on Appropriations on the results 

of this pilot program before the agency moves to a nationwide rollout. Within the funding provided, the Committee includes 

$5,000,000 for TSA to begin auditing indirect air carriers, shippers, 

and distribution centers participating in this program. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
69 

In addition to the certified shipper program, TSA is developing 

and plans to implement a new policy before the end of fiscal year 

2008 that will require 100-percent screening of air cargo transported on narrow-body aircraft. Narrow-body aircraft carry 

breakbulk cargo. At the larger airports, this cargo typically arrives 

at a cargo facility from an indirect air carrier, and only a certain 

percent of it is currently subject to screening. This added measure 

of security will include cargo shipments that transfer from one air 

carrier to another. 

PERIMETER SECURITY

The Committee recommends $4,000,000 for airport perimeter security pilots, the same as the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. 

This funding shall be awarded competitively and used to address 

specific vulnerabilities identified at airport perimeters. 

IMPLEMENTING REQUIREMENTS OF THE 9/11 ACT

Excluding mandatory funding, the Committee includes $1.105 

billion within the total appropriation provided to TSA for activities 

and requirements authorized in the 9/11 Act, including 

$544,000,000 for checkpoint and checked baggage screening systems at airports; $109,849,000 for air cargo security; $30,000,000 

for the Visible Intermodal Protection and Response teams; 

$400,000,000 for specialized screening programs (travel document 

checkers, behavior detection officers, bomb appraisal officers, and 

officers to randomly screen more airport and airline employees); 

$11,600,000 for surface transportation inspectors; and $10,000,000 

to implement regulations and other new activities. TSA shall use 

this $10,000,000 for: vulnerability and risk assessments; the development of regulations for name-based immigration status checks 

for public transportation and railroad employees; security reviews 

at foreign repair stations; piloting new technologies at airport exit 

lanes; developing procedures to implement a law enforcement biometric credential; procuring blast resistant cargo containers; and 

improving general aviation security. The Committee directs TSA to 

report to the Committees on Appropriations 90 days after the date 

of enactment of this Act on the proposed allocation of the 

$10,000,000 at the account and PPA level. 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION SECURITY

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 ......................................................... $46,613,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 1 ................................................... 37,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 49,606,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 .................................................. +2,993,000 

Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2009 ............................................. +12,606,000 

1 Because the budget estimate assumes a realignment of many programs within the Transportation Security Administration, a direct comparison to previous fiscal years is not possible. 

MISSION

Surface Transportation Security is responsible for assessing the 

risk of terrorist attacks for all non-aviation transportation modes, 

issuing regulations to improve the security of those modes, and enforcing regulations to ensure the protection of the transportation 

system. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
70 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $49,606,000 for Surface Transpor- tation Security, $12,606,000 above the amount requested and 

$2,993,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. Within 

this total, $24,885,000 is for surface transportation staffing and operations and $24,721,000 is for rail security inspectors and canines. 

The budget proposed moving the rail canines and the Visible Intermodal Protection and Response (VIPR) teams to a new law enforcement program, which the Committee has denied. At the time that 

VIPR was originally formed, these teams were to randomly patrol 

in and around transportation stations, including subways, bus stations, ferries, and other transit systems, to deter terrorists from 

surveiling these facilities and planning related attacks. While VIPR 

teams are also deployed in airports, it does not make sense to move 

the canines and rail inspectors associated with surface transportation into a new aviation security law enforcement program. The 

Committee directs TSA to develop performance measures to gauge 

the success of its VIPR teams in detecting and disrupting terrorist 

actions and provide a report describing these measures to the Committee no later than January 31, 2009. 

In addition to the funds provided for surface transportation secu- rity under this heading, the Committee has provided $412,000,000 

for rail, transit, bus, and ferry security grants under the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency’s ‘‘State and Local Programs’’ appropriation. 

REAL-TIME TRACKING OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ASSETS

The Committee encourages TSA, in cooperation with the Federal 

Railroad Administration, to support the freight rail industry’s efforts to continue developing and deploying a system for the realtime collection of data from tank cars carrying hazardous materials. The system will employ telemetry devices that will relay 

alerts related to leak detection, dome openings, temperature 

changes, and excessive shock detection to the freight rail industry 

and State and Federal emergency response agencies. 

TRANSPORTATION THREAT ASSESSMENT AND CREDENTIALING

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 ......................................................... $82,590,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 ..................................................... 133,018,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 108,807,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 .................................................. +26,217,000 

Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2009 ............................................. ¥24,211,000 

MISSION

The Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing 

(TTAC) mission is to reduce the probability of a successful terrorist 

or other criminal attack on the transportation system through the 

application of threat assessment methodologies that are intended 

to identify known or suspected terrorist threats working in or seeking access to the Nation’s transportation system. This appropriation consolidates the management of all TSA vetting and 

credentialing programs into one office, including: Secure Flight; 

Crew Vetting; Transportation Worker Identification Credential; 

Registered Traveler; Hazardous Materials; and Alien Flight School. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
71 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a direct appropriation of 

$108,807,000 for Transportation Threat Assessment and 

Credentialing, $24,211,000 below the amount requested and 

$26,217,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. In addition, the Committee anticipates TSA will collect $40,000,000 in 

fees. A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee recommended level by budget activity is as follows: 

Budget estimate Recommended 

Direct Appropriation: 

Secure flight ................................................................................... $82,211,000 $75,000,000 

Crew and other vetting programs .................................................. 50,807,000 33,807,000 

Subtotal, direct appropriations ............................................. 133,018,000 108,807,000 

Fee Collections: 

Registered traveler ......................................................................... 10,000,000 10,000,000 

Transportation worker identification credential ............................. 9,000,000 9,000,000 

Hazardous materials ....................................................................... 18,000,000 18,000,000 

Alien flight school (transfer from DOJ) .......................................... 3,000,000 3,000,000 

Subtotal, fee collections ........................................................ 40,000,000 40,000,000 

SECURE FLIGHT

The Committee recommends $75,000,000 for Secure Flight, 

$7,211,000 less than the amount requested and $25,000,000 above 

the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. While TSA plans to accelerate the Secure Flight program, the agency has already slipped six 

months behind its accelerated schedule in finalizing the Secure 

Flight rulemaking. In addition, while TSA has improved in providing information to GAO, which Congress directed to review the 

Secure Flight program before it can move past the developmental 

phase, GAO anticipates that this review may not be completed 

until late November 2008, which is later than planned by TSA. 

In periodic updates to Congress on the status of Secure Flight, 

GAO has expressed concern about the program’s cost and schedule, 

as well as its systems development progress. Most recently, GAO 

noted that ‘‘although TSA has developed a life cycle cost estimate 

and an integrated master schedule for Secure Flight, the program 

has not fully followed best practices for developing reliable and 

valid estimates for both the program costs and schedule’’. In the 

area of costs, for example, GAO noted the following concerns: (1) 

the detailed cost estimated was produced between 2004 and 2006 

and does not reflect the current program plan; (2) the cost estimate 

is not well documented; (3) there was no independent cost estimate 

performed; and (4) there are no costs captured for this program 

past 2012. 

In the area of schedule, GAO notes that the current schedule is 

not fully integrated; a risk analysis has not been conducted to determine the level of confidence in meeting the completion date; the 

schedule estimate may not provide a meaningful benchmark from 

which to gauge progress, identify and address potential problems, 

promote accountability, and make informed decisions; and TSA has 

been unable to provide GAO with sufficient evidence to show that 

the agency will successfully achieve its integrated master schedule 

or the accelerated schedule. GAO also noted that if TSA does not 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
72 

address key challenges to systems development, including risk 

management, planning, conducting end-to-end testing, and addressing deferred system security requirements, ‘‘the risk of the program 

not being completed on schedule and within estimated costs is increased, and the chances of it performing as intended are diminished.’’ 

Finally, GAO expressed concerns about the degree to which air 

carriers will need to modify their systems and the length of time 

it will take them to do it, which is necessary for TSA to conduct 

parallel testing. GAO notes that, at this time, no air carriers have 

been willing to participate in early parallel testing, which is included in TSA’s accelerated schedule, and that TSA has delayed 

the start of parallel testing from May to September 2008. TSA has 

much work to do to address these concerns before this program can 

move beyond the development phase and meet TSA’s current accelerated timeline for full implementation. The Committee reduces 

the budget request to reflect these delays in the program and numerous concerns raised by GAO. 

The Committee continues a longstanding general provision (Sec. 

511) that directs GAO to continue to evaluate DHS and TSA actions to meet the ten requirements listed in Section 522 of Public 

Law 108–344, including Secretarial certification. Bill language also 

prohibits the use of commercial data or the development and testing of algorithms assigning risk to passengers whose names are not 

on Federal watch lists. 

CREW AND OTHER VETTING PROGRAMS

The Committee provides $33,807,000 for crew and other vetting programs instead of $50,807,000 as requested. This funding shall 

be used to support 15 FTEs working on a variety of vetting activities, including crew vetting; the imposition of temporary flight restrictions; reviews of non-scheduled commercial operators (charters) 

to ensure a level of security equivalent to regularly scheduled airlines; the vetting of general aviation, charter, and business aircraft 

that fly into Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport and the 

three Maryland airports within 15 miles of Washington, D.C. (Potomac Airpark, Washington Executive, and College Park); checks of 

alien flight school pilots seeking training in the United States; and 

infrastructure investments. Within the funds provided, the Committee recommends $12,500,000 for vetting infrastructure investments. None of this funding shall be used in support of the Secure 

Flight program, which has a separate appropriation. The Committee has included a new general provision allowing the imposition of fees for the retraining of students under the alien flight program. 

VETTING INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS

The Committee provides $12,500,000 for vetting infrastructure 

investments, a new item for fiscal year 2009, instead of 

$30,000,000 as requested in the budget. Because TSA has not 

clearly described the investments necessary to enhance vetting infrastructure, the life cycle costs for this infrastructure, or the 

timeline for awarding investment contracts, the Committee has denied most of the funding for this program. However, the Committee 

recognizes that improvements must be made to the Office of TransVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:07 Sep 19, 2008 Jkt 044458 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR862.XXX HR862

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
73 

portation Threat Assessment and Credentialing’s (TTAC) screening 

gateway infrastructure to handle new requirements contained in 

the 9/11 Act to evaluate rail and transit employees, as well as other 

requirements to evaluate chemical employees and people who 

transport ammonium nitrate. A recent DHS report stated that TSA 

plans to spend $7,800,000 of the funds provided in fiscal year 2008 

to design an interface for web-based enrollment of critical transportation sector employees and to integrate this interface into the security threat assessment process. The additional funding provided 

in this recommendation may be used to begin making improvements to the screening gateway system to, among other things, enhance the vetting process and expand the number of adjudicators 

that can use this system at any one time. TSA is directed to brief 

the Committee once the agency is better able to clarify the necessary vetting infrastructure investments to increase capacity. 

CREDENTIALING

The Committee is concerned that TSA currently issues multiple 

credentials (e.g. hazardous materials and transportation worker 

identification credentials) to many individuals instead of issuing 

those individuals a single credential that provides all necessary authorizations. In addition, the agency often requires individuals applying for one TSA credential to provide personal information, including biometrics, that may have already been collected as part of 

an application for a different TSA credential. Finally, TSA vetting 

processes for like programs, including the list of disqualifying offenses, are inconsistent. The Committee is aware of efforts TSA is 

undertaking to address these issues, including efforts to: create a 

consistent security risk-based framework across all credentials; 

eliminate redundant credentialing activities; make better use of information already collected; and improve the experience for individuals applying for multiple credentials. TSA is directed to brief the 

Committees on Appropriations on the status of these efforts no 

later than October 1, 2008, and quarterly thereafter. The briefings 

should include: the steps necessary to make improvements; budget 

requirements; schedule and milestones; the potential costs and benefits of program standardization; challenges; and statutory roadblocks. The Committee directs TSA to ensure that all current 

credentialing programs (TWIC, registered traveler, secure identification display areas, hazardous materials endorsements), as well 

as new vetting requirements, are included in this effort. 

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY SUPPORT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 ......................................................... $523,515,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 20091 ................................................... 926,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 950,235,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 .................................................. +426,720,000 

Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2009 ............................................. +24,235,000 1 Because the budget estimate assumes a realignment of many programs within the Transportation Security Administration, a direct comparison to previous fiscal years is not possible. 

MISSION

The Transportation Security Support account includes financial 

and human resources support; the Transportation Security Intelligence Service; information technology support; policy development 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
74 

and oversight; performance management and e-government; communications; public information and legislative affairs; training 

and quality performance; internal conduct and audit; legal advice; 

and overall headquarters administration. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $950,235,000 for Transportation Se- curity Support, $24,235,000 above the amount requested and 

$426,720,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. A 

comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee recommended 

level by budget activity is as follows: 

Budget estimate Recommended 

Headquarters administration ................................................................... $213,135,000 $237,370,000 

Human capital services ........................................................................... 218,105,000 218,105,000 

Information technology ............................................................................ 472,799,000 472,799,000 

Intelligence .............................................................................................. 21,961,000 21,961,000

Subtotal, transportation security support ...................................... 926,000,000 950,235,000 

HEADQUARTERS ADMINISTRATION

The Committee recommends $237,370,000 for headquarters ad- ministration, $24,235,000 above the budget request and 

$55,821,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. The 

budget proposed realigning the background investigation and physical security activities to the newly proposed law enforcement account. Because the Committee has denied this proposal, these activities and the associated funding remain within headquarters administration. The budget also proposed transferring 373 FTEs to 

other TSA accounts (183 FTE to human capital services, 25 FTEs 

to checkpoint, 75 FTEs to EDS procurement and installations, and 

90 FTEs to information technology) to better align with where the 

operations are occurring. The Committee has approved these FTE 

transfers. 

HUMAN CAPITAL SERVICES

The Committee recommends $218,105,000 for human capital 

services, the same as the amount requested. Human capital services is a new PPA that combines funding previously appropriated 

for human resource services under the Aviation Security appropriation and human resource activities within headquarters administration. Activities to be conducted within this new account include 

recruitment, leadership training and development, and human resource administration. 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

The Committee recommends $472,799,000 for information technology, the same amount as requested and $263,475,000 above the 

amount provided in fiscal year 2008. The budget proposed combining funding for information technology activities previously 

funded under Aviation Security’s Airport Management, IT, and 

Support account with information technology activities funded in 

the Transportation Security Support appropriation. The Committee 

has approved this proposal, and the funding recommendation reflects the transfer of 129 FTEs from these two accounts. Of the 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
75 

funds provided for information technology, $251,286,000 is for airport IT and $221,513,000 is for the core IT programs centrally 

managed at TSA’s headquarters, such as telecommunications infrastructure; disaster recovery; time and attendance; personnel and financial management systems; and performance management information systems. 

COVERT TESTING

The Committee is strongly supportive of covert testing, which 

helps to identify vulnerabilities in critical systems, and directs TSA 

to be more proactive in fiscal year 2009 in developing innovative 

methods to test the weaknesses of our transportation security systems, both domestically and overseas. The Committee directs TSA 

to continue to report biannually on its red teaming and covert testing activities, to include specific discussions on the test results at 

airport checkpoints, in secure areas of airports, at air cargo facilities, and on other modes of transportation. 

EXPENDITURE PLANS FOR THE PURCHASE AND DEPLOYMENT OF

CHECKPOINT SUPPORT AND EXPLOSIVE DETECTION EQUIPMENT

Similar to actions taken last year, the Committee has included 

bill language requiring TSA to provide the Committee with a detailed spending and deployment plan for checkpoint support and 

explosive detection equipment. This plan shall be submitted no 

later than 60 days after enactment of this Act and shall detail expenditures for checkpoint support and explosive detection procurement and installation on an airport-by-airport basis for fiscal year 

2009. In regards to explosive detection equipment, the plan shall 

clearly delineate funding for next generation systems and refurbishment. The Committee recognizes that, after TSA has completed 

its EDS expenditure plan, TSA may become aware of a high priority needs that must be addressed. In those instances, TSA shall 

reassess the expenditure plan and reallocate funds in order to address the new requirement after providing notification to the Committees on Appropriations of this change. 

FEDERAL AIR MARSHALS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 ......................................................... $769,500,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 1 ................................................... 0 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 821,861,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 .................................................. +52,361,000 

Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2009 ............................................. +821,861,000 1The budget request includes $786,000,000 for FAMs within the Aviation Security account. 

MISSION

The Federal Air Marshals (FAMs) provide security for the nation’s civil aviation system through the effective deployment of 

armed Federal agents to detect, deter, and defeat hostile acts targeting U.S. air carriers, airports, passengers, and crews. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $821,861,000 for FAMs, $52,361,000 

above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2008. The budget did not 

request a separate appropriation for FAMs, but instead proposed 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
76 

$786,000,000 for this activity within the Aviation Security appropriation. Of the total funding provided, $727,461,000 is for management and administration and $94,400,000 is for travel and training. This funding level maintains the increased staffing levels provided in 2008, restores funding provided in the 2007 supplemental 

to maintain mission coverage on international flights, and permits 

additional flight coverage to reflect an estimated four percent 

growth in air travel in 2009. The Committee continues to expect 

quarterly reports on mission coverage, staffing levels, and hiring 

rates as directed in previous years. 

COAST GUARD

OPERATING EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 1 ....................................................... $5,891,347,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 ..................................................... 6,213,402,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 6,201,830,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 .................................................. +310,483,000 

Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2009 ............................................. ¥11,572,000 

1Does not include $110,000,000 transfer from DoD, pursuant to PL 110–181, for Operation Iraqi Freedom. 

MISSION

Coast Guard is the principal Federal agency charged with maritime safety, security and stewardship. The Operating Expenses appropriation provides funding for the operation and maintenance of 

multipurpose vessels, aircraft, and shore units strategically located 

along the coasts and inland waterways of the United States and in 

selected areas overseas. This is the primary appropriation financing operational activities of Coast Guard. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total appropriation of 

$6,201,830,000 for Operating Expenses, including $340,000,000 for 

national security activities. The recommended funding level is 

$11,572,000 below the amount requested and $310,483,000 above 

the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. The Committee has included bill language, suggested by Coast Guard, specifying that 

small boats with a service life of five years or less may be purchased with Operating Expense funding. A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee recommended level by budget activity 

is as follows: 

Budget estimate Recommended 

Military pay and allowance: 

Military pay and allowance ............................................................ $2,590,635,000 $2,573,052,000 

Military health care ........................................................................ 352,368,000 351,986,000 

Permanent change of station ......................................................... 133,834,000 132,886,000 

Subtotal, military pay and allowance ................................... 3,076,837,000 3,057,924,000 

Civilian pay and benefits ........................................................................ 692,859,000 646,189,000 

Training and recruiting: 

Training and education .................................................................. 96,205,000 95,629,000 

Recruitment .................................................................................... 99,858,000 99,850,000 

Subtotal, training and recruiting .......................................... 196,063,000 195,479,000 

Operating funds and unit level maintenance: 

Atlantic Command .......................................................................... 175,918,000 175,821,000 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
77 

Budget estimate Recommended 

Pacific Command ........................................................................... 195,957,000 195,891,000 

1st District ...................................................................................... 58,641,000 59,039,000 

5th District ..................................................................................... 21,619,000 21,760,000 

7th District ..................................................................................... 77,258,000 77,357,000 

8th District ..................................................................................... 46,317,000 46,877,000 

9th District ..................................................................................... 31,293,000 31,595,000 

11th District ................................................................................... 17,185,000 17,608,000 

13th District ................................................................................... 22,689,000 22,901,000 

14th District ................................................................................... 19,073,000 19,073,000 

17th District ................................................................................... 26,107,000 30,979,000 

Headquarters directorates .............................................................. 320,225,000 318,830,000 

Headquarters managed units ......................................................... 156,874,000 158,402,000 

Other activities ............................................................................... 786,000 785,000 

Subtotal, operating funds and unit level maintenance ....... 1,169,942,000 1,176,918,000 

Centrally managed accounts ................................................................... 262,795,000 258,547,000 

Intermediate and depot level maintenance: 

Aeronautical maintenance .............................................................. 310,207,000 310,207,000 

Electronic maintenance .................................................................. 133,116,000 133,744,000 

Civil/ocean engineering and shore facilities maintenance ........... 176,124,000 178,363,000 

Vessel maintenance ........................................................................ 195,459,000 195,459,000 

Maintenance backlog ...................................................................... 0 10,000,000 

Subtotal, intermediate and depot level maintenance .......... 814,906,000 827,773,000 

Port/vessel security and environmental response ................................... 0 29,000,000 

Aviation mission hour gap ...................................................................... 0 10,000,000 

Total, operating expenses ............................................. 6,213,402,000 6,201,830,000 

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

The Department’s Inspector General testified that Coast Guard 

‘‘has shown no discernable progress in its ability to produce reliable 

financial statements or correct its material weaknesses since the 

inception of the Department in 2003.’’ For example, in its 2007 

drug control obligations report, Coast Guard stated that it ‘‘cannot 

provide assurances as to the integrity of the financial data contained’’ in its own report. The Committee is concerned that Coast 

Guard has been unable to make yearly progress in correcting critical financial management and accounting weaknesses and finds it 

unacceptable that Coast Guard cannot stand behind its own financial data. According to the OIG, Coast Guard has no corrective action plan with milestones to correct its material weaknesses. On 

March 5, 2008, the Commandant testified that he would provide a 

strategy and initial implementation plan within 30 days, but no 

new plan has been provided to the Committee. In fact, the Coast 

Guard submitted a plan over two months later than promised that 

had already been rejected by the OIG. Therefore, the Committee includes bill language requiring that Coast Guard submit a financial 

management improvement plan by December 1, 2008, that has 

been approved by the OIG and contains yearly, measurable milestones to correct financial weaknesses. 

MARITIME SAFETY AND SECURITY

In fiscal year 2009, Coast Guard plans to obligate $2,593,000,000 for ports, waterways, and coastal security, $26,290,000 above the 

2008 funding level. A portion of this funding will be used to implement and enforce both the Maritime Transportation Security Act 

(MTSA) and the SAFE Port Act. Approximately 3,000 facilities and 

11,000 vessels are required to have security plans under MTSA. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
78 

Coast Guard has stated that some Coast Guard sectors lack the 

resources required to meet Certain Dangerous Cargo (CDC) vessel 

security requirements or other critical infrastructure protection requirements of MTSA. The number of CDC vessels entering U.S. 

ports is projected to increase, further exacerbating the resource 

gap. At least 5,000 additional vessels are expected to come into the 

inspection program as a result of the small boat and towing regulations. 

Coast Guard’s Boat Analysis Tool (BAT) uses standard methodology to quantify total mission required boat hours. The BAT identified a shortage of 400,000 hours in the ports, waterways, and 

coastal security mission. The 2008 appropriation provided 

$29,400,000 above the request for additional small boats and personnel to help minimize this gap. The Committee recommendation 

includes the additional $26,290,000 requested in fiscal year 2009 

plus an additional $29,000,000 above the request for additional 

watchstanders, boats, and marine inspection staff, and for the conduct of additional oil spill and environmental response exercises, as 

discussed below. Within 60 days after enactment of this Act, Coast 

Guard shall provide the Committees on Appropriations an expenditure plan detailing how it will allocate the additional funding. 

In a May 2008 review of Coast Guard’s marine casualty investigations program, the OIG found that the program was shortstaffed, ‘‘hindered by unqualified personnel conducting marine casualty investigations,’’ ineffectively managed, and did not conduct 

appropriate investigations. Coast Guard now has a plan to enhance 

its marine safety program, and the Committee recommendation 

fully funds the additional marine inspection staff proposed in the 

2009 budget. The Committee directs Coast Guard to utilize some 

of the $29,000,000 provided above the budget request to further improve this program. 

ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE

Unfortunately, over the past year, Coast Guard’s oil spill response capability has been tested by significant oil spills, including 

the large Cosco Busan oil spill in San Francisco Bay. Coast Guard 

recently issued the Incident Specific Preparedness Review (ISPR) of 

that spill, and the OIG is still working on its report assessing 

Coast Guard’s overall environmental response capabilities. The 

ISPR report recommendations are categorized under two general 

themes: the need for an effective partnership of Federal, State and 

local governments and other key stakeholders; and the need to test 

resources and decision-making authority through the Area Contingency Planning process. As the ISPR notes, it is unfortunate that 

‘‘many of the recommendations found in this report echo similar 

findings and recommendations of the M/V Cape Mohican spill 

ISPR conducted 12 years ago.’’ Coast Guard leadership is responsible for ensuring that these recommendations are implemented 

and that capabilities are continuously tested. The Committee expects Coast Guard to allocate some of the additional $29,000,000 

provided to improve Coast Guard maritime security and environmental response to conduct testing of Area Contingency Plans. 

One of the issues raised in first OIG report on the Cosco Busan 

oil spill was that the San Francisco Vessel Traffic System (VTS) operations center does not have the most up-to-date traffic techVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:07 Sep 19, 2008 Jkt 044458 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR862.XXX HR862

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
79 

nology. The system used by the San Francisco VTS operations center is the Coast Guard Vessel Traffic System, which was installed 

in the 1990s. A newer and more advanced vessel traffic management system, the Ports and Waterways Safety System (PAWSS), 

was only partially installed at the San Francisco VTS operations 

center due to funding constraints that existed in 2003 and 2004, towards the end of the acquisition program. With PAWSS capability, 

the VTS watchstanders could improve their situational awareness 

of vessel proximity and orientation to the individual bridge columns, which could help prevent incidents like the Cosco Busan 

spill in the future. The Committee understands that Coast Guard 

will use base operating funds in fiscal year 2008 to support this upgrade to PAWSS and that deployment of this upgrade will be complete by March 2009. Coast Guard is directed to brief the Committees on Appropriations by August 1, 2008, on the location of all 

VTS that have not been upgraded to PAWSS and on Coast Guard’s 

plans to support upgrades of these systems. Coast Guard is also directed to notify the Committees on Appropriations when the San 

Francisco VTS upgrade is completed. 

AVIATION MISSION HOUR GAP

The Committee is concerned about the significant shortfall of 

maritime patrol aircraft (MPA) resource hours currently confronting Coast Guard, which estimates that it will be nearly 50 

percent below its MPA resource hour needs in 2008. This gap is not 

expected to be eliminated until 2015. One example of this gap is 

the absence of permanent maritime patrol aircraft capability operating from Air Station Borinquen, Puerto Rico. The Committee is 

concerned about the impact of this absence upon Coast Guard’s 

ability to patrol the highly trafficked smuggling routes of the Caribbean Basin. Coast Guard is directed to report to the Committee 

no later than February 16, 2009, on its plan to provide adequate 

resources for the maritime surveillance mission needs in the Air 

Station Borinquen area of responsibility. 

Coast Guard is in the process of analyzing short term, stop-gap 

measures to address its MPA capability needs until its large-scale 

acquisitions are in full operation. The Committee has included 

$10,000,000 to fund such stop-gap measures. Before this funding 

may be obligated, Coast Guard shall submit an expenditure plan 

for approval to the Committees on Appropriations. 

LEGACY CUTTER SUSTAINMENT

The Committee is concerned about Coast Guard’s reliance upon 

high endurance and medium endurance cutters that are rapidly 

aging, many of which have completed over 30 years of service life, 

and the implications this has for the mission availability of these 

assets. As of the end of fiscal year 2007, the 378-foot, 270-foot, and 

210-foot cutters had a ‘‘percent time fully mission capable’’ 

(PTFMC) combined average of only 58.3 percent, 33.7 percent 

below the combined average PTFMC target for these cutters. These 

concerns are punctuated by recent major causalities, crew habitability issues, and significant maintenance costs. According to 

Coast Guard’s 2008 Revised Deepwater Implementation Plan, the 

378-foot cutter fleet will be operating through 2017; the 270-foot 

cutter fleet will be operating through 2027; and the 210-foot cutter 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
80 

fleet will be operating through 2022. In each case, the expected operating life is much longer than forecast just two years ago. The 

Committee directs Coast Guard to provide, no later than February 

16, 2009, a detailed analysis of maintenance costs for the 378-foot, 

270-foot, and 210-foot classes of cutters, including: comparisons of 

pre and post mission effectiveness projects (where applicable); examination of major engineering causalities over the last three 

years; and an examination of the costs and benefits of an intensive 

maintenance program upon availability through the remainder of 

the cutters’ remaining service lives, as per the forecasts contained 

in the 2008 Revised Deepwater Implementation Plan. 

MAINTENANCE BACKLOGS

Coast Guard’s $814,900,000 fiscal year 2009 request for intermediate and depot level maintenance would address current needs 

only and not address its substantial cutter, aircraft, and shore 

maintenance backlog, which is estimated to total $745,000,000. As 

a result, the Committee provides additional funding of $10,000,000 

and directs Coast Guard to use these funds to begin to address the 

backlog problem. 

DIVERSITY

Coast Guard has acknowledged that changes in its culture are 

necessary to develop an officer corps and workforce capable of 

thriving in an increasingly multicultural national and global society. A Coast Guard review of issues at the Coast Guard Academy, 

however, found that the under-representation of minority populations within the faculty may contribute to an unhealthy racial climate. In addition, a 2006 survey of cadets revealed that 33 percent 

of females reported being subjected to gender discrimination or sexual harassment at the Academy. GAO reported in January 2008 

that Coast Guard had only assessed its Academy’s sexual harassment program on a limited basis, and did not have guidance, requirements, or data collection standards for its sexual harassment 

programs. After the release of the GAO report, Coast Guard appointed a sexual assault response coordinator and ‘‘committed’’ to 

adopting the assessment and data reporting practices that are currently followed by Department of Defense (DoD) service academies. 

The Committee includes bill language requiring Coast Guard to follow these DoD assessment and data reporting requirements. 

Coast Guard is in the process of implementing a long-term strategy that integrates and assesses compositional, educational, programmatic and structural diversity. While Coast Guard’s strategy 

may be long-term, the Committee expects to see shorter-term results. Last year, the Committee directed Coast Guard to raise the 

recruiting office recruitment ceilings in those offices with strong 

records of minority enlistments in order to increase such enlistments. Coast Guard is directed to continue this effort and to report 

to the Committee within six months from the date of enactment of 

this Act on its results. In addition, Coast Guard is directed to submit to the Committees on Appropriations the ‘‘Climate Management Plan’’ it plans to complete by spring 2009. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
81 

INLAND RIVER AIDS TO NAVIGATION

The Committee provides $4,000,000, as requested, to address the 

deteriorating material condition and operational safety of three different classes of Aids to Navigation cutters, the sole federal presence on the inland waterways. This project, a partial renovation focused on repairing critical subsystems, will serve as a bridging 

strategy until the requirements for recapitalization are determined. 

COUNTER SMUGGLING

The Committee is concerned about the growth and evolution of 

advanced smuggling techniques, including liquefied narcotics and 

the use of highly-capable semi-submersible vessels. Coast Guard is 

directed to brief the Committee no later than November 10, 2008, 

on the state and adequacy of its advanced inspection and surveillance capabilities to detect, identify, and interdict such emerging 

threats. 

ACQUISITION PERSONNEL

The Committee denies the request to transfer personnel devoted 

to overseeing and supporting Coast Guard acquisitions to the Operating Expenses (OE) appropriation from the Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements (AC&I) appropriation. Because the GAO is 

currently reviewing the benefits of such a transfer, it is premature 

to adopt this budget request. Therefore, OE has been reduced by 

$86,074,000 from the requested amount and AC&I has been increased by a like amount. In addition, $8,998,000 has been provided within AC&I for an increased number of acquisition personnel to perform the system integrator role for the Integrated 

Deepwater Program. Coast Guard should manage the staffing levels in each of these areas to maximize productivity and oversight. 

The funding requested for LOGTECH procurement training is included in the Committee recommendation. 

MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY EFFICIENCIES

The Committee recommendation includes the $68,117,000 proposed in the President’s budget for management and technology efficiencies. Within six months of the enactment of this Act, Coast 

Guard is directed to report in detail on how such efficiencies will 

be achieved. 

LORAN–C

The Department proposed moving the Long Range Aids to Navigation (LORAN–C) program from Coast Guard to the National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD). Since Coast Guard will 

remain responsible for operating LORAN–C until a replacement 

system is developed, there is no logical reason to transfer these 

funds at this time to NPPD, an agency that has neither the preparation nor the experience to operate the LORAN–C system. Therefore, the Committee recommendation includes $34,500,000 for 

Coast Guard to continue to operate this critical system. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
82 

INTELLIGENCE INTEGRATION

The Committee includes $12,300,000, as requested, for the Maritime Awareness Global Network to consolidate information from 

twenty separate data sources, including commercially available 

personal information. However, no funding may be obligated for 

this project until Coast Guard certifies that it complies with all applicable laws, including privacy statutes, and the OIG reviews such 

certification. 

A–76 ACTIVITIES

Coast Guard intends to conduct A–76 reviews on 400 FTEs per 

year through fiscal year 2012. From fiscal years 2003 through 

2006, Coast Guard conducted A–76 reviews on only 339 FTEs, an 

average of 85 FTEs per year. The Committee is concerned about 

the sharp growth in planned A–76 program activities, and provides 

no funding for such reviews in fiscal year 2009. In light of the 

many pressing challenges facing Coast Guard, the Committee does 

not believe scarce resources should be used on A–76 studies. 

POLAR ICEBREAKING OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS AND

FUTURE POLAR NEEDS

The Committee is concerned about Coast Guard’s ability to meet 

its polar operations mission requirements and provide the United 

States with the capability to support national interests in the polar 

regions. The Committee provides $200,000, as requested, to conduct an analysis of national mission needs in the high latitude regions to inform the national polar policy debate. 

In fiscal year 2006 the Committees on Appropriations approved 

an Administration request for the National Science Foundation 

(NSF), the primary user of the three Coast Guard polar icebreaker 

vessels, to fund the costs of operating and maintaining these aging 

vessels. Because it has become more apparent that the national interest in the polar regions extends beyond scientific research, the 

Committee questions whether this arrangement should continue. 

Accordingly, the Committee directs Coast Guard and NSF to renegotiate the existing agreement in order to return the budget for 

operating and maintaining these vessels to Coast Guard for fiscal 

year 2010. This change is consistent with a new joint plan for 

Coast Guard support of scientific research by NSF and other Federal agencies, which also is to be included in the 2010 budget request. NSF shall retain responsibility for the contracting of scientific support services that Coast Guard does not have the capability to perform or cannot perform on a cost-competitive basis. The 

Committee is aware of a $4,000,000 funding shortfall related to the 

caretaker status of the POLAR STAR, and directs Coast Guard to 

address this shortfall within the amounts appropriated for fiscal 

year 2009. 

BAY AREA LIGHTHOUSES

Five lighthouses collectively known as the ‘‘Bay Area lighthouses’’ (Lime Point, Point Bonita, Point Diablo, Point Montara, 

and Alcatraz) are under the control of Coast Guard until they are 

declared excess to Coast Guard needs. Authorizing law provides 

that if and when Coast Guard makes such a declaration, these 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
83 

lighthouses will be transferred to the jurisdiction of the National 

Park Service. Prior to such a transfer, Coast Guard is responsible 

for evaluating any potential environmental liabilities at the site in 

cooperation with the accepting agency. Environmental remediation 

must be completed prior to any transfer, unless the accepting agency agrees to a different arrangement. The Committee understands 

that Coast Guard has no need for these lighthouses and directs it 

to report to the Committee within six months from the date of enactment of this Act on: any issues with respect to the excessing of 

these lighthouses; how it plans to evaluate any potential environmental liabilities at the site; when it intends to excess these lighthouses; and the projected dates and milestones for conducting all 

necessary environmental remediation required for the transfer of 

these lighthouses. The Committee notes that funding for environmental restoration is provided in a separate Coast Guard account. 

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE AND RESTORATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 ......................................................... $13,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 ..................................................... 12,315,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 13,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 ..................................................... 0 

Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2009 ................................................ +685,000 

MISSION

The Environmental Compliance and Restoration appropriation 

assists in bringing Coast Guard facilities into compliance with applicable Federal, state and environmental regulations; preparing 

and testing facilities response plans; developing pollution and hazardous waste minimization strategies; conducting environmental 

assessments; and furnishing necessary program support. These 

funds permit the continuation of a service-wide program to correct 

environmental problems, such as through major improvements of 

storage tanks containing petroleum and regulated substances. The 

program focuses mainly on Coast Guard facilities, but also includes 

third party sites where Coast Guard activities have contributed to 

environmental problems. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $13,000,000 for Environmental 

Compliance and Restoration, the same as the amount provided in 

fiscal year 2008 and $685,000 above the amount requested. The 

Committee is aware of the $109,700,000 backlog in environmental 

compliance projects and expects Coast Guard to prioritize funding 

to clean up those facilities that are the most environmentally damaging and time sensitive. 

RESERVE TRAINING

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 ......................................................... $126,883,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 ..................................................... 130,501,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 130,501,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 ..................................................... +3,618,000 

Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2009 ................................................ 0 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
84 

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-today operation and maintenance of reserve training facilities; 

and 

Administration.—All administrative costs of the reserve forces 

program. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $130,501,000 for Reserve Training, the same as the amount requested and $3,618,000 above the 

amount provided in fiscal year 2008. 

ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, AND IMPROVEMENTS

(INCLUDING RESCISSION)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 ......................................................... $992,634,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 ..................................................... 1,205,118,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 1,339,068,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 ..................................................... +346,434,000 

Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2009 ................................................ +133,950,000 

MISSION

The Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements appropriation 

finances the acquisition of new capital assets, construction of new 

facilities, and physical improvements to existing facilities and assets. The appropriation covers Coast Guard-owned and operated 

vessels, aircraft, shore facilities, and other equipment such as computer systems, as well as the personnel needed to manage acquisition activities. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,339,068,000 for Acquisition, Con- struction, and Improvements, $133,950,000 above the amount requested and $346,434,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 

2008. A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee recommended level by budget activity is as follows: 

Budget estimate Recommended 

Vessels and critical infrastructure: 

Inland river tender recapitalization ................................................ $5,000,000 $5,000,000 

Response boat medium .................................................................. 64,000,000 64,000,000 

Subtotal, vessels and critical infrastructure ........................ 69,000,000 69,000,000 

Deepwater: 

Aircraft: 

Maritime patrol aircraft ......................................................... 86,600,000 86,600,000 

HH–60 conversions ................................................................ 52,700,000 52,700,000 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
85 

Budget estimate Recommended 

HC–130H conversion/sustainment project ............................ 24,500,000 24,500,000 

HH–65 conversions ................................................................ 64,500,000 64,500,000 

Unmanned aircraft systems .................................................. 3,000,000 0 

Subtotal, aircraft .......................................................... 231,300,000 228,300,000 

Surface ships: 

National security cutter .................................................................. 353,700,000 300,000,000 

Replacement patrol boat (FRC–B) ................................................. 115,300,000 115,300,000 

IDS small boats .............................................................................. 2,400,000 2,400,000 

Patrol boats sustainment ............................................................... 30,800,000 30,800,000 

Medium endurance cutter sustainment ......................................... 35,500,000 35,500,000 

Offshore patrol cutter ..................................................................... 3,003,000 3,003,000 

Subtotal, surface ships ......................................................... 540,703,000 487,003,000 

Technology obsolescence prevention: ...................................................... 1,500,000 1,500,000 

C4ISR: ...................................................................................................... 88,100,000 88,100,000 

Logistics: .................................................................................................. 37,700,000 37,700,000 

Systems engineering and integration: .................................................... 33,141,000 33,141,000 

Government program management: ........................................................ 58,000,000 58,000,000 

Subtotal, Deepwater ....................................................................... 990,444,000 933,744,000 

Other equipment: 

Automatic identification system ..................................................... 14,600,000 14,600,000 

Rescue 21 ....................................................................................... 73,000,000 73,000,000 

HF recap ......................................................................................... 2,500,000 2,500,000 

Defense messaging system ............................................................ 4,074,000 4,074,000 

Command 21 .................................................................................. 1,000,000 1,000,000 

Subtotal, other equipment ..................................................... 95,174,000 95,174,000 

Shore facilities and aids to navigation: 

Survey and design, shore operational and support projects ......... 2,050,000 2,050,000 

TISCOM–TSD Building ..................................................................... 2,500,000 2,500,000 

Air Station Cape Cod ...................................................................... 5,000,000 5,000,000 

Sector Delaware Bay ....................................................................... 13,000,000 13,000,000 

Cordova, Alaska housing ................................................................ 11,600,000 11,600,000 

Renovate USCGA Chase Hall, phase II .......................................... 10,300,000 10,300,000 

Montauk Housing ............................................................................ 1,550,000 1,550,000 

Waterways aids to navigation ........................................................ 4,000,000 4,000,000 

Rescue Swimmer Training Facility ................................................. 0 15,000,000 

Sector Buffalo ................................................................................. 0 3,000,000 

Subtotal, shore facilities and aids to navigation ................. 50,000,000 68,000,000 

Personnel and related support: 

Direct personnel costs .................................................................... 0 95,072,000 

AC&I core ........................................................................................ 500,000 500,000 

Subtotal, personnel and related support .............................. 500,000 95,572,000 

Coast Guard headquarters project .......................................................... 0 97,578,000 

Total .............................................................................. 1,205,118,000 1,359,068,000 

Rescissions: 

Prior year, UAV funding .................................................................. 0 ¥20,000,000 

QUARTERLY REPORT ON ACQUISITION PROJECTS

The Committee is pleased that Coast Guard’s quarterly acquisition report has recently improved. The report now contains more 

detailed information on acquisition projects, including a ranking of 

project risks. Coast Guard is directed to continue submitting the 

report in this more comprehensive manner and to include all significant acquisition projects within it. The Committee also expects 

Coast Guard to improve its oversight of the earned value management data reported to it by the contractor. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
86 

DEEPWATER EXPENDITURE PLAN

Consistent with fiscal year 2008, the Committee includes bill language requiring Coast Guard to submit a detailed expenditure 

plan. A total of $500,000,000 of this appropriation shall remain unavailable until GAO reviews and the Committees on Appropriations 

approve the plan. The expenditure plan must contain the following: 

lifecycle staffing and training needs; identification of procurement 

competition, acquisition strategy, and an explanation for indefinite 

delivery/indefinite quality contracts for each procurement; activities, milestones, yearly costs, and lifecycle costs of each major 

asset, including independent cost estimates; DHS Chief Human 

Capital Officer certification of sufficient human capital capabilities; 

identification of project balances by fiscal year and operational gaps 

for each asset; DHS Chief Procurement Officer (CPO) certification 

of investment management process compliance; status of open OIG 

and GAO recommendations; and identification of the use of the Defense Contract Audit Agency. GAO is directed to continue its oversight of the Deepwater program, with a focus on reviewing the expenditure plan and assessment of the operational gaps identified 

by Coast Guard and plans to address these gaps. In addition, no 

funding may be obligated for low rate or initial production of a 

Deepwater asset until Coast Guard revises its Major Systems Acquisition Manual procedures to require a formal design review 

prior to the authorization of low rate initial production or initial 

production. 

DEEPWATER

The Committee recommends $933,744,000 for Deepwater, 

$56,700,000 below the amount requested and $150,478,000 above 

the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. 

MARITIME PATROL AIRCRAFT (MPA)

The Committee recommends $86,600,000 for two additional 

MPAs, the same as the amount requested. To date, $570,035,000 

has been appropriated for 12 MPAs. In April 2003, Coast Guard informed the Committee that the requirements for the MPA were as 

follows: (1) the ability to arrive on the scene of 90 percent of search 

and rescue emergencies within two hours of initial notification; and 

(2) the ability to travel 300 nautical miles in 90 minutes (212 knot 

ground speed, with time to climb factored in), stay on scene for approximately four hours, and return over 300 nautical miles with required fuel reserves. However, the Committee understands that 

Coast Guard’s formal requirements for the MPA and a plan for 

operational testing of those requirements have not been finalized 

yet. This is surprising since the MPA entered the operational testing phase in March 2008. The Committee directs Coast Guard to 

withhold obligation of 2009 MPA funding until its formal requirements for the MPA and the MPA’s operational testing plan are provided to the Committee. 

UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS

The Committee does not provide the $3,000,000 requested to 

study unmanned aerial vehicle solutions for meeting Deepwater’s 

maritime surveillance requirements. Instead, funding is provided 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
87 

for this study within the Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation account. The Vertical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (VUAV) was 

originally conceived to be launched off of the National Security 

Cutters (NSC), enhancing the NSC’s operational effectiveness by 

extending its surveillance range to approximately 100 nautical 

miles for up to twelve hours per day. In fact, the number of 

planned NSCs was reduced from 12 to 8 in part due to this anticipated extension of operational effectiveness. Unfortunately, the 

VUAV has not worked as planned, and Coast Guard has nothing 

to show for the $114,550,590 it has obligated for this project. Because some of this obligated amount has not yet been expended and 

Coast Guard has no plans for its expenditure, the Committee rescinds $20,000,000 currently unexpended for UAVs. 

LONG RANGE SURVEILLANCE AIRCRAFT (HC–130J)

The first HC–130J was delivered in February 2008. However, 

due to parallel design and installation activities resulting in rework, changes in aircraft power requirements, late delivery of government-furnished equipment, and other changes, costs are likely 

to increase by 10 to 20 percent and additional costs are currently 

unbudgeted. Coast Guard is directed to provide the Committees on 

Appropriations with its finalized HC–130J Remediation Plan no 

later than August 1, 2008, and to identify unobligated funding that 

can be used to missionize all HC–130Js. 

NATIONAL SECURITY CUTTER

The Committee recommends $300,000,000 for the NSC, 

$53,700,000 below the amount requested and $134,300,000 above 

the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. The request of 

$353,700,000 is primarily for production of the fourth NSC. Technical reviews of the third NSC’s fatigue enhancement design 

changes are being conducted by the Coast Guard Technical Authority, which is employing the services and expertise of the Carderock 

Division of the Naval Surface Warfare Center. Coast Guard anticipates completion of the design and technical reviews of the third 

NSC by December 2008. 

The Committee reduces NSC funding for two main reasons. 

First, the Committee believes that construction of the fourth NSC 

likely will be delayed, since the design and technical changes made 

to the fourth NSC will require another substantive technical review. Second, GAO found that Coast Guard plans to proceed with 

issuance of a task order for long lead materials on the fourth NSC 

despite not having reliable data on which to base an evaluation of 

the contractor’s proposed price. GAO has pointed out to the Committee that because Coast Guard lacks confidence in how the contractor is representing its cost and schedule performance on the 

NSC, Coast Guard is likely to be in the position of paying the contractor for future projects without the understanding necessary to 

evaluate proposed prices. The Committee directs Coast Guard to 

increase its visibility into the contractor’s earned value management data before it enters into a contract to construct the fourth 

NSC. The Committee expects this enhanced visibility to lead to cost 

reductions. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
88 

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

The Committee provides the requested $115,300,000 for limited 

production of the FRC–B/Replacement Patrol Boat. Coast Guard 

has proceeded with a competitive procurement for the FRC–B, with 

award projected for July 2008. The lead cutter is expected to be delivered two years later, in the second quarter of fiscal year 2010. 

The Committee is concerned that this $115,300,000, when combined with the $41,580,000 in prior year funds that Coast Guard 

plans to use for the FRC–B, results in an average cost for the three 

limited production vessels of $52,000,000, well above earlier estimates provided by the Coast Guard. The Committee understands 

that cost estimates for this cutter are based on limited data and 

directs Coast Guard to take all steps necessary to control costs, including conducting a formal design review to ensure that at least 

90 percent of the design drawings are complete by the critical design review stage. 

OFFSHORE PATROL CUTTER (OPC)

The Committee recommends $3,003,000 for OPC requirements 

analysis, as requested. The OPC is the replacement cutter for the 

current 210-foot and 270-foot Medium Endurance cutters. In March 

2006, after spending $19,758,000, Coast Guard suspended OPC design efforts due to cost concerns. The Committee understands that 

in making a subsequent decision to proceed with the OPC requirements analysis, the Coast Guard documented the OPC’s expected 

capabilities, a draft concept of operations, and an initial assessment of cost and schedule. Coast Guard is directed to provide this 

documentation to the Committees on Appropriations by October 1, 

2008. The Committee directs Coast Guard to plan for a full and 

open competition for the OPC. 

C4ISR

The Committee understands that Coast Guard does not have an 

approved acquisition strategy for C4ISR. Coast Guard needs to develop an architecture with common components for use on assets 

and to decide whether to acquire C4ISR on an asset-by-asset basis 

or at a system level. The Committee understands that Coast Guard 

is revisiting the C4ISR approach proposed by the Deepwater contractor and is analyzing requirements and architecture. The Committee encourages such assessment and provides the $88,100,000 

requested for C4ISR. If not all of this funding is required for 

C4ISR, Coast Guard may use the remainder for additional modeling and simulation activities that will help in determining the capabilities of existing and planned assets and inform the number of 

Deepwater assets required. 

SHORE FACILITIES AND AIDS TO NAVIGATION

The Committee recommends $68,000,000 for shore facilities and 

aids to navigation, $18,000,000 above the amount requested and 

$27,003,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. The 

shore maintenance backlog totals $631,000,000, which consists of 

over 8,000 documented, deferred shore maintenance requirements. 

The Committee provides funding for all of the projects requested by 

Coast Guard plus two additional projects. An additional 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
89 

$15,000,000 is recommended to fund a modular egress training 

simulator as part of the Rescue Swimmer Training Facility modernization. Coast Guard has listed this project on its Unfunded Priorities List, and it is cost effective to fund it as part of the current 

modernization of the facility. An additional $3,000,000 is provided 

to continue the consolidation of Sector Buffalo. 

RESCUE 21

The Committee recommends $73,000,000 for Rescue 21, the same 

as the amount requested. Rescue 21 will replace the existing National Distress and Response System with improved coastal communications and command and control capabilities. The Rescue 21 

system now stands watch along 10,042 miles of coastline. The Committee is aware Coast Guard is currently prototyping back-up solutions for Rescue 21 and urges Coast Guard to consider existing private maritime communications services, if appropriate, as part of 

this back-up solution. 

PERSONNEL

The Committee recommends $95,572,000 for acquisition personnel, $12,852,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. 

The total equals the amount requested for this purpose when the 

budgets proposed in Operating Expenses and AC&I are combined. 

Coast Guard faces at least three challenges as it seeks to improve 

its acquisition management and oversight. The first is a shortage 

of civilian acquisition staff, with an almost 20 percent vacancy rate. 

Coast Guard is directed to report to the Committees on any additional authorities or bonuses needed to attract civilian acquisition 

expertise. The second is the lack of acquisition career path for 

Coast Guard military personnel. Coast Guard is directed to explore 

the establishment of a dedicated acquisition and finance career 

field for military personnel and to report to the Committee on the 

benefits and costs of this option. The third challenge is Coast 

Guard’s reliance on contractors for technical and programmatic expertise. The Committee is pleased to hear that Coast Guard is currently analyzing its workforce to determine which roles are appropriate for contractors. Such analysis should be provided to the 

Committee upon its completion. 

COAST GUARD HEADQUARTERS PROJECT

The Committee includes $97,578,000 for capital costs related to 

the new Coast Guard headquarters. The General Services Administration budget is responsible for the construction costs of the headquarters facility. The Committee expects the Department to limit 

the requirements for the new Coast Guard building to those that 

are the most realistic and necessary. 

ALTERATION OF BRIDGES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 ......................................................... $16,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 ..................................................... 0 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 12,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 .................................................. ¥4,000,000 

Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2009 ............................................. +12,000,000 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
90 

MISSION

The bill includes funding for alteration of bridges deemed a hazard to marine navigation pursuant to the Truman-Hobbs Act. The 

purpose of these alterations is to improve the safety of marine 

navigation under the bridge rather than the improvement of surface transportation on the bridge itself. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $12,000,000 for Alteration of 

Bridges, $12,000,000 above the amount requested and $4,000,000 

below the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. The Committee directs funding to ongoing projects as follows: $5,000,000 for the 

Fourteen Mile Bridge, Mobile, Alabama; $5,000,000 for the Galveston Causeway Bridge, Galveston, Texas; and $2,000,000 for the 

Burlington Northern Railway Bridge in Burlington, Iowa. 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 ......................................................... $25,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 ..................................................... 16,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 16,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 .................................................. ¥9,000,000 

Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2009 ............................................. 0 

MISSION

The purpose of Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation is 

to allow Coast Guard to maintain its non-homeland security research and development capability, while also partnering with DHS 

and the Department of Defense to leverage beneficial initiatives. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $16,000,000 for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, the same as the amount requested and 

$9,000,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. Funding 

is directed to priority research in the following areas: aquatic nuisance species control; validation testing of the protocol for the evaluation of ballast water treatment technologies; oil spill response; 

and new technology assessments, including UAV. 

BALLAST WATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS

Aquatic invasive species are transported easily within ballast 

water carried by ships from foreign waters. Any ship sailing from 

a foreign port is required to exchange ballast water outside of the 

U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone prior to calling at a U.S. port. This 

method has proven insufficient in preventing aquatic invasive species from entering U.S. waters as sediment remains in the ballasts 

even after the exchange and such sediment can still contain nuisance species. The Committee is aware of ballast water treatment 

system testing being done by a number of entities, including 

through the Great Ships Initiative. The Committee urges Coast 

Guard to work with these entities to test the efficacy of such system systems and methods in both salt and fresh water and includes $2,000,000 for this effort. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
91 

UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMS

The Committee provides $3,000,000 for Coast Guard’s efforts to 

examine effective unmanned aerial systems (UAS) that pose low 

developmental risks and demonstrate cost-effectiveness. The Committee is pleased that Coast Guard is working with the Department of Defense to leverage UAS development, testing, and engineering efforts. Coast Guard is directed to report to the Committee 

no later than February 16, 2009, on its findings to date on determining the most effective UAS for maritime applications and for 

use with flight deck-equipped cutters. 

PORT OPEN SOURCE SECURITY ENFORCEMENT (POSSE)

POSSE consists of research and development efforts to enhance 

the nation’s ability to identify open-source chatter on port security 

subjects relevant to terrorism, along with investigations of threats 

to U.S. ports by terrorists posing as legitimate business actors. The 

Committee directs Coast Guard to evaluate the technical merits 

and capabilities of POSSE within the total funding provided, and 

to report the evaluation results to the Committees on Appropriation by March 2, 2009. 

MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH CARE FUND CONTRIBUTION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 1 ....................................................... $272,111,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 1 ................................................... 257,305,000 

Recommended in the bill 1 ................................................................. 257,305,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 .................................................. ¥14,806,000 

Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2009 ............................................. 0 

1While this expenditure requires no annual action by Congress, it counts as discretionary spending. 

MISSION

The Medicare-eligible retiree health care fund contribution provides funding to the Department of Defense Medicare-eligible 

health care fund for the health benefits of future Medicare-eligible 

retirees currently serving active duty in Coast Guard, and of retiree dependents and survivors. The authority for Coast Guard to 

make this payment on an annual basis was provided in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2005. 

RECOMMENDATION

While this account requires no annual action by Congress, the 

Committee provides the amount requested of $257,305,000 to fund 

the Medicare-eligible retiree health care fund contribution. Given 

the unexplainable fluctuations in the amount Coast Guard is 

charged for the Medicare-eligible health care fund, the Committee 

directs GAO to evaluate, by April, 2009, the process DoD uses to 

determine the amount charged to Coast Guard and the relationship 

of this amount to the benefits received by Coast Guard retirees. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
92 

RETIRED PAY

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 ......................................................... $1,184,720,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 ..................................................... 1,236,745,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 1,236,745,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 .................................................. +52,025,000 

Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2009 ............................................. 0 

MISSION

This appropriation provides for the retired pay of Coast Guard 

military personnel and Coast Guard Reserve personnel, as well as 

career status bonuses for active duty personnel. In addition, it provides payments to members of the former Lighthouse Service and 

beneficiaries pursuant to the retired serviceman’s family protection 

plan and survivor benefit plan, as well as payments for medical 

care of retired personnel and their dependents under the Dependents’ Medical Care Act. 

RECOMMENDATION

The bill provides $1,236,745,000 for Retired Pay, the same as the amount requested and $52,025,000 above the amount provided in 

fiscal year 2008. The Committee includes bill language allowing 

funds to remain available until expended. This is scored as a mandatory appropriation in the Congressional budget process. 

UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 ......................................................... $1,381,771,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 ..................................................... 1,410,621,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 1,366,620,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 .................................................. ¥15,151,000 

Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2009 ............................................. ¥44,001,000 

MISSION

The United States Secret Service has statutory authority to carry 

out two primary missions: protection of the nation’s leaders and investigation of financial and electronic crimes. The Secret Service 

protects and investigates threats against the President and Vice 

President, their families, visiting heads of state, and other designated individuals; protects the White House, Vice President’s 

Residence, Foreign Missions, and other buildings within Washington, D.C.; and manages the security at National Special Security Events. The Secret Service also investigates violations of laws 

relating to counterfeiting of obligations and securities of the United 

States; financial crimes that include, but are not limited to, access 

device fraud, financial institution fraud, identity theft, and computer fraud; and computer-based attacks on financial, banking, and 

telecommunications infrastructure. The agency also provides support for investigations related to missing and exploited children. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,366,620,000 for Secret Service 

Salaries and Expenses, $44,001,000 below the amount requested 

and $15,151,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. No 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
93 

funding is provided for replacement of locks and keys at the White 

House, since this is a facilities management function more appropriately carried out by the General Services Administration. No 

funding is provided for the processing of mail at the White House, 

since this activity is an administrative duty that should be requested and financed through the routine expenses of the Executive Office of the President. The 2008 Appropriations Act specifically required the Secret Service and the Executive Office of the 

President to explain, in writing, the programmatic justification for 

funding White House mail screening within the Secret Service 

budget, rather than as part of the overhead costs of White House 

operations. To date, the Committee has received a discussion of the 

bureaucratic process used to assign these costs to the Secret Service, but no explanation of why the Secret Service is the appropriate 

agency to carry out this largely clerical responsibility. As a result, 

the Committee has no justification for funding this activity in the 

Secret Service budget. 

A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee recommended levels, by budget activity, is as follows: 

Budget estimate Recommended 

Headquarters Management and Administration ..................................... $182,104,000 $182,104,000 

Protection: 

Protection of Persons and Facilities .............................................. 710,468,000 703,168,000 

Protective Intelligence Activities .................................................... 59,761,000 59,761,000 

National Special Security Events ................................................... 1,000,000 1,000,000 

White House mail screening ........................................................... 36,701,000 0 

Presidential candidate nominee protection .................................... 41,082,000 41,082,000 

Total, Protection ..................................................................... 867,190,000 805,011,000 

Investigations: 

Domestic field operations ............................................................... 241,772,000 241,772,000 

International field office administration operations ...................... 28,342,000 28,342,000 

Electronic Crimes Special Agent Program and Electronic Crimes 

Task Forces ................................................................................ 47,836,000 47,836,000 

Support for missing and exploited children .................................. 8,366,000 8,366,000 

Total, Investigations .............................................................. 326,316,000 326,316,000 

Training: 

Rowley Training Center ................................................................... 53,189,000 53,189,000 

Total, Salaries and Expenses ................................................ 1,410,621,000 1,366,620,000 

PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN

The Committee recognizes that the 2008 presidential campaign 

is very likely to be the most demanding in Secret Service history. 

As a result, the Committee has funded the entire $41,082,000 request for this activity in 2009, which will include candidate protection for the last month of the campaigns, protection for the President-elect and Vice President-elect during the transition to the new 

Administration, and security at the 2009 presidential inauguration. 

Any additional funds required for campaign protection must be approved by the Committee in advance of obligation, pursuant to the 

regular reprogramming process. 

POST PRESIDENTIAL DETAIL

The Committee provides $4,500,000, as requested, for a protective detail for President Bush once he departs office. The ComVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:07 Sep 19, 2008 Jkt 044458 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR862.XXX HR862

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
94 

mittee does not include a requested general provision allowing six 

months of protection for the Vice President after leaving office. In 

the past this protection has been authorized by joint resolution of 

Congress or Executive Order. In addition, the House has already 

passed a bill authorizing this protection. 

DISCONTINUED PROTECTIVE DETAILS

The Secret Service discontinued the protective operations for 

President Ford and First Lady Johnson following their deaths, but 

the agency did not have an opportunity to adjust its budget accordingly because the change occurred outside of the normal budget development cycle. The Committee therefore reduces the protective 

budget by $5,500,000 to account for activities the Secret Service no 

longer performs. 

DISCRIMINATION

The Secret Service has been accused in a lawsuit of discriminatory human resource practices, including discrimination in promotion selections. The discovery process of that litigation has produced troubling allegations of document destruction and inappropriate e-mail messages sent between agents. Regardless of the outcome of this lawsuit, the Committee emphatically believes that discrimination has no place in the Federal workplace. The Committee 

therefore directs the Secret Service to ensure that all employees receive training upon hiring, and at least annually thereafter, on the 

agency’s prohibition on discrimination, including the means for recourse or complaint for those who believe they have suffered from 

or witnessed discriminatory action or practice. 

WHITE HOUSE MAIL SCREENING

The budget proposes $36,701,000 to screen mail sent to the 

White House and other Executive Office of the President agencies. 

This includes $22,200,000 for contracted mail processing services 

and facility rent, as well as $14,501,000 for purchase of equipment 

at the mail processing site. 

As discussed in previous reports, the Administration has not provided a compelling justification for why the Secret Service should 

be responsible for processing White House mail. The Secret Service 

does not screen incoming email messages for malicious computer 

viruses, for example, or inspect the ingredients delivered to the 

various dining facilities within the Executive Office of the President compound. 

To mitigate the unwarranted spread of Secret Service activities 

into missions that are unrelated to its core responsibilities and 

could be more economically handled by administrative staff, the 

Committee provides none of the requested funding for White House 

mail screening. The Committee strongly encourages the Administration to submit a budget amendment requesting these funds in 

the administrative accounts for White House operations. 

SECRET SERVICE OVERTIME

As requested in the budget, the Committee caps annual overtime 

payments for any Secret Service employee at $35,000, the same 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
95 

level as for CBP and ICE. The Secretary of Homeland Security may 

waive this restriction for national security purposes. 

ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENTS, AND RELATED

EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 ......................................................... $3,725,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 ..................................................... 3,725,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 4,225,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 .................................................. +500,000 

Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2009 ............................................. +500,000 

MISSION

This account supports the acquisition, construction, improvement, equipment, furnishing and related cost for maintenance and 

support of Secret Service facilities, including the Secret Service Memorial Headquarters Building and the James J. Rowley Training 

Center (JJRTC). 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $4,225,000, $500,000 more than 

both the President’s request and the amount provided in fiscal year 

2008. Of this increase, $250,000 is provided to fund inflationary 

cost increases, and $250,000 is to fund a perimeter security and 

noise abatement study for the Rowley facility. 

TITLE III—PROTECTION, PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE, AND 

RECOVERY 

NATIONAL PROTECTION AND PROGRAMS DIRECTORATE 

MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 ......................................................... $47,346,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 ..................................................... 54,600,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 50,100,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 .................................................. +2,754,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 .............................................. ¥4,500,000 

MISSION

The National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) includes programs focused on security of the country’s physical and 

cyber infrastructure, interoperable communications systems, and 

the US-VISIT entry-exit system. The Management and Administration account funds the immediate office of the Undersecretary for 

National Protection and Programs; provides for administrative 

overhead costs such as IT support and shared services; includes a 

national planning office for development of standard doctrine and 

policy for infrastructure protection and cyber security; and includes 

a Risk Management and Analysis Office, which develops standard 

doctrine and policy for DHS risk analyses. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $50,100,000 for Management and Administration, $4,500,000 below the amount requested, and 

$2,754,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
96 

STAFFING LEVELS

The Committee notes high vacancy rates within NPPD for important functions such as the Office of Emergency Communications, 

which coordinates national interoperable communications policies, 

and the Infrastructure Security Compliance division, which implements the Department’s chemical facility anti-terrorism standards. 

Given the slow pace of hiring across NPPD, it seems unlikely the 

Directorate will be able to fill the new positions it has requested 

in 2009. Therefore, the Committee provides $2,500,000 for Management and Administration staffing growth, instead of the $5,000,000 

requested. 

INTERGOVERNMENTAL PROGRAMS

The Committee does not provide funding for an Office of Intergovernmental Programs in NPPD. The Post-Katrina Emergency 

Management Reform Act of 2006 established this office within 

FEMA, which is where it continues to be funded. 

INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION AND INFORMATION SECURITY

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 ......................................................... $654,730,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 ..................................................... 841,200,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 846,756,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 .................................................. +192,026,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 .............................................. +5,556,000 

MISSION

Infrastructure Protection and Information Security (IPIS) works 

to reduce the vulnerability of the nation’s critical infrastructure, 

key resources, information technology networks, and telecommunications systems to terrorist attacks and natural disasters. IPIS is 

also responsible for maintaining effective telecommunications for 

government users in national emergencies, and for establishing 

policies and promoting solutions for interoperable communications 

at the Federal, State and local level. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $846,756,000 for IPIS, $5,556,000 

above the amount requested, and $192,026,000 above the amount 

provided in fiscal year 2008. The Committee withholds 

$149,312,000 from obligation until the Department submits and 

the Committee approves expenditure plans for three programs, as 

described below. A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee recommended level by budget activity is as follows: 

Budget estimate Recommended 

Infrastructure Protection: 

Identification and Analysis ............................................................. $70,603,000 $70,603,000 

Coordination and Information Sharing ........................................... 52,367,000 68,232,000 

Mitigation Programs ....................................................................... 149,830,000 173,671,000 

National Cyber Security Division: 

US-Computer Emergency Response Team ...................................... 242,424,000 242,424,000 

Strategic Initiatives ........................................................................ 41,638,000 49,138,000 

Outreach and Programs ................................................................. 9,438,000 7,188,000 

National Security/Emergency Preparedness Telecommunications: 

Priority Telecommunications Services ............................................ 58,740,000 58,740,000 

Next Generation Networks ............................................................... 56,000,000 48,000,000 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
97 

Budget estimate Recommended 

National Command and Coordination Capability .......................... 61,000,000 14,100,000 

Programs to Study and Enhance Telecommunications .................. 15,100,000 15,100,000 

Critical Infrastructure Protection Programs ................................... 11,260,000 11,260,000 

eLORAN Development ...................................................................... 34,500,000 0 

Office of Emergency Communications .................................................... 38,300,000 38,300,000 

REAL ID Hub ............................................................................................ 0 50,000,000 

Total, Infrastructure Protection and Information Security .... 841,200,000 846,756,000 

NPPD PROGRAM PLANNING

The 2009 budget proposes significant increases for several programs within NPPD, most notably the National Cyber Security Initiative (NCSI), Next Generation Networks (NGN), and the National 

Command and Coordination Capability (NCCC). However, the justification materials submitted by NPPD lack a thorough explanation of how these proposed investments fulfill the homeland security goals of the Department; on what, how and when funds will 

be expended; and even the total cost to complete these initiatives. 

The Committee has seen far too many instances of troubled and ultimately wasteful investments made by DHS agencies that have 

not properly planned for major acquisitions. Therefore, the Committee withholds from obligation half of the funds appropriated for 

NCSI ($121,212,000) and NGN ($24,000,000), and all of the funds 

appropriated for NCCC ($14,100,000) until NPPD submits, and the 

Committee approves, expenditure plans for each of these projects. 

These plans shall each include a discussion of the strategic context 

for the initiatives; the specific goals and milestones NPPD has set 

for the programs; the funds allocated to achieving each of those 

goals and milestones; and a detailed analysis of investments in 

each program to date, as well as total investments required by fiscal year, to complete the projects as planned. 

CHEMICAL FACILITY ANTI-TERRORISM STANDARDS AND REGULATION

OF AMMONIUM NITRATE

In the 2007 and 2008 Appropriations Acts, Congress authorized 

DHS to regulate the security of chemical facilities and the purchase 

and sale of ammonium nitrate, respectively. The Infrastructure 

Protection component within NPPD has promulgated chemical facility anti-terrorism standards, and is also working to implement 

controls on the transfer of ammonium nitrate. Since the number of 

locations subject to chemical facility regulations is higher than estimated in original DHS plans, the Committee provides $12,000,000 

more than requested for chemical facility regulation implementation. In addition, since the costs to implement ammonium nitrate 

regulations were largely unaccounted for in the budget request, the 

Committee provides $5,000,000 to initiate this important effort. 

NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PLAN MANAGEMENT

The Committee continues to hear from outside experts about the 

importance of the collaborative working relationships between industry and government to address infrastructure security 

vulnerabilities. As envisioned in the National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP), DHS and other sector-specific agencies work 

in conjunction with private stakeholders, State governments, and 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
98 

other participants to identify and mitigate the vulnerability of infrastructure to terrorist attack or natural disaster. Given the value 

these groups produce for the protection of our country’s infrastructure, the Committee provides $36,858,000 for NIPP management 

and related Critical Infrastructure and Key Resource partnerships, 

an increase of $15,865,000 over the requested level. 

ETHANOL TRANSLOADING FACILITIES

The Committee is concerned that the siting of ethanol 

transloading facilities near high density communities may create 

new security vulnerabilities, The Committee understands the Department will soon review the vulnerabilities associated with one 

such facility in Virginia. The Committee directs the Department, in 

coordination with the Department of Transportation and other relevant agencies, to report to the Committee no later than 90 days 

after the date of enactment of this Act on the results of this vulnerability assessment. The report shall cover the risks associated with 

such transloading facilities, recommended security procedures, recommended coordination with local police, fire, health, and emergency responder communities, and other recommended actions for 

the Congress, the Executive Branch, or localities. 

WATER SYSTEM SECURITY

The Committee is aware of a request from managers of the nation’s public water systems for the Federal government to provide 

additional guidance about maintaining a resilient drinking water 

infrastructure. As part of managing its partnerships with other sector-specific agencies, the Committee encourages NPPD to work 

with the Environmental Protection Agency, which is the lead Federal agency for the water sector under the National Infrastructure 

Protection Plan, to improve Federal outreach to water system managers, increase support and guidance on implementation of risk assessment techniques, and publicize effective protective measures 

that can be taken to increase water system security. 

BUSINESS COUNTERINTELLIGENCE

A key element of the nation’s knowledge economy is the intellectual property developed by industries as diverse as finance, computer software, entertainment, and pharmaceuticals. While DHS 

has made progress identifying and mitigating the threat of attacks 

on our nation’s physical assets though implementation of the NIPP, 

it has been less active in protecting America’s soft assets from theft 

or destruction through espionage or sabotage. The Committee 

therefore directs NPPD to review the federal government’s efforts 

to increase awareness of business counterintelligence, including efforts made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation to assess the 

threat of intelligence infiltration within the private sector, and to 

incorporate best practices into its NIPP management activities. 

OFFICE OF BOMBING PREVENTION

A recent DHS assessment of terrorist methodologies concluded 

that improvised explosive devices (IEDs) remain ‘‘the favored method for terrorist attack’’ against ‘‘critical infrastructure and key assets.’’ The Office of Bombing Prevention (OBP) is responsible for 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
99 

implementing the DHS National Strategy for Bombing Prevention, 

and also trains State and local governments in how to identify and 

safely handle bombs and IEDs. The Committee provides OBP 

$11,000,000 for carrying out this important work, an increase of 

$1,841,000 over the requested level. Of this amount, $1,000,000 

shall be for the purchase of the IED-Geospatial Analysis Tool Plus, 

which the Office of Bombing Prevention has informed the Committee would be a useful addition to its TRIPwire field assessment 

tool. The Committee also understands that OBP has participated 

in a Technical Support Working Group effort to develop IED countermeasures that could be used by state and local law enforcement, 

and urges OBP, in conjunction with S&T, to continue to support efforts to develop and implement counter-IED solutions for use by 

the civil sector. 

PHILADELPHIA VIDEO SURVEILLANCE

The Committee provides $2,000,000 for continued deployment of 

infrastructure monitoring and crime cameras in the city of Philadelphia. The Committee directs NPPD to work with city administrators to use these funds in support of Philadelphia’s plan to integrate new and existing cameras into a citywide surveillance system. 

UNDERGROUND CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

Much of what allows the United States to operate goes unnoticed 

below ground, in the network of tunnels hidden below our streets, 

buildings, and parks. The pipes, wires, cables, and other infrastructure that run through these tunnels are often protected only by unsecured manhole covers. The Committee provides $3,000,000 for 

NPPD to pilot methods for securing this infrastructure by evaluating the effectiveness and drawbacks of manhole cover locking 

systems. 

MAPPING CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

The Committee is aware of collaborative efforts by Infrastructure 

Protection alongside other Federal mapping and geological survey 

agencies in support of the development of reliable maps of critical 

infrastructure facilities. The Committee urges NPPD to review 

these efforts to ensure that critical needs are being met in this 

area. 

US–CERT/NATIONAL CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE

The Committee provides $242,424,000 for NPPD’s US–CERT program, and the DHS share of the Administration’s National Cyber 

Security Initiative (NCSI), as requested. The goal of the NCSI is 

to strengthen the security of government computer networks and 

reduce their vulnerability to attacks by outside forces. The appropriations provided by the Committee finance the DHS costs of consolidating its Internet connections while simultaneously developing 

and installing Internet traffic monitoring systems on government 

networks. The budget for US–CERT has increased by more than 

500 percent since 2007, indicating the seriousness with which the 

Committee takes the need to improve cyber security. However, the 

Committee is concerned that absent a well-developed acquisition 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
100 

plan, these resources may not be used in the most effective manner 

possible. As discussed above, the Committee requires NPPD to submit an expenditure plan providing more details on the purpose and 

goals of the NCSI and how proposed expenditures will meet them. 

PRIORITY TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES/NEXT GENERATION

NETWORKS

The Committee recognizes the success of DHS and its predecessor agencies in working with the telecommunications industry to 

develop an effective emergency access system for Federal, State 

and local officials to use in times of crisis, and provides $58,740,000 

for the Priority Telecommunications Service program, at the requested level. The Committee also recognizes that the dynamic nature of the telecommunications industry requires on-going investment to ensure that current capabilities are not lost when new 

technologies emerge. However, the Committee is disappointed that 

the managers of the National Security/Emergency Preparedness 

Telecommunications program have not provided any detailed explanation or discussion of key deliverables for investments made 

through the Next Generation Networks (NGN) program. In particular, the Committee is concerned that absent a defined set of 

goals, the NGN program has the potential to become an open-ended 

financial commitment of massive cost. Therefore, the Committee 

provides $48,000,000 for the NGN program, $8,000,000 below the 

requested level. As discussed above, the Committee requires NPPD 

to submit an expenditure plan providing more details about the 

purpose and goals of the NGN program. 

NATIONAL COMMAND AND COORDINATION CAPABILITY

NPPD has proposed a $61,000,000 budget for a National Command and Coordination Capability (NCCC), an increase of 1,592 

percent over the 2008 enacted level. This extraordinary increase in 

resources has not been accompanied by a detailed explanation of 

how this project will be carried out, what specific investments the 

funds will be used to make, or even why such a large investment 

is necessary. As a result, the Committee provides $14,100,000 for 

continued NCCC planning and initial implementation, and requires 

NPPD to submit an expenditure plan providing more details about 

the purpose and goals of this initiative. 

CYBER SECURITY TRAINING

The Committee includes $3,500,000 for the continued development and implementation of the Community Cyber Security Maturity Model at the University of Texas at San Antonio, a training 

program designed to prepare State and local officials for responding 

to cyber attacks. 

CYBER SECURITY INFORMATION SHARING AND COLLABORATION

PROGRAM

The Committee does not fund the Cyber Security Information 

Sharing and Collaboration program, a $2,250,000 earmark for a 

specific institution of higher education that was requested by the 

President. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
101 

CONTROL SYSTEMS SECURITY

The Committee is concerned that the control systems that ensure 

the efficient and reliable operation of much of the nation’s power, 

water, information and other critical systems are potentially vulnerable to compromise. To address this concern, the Committee 

provides $22,000,000 for the National Cyber Security Division’s efforts in this area, $4,000,000 more than the request. This additional funding is to establish a power and cyber system protection, 

analysis and testing program at the Idaho National Laboratory. 

E–LORAN

The Committee does not provide funding for the so-called e– 

LORAN system in the budget for NPPD, and instead returns the 

funds to the Coast Guard budget. Since Coast Guard will remain 

responsible for operating the existing LORAN–C until a replacement system is developed, there is no logical reason to transfer 

these funds to NPPD, an agency that has neither the preparation 

nor the experience to operate the LORAN system. 

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS

The Committee is concerned about the effectiveness of the Office 

of Emergency Communications, which is chiefly responsible for coordinating at high levels throughout the government to promote 

and enhance emergency communication capabilities. The Committee directs the Secretary to establish a senior-level director of 

the Office to ensure that the Office has the high-level representation and executive independence needed to coordinate emergency 

communication activities. 

REAL ID HUB

The Committee provides $50,000,000 for development of a REAL 

ID data hub, which will connect various State records systems to 

enable their departments of motor vehicles to verify the accuracy 

and authenticity of documents used for drivers license applications. 

The Administration requested this funding within the budget for 

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). The 

Committee does not want the immigration workload at USCIS to 

be overshadowed by other responsibilities, especially since USCIS 

now confronts historic backlogs of applications pending adjudication. To ensure that the REAL ID hub is developed appropriately, 

the Committee includes statutory prohibitions on retention of any 

data accessible through the hub system, or for Federal use of the 

hub system. 

UNITED STATES VISITOR AND IMMIGRANT STATUS INDICATOR

TECHNOLOGY

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 ......................................................... $475,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 ..................................................... 390,300,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 390,300,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 .................................................. ¥84,700,000 

Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2009 ............................................. 0 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
102 

MISSION

The mission of the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status 

Indicator Technology (US–VISIT) program is to enhance the security of U.S. citizens and visitors; facilitate legitimate travel and 

trade; ensure the integrity of the immigration system; and improve 

and standardize the processes, policies, and systems utilized to collect information on foreign nationals who apply for visas at an embassy or consulate overseas, attempt to enter the country at established ports of entry (POE), request benefits such as change of status or adjustment of status, or depart the United States. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $390,300,000 for US–VISIT, the 

same as the amount requested and $84,700,000 below the amount 

provided in fiscal year 2008. The Committee includes: $20,000,000 

for identity management and screening services; $66,368,000 to 

complete ten-print and interoperability investments for the 

‘‘Unique Identity’’ program; $55,553,000 for biometric exit planning 

and implementation; $128,327,000 for operations and maintenance 

(including $25,327,000 to move US–VISIT operations from the current Department of Justice data centers to a DHS data center, and 

the establishment of a disaster recovery site at a second DHS data 

center); and $120,052,000 for program management. 

EXPENDITURE PLANS

The Committee denies the request to remove requirements for a 

US–VISIT expenditure plan. Expenditure plans have been indispensable in providing information that enables the Committee to 

exercise its oversight responsibilities. To help ensure funding is 

used effectively for US–VISIT program management, and to support implementing 10-print standards, interoperability, and identity management services, the Committee recommends 

$300,300,000 be made available to the program upon enactment of 

this Act, with $90,000,000 withheld subject to expenditure plan approval. 

The bill continues to require that the expenditure plan be reviewed by the GAO, and that it include: (1) a detailed account of 

program progress; (2) a plan of action showing how the funding will 

meet future program commitments; (3) the status of open GAO and 

OIG recommendations and actions taken or planned to address 

them; (4) a Chief Procurement Officer certification that the program has been approved through the US–VISIT procurement risk 

management process and a DHS investment management process 

that fulfills OMB capital planning and investment control requirements; (5) a Chief Information Officer certification that an independent verification and validation agent for the US–VISIT project 

is under contract, that US–VISIT system architecture is aligned to 

the DHS information systems enterprise architecture, and that 

US–VISIT has an investment risk management program that includes a list of high risks and the status of efforts to address them; 

(6) a Chief Human Capital Officer certification that US–VISIT 

human capital needs are being adequately managed; (7) a complete 

schedule for full implementation of a biometric exit program, or 

certification that such implementation within five years is not posVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:07 Sep 19, 2008 Jkt 044458 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR862.XXX HR862

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
103 

sible; and (8) a detailed account of costs associated with identity 

services. The Committee directs that the expenditure plan also include a schedule for the transition of operations from the current 

Department of Justice data centers to the new DHS data centers 

and a description of the funding required for this transition. 

EXIT SOLUTION

The exit component of US–VISIT remains behind schedule. DHS 

has issued a notice of proposed rule making for a biometric exit solution for air and sea ports that would require air and sea carriers 

to collect and transmit biometric information to DHS in order to 

implement an air and sea exit system by the end of 2008. Section 

711 of the 9/11 Act requires such a system to be implemented by 

that time in order for the Secretary to retain his authority to approve visa waiver program participation. 

The Committee is concerned that no pilot tests have been carried 

out or are planned for the proposed assignment of biometric collection responsibilities to private industry. Previous exit pilots involved the use of kiosks by departing passengers, but only on a voluntary basis. To ensure that the final solution adopted is based on 

operational experience, the Committee includes bill language making no funding available for air exit implementation until US– 

VISIT conducts and submits a report on pilot tests of the air exit 

solution for approval by the Committees on Appropriations, to include at least two scenarios: (1) where airlines collect and transmit 

biometric exit data as proposed in the rule; and (2) where CBP collects such information at the departure gates. The Committee asks 

that the airline industry and the Department cooperate to design 

and carry out such pilots as soon as possible. The Committee expects the information gathered to include workload information, 

cost data, the impact on passenger processing time, and data related to the quality and security of traveler information collected. 

Such pilots should be conducted over a time period of not less than 

30 days, with completion no later than October 31, 2008. The final 

rule on air exit should reflect information gathered through the pilots. The Committee directs that the report on pilot results be reviewed by GAO, which shall provide an independent assessment of 

the report. 

The Department has provided no detailed and comprehensive 

exit strategy, as required by the fiscal year 2008 Appropriations 

Act. Such a strategy is essential to inform decisions about design, 

investment, staffing and funding. Although the Department’s budget materials state that DHS will produce a biometric exit strategy 

and cost-benefit analysis for the land border by the end of 2008, 

the Committee continues to include language requiring a comprehensive strategic plan for exit, along with details on incremental efforts to achieve exit, within the fiscal year 2009 expenditure plan. The Committee understands that the Department is continuing discussions with Canadian and Mexican governments on 

reciprocity in sharing immigration entry information (in lieu of a 

U.S. exit process). The Committee directs the Department to provide a briefing on the status of such discussions. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
104 

UNIQUE IDENTITY

Unique Identity is the name for the program to establish a 

standard for collection of 10-print biometric information from travelers to the United States; implement full, real-time interoperability between the State Department, DHS and the Justice Department in sharing and matching data from DHS’ automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT) and the FBI’s Integrated 

Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS); and re-engineer IDENT to be fully compatible with new system and data requirements. The Committee understands that pilot testing of the 

10-print system at U.S. international airports has been going 

smoothly, and that 10-print collection is now performed for all visa 

applicants at U.S. consulates overseas. Current data show that collection of such information takes only a few seconds on average, 

and that response to ‘‘hits’’ against relevant watchlist and database 

information is generating new information that is relevant to the 

Department’s admissibility and status determinations and its enforcement actions. 

DHS stated in its budget justification that, by the end of calendar year 2008, it would complete testing and national deployment of 3,000 10-print scanners at 292 air, sea and land ports of 

entry where 2-print scanners are currently used. DHS, Justice and 

State have informed the Committee that they expect to achieve initial interoperability of their databases and systems in October 

2008. DHS’s fiscal year 2009 budget request proposes to fund the 

design, build out and testing of full interoperability for sharing biometric data with other agencies, in particular the Departments of 

Justice and State. The Committee includes $66,368,000, as requested, for Unique Identity. 

The Committee understands that one element of Unique Identity, enumeration (assignment of a unique numerical identifier for 

an individual’s biometric and biographic records and transactions), 

may be experiencing delay. In part, this may be due to the fact that 

enumeration is still a pilot effort, and that DHS has not yet developed a policy to promote enumeration as a standard for data exchange and verification throughout the Department. 

The Committee directs US–VISIT, in coordination with the Departments of Justice and State, to continue quarterly briefings to 

the Committees on Appropriations on Unique Identity, including 

the status of enumeration. The Department is directed to submit 

a report on the prospects for implementation of enumeration 

throughout the Department with the submission of the fiscal year 

2010 budget request. 

The Committee is concerned that limitations within Department 

of Justice systems have resulted in a backlog of DHS biometric 

queries, requiring such queries to be prioritized. While the Committee supports interim measures that give priority to determining 

the status of high risk persons, such delays in processing continue 

a vulnerability that unrecognized persons may be missed simply 

because different government databases cannot be compared. The 

Committee therefore directs that the quarterly briefings on 10- 

print transition and interoperability also report on the status of 

such gaps in system interoperability and measures being taken to 

close them. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
105 

OVERSTAYS

The identification and resolution of ‘‘overstays’’ (foreign visitors 

and immigrants who do not leave the U.S. when required to do so 

based on the terms of their visa or temporary visitor status) is a 

critical US–VISIT mission. The number of overstays reported to 

ICE for enforcement in fiscal year 2007 was 12,618, triple the number from fiscal year 2006, and the trend for fiscal year 2008 is increasing. Not all overstay records reported to US–VISIT are reviewed, although priority is given to travelers from countries of interest. The consequence is that the number of potential overstays 

is growing by approximately 350,000 a year, and currently totals 

945,000. 

The Committee includes $20,000,000, as requested, for identity 

management services, $4,200,000 above fiscal year 2008. The Department reports that this funding would only increase the number 

of overstay cases being reviewed by 25 percent, and that 

$14,600,000 more would be required to review all overstay reports. 

While additional staffing may be a partial solution, the Committee 

understands that some technological remedies, such as improved 

matching systems, may be available to help speed up reviews. Regardless of whether the solution lies in staff, technology, or a combination of the two, the Committee expects to see more effort made 

to eliminate this vulnerability, and directs DHS to submit a reprogramming of fiscal year 2008 funding as soon as possible to enable the review of all overstay reports. 

STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT

US–VISIT has a growing mission to manage significant biometric 

and biographic databases and services for the Department and 

other federal agencies. GAO (GAO–08–361) recommended the 

alignment of US–VISIT investments and activities with the DHS 

enterprise architecture for every stage of planning and budgeting. 

It also recommended full coordination with related projects, such as 

the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, the Electronic Systems 

for Travel Authorization, and the Global Entry system. The Committee urges the Department to act on its plans to implement a 

US–VISIT governance board, and directs the Department to submit 

with the fiscal year 2010 budget request a full description of the 

internal DHS governance process, as well as a detailed report on 

steps US–VISIT and the Department have taken to define, manage 

and coordinate relationships between US–VISIT and other immigration and border management programs. 

STAFFING AND CONTRACTOR SUPPORT

The Committee understands that US–VISIT is making efforts to 

address open GAO recommendations for contract and program 

management. Such steps entail developing tools to help improve acquisition methodology, implementing earned value management, 

and establishing strong acquisition management capability. Although contractor staff will likely remain a significant part of US– 

VISIT, the Committee expects to see some reduction in permanent 

contractor operations. As US–VISIT matures, the Committee continues to be frustrated with continued US–VISIT vacancies, despite 

increased workload and mission complexity. As a result, it includes 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
106 

$4,343,000, as requested, for an additional 35 positions for strategic 

planning, program and human capital management, logistics and 

stakeholder communication. The Committee directs US–VISIT to 

brief the Committee not later than September 8, 2008, on the status of its workforce analysis and its progress in filling vacancies. 

OFFICE OF HEALTH AFFAIRS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 ......................................................... $116,500,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 ..................................................... 161,339,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 134,404,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 .................................................. +17,904,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 .............................................. ¥26,935,000 

MISSION

The Office of Health Affairs (OHA) serves as the Department of 

Homeland Security’s principal agent for all medical and public 

health matters. Working across local, State, Federal, tribal and territorial governments and with the private sector, OHA has the lead 

DHS role in the establishment of a scientifically rigorous, intelligence-based, medical and biodefense architecture that ensures the 

health and medical security of our nation. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $134,404,000 for OHA, $26,935,000 

below the amount requested and $17,904,000 above the amount 

provided in fiscal year 2008. A comparison of the budget estimate 

to the Committee recommended level by budget activity is as follows: 

Office of Health Affairs Budget estimate Recommended 

BioWatch ...................................................................................................................... $111,606,000 $88,806,000 

National Biosurveillence Integration System ............................................................... 8,000,000 8,000,000 

Rapidly Deployable Chemical Detection System ......................................................... 2,600,000 2,600,000 

Planning and Coordination .......................................................................................... 9,923,000 5,775,000 

Salaries and Expenses ................................................................................................ 29,210,000 29,223,000 

Total .................................................................................................................... 161,339,000 134,404,000 

SURVEILLANCE AND DETECTION

The Committee recommends $88,806,000 for BioWatch, 

$22,800,000 less than the amount requested, and $11,698,000 

above the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. BioWatch is an 

early warning system, deployed in over 30 of the country’s major 

metropolitan areas, that can currently detect trace amounts of nucleic-acid pathogens in the air. The Committee continues to have 

concern about aspects of the BioWatch program, including the efficiency and effectiveness of the systems; the lack of a comprehensive 

deployment strategy, including the relationship of generation 2.5 

and 3.0 systems; the lack of clarity related to post-detection characterization and notification processes; and the use of multiple technologies. In fiscal year 2008, the Committee directed the National 

Academies of Science (NAS) to evaluate the program and compare 

it to an enhanced surveillance system that relies on U.S. hospitals 

and the U.S. public health system. The results of the NAS evaluation are expected within a year. The Committee’s recommended 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
107 

level for fiscal year 2009 continues current operations and allows 

OHA to expand the testing of next generation systems. The Committee directs OHA to notify the Committee 15 days prior to deploying any BioWatch device to new locations. 

The Committee recommends $8,000,000 for the National BioSurveillance Integration Center, the same amount as requested 

and the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. The Committee also 

includes $500,000 for the Biological Warning and Incident Characterization system, as requested. 

PANDEMIC INFLUENZA

The GAO found in August 2007 that Federal government leadership roles and responsibilities for preparing for and responding to 

a pandemic will require further clarification and testing before 

roles and responsibilities are understood. GAO recommended that 

the Secretaries of Homeland Security and Health and Human Services work together to develop and conduct rigorous testing, training, and exercises for pandemic influenza to ensure that the Federal leadership roles are clearly defined and understood and that 

leaders are able to effectively execute shared responsibilities to address emerging challenges. DHS agreed with that recommendation 

and stated that its Incident Management Planning Teams (IMPTs) 

were addressing the shortfalls identified by GAO. While the Committee is encouraged that DHS is taking GAO recommendations seriously, it is concerned that the Department intends to rely on 

IMPT for leadership related to pandemic flu, instead of OHA, 

which is the Department’s primary point of contact with other Federal departments and agencies on medical and public health issues. 

The Committee directs that OHA lead the Department’s efforts related to pandemic flu and implement the recommendations by GAO 

to clarify and define roles and responsibilities. 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Committee recommends $29,223,000 for Salaries and Expenses, $13,000 above the amount requested and $4,906,000 above 

the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. Within the total funding 

available, $644,000 is for eight additional positions to strengthen 

the administrative and financial reporting capabilities of OHA, including oversight of Project BioShield, and $750,000 is to continue 

an effort to standardize medical policies across DHS. The Committee expects this effort to minimize medical and public health incidents. Recent reports have revealed serious problems with medical care within DHS, including a tuberculosis patient who gained 

entry into the United States multiple times, even though his name 

was given to CBP by the Centers for Disease Control; the death of 

an infant at an immigration checkpoint in Honolulu; and allegations of substandard treatment and failure to provide necessary 

treatment in ICE detention centers. OHA is directed to provide to 

the Committee, within four months of enactment of this Act, a plan 

to communicate and enforce medical standard policies across DHS. 

EMERGENCY PERSONNEL AND DISASTER RESPONSE

A February 2008 report from the Federal Communications Commission’s Joint Advisory Committee (JAC) on Communications CaVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:07 Sep 19, 2008 Jkt 044458 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR862.XXX HR862

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
108 

pabilities of Emergency Medical and Public Health Care Facilities 

looked comprehensively at the nation’s current communications capabilities across the continuum of emergency medical and public 

health agencies. The JAC found that ‘‘the communications technologies upon which life-saving decisions depend are often outdated, fragile, limited only to voice, and woefully inadequate to respond to a mass casualty or disaster event. Too often today, EMS 

responders, doctors, and nurses must practice 21st century medicine with 20th century communications technology.’’ OHA is directed to work with FEMA’s Grants Preparedness Directorate and 

the emergency medical services community to foster solutions to 

the problems identified by the JAC. 

PLANNING AND COORDINATION

The Committee recommends $5,775,000 for planning and coordi- nation activities, $4,148,000 below the amount requested and 

$1,300,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. Of the 

amount available for planning and coordination, the Committee 

recommends $1,000,000 for the National Biodefense Architecture 

(NBA), a new initiative designed to establish a comprehensive 

framework of Federal, State, local and private sector biodefense responsibilities and capabilities. The NBA request is reduced by half, 

to reflect the lack of detail provided. OHA can accomplish its broad 

fiscal year 2009 goal of defining the future vision of NBA with the 

funding provided. OHA is directed to brief the Committee quarterly 

on this effort. 

The Committee includes the requested $300,000 for the Medical 

First Responder All-Hazards Best Practices program. This program 

will foster interagency collaboration for the development of best 

practices and protocol development. The development of these best 

practices is intended to mitigate the medical consequences of disasters of all hazards. As part of this effort, the Committee expects 

OHA to develop best practices for medical personnel to deal with 

the consequences of anthrax following an attack. The Committee 

remains committed to ensuring the Nation is adequately prepared 

for a potential anthrax attack and includes this funding as well as 

$88,806,000 for BioWatch to detect air-borne pathogens, including 

anthrax. The Committee notes that following the 2001 anthrax attack in Florida, with the lack of rapid diagnostic tools, doctors utilizing best practices were essential to diagnosing anthrax. 

The Committee does not include additional funding to expand the 

Knowledge Development and Dissemination Program; begin the 

Biodefense Response and Recovery Demonstration Project; or to 

begin medical readiness modeling and simulation programs. Instead the Committee directs OHA to increase oversight of the programs it currently oversees, including BioWatch and Project BioShield. 

ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE

The Committee understands that OHA is exploring ways to integrate exposure science into response planning for terrorist events 

and other disasters, and notes that major disasters, such as the 

9/11 terrorist attacks and Hurricane Katrina, have produced environmental contaminants that resulted in significant adverse health 

consequences for emergency responders and the public. The ComVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:07 Sep 19, 2008 Jkt 044458 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR862.XXX HR862

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
109 

mittee notes that environmental contaminants have also affected 

individuals living in FEMA-provided housing. The Committee believes that significant work must be done to better understand environmental exposures following disasters and to develop response 

protocols and technologies that will prevent or mitigate such health 

effects. The Committee urges OHA to continue its activities in this 

area and to coordinate a Federal effort to apply exposure science 

to disaster response by working with other Federal agencies that 

have expertise related to environmental exposures, public health, 

and occupational safety. 

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY 

MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 1 ....................................................... $664,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 2 ................................................... 957,405,000 

Recommended in the bill 1 2 .............................................................. 821,151,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 .................................................. +157,151,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 .............................................. ¥136,254,000 

1 Excludes transfer from Disaster Relief. 

2 Request includes the United States Fire Administration appropriation for which funding is provided in a 

separate account. 

MISSION

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) manages 

and coordinates the Federal response to major domestic disasters 

and emergencies of all types in accordance with the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. It supports the 

effectiveness of emergency response providers at all levels of government in responding to terrorist attacks, major disasters, and 

other emergencies. FEMA also administers public assistance and 

hazard mitigation programs to prevent or reduce the risk to life 

and property from floods and other hazards. Finally, FEMA leads 

all Federal incident management preparedness and response planning through a comprehensive National Incident Management System (NIMS) that involves Federal, State, Tribal, and local government personnel, agencies, and regional authorities. 

FEMA provides for the development and maintenance of an integrated, nationwide capability to prepare for, mitigate against, respond to, and recover from the consequences of major disasters and 

emergencies of all types in partnership with other Federal agencies, State, local and tribal governments, volunteer organizations, 

and the private sector. Management and Administration supports 

all of FEMA’s programs by coordinating all policy, managerial, resource, and administrative actions between headquarters and regional offices. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $821,151,000 for Management and 

Administration, $136,254,000 below the amount requested and 

$157,151,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. In addition to this direct appropriation, $90,600,000 is transferred from 

Disaster Relief. Included within the amount provided is $5,000,000 

to accelerate efforts at FEMA to develop tools to measure the 

achievement and effectiveness of certain grant programs. The ComVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:07 Sep 19, 2008 Jkt 044458 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR862.XXX HR862

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
110 

mittee does not fund the $40,913,000 request for the United States. 

Fire Administration within this account. Specific programs, 

projects, and activities are detailed below. 

STAFFING

The Committee agrees to transfer $90,600,000 from Disaster Relief, $15,000,000 less than requested, to support the conversion of 

temporary disaster employees to permanent status. The funding 

shall remain unavailable until the Committee receives and approves an implementation plan that contains an expenditure plan, 

a hiring schedule, and a list of positions to be filled by Cadre OnCall Response Employees (CORE), including where they will be located. The reduction to the request is based on delays in the 

planned conversion of employees and the fact that previous funding 

provided for this effort has been reprogrammed by FEMA. 

REGIONAL OFFICES

The Committee recommends $6,000,000 for the relocation of 

three regional offices due to expiring leases, $4,000,000 less than 

the amount requested. Although FEMA’s budget request anticipated the relocation of five regional offices, FEMA subsequently indicated to GAO that it now plans to relocate three offices, at a cost 

of $2,000,000 each. 

MT. WEATHER

The Committee recommends $45,530,000 for Mt. Weather capital 

improvements, $3,419,000 below the amount requested and the 

same as the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. FEMA has no 

comprehensive ten-year capital improvement plan for Mt. Weather, 

and additional funding will not be provided until such a plan is developed and submitted to the Committee. The Committee directs 

FEMA to provide a comprehensive ten-year capital improvement 

plan for Mt. Weather. within six months after the date of enactment of this Act. The Committee notes that it has provided 

$65,202,200 for capital improvements since fiscal year 2007. 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE

The Committee recommends $7,000,000 for the Emergency Management Institute (EMI), $1,253,000 above the amount provided in 

fiscal year 2008. EMI provides training to Federal, State, local, 

tribal, public and private sector officials to strengthen emergency 

management core competencies. The Committee expects the additional funding to increase the capacity of EMI and enable additional State and local officials to attend courses. 

NATIONAL DAM SAFETY PROGRAM

The Committee recommends $6,000,000 for the National Dam 

Safety Program (NDSP), $500,000 above the amount provided in 

fiscal year 2008. The NDSP provides support for the improvement 

of the State dam safety programs that regulate most of the 79,500 

dams in the United States. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
111 

URBAN SEARCH AND RESCUE RESPONSE SYSTEM

The Committee recommends $32,500,000 for the Urban Search 

and Rescue (US&R) Response System, $7,500,000 above the 

amount requested and the same as the amount provided in fiscal 

year 2008. The Committee is concerned with the readiness level of 

US&R teams and provides additional funding to ensure the teams 

are properly trained and equipped to respond to future disasters. 

While FEMA estimated in 2006 that each team would require 

$1,662,200 to operate, the 28 teams received an average of only 

$1,036,143 in fiscal year 2008, leaving local agencies responsible 

for meeting shortfalls. 

The Committee directs FEMA to report, within six months after 

the date of enactment of this Act, on the feasibility of adding an 

additional team to the US&R program. If FEMA determines it is 

feasible to add an additional team, the report shall include a recommendation for the geographical location and an estimate of the 

associated cost. 

LOGISTICS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

The Committee recommends $119,078,000 for logistics manage- ment, the same as the amount requested and $9,368,000 above the 

amount provided in fiscal year 2008. The additional funding is for 

hiring 22 additional logistics planners, to improve FEMA’s tracking 

systems, and to hire six site managers for FEMA’s logistics centers. 

The Committee expects FEMA to engage the private sector and incorporate industry best practices, including adaptive planning technologies, in its logistics program. The Committee directs FEMA to 

continue quarterly briefings on its progress in developing its logistics program, including efforts to reach out to the private sector. 

Within logistics management, the Committee encourages FEMA to 

ensure that its logistics personnel are appropriately trained and 

encourages FEMA to explore training provided by LOGTECH. 

EMERGENCY ALERT SYSTEM

The Committee recommends $28,400,000 for the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS), the same as the amount 

requested. IPAWS uses digital and satellite technology to expand 

alerts and warnings to new communication media. The Committee 

directs FEMA to provide the Committee with a plan by January 

2009 to complete the conversion to IPAWS from the current emergency alert system by the end of calendar year 2009. 

READY CAMPAIGN

The Committee recommends $1,500,000 for the READY campaign in FEMA. This program was previously funded within the 

Office of the Secretary and Executive Management. The Committee 

believes this program, aimed at providing appropriate tools to citizens to increase individual preparedness, is intrinsic to FEMA’s 

preparedness mission, and therefore directs FEMA to combine this 

program with ‘‘Are You Ready?’’ a similar education program already managed by FEMA. 

As part of the READY campaign, the Committee directs FEMA 

to address the needs of special populations, especially those of older 

adults. The Committee recognizes the unique challenges that face 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
112 

older adults before, during, and after disasters and encourages 

FEMA to devote resources to reaching that community to ensure 

they are better prepared. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET JUSTIFICATION

The Committee continues to be disappointed by FEMA’s budget 

justification. In fiscal year 2008 the Committee directed that the 

fiscal year 2009 budget be detailed by office. Because of what appears to be significant system deficiencies, FEMA submitted the 

budget by office a month late. The Committee continues the requirement for the submission of a budget by office for fiscal year 

2010. 

In addition, the budget contains no information for many programs below the program and project level. For fiscal year 2010, 

the Committee expects budget detail for the National Dam Safety 

Program; the National Fire Academy; the National Incident Management System; National Continuity programs; the National Fire 

Data Center; the Emergency Management Assistance Compact; the 

National Hurricane Program; the National Earthquake Hazards 

Reduction Program; the Disability Coordinator; the Law Enforcement Advisor; the Mobile Emergency Response System; the Disaster Housing Assistance Program; and the Emergency Management Institute. 

FIRST RESPONDER READINESS

The Committee is concerned about the nation’s ability to respond 

to all disasters in U.S. territories, especially disasters that offer no 

warning. FEMA is directed to analyze the response capabilities of 

the U.S. territories, including the level of readiness of first responders and the availability of adequate training programs. 

FEMA shall report to the Committee on the results of this analysis 

within six months after the date of enactment of this Act. The 

Committee also directs FEMA to examine the utility of additional 

sites for all-hazard first responder training and report to the Committee on its findings no later than February 16, 2009. 

INCREASED ACCOUNTABILITY

The Committee notes that GAO and OIG have made many recommendations for improvements to FEMA’s operations and programs. Although FEMA has agreed to implement many of these 

recommendations, the status of such implementation is unclear. 

The Committee directs FEMA to provide GAO and OIG with a 

time-frame for implementing all recommendations agreed to by 

FEMA. 

STATE AND LOCAL COLLABORATION

The Committee is concerned that processes are not in place to 

ensure a collaborative partnership with State, local, and tribal officials in the development of critical plans and systems. According to 

briefings by GAO, FEMA has not even developed policies and procedures to ensure a collaborative process for future updates to the 

National Response Framework. Such policies and procedures for 

collaboration with State and local officials should be developed immediately and shared with FEMA’s National Advisory Council for 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
113 

review and approval. The Committee specifically encourages FEMA 

to include State, local, and tribal representatives in the development of the Integrated Planning System and any grants performance system developed by the Department. 

SPECIAL POPULATIONS

GAO recommended (GAO 08–369) that FEMA coordinate with 

the National Council on Disability to ensure that the needs of individuals with disabilities are fully addressed by FEMA’s programs. 

The Committee directs FEMA’s Disability Coordinator Office to implement this recommendation expeditiously. 

The Committee continues to be concerned that individuals with 

Limited English Proficiency (LEP) may be underserved during disaster response efforts. The Committee directs FEMA to coordinate 

with representatives of LEP populations on ways to address their 

needs through the agency’s preparedness and response capabilities. 

FEMA is directed to provide a report on its efforts to coordinate 

with LEP populations within six months after the date of enactment of this Act. 

IMPACT OF CLIMATE ON FUTURE DISASTERS

The Committee is concerned that FEMA does not have a robust 

climate change program in place to assess the potential impact of 

future disasters on its ability to prepare for, mitigate against, and 

respond to natural disasters; its managing of the National Flood 

Insurance Fund; and its efforts to help maintain accurate maps of 

the nation’s flood plains. To begin to address the shortfall in information about the impact of climate change, the Committee provides 

$5,000,000 for the State of North Carolina to perform a risk assessment and mitigation strategy demonstration of the potential impacts of sea level rise in that state associated with long-term climate change. FEMA is directed to use the study results to assess 

the long-term fiscal implications of climate change as it affects the 

frequency and impacts of natural disasters, and to disseminate information from the study to other states to inform their climate 

change mitigation efforts. 

FLOOD CONTROL AND HAZARD MITIGATION DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM

The Committee is aware of several existing flood control projects 

in the Upper Cumberland and Big Sandy watershed undertaken by 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers following the flood of 1977 that 

can potentially serve as demonstrative interagency flood control 

and hazard mitigation solutions. The Committee provides 

$2,425,000 to conduct demonstration flood control and hazard mitigation projects with interagency stakeholders, including FEMA, the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

and State and local agencies. Funds are provided to demonstrate 

a wide range of project solutions across FEMA’s multiple disaster 

preparedness and mitigation programs, including: retrofitting and 

hardening of existing flood walls and levees; pump refurbishment; 

land acquisition; transportation infrastructure modifications; and 

other flood damage reduction projects within this watershed. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
114 

FLORIDA HURRICANE RECOVERY

FEMA is directed to maintain the Florida long-term recovery office as long as sufficient work remains to be completed following 

the 2004 and 2005 hurricanes that struck the State. FEMA is further directed to notify the Committees on Appropriations 60 days 

prior to closing the office. 

STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 ......................................................... $3,177,800,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 1 ................................................... 1,900,000,000 

Recommended in the bill 2 ................................................................. 3,056,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 ......................................................... ¥121,800,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 ..................................................... +1,156,000,000 

1Proposes to incorporate Emergency Management Performance Grants into this account. 

2Does not incorporate Emergency Management Performance Grants into this account. 

MISSION

State and Local Programs help build and sustain the preparedness and response capabilities of the first responder community. 

These programs include support for various grant programs; training programs; planning activities; and technical assistance. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $3,056,000,000 for State and Local 

Programs, $1,156,000,000 above the amount requested and 

$121,800,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. A 

comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee recommended 

level by budget activity is as follows: 

Budget estimate Recommended 

State Homeland Security Grant Program ................................................ $200,000,000 $950,000,000 

Urban Area Security Initiative ................................................................. 825,000,000 850,000,000 

Metropolitan Medical Response System .................................................. 0 50,000,000 

Citizen Corps Program ............................................................................. 15,000,000 15,000,000 

Public Transportation Security Assistance and Railroad Security Assistance ............................................................................................... 175,000,000 400,000,000 

Port Security Grants ................................................................................ 210,000,000 400,000,000 

Over-the-Road Bus Security Assistance .................................................. 12,000,000 12,000,000 

Trucking Security Grants ......................................................................... 8,000,000 8,000,000 

Real ID grants ......................................................................................... 0 50,000,000 

Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program .................... 0 50,000,000 

Emergency Operations Centers ................................................................ 0 35,000,000 

National Security and Terrorism Prevention Grants ................................ 110,000,000 0 

Emergency Management Performance Grants ........................................ 200,000,000 0 

National Programs: 

National Domestic Preparedness Consortium ................................ 32,000,000 92,000,000 

Center for Domestic Preparedness ................................................. 47,000,000 47,000,000 

National Exercise Program ............................................................. 40,000,000 40,000,000 

Technical Assistance ...................................................................... 10,000,000 10,000,000 

Continuing Training Program ......................................................... 0 31,000,000 

Evaluations and Assessments ........................................................ 16,000,000 16,000,000 

Total State and Local Programs ........................................... 1,900,000,000 3,056,000,000 

The bill contains provisions: (1) allowing the transfer of up to 2 

percent of State and Local program appropriations to FEMA’s Management and Administration account for costs associated with adVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:07 Sep 19, 2008 Jkt 044458 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR862.XXX HR862

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
115 

ministering grants and training programs; (2) designating certain 

timeframes for grant processing; and (3) requiring grantees to provide additional reports as determined necessary by the Secretary. 

For the purposes of eligibility for funds, any county, city, village, 

town, district, borough, parish, port authority, transit authority, 

intercity rail provider, commuter rail system, freight rail provider, 

water district, regional planning commission, council of government, Indian tribe with jurisdiction over Indian country, authorized 

tribal organization, Alaskan Native village, independent authority, 

special district, or other political subdivision of any State shall constitute a ‘‘local unit of government.’’ 

The Committee includes a general provision requiring FEMA to 

brief the Committee five days prior to any announcement of State 

Homeland Security Grant Programs (SHSGP) and Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) grant awards. Such briefings shall include 

detailed information on the risk analysis employed, the process for 

determining effectiveness, the process or formula used for selecting 

grantees, and any changes to methodologies used in the previous 

fiscal year. 

MEASURING PREPAREDNESS AND RISK

In testimony before the Committee, GAO noted that ‘‘[DHS’] 

monitoring of homeland security grant expenditures does not provide a means to measure the achievement of desired program outcomes. FEMA’s current efforts do not provide information on the effectiveness of those funds in improving the nation’s capabilities or 

reducing risk.’’ Therefore the Committee includes $5,000,000 in 

Management and Administration to accelerate efforts at FEMA to 

develop tools to measure the achievement and effectiveness of certain grant programs. The Committee also directs GAO to validate 

the tools developed by FEMA. GAO should determine whether the 

measurement tools developed are reasonable, fair, and able to 

measure how grants increase the preparedness level of each State 

and Urban Area and reduce risk. 

The Committee is currently awaiting results of the National 

Academy of Sciences risk study, and expects FEMA to work with 

the National Protection and Programs Directorate to utilize the results of that analysis. The Committee also continues the requirement for GAO to review the risk methodology developed and used 

by DHS to distribute SHSGP and UASI grants. 

IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE 9/11 ACT

The Committee is concerned that FEMA has not adequately notified grantees of all statutory requirements pertaining to the transit 

security assistance program, the railroad security assistance programs (including Amtrak and Freight Rail) and the over-the-road 

bus security program, including those of prevailing wage and employee protections. Congress added these requirements in the 9/11 

Act to assure, among other things, that workers employed on construction projects assisted by grant funds are paid not less than 

prevailing wage rates and that workers at transit agencies and bus 

providers are protected when grant funds are distributed. However, 

there is no mention in the application kits and program guidance 

issued by FEMA that grant recipients must adhere in these requirements as a condition of receiving funds. The Committee is 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
116 

concerned about this omission and directs FEMA to ensure that 

these and all future grantees are aware of and comply with the requirements of the law. 

STATE HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM

The Committee recommends $950,000,000 for the State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP), the same as the amount 

provided in fiscal year 2008 and $750,000,000 above the amount requested. In accordance with the 9/11 Act, at least 25 percent of 

SHSGP and Urban Area Security Initiative funds shall be used for 

Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention activities. Each state and 

Puerto Rico shall pass on no less than 80 percent of their grant 

funding to local units of government within 45 days of receiving the 

funds. 

The Committee is aware that the fiscal year 2008 grant guidance 

permits up to 25 percent of SHSGP and Urban Area Security Initiative funds to be used to pay the salaries and expenses for individuals to serve as intelligence analysts for a period of up to three 

years. This limitation conflicts with the 9/11 Act, which did not set 

a time limit on paying salaries and expenses for new and existing 

intelligence analysts. The Committee directs FEMA to fully comply 

with the 9/11 Act and remove the time limitation for intelligence 

analysts. 

Within the funds available, the Committee recommends 

$60,000,000 for Operation Stonegarden. All awards under Operation Stonegarden shall be made on a competitive basis to tribal 

governments and units of local government, including towns, cities, 

and counties along land borders of the United States to enhance 

the coordination between local and Federal law enforcement agencies. The Committee notes that the Tohono O’odham tribe, located 

along the U.S. southwest border, has historically provided borderrelated law enforcement along the approximately 75 miles of its 

land that is contiguous to the U.S./Mexico border. 

Operation Stonegarden’s eligible costs include, but shall not necessarily be limited to: overtime; vehicle maintenance; vehicle and 

equipment rental costs; reimbursement for mileage; fuel costs; 

equipment replacement costs; and travel costs for law enforcement 

entities assisting other local jurisdictions in law enforcement activities. The Committee directs that only CBP and FEMA make award 

decisions. No administrative costs shall be deducted from Operation Stonegarden award totals by States. 

URBAN AREA SECURITY INITIATIVE GRANTS

The Committee recommends $850,000,000 for Urban Area Security Initiative Grants, $25,000,000 above the amount requested and 

$30,000,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. The 

funds should be distributed based on terrorism risk as called for in 

the 9/11 Act. Of the amount available, $15,000,000 is for grants to 

non-profit organizations determined by the Secretary to be at high 

risk of terrorist attack. 

METROPOLITAN MEDICAL RESPONSE SYSTEM

The Committee recommends $50,000,000 for the Metropolitan 

Medical Response System, $50,000,000 above the amount requested 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
117 

and $9,000,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. The 

Committee directs FEMA to work with the Office of Health Affairs 

to develop guidelines for the program. This funding enables local 

jurisdictions to prepare for and respond to all-hazards mass casualty incidents, including terrorism, epidemic disease outbreaks, 

natural disasters, and large-scale hazardous materials incidents. 

CITIZEN CORPS PROGRAM

The Committee recommends $15,000,000 for the Citizen Corps 

program, the same as the amount requested and the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. This funding supports programs to engage citizens in preventing, preparing for, and responding to all 

hazards. Eligible activities include planning and evaluation; public 

education and communication; training; and participation in exercises. 

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND RAILROAD

SECURITY ASSISTANCE

The Committee recommends $400,000,000 for Public Transportation Security Assistance and Railroad Security Assistance, 

$225,000,000 above the amount requested and the same as the 

amount provided in fiscal year 2008. The Committee includes a 

provision directing the Department to make grants directly to public transportation agencies. The Committee also prohibits any cost 

sharing requirement for public transportation agencies and Amtrak. 

PORT SECURITY GRANTS

The Committee recommends $400,000,000 for Port Security 

grants, $190,000,000 above the amount requested and the same as 

the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. GAO found in a December 

2007 report that Federal port security grants have generally been 

directed at preventing attacks, not responding to them. GAO noted 

that decisions about the need for more port response capabilities 

are hindered by a lack of performance measures tying resource 

needs to effectiveness in response. GAO recommended that the Secretary of Homeland Security work with Federal, State, and local 

stakeholders to develop explicit performance measures for emergency response capabilities. These performance measures should 

then be used in risk-based analyses to set priorities for the use of 

grant funding. FEMA and Coast Guard shall report to the Committee within 30 days of enactment of this Act on plans for developing performance measures for emergency response capabilities. 

The Committee directs Coast Guard to make all final grant award 

allocations. 

OVER-THE-ROAD BUS SECURITY ASSISTANCE

The Committee recommends $12,000,000 for Over-the-Road Bus 

Security grants, the same as the amount requested and $500,000 

above the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. 

TRUCKING INDUSTRY SECURITY GRANTS

The Committee recommends $8,000,000 for trucking industry security grants, the same amount as requested and $8,000,000 below 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
118 

the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. The funding is to be competitively awarded. FEMA is directed to submit an expenditure 

plan to the Committees on Appropriations within 30 days of enactment of this Act and prior to the obligation of funds. 

REAL ID GRANTS

The Committee recommends $50,000,000 for grants to assist 

States in complying with the largely unfunded mandate of the 

REAL ID Act, $50,000,000 above the amount requested and the 

same as the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. DHS estimates 

the total cost to States of implementing REAL ID to be 

$3,965,000,000 over eleven years. This REAL ID grant program is 

funded instead of the unauthorized National Security and Terrorism Prevention grant program proposed by the Department. 

INTEROPERABLE EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS GRANTS

The Committee recommends $50,000,000 for interoperable emer- gency communications grants, $50,000,000 above the amount requested and the same as the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. 

The Committee includes a provision mandating that application 

kits be made available to States within 30 days after enactment of 

this Act; that States have 45 days to apply after a grant opportunity is announced; and that FEMA make grant determinations 

within 60 days of the application deadline. FEMA is directed to 

work with the Office of Emergency Communications to develop program guidance for these grants. 

The Committee is aware that fiscal year 2008 grant guidance 

prohibits grantees from using awards for equipment acquisition. 

This is in contravention of the Committee’s fiscal year 2008 direction to FEMA to award funds pursuant to the 9/11 Act, which does 

not preclude purchasing equipment. The Committee understands 

that FEMA places priority on leadership and governance, common 

planning and operational protocols, and skills and capabilities. The 

Committee agrees with this priority, but States and localities also 

should be given the flexibility to purchase equipment if they have 

made progress or have separate funding sources to address FEMA’s 

priority areas. Therefore, the Department is directed to allow 

States and local governments to purchase equipment pursuant to 

requirements in the 9/11 Act. 

EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTERS

The Committee recommends $35,000,000 for Emergency Oper- ations Centers (EOCs), $35,000,000 above the amount requested 

and $20,000,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. 

Funding is available until expended. Funding is provided for equipping, upgrading, and constructing EOCs pursuant to section 614 of 

the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 

Act. The Committee recognizes the vast needs for EOC funding and 

provides this funding in addition to funding States and locals may 

use from other Homeland Security grants for the same purpose. 

The Committee provides funding for the following Emergency 

Operations Center projects in the following amounts: 

Tensas Parish Police Jury, LA ................................................................................................. $750,000 

City of Rialto, CA .................................................................................................................... 225,000 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
119 

Village of Poynette, WI ............................................................................................................ 1,000,000 

Sebastian County, AR ............................................................................................................. 750,000 

Lake County, FL ...................................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Sarasota County, FL ................................................................................................................ 1,000,000 

Northumberland County, Department of Public Safety, PA .................................................... 1,000,000 

City of Detroit, MI ................................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

San Diego Unified School District, San Diego, CA ................................................................. 400,000 

City of Half Moon Bay, CA ...................................................................................................... 750,000 

Chesterfield County, VA .......................................................................................................... 250,000 

Spencer County Commissioners, Rockport, IN ........................................................................ 1,000,000 

City of Gladstone, OR ............................................................................................................. 60,000 

City of Coral Springs, FL ........................................................................................................ 550,000 

Snohomish County, WA ........................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

County of Atlantic, NJ ............................................................................................................. 750,000 

City of Rio Vista, CA ............................................................................................................... 150,000 

American Red Cross, Sacramento Sierra Chapter, CA ........................................................... 35,000 

Village of Bellerose, NY .......................................................................................................... 200,000 

Town of Pomona Park, FL ....................................................................................................... 300,000 

San Francisco Police Department, CA .................................................................................... 1,000,000 

North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety, NC .................................... 1,000,000 

City of Del Rio, TX .................................................................................................................. 500,000 

City of Bell Gardens, CA ......................................................................................................... 175,000 

City of Cudahy, CA ................................................................................................................. 50,000 

The County of Cook, IL ........................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Douglas County, GA ................................................................................................................ 500,000 

City of Richmond, VA .............................................................................................................. 750,000 

Hudson County, NJ .................................................................................................................. 1,000,000 

Marion County, FL ................................................................................................................... 750,000 

City of Miami Beach, FL ......................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Vermont Emergency Management Agency, VT ........................................................................ 1,000,000 

Crittenden County, KY ............................................................................................................. 750,000 

NATIONAL PROGRAMS

The Committee recommends $236,000,000 for National Programs, $91,000,000 above the amount requested and $63,300,000 

below the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. 

NATIONAL DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS CONSORTIUM

Of the funds recommended for National Programs, the Committee provides $92,000,000 for the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium, $60,000,000 above the amount requested and 

$4,000,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. Consortium members funded in fiscal year 2008 shall each receive 

$23,000,000. 

CENTER FOR DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS

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

amount provided in fiscal year 2008. 

NATIONAL EXERCISE PROGRAM

Of the funds recommended for National Programs, the Committee provides $40,000,000 for the National Exercise Program, the 

same as the amount requested and $10,000,000 below the amount 

provided in fiscal year 2008. This program provides the opportunity 

for key leaders at the Federal, State, local, territory and Tribal levVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:07 Sep 19, 2008 Jkt 044458 PO 00000 Frm 00119 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR862.XXX HR862

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
120 

els, along with representatives of nongovernmental organizations 

and the private sector, to gauge the level of effectiveness of plans, 

policies and procedures for responding to natural disasters and terrorist attacks. 

In October 2007, DHS conducted the Top Officials 4 (TOPOFF 4) 

exercise, involving top officials at every level of government. 

TOPOFF 4 used a radiological dispersal device scenario to test the 

capabilities of Federal, State, and local governments. The Department’s after action preliminary results showed difficulties in conducting and coordinating multiple missions at incident sites and indicated that command structures were used that did not follow the 

National Incident Management System. The Committee is troubled 

by these results, given that this exercise took place more than two 

years after the response to Hurricane Katrina, for which similar 

problems were identified. The Department is directed to provide a 

detailed report to the Committee on the Federal, State, and local 

issues related to incident management lapses during TOPOFF 4. 

Further, OIG shall review changes made by DHS as a result of 

problems identified through TOPOFF 4 and make recommendations for any further improvements needed. 

CONTINUING TRAINING GRANTS

Of the funds recommended for National Programs, the Committee provides $31,000,000 for continuing training grants, 

$31,000,000 above the amount requested and equal to the amount 

provided in fiscal year 2008. The Committee recommends full funding for the graduate-level homeland security education programs 

currently supported by the Department. The Department is directed to maintain its strong support for these proven curricula, 

and to continue to leverage them where appropriate as the Department meets the growing need for education within its own ranks 

and by States and localities around the Nation. 

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

Of the funds recommended for National Programs, the Committee provides $10,000,000 for technical assistance, the same as 

the amount requested and $2,000,000 below the amount provided 

in fiscal year 2008. The Committee recognizes that State and local 

officials require technical assistance to ensure that equipment is 

used properly and to support effective planning. 

EVALUATIONS AND ASSESSMENTS

Of the funds recommended for National Programs, the Committee provides $16,000,000 for evaluations and assessments, the 

same as the amount requested and $3,000,000 below the amount 

provided in fiscal year 2008. FEMA shall brief the Committee every 

six months on results from completed evaluations. 

EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES

FEMA is directed, in conjunction with the Office of Health Affairs, to report to the Committee regarding the current state of disaster preparedness capabilities of emergency medical service providers and the capabilities required to meet future preparedness 

goals. This report is due no later than six months after the enactVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:07 Sep 19, 2008 Jkt 044458 PO 00000 Frm 00120 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR862.XXX HR862

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
121 

ment of this Act and shall include an analysis of the gap between 

current and target capabilities. FEMA is directed to include language in its grants guidance requiring States to include EMS providers in their Statewide Homeland Security Plans as well as their 

UASI plans. If a State provides no funding to EMS providers, the 

State should justify lack of funding through demonstrating that related targeted capabilities have been met or identifying other 

pressing priorities. 

STOCKPILING OF CRITICAL SUPPLIES

The Committee is concerned with the ability of State and local 

governments to provide emergency assistance for the first 72 hours 

following a large-scale catastrophe—a standard that FEMA itself 

believes State and local governments must be prepared to meet. 

Therefore, the Committee directs FEMA to allow Federal homeland 

security grant recipients to allocate a reasonable portion of grant 

funds, as determined by FEMA, for the stockpiling of critical, emergency provisions, such as shelf stable food products like Meals 

Ready to Eat, water, and basic medical supplies. The Committee 

encourages FEMA to ensure that grant applicants have a proper 

stockpile inventory management plan in place prior to allocating 

grant funds for stockpiling purposes. 

FIREFIGHTER ASSISTANCE GRANTS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 ......................................................... $750,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 ..................................................... 300,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 800,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 .................................................. +50,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 .............................................. +500,000,000 

MISSION

Firefighter Assistance Grants are provided to local fire departments for the purpose of protecting the health and safety of the 

public and protecting firefighting personnel, including volunteers 

and emergency medical service personnel, against fire and fire-related hazards. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $800,000,000 for Firefighter Assist- ance Grants, $500,000,000 above the amount requested and 

$50,000,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. Of this 

amount, $230,000,000 is for firefighter staffing, as authorized by 

section 34 of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 

(Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response—SAFER). 

FEMA is directed to continue granting funds directly to local fire 

departments and to include the United States Fire Administration 

during the grant decision process. FEMA is also directed to maintain an all-hazards focus and is prohibited from limiting the list of 

eligible activities. Funds are available until September 30, 2010, 

and no more than 3 percent may be used for administrative expenses. 

The Committee continues the requirement for FEMA to peer-review FIRE and SAFER grant applications that meet criteria established by FEMA and the Fire Service; to clearly define the criteria 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
122 

for peer-review in the grant application package; to rank order applications according to peer-review; and to fund applications according to their rank order. For those applicants whose grant applications are not reviewed, FEMA must provide an official notification 

detailing why the application did not meet the criteria for review. 

The Committee directs FEMA to encourage applications from multiple fire departments to enhance regional approaches to firefighting. Such applications shall not restrict the lead applicant 

from submitting, or FEMA from fully considering, a separate application for the lead applicant’s fire department. 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE GRANTS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 ......................................................... $300,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 1 ................................................... 0 

Recommended in the bill 2 ................................................................. 315,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 .................................................. +15,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 .............................................. +315,000,000 

1Proposes to incorporate Emergency Management Performance Grants into the State and Local Programs account. 2Does not incorporate Emergency Management Performance Grants into the State and Local Programs account and instead provides a separate account. 

MISSION

Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) funds are 

used to support comprehensive emergency management at the 

State and local levels and to encourage the improvement of mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery capabilities for all hazards. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $315,000,000 for EMPG, 

$315,000,000 above the amount requested and $15,000,000 above 

the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. The Committee does not 

agree to transfer EMPG to the State and Local Programs account, 

continuing instead to fund the EMPG program as a separate appropriation. EMPG is the one true all-hazard source of funding for 

emergency managers. 

The Committee directs FEMA to continue EMPG grant practices 

used in fiscal year 2007, including a continued emphasis on all-hazards activities and the inclusion of personnel expenses and Emergency Operations Centers as eligible uses of funding. 

RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAM

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 ......................................................... $¥505,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 ..................................................... ¥1,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... ¥1,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 ¥495,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 .............................................. 0 

MISSION

The Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program (REPP) ensures that the public health and safety of citizens living near commercial nuclear power plants will be adequately protected in the 

event of a nuclear power station incident. In addition, the program 

informs and educates the public about radiological emergency preVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:07 Sep 19, 2008 Jkt 044458 PO 00000 Frm 00122 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR862.XXX HR862

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
123 

paredness. REPP provides funding only for ‘offsite’ emergency preparedness activities of State and local governments that take place 

beyond nuclear power plant boundaries. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee provides for the receipt and expenditure of REPP 

fees collected as authorized by Public Law 105–276. The request estimates that fee collections will exceed expenditures by $1,000,000 

in fiscal year 2009. 

UNITED STATES FIRE ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 ......................................................... $43,300,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 1 ................................................... 0 

Recommended in the bill 2 ................................................................. 44,979,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 .................................................. +1,679,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 .............................................. +44,979,000 

1Proposes to incorporate the U.S. Fire Administration into the Management and Administration account. 

2Does not incorporate the U.S. Fire Administration into the Management and Administration account and 

instead provides a separate account. 

MISSION

The mission of the United States Fire Administration (USFA) is 

to reduce economic losses and loss of life due to fire and related 

emergencies through leadership, coordination, and support. USFA 

trains the Nation’s first responder and health care leaders to evaluate and minimize community risk, enhance the security of critical 

infrastructure, and better prepare communities to react to emergencies of all kinds. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $44,979,000 for USFA, $44,979,000 

above the amount requested and $1,679,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. The Committee includes $1,179,000 to 

continue implementation of the National Fire Incident Reporting 

System (NFIRS), the same amount as requested within the FEMA 

Management and Administration account. The Committee believes 

NFIRS is directly related to the mission of USFA and should be 

managed and operated by USFA. In addition, $500,000 is included 

to address the deferred maintenance needs of buildings and facilities on the USFA campus. 

DISASTER RELIEF

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 1 ....................................................... $1,400,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 ..................................................... 1,900,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 1,900,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 .................................................. +500,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 .............................................. 0 1 Excludes $2,900,000,000 provided as an emergency supplemental appropriation in fiscal year 2008. 

MISSION

FEMA is responsible for administering disaster assistance programs and coordinating the Federal response following presidential 

disaster declarations. Major activities under the Disaster Relief 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
124 

fund are: providing aid to families and individuals; supporting the 

efforts of State and local governments to take emergency protective 

measures, clearing debris and repairing infrastructure damage; 

mitigating the effects of future disasters; and helping States and 

local communities manage disaster response, including the assistance of disaster field office staff and automated data processing 

support. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,900,000,000 for Disaster Relief, 

the same as the amount requested and $500,000,000 above the 

amount provided in fiscal year 2008, excluding emergency funding. 

The Committee does not approve the separate Disaster Readiness 

and Support account. Because the activities contemplated for that 

proposed account would be directly associated with future disasters, the Committee expects those activities to continue to be funded within the Disaster Relief account. The Committee includes a 

provision to allow the transfer of up to $90,600,000 to FEMA Management and Administration for the conversion of 298 CORE to 

permanent positions. The transfer may not occur until the Committee receives an implementation plan for converting CORE that 

includes an expenditure plan; a hiring schedule; and a list of positions to be filled by CORE employees, including where they will be 

located. The Committee also includes a provision to allow the 

transfer of $15,000,000 to OIG for disaster related audits and investigations. 

The Committee is concerned with the accuracy of FEMA’s estimates for Disaster Relief. GAO found (GAO 08–30) that FEMA’s 

estimates for the final cost of a particular disaster do not come 

within ten percent of the actual cost until six months after the disaster occurs. GAO also found that FEMA ‘‘starts from scratch’’ 

after each disaster in developing cost estimates, without using past 

disasters as a guide. FEMA is directed to implement the GAO recommendations, including developing models to estimate predictable 

costs of non-hurricane disasters and evaluating the benefits of 

using geographically specific averages. 

FEMA uses mission assignments (MA) to request support from 

other Federal agencies for response related activities. According to 

the OIG, past reviews have found that FEMA’s management controls were generally not adequate to ensure that costs were reasonable; invoices were accurate; deliverables were met; and proper accounting of Federal property was made. The Committee understands that FEMA has formed an intra/interagency MA Working 

Group to review the system and make recommendations for improvements. FEMA is directed to brief the Committee on the 

group’s recommendations by November 2008. 

The Committee continues and modifies language requiring 

monthly reports detailing information related to Hurricanes 

Katrina, Rita, Wilma, and other disasters, including amounts allocated, obligated and undistributed. 

POST-DISASTER HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM (HMGP)

The Committee continues to believe that HMGP is an effective 

tool for communities to rebuild in a way that will prevent loss in 

future disasters. The total amount of HMGP funds available to 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
125 

Louisiana under both Hurricane Katrina and Rita is approximately 

$1.47 billion. The total amount of HMGP funds available to Mississippi under Hurricane Katrina is approximately $413,000,000. 

Based on information submitted by FEMA, the Committee is encouraged that there appears to be some progress in implementing 

HMGP in the Gulf Coast. For instance, the Committee understands 

that FEMA requested and received a waiver from the Office of 

Management and Budget to allow those who incurred mitigation 

costs after the hurricane, but before HMGP was awarded, to recoup 

costs through HMGP. The State of Louisiana plans to utilize this 

new retroactive authority to provide $30,000 HMGP grants to 

homeowners for whom the cost of elevating a home exceeded the 

elevation funding available under the Road Home program. The 

State plans to use $750,000,000 of its HMGP allocation for this retroactive elevation program. In addition, the State has either received or been approved for $250,000,000 in other traditional mitigation projects, such as the purchase of generators for critical facilities. Mississippi has identified a total of $413,000,000 in traditional mitigation projects, including the construction of safe rooms, 

elevations of properties, and buyouts of properties. 

Although FEMA has made some progress in overcoming administrative hurdles to evaluating and approving HMGP applications, 

significant challenges remain, and the rate of obligation for program funds in both Louisiana and Mississippi continues to be low. 

To date approximately only $128,300,000 has been obligated in 

Louisiana and only $54,300,000 has been obligated in Mississippi. 

The Committee notes that the deadline for Louisiana and Mississippi to submit applications to FEMA for HMGP projects is September 1, 2008. Given the continued challenges related to the rate 

of project approval and obligation, the Committee urges FEMA to 

consider extending this deadline. 

DISASTER ASSISTANCE DIRECT LOAN PROGRAM ACCOUNT

SUBSIDY

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 ......................................................... $295,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 ..................................................... 295,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 295,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 .................................................. 0 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 .............................................. 0 

LIMITATION ON DIRECT LOANS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 ......................................................... $25,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 ..................................................... 25,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 25,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 .................................................. 0 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 .............................................. 0 

MISSION

Beginning in 1992, loans made to States under the cost sharing 

provisions of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 

Assistance Act were funded in accordance with the Federal Credit 

Reform Act of 1990. The Disaster Assistance Direct Loan Program 

Account, which was established as a result of the Federal Credit 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
126 

Reform Act, records the subsidy costs associated with the direct 

loans obligated beginning in 1992 to the present. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $25,000,000 for the limitation on direct loans from the Disaster Assistance Direct Loan Program, pursuant to section 319 of the Stafford Act, and a subsidy of $295,000 

to cover the cost of loans. The Committee includes $580,000 for the 

administrative expenses of the program, the same as the amount 

requested in the FEMA Management and Administration account. 

FLOOD MAP MODERNIZATION FUND

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 ......................................................... $220,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 ..................................................... 150,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 220,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 .................................................. 0 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 .............................................. 70,000,000 

MISSION

The mission of Flood Map Modernization is to modernize, maintain, and digitize the inventory of over 100,000 of the nation’s flood 

maps. These flood maps are used to determine appropriate riskbased premium rates for the National Flood Insurance Program, 

complete hazard determinations required for the nation’s lending 

institutions, and develop appropriate disaster response plans for 

Federal, State, and local emergency management personnel. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $220,000,000 for the Flood Map Modernization Fund, $70,000,000 above the amount requested and 

the same as the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. The Committee notes that with the funding provided in fiscal year 2008, 

FEMA will achieve its goal of modernizing maps for 92 percent of 

the country’s population and 65 percent of the land area. With fiscal year 2009 funding, the Committee expects FEMA to focus on 

updating, reviewing, and maintaining maps that have already been 

modernized to ensure that flood maps remain current to accurately 

reflect flood hazards. The goal shall be to review and, as necessary, 

update maps that are three years past their modernized dates, and 

to complete necessary updates no later than five years past their 

modernized dates to ensure maps are accurately maintained. To 

support this goal and to leverage the use of Federal resources for 

this activity, the Committee directs that no less than 20 percent of 

the funds provided under this heading be made available for map 

maintenance conducted by Cooperating Technical Partners (CTP) 

that provide a 25 percent cash match and have a strong record of 

working effectively with FEMA on floodplain mapping activities. 

Concurrent with the fiscal year 2010 budget submission, FEMA 

shall submit to the Committees on Appropriation a 5-year National 

Flood Map Maintenance Plan for fiscal years 2010 to 2014. 

When allocating map modernization funds, the Committee encourages FEMA to prioritize as criteria the number of stream and 

coastal miles within the State and the participation of the State in 

leveraging non-federal contributions. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
127 

The Committee continues to be aware of concerns about the decision by FEMA to include a note on some flood maps recommending 

that property owners in areas behind certified levees purchase 

flood insurance. These concerns stem from a perception that the 

FEMA note may imply that FEMA is aware of specific information 

that casts doubt on the structural integrity or protection value of 

particular levees when no such information exists. The Committee 

directs FEMA to consult with stakeholder communities on the current wording of the FEMA note to ensure that it (1) accurately reflects FEMA’s state of knowledge about the level of protection provided by the particular levees to which the note is applied, including identification of levees that provide protection from the 500- 

year flood; and (2) clarifies whether or not property owners are legally required to purchase flood insurance in areas protected by 

such levees. 

The Committee understands the need for FEMA to utilize surveys to accurately identify flood plain areas. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Spatial Reference System (NSRS) replaces expensive, labor-intensive 

field surveying projects, including flood plain mapping, with new, 

timelier and more cost-efficient GPS technology. NSRS reduces engineering errors and disasters caused by changing land surfaces 

due to subsidence, floods, earthquakes, and other natural events. 

Post Hurricane Katrina, FEMA undertook an effort to improve the 

spatial reference system for Southern Louisiana using GPS technology to survey the coast and aid in rebuilding. The Committee 

notes that other States are in need of similar surveying efforts and 

encourages FEMA to aid States in improving their spatial reference 

systems. 

The Committee urges the Department of Homeland Security to 

conduct flood plain mapping in areas where levees may be used in 

the construction of a border wall after such construction. 

The Committee understands that roads and other levee-like 

structures can, in some cases, serve as effective barriers to flooding. Where such structures can be shown to provide protection from 

flooding, FEMA is directed to work with communities to fully account for that protection in flood maps. 

NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE FUND

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 ......................................................... $145,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 ..................................................... 156,599,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 156,599,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 .................................................. +11,599,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 .............................................. 0 

MISSION

The National Flood Insurance Fund (NFIF), which was established in the Treasury by the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 

is a fee-generated fund and is the funding mechanism for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The Act, as amended, authorizes the Federal Government to provide flood insurance on a 

national basis. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
128 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee includes bill language providing up to 

$49,418,000 for salaries and expenses to administer the NFIF, the 

same as the budget request and $3,776,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. The Committee includes bill language 

providing up to $80,000,000 for the severe repetitive loss property 

mitigation pilot program under section 1361A of the National Flood 

Insurance Act; $10,000,000 for the repetitive insurance claims 

properties under section 1323 of the National Flood Insurance Act; 

and $35,700,000 for Flood Mitigation Assistance under section 1366 

of the National Flood Insurance Act. No less than $107,181,000 is 

available for flood plain management and flood mapping. Flood 

mitigation funds are available until September 30, 2010, and funding is offset by premium collections. 

The Committee is supportive of FEMA’s efforts to assess coastal 

maps that are considered outdated and to expand program management and oversight of the insurance companies and agents who 

deliver insurance to customers. 

The Committee recognizes the need for adequate flood insurance, 

but also understands the effect that paying one yearly installment 

has on low to moderate income families. Thus, the Committee encourages FEMA to implement a pilot program through which the 

NFIP would allow low to moderate income individuals to pay their 

premium in quarterly installments. 

NATIONAL PREDISASTER MITIGATION FUND

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 ......................................................... $114,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 ..................................................... 75,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 75,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 .................................................. ¥39,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 .............................................. 0 

MISSION

The National Predisaster Mitigation Fund provides technical assistance and grants to State, local, and tribal governments, and to 

universities to reduce the risks associated with disasters. Resources 

support the development and enhancement of hazard mitigation 

plans, as well as the implementation of disaster mitigation 

projects. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $75,000,000 for the National 

Predisaster Mitigation Fund (PDM), the same as the amount requested, and $39,000,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 

2008. The Committee notes that this program is one of several 

mitigation programs run by FEMA, including the Repetitive Flood 

Claims grant program, the Flood Mitigation Assistance program, 

the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, and the Severe Repetitive 

Loss grant program. Each program has a different authorization, 

but all aim to mitigate losses from future disasters. The Committee 

directs FEMA to report to the Committee within six months of enactment of this Act on a mitigation strategy showing how each program contributes to mitigation goals. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
129 

The Committee includes the following predisaster mitigation 

projects in the following amounts: 

City of Rainbow City, AL ......................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Municipality of Murrysville, PA ............................................................................................... 100,000 

Bibb County, Emergency Management Agency, AL ................................................................ 750,000 

City of Wynne, AR ................................................................................................................... 50,000 

City of San Diego, CA ............................................................................................................. 1,000,000 

Pinellas County, FL ................................................................................................................. 1,000,000 

Brigham City (Corporation), UT .............................................................................................. 650,000 

City of Collidge, GA ................................................................................................................ 80,000 

Drywood Township, Garland, KS ............................................................................................. 35,000 

City of Merced, CA .................................................................................................................. 500,000 

City of Newark, DE .................................................................................................................. 300,000 

Adjutant General’s Office of Emergency Preparedness, SC ................................................... 1,000,000 

Alabama Department of Homeland Security, AL for Jackson County .................................... 90,000 

Harris County Flood Control District, TX ................................................................................ 1,000,000 

Tarrant County, TX .................................................................................................................. 1,000,000 

City of Chula Vista, CA .......................................................................................................... 400,000 

North West, MO Regional Council of Governments ................................................................ 300,000 

Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL ........................................................................... 300,000 

City of Kannapolis, NC ........................................................................................................... 468,000 

Town of Conklin, NY ............................................................................................................... 330,000 

County of Hawaii, Civil Defense Agency, HI ........................................................................... 400,000 

City of Berlin, NH .................................................................................................................... 100,000 

City of Trenton, NJ .................................................................................................................. 500,000 

Santa Clara Water Valley District, San Jose, CA ................................................................... 790,000 

City of Houston, TX ................................................................................................................. 200,000 

West Jefferson Medical Center, Marrero, LA ........................................................................... 400,000 

Erie County, Sandusky, OH ..................................................................................................... 399,000 

Wayne County, Detroit, MI ...................................................................................................... 300,000 

New York State Emergency Management Office, NY ............................................................. 1,000,000 

City of Berkeley, CA ................................................................................................................ 750,000 

City of Taylorsville, KY ............................................................................................................ 750,000 

Westchester and Rockland Counties, NY ............................................................................... 500,000 

Town of Lake Placid, FL ......................................................................................................... 500,000 

Tifton-Tift County Emergency Management Agency (EMA), GA ............................................. 40,000 

Town of Pembroke Park, FL .................................................................................................... 400,000 

City of Miami, FL .................................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

City of Mission Viejo, CA ........................................................................................................ 850,000 

Yardley Borough, PA ............................................................................................................... 500,000 

Clark County Emergency Management, WI ............................................................................. 300,000 

County of Essex, NJ ................................................................................................................ 500,000 

Val Verde County, Del Rio, TX ................................................................................................ 500,000 

County of Los Angeles, CA ..................................................................................................... 600,000 

City of Los Angeles, CA .......................................................................................................... 500,000 

City of New Braunfels, TX ...................................................................................................... 360,000 

Brown Township Board of Trustees, Malvern, OH .................................................................. 247,728 

City of Barberton, OH ............................................................................................................. 200,000 

Mississippi Homeland Security Office, MS ............................................................................. 500,000 

Town of North Andover, MA .................................................................................................... 100,000 

Cities of Lake Station and Hobart, IN .................................................................................... 500,000 

City of Owatonna, MN ............................................................................................................. 400,000 

City of Lake City, TN ............................................................................................................... 418,000 

Putnam County, FL ................................................................................................................. 450,000 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
130 

EMERGENCY FOOD AND SHELTER

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 ......................................................... $153,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 ..................................................... 100,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 200,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 .................................................. +47,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 .............................................. +100,000,000 

MISSION

The Emergency Food and Shelter National Board Program was 

created in 1983 to supplement the work of local social service organizations within the United States, both private and governmental, 

to help people in need of emergency assistance. The program provides funds to local communities for homeless programs, including 

soup kitchens, food banks, shelters, and homeless prevention services. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $200,000,000 for the Emergency 

Food and Shelter Program (EFSP), $100,000,000 above the amount 

requested and $47,000,000 above the amount provided in fiscal 

year 2008. Up to 3.5 percent may be used for administrative expenses. 

The EFSP provides assistance for those in need of food, rental assistance, mortgage assistance and shelter. With recent estimates 

showing foreclosure rates rising 75 percent from 2006 and food 

prices rising nearly five percent from last year, the additional funding provided for EFSP will assist those most in need of food and 

shelter assistance, with the goal of preventing homelessness and 

hunger. 

CERRO GRANDE FIRE CLAIMS

The Committee approves the budget request to rescind 

$9,000,000. 

TITLE IV—RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, TRAINING, AND 

SERVICES 

UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION 

SERVICES 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 ......................................................... $80,973,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 ..................................................... 154,540,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 101,740,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 .................................................. +20,767,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 .............................................. ¥52,800,000 

MISSION

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


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
131 

USCIS also maintains substantial records and data related to the 

individuals who have applied for immigration benefits. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $101,740,000 in discretionary appro- priations for USCIS, $52,800,000 below the requested level and 

$20,767,000 above the amount provided in 2008. The Committee 

does not fund REAL ID hub development within the USCIS appropriation and instead funds it in the National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD). NPPD manages a similar identity 

verification system and also has experience with data integration 

projects. The Committee also does not provide the $4,000,000 requested in the official budget transmission that was not justified in 

any of the Department’s supporting materials, and which the Department has informed the Committee was an error. The Committee provides the requested $100,000,000 for the E-Verify program (previously called Employment Eligibility Verification (EEV) 

or Basic Pilot), which is $40,000,000 above the amount provided in 

2008. The Committee notes that the Congressional Budget Office 

recently estimated that nationwide implementation of the E-Verify 

system would cost billions of dollars at USCIS, the Social Security 

Administration, and other agencies, and would take several years 

to complete. The Committee encourages USCIS to develop a detailed plan for projected use of the E-Verify system, including an 

estimate of costs for each of the government agencies responsible 

for managing key aspects of the program, and a timeline for system 

completion. To support the mission of the Office of Citizenship, 

which was created in USCIS by the Homeland Security Act to further the rights and responsibilities of citizenship, the Committee 

provides $1,200,000 for grants to community-based organizations 

that are located in areas of the country with the highest concentrations of immigrants. Such grants shall be awarded competitively. 

USER FEE FUNDED PROGRAMS

Current estimates of fee collections, which constitute the major- ity of USCIS resources, are $2,539,186,000. These revenues support 

adjudication of applications for immigration benefits and fraud prevention activities, and are derived from fees collected from persons 

applying for immigration benefits. Within the total fees collected, 

the Committee directs USCIS to provide no less than $53,747,000 

to support Customer Service Center operations, and to dedicate the 

entirety of premium processing revenue to business system and information technology transformation, including converting immigration records to digital format. No more than $10,000 of the fees 

collected shall be used for official reception and representation expenses. 

The Committee reiterates the concerns expressed last year that 

fee increases that took effect in 2007 may put the dream of citizenship out of the reach of many individuals and families with limited 

income. In addition, the Committee has become aware that fee 

waivers for extraordinary circumstances are far less available 

under the new fee rule than under older regulations. The Committee strongly encourages USCIS to continue regular reviews of 

its fee structure to ensure that revenues do not exceed the necessary costs of USCIS business operations. The Committee also diVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:07 Sep 19, 2008 Jkt 044458 PO 00000 Frm 00131 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR862.XXX HR862

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
132 

rects USCIS to review its policies for fee waivers to ensure that appropriate consideration is available for those who do not possess 

the financial wherewithal to afford the new charges. 

ACCURACY OF E-VERIFY

While the Committee provides the requested amount for the EVerify system, it is concerned with the high rate of individuals 

falsely identified as ineligible to work, as reported in a recent analysis of the E-Verify system by a third-party auditing firm. Of particular concern is the report’s conclusion that nearly one in ten naturalized citizens is reported by E-Verify as non-work authorized. To 

ensure USCIS is taking appropriate steps to address these problems, the Committee directs USCIS to report to the Committees on 

Appropriations within 90 days of enactment of this Act on its plans 

to improve the accuracy of the E-Verify system. 

REFUGEE PROCESSING

The Committee is concerned that the U.S. refugee acceptance 

process has not been as effective as it could be in assisting those 

who require resettlement. In particular, the Committee notes that 

non-government refugee assistance personnel working in countries 

with large Iraqi refugee populations have been given inadequate 

guidance by USCIS about how to evaluate cases where refugee applicants may have provided material support to extremist groups 

under duress or threat, or to other groups that may have once been 

supportive of U.S. causes or geopolitical goals. The Committee is 

concerned that provisions enacted in the 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act expanding the authorities of the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide discretionary exemptions to material support prohibitions on refugee resettlement have not yet been formalized as departmental policy. The Committee directs USCIS, in conjunction with the Department of State, to clarify U.S. Government 

policy on refugee acceptance related to material support prohibitions. The Committee further directs USCIS to provide written policy to its adjudicators who determine eligibility for discretionary exemptions to material support prohibitions. 

NONIMMIGRANT SPECIALTY WORKER VISA (H–1B) ANALYSIS

The Committee is concerned that the current cap on nonimmigrant specialty worker (H–1B) visas negatively affects the nation’s ability to remain internationally competitive in the applied 

sciences and high-technology industries. The Committee also notes 

the importance of ensuring that U.S. workers are not unfairly displaced or otherwise disadvantaged by H–1B visa holders. The Committee directs GAO to conduct an analysis on how the 2008 cap of 

65,000 H–1B visas affects the ability of domestic companies to continue to develop modern technology and perform innovative scientific research and development. That analysis, at a minimum, 

shall include an assessment of the number of jobs outsourced to 

overseas locations due to the H–1B visa cap; the effect of the cap 

on domestic investment in basic research and development; an assessment of the aggregate costs of the H–1B visa cap on U.S. companies; and the correlation between the H–1B visa program and 

the willingness of foreign companies to hire American workers or 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
133 

work with American companies abroad. GAO should also report on 

the current requirements for ensuring that American workers are 

not displaced or otherwise disadvantaged by the H–1B program, 

and provide an analysis of the expected impact of an expanded H– 

1B program on domestic employment. 

VISA PROGRAMS AUTHORIZED BY THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT

In the final version of its 2007 fee rule, USCIS provided for the 

waiver of application fees for certain visas authorized under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). These waivers were provided 

in recognition that the circumstances in which VAWA visa applicants often find themselves may make them unable to pay fees required by the very programs designed to help them. The Committee is concerned, however, that USCIS did not fully consider the 

range of supporting forms required for VAWA visa applicants. 

Since the fees associated with these underlying forms, most notably 

the I–601 waiver of inadmissibility form and the I–765 employment 

authorization form, are not subject to fee waivers, applicants may 

still face a financial inability to participate in a program Congress 

intended be available to them for humanitarian reasons. The Committee directs USCIS to review its policies for fee waivers on forms 

required to accompany VAWA visa applications, and to brief the 

Committee within 60 days of enactment of this Act on steps it is 

taking to ensure that financial conditions do not bar VAWA visa 

applicants from humanitarian relief authorized by law. 

NATURALIZATION CEREMONIES

The Committee directs USCIS to identify, in the 2010 budget 

submission, all funds allocated to naturalization and oath of allegiance ceremonies, including an analysis of historic expenditures by 

fiscal year since 2006. In addition, the Committee directs USCIS to 

work with local public and private groups to ensure that naturalization and oath of allegiance ceremonies are held as part of 

Independence Day celebrations. 

ORPHANS FIRST PROGRAM

The Committee supports the efforts of USCIS and the Department of State to ensure through the Orphans First program that 

children adopted from Vietnam by U.S. parents have not been 

fraudulently or erroneously identified as orphans. The Committee 

is concerned, however, that significant delays in verifying the eligibility of some Vietnamese children for adoption are taking a significant toll on both these children and the U.S. parents who wish to 

adopt them. The Committee urges USCIS to devote additional resources to ensuring the timely completion of investigations related 

to verifying the status of children identified for adoption. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
134 

FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING CENTER 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 ......................................................... $238,076,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 ..................................................... 230,670,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 242,530,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 .................................................. +4,454,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 .............................................. +11,860,000 

MISSION

The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) provides the necessary facilities, equipment, and support services to 

conduct advanced, specialized, and refresher training for Federal 

law enforcement personnel. Specifically, FLETC serves as an interagency law enforcement training organization for 83 Federal agencies with personnel located throughout the United States and its 

territories. FLETC also provides services to State, local, and international law enforcement agencies, and on a space available basis, 

to other Federal agencies with related law enforcement missions. 

FLETC is headquartered in Glynco, GA and has facilities in 

Artesia, NM and Charleston, SC. Each of these facilities is designed primarily for residential training operations. A fourth training facility is located in Cheltenham, MD, and provides in-service 

and re-qualification training for officers and agents in the Washington, DC area. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $242,530,000 for FLETC, 

$11,860,000 above the amount requested and $4,454,000 above the 

amount provided in fiscal year 2008. Funding includes an additional $2,000,000 to leverage Department of Defense modeling and 

simulation technologies to improve FLETC’s simulated training capabilities; an additional $2,200,000 for instructors for United 

States Capitol Police training needs; and an additional $5,640,000 

for basic training of 734 additional CBP Officers. The Committee 

also encourages FLETC to examine new technology that allows for 

cost-effective maintenance of firearms. 

The Committee does not include the requested transfer of 

$1,290,000 for the Office of Federal Law Enforcement Training Accreditation Board and seven FTEs from FLETC to the Chief 

Human Capital Officer. Additionally, the Committee does not support the proposal to eliminate $730,000 in funding for the FLETC 

Washington, DC Office. 

ACQUISITIONS, CONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENTS, AND RELATED

EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 ......................................................... $50,590,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 ..................................................... 43,456,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 43,456,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 .................................................. ¥7,134,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 .............................................. 0 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
135 

MISSION

This account provides for the acquisition, construction, improvements, equipment, furnishings, and related costs for expansion and 

maintenance of facilities of the Federal Law Enforcement Training 

Center. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $43,456,000 for Acquisitions, Construction, Improvements, and Related Expenses, the same as the 

amount requested and $7,134,000 below the amount provided in 

fiscal year 2008. The decrease is due to a deletion of one-time costs. 

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 

MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 ......................................................... $138,600,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 ..................................................... 132,100,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 132,100,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 .................................................. ¥6,500,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 .............................................. 0 

MISSION

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

Directorate (S&T). 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $132,100,000 for Science and Technology Management and Administration, the same amount as requested and $6,500,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 

2008. The Committee recommendation includes the requested 

transfer of 124 FTEs from this account to laboratory facilities in 

the Research, Development, Acquisition, and Operations appropriation. These 124 FTEs are Federal employees located at the Plum 

Island Animal Disease Center, the Transportation Security Laboratory and the Environmental Measurements Laboratory. With this 

transfer, the Management and Administration appropriation will 

be limited to headquarters FTEs only. Within the level appropriated, sufficient funding has been provided to annualize FTEs 

hired in 2008. 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, ACQUISITION, AND OPERATIONS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 ......................................................... $691,735,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 ..................................................... 736,737,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 754,897,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 .................................................. +63,162,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 .............................................. +18,160,000 

MISSION

The mission of the Science and Technology Directorate is to develop and deploy technologies and capabilities to secure our homeland. This Directorate conducts, stimulates, and enables research, 

development, testing, evaluation, and the timely transition of 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
136 

homeland security capabilities to Federal, State, and local operational end-users. This activity includes investments in both evolutionary and revolutionary capabilities with high payoff potential; 

early deployment of off-the-shelf, proven technologies to provide for 

initial defense capability; near-term utilization of emerging technologies to counter current terrorist threats; and development of 

new capabilities to thwart future and emerging threats. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $754,897,000 for Research, Development, Acquisition, and Operations (RDA&O), $18,160,000 above 

the amount requested and $63,162,000 above the amount provided 

in fiscal year 2008. A comparison of the budget estimate to the 

Committee recommended level by budget activity is as follows: 

Budget estimate Recommended 

Border and Maritime Security ................................................................. $35,300,000 $30,300,000 

Chemical and Biological ......................................................................... 200,408,000 200,408,000 

Command, Control and Interoperability .................................................. 62,390,000 62,390,000 

Explosives ................................................................................................ 96,149,000 96,149,000

Human Factors ........................................................................................ 12,460,000 12,460,000 

Infrastructure and Geophysical ............................................................... 37,816,000 48,816,000 

Innovation ................................................................................................ 45,000,000 38,660,000

Laboratory Facilities ................................................................................ 146,940,000 151,940,000 

Test, Evaluation and Standards .............................................................. 24,674,000 28,674,000 

Transition ................................................................................................. 31,830,000 33,830,000 

University Programs ................................................................................. 43,770,000 51,270,000 

Total ................................................................................................ 736,737,000 754,897,000 

BORDER AND MARITIME SECURITY

The Committee recommends $30,300,000 for border and maritime security, $5,000,000 below the amount requested and 

$4,821,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. The 

Committee does not include the funding requested for new maritime technologies. This work is more appropriately handled by 

Coast Guard within its Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation account. 

The Committee continues to believe that a viable container security device (CSD) is an essential tool within an effective cargo supply chain security regime. The Committee is aware of CBP’s and 

S&T’s current efforts to ‘‘monitor the state of technology to acquire 

and test the most promising commercial-off-the-shelf solutions for 

container security and in-bond shipments’’, as per the Department’s 

report submitted to the Committee on April 10, 2008. Despite these 

efforts, however, the progress of CSD development has been unacceptably slow. S&T is directed, in conjunction with CBP, to provide 

quarterly updates to the Committee beginning on October 15, 2008, 

on its efforts to explore a viable CSD solution. 

COMMAND, CONTROL, AND INTEROPERABILITY

The Committee recommends $62,390,000 for command, control, 

and interoperability, the same level as requested and $5,410,000 

above the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. Within the funds 

provided, the Committee includes $3,000,000 as requested and encourages S&T to continue its web distributed environment for critVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:07 Sep 19, 2008 Jkt 044458 PO 00000 Frm 00136 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR862.XXX HR862

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
137 

ical infrastructure decision making exercises. Well planned cyber 

attacks could have devastating consequences on America’s economy, especially if they were to substantially disrupt the financial 

services, telecommunications, transportation, energy, and other 

critical infrastructures that are highly reliant on advanced computer and information technology. This project addresses the 

vulnerabilities of these key sectors of our economy to low probability, high consequence attacks. 

FIRST RESPONDER COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT STANDARDS

First responder communications equipment procured with federal 

funding should be compliant with common system standards for 

digital public safety radio communications (Project 25 standards), 

to ensure interoperability. S&T, in conjunction with the Director of 

the National Institute of Standards and Technology, shall continue 

assessing the compliance of first responder communications equipment with Project 25 standards. 

EXPLOSIVES

The Committee recommends $96,149,000 for explosives, the same 

level as requested and $18,495,000 above the amount provided in 

fiscal year 2008. This program has grown by $32,400,000 over the 

past two years, largely for research and development on improvised 

explosive devices (IED). With the 2009 funding increase, S&T plans 

to identify near-term technological improvements to prevent, reduce or eliminate the consequences of IEDs in less than five years. 

While the Committee is extremely supportive of this effort, the 

Committee urges S&T to accelerate its efforts to achieve results in 

the nearer term, within the next one or two years. 

INFRASTRUCTURE AND GEOPHYSICAL

The Committee recommends $48,816,000 for infrastructure and 

geophysical, $11,000,000 above the amount requested and 

$15,684,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. Within 

the funds provided is $11,000,000 for the National Institute for 

Hometown Security to support existing work in research, development and application of technology for community-based critical infrastructure protection solutions. 

The Committee includes the requested $4,000,000 for continued 

development of emergency responder tracking, monitoring and rescue systems. Such systems would permit incident commanders to 

wirelessly locate, track, and monitor individual first responders 

throughout multi-story structures in real-time. This would allow incident commanders to make decisions that would save lives and 

help meet the 2005 U.S. Fire Administration’s goal of reducing 

line-of-duty deaths by 25 percent in 2010. The Committee encourages S&T to consider providing additional resources to investigate 

alternative technologies to ensure that monitoring can be successfully carried out in diverse environments and under varied circumstances. For instance, a successful monitoring technology would 

be capable of accurately monitoring the location and health status 

of an individual first responder who is isolated from other first responders during an emergency response. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
138 

INNOVATION

The Committee recommends $38,660,000 for innovation, 

$6,340,000 below the amount requested and $5,660,000 above the 

amount provided in fiscal year 2008. A reduction to this program 

has been made due to a lack of budgetary details on the initiatives 

that will be funded in 2009. 

NEW TECHNOLOGIES

New technologies may significantly help the Department as it 

seeks to secure our homeland. The Committee encourages S&T to 

assess technologies such as gallium nitride-based multi-mission 

phased array radar; gunshot detection and classification systems; 

passive and active biological chemical sensors at seaports; 

handheld x-ray imaging devices; mono-energetic gamma resonant 

imaging and detection systems; technologies to thwart radio-controlled improvised explosive devices using geospatial analysis tools; 

smart sensor and microsystem technologies for high threat problem-solving; remote border intrusion sensing technology; blast mitigation modeling and simulation tools; maturation of existing command and control systems using modular, distributable, standardsbased and information-centric decision architecture; enhanced 

three dimensional backscatter x-ray for use in cargo container inspection; near real-time interactive tools for mapping flood hazards; 

and enzyme-based technology for explosive detection. 

LABORATORY FACILITIES

The Committee recommends $151,940,000 for laboratory facilities, $5,000,000 above the amount requested and $48,126,000 above 

the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. The Committee funds 124 

existing FTEs within the laboratory facilities account, as requested, 

because these individuals work directly for S&T laboratories. In 

the past, these FTEs have been funded within the Management 

and Administration appropriation. Within this appropriation, 

$35,600,000 is included to begin detailed design for the National 

Bio and Agro-defense Facility (NBAF) and its supporting infrastructure in 2009 and $15,000,000 is included for ongoing construction at Area 300 of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, pursuant to the multi-agency memorandum of understanding. 

The Committee is concerned about a recent GAO report that 

DHS has neither conducted nor commissioned a study to determine 

whether work on foot-and-mouth disease can be done safely on the 

U.S. mainland. Instead, DHS relied on a 2002 Department of Agriculture study that addressed a different question and did not assess the past history of releases of this virus or other dangerous 

pathogens. New bill language prohibits the obligation of funds for 

the new NBAF facility design and construction until S&T completes a risk analysis of whether foot-and-mouth disease work can 

be done safely on the mainland, and GAO reviews this risk analysis. 

MULTI-FUNCTION PHASED ARRAY RADARS

The Committee remains aware that many of the surveillance radars used by a number of Federal agencies around the country will 

near the end of their design life during the next decade. The multiVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:07 Sep 19, 2008 Jkt 044458 PO 00000 Frm 00138 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR862.XXX HR862

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
139 

agency Multifunctional Phased Array Radar Working Group within 

the office of the Federal Coordinator of Meteorological Services is 

charged with facilitating the development of next-generation radars 

based on advanced technologies, such as high efficiency radio frequency power amplifiers, highly efficient power management systems, more efficient radar transmit-receive modules, and improved 

processing systems and algorithms. This new generation of radar 

will have important applications for DHS missions and the related 

missions of other Federal agencies, including improvements in hazardous weather and flood forecasts; land-falling hurricane and tornado prediction and warning; rapid identification of chemical and 

biological contaminant plumes; wildfire management; airspace surveillance for non-cooperative aircraft incursions; and control of unmanned aerial systems. While the Committee applauds this multiagency initiative, it is concerned that the pace of current efforts 

may not be sufficient to achieve the Working Group’s objectives. 

The Committee encourages DHS to remain actively involved in the 

activities of the Working Group and to contribute to the development of requirements and competitive critical demonstrations of 

key multi-function phased array radar technologies. 

TEST, EVALUATION AND STANDARDS

The Committee recommends $28,674,000 for test, evaluation and 

standards, $4,000,000 above the budget request and $154,000 

above the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. Within this amount, 

the Committee provides $5,000,000 to develop an operational test 

and evaluation program for first responder technologies so that 

there is a unified effort to objectively evaluate products against 

identified, minimum requirements. 

TRANSITION

The Committee recommends $33,830,000 for transition, 

$2,000,000 above the budget request and $8,565,000 above the 

amount provided in fiscal year 2008. The Committee is aware of 

numerous challenges confronting industry in keeping up with the 

growing demand for critical homeland security equipment, and the 

fact that such challenges have contributed to expenditure delays in 

State and local first responder funding. Therefore, within the funds 

provided is $2,000,000 to establish a pilot program to identify and 

transition advanced technologies and manufacturing processes that 

would achieve significant productivity and efficiency gains in the 

homeland security industrial base. 

UNIVERSITY PROGRAMS

The Committee recommends $51,270,000 for university programs, $7,500,000 above the amount requested and $1,973,000 

above the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. Within this funding 

level, a total of $36,720,000 has been provided for the Centers of 

Excellence, $4,500,000 above the budget request. In addition, the 

Committee provides $2,000,000 to continue an ongoing memorandum of understanding with the Naval Postgraduate School. Finally, the Committee has provided sufficient funding to maintain 

the fellows program at the same level as provided in fiscal year 

2008. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
140 

The Committee is concerned that the office of university programs does not request sufficient funding to support the research 

missions of its Centers of Excellence. The Committee notes that in 

each of the last two years, the budget either proposed reductions 

in funding for previously established Centers to establish new Centers and/or reductions to overall program funding. This seriously 

undermines the ability of the Centers to contribute to the research 

mission of the Department and the protection of the homeland. 

Within the recommended level for university programs is 

$3,900,000 for minority serving institutions, as requested. S&T 

should explore ways to prepare minority youth for careers in homeland security by promoting skills and educational curricula in this 

field, and report back to the Committee by February 25, 2009, on 

these efforts. 

In addition, the Committee encourages S&T to consider working 

with non-profit organizations that are focused on preparing minority youth for civil service careers and that may already be working 

with some of the participating institutions. 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING PROJECTS

The Committee is aware of extensive efforts underway by the Department of Defense Research and Engineering (DDRE) Directorate 

that may have applications for homeland security missions, including research into tunnel detection and bioterrorism. S&T is directed to brief the Committee no later than November 3, 2008, on 

how it is collaborating with DDRE on the discovery of technical 

homeland security solutions. 

UNOBLIGATED BALANCES

For the past few years, S&T has had high unexpended obligations in its Research, Development, Acquisition and Operations 

(RDA&O) account. The Committee understands that the Directorate has made efforts to reduce these balances and has initiated 

a quarterly review to identify unused funds for work that has yet 

to be performed and funds where S&T has not been billed but work 

has been completed. In the past, GAO has identified high undelivered order balances for work S&T has sponsored at the Department of Energy’s national laboratories, which accounts for 30 to 40 

percent of total RDA&O funding. Although it is unclear how much 

of the unexpended obligations may be in excess of program needs, 

it is possible that some funding may be identified and returned to 

the S&T account from which it was originally derived. The Committee directs S&T to report the results of its quarterly validation 

and verification reviews, the amount available to deobligate, and 

identify how S&T plans to use these funds. In addition, S&T shall 

submit, with its 2010 budget justification, a report on its unexpended obligated balances and justify instances where high undelivered order balances occur. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
141 

DOMESTIC NUCLEAR DETECTION OFFICE 

MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 ......................................................... $31,500,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 ..................................................... 38,900,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 35,475,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 .................................................. +3,975,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 .............................................. ¥3,425,000 

MISSION

The Management and Administration (M&A) appropriation provides for the salaries and expenses of Domestic Nuclear Detection 

Office (DNDO) employees. This is a jointly-staffed office that consists of both Federal employees and interagency detailees. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $35,475,000 for Management and Administration, $3,425,000 below the amount requested and 

$3,975,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. The 

Committee has not funded the budget request for seven new fulltime equivalent (FTEs) employees in fiscal year 2009. Halfway 

through fiscal year 2008, DNDO has not hired any of the new FTEs 

funded in 2008 and is currently below the 2007 FTE level. It is premature for the Committee to approve new FTEs until DNDO can 

fill its current vacancies. 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND OPERATIONS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 ......................................................... $323,500,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 ..................................................... 334,200,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 333,200,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 .................................................. +9,700,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 .............................................. ¥1,000,000 

MISSION

The Research, Development, and Operations appropriation funds 

all DHS nuclear detection research, development, test, evaluation 

and operational support activities. DNDO has developed a global 

nuclear detection architecture that the Federal government will 

use to detect and report attempts to import or transport a nuclear 

device or fissile or radiological material intended for illicit use. 

DNDO is continuing to improve the domestic portion of this architecture through an integrated research, development, test, and 

evaluation program, while providing support to current operations. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $333,200,000 for Research, Development, and Operations, $1,000,000 below the amount requested and 

$9,700,000 above amount provided in fiscal year 2008. A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee recommended level by 

budget activity is as follows: 

Budget estimate Recommended 

Systems Engineering and Architecture ................................................... $25,147,000 $25,147,000 

Systems Development .............................................................................. 108,100,000 108,100,000 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
142 

Budget estimate Recommended 

Transformational Research and Development ........................................ 113,300,000 113,300,000 

Assessments ............................................................................................ 32,000,000 32,000,000 

Operations Support .................................................................................. 37,753,000 37,753,000 

National Technical Nuclear Forensics Center ......................................... 17,900,000 16,900,000 

Total ................................................................................................ 334,200,000 333,200,000 

NEXT THREATS

While DNDO has been able to expedite the procurement and deployment of radiation detection technologies to scan cargo for radioactive and nuclear materials at our seaports and land ports of 

entry, other vulnerabilities still exist. Beginning last year, the 

Committee funded pilots and assessments of new technologies to 

reduce vulnerabilities at airports, from general aviation aircraft, in 

the maritime environment, in rail yards, and at non-ports of entry 

land borders. Consistent with direction in the 2008 statement of 

managers, DNDO shall continue to brief the Committees on Appropriations on the progress it has made in identifying the necessary 

architecture for these technologies, the strengths and weaknesses 

of these technologies, and a timetable for developing and deploying 

them. As part of the small maritime craft assessments, DNDO is 

encouraged to assess underwater detection technologies that can be 

used for security scanning at U.S. ports. The Committee is aware 

of at least one technology that may be able to detect special nuclear 

materials using submersible remotely operated vehicles that would 

travel underneath vessels at ports or in open waters. 

SCREENING CARGO CONTAINERS

The Committee directs DNDO to submit a report to the Committees on Appropriations by May 1, 2009, that explains the plan for 

achieving 100 percent scanning of all cargo containers entering the 

United States, as mandated by P.L. 109–347. This report should 

specifically detail the progress of the cargo advanced automated radiography system, which is intended to test, deploy, and install xray scanning capability at the nation’s ports. This report should 

also explain the process for soliciting requests from all eligible 

technology companies, including minority, women, and veteranowned technology businesses, and the status of implementing that 

process. 

SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT OF CRANE-BASED TECHNOLOGIES

Within the $108,100,000 provided for systems development, the 

Committee provides $15,000,000 to support the development of ondock rail solutions as requested. Last year, the Committee encouraged the testing of crane mounted radiation detection technologies 

in cooperation with CBP. Depending on the results of these performance tests, this technology may support on-dock rail applications. The Committee encourages DNDO, in conjunction with CBP, 

to continue development, engineering, and testing efforts for both 

straddle carriers and crane-mounted sensors and portals that can 

be used in the rail environment as well as in shipyards. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
143 

RED TEAM EXERCISES AND ASSESSMENTS

Within the assessments budget, $9,900,000 is provided for red 

teaming and net assessments, $100,000 above amount provided in 

fiscal year 2008 and the same level as requested. DNDO should 

continue to conduct covert operations to assess the effect of preventative radiological and/or nuclear capabilities on an adversary’s 

behavior; conduct covert and overt operations to measure performance of preventative radiological and/or nuclear capabilities; test 

the effectiveness of operations, protocols, training, communications 

and technical support; and capture lessons learned to overcome 

weaknesses found. DNDO is directed to continue to report quarterly on red team exercises and assessments, vulnerabilities identified, and changes that are being made to the system to address 

these vulnerabilities. 

NATIONAL TECHNICAL NUCLEAR FORENSICS CENTER

The Committee recommends $16,900,000 for the National Technical Nuclear Forensics Center, $1,000,000 below the amount requested and $1,900,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 

2008. Funding has been halved for the new fellowship program proposed in this year’s budget because this program should be introduced on a small scale and grow based on performance. 

Within the amount recommended, the Committee fully funds the 

National Technical Nuclear Forensics Center. The Committee recognizes the important role that nuclear forensics plays in the attribution of interdicted or detonated nuclear material to its source. 

The research and analysis coordinated by the National Technical 

Forensics Center supports law enforcement and emergency response and deters prospective nuclear proliferators. 

RISK ASSESSMENT ON RADIOLOGICAL DISPERSION DEVICES

Radiological materials used in medical, industrial, academic, and 

other facilities must be secured to prevent theft of a radiological 

dispersion device for possible use by terrorists. The Committee directs DNDO, in conjunction with the Secretary of Energy and the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, to conduct a risk assessment regarding the threat, vulnerability, and consequences related to the 

theft or other procurement of radiological materials that could be 

used by a terrorist in a radiological dispersion device. This assessment shall: (1) consider relevant studies previously prepared by 

other Federal agencies or other reputable sources; (2) focus on 

those radiological materials that constitute the greatest risk; (3) 

consider the potential radiological dispersion device value of different radiological materials including availability, dispersability, 

and ease of handling such materials; (4) consider the vulnerability 

for theft or other procurement that different facilities represent; 

and (5) consider the consequences of a successful radiological dispersion device attack, including risk of death or injury and economic losses. This assessment shall be submitted to the Committees on Appropriations no later than April 30, 2009, and may be 

submitted in a classified format. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
144 

SYSTEMS ACQUISITION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 ......................................................... $129,750,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 ..................................................... 190,700,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 175,700,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2008 .................................................. +45,950,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009 .............................................. ¥15,000,000 

MISSION

The Systems Acquisition appropriation provides for the acquisition and deployment of radiation detection technologies to the Nation’s ports of entry (POEs), along our borders, and in urban areas. 

To carry out this mission, DNDO will acquire a full range of radiation detection technologies, including fixed, mobile, and 

relocatable radiation portal monitors and backpack and handheld 

detection systems. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $175,700,000 for Systems Acquisition, $15,000,000 below the amount requested and $45,950,000 

above the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. A comparison of the 

budget estimate to the Committee recommended level by budget activity is as follows: 

Budget estimate Recommended 

Radiation Portal Monitor program ........................................................... $157,700,000 $142,700,000 

Securing the Cities .................................................................................. 20,000,000 20,000,000 

Human Portable Radiation Detection Systems program ......................... 13,000,000 13,000,000 

Total ................................................................................................ 190,700,000 175,700,000 

RADIATION PORTAL MONITOR PROGRAM

The Committee recommends $142,700,000 for the radiation portal monitor program, $15,000,000 below the amount requested and 

$52,700,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2008. Beginning with the fiscal year 2007 Appropriations Act, the Committee 

has prohibited the obligation of funding to procure advanced 

spectroscopic portal (ASP) systems until the Secretary of DHS certifies that these systems are more effective than the traditional radiation portal monitors. Certification has been repeatedly delayed 

due to substantive issues that must be addressed. At this time, 

DNDO does not anticipate that certification will occur until the end 

of fiscal year 2008. 

DNDO reports that the Secretary may certify one ASP vendor’s 

system while the others are still undergoing testing and evaluation. 

This is likely to result in the procurement of fewer systems in 2009 

because of the time it will take the vendors to ramp up their production lines after certification occurs. As a result, the Committee 

has reduced funding for this effort by $10,000,000. In addition, the 

Committee has not included the $5,000,000 requested for the ASP 

block upgrade to version 5.0. It is premature to provide this funding until it is clear that ASPs will be certified as operationally 

more effective than the current radiation portal monitors. Consistent with direction in prior years, if the Secretary is unable to 

certify that ASP systems are more effective than current systems, 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
145 

DNDO should use its fiscal year 2009 funding to acquire traditional polyvinyl toluene (PVT) radiation portal monitors. 

NORTHERN BORDER

Originally, DNDO planned to screen 100 percent of all containerized cargo entering U.S. seaports for radiation by 2013. Using additional funding Congress provided in the 2007 supplemental and reallocated funding from previous appropriations, DNDO now estimates that this goal can be reached by the end of calendar year 

2009. The Committee has fully funded the 2009 budget request, totaling $39,300,000, to procure 240 PVT systems and deploy them 

to all remaining Northern border sites by the end of calendar year 

2009. 

SECURING THE CITIES

In total, the Committee provides $30,000,000 for the Securing 

the Cities program, including $20,000,000 for systems acquisition 

and $10,000,000 for research, development and operations. This is 

the same level as requested in fiscal year 2009. With this funding, 

DNDO plans to conduct operational tests and evaluations of the 

system, assess its effectiveness, and analyze whether it should be 

applied to other cities in the United States. DNDO is directed to 

keep the Committees on Appropriations regularly informed about 

its efforts in this area and urges the timely submission of the Securing the Cities strategic plan. 

HUMAN PORTABLE RADIATION DETECTION SYSTEMS

The Committee funds the $13,000,000 requested to acquire 

human portable radiation detection systems. This funding level will 

permit DNDO to acquire 339 portable radiation detection units 

(handheld and backpacks) to be used by CBP officers, 149 backpack and sodium iodide based detectors to be used by the Coast 

Guard, and 114 backpack and hand held units to be used as part 

of two small craft maritime pilot projects in San Diego, California, 

and Puget Sound, Washington. The Committee also encourages 

DNDO to begin discussions with TSA to determine if this type of 

technology would be useful to the Visible Intermodal Protection Response teams and, if so, to begin pilot deployments. 

TITLE V—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Section 501. The Committee continues a provision providing that 

no part of any appropriation shall remain available for obligation 

beyond the current year unless expressly provided. 

Section 502. The Committee continues a provision providing that 

unexpended balances of prior appropriations may be merged with 

new appropriation accounts and used for the same purpose, subject 

to reprogramming guidelines. 

Section 503. The Committee continues and modifies a provision 

providing reprogramming authority for funds within an account 

and not to exceed 5 percent transfer authority between appropriations accounts with the requirement for a 15-day advance Congressional notification. A detailed funding table identifying each Congressional control level for reprogramming purposes is included at 

the end of this report. These reprogramming guidelines shall be 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
146 

complied with by all agencies funded by the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2009. 

Section 504. The Committee continues a provision that prohibits 

funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department 

to make payment to the Department’s Working Capital Fund, except for activities and amounts allowed in the President’s fiscal 

year 2008 budget, excluding sedan service, shuttle service, transit 

subsidy, mail operations, parking, and competitive sourcing. Additional activities are subject to approval. 

Section 505. The Committee continues a provision providing that 

not to exceed 50 percent of unobligated balances remaining at the 

end of fiscal year 2009 from appropriations made for salaries and 

expenses shall remain available through fiscal year 2010 subject to 

reprogramming guidelines. 

Section 506. The Committee continues a provision providing that 

funds for intelligence activities are deemed to be specifically authorized during fiscal year 2009 until the enactment of an Act authorizing intelligence activities for fiscal year 2009. 

Section 507. The Committee continues a provision requiring notification of the Committees on Appropriations three days before 

grant allocations, discretionary grant awards, discretionary contract awards, or a letter of intent totaling $1,000,000 or more is announced by the Department. The Department is required to brief 

the Committees on Appropriations five full business days prior to 

announcing the intention to make formula-based State Homeland 

Security grants and Urban Area Security Initiatives. Notification 

shall include a description of the project or projects to be funded, 

including city, county and state. 

Section 508. The Committee continues a provision providing that 

no agency shall purchase, construct, or lease additional facilities for 

federal law enforcement training without advance approval of the 

Committees on Appropriations. 

Section 509. The Committee continues a provision providing that 

none of the funds may be used for any construction, repair, alteration, and acquisition project for which a prospectus, if required 

under chapter 33 of title 40, United States Code, has not been approved except funds for the development of a proposed prospectus. 

Section 510. The Committee continues longstanding provisions 

contained in previous Appropriations Acts into fiscal year 2009. 

These provisions relate to the Buy American Act; reporting requirements of the privacy officer; contracting officer’s technical representative training; Sensitive Security Information; replacement 

patrol boat (FRC–B) program; federal building performance and requirements outlined in title V of the National Energy Conservation 

Policy Act or subtitle A of title I of the Energy Policy Act of 2005; 

classifying the functions of the instructor staff at the Federal Law 

Enforcement Training Center as inherently governmental for purposes of the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act; use of funds 

in conformance with section 303 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992; 

Executive Order 13149, relating to fleet and transportation efficiency; and linking all contracts that provide award fees to successful acquisition outcomes. 

Section 511. The Committee continues a provision regarding Secure Flight. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
147 

Section 512. The Committee continues a provision mandating 

that no funds can be used to contract out the services provided by 

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services immigration 

information officers, contact representatives, or investigative assistants. 

Section 513. The Committee continues a provision directing the 

Secretary to research, develop, and procure new technologies to inspect and screen air cargo and to utilize existing checked baggage 

explosive detection equipment and screeners to screen cargo on 

passenger aircraft where practicable at each airport. In addition, 

language requires TSA to work with air carriers and airports to ensure that the screening of cargo carried on passenger aircraft, as 

required by the 9/11 Act, increases incrementally each quarter. The 

Committee requires quarterly submission of air cargo inspection 

statistics detailing incremental progress. 

Section 514. The Committee continues and modifies a provision 

that directs that any funds appropriated or transferred to TSA 

‘‘Aviation Security’’, ‘‘Administration’’, and ‘‘Transportation Security 

Support’’ in fiscal years 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008, which 

are recovered or deobligated, shall be available only for procurement and installation of explosive detection systems, for air cargo, 

baggage and checkpoint screening systems, subject to section notification. The Committee also requires quarterly reports on recovered 

or deobligated funds. 

Section 515. The Committee continues a provision that extends 

the authorization of the Department’s Working Capital Fund 

through fiscal year 2009. 

Section 516. The Committee continues a provision requiring the 

Chief Financial Officer to submit monthly budget execution and 

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

Section 517. The Committee continues and modifies a provision 

relating to undercover investigative operations authority of the Secret Service for fiscal year 2009. 

Section 518. The Committee continues a provision regarding the 

enforcement of section 4025(1) of Public Law 108–458. 

Section 519. The Committee continues and modifies a provision 

prohibiting the Secretary of Homeland Secretary from reducing the 

Coast Guard’s civil engineering program except as specifically authorized in statute after enactment of this Act. 

Section 520. The Committee continues and modifies a provision 

prohibiting the obligation of funds to the Office of the Secretary 

and Executive Management, Office of the Under Secretary, or Office of the Chief Financial Officer for grants or contracts awarded 

by any means other than competitively. Certain exceptions apply. 

The Secretary may waive the application in a national emergency, 

with notification to the Committees on Appropriations. The bill also 

requires the Inspector General to review departmental contracts 

awarded noncompetitively and report on the results to the Committees on Appropriations. 

Section 521. The Committee continues and modifies a provision 

prohibiting funds for any position designated as a Principal Federal 

Official (PFO). The position shall not be designated for a Robert T. 

Stafford Act declared disaster or emergency or at the same time as 

any Federal Coordinating Officer (FCO). This prohibition on PFOs 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
148 

shall apply to PFOs, any successors to that position and any similar position created by the Department. 

The Committee remains concerned that the Department has not 

defined a clear role for the PFO and that the position conflicts with 

the FCO’s role during Presidentially-declared disasters and emergencies. States and emergency management officials have also expressed concern that use of both an FCO and PFO lead to confusion in the field following disasters and undermines FEMA’s emergency management role. The prohibition does not apply to major 

non-Stafford Act responses that may include a Stafford Act component. In instances when a PFO is designated, the Department is 

expected to work with State and local governments and other Federal partners to clearly define the role of the PFO and ensure there 

is no conflict with the well-tested role of the FCO. 

Section 522. The Committee continues a provision prohibiting 

funding to grant an immigration benefit to any individual unless 

the results of background checks legally required to be completed 

prior to the grant of the benefit have been received by DHS. 

Section 523. The Committee continues a provision prohibiting 

use of funds to destroy or put to pasture any horse or other equine 

belonging to the Federal Government unless adoption has been offered first. 

Section 524. The Committee continues a provision prohibiting 

funds made available to the Office of the Secretary and Executive 

Management to be expended for any new hires that are not verified 

through the basic pilot program under section 401 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. 

Section 525. The Committee continues a provision prohibiting 

funds available in this Act from being used to implement a rule or 

regulation which implements the notice of proposed rulemaking related to Petitions for Aliens to Perform Temporary Nonagricultural 

Services or Labor (H–2B) set out beginning on 70 Federal Register 

3984 (January 27, 2005). 

Section 526. The Committee continues and modifies a provision 

extending other transactional authority of DHS through fiscal year 

2009. Language requires the Secretary to issue policy guidance detailing the appropriate use of other transaction authority and provide additional training to each employee that has authority to 

handle procurements under other transaction authority. The Committee also includes reporting requirements for projects in which 

this authority was used. 

Section 527. The Committee includes a new provision relating to 

the liquidation of Plum Island assets if the site is not chosen for 

the new National Bio and Agro-defense Facility and how proceeds 

from this sale may be applied. 

Section 528. The Committee includes a new provision that prohibits the delegation of authority unless delegation is specifically 

authorized. 

Section 529. The Committee includes a new provision requiring 

the Secretary to submit a listing of programs, projects, and activities by account, including amounts, from which all reprogramming 

will be based. 

Section 530. The Committee includes a new provision pertaining 

to the human resource management system. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
149 

Section 531. The Committee includes a new provision requiring 

the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consolidation with the Secretary of Treasury, to notify the Committees on Appropriations of 

any proposed transfers from the Department of Treasury Forfeiture 

Fund to any agency within the Department of Homeland Security. 

No funds may be obligated until the Subcommittees approve the 

proposed transfers. 

Section 532. The Committee includes a new provision prohibiting 

funds for grants or contracts that do not comply with subchapter 

IV of chapter 31 of title 40. 

Section 533. The Committee includes a new provision pertaining 

to alien flight school training. 

Section 534. The Committee includes a new provision on unmanned aerial systems. 

Section 535. The Committee continues a provision relating to 

prescription drugs. 

Section 536. The Committee includes a new provision permitting 

the Secretary to utilize cost savings from any recovered or 

deobligated funds or from staffing shortfalls for fuel costs that exceed the amount requested in fiscal year 2009. 

Section 537. The Committee includes a new provision requiring 

the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security (Transportation Security Administration) to certify that no security risks will result 

if an airport does not participate in the basic pilot program. 

TITLE VI—ADDITIONAL DIASTER ASSISTANCE FOR FISCAL 

YEAR 2008 FOR MIDWESTERN UNITED STATES AND 

OTHER PURPOSES 

The Committee includes a new Title VI providing emergency 

funding for loans for additional disaster assistance for the Midwestern United States. 

APPROPRIATIONS CAN BE USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH

MADE

Title 31 of the United States Code makes clear that appropriations can be used only for the purposes for which they were appropriated as follows: 

Section 1301. Application. 

(a) Appropriations shall be applied only to the objects for which 

the appropriations were made except as otherwise provided by law. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORT REQUIREMENTS

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

TRANSFER OF FUNDS

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2), rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 

Representatives, the following is submitted describing the transfer 

of funds provided in the accompanying bill. 

The table shows, by title, department and agency, the appropriations affected by such transfers: 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
150 

APPROPRIATION TRANSFERS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL

Account to which transfer is to be made Amount Account from which transfer is to be made Amount 

Office of Inspector General ........................ $15,000,000 Disaster Relief Fund .................................. $15,000,000 

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

RESCISSION OF FUNDS

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following table is submitted describing the 

rescissions recommended in the accompanying bill: 

Account/activity Rescissions 

Acquisition, Construction and Improvements/Vertical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle ............................................. $20,000,000 

Cerro Grande Fire Claims ................................................................................................................................... 9,000,000 

APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW

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


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
151 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1 here HR862.001
152 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2 here HR862.002
153 

COMPARISON WITH BUDGET RESOLUTION

Clause 3(c)(2) of Rule XIII and section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget Act requires the report accompanying a bill providing new budget authority to contain a statement comparing the 

levels in the bill to the suballocations submitted under section 

302(b) of the Act for the most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget for the applicable fiscal year. That information 

is provided in the following table. 

[In millions of dollars] 

302(b) allocation This bill 

Budget authority Outlays Budget authority Outlays 

General purpose discretionary ....................................................... 42,075 42,390 42,075 42,377 

Mandatory ...................................................................................... 1,152 1,148 1,152 1,148 

Total ...................................................................................... 43,227 43,538 43,227 43,525 

1 Includes outlays from prior year budget authority. 

FIVE YEAR OUTLAY PROJECTIONS

In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of Rule XIII and section 

308(a)(1)(B) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (Public Law 

93–344), as amended, the following table contains five-year projections associated with the budget authority provided in the accompanying bill: 

[In millions of dollars] 

Outlays: 

2009 ................................................................................................. 1 24,054 

2010 ................................................................................................. 7,537 

2011 ................................................................................................. 5,690 

2012 ................................................................................................. 2,321 

2013 and future years .................................................................... 1,230 

1 Excludes outlays from prior year budget authority. 

ASSISTANCE TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

In accordance with clause 3(c)(2) of Rule XIII and section 

308(a)(1)(C) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (Public Law 

93–344), as amended, the financial assistance to state and local 

governments is as follows: 

[In millions of dollars] 

FY 2009 New Budget Authority ........................................................... 4,983 

FY 2009 outlays resulting therefrom ................................................... 461 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY

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

Each report of a committee on a bill or joint resolution 

of a public character, shall include a statement citing the 

specific powers granted to the Congress in the Constitution 

to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint resolution. 

The Committee on Appropriations bases its authority to report 

this legislation from Clause 7 of Section 9 of Article I of the Constitution of the United States of America that states: 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
154 

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

Appropriations contained in this Act are made pursuant to this 

specific power granted by the Constitution. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII off the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following is a statement of general performance goals and objectives for which this measure authorizes funding: 

The Committee on Appropriations considers program performance, including a program’s success in developing and attaining 

outcome-related goals and objectives, in developing funding recommendations. 

CONGRESSIONAL EARMARKS

The following table is submitted in compliance with clause 9 of 

Rule XXI, and lists the congressional earmarks (as defined in paragraph (d) of clause 9) contained in the bill or in this report. Neither 

the bill nor the report contain any limited tax benefits or limited 

tariff benefits as defined in paragraph (e) or (f) of clause 9 of Rule 

XXI. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
155 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 4 here HR862.003
156 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 5 here HR862.004
157 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 6 here HR862.005
158 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 7 here HR862.006
159 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 8 here HR862.007
160 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 9 here HR862.008
161 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 10 here HR862.009
162 

COMPLIANCE WITH RULE XIII, CL. 3(e) (RAMSEYER RULE) 

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, 

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

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

(Public Law 107–206) 

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

* * * * * * * 

TITLE I—SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 12 

* * * * * * * 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—THIS CHAPTER 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 1202. (a) The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center 

may, for a period ending not later than December 31, ø2010¿ 2011, 

appoint and maintain a cadre of up to 350 Federal annuitants: (1) 

without regard to any provision of title 5, United States Code, 

which might otherwise require the application of competitive hiring 

procedures; and (2) who shall not be subject to any reduction in pay 

(for annuity allocable to the period of actual employment) under 

the provisions of section 8344 or 8468 of such title 5 or similar provision of any other retirement system for employees. A reemployed 

Federal annuitant as to whom a waiver of reduction under paragraph (2) applies shall not, for any period during which such waiver is in effect, be considered an employee for purposes of subchapter III of chapter 83 or chapter 84 of title 5, United States 

Code, or such other retirement system (referred to in paragraph 

(2)) as may apply. 

* * * * * * * 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007 

(Public Law 109–295) 

AN ACT Making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the 

fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes. 

* * * * * * * 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
163 

TITLE V—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 532. (a) UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE USE OF PROCEEDS

DERIVED FROM CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS.—During fiscal year 

ø2008¿ 2009, with respect to any undercover investigative operation of the United States Secret Service (hereafter referred to in 

this section as the ‘‘Secret Service’’) that is necessary for the detection and prosecution of crimes against the United States— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

HOMELAND SECURITY ACT OF 2002 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE VIII—COORDINATION WITH NONFEDERAL ENTITIES; INSPECTOR GENERAL; UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE; COAST GUARD; GENERAL PROVISIONS 

* * * * * * * 

Subtitle D—Acquisitions 

SEC. 831. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS. 

(a) AUTHORITY.—øUntil September 30, 2008,¿ Until September 

30, 2009 and subject to subsection (d), the Secretary may carry out 

a pilot program under which the Secretary may exercise the following authorities: 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(d) ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The authority of the Secretary under this 

section shall terminate September 30, 2008, unless before that 

date the Secretary— 

(A) issues policy guidance detailing the appropriate use 

of that authority; and 

(B) provides additional training to each employee that is 

authorized to exercise that authority. 

(2) REPORT.—The Secretary shall provide an annual report to 

the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House 

of Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security of 

the House of Representatives detailing the projects for which the 

authority granted by subsection (a) was used, the rationale for 

its use, the funds spent using that authority, the outcome of 

each project for which that authority was used, and the results 

of any audits of such projects. 

ø(d)¿ (e) DEFINITION OF NONTRADITIONAL GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR.—In this section, the term ‘‘nontraditional Government 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
164 

contractor’’ has the same meaning as the term ‘‘nontraditional defense contractor’’ as defined in section 845(e) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103–160; 

10 U.S.C. 2371 note). 

* * * * * * * 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004 

(Public Law 108–90) 

AN ACT Making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the 

fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes. 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE V—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 520. (a) FEES.—For fiscal year 2004 and thereafter, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall charge reasonable fees for providing credentialing and background investigations in the field of 

transportation: Provided, That the establishment and collection of 

fees shall be subject to the following requirements: 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(b) RECURRENT TRAINING OF ALIENS IN OPERATION OF AIRCRAFT.— 

(1) PROCESS FOR REVIEWING THREAT ASSESSMENTS.—Notwithstanding section 44939(e) of title 49, United States Code, 

the Secretary shall establish a process to ensure that an alien 

(as defined in section 101(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(3)) applying for recurrent training 

in the operation of any aircraft is properly identified and has 

not, since the time of any prior threat assessment conducted 

pursuant to section 44939(a) of such title, become a risk to aviation or national security. 

(2) INTERRUPTION OF TRAINING.—If the Secretary determines, 

in carrying out the process established under paragraph (1), 

that an alien is a present risk to aviation or national security, 

the Secretary shall immediately notify the person providing the 

training of the determination and that person shall not provide 

the training or if such training has commenced that person 

shall immediately terminate the training. 

(3) FEES.—The Secretary may charge reasonable fees under 

subsection (a) for providing credentialing and background investigations for aliens in connection with the process for recurrent training established under paragraph (1). Such fees shall 

be promulgated by notice in the Federal Register. 

* * * * * * * 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
165 

COMPLIANCE WITH RULE XIII, CLAUSE 3(f)(1) 

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1)(A) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee has inserted at the appropriate place in the report a description of the effects of provisions proposed in the accompanying bill which may be considered, 

under certain circumstances, to change the application of existing 

law, either directly or indirectly. 

The bill provides, in some instances, funding of agencies and activities where legislation has not yet been finalized. In addition, the 

bill carries language, in some instances, permitting activities not 

authorized by law. Additionally, the Committee includes a number 

of general provisions. 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY AND EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT

The Committee includes language providing funds for reception 

and representation expenses. 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR MANAGEMENT

The Committee includes language providing funds for reception 

and representation expenses and for costs necessary to consolidate 

headquarters operations, including tenant improvements and relocation costs. 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

The Committee includes language providing funds for the Chief 

Financial Officer. 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER

The Committee includes language providing funds for the Chief 

Information Officer (CIO) and for the development and acquisition 

of information technology equipment, software, services, and related activities and prohibits the use of funds to augment other 

automated systems. The Committee includes reporting requirements for information technology acquisition projects. 

ANALYSIS AND OPERATIONS

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

the obligation of funds to begin operations of a new office until certification that this program complies with applicable laws. 

OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL COORDINATOR FOR GULF COAST

REBUILDING

The Committee includes language providing funds for the Office 

of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
166 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

The Committee includes language providing funds for certain 

confidential operational expenses, including the payment of informants. 

TITLE II—SECURITY, ENFORCEMENT, AND 

INVESTIGATIONS 

U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Committee includes language making funds available for 

border security, immigration, customs, and agricultural inspections 

and regulatory activities; purchase or lease of vehicles; contracting 

with individuals for personal services; Harbor Maintenance Fee collections; official reception and representation expenses; Customs 

User Fee collections; and payment of rental space in connection 

with pre-clearance operations; and compensation of informants. 

The Committee includes provisions regarding average overtime 

limitations, and a restriction on the obligation of funds to operate 

a new intelligence framework until the Commissioner certifies that 

this framework complies with applicable laws. 

AUTOMATION MODERNIZATION

The Committee includes language making funds available until 

expended for automated systems and includes language requiring 

the submission of an expenditure plan prior to the obligation of 

funds. 

BORDER SECURITY FENCING, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND TECHNOLOGY

The Committee includes language making funds available until 

expended for customs and border protection fencing, infrastructure, 

and technology and includes language requiring the submission of 

an expenditure plan prior to the obligation of funds. In addition, 

the Committee prohibits funding for any funding under this heading unless the Secretary certifies that DHS has complied with the 

consultation provisions of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. Finally, the Committee prohibits funding for any project or activity for which the Secretary 

has exercised authority to waive environmental and other law until 

15 days after notice of the intent to exercise such waiver is published in the Federal Register. 

AIR AND MARINE INTERDICTION, OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE, AND

PROCUREMENT

The Committee includes language making funds available for the 

operation, maintenance and procurement of marine vessels, aircraft, unmanned aircraft systems, and other equipment; travel; 

rental payments for facilities; and assistance to other law enforcement agencies and humanitarian efforts. The Committee includes 

language prohibiting the transfer of aircraft and related equipment 

out of the Customs and Border Protection unless certain conditions 

are met. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
167 

CONSTRUCTION

The Committee includes language making funds available until 

expended for the planning, construction, renovating, equipping, and 

maintaining of buildings and facilities. 

U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Committee includes language making funds available for enforcement of immigration and customs laws, detention and removals, and investigations; purchase of replacement vehicles; special 

operations; official reception and representation expenses; compensation to informants; public awareness of the child pornography 

tipline and anti-child exploitation activities; and reimbursement of 

other Federal agencies for certain costs. The Committee includes 

language regarding overtime compensation and forced child labor 

laws. In addition, the Committee includes language that conditions 

agreements that delegate immigration enforcement authority to 

States or political subdivisions thereof. The Committee also includes language prohibiting the use of funds for contracts at detention centers that do not perform adequately. Finally, the Committee includes reporting requirements pertaining to efforts to 

identify and remove criminal aliens and nationwide expansion of 

the alternatives to detention programs. 

FEDERAL PROTECTIVE SERVICE

The Committee includes language making funds available until 

expended for the operations of the Federal Protective Service. The 

Committee permits the Secretary and OMB to adjust security fees 

to maintain in-service field staffing levels directly engaged in protecting and enforcing laws at Federal buildings. 

AUTOMATION MODERNIZATION

The Committee includes language making funds available until 

expended for automated systems. 

CONSTRUCTION

The Committee includes language making funds available until 

expended for the planning, constructing, renovating, equipping, and 

maintaining of buildings and facilities. The Committee prohibits 

funds to solicit or consider privatizing facilities owned by the U.S. 

Government to detain illegal aliens until receipt of a privatization 

plan. 

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

AVIATION SECURITY

The Committee includes language making funds available for 

civil aviation security; and establishing conditions under which security fees are collected, credited, and distributed. The Committee 

also includes language providing funds for reception and representation expenses. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
168 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION SECURITY

The Committee includes language providing funds for surface 

transportation security programs of the Transportation Security 

Administration. 

TRANSPORTATION THREAT ASSESSMENT AND CREDENTIALING

The Committee includes language on the development and implementation of screening programs. The Committee requires the Assistant Secretary to notify the Committee that there are no security 

risks if the Secure Flight program does not check airline passenger 

names against the full terrorist watch list. 

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY SUPPORT

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

requiring the submission of a detailed spend plan for checkpoint 

support systems and explosive detection systems refurbishment, 

procurement and installation. 

FEDERAL AIR MARSHALS

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

COAST GUARD

OPERATING EXPENSES

The Committee includes a provision regarding passenger motor 

vehicles, minor shore construction projects, purchase of small boats, 

recreation and welfare, the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, and prohibits the use of funds for yacht documentation except under certain circumstances and for administrative expenses in connection 

with shipping commissioners in the United States. The Committee 

includes language on reception and representation expenses. The 

Committee also prohibits the obligation of funds for operation of 

the Maritime Awareness Global Network until the Commandant 

certifies certain conditions have been met and such certification is 

reviewed by the Inspector General. Finally, the language requires 

the Coast Guard to comply with requirements pertaining to their 

academy. 

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE AND RESTORATION

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

RESERVE TRAINING

The Committee includes language providing funds for the Coast 

Guard reserve, including maintenance and operation of the reserve 

program, personnel and training costs, equipment and services. 

ACQUISITIONS, CONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENTS

The Committee includes language providing for funds for Coast 

Guard acquisition, construction, renovation, and improvement of 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
169 

aids to navigation, shore facilities, vessels, and aircraft as well as 

for maintenance, rehabilitation, lease and operations of facilities 

and equipment. The Committee authorizes the disposal of surplus 

real property. The Committee prohibits funding for any Deepwater 

asset until it revises its Major Systems Acquisition Manual. The 

Committee requires a revised Integrated Deepwater Systems program plan that meets certain conditions. The Committee includes 

a provision requiring a capital investment plan for future appropriations years with certain conditions. 

ALTERATION OF BRIDGES

The Committee provides funds for bridge alteration projects. 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

The Committee includes language providing funds for applied scientific research, development, test, and evaluation; and for maintenance, rehabilitation, lease and operation of facilities and equipment. The Committee includes language allowing funds to remain 

available until expended; authorizing funds to be derived from the 

Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund; and authorizing funds received from 

State and local governments, other public authorities, private 

sources, and foreign countries to be credited to this account and 

used for certain purposes. 

RETIRED PAY

The Committee includes language providing funds for retired pay 

and medical care for the Coast Guard’s retired personnel and their 

dependents and makes these funds available until expended. 

UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Committee includes language that provides funds for the 

purchase and replacement of vehicles; the hire of aircraft; purchase 

of motorcycles; services of expert witnesses as may be necessary; 

rental of certain buildings; improvements to buildings as may be 

necessary for protective missions; per diem and subsistence allowances; firearms matches; presentation of awards; protective travel; 

research and development; grants for behavioral research; official 

reception and representation expenses; technical assistance and 

equipment to foreign law enforcement organizations; advance payment for commercial accommodations; and for grants to activities 

of missing and exploited children. The Committee provides for two 

year availability of funds for protective travel. The Committee authorizes the obligation of funds in anticipation of reimbursements 

for training, under certain conditions. The Committee also includes 

language regarding overtime compensation. 

ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENTS, AND RELATED

EXPENSES

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

Service facilities and makes these funds available until expended. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
170 

TITLE III—PREPAREDNESS AND RECOVERY 

NATIONAL PROTECTION AND PROGRAMS DIRECTORATE

MANAGEMENT AND EXPENSES

The Committee includes language providing funds for the Office 

of the Under Secretary for National Protection and Programs and 

the National Planning Office as well as to support business operations, information technology and risk management. The Committee also includes language providing funds for official reception 

and representation expenses. 

INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION AND INFORMATION SECURITY

The Committee includes language making funds available for Information Protection and Information Security, a portion of which 

is available until September 30, 2010. The Committee conditions 

the obligation of funds for the development of the REAL ID hub. 

Also, the Committee prohibits the obligation of funds for the National Cyber Security Initiative, the Next Generation Networks 

program, and the National Command and Coordination Capability 

program until expenditure plans for each project are submitted. 

UNITED STATES VISITOR AND IMMIGRANT STATUS INDICATOR

TECHNOLOGY

The Committee includes language making funds available until 

expended for the US–VISIT program and includes language requiring the submission of an expenditure plan prior to the obligation 

of funds. The Committee also includes language making no funding 

available for implementation of a final air exit solution proposed by 

the Department until US–VISIT conducts pilot tests of at least two 

scenarios, which shall be reviewed by GAO. 

OFFICE OF HEALTH AFFAIRS

The Committee includes language making funds available for the 

health affairs, biosurveillance, BioWatch, chemical response, and 

other activities. The Committee also includes language providing 

funds for official reception and representation expenses. 

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

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

The Committee also includes language limiting administrative 

costs and providing funding for Urban Search and Rescue Response 

System. The Committee also includes language that provides funds 

for the Office of the National Capital Region Coordination. The 

Committee also includes language requiring the President’s budget 

be detailed by office 

STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS

The Committee includes language that provides funds for grants, 

contracts, cooperative agreements, and other activities. The ComVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:07 Sep 19, 2008 Jkt 044458 PO 00000 Frm 00170 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR862.XXX HR862

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
171 

mittee also includes provisions identifying the amount of funds 

available for State Homeland Security grants, including Operation 

Stonegarden; Urban Area Security Initiative; Metropolitan Medical 

Response System; Citizen Corps Program; Public Transportation 

Security Assistance and Railroad Security Assistance; Port Security 

Grants; Over-the-Road Bus Security Assistance; Trucking Industry 

Security grants; Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant 

Program; Emergency Operations Centers; REAL ID grants; training, exercises, technical assistance, and other programs. The Committee includes language specifying the conditions under which 

both applications and grants are made to certain grants made in 

the Act. The Committee also includes language specifying the conditions for distribution of certain grants. The Committee also includes language allowing for the transfer of funds for program administration. The Committee also includes provisions allowing 

training to emergency response providers and requiring a report by 

the GAO. 

FIREFIGHTER ASSISTANCE GRANTS

The Committee includes language providing funds until September 30, 2010. The Committee also includes language providing 

that not to exceed three percent of the total is available for program administration. 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE GRANTS

The Committee includes language providing funds. The Committee also includes language that not to exceed three percent of 

the total appropriation is available for administrative costs. 

RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAM

The Committee includes a provision regarding charges assessed 

for the radiological emergency preparedness program, including 

conditions and methodology for the assessment and collection of 

fees. 

UNITED STATES FIRE ADMINISTRATION

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

DISASTER RELIEF

The Committee includes language making funds available until 

expended. The Committee requires monthly disaster reports and 

details requests for reimbursement. The Committee includes transfer language and withholds certain amounts for transfer until submission of a plan. The Committee also includes language requiring 

reports on disaster damage assessments. The Committee includes 

language allowing funding transfers to FEMA M&A and OIG. 

DISASTER ASSISTANCE DIRECT LOAN PROGRAM ACCOUNT

The Committee includes a provision limiting gross obligations for 

direct loans. The Committee also includes a provision regarding the 

cost of modifying loans. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
172 

FLOOD MAP MODERNIZATION FUND

The Committee includes provisions regarding non-Federal sums 

for cost-shared mapping activities and limiting total administrative 

costs to 3 percent of the total appropriation. The Committee also 

includes language making funds available until expended. 

NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE FUND

The Committee includes language limiting funds available for 

salaries and expenses; language making funds available for flood 

plain management and flood mapping until September 30, 2010. 

The Committee includes provisions limiting operating expenses; for 

interest on Treasury borrowings; for agents’ commissions and 

taxes; for fees collected under section 1308 to be available for floodplain management and flood mapping; and for flood mitigation activities associated with sections 1361A and 1323 of the National 

Flood Insurance Act of 1968. The Committee includes language 

permitting fees collected pursuant to section 1302 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 and section 1366(i) of the National 

Flood Insurance Act of 1968 be deposited to supplement other 

amounts. In addition, the Committee includes language making 

funds for mitigation activities available until expended. The Committee includes language providing that not to exceed four percent 

of the total appropriation is available for administrative costs. 

NATIONAL PREDISASTER MITIGATION FUND

The Committee includes language making funds available until 

expended. The Committee includes a provision limiting total administrative costs to 3 percent of the total appropriation. 

EMERGENCY FOOD AND SHELTER

The Committee includes language making funds available until 

expended and limiting total administrative costs to 3.5 percent of 

the total appropriation. 

TITLE IV—RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, TRAINING, AND 

SERVICES 

UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES

The Committee includes language making funds available for 

citizenship and immigration services and permits funds to be used 

to acquire, equip, and dispose of a limited number of vehicles. The 

Committee also includes language authorizing employee use of 

these vehicles. 

FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING CENTER

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Committee includes language making funds available for official representation expenses; purchase of police type pursuit vehicles; student athletic and related recreational activities; conducting 

and participating in firearms matches; public awareness and community support; marketing; room and board; services; services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; law enforcement accreditation; reimbursements for certain mobile phone expenses; and for reception 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
173 

and representation expenses. The Committee includes language authorizing the training of certain law enforcement personnel; authorizes the use of appropriations and reimbursements for such 

training and establishes a cap on total obligations. The Committee 

also includes language authorizing funds for the compensation of 

accreditation costs for participating agencies; and authorizing the 

hiring of retired Federal employees until 2011. Language is included directing the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center to 

lead the training accreditation process as well as to measure and 

assess federal law enforcement training programs, facilities, and 

instructors. Finally, the Committee includes language requiring the 

Director of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center to ensure that all training facilities are operated at highest capacity 

throughout the fiscal year. 

ACQUISITIONS, CONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENTS AND RELATED

EXPENSES

The Committee includes language making funds available until 

expended for real property and facilities and authorizes reimbursement from government agencies requesting construction of special 

use facilities. 

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

The Committee includes language providing funds for reception 

and representation expenses. 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, ACQUISITION AND OPERATIONS

The Committee includes language making funds available until 

expended. The Committee prohibits the obligation of funds for the 

National Bio and Agro-defense Facility until a risk analysis has 

been completed and reviewed by GAO. 

DOMESTIC NUCLEAR DETECTION OFFICE

MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

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

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, ACQUISITION, AND OPERATIONS

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

included making funds available until expended. 

SYSTEMS ACQUISITION

The Committee includes language providing funds for the purchase and deployment of radiation detection equipment. The Committee limits the full scale procurement of certain types of these 

systems until the Secretary of Homeland Security certifies a significant increase in operational effectiveness as well as requires 

separate and distinct certifications for primary and secondary procurements. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
174 

TITLE V—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Section 501. The Committee continues a provision providing that 

no part of any appropriation shall remain available for obligation 

beyond the current year unless expressly provided. 

Section 502. The Committee continues a provision providing that 

unexpended balances of prior appropriations may be merged with 

new appropriation accounts and used for the same purpose, subject 

to reprogramming guidelines. 

Section 503. The Committee continues and modifies a provision 

providing reprogramming authority for funds within an account 

and not to exceed 5 percent transfer authority between appropriations accounts with the requirement for a 15-day advance Congressional notification. A detailed funding table identifying each Congressional control level for reprogramming purposes is included at 

the end of this report. These reprogramming guidelines shall be 

complied with by all agencies funded by the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2009. 

Section 504. The Committee continues a provision that prohibits 

funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department 

to make payment to the Department’s Working Capital Fund, except for activities and amounts allowed in the President’s fiscal 

year 2008 budget, excluding sedan service, shuttle service, transit 

subsidy, mail operations, parking, and competitive sourcing. Additional activities are subject to approval. 

Section 505. The Committee continues a provision providing that 

not to exceed 50 percent of unobligated balances remaining at the 

end of fiscal year 2009 from appropriations made for salaries and 

expenses shall remain available through fiscal year 2010 subject to 

reprogramming guidelines. 

Section 506. The Committee continues a provision providing that 

funds for intelligence activities are deemed to be specifically authorized during fiscal year 2009 until the enactment of an Act authorizing intelligence activities for fiscal year 2009. 

Section 507. The Committee continues a provision requiring notification of the Committees on Appropriations three days before 

grant allocations, discretionary grant awards, discretionary contract awards, or a letter of intent totaling $1,000,000 or more is announced by the Department. The Department is required to brief 

the Committees on Appropriations five full day business days prior 

to announcing the intention to make formula based State Homeland Security grants and Urban Area Security Initiatives. Notification shall include a description of the project or projects to be funded, including city, county and state. 

Section 508. The Committee continues a provision providing that 

no agency shall purchase, construct, or lease additional facilities for 

federal law enforcement training without advance approval of the 

Committees on Appropriations. 

Section 509. The Committee continues a provision providing that 

none of the funds may be used for any construction, repair, alteration, and acquisition project for which a prospectus, if required 

under chapter 33 of title 40, United States Code, has not been approved except funds for the development of a proposed prospectus. 

Section 510. The Committee continues longstanding provisions 

contained in previous Appropriations Acts into fiscal year 2009. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
175 

These provisions relate to the Buy American Act; reporting requirements of the privacy officer; contracting officer’s technical representative training; Sensitive Security Information; replacement 

patrol boat (FRC–B) program; federal building performance and requirements outlined in title V of the National Energy Conservation 

Policy Act or subtitle A of title I of the Energy Policy Act of 2005; 

classifying the functions of the instructor staff at the Federal Law 

Enforcement Training Center as inherently governmental for purposes of the of the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act; use of 

funds in conformance with section 303 of the Energy Policy Act of 

1992; Executive Order 13149, relating to fleet and transportation 

efficiency; and linking all contracts that provide award fees to successful acquisition outcomes. 

Section 511. The Committee continues a provision regarding Secure Flight. 

Section 512. The Committee continues a provision mandating 

that no funds can be used to contract out the services provided by 

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services immigration 

information officers, contract representatives, or investigative assistants. 

Section 513. The Committee continues a provision directing the 

Secretary to research, develop, and procure new technologies to inspect and screen air cargo and to utilize existing checked baggage 

explosive detection equipment and screeners to screen cargo on 

passenger aircraft where practicable at each airport. In addition, 

language requires TSA to work with air carriers and airports to ensure that the screening of cargo carried on passenger aircraft, as 

required by the 9/11 Act, increases incrementally each quarter. The 

Committee requires quarterly submission of air cargo inspection 

statistics detailing incremental progress. 

Section 514. The Committee continues and modifies a provision 

that directs that any funds appropriated or transferred to TSA 

‘‘Aviation Security’’, ‘‘Administration’’, and ‘‘Transportation Security 

Support’’ in fiscal years 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008, which 

are recovered or deobligated, shall be available only for procurement and installation of explosive detection systems, for air cargo, 

baggage and checkpoint screening systems, subject to section notification. The Committee also requires quarterly reports on recovered 

or deobligated funds. 

Section 515. The Committee continues a provision that extends 

the authorization of the Department’s Working Capital Fund 

through fiscal year 2009. 

Section 516. The Committee continues a provision requiring the 

Chief Financial Officer to submit monthly budget execution and 

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

Section 517. The Committee continues and modifies a provision 

relating to undercover investigative operations authority of the Secret Service for fiscal year 2009. 

Section 518. The Committee continues a provision regarding the 

enforcement of section 4025(1) of Public Law 108–458. 

Section 519. The Committee continues and modifies a provision 

prohibiting the Secretary of Homeland Secretary from reducing the 

Coast Guard’s civil engineering program except as specifically authorized in statute after enactment of this Act. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
176 

Section 520. The Committee continues and modifies a provision 

prohibiting the obligation of funds to the Office of the Secretary 

and Executive Management, Office of the Under Secretary, or Office of the Chief Financial Officer for grants or contracts awarded 

by any means other than competitively. Certain exceptions apply. 

Bill language permits the Secretary to waive the application in a 

national emergency, with notification. The bill also requires the Inspector General to review departmental contracts awarded noncompetitively and report on the results to the Committees on Appropriations. 

Section 521. The Committee continues and modifies a provision 

prohibiting funds for any position designated as a Principal Federal 

Official (PFO). The position shall not be designated for a Robert T. 

Stafford Act declared disaster or emergency or at the same time as 

any Federal Coordinating Officer. This prohibition on PFOs shall 

apply to PFOs, any successors to that position and any similar position created by the Department. 

Section 522. The Committee continues a provision prohibiting 

funding to grant an immigration benefit to any individual unless 

the results of background checks legally required to be completed 

prior to the grant of the benefit have been received by DHS. 

Section 523. The Committee continues a provision prohibiting 

use of funds to destroy or put to pasture any horse or other equine 

belonging to the Federal Government unless adoption has been offered first. 

Section 524. The Committee continues a provision prohibiting 

funds made available to the Office of the Secretary and Executive 

Management to be expended for any new hires that are not verified 

through the basic pilot program under section 401 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. 

Section 525. The Committee continues a provision prohibiting 

funds available in this Act from being used to implement a rule or 

regulation which implements the notice of proposed rulemaking related to Petitions for Aliens to Perform Temporary Nonagricultural 

Services or Labor (H–2B) set out beginning on 70 Federal Register 

3984 (January 27, 2005). 

Section 526. The Committee continues a provision extending 

other transactional authority of DHS through fiscal year 2009. Certain training and reporting requirements are included. 

Section 527. The Committee includes a new provision relating to 

the liquidation of Plum Island assets if the site is not chosen for 

the new National Bio and Agro-defense Facility and how proceeds 

from this sale may be applied. 

Section 528. The Committee includes a new provision that prohibits the delegation of authority unless delegation is specifically 

authorized. 

Section 529. The Committee includes a new provision requiring 

the Secretary to submit a listing of programs, projects, and activities by account, including amounts, from which all reprogramming 

will be based. 

Section 530. The Committee includes a new provision pertaining 

to the human resource management system. 

Section 531. The Committee includes a new provision requiring 

the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consolidation with the Secretary of Treasury, to notify the Committees on Appropriations of 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
177 

any proposed transfers from the Department of Treasury Forfeiture 

Fund to any agency within the Department of Homeland Security. 

No funds may be obligated until the Committees approve the proposed transfers. 

Section 532. The Committee includes a new provision prohibiting 

funds for grants or contracts that do not comply with subchapter 

IV of chapter 31 of title 40. 

Section 533. The Committee includes a new provision pertaining 

to alien flight school training. 

Section 534. The Committee includes a new provision on unmanned aerial systems. 

Section 535. The Committee continues a provision relating to 

prescription drugs. 

Section 536. The Committee includes a new provision permitting 

the Secretary to utilize cost savings from any recovered or 

deobligated funds or from staffing shortfalls for fuel costs that exceed the amount requested in fiscal year 2009. 

Section 537. The Committee includes a new provision requiring 

the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security (Transportatipn Security Administration) to certify that no security risks will result 

if an airport does not participate in the basic pilot program. 

TITLE VI—ADDITIONAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE FOR FISCAL 

YEAR 2008 FOR MIDWESTERN UNITED STATES AND 

OTHER PURPOSES 

The Committee includes a new Title VI providing emergency 

funding for loans for additional disaster assistance for the Midwestern United States. 

DETAILED EXPLANATIONS IN REPORT

It should be emphasized again that a more detailed statement 

describing the effect of the above provisions inserted by the Committee which directly or indirectly change the application of existing law may be found at the appropriate place in this report. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
178 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 020 here HR862.050
179 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 021 here HR862.051
180 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 022 here HR862.052
181 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 023 here HR862.053
182 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 024 here HR862.054
183 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 025 here HR862.055
184 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 026 here HR862.056
185 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 011 here HR862.057
186 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 012 here HR862.058
187 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 013 here HR862.059
188 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 014 here HR862.060
189 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 015 here HR862.061
190 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 016 here HR862.062
191 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 017 here HR862.063
192 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 018 here HR862.064
193 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 019 here HR862.065
194 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 020 here HR862.066
195 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 021 here HR862.067
196 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 022 here HR862.068
197 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 023 here HR862.069
198 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 024 here HR862.070
199 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 025 here HR862.071
200 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 026 here HR862.072
201 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 027 here HR862.073
202 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 028 here HR862.074
203 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 029 here HR862.075
204 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 030 here HR862.076
205 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 031 here HR862.077
206 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 032 here HR862.078
207 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 033 here HR862.079
208 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 034 here HR862.080
209 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 035 here HR862.081
210 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 036 here HR862.082
211 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 037 here HR862.083
212 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 038 here HR862.084
213 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 039 here HR862.085
214 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 040 here HR862.086
215 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 041 here HR862.087
216 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 042 here HR862.088
217 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 043 here HR862.089
218 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 044 here HR862.090
219 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 045 here HR862.091
(220) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

On June 24, 2008, the full committee unanimously approved the 

fiscal year 2009 Homeland Security Appropriations bill. At that 

point, we were appreciative of the Majority’s willingness to listen 

to our concerns and accommodate as much as possible. We were 

also pleased by what appeared to be continuance of the Committee’s traditions of bi-partisanship and commitment to moving legislation through regular order. However, despite the Majority’s assurance this bill would move through the regular appropriations 

process, including floor consideration under an open rule, we are 

now dismayed by what has become a near farcical process. Instead, 

the Majority has chosen to move this legislation without ever subjecting the bill to an open and fair debate on the floor of the People’s House, let alone a true conference committee between the 

House and Senate. This so-called process is one of pure political 

convenience and it contradicts the civilized and deliberative procedures of the Appropriations Committee and the U.S. Congress. 

Of particular distaste is the now-common use of parliamentary 

gimmicks to circumvent the committee process and avoid public 

meetings. By ducking the intent of House rules and procedures, the 

Majority has succeeded in crafting massive legislation behind 

closed doors with little input or oversight from Members of Congress, the media, or the public. 

In addition, the Majority has broken with Committee tradition in 

order to limit floor consideration and debate on Appropriations 

bills. This has included delaying bill filing after Committee approval nearly three months ago (which limits public disclosure of 

bill text and Committee reports), and implementing limited or 

closed rules of floor debate and amendments on Appropriations 

bills—something that has historically been staunchly avoided and 

vehemently opposed by both Republican and Democrat Committee 

members. 

The workings of the Appropriations Committee have become almost unrecognizable this year. Gone are the days when Republicans and Democrats worked together to serve the best interests 

of our country. By bypassing floor consideration, the Majority of 

Members of the House have been completely left out of the legislative process in crafting this legislation. It is long past time that our 

Committee return to regular order. We encourage colleagues on 

both sides of the aisle to join us in rejecting the mismanagement 

of the Appropriations Committee and what has become an irresponsible and unsustainable approach to governing. 

Regarding the Homeland Security bill specifically, we remain dismayed by the Majority’s party-line rejection during the full committee mark-up of a series of amendments related to securing the 

border, enhancing immigration and customs enforcement, and supporting key intelligence programs during the full committee markVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:07 Sep 19, 2008 Jkt 044458 PO 00000 Frm 00220 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR862.XXX HR862

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
221 

up. We will continue to voice our concerns about these issues and 

attempt to work with the Majority in an effort to further improve 

the bill as it moves toward enactment, no matter how flawed the 

process. 

BALANCING OVERSIGHT WITH RESULTS

While we are pleased by the bill’s commitment to oversight—a 

theme this Subcommittee has held constant since its inception in 

2003—we are concerned that the bill applies overly pervasive and 

burdensome restrictions on several critical programs which, in effect, delay vital operations, exposes our Nation to undue risk, and 

provides a means for the advancement of specific interests in lieu 

of the national interest in safety and security. 

The most onerous of such restrictions is applied to CBP’s border 

security, fencing, infrastructure, and technology (BSFIT) account, 

including: a withholding of all funds from obligation until the Department certifies consultation with affected States and local communities, including an explicit, lengthy requirement for the Department to consider the proposals of local communities as an alternative to Federally planned fencing and tactical infrastructure; a 

15-day prohibition on the obligation of funds for fencing and tactical infrastructure when the Secretary invokes his waiver authority as per section 102(c) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996; and a withholding of $400 million of the $775 million appropriated for the BSFIT account until 

an extensively detailed expenditure plan is submitted and approved. These limitations have a combined affect of a virtual ‘‘stopwork order’’ on border security infrastructure—an assertion that is 

substantiated by the manner in which the Majority has applied 

similar, but less stringent, funding restrictions in fiscal year 2008. 

The protracted delay in releasing the fiscal year 2008 funding 

places what is a fundamental mission of DHS and a Congressional 

mandate to secure the border at unnecessary risk. We believe that 

further delaying construction of needed border security infrastructure is a detriment to not only our homeland security and national 

security, but also our national sovereignty. 

We maintain that expenditure plan requirements and the withholding of funds are essential oversight tools squarely within the 

jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations; however, we vehemently oppose the use of such tools and additional restrictions for 

impeding Congressional mandates, delaying the use of essential security resources, and advancing specific interests. Such misuse of 

oversight has been demonstrated by the Majority’s lethargic release 

of $650 million withheld in fiscal year 2008 from the BSFIT account. This dangerously slow pace—which culminated in the full 

release of funds some six months after enactment—was justified by 

a continually evolving set of requirements not based upon the letter 

of the law, but rather built upon the interests of a few vocal critics 

of border security infrastructure. It was for this reason that we offered an amendment to the fiscal year 2009 bill designed to instill 

robust oversight and accountability from DHS, while at the same 

time, allowing for what is perhaps the most critical outcome of this 

bill: improved security. Unfortunately, our amendment to strike the 

fiscal year 2009 bill’s onerous border security restrictions and inVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:07 Sep 19, 2008 Jkt 044458 PO 00000 Frm 00221 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR862.XXX HR862

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
222 

sert the expenditure plan and oversight requirements contained in 

the fiscal year 2007 Homeland Security Appropriations Act was defeated on a party-line vote. While the Majority claims the fiscal 

year 2009 requirements are ‘‘simply a follow-up’’ or ‘‘prudent expansion’’ of the fiscal year 2007 bipartisan expenditure plan requirements, we strongly believe that the current restrictions constitute a total expansion of so-called fiscal oversight into the arena 

of policymaking. We do not see this as the Committee’s role and 

will continue to voice our reservations on the abuse of such expenditure plan requirements. 

The fiscal year 2009 bill also includes restrictions on all funding 

for the operations of critical information technology systems that 

support intelligence operations in CBP and the Coast Guard until 

privacy reviews of each program are certified and such certifications are reviewed by the DHS Inspector General. CBP’s Analytical Framework for Intelligence and the Coast Guard’s Maritime 

Awareness Global Network—systems designed to more efficiently 

and effectively provide information to the Intelligence Community—have already undergone privacy impact assessments (PIAs) 

and are essential tools for DHS operations. While we certainly support the Inspector General reviewing these PIAs as well as any additional review of the programs for compliance with all applicable 

privacy laws, we see no reason to restrict all funding for operations 

and inhibit more effective information sharing until such reviews 

are completed. Therefore, we offered an amendment to strike the 

withholding of all funds for operations for these two programs, 

while maintaining the bill’s direction for each agency to certify 

compliance with all applicable laws, including those regarding privacy, and for such certifications to be reviewed by the Inspector 

General. Unfortunately, this amendment was defeated on a partyline vote. 

IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT

The bill completely restructures the fiscal year 2009 budget for 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in an effort to devote 

$800 million towards the identification and removal of illegal aliens 

convicted of a crime. We are supportive of this effort and agree that 

it is among ICE’s top priorities. However, we maintain that such 

a priority should not be funded at the expense of other critical ICE 

missions, including national security export enforcement; prevention and investigation of human smuggling and trafficking; customs and trade enforcement; worksite enforcement; prevention and 

investigation of international crimes ranging from child exploitation to money laundering; and enforcement of existing immigration law. We believe ICE must be well-funded and supported to enforce its full range of legal authorities and are appreciative of the 

Majority’s willingness to include bill and report language clarifying 

the fiscal year 2009 distribution of resources does not, in any way, 

impede the inherent immigration and customs authorities unique 

to ICE. 

In an effort to fully support and enhance ICE’s investigative and 

enforcement resources, we offered amendments to address the fiscal year 2009 bill’s reductions below the budget request to three 

critical programs: the 287(g) State and Local training program; 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
223 

worksite enforcement; and ICE’s cyber crimes program. Amendments to restore the Majority’s reductions to 287(g) and worksite 

enforcement were defeated on party-line votes; but the amendment 

to restore the Majority’s reduction to ICE’s cyber crimes program 

was adopted, after the offset was changed by the Majority from the 

Office of the Chief Information Officer to the Office of the Secretary. While we are pleased this amendment was adopted by the 

Committee, we remain confused as to why the Majority would rather take funding from an account that had already been reduced in 

the bill by over 14 percent and is comprised entirely of salaries and 

expenses in support of Departmental operations, versus an account 

which can absorb what amounted to a 2.3 percent offset. We maintain that the bill does not justifiably reduce the 287(g) and worksite enforcement programs and amendments to restore these reductions should not have been necessary. We will continue to voice our 

support for full funding for these vital programs as the bill moves 

through the legislative process. 

OPERATIONAL NEEDS

We are very concerned about growing operational costs confronting DHS. This issue is most pronounced through the skyrocketing costs of energy for the Department’s operational agencies. 

As of June 25, 2008, we are aware of a projected shortfall in energy 

costs for DHS of over $187 million for fiscal year 2009. Therefore, 

we offered an amendment to partially address operational shortfalls in CBP and the Coast Guard. The Majority offered a substitute to our amendment by way of a new general provision that 

would allow DHS to apply cost savings through deobligations towards such shortfalls. While we are appreciative of the Majority 

correcting the bill’s deficiency in addressing energy cost shortfalls, 

we are concerned that the new general provision will not generate 

sufficient savings to fully cover what are constantly rising energy 

costs. We will continue to work with the Majority in an effort to 

ensure the operational needs of our front line personal are fully 

supported in the bill. 

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY

The reported bill maintains the absence of a cap on the number 

of TSA screeners that was originally placed on TSA at its inception. 

That cap, which was removed in the fiscal year 2008 consolidated 

Appropriations Act, was created for very good reasons—reasons 

that still exist today. The cap was installed because TSA was demonstrating a severe lack of discipline in its planning, hiring, and 

use of technology. Originally, TSA said it needed 35,000 screeners. 

Several months later they said 45,000. The line was drawn when 

they again came back and asked for funds for 70,000 screeners. By 

requiring in law that TSA could not exceed 45,000 screeners, TSA 

was forced to refocus its decision making. More screeners and expensive, manpower-intensive trace detection machines were not the 

answer. Rather, more efficient and effective technology, such as advanced x-ray machines and explosive detection systems, has proven 

itself over time. The screener cap has worked, and TSA is slowly 

getting the trace detection machines out of airport lobbies. HowVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:07 Sep 19, 2008 Jkt 044458 PO 00000 Frm 00223 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR862.XXX HR862

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
224 

ever, absent law that expressly prohibits exceeding 45,000 screeners, we are convinced that TSA will revert to its old ways of solving 

screener problems, simply by adding more people—a very shortsighted and costly solution. We will continue to voice our support 

for restoration of the screener cap. 

COAST GUARD

The bill includes a thoughtful combination of funding and oversight for the Coast Guard. We fully support the bill’s operational 

enhancements to maritime security and marine safety, as well as 

to the growing maintenance needs of the Coast Guard’s aging cutters. We are also supportive of the bill’s reasonable funding for 

Deepwater; though are mindful of the bill’s notation on the uncertainty surrounding the costs of the fourth National Security Cutter. 

We support the Majority’s oversight of the Coast Guard’s costing 

estimates and will continue to monitor the agency’s improvement 

of this crucial capability. While the bill continues its aggressive and 

stringent oversight of Coast Guard acquisitions, we are confident 

the Coast Guard is leveraging these statutory requirements to put 

into place the right controls and organizational improvements to 

properly manage its large procurements. We firmly believe that too 

much of our national security is at stake for the Coast Guard to 

prolong the operation of antiquated systems—some dating back to 

World War II—and remain fully supportive of its modernization. 

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE

This bill is $2.3 billion above the President’s request, with the 

vast majority of that increase used to maintain first responder 

grants at what has been their highest level in 5 years. We are concerned about the annual expectations we are setting for State and 

local grants. These funds are intended to address counterterrorism 

needs and disaster preparedness—the homeland security portion of 

local first responders’ duties. These cash-strapped agencies are certainly pleased to receive these grant funds and now even expect it. 

What began as a straightforward grant program has devolved into 

a revenue sharing program—something it never was intended to 

be. Rather than just adding billions to these grant programs—as 

this bill does—what we ought to be doing is working with the relevant authorizing committees to change the way these grant programs are structured, authorized, and administered, and layout 

specific, Federal expectations. Grants to States and local communities are intended to reduce our vulnerabilities and are not immune from fiscal discipline, especially in an arena as critical as 

homeland security. 

Therefore, we offered an amendment in bill language to strengthen FEMA’s ability to effectively measure the impact of first responder grants through an additional $5 million, as delineated in 

the Committee report, and a requirement for improved planning. 

Currently, FEMA cannot explain how much more capable or more 

prepared our Nation is thanks to over $23.7 billion in grant funding that has been appropriated since fiscal year 2002. Because the 

program has carried a persistent unexpended balance of $4 to $7 

billion over the last few years, FEMA must be held accountable for 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
225 

measuring the results of this funding towards improved homeland 

security. We are appreciative of the Majority’s acceptance of our 

amendment and will continue to monitor FEMA’ s progress in 

measuring the impact of first responder grants. 

POLICY AND AUTHORIZATIONS

The bill includes a requirement for all grants and contracts to 

comply with prevailing wage requirements as per subchapter IV of 

chapter 31 of Title 40, U.S. Code—commonly referred to as DavisBacon requirements. These requirements are made permanent and 

apply to this and any other Act. We contend that inclusion of such 

a broad special interest provision, having not withstood a review of 

the policy’s impact or its relevancy towards achieving homeland security goals, lacks sufficient justification for inclusion in this bill. 

We also note our disappointment that an amendment re-authorizing the E-Verify system was rejected by a party-line vote on the 

grounds that the bill should not include authorizing language. We 

remain confused at the apparent hypocrisy of including permanent 

Davis-Bacon requirements, as well as other authorizing language, 

but rejecting a re-authorization of an expiring program that is directly germane to the underlying bill and of vital importance to immigration enforcement and our homeland security. Such a double 

standard suggests the aim of the bill is tilting more towards specific interests rather than furthering our homeland security. 

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY

While we support the underlying functions supported by this bill, 

we maintain that the issue of homeland security cannot be simply 

solved by more money and more government. For the second year 

in a row, the 302(b) discretionary allocation for the Department of 

Homeland Security exceeds the amount proposed by the President 

by over $2 billion and more than twice the rate of inflation. The 

fiscal year 2009 302(b) allocation of $39.9 billion in discretionary 

funding is over 14.5% above last year’s discretionary level and over 

6.0% above the request (excluding emergency funding and BioShield advance appropriations). We firmly believe that no Federal 

agency is immune from fiscal discipline, even the Department of 

Homeland Security. 

In conclusion, we believe this bill has the potential to do a lot 

of good. There are many provisions and funding recommendations 

that we agree with, and applaud the bill’s efforts in keeping the 

Department on track to produce results, as well as continuing the 

Committee’s tradition of strict accountability. 

JERRY LEWIS. 

HAROLD ROGERS. 

Æ 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING