50–276 

111TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 111–157 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2010 

JUNE 16, 2009.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina, from the Committee on 

Appropriations, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 2892] 

The Committee on Appropriations submits the following report in 

explanation of the accompanying bill making appropriations for the 

Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010. 

INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT 

Page number 

Bill Report 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS 

Office of the Secretary and Executive Management ........................ 2 14 

Office of the Under Secretary for Management ............................... 2 20 

Office of the Chief Financial Officer .................................................. 3 24 

Office of the Chief Information Officer .............................................. 3 26 

Analysis and Operations .................................................................... 4 28 

Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding .......... 4 29 

Office of Inspector General ................................................................. 5 30 

TITILE II—SECURITY, ENFORCEMENT, AND INVESTIGATIONS 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection ................................................. 5 32 

Salaries and Expenses ................................................................. 5 32 

Automation Modernization ......................................................... 7 40 

Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology ....... 7 41 

Air and Marine Interdiction, Operations, Maintenance, and 

Procurement ............................................................................. 14 46 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
2 

Page number 

Bill Report 

Facilities Management ................................................................ 15 47 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ................................... 15 48 

Salaries and Expenses ................................................................. 15 48 

Federal Protective Service .......................................................... 18 57 

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

Construction ................................................................................. 20 59 

Transportation Security Administration ........................................... 20 60 

Aviation Security ......................................................................... 20 60 

Surface Transportation Security ................................................ 22 68 

Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing ............ 23 69 

Transportation Security Support ................................................ 24 72 

Federal Air Marshals .................................................................. 24 73 

Coast Guard ......................................................................................... 24 74 

Operating Expenses ..................................................................... 24 74 

Environmental Compliance and Restoration ............................. 25 79 

Reserve Training .......................................................................... 26 80 

Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements .......................... 26 80 

Alteration of Bridges ................................................................... 29 85 

Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation .......................... 29 85 

Medicare Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund Contribution ..... 30 86 

Retired Pay ................................................................................... 30 87 

United States Secret Service .............................................................. 30 87 

Salaries and Expenses ................................................................. 30 87 

Acquisition, Construction, Improvements, and Related Expenses ........................................................................................ 33 91 

TITLE III—PROTECTION, PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE, AND 

RECOVERY 

National Protection and Programs Directorate ................................ 33 91 

Management and Administration ............................................... 33 91 

Infrastructure Protection and Information Security ................. 33 92 

United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology ........................................................................................ 34 96 

Office of Health Affairs ....................................................................... 38 102 

Federal Emergency Management Agency ......................................... 38 104 

Management and Administration ............................................... 38 104 

State and Local Programs ........................................................... 39 108 

Firefighter Assistance Grants ..................................................... 44 116 

Emergency Management Performance Grants .......................... 45 118 

Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program ....................... 46 118 

United States Fire Administration ............................................. 46 119 

Disaster Relief .............................................................................. 46 119 

Disaster Assistance Direct Loan Program Account .................. 48 123 

Flood Map Modernization Fund ................................................. 49 124 

National Flood Insurance Fund .................................................. 49 125 

National Predisaster Mitigation Fund ....................................... 51 126 

Emergency Food and Shelter ...................................................... 52 127 

TITLE IV—RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, TRAINING, AND 

SERVICES 

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ...................... 52 128 

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center ...................................... 53 132 

Salaries and Expenses ................................................................. 53 132 

Acquisitions, Construction, Improvements, and Related Expenses ........................................................................................ 55 133 

Science and Technology ...................................................................... 56 134 

Management and Administration ............................................... 56 134 

Research, Development, Acquisition, and Operations .............. 56 134 

Domestic Nuclear Detection Office .................................................... 57 140 

Management and Administration ............................................... 57 140 

Research, Development, and Operations ................................... 58 140 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
3 

Page number 

Bill Report 

TITLE V—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

This Act ................................................................................................ 58 144 

Compliance with House Rules ........................................................... ........ 151 

Tables ................................................................................................... ........ 151 

Summary of the Total Bill .................................................................. ........ 180 

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

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

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

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

458, is referenced as the Intelligence Reform Act; the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, P.L. 111–5 is referenced as 

ARRA; the Department of Homeland Security is referenced as 

DHS; the Government Accountability Office is referenced as GAO; 

and the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Homeland 

Security is referenced as the IG. 

The accompanying bill contains recommendations for new budget 

(obligational) authority for fiscal year 2010 for the Department of 

Homeland Security. The following table summarizes these recommendations and reflects comparisons with the budget, as amended, 

and with amounts appropriated to date for fiscal year 2009: 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Bureau/Agency 

New budget 

(obligational) authority fiscal year 

2009 enacted to date 1

Budget estimates of new (obligational) authority, fiscal 

year 2010 

Recommended by the House 

House compared with 

New budget authority fiscal year 2009 

Budget estimate, 

fiscal year 2010 

Departmental Management and Operations ......................................... 1,070,439 1,389,892 1,238,670 168,231 ¥151,222 

Security, Enforcement and Investigations .............................................. 28,714,570 30,760,707 30,758,323 2,043,753 ¥2,384 

Protection, Preparedness, Response 

and Recovery ................................ 8,294,360 8,691,755 8,777,241 482,881 85,486 

Research, Development, Training, 

and Services ................................. 1,881,504 1,987,339 1,864,504 ¥17,000 ¥122,835 

General Purpose Appropriations ........ 100,000 ........................ ........................ ¥100,000 ........................

Rescission of Unobligated Balances ¥72,373 ........................ ¥13,738 58,635 ¥13,738 

Grand total ............................... 39,988,500 42,829,693 42,625,000 2,636,500 ¥204,693 

1 Does not include emergency funding provided in the Fiscal Year 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act (P.L. 111–8) or the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act (P.L. 111–5). 

SUMMARY OF MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE BILL

The Committee recommends $42,625,000,000 in discretionary resources for the Department of Homeland Security, $204,693,000 

below the amount requested and $2,636,500,000 above fiscal year 

2009 enacted levels (excluding emergency funding). 

In order to invest in the critical priorities identified in this bill, 

and in an effort to build an economy on a solid foundation for 

growth and put the Nation on a path toward prosperity, the Committee includes $406,788,000 in program terminations. In addition, 

the Committee recommends a number of reductions and other savings from the budget request totaling $855,489,000. These adjustments, no matter their size, in conjunction with the other directions to the Administration included in this bill are important in 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
4 

setting the right priorities within the spending allocation, for getting the deficit under control, and creating a government that is as 

efficient as it is effective. 

PRIORITIES IN THE BILL

In this, the seventh annual appropriations bill produced by the 

House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, the 

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

also the substantive challenges of policy-making and priority-setting in the post-9/11 world. The bill aims to strengthen the nation’s 

protective measures against attacks, reduce vulnerabilities to a full 

range of catastrophic events, and enhance recovery from such 

events. The bill will equip our country with necessary new capabilities while enhancing the conventional capabilities of the Department’s constituent agencies. 

The bill reflects a period of information-gathering and analysis 

that involved probing areas of Departmental policy and procedure, 

the extent of which is only afforded during times of transition in 

the government. Because the Administration’s fiscal year 2010 

budget request was not presented to Congress until May 7, 2009, 

the 15 hearings that the Subcommittee conducted were not dominated by the budget request. Rather, the Committee tackled some 

of the broader questions and cross-cutting issues that touch every 

component of the Department of Homeland Security—from preparing for a National Special Security Event to recovering from 

natural disasters; from acquiring technology to improve DHS operations to expeditiously obligating funds for critical grant programs; 

and from immigration enforcement to meeting the basic medical 

needs of those in the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. On occasion, hearing panels paired departmental officials with experts from the Government Accountability Office, public organizations, and State governments to ensure that the Committee received a full range of information and analysis about departmental activities. After these topical hearings were completed, 

the Secretary presented the fiscal year 2010 budget request for 

DHS. By developing this broader perspective, culminating with the 

Secretary’s testimony, the Committee was better equipped to set 

budget priorities that prepare the Department to face the diversity 

of challenges to our homeland. 

Citizens look to their government to make good use of taxpayer 

dollars by planning appropriately, targeting scarce resources to 

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

progress in each of these areas, and more work needs to be done. 

The Committee is pleased to note that, in general, the budget request for 2010 did not continue the disingenuous practice of leaving 

funding voids where the Administration knows Congress has 

strong interests, such as with State and local grants. In doing so, 

the Department made some hard decisions about investments that 

cannot move forward at this time because of technical problems, 

such as advanced spectroscopic portal monitors. Or it took a more 

pragmatic approach to solving complex problems, for example by 

requesting no additional funding for implementation of a biometric 

exit program under US–VISIT, at least until technical, regulatory 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
5 

and diplomatic issues can be resolved. This reality check makes it 

easier for the Committee to allocate resources to areas that have 

real needs, albeit in ways that may differ slightly from the Administration. 

The Committee understands the demanding nature of the Department’s mission, as well as resource and technology limitations 

that make it difficult to consistently satisfy the wide range of expectations from Congress, State and local governments, industries, 

citizens, other federal Departments and foreign governments. However, the Committee expects the departmental leadership to be 

frank and clear about the limitations it faces as well as the unmet 

needs it has inherited, so that we can work together to address 

these challenges. Described below is how the Committee addressed 

some of these matters for fiscal year 2010. 

ENSURING TAXPAYER DOLLARS ARE WELL SPENT

Since its establishment, DHS has at times had difficulty spending appropriated funds in an effective and timely manner. While 

some departmental components have improved their financial and 

management oversight, others continue to have problems. Some 

DHS components continue to maintain high unobligated balances, 

or are slow to spend funds Congress designated for specific tasks. 

Transit grants, public safety interoperable communications grants, 

Coast Guard financial problems, and research funding are some of 

the key areas this Committee has singled out for review this year. 

In the area of transit and rail security, ‘‘funds available for drawdown’’ has been the refrain heard throughout this hearing season. 

Based on the latest estimates from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), about 90 percent of funds appropriated 

in fiscal year 2006 for rail and transit security grants are not 

drawn down. In trying to uncover reasons why critical homeland 

security funds were sitting in the U.S. Treasury waiting to be 

spent, this Committee was repeatedly presented with hazy responses, necessitating repeat appearances by FEMA and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to clarify the situation. 

Since those hearings, TSA and FEMA have changed their 2009 decision-making process so the project approval process takes place 

before grant awards, instead of up to 270 days afterwards. TSA 

and FEMA are also meeting with transit agencies to spur faster 

draw-down of previously appropriated funds. They are to report 

back to the Committee by August 2009 on their findings. 

Public safety interoperable communications grants have similar 

draw-down problems, with about 93 percent remaining unexpended 

from 2007. While much of this delay was caused by the need for 

States to complete their interoperability plans, the Committee remains concerned about the slow rate of expenditure, particularly 

because Congress repeatedly hears from many first responders and 

emergency managers about the outstanding needs for interoperable 

communications equipment. 

Questions about the effectiveness of investments by the Coast 

Guard have dogged the Department almost since its establishment. 

Cost growth has plagued the National Security Cutter, and false 

starts on developing the replacement for the 110-foot patrol boat, 

the new offshore patrol cutter, and an unmanned aerial system intended for use at sea have cost the taxpayers tens of millions of 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
6 

dollars. The Coast Guard holds 95 percent of the unauditable balances on the Department’s books and the material weaknesses in 

its internal financial controls are the single largest obstacle standing in the way of the Department being able to get a clean audit. 

There have been signs of progress, however, with the Coast Guard 

submitting a comprehensive plan for putting their financial house 

in order—the Financial Strategy for Transformation and Audit 

Readiness. Additionally, this year’s budget request includes several 

initiatives to improve internal oversight, including $20,000,000 to 

modernize the Coast Guard’s financial management structure. The 

Committee has fully funded these activities. 

On a positive note, Science and Technology (S&T) has made 

progress in reducing its unobligated balances by tracking research 

expenditures more closely to make sure they align with the Department’s priorities, and by recovering or realigning funds that have 

lain dormant due to expired programs. The increased vigilance 

with which S&T is managing its projects is encouraging and should 

continue. 

FOCUSING ON OUR BORDERS

The Department’s work to prevent illicit goods and unauthorized 

individuals from crossing our borders is more important than ever. 

Yet the challenge of border security remains daunting. DHS’s resources must be targeted toward the most pressing threats to 

American communities, and our border challenges must be addressed in a comprehensive fashion that takes into account the various forces that feed the movement of people and goods. 

Southwest Border Initiative.—The Committee fully supports efforts to address the security needs of the Southwest Border. This 

includes improving the capability of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

(ICE) to reduce the import of illegal narcotics to the United States 

as well as the smuggling of weapons and currency that feed violent 

Mexican drug cartels. These investments will help close a critical 

vulnerability in operations at ports of entry and in all the border 

areas in between. Initiated in fiscal year 2009 through the reprogramming of existing funds, the Southwest Border Initiative is 

an effort involving DHS, the Department of State, and the Justice 

Department, which attacks the organizations and resources of the 

Mexican drug cartels. The initiative also supports the Mexican government’s efforts to go after the cartels where they are based, and 

it provides additional resources to the communities along the border whose authorities are playing a role in the crack-down. 

The bill includes $26,100,000, as requested, for an additional 65 

CBP Officers and mission support staff, as well as security infrastructure such as license plate readers to cover the outbound lanes 

at ports of entry where no such enforcement capacity now exists. 

It also provides for 44 new Border Patrol agents and mission support staff to enhance outbound and other security operations on the 

Southwest Border. The bill funds the full costs of the planned target staffing level of 20,019 Border Patrol agents, of whom over 

17,000 will be based on the Southwest Border—an increase of 

6,000, or more than 50 percent, since 2006. 

The Committee also provides $97,809,000 for ICE programs that 

support the Southwest Border Initiative, $27,809,000 more than reVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:16 Jun 17, 2009 Jkt 050276 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR157.XXX HR157

smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
7 

quested. These funds will support expansion of critical ICE efforts 

to target the cartels, such as the Border Enforcement Security 

Task Force (BEST) initiative; Southwest Border intelligence analysis; criminal gang, drug, weapons smuggling and human trafficking investigations; and Mexico-based investigatory agents who 

will coordinate U.S. efforts with Mexican law enforcement agencies. The bill also includes $732,000,000 for the Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology (BSFIT) appropriation, of 

which $692,000,000 is for Southwest Border investments. This will 

bring total BSFIT funding for the Southwest Border to $4.3 billion 

since the program began in 2006. The Committee expects this funding to be used for the testing, validation, and deployment of technological solutions for border security, including additional tactical 

communications capability for the Border Patrol. This sizable appropriation should help maintain and operate the substantial infrastructure investment already placed on the Southwest Border. The 

bill also provides the resources for the Department to employ the 

most effective means of environmental planning and mitigation in 

the execution of the Secure Border Initiative along the Southwest 

Border. 

Northern Border.—The Committee strongly supports efforts to 

secure the 4,000 miles of the sparsely populated, often remote 

Northern Border between Canada and the 48 continental States, 

which presents unique challenges. The Committee includes full 

funding for Border Patrol staffing and recruitment efforts to bring 

the number of agents stationed along the border to 2,212 by 2010. 

This will amount to more than six times the 350 agents stationed 

on that border in 2001 and an increase of more than 140 percent 

above the number stationed there in 2006. 

Technological solutions are essential in this vast area, and the 

Committee includes an additional $40,000,000 in BSFIT funding as 

requested to continue investments in mobile and remote video surveillance systems. The Committee also supports the effort to integrate all CBP technology investment along the border, to include 

legacy systems of monitors, sensors, and communications. As CBP 

Air and Marine is a key part of the effort to maintain operational 

control of the Northern Border, the Committee includes the funding 

requested to add 144 new pilots, interdiction agents, and mission 

support staff to enable full staffing for the new air branches established along the Northern Border. 

In addition, the Committee observes that ARRA included 

$420,000,000 in new funding to rebuild and upgrade CBP-owned 

ports of entry. Most of those are on the Northern Border, and the 

Committee will be carefully monitoring those projects to ensure 

they are on time and within budget. Related to this, the Committee 

provides $140,000,000 for the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, including $16,000,000 for new initiatives such as communications and outreach for the 2010 Vancouver Olympics, auditing enhanced drivers licenses, and improving the technical infrastructure 

at ports of entry to expedite secure processing for passengers and 

pedestrians. 

SETTING IMMIGRATION PRIORITIES

Immigration Enforcement.—In fiscal year 2008, DHS’s immigration agencies set several new records: deporting the most people in 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
8 

any year in U.S. history (369,409); holding more people in immigration detention per day than ever before (30,429); and initiating 

1,191 worksite enforcement investigations that resulted in 6,287 

arrests, the largest numbers since the formation of DHS. These figures reflect the billions of dollars the Committee has invested in 

immigration enforcement activities since 2003. But rather than 

simply rounding up as many illegal immigrants as possible, which 

is sometimes achieved by targeting the easiest and least threatening among the undocumented population, DHS must ensure that 

the government’s huge investments in immigration enforcement 

are producing the maximum return in actually making our country 

safer. A closer examination of the data may give some pause: • Since 2002, ICE has increased the deportation of non-criminals 

by 400 percent, while criminal deportations have only gone up 

60 percent. • Of the nearly 370,000 deported by ICE in fiscal year 2008, less 

than a third, or 114,358, were ever convicted of a criminal offense. This, despite the fact that up to 450,000 criminals eligible for deportation are in penal custody in any given year, according to ICE estimates. • Less than one-quarter of those interdicted by ICE’s Fugitive 

Operations Teams last year were actually convicted of criminal 

offenses. • Over three-quarters of those arrested in ICE worksite enforcement raids last year were not charged with any crime. 

Since 2007, the Committee has emphasized how ICE should have 

no higher immigration enforcement priority than deporting those 

who have proved their intent to do harm and have been convicted 

of serious crimes. In fiscal year 2008, ICE received $200 million to 

identify incarcerated criminal aliens and remove them once judged 

deportable. In fiscal year 2009, ICE was directed to use $1 billion 

of its resources to identify and remove aliens convicted of crimes, 

whether in custody or at large, and the Congress mandated this be 

ICE’s number one mission. In this bill, the Committee directs ICE 

to use $1.5 billion of its budget to expand efforts to locate and remove those criminal aliens who have proved they are a threat to 

our communities. 

Over the past 18 months, ICE has developed a promising collaborative approach, working with State and local law enforcement 

agencies to streamline the identification of individuals who have 

been convicted of serious crimes and who may be in the country illegally. Known as ‘‘Secure Communities,’’ this program allows local 

law enforcement agencies to check the fingerprints of individuals 

booked on criminal charges against both national criminal and immigration databases. It is planned for nation-wide deployment by 

2011. When individuals are identified as illegally present in the 

United States, ICE can take appropriate steps to ensure the most 

dangerous of these criminals are deported upon completion of their 

jail sentences, while those convicted of lesser crimes are identified 

and deported as resources allow. This approach respects the traditional separation of local law enforcement responsibilities from the 

Federal role of enforcing immigration law, and requires no specialized training in Federal immigration law for local officials. The 

Committee is optimistic that Secure Communities will eventually 

prove more effective than many of the agreements ICE has estabVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:16 Jun 17, 2009 Jkt 050276 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR157.XXX HR157

smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
9 

lished to delegate immigration enforcement authority to local patrol officers. The Committee also encourages ICE to ensure it is 

consistently measuring the results of Secure Communities deployments and other State and local partnerships so that these different approaches can be adequately evaluated in the future. 

Effective and Humane Immigration Detention.—The ICE detention program has expanded dramatically since the creation of the 

Department of Homeland Security, from an average daily capacity 

of 19,922 in 2002 to 33,400 in 2009, an increase of more than 67 

percent. Based on recent and repeated reports about detainee 

deaths that appear to have been preventable, the Committee is 

concerned that ICE has not made adequate improvements in programs that manage and oversee ICE detention activities, particularly those that ICE procures through contracts. Certainly not 

every death is preventable or avoidable. However, the incidence of 

deaths among ICE detainees, as well as the conditions under which 

some of these deaths occurred, raises serious questions about the 

health care provided by ICE for those it detains and whether the 

individuals who died were given appropriate and timely medical attention. When ICE holds individuals in federal custody, it has a responsibility to treat those people fairly and humanely, and to provide access to necessary medical care when requested. Unfortunately, ICE and the local and contract prisons it uses to detain illegal immigrants do not always seem able or willing to fulfill that 

responsibility. 

Last year, Congress provided $2,000,000 for ICE and the DHS 

Office of Health Affairs to hire outside experts to review the ICE 

medical system and offer recommendations on how it could be improved. The Committee is disappointed that it took ICE more than 

six months to award the contract for this study, and as a result, 

that evaluation has not yet been completed. This year, the Committee provides $8,800,000 to expand ICE detention oversight in its 

field offices and $20,400,000 to initiate acquisition of an electronic 

health records system for ICE detainees. In addition, the Committee denies a request from ICE to authorize the sale of Federally-owned detention centers to pay for consolidation of ICE field 

offices, which would result in all ICE detention being provided as 

a contracted service. The Committee believes this proposal is unwise given the serious questions about ICE’s ability to oversee the 

health care provided to its detainees at some contract facilities. 

Until ICE is able to prove that it can adequately oversee compliance with detention standards, including the delivery of timely and 

appropriate medical care by all of its detention contractors, the 

Committee will not support the liquidation of Federal detention facilities. 

Ensuring a Legal Workforce.—United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has created and maintains an internetbased system through which employers can verify the work eligibility of their new hires. As of May 2009, USCIS had enrolled over 

125,000 companies in this system, which is commonly known as EVerify. The Committee continues to recognize the need for a voluntary computer-based employment verification system, and therefore provides $112,000,000 for the on-going operation, maintenance 

and enhancement of the E-Verify system. In addition, the ComVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:16 Jun 17, 2009 Jkt 050276 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR157.XXX HR157

smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
10 

mittee includes a 2-year extension of the E-Verify authorization, as 

requested in the budget. 

STRENGTHENING TRANSPORTATION AND MARITIME SECURITY EFFORTS

Transportation Security.—Since 9/11, known threats to our aviation system have led to improved explosive detection technologies 

and better mechanisms to detect other threats in baggage, cargo, 

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

aviation demand. A baggage screening investment study concluded 

that capital funding requirements to procure and install new optimal screening systems would cost $8.2 billion over 20 years. This 

year, the President recognized the importance of addressing these 

needs and requested a record amount of funding. The Committee 

has provided $1.05 billion, including $250,000,000 in mandatory 

funding, to procure and install explosive detection systems in-line 

at our nation’s airports. This funding, coupled with the 

$700,000,000 provided in ARRA, will more than fully fund the $1.5 

billion in high priority needs TSA identified earlier this year. According to TSA, more than two dozen airports had completed the 

necessary design work to move forward with the installation of 

these more efficient systems. With funding provided in this bill, 

TSA expects to acquire and install 41 in-line systems so that additional airports have optimal systems installed at some or at all terminals, as well as retain 100 percent electronic checked baggage 

screening compliance at airports that otherwise may not be maintained due to anticipated growth or recapitalization needs. 

In the area of air cargo, TSA has met the 9/11 Act mandate requiring 50 percent of air cargo carried on passenger aircraft be 

screened for explosives. However, the more challenging mandate of 

screening 100 percent of that cargo looms ahead, with a deadline 

of August 2010. TSA has informed Congress that, by that date, it 

will be able to screen all air cargo that originates domestically before it is carried on passenger aircraft but it may not be able to 

meet the deadline with international air cargo. Screening international air cargo poses unique challenges since TSA would need 

to place personnel overseas to screen U.S.-bound cargo and/or 

strengthen relations with foreign airports and companies to screen 

cargo before it is placed on an aircraft heading to the United 

States. This Committee believes that assuring 100 percent of air 

cargo carried on passenger aircraft is screened is an important 

mandate, one that TSA can meet within the timeframe Congress 

has set. Therefore, the Committee has provided $122,849,000 in fiscal year 2010 for these efforts. This recommendation includes funding for TSA to address the international challenge, as well as for 

increased oversight activities to make sure that the certified shippers, freight forwarders, companies and other entities screening air 

cargo domestically adhere to our stringent security requirements. 

Transit systems are vulnerable to terrorist attack, as demonstrated in London, Madrid, and other locations around the world. 

Since 9/11, $1.67 billion has been provided to protect those systems 

in the United States, and the transit industry has estimated that 

a total of $6 billion is needed for security training, radio communications systems, security cameras, and access controls. The 

$250,000,000 provided in this bill for transit and rail security, couVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:16 Jun 17, 2009 Jkt 050276 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR157.XXX HR157

smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
11 

pled with the $150,000,000 provided in ARRA that has not yet been 

awarded, puts us one step closer to meeting these identified security needs. 

In addition to grant dollars provided directly to transit systems, 

both TSA and S&T have stepped up their efforts in this area. TSA 

requested additional surface transportation inspectors to participate on Visible Intermodal Protection and Response teams, which 

conduct unannounced, high-visibility exercises in mass transit or 

passenger rail facilities. The Committee has provided $25,000,000 

for these activities. In addition, the Committee has fully funded 

9/11 Act activities for surface transportation, including funding to 

continue vulnerability and threat assessments of high risk entities, 

to conduct additional security exercises and training programs, and 

for critical information sharing activities. S&T has begun a new research program that focuses on the risk of explosives in rail and 

transit facilities. Prior research has focused on finding effective 

methods to counteract, defeat, and mitigate the threat of improvised explosive devices (IEDs), with a heavy emphasis on deterring 

the threat to commercial aviation. Within an overall increase of 

$24,660,000 in fiscal year 2010 for explosives research is 

$5,000,000, as requested by the Administration, to expand those efforts to address the specific threat of IEDs to mass transit. As recent attacks worldwide have shown, the threat to mass transit 

from IEDs must be addressed, and the investments in this bill provide a step forward in that direction. 

Maritime Security.—Our nation’s ports are critical to ensuring 

that individuals and businesses have access to the many products 

on which they rely. Port security is in the hands of CBP, Coast 

Guard, port authorities and local police agencies. In 2002 Coast 

Guard estimated that $7 billion was needed to implement the sea 

port security improvements mandated in the Maritime Transportation Security Act. To date, Congress has appropriated $2.18 billion for grants to help ports meet these requirements. The Committee has provided an additional $250,000,000 for port security 

grants in this bill. 

In addition to these grants, over the last two years, the Committee has provided $93,800,000 in additional resources for Coast 

Guard efforts to increase maritime safety and security, over and 

above the Administration’s requests. These investments brought on 

more watchstanders and boat and marine inspectors, and increased 

capacity for security-related activities and investigations. As a result, the Coast Guard has a more robust capability to ensure the 

safety and security of U.S. ports through domestic and international activities. For example, the Coast Guard helps reduce risk 

to the U.S. by verifying the use of effective anti-terrorism measures 

in foreign ports. Out of 500 ports screened in 135 countries, seven 

were found to have serious flaws, requiring vessels from those 

ports to take additional security steps as a condition of entry into 

U.S. ports. The Committee fully funded the Administration’s request for $7,500,000 in new investments to improve marine safety 

by filling the gap between the size of its workforce and the growth 

of the shipping industry. The Coast Guard is already in the process 

of using resources provided in previous years to add more qualified 

marine inspectors and other personnel to their ranks under the 

Marine Safety Enhancement Plan the Commandant submitted to 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
12 

Congress in 2007. This year’s funding will deploy 25 apprentice 

marine inspectors to 11 ports, establish Senior Marine Inspector 

Training Officers in seven critical ‘‘feeder ports,’’ and expand the 

Coast Guard’s capacity to train inspectors and investigators. This 

bill also makes permanent the highly successful biometrics at sea 

pilot program. This tool has helped ensure that known felons, those 

already deported, or those on terrorist watchlists who are attempting to enter our country illegally are tried and punished, rather 

than simply being sent back to try again. 

Maritime Cargo Security.—The Committee remains strongly supportive of efforts to secure the nation’s economic lifelines by detecting dangerous cargo and preventing it from reaching U.S. soil. The 

bill includes $804,000,000 in funding for work at CBP and the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) to develop and deploy systems to screen cargo for weapons or nuclear precursor materials. 

The Committee is aware that there are monumental obstacles to 

meeting the 2012 deadline set by the 9/11 Act for 100 percent scanning of U.S.-bound cargo and welcomes the Administration’s candor 

in this regard. However, there should be no diminution of the effort 

to strengthen the overseas operation to monitor and target cargo, 

and to develop better technology to accomplish this mission. In addition, the Committee expects to see tangible results from CBP’s 

new secure filing rule, also known as ‘‘10+2’’, which will bring 

about improved information for both enforcement and facilitation of 

cargo. 

The bill provides $162,000,000, a nine percent increase over fiscal year 2009, for the Container Security and Secure Freight Initiatives, which are designed to ‘‘push the borders out’’ by basing cargo 

inspection and monitoring activity at overseas ports. These initiatives target high risk cargo for appropriate action, either before it 

is loaded on vessels or before those vessels reach the U.S. The 

Committee also includes $143,563,000, as requested, for inspection 

and detection technology, which will fund 12 replacement and 5 

new large-scale nonintrusive inspection (NII) systems, as well as 

600 smaller NII systems for ports of entry. The bill continues to 

support robust research and development for newer, more effective 

technologies to improve container security. The Committee also includes funding as requested to bolster staffing at the National Targeting Center, as well as to staff the Import Safety and Trade Enforcement Initiative, both which should contribute to improved supply chain security and better protection of the country from illegal 

and dangerous imports. 

REDUCING CYBER SECURITY VULNERABILITIES

Technological advances have strengthened our government’s ability to respond to citizens’ needs and conduct its work efficiently. 

However, the broad-based interconnectedness of information technology networks also makes unprotected systems vulnerable to attack and exploitation by those who seek to harm our nation. Furthermore, the expertise necessary to protect vulnerable computer 

infrastructure has not generally kept pace with the escalating sophistication and intensity of cyber attacks. In order to protect the 

government’s computer networks from sabotage or attack, the Committee provides $381,904,000 to carry out the DHS portion of the 

National Cyber Security Initiative. These funds will help improve 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
13 

the security of federal computer networks and strengthen Federal 

assistance to States, localities, and the private sector, all of which 

face similar threats of disruptive and potentially costly cyber attacks. As the confusion surrounding the 2009 computer virus called 

‘‘Conficker’’ showed, there is still a large gap in the understanding 

of the behavior and anatomy of malware. In order to better protect 

against future attacks, the bill provides the Administration’s request of $19,500,000 to invest in next generation technologies to 

enhance DHS’s capability to deal with cyber attacks. 

MEETING THE NEEDS OF STATE AND LOCAL PARTNERS

The Committee is pleased DHS’s budget finally recognizes State 

and local emergency planners and responders as equal partners in 

homeland security by requesting $3,867,000,000 for grants that assist them with everything from planning to equipping first responders. The Committee strengthens that commitment to State and 

local partners by providing $3,959,000,000 for comparable grant 

programs, including an increase of $15,000,000 for Emergency 

Management Performance Grants, the one true all-hazards preparedness grant program. The Committee also requires FEMA to 

post changes to policies online in order to afford State and local 

partners the opportunity for input. FEMA’s National Advisory 

Council, which is comprised of various emergency management 

stakeholders, must also review all policy changes. 

CORRECTING LONGSTANDING PROBLEMS

Food and Shelter.—The Committee recognizes some shortfalls in 

the Department of Homeland Security budget request, in part due 

to the poor economic condition we are currently experiencing. For 

example, an increasing number of Americans are relying on food 

and housing assistance to meet basic needs. Since the recession 

began in December 2007, the U.S. has lost a net total of 5.7 million 

jobs. As of April 2009, the nationwide unemployment rate stands 

at 8.9 percent, a quarter-century high. Recent estimates show foreclosure rates rising 30 percent from 2008 as food prices continue 

to rise. In April 2009, food prices rose nearly 1.5 percent. Yet, the 

budget proposed cutting the Emergency Food and Shelter Program 

funding to $100,000,000, or half the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. 

The Committee has restored funding for this program. 

Housing.—More than three years after Hurricane Katrina devastated the Gulf Coast, the recovery effort continues to be significantly hampered by what can only be called a housing crisis. Based 

on the latest estimates from FEMA, nearly 30,000 households are 

still receiving disaster housing assistance, of which nearly 3,000 

are in trailers and about 27,000 are in rental units as part of the 

joint Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)/ 

FEMA program called the Disaster Housing Assistance Program. 

In fiscal year 2009 the Committee required the Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding to consult experts to 

draw up a framework for developing and sustaining affordable 

rental housing in affected Gulf Coast communities. The panel was 

tasked to provide recommendations for how HUD, the private sector, and the States could achieve a sufficient stock of affordable 

rental housing to meet the needs of all those displaced after the 

hurricanes who still lack permanent housing options. The Office’s 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
14 

report focused on issues specific to the Gulf Coast, but several of 

its recommendations should be studied and incorporated by Federal, State and local governments to deal with future disasters, including improved case management services for families in interim 

housing and the need for new sources of funding for long-term, 

post-disaster housing. The Committee is committed to ensuring 

this type of post-disaster housing disaster never happens again. 

This bill directs FEMA and HUD to formalize an agreement to 

bring HUD’s expertise to bear for if another Hurricane Katrina-like 

disaster forces tens of thousands from their homes. 

Firefighter Assistance Grants.—The needs of the nation’s firefighters, who are among the first emergency responders for most 

disasters, remain great. Yet, the President’s request would cut Assistance for Firefighters (AFG) grants by 70 percent compared to 

fiscal year 2009 even though, for fiscal year 2008 alone, FEMA received 21,022 applications for AFG funds, with requests totaling 

$3,137,121,053. The Committee provides $800,000,000 for firefighter assistance grants to help address these and other unmet 

needs of the nation’s Fire Service including $380,000,000 for AFG 

grants. 

In conclusion, the bill seeks to push the Department to practice 

better financial and program management; to set clear and wellreasoned priorities and goals in areas ranging from the security 

needs of our borders to immigration enforcement, from transportation and maritime security to cyber security vulnerabilities, from 

improved disaster management to helping our citizens who are 

most at risk; and to strengthen partnerships with international, 

federal, state, local and private sector entities. The new Administration faces many homeland security challenges, and this Committee will be its partner as we take on these challenges together. 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY AND EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 ......................................................... $123,456,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2010 ....................................................... 160,760,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 147,427,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 .................................................. +23,971,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2010 ................................................ ¥13,333,000 

MISSION

The mission of the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management is to provide efficient services to the Department of Homeland Security and to support the Department’s efforts to achieve its 

strategic goals: preventing terrorist attacks within the United 

States; reducing America’s vulnerabilities to terrorism and natural 

disasters; minimizing the damage from attacks and disasters that 

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

states and local governments; and assisting in recovery following 

disasters and attacks. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $147,427,000 for the Office of the 

Secretary and Executive Management, $13,333,000 below the 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
15 

amount requested and $23,971,000 above the amount provided in 

fiscal year 2009. To adequately oversee expenditures and personnel 

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

recommendations as follows: 

Budget estimate Recommended 

Immediate Office of the Secretary .............................................................................. $5,061,000 $3,783,000 

Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary .................................................................. 1,810,000 1,440,000 

Chief of Staff ............................................................................................................... 2,595,000 2,926,000 

Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement ..................................................................... 3,912,000 3,712,000 

Executive Secretariat ................................................................................................... 8,344,000 7,578,000 

Office of Policy ............................................................................................................ 61,564,000 51,564,000 

Office of Public Affairs ................................................................................................ 6,539,000 6,039,000 

Office of Legislative Affairs ........................................................................................ 7,097,000 6,797,000 

Office of Intergovernmental Programs ........................................................................ 2,800,000 2,800,000

Office of General Counsel ........................................................................................... 24,028,000 24,028,000 

Office of Civil Rights and Liberties ............................................................................ 22,104,000 22,104,000 

Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman ................................................... 6,935,000 6,685,000 

Privacy Officer ............................................................................................................. 7,971,000 7,971,000 

Total .................................................................................................................... 160,760,000 147,427,000 

The Committee notes with dismay that the Department ignored 

explicit Congressional direction and reconfigured several programs, 

projects, and activities (PPAs) in its budget request. Without consulting with the Committee, the Department merged the Immediate Office of the Secretary, the Immediate Office of the Deputy 

Secretary, Chief of Staff and Executive Secretariat into a single 

new budget line entitled ‘‘Executive Leadership and Direction.’’ The 

Department also created another new line item called ‘‘Stakeholder 

Relations,’’ which would have included the Office of State and Local 

Law Enforcement, the Private Sector Coordination Office, intergovernmental functions from a number of other components in the Department’s executive management, and the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs (to be transferred from FEMA). Since the budget 

was submitted, the Committee has been told that the creation of 

the second PPA was canceled, although the transfer of the Office 

of Intergovernmental Affairs from FEMA is still a part of the request, appearing as the Office of Intergovernmental Programs listed above. This incomplete last minute change has made it difficult 

to review the budgets for the affected functions with clarity. This 

is not the first time DHS has submitted budget requests with such 

deficiencies. The Committee reiterates that structural alterations 

to the request should only be made after advance consultation with 

the Committee on Appropriations; and if they are approved for use 

in the budget request, the budget should carry a complete table 

comparing new and old elements to allow for seamless tracking of 

the use of taxpayer dollars. 

Many of the activities that the Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement undertakes closely align with actions being reviewed by 

the Office of Policy. While the Committee recognizes that the Office 

of Counternarcotics Enforcement is a separately authorized office, 

there are synergies among these two entities that, if combined, 

could provide more effective oversight of DHS activities within its 

component agencies, with other federal agencies, and in working 

with other governments. As such, the Committee directs the Secretary to evaluate whether it would be appropriate to shift the 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
16 

functions of the Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement into the Office of Policy, and report to the Committee no later than January 

15, 2010 on its conclusions. 

NATIONAL SOUTHWEST BORDER COUNTERNARCOTICS STRATEGY

The Committee just received the National Southwest Border 

Counternarcotics Strategy on June 5, 2009, which is to guide the 

joint efforts and policy planning of the Department of Homeland 

Security, the Justice Department, the Office of National Drug Control Policy, and other agencies. The Committee directs DHS to brief 

the Committee not later than July 15, 2009, on how it will implement the policy in 2009 and 2010, to include any impacts on the 

fiscal year 2010 budget request for the Department and its component agencies. 

IMMEDIATE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

The Committee recommends $3,783,000 for the Immediate Office 

of the Secretary, $1,278,000 below the amount requested and 

$643,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. Funding 

has been reduced from the request as the Committee rejects the 

proposed transfer of $1,278,000 from other accounts to pay in advance for projected travel by component agency personnel with the 

Secretary. The Committee directs the Department to continue to 

manage travel in the same fashion as the current fiscal year. 

IMMEDIATE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SECRETARY

The Committee recommends $1,440,000 for the Immediate Office 

of the Deputy Secretary, $370,000 below the amount requested and 

$40,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. Funding 

has been reduced from the request as the Committee rejects the 

proposed transfer of $370,000 from other accounts to pay in advance for projected travel by component agency personnel with the 

Deputy Secretary. The Committee directs the Department to continue to manage travel in the same fashion as the current fiscal 

year. 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF STAFF

The Committee recommends $2,926,000 for the Office of the 

Chief of Staff, $331,000 above the amount requested and $233,000 

above the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. The increase above 

the request is due to the rejection of the proposed transfer of 

$1,278,000 from other accounts, including $331,000 from this office, 

to pay in advance for projected travel by component agency personnel with the Secretary. 

OFFICE OF COUNTERNARCOTICS ENFORCEMENT

The Committee recommends $3,712,000 for the Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement, $200,000 below the amount requested and 

$6,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. The Committee has made a slight reduction to the request due to vacancies 

in this office that are expected to continue through the remainder 

of fiscal year 2009 and into fiscal year 2010. 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
17 

EXECUTIVE SECRETARIAT

The Committee recommends $7,578,000 for the Executive Secretariat, $766,000 below the amount requested and $130,000 above 

amount provided in fiscal year 2009. The Committee has made a 

slight reduction to the request due to vacancies in this office that 

are estimated to continue through the remainder of fiscal year 2009 

and into fiscal year 2010. 

OFFICE OF POLICY

The Committee recommends $51,564,000 for the Office of Policy, 

$10,000,000 below the amount requested and $8,301,000 above the 

amount provided in fiscal year 2009. This funding level includes 

$2,000,000 for the Administration’s new program to coordinate assessment of the Department’s mission requirements across components, $3,000,000 less than the request. While the Committee supports this effort, this should be an organic function of the Department’s leadership, not a separate office. In addition, the Committee 

provides $3,000,000 for the new Intermodal Security Coordination 

Office, a joint initiative between the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Transportation (DOT), $7,000,000 

less than the request. While addressing concerns about security at 

maritime and intermodal facilities is important, the Committee 

notes that there are already existing structures and arrangements 

in place among DHS component agencies to coordinate efforts with 

DOT, and urges the Department to ensure this funding does not 

create parallel structures or needlessly duplicate efforts. 

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

The Committee recommends $6,039,000 for the Office of Public 

Affairs, $500,000 below the amount requested and $48,000 above 

the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. The Committee has made 

a slight reduction to the request due to the continued vacancies in 

this office. 

OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS

The Committee recommends $6,797,000 for the Office of Legislative Affairs, $300,000 below the amount requested and $1,800,000 

above the level provided in fiscal year 2009. The Committee has 

made a slight reduction to the request due to unjustified increases 

in Working Capital Fund expenses. The name of this office has 

been changed to avoid confusion with the newly proposed Office of 

Intergovernmental Programs. 

OFFICE OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL PROGRAMS

The Committee supports the shifting of $2,000,000 and 17 FTE 

from FEMA as requested in the budget for the Office of Intergovernmental Programs, as well as the $800,000 requested for information technology infrastructure. The Committee requires that the 

Secretary present a detailed organizational plan for the new office 

within 60 days of enactment of this bill. The plan should outline 

the cost savings and efficiencies this reorganization is expected to 

create. 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
18 

OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL

The Committee recommends $24,028,000 for the Office of General Counsel, as requested, and $3,914,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2009. The Committee fully funds the 10 new 

full-time employee equivalents (FTEs) requested for fiscal year 

2010 within this recommended level. 

CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN

The Committee recommends $6,685,000 for the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman, $250,000 below the amount requested and $214,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 

2009. The Committee has made a slight reduction to the request 

due to the continued vacancies in this office. 

USER FEES

The Committee understands that user fee collections, which help 

pay for several key component activities, have fallen, significantly 

in some cases. The Committee takes special note that CBP’s collections of immigration and customs inspection fees, which fund about 

6,500 FTEs and as recently as 2008 exceeded $1,000,000,000, have 

declined and will likely decrease further if travel continues to decline. The CBP budget estimates that air travel will be five percent 

lower in fiscal year 2010 than in fiscal year 2009. In addition, the 

Committee is concerned that FEMA has overestimated fee collection from flood insurance policies for fiscal year 2010 and that the 

agency will not be able to support the 330 FTE funded with those 

fees or sustain critical flood plain management activities. During 

the current fiscal year, FEMA expressed concern to the Committee 

that fees would not keep up with estimates and that reprogramming actions may be needed. While the Administration is planning 

to offer legislation to consolidate several currently separate user 

fees, such action would not address the underlying vulnerability of 

staffing and operations to resource reductions. The Committee directs the Secretary to report not later than November 1, 2010 on 

actual fiscal year 2009 collections and projected 2010 collections for 

all impacted entities at DHS, along with a contingency plan for 

making up any difference between expected collections and budgeted activities. 

BUDGET JUSTIFICATIONS

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

training; and other services. 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND

Consistent with prior years, the Committee directs the Department to include a separate appropriation justification for the Working Capital Fund (WCF) in the fiscal year 2011 budget request. 

This should include a description of each activity funded by the 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
19 

WCF; the basis for the pricing; the number of full-time federal employees funded in each activity; a list of each departmental organization that is allocating funds to the activity; and the funding each 

organization is providing in fiscal years 2010 and 2011. If a project 

contained in the WCF is a multi-year activity with a defined cost, 

scope, and schedule, the estimated costs and schedule shall be 

clearly delineated. 

The Committee expects all initiatives funded by multiple DHS 

organizations to be included in the WCF. The Committee does not 

support taxing departmental organizations for cross-cutting initiatives outside of the WCF. As such, the justification should identify 

any cross-cutting initiatives or activities that benefit more than one 

organization that are not included in the WCF, and should explain 

the omission. 

The Committee expects to be notified promptly of any additions, 

deletions, or changes that are made to the WCF during the fiscal 

year. Furthermore, the Department should not fund any activities 

within the WCF that the House or Senate Committees on Appropriations have disapproved either in report language or in their responses to reprogramming requests. 

RECEPTION AND REPRESENTATION

Within the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management, 

the Committee provides $60,000 for official reception and representation expenses, as requested, the same level provided in fiscal year 

2009. Within this total, $20,000 shall be for international programs 

within the Office of Policy for activities related to the visa waiver 

program. 

DEPARTMENTAL RESPONSIVENESS TO GAO

The Committee is pleased to note that the Department is working with GAO to improve its responsiveness to information requests, and is examining the models of interaction offered by other 

agencies. In order to improve transparency and oversight, the Committee urges DHS to adopt the practices of most other federal agencies regarding interaction with GAO. These include: ensuring that 

GAO representatives have direct access to program officials and 

other relevant DHS employees, including contractors, for purposes 

of requesting records and obtaining information; expediting the internal review process for requested information by eliminating unnecessary or redundant levels of review; directing program officials 

and other relevant DHS employees, including contractors, to provide GAO with immediate access to agency records upon request 

when such records are readily available and do not require further 

internal review; and providing GAO representatives with access to 

draft or other non-final agency records when pertinent to GAO’s review, consistent with GAO’s statutory right of access to agency 

records and its obligation to handle such information appropriately. 

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

The Committee still expects the Secretary to provide Congress, 

by September 30, 2009, with a detailed inventory of the Department’s greenhouse gas emissions, and a plan for how the Department will reduce these emissions. The Committee expects a report 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
20 

every six months thereafter on the progress the Department has 

made in emission reductions. 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR MANAGEMENT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 1 ....................................................... $191,793,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2010 ....................................................... 337,990,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 268,690,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 .................................................. +76,897,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2010 ................................................ ¥69,300,000 

1 Excludes $200,000,000 in appropriations provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (P.L. 

111–5). 

MISSION

The Office of the Under Secretary for Management’s primary 

mission is to deliver quality administrative support services for 

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

is also in charge of implementing a mission support structure for 

the Department of Homeland Security to deliver administrative 

services while eliminating redundancies and reducing support 

costs. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $268,690,000 for the Office of the 

Under Secretary for Management, $69,300,000 below the amount 

requested and $76,897,000 above the amount provided in fiscal 

year 2009. In order to adequately oversee expenditures for each office, the Committee has provided separate funding recommendations as detailed in the following table: 

Budget estimate Recommended 

Under Secretary for Management ................................................................................ $2,864,000 $2,864,000 

Office of Security ......................................................................................................... 95,193,000 95,193,000 

Office of the Chief Procurement Officer ..................................................................... 71,038,000 66,538,000 

Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer ................................................................. 44,404,000 43,604,000

Office of the Chief Administrative Officer .................................................................. 124,491,000 60,491,000 

Total .................................................................................................................... 337,990,000 268,690,000 

OFFICE OF SECURITY

The Committee recommends $95,193,000 for the Office of Security, as requested and $34,311,000 above the amount provided in 

fiscal year 2009. This increase includes $25,000,000 for the Department to begin issuing smart identity cards for large numbers of Departmental employees. The Committee directs the Office of Security to provide a report on its progress in issuing new identity 

cards and remaining needs for additional infrastructure and materials needed to complete the project. The Committee is pleased to 

note a large number of new hires approaching the end of the clearance process, and the expected significant reduction in vacancies in 

this office. Funding is also provided to create a special access program control office, which will improve oversight of sensitive comVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:16 Jun 17, 2009 Jkt 050276 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR157.XXX HR157

smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
21 

partmentalized information, and to improve the timeliness of processing background investigations. 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF PROCUREMENT OFFICER

The Committee recommends $66,538,000 for the Office of the 

Chief Procurement Officer (OCPO), $4,500,000 below the amount 

requested and $27,535,000 above the amount provided in fiscal 

year 2009. The increase above fiscal year 2009 supports three efforts: the third year of the DHS-wide acquisition workforce intern 

program, setting up a classified program support office, and expanding the acquisition program management division. 

ACQUISITION PROFESSIONAL CAREER INTERNSHIP PROGRAM

The Committee fully funds the request of $7,000,000 to expand 

the acquisition career professional internship program in its third 

year, creating 100 more full-time positions. Congress has been 

highly critical of the performance of DHS acquisition programs in 

the past. Across the government, Federal agencies are experiencing 

shortages of procurement managers as employees retire or move to 

the private sector. Of the more than 1,300 people managing acquisition at DHS, 300 are eligible to retire in the next three years. 

These are inherently governmental positions that cannot be filled 

by contractors. It takes at least four years to train a fully capable 

acquisition official. This internship program helps recruit and train 

the procurement staff needed to fill those gaps on the horizon. The 

Department has indicated that without funding for this program, 

programs will be short-staffed, leading to schedule delays, cost 

overruns and decreased performance. 

Recognizing the competing demands for this type of staff in government service and the private sector, OCPO shall submit to the 

Committee no later than 60 days after the date of the enactment 

of this Act a report outlining all Departmental efforts aimed at decreasing the attrition rate of the DHS acquisition workforce. This 

report shall include each specific project funded, key milestones, all 

funding sources for each project, details of annual and lifecycle 

costs, and projected cost savings or cost avoidance to be achieved 

by each project. The Committee also directs OCPO to provide a 

breakdown of where the interns and graduates of the acquisition 

career professional internship program are serving within 60 days 

of enactment, and on an annual basis accompanying the budget request. 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAM SUPPORT OFFICE

The Committee recommends $6,500,000 and six FTEs to establish an office to provide support for DHS acquisitions requiring 

classified contracts, a capacity the Department does not currently 

possess. As it stands, if an acquisition required a classified contract, the Department would run the risk of either not getting the 

goods and services it paid for due to the vagueness required by unclassified contracts, or disclosing details of classified programs 

through the procurement process. 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
22 

ACQUISITION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT DIVISION

The Committee provides $7,000,000 and five FTEs to increase capacity in the acquisition program management division. This division is responsible for creating reviews and analysis procedures for 

major acquisition programs at the Department to help control costs 

and ensure success. Currently the office only has the resources to 

review twenty of the Department’s seventy major programs. This 

funding will allow the Department to increase the number of reviews it conducts on major programs, and provide additional support to ongoing acquisitions by identifying problems earlier in the 

process. The Committee recommends that the reduction from the 

Administration’s request should come from contractor support rather than in-house expertise. 

DHS INVESTMENT REVIEW PROCESS FOR MAJOR PROCUREMENTS

In fiscal year 2008, DHS obligated more than $13.75 billion for 

the procurement of goods and services to support homeland security missions, making it the fifth-largest federal government agency 

in terms of procurement. GAO recently reported (GAO–09–29) that 

while DHS’s investment review process calls for executive decisionmaking at several points in the life cycle of major programs, the 

implementation of the investment review process at DHS has failed 

to identify and remediate cost, schedule, and performance problems 

in a number of its major investments. GAO has found that that the 

DHS Investment Review Board (IRB) and Joint Requirements 

Council have been under-powered and under-resourced to address 

problems once identified. GAO also found that key acquisition documents needed to help illuminate cost, schedule and performance 

problems were not prepared and approved for several major investments. Specifically, GAO reported in November 2008 that 94 percent of DHS’s major investments lacked reviews in accordance with 

the Department’s investment review policy, and 68 percent lacked 

a life-cycle cost estimate. In fiscal year 2008, $681.2 million of taxpayer dollars were spent on capital assets without a Mission Needs 

Statement—a document that verifies that the investment is needed 

and supported by the Department. That reflects 18 of DHS’s 57 

major investments that year. GAO’s key finding was most troubling: ‘‘DHS cannot ensure that its investment decisions are appropriate and will ultimately address capability gaps.’’ 

While DHS has begun to improve the investment review process, 

including issuance of a November 2008 interim acquisition directive, the Committee is anxious to see positive results. This Administration has not had a chance to demonstrate a track record on 

this issue, but the Committee is heartened by the concepts outlined 

in the Secretary’s recent report outlining the top 25 acquisition programs under the Department’s purview and how those will be reviewed, as well as the proposed investments in the Administration’s budget to improve oversight of DHS acquisitions. The Deputy 

Secretary shall provide a report to the Committees on Appropriations by October 1, 2009, updating the list of the Department’s top 

25 investments and their status in the acquisition review process. 

Furthermore, the report should include information on what 

progress has been made on improving overall compliance with the 

reformed investment review policies of the Department, including 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
23 

strengthening the capacities of the Acquisition Review Board and 

other oversight mechanisms, such as portfolio and component-level 

reviews. 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF HUMAN CAPITAL OFFICER

The Committee recommends $43,604,000 for the Office of the 

Chief Human Capital Officer, $800,000 below the amount requested and $4,777,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 

2009. Of this total, $33,604,000 is recommended for the salaries 

and expenses of the Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer and 

$10,000,000 is recommended for human resource activities to enhance employee morale and create a more satisfying work environment. 

The Committee is pleased to note the progress made in hiring in 

several component offices where hiring is administered by the Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer. The Office is directed to 

continue providing monthly reports to the Committees on Appropriations, summarizing the vacancy situation at the Department, 

and urges the Office to provide the reports in a more timely fashion. These monthly reports should include the number of new hires 

brought on-board for each headquarters office in the previous 

month, as well as the number of applications received as a ratio 

to the number of vacancies closed. Each report should also include 

an end-of-the-month snapshot for each headquarters office, with 

the number of new hires pending security or suitability clearance, 

the number of open vacancies, and the number of selection referral 

lists pending with management. 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER

The Committee recommends $60,491,000 for the Office of the 

Chief Administrative Officer, $64,000,000 below the amount requested and $10,064,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 

2009. Of this total, $44,491,000 is recommended for the salaries 

and expenses of the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer, 

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

the Nebraska Avenue Complex, and $10,000,000 is for the DHS 

headquarters consolidation project. Within the funding level for salaries and expenses is $1,000,000 for logistics and procurement personnel from across the Department to receive training and education through LOGTECH and related programs, which have benefitted Coast Guard personnel. The Committee approves the requested transfer of $10,800,000 and 5 full-time employee equivalents to the Directorate of Operations Coordination for continuity 

of operations oversight. 

DHS HEADQUARTERS FACILITIES

The Committee is well aware of the expansive needs for departmental facilities, which will exceed what can be provided at the 

new headquarters slated to be built on the St. Elizabeths campus. 

While the Committee recognizes that consolidation of some DHS facilities could take place as existing leases expire, before components begin to move to the new site in 2013, the Committee finds 

the proposal to spend $75,000,000 for this purpose insufficiently 

justified at this time. Therefore, the Committee instead provides 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
24 

$10,000,000 to begin the needed improvements and security enhancements once leased space is acquired, and directs the Office of 

the Chief Administrative Officer to provide a detailed briefing to 

the Committee on the plans for lease consolidation. 

ST. ELIZABETHS CAMPUS DEVELOPMENT

The Committee is aware of continuing concerns about the potential impact of the St. Elizabeths campus development on the surrounding infrastructure and community. The Committee directs 

DHS to continue to work with the local community and the National Capital Planning Commission to ensure parking and traffic 

management issues are properly dealt with so that the new headquarters has a positive impact on the neighborhood while meeting 

the requirements of DHS and its personnel. 

DHS FACILITIES AND RENEWABLE ENERGY

The Department of Homeland Security has facilities in a wide 

range of geographic locations across the country. This puts the Department in a unique position to seek out opportunities to capitalize on distributed power generation using alternative and renewable energy sources as a means of ensuring operational energy 

security, saving money, and reducing the Department’s environmental impact. The Department is directed to provide a report to 

the Committee prior to the submission of the Administration’s fiscal year 2011 budget request that outlines the best opportunities 

for each component of the Department to take advantage of distributed power generation using alternative and renewable energy 

sources, and accounts for the possible risks and rewards involved. 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 ......................................................... $55,235,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2010 ....................................................... 65,530,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 63,530,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 .................................................. +8,295,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2010 ................................................ ¥2,000,000 

MISSION

The primary responsibilities and functions of the Office of the 

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

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $63,530,000 for the Office of the 

Chief Financial Officer (CFO), $2,000,000 below the amount requested and $8,295,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 

2009. In support of more robust internal controls and more wellplanned budgets, the Committee has fully funded the new FTEs requested for the Office of Financial Management. 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
25 

TRANSFORMATION AND SYSTEMS CONSOLIDATION

The Committee is concerned that the Department continues to 

struggle to produce reliable, timely and useful financial management information and that, to date, auditors have been unable to 

issue a clean opinion of the Department’s financial statements. 

Within the funding provided for the CFO is $17,800,000 for the 

Transformation and Systems Consolidation (TASC) project, 

$2,000,000 below the requested level, due to high unobligated program balances resulting from program delays. This funding shall 

be used to consolidate the Department’s multiple legacy financial 

management systems, which are obsolete and expensive to maintain, into fewer systems that are able to meet the needs and missions of multiple departmental components. 

The Committee is concerned that the cost estimate for TASC 

may be significantly understated, and that the timeline for implementing this needed reform may continue to be stalled by bid protests and lawsuits. In light of these concerns, the Committee directs the Department to report to the Committee within 90 days of 

the enactment of this bill, and every six months thereafter on consolidating their financial management system. The report shall include the following matters: a detailed accounting of the Department’s progress in assessing, selecting, transitioning to, and implementing a consolidated financial management system; a schedule 

showing when components will transition to the new financial system, accompanied by an explanation of how the transitions were 

prioritized; a breakdown of the resources needed to meet the 

human capital needs of the Department in transitioning to and 

fully implementing this system; the Department’s plans to use an 

independent validation and verification agent to actively review the 

program once implementation has begun; and a risk management 

analysis for the system that identifies and evaluates ongoing risks 

for the Department, including a list of the program’s most significant risks and the status of efforts to mitigate them. 

Since 2003, the Coast Guard has had severe weaknesses in its 

financial management. Recent IG reports indicate that the Coast 

Guard’s financial management practices may be worsening and remain the largest single contributor to the Department’s inability to 

receive a clean audit. The Coast Guard claims that many of its 

problems will be ameliorated by the implementation of the consolidated financial system. In light of this, the Committee urges the 

CFO to consider transferring the Coast Guard to the new financial 

management system as soon as possible to help rectify these longstanding problems. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET JUSTIFICATIONS

The Committee directs the Department to submit all of its fiscal 

year 2011 budget justifications on the first Monday in February, 

2010, concurrent with the official submission of the President’s 

budget to Congress. This should include all classified budgets as 

well as non-classified budgets. These justifications should have the 

customary level of detailed data and explanatory statements to 

support the appropriations requests, including tables that detail 

each agency’s programs, projects, and activities for fiscal years 

2009 and 2010. The Committee directs the CFO to ensure that adeVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:16 Jun 17, 2009 Jkt 050276 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR157.XXX HR157

smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
26 

quate justification is given to each increase, decrease, transfer, and 

staffing change proposed in fiscal year 2011. The CFO should also 

ensure that each item directed by the Committee to be provided as 

part of the fiscal year 2011 budget justification is delivered as mandated. There have been several instances in which statutory reporting requirements or other required budget details have not been included in the congressional justifications, one of note is the Coast 

Guard’s Capital Investment Plan, a document this Committee depends on each year. 

The CFO shall submit, as part of the 2011 budget justifications, 

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

last year of the authorization. 

IMPACT OF CHANGING IMMIGRATION LAW FOR GUAM AND THE

COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS

The Committee is aware that on November 28, 2009, the Department will implement new rules affecting the entry and departure 

of travelers to and from Guam and the Commonwealth of the 

Northern Mariana Islands, pursuant to Title VII of Public Law 

110–229, the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008, and associated changes in immigration law and rules administered by the 

Department. The Committee understands that this change in law 

and regulation will increase workload and resource requirements 

for Departmental components who are responsible for administering immigration and travel laws, but the Department included 

no request for additional funding in its fiscal year 2010 budget request. The Committee therefore directs the Secretary to report to 

the Committee not later than January 15, 2010, on fiscal year 2010 

resource requirements for carrying out the changes mandated in 

Public Law 110–229, including any required reprogramming or 

transfer of funds; acquisition or leasing of property; and relocation 

or hiring of additional personnel. 

MONTHLY REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

The Committee continues bill language requiring monthly budget 

and staffing reports within 45 days after the close of each month. 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 ......................................................... $272,169,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2010 ....................................................... 338,393,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 299,593,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 .................................................. +27,424,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2010 ................................................ ¥38,800,000 

MISSION

The Chief Information Office (CIO) has oversight of information 

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

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

the performance of all DHS component CIOs. 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
27 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $299,593,000 for the Office of the 

Chief Information Officer, $38,800,000 below the requested level 

and $27,424,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. 

The majority of the reduction from the requested funding level is 

due to concerns over the data center migration initiative. 

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

Budget estimate Recommended 

Salaries and Expenses ................................................................................................ $86,912,000 $86,912,000 

Information Technology Activities ................................................................................ 51,417,000 51,417,000 

Security Activities ........................................................................................................ 152,403,000 113,603,000 

Homeland Secure Data Network .................................................................................. 47,661,000 47,661,000 

Total, Chief Information Officer ......................................................................... 338,393,000 299,593,000 

SECURITY ACTIVITIES

The Committee recommends $113,603,000 for Security Activities, $38,800,000 below the amount requested and $20,980,000 above 

the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. The Administration requested a total of $200,000,000 throughout DHS to pay for migration of component resources to the Department’s two consolidated 

data centers, including $58,800,000 for the CIO’s share. The purpose of operating two data centers is to help manage the significant 

risk associated with locating all of the Department’s data at a single site. 

The Committee is disturbed by the recent report from the Department’s Inspector General entitled ‘‘DHS’s Progress in Disaster 

Recovery Planning for Information Systems.’’ The report notes several problems with the CIO’s plans to migrate and consolidate the 

Department’s data centers into two centralized locations for efficiency, security and survivability in the event of a disaster. It notes 

that the data centers are still missing key infrastructure, such as 

interconnecting circuits and redundant hardware to allow them to 

act as effective backups. Some component agencies have plans to 

migrate their data to one of the centers, but lack an alternate site 

to actually process the data in the event of a disaster. Guidance 

provided to or developed by participating components does not conform to government standards, and 85 percent of components had 

not fully tested their contingency plans that would allow them to 

continue to operate in the aftermath of a significant event. 

The IG found a number of alarming problems and vulnerabilities 

at these two data centers. Notably, risk assessments for both centers are out of date and are not expected to be updated until the 

end of the year. Equally disturbing was the failure of the last risk 

assessment to recommend action plans to deal with a possible hurricane, despite one facility’s 20-mile proximity to the Gulf Coast. 

Among the vulnerabilities identified in the report were single 

points of failure for telecommunications and power, inadequate security, guards that lacked adequate clearances to protect such sensitive facilities, use of water-based fire extinguishers in computing 

and power facilities, lack of a perimeter fence, and failure to consider the risks from being located next to a testing facility for rocket engines. 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
28 

This report was made public the day the budget was released. 

The Office of the CIO was aware of the shortcomings identified in 

this report for months and agreed with its findings. Yet at no point 

in outlining their budget before the Committee did the Department 

acknowledge the shortcomings identified in the report, or indicate 

that its budget was responsive to these concerns. Until that happens, the Committee cannot in good conscience continue funding 

migration of component data centers to these sites. Within the 

funds appropriated for Security Activities is $20,000,000 to update 

the risk assessments and take steps to remedy the problems identified in the report. The CIO is directed to provide an expenditure 

plan to the Committee within 60 days of enactment of this Act outlining how these funds will be allocated, and to supply quarterly 

reports thereafter on the progress in mitigating the risks identified 

in the report. 

HOMELAND SECURITY DATA NETWORK

The Committee provides $47,661,000, as requested, for the 

Homeland Security Data Network (HSDN) project, which is the secure computer network for DHS and its State and local partners. 

Recent press reports have detailed a security breach found in the 

system that has since been remedied. The Committee encourages 

the CIO to continue to take proactive steps to ensure the integrity 

of this investment, and to keep Congress informed of similar 

threats as they develop. 

CIO-LED INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACQUISITIONS

The Committee continues an existing requirement that the CIO 

report on all IT acquisitions financed directly or managed by the 

CIO. 

ANALYSIS AND OPERATIONS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 ......................................................... $ 327,373,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2010 ....................................................... 357,345,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 345,556,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 .................................................. +18,183,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2010 ................................................ ¥11,789,000 

MISSION

Analysis and Operations houses the Office of Intelligence and 

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

as well as provide incident management and operational coordination. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $345,556,000 for Analysis and Oper- ations, $11,789,000 below the amount requested and $18,183,000 

above the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. 

STATE AND LOCAL FUSION CENTERS

The Committee provides the funding requested to expand support to all existing State and Local Fusion Centers, but notes that 

the Office of Intelligence and Analysis has failed to submit the 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
29 

quarterly reports on this activity, as required in the 2009 Appropriations Act. The Committee directs the Office of Intelligence and 

Analysis to re-establish this quarterly reporting requirement immediately, and to include a national review of fusion center distribution, evaluating the potential for overlapping roles and jurisdictions. 

NATIONAL APPLICATIONS OFFICE AND NATIONAL IMMIGRATION

INFORMATION SHARING OPERATION

As specified in the classified annex to this report, the Committee 

has reduced the funding requested for the National Applications 

Office (NAO) and National Immigration Information Sharing Operation (NIISO) below the levels requested. The Committee is concerned that although the Department has had at least 18 months 

to develop and submit operating documents and certifications 

showing that these programs can be conducted within existing privacy and civil liberties statutes, it has failed to adequately do so. 

While the Committee strongly supports programs that the Department believes are necessary for the security of the country, it is 

pointless to sustain funding for programs that are not operational 

and have been unable to demonstrate they can function within existing law. If the Department continues to promote the necessity of 

NAO or NIISO, it should use funding provided in the Analysis and 

Operations appropriation for planning, legal reviews and consultation with the relevant authorizing committees of jurisdiction to ensure these initiatives will operate in compliance with the law. 

DIRECTORATE OF OPERATIONS COORDINATION

The Committee has reduced funding for the Directorate of Operations Coordination below the levels requested. The Committee 

notes that the Directorate has not been able to hire staff at the 

pace projected in its 2009 expenditure plan, and therefore does not 

fund the requested increase for additional personnel in 2010. 

The Committee supports the transfer of DHS Continuity of Operations (COOP) activities from the Office of Administration to the 

Directorate of Operations Coordination. However, the Committee 

strongly believes that cross-government COOP planning should remain at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and 

directs the Directorate of Operations Coordination to make no attempt to assume control of cross-government COOP responsibilities 

currently carried out by FEMA. 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS

Recommended adjustments to classified programs are addressed 

in a classified annex accompanying this report. 

OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL COORDINATOR FOR GULF COAST

REBUILDING

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 ......................................................... $1,900,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 ..................................................... 2,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 2,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 .................................................. +100,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 .............................................. – – – 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
30 

MISSION

The Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding 

coordinates the Gulf Coast Federal rebuilding efforts and works 

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

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for the Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding (OFCGCR), the same as 

the amount requested and $100,000 above the amount provided in 

fiscal year 2009. 

The Committee is concerned by the lack of adequate healthcare 

for the people of south Louisiana who have relied on Charity Hospital to provide health care to the poor and indigent since 1732. 

The hospital has been closed since Hurricane Katrina caused severe flooding and wind damage in 2005. The Committee is aware 

that FEMA Region VI recently denied the State’s latest appeal on 

the level of reimbursement for Charity. The Committee believes the 

appeals process or arbitration, pursuant to section 601 of ARRA, 

should be utilized to bring a conclusion to this matter. OFCGCR 

shall work with FEMA, the Department of Health and Human 

Services, and the State of Louisiana to identify and pursue the 

path forward to bring Charity hospital back on-line. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 1 ....................................................... $114,513,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2010 ....................................................... 127,874,000 

Recommended in the bill 2 ................................................................. 127,874,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 .................................................. +13,361,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2010 ................................................ – – – 1 Includes a $16,000,000 transfer from the Disaster Relief Fund. Excludes $5,000,000 provided in the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (P.L. 111–5). 2 Includes a $16,000,000 transfer from the Disaster Relief Fund. 

MISSION

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

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

established to provide an objective and independent organization 

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

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

providing a means for keeping the Secretary of Homeland Security 

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

the Federal Information Security Management Act; and (5) reviewing and making recommendations regarding existing and proposed 

legislation and regulations to the Department’s programs and operational components. According to the authorizing legislation, the 

Inspector General is to report dually to the Secretary of Homeland 

Security and to the Congress. 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
31 

While oversight of DHS disaster response is included in the IG’s 

mission, Hurricane Katrina brought a renewed focus and a major 

shift in IG resources to that mission area. In October 2005, in response to the need for enhanced oversight, the Inspector General 

established the Gulf Coast Hurricane Recovery Office to focus exclusively on preventing problems through a proactive program of 

internal control reviews and contract audits to ensure that disaster 

assistance funds were spent wisely. In April 2009, the Administration closed down the office amid public criticism of its performance. 

FEMA officials characterized the move as one that would speed decision making and improve efficiency in relief efforts. The Committee hopes that this is the case, but urges the IG to maintain its 

oversight of the continuing relief and reconstruction efforts on the 

Gulf Coast. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $127,874,000 for the Office of Inspector General, $111,874,000 in a direct appropriation and 

$16,000,000 by transfer from the Disaster Relief Fund. This total 

amount is in line with the budget request and $13,361,000 above 

the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. Consistent with prior 

years, funding transferred from the Disaster Relief Fund is to continue and expand audits and investigations related to disasters, including the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes. 

AUDIT REPORTS

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

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

grant, or that recommends significant budgetary savings. The Committee notes that distribution on several key reports has not been 

timely, and urges the IG to take full advantage of opportunities for 

electronic distribution to help remedy this situation. In addition, 

the Committee notes that the IG missed the deadline for submission of two audit reports specifically requested in the report accompanying the fiscal year 2009 Appropriations Act. Delays such as 

this hinder the Committee’s ability to make the best decisions regarding matters under review, and as such are unacceptable. 

The Committee directs IG to withhold any final audit or investigation reports requested by the House Committee on Appropriations, from public distribution for a period of 15 days. 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
32 

TITLE II—SECURITY, ENFORCEMENT, AND 

INVESTIGATIONS 

UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 1 ....................................................... $7,603,206,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 ..................................................... 7,623,068,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 7,576,897,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 .................................................. ¥26,309,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 .............................................. ¥46,171,000 

1 Excludes $160,000,000 in appropriations in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 

111–5). 

MISSION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

terrorists and their weapons from entering the United States, and 

to support related homeland security missions affecting border and 

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

cash; protecting U.S. agricultural and economic interests from 

harmful pests and diseases; protecting American businesses from 

theft of their intellectual property; regulating and facilitating international trade; collecting import duties; and enforcing U.S. trade 

laws. CBP has a workforce of over 58,000, including CBP Officers, 

Air Interdiction Agents, Marine Interdiction Agents, canine enforcement officers, Border Patrol agents, Agriculture Specialists, 

trade specialists, intelligence analysts, and mission support staff. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $7,576,897,000 for Salaries and Expenses, $46,171,000 below the amount requested and $26,309,000 

below the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. The net reduction 

in funding from 2009 is chiefly due to the realignment of funding 

for real property construction, rent and management into the new 

Facilities Management account. This recommendation provides 

$981,850,000 for Headquarters Management and Administration, 

which includes an additional $5,000,000 to protect classified and 

sensitive CBP internet and computer systems, but no funding for 

data center migration; Border Security Inspections and Trade Facilitation is funded at $2,250,310,000, including $225,000,000 to annualize the cost of law enforcement officer retirement conversion 

for CBP Officers; $140,000,000 for the Western Hemisphere Travel 

Initiative (WHTI); and increases as follows: $9,340,000 for import 

safety; $18,100,000 to combat southbound smuggling crime and violence, and $3,000,000 for a Global Advance Passenger Information/ 

Passenger Name Record initiative. 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
33 

Border Security and Control between Ports of Entry is funded at $3,557,559,000, reflecting adjustments for pay annualization for 

the recent increase of Border Patrol agents to 20,019, more than 

twice the number of agents onboard in 2001. The funding will also 

support deployment of 367 new Border Patrol agents to the Northern Border for a total deployment of 2,212 by the end of fiscal year 

2010, nearly seven times the number deployed to the Northern 

Border in 2001. The bill will support deployment of over 17,000 to 

the Southwest Border, almost 90 percent above the number onboard in 2001. 

Air and Marine Operations are funded at $309,629,000, as re- quested, $37,950,000 above fiscal year 2009 funding, and include a 

net increase of $19,115,000 to hire 144 additional pilots, interdiction agents and support staff to expand and improve patrols and 

surveillance operations. 

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

Budget estimate Recommended 

Headquarters, Management, and Administration: 

Management and Administration, Border Security Inspections and Trade Facilitation ......................................................................................................... $522,825,000 $503,500,000 

Management and Administration, Border Security and Control between Ports 

of Entry ........................................................................................................... 497,675,000 478,350,000 

Subtotal, Headquarters Management and Administration ....................... 1,020,500,000 981,850,000 

Border Security Inspections and Trade Facilitation: 

Inspections, Trade, and Travel Facilitation at Ports of Entry ........................... 2,255,210,000 2,250,310,000 

Harbor Maintenance Fee Collection (Trust Fund) .............................................. 3,226,000 3,226,000 

International Cargo Screening ............................................................................ 165,421,000 162,000,000 

Other international programs ............................................................................. 11,181,000 11,181,000 

Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism .................................................. 62,612,000 62,612,000 

Trusted Traveler Programs ................................................................................. 11,274,000 11,274,000

Inspection and Detection Technology Investments ............................................ 143,563,000 143,563,000 

Automated Targeting Systems ............................................................................ 32,560,000 32,560,000 

National Targeting Center .................................................................................. 26,355,000 26,355,000 

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

Subtotal, Border Security Inspections and Trade Facilitation .................. 2,736,180,000 2,727,859,000 

Border Security and Control between Ports of Entry: 

Border Security and Control ............................................................................... 3,505,008,000 3,505,808,000 

Training ............................................................................................................... 51,751,000 51,751,000 

Subtotal, Border Security and Control between POEs .............................. 3,556,759,000 3,557,559,000 

Air and Marine Operations .......................................................................................... 309,629,000 309,629,000 

Total .................................................................................................. 7,623,068,000 7,576,897,000 

MIGRATION TO NEW DEPARTMENT DATA CENTERS

Consistent with funding recommendations contained throughout 

this report, the Committee provides no new funding for CBP data 

center migration activities. This is due to the Inspector General’s 

recent findings, described in the Chief Information Officer section 

of the report, regarding possible unmitigated risks at the destination data center sites. As any failure of CBP systems could have 

devastating effects on critical customs and immigration enforcement and regulatory programs, it is essential this risk be miniVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:16 Jun 17, 2009 Jkt 050276 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR157.XXX HR157

smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
34 

mized before migration goes forward. To the extent that any of the 

proposed funding is not directly related to the migration, but is 

preparatory acquisition or services, the Committee encourages CBP 

to submit reprogramming proposals if appropriate. 

LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER CONVERSION

The Committee commends the Department for requesting funding for the costs associated with retirement and pay costs due to 

the conversion of CBP Officers to law enforcement officer status, 

which began on July 1, 2008. This is a critical requirement and the 

Committee expects the positive impact will result in improved CBP 

retention and recruitment of the most qualified and dedicated officers. The Committee is aware that there is a potential for retirement and benefit costs associated with conversion to exceed the 

$225,000,000 requested, but that CBP is planning to manage such 

a contingency by reallocating funds within accounts. The Committee asks to be notified if such additional costs are incurred, and 

of the steps taken to fill the shortfall. 

SOUTHWEST BORDER OUTBOUND ENFORCEMENT INITIATIVE

The Committee has included an increase of $26,132,000, as requested, to augment efforts begun in 2009 as part of the Southwest 

Border Initiative, a targeted effort to stop smuggling of the drugs, 

weapons and bulk cash on which violent drug cartels depend. This 

funding includes $16,132,000 for an additional 65 CBP Officers, 44 

Border Patrol agents, and 16 support personnel, as well as 

$10,000,000 for additional license plate readers to be installed at 

southbound vehicle lanes where such technology is still lacking. In 

order to stay informed about the progress of this initiative, the 

Committee directs CBP to include statistics about its outbound enforcement progress in the quarterly Strategic Border Initiative report to the Committees on Appropriations. 

IMPORT SAFETY AND TRADE ENFORCEMENT INITIATIVE

The Committee has included $9,340,000, as requested, for an initiative to implement import safety requirements of Executive Order 

13439, as well as to better staff CBP’s Office of International Trade 

to carry out critical trade functions, and help protect the nation 

against unsafe food and products, such as recently experienced in 

melamine-contaminated food, and toys painted with lead paint. Although the overall volume of trade may decline this year, the 

growth in the workload driven by the increase in entities engaged 

in trade and the increase in trade agreements make this initiative 

an important one. The Committee directs CBP to provide a briefing 

not later than December 1, 2009, on the plans for implementing 

this initiative. 

GLOBAL ADVANCE PASSENGER INFORMATION/PASSENGER NAME

RECORD INITIATIVE

The Committee provides an additional $3,000,000, as requested, 

for the effort to collaborate with foreign governments on sharing 

travel information. The Committee directs CBP to provide a classified briefing not later than December 1, 2009, on this program. 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
35 

WESTERN HEMISPHERE TRAVEL INITIATIVE

The Committee includes $140,000,000 for the continued costs of 

infrastructure, technology and operations for WHTI, which went 

into effect on June 1, 2009. This includes an increase of 

$16,000,000 for: (1) expanded program support for the 2010 Winter 

Olympics and at additional ports of entry; (2) audits of enhanced 

drivers licenses and wait time studies; (3) deployment of WHTI 

technology to novel configurations, such as dual use lanes and 

straddle booths; and (4) coverage of pedestrians and passengers in 

modes of transportation other than personally operated vehicles. 

The Committee expects the WHTI effort will become integrated 

within the regular inspection and trade/travel facilitation functions, 

and directs CBP to report not later than December 1, 2009, on the 

status of WHTI implementation, the transition to regular operations, and the elements and funding that will be non-recurred 

when WHTI processes are the norm. 

INSPECTION AND DETECTION TECHNOLOGY

The Committee includes $143,563,000, as requested, for Inspection and Detection Technology. The Committee understands that, 

in addition to ongoing operation and maintenance of CBP’s inventory of technology systems, this funding will include 12 new replacement large scale nonintrusive inspection (NII) systems, five 

additional NII systems for upgraded ports of entry, and approximately 600 small scale and hand-held NII for replacement or to deploy where shortages exist. The Committee expects CBP to award 

procurement for these items on a fully competitive basis, with the 

focus for award being on attaining the performance goals for which 

technology is to be used. 

BORDER PATROL STAFFING

The Committee funds the request for Border Patrol hiring and 

operations, and strongly supports the plan to achieve a target of 

2,212 agents on the Northern Border by the end of fiscal year 2010. 

As the Border Patrol gains experience with its expanded presence 

on both borders, it will be doing so in the context of new technology 

and infrastructure from the Secure Border Initiative, which in turn 

may affect the operational requirements for the numbers of agents 

and perhaps lead to changes in how they are deployed. The Committee strongly encourages CBP and the Border Patrol to look carefully at its requirements and provide a briefing to the Committee 

not later than February 1, 2010, on its planning for long term staffing for the Border Patrol, including the methodology for determining optimal size as well as patterns of deployment. 

NORTHERN BORDER STRATEGIC EFFORTS

The Committee has urged that more resources and attention be 

devoted to closing vulnerabilities on the extended Northern Border, 

and as a result, there have been many tangible changes. Border 

Patrol presence has grown from 336 agents in 2001 to a planned 

2010 deployment of 2,212; Air and Marine units have grown to include five primary air branches and additional marine units; and 

CBP field operations has received more Officers for border processing and initiatives such as WHTI. The number of border enVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:16 Jun 17, 2009 Jkt 050276 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR157.XXX HR157

smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
36 

forcement task forces is increasing, as is the tempo of their work. 

SBInet will soon deploy mobile and remote video surveillance systems, and improved tactical communications for the Border Patrol. 

CBP’s aging and inadequate ports of entry will be replaced or upgraded with ARRA funding. The implementation of WHTI brings a 

more robust inspection process to the Northern Border, with new 

infrastructure, technology, and staffing to support it. 

These enhancements will change significantly the way CBP 

works on the Northern Border, including programs to enforce border security and expedite trade and travel with our Canadian 

neighbor. To take stock of where the agency is and where it will 

go, the Committee requests a report, not later than January 15, 

2010, that will provide an accounting of Northern Border initiatives, staffing and funding; an assessment of the impact such investments and initiatives have had on CBP’s execution of its dual 

missions to secure the border and facilitate trade and travel; and 

the priorities CBP has for its operations and programs on the 

Northern Border going forward. 

ELECTRONIC SYSTEM FOR TRAVEL AUTHORIZATION

The Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) provides 

automated electronic vetting of travelers from 35 visa waiver countries, eight of them added in fiscal year 2008. The Committee understands that CBP projects it will process over 17 million ESTA 

applications in fiscal year 2009, with an estimated rejection rate of 

0.2 percent. As ESTA transitions to an ‘‘operations and maintenance’’ phase, the Committee directs CBP to include, as part of its 

fiscal year 2011 budget request, details on ESTA staffing, funding, 

and implementation schedule, to include an assessment of ESTA 

performance in its first two years of operation. 

TRUSTED TRAVELER PROGRAMS

CBP currently operates four ‘‘trusted traveler’’ programs: the Secure Electronic Network for Travelers Rapid Inspection (SENTRI) 

for travelers on the Southwest border, the NEXUS air and land 

programs for travelers on the Northern Border, the Free and Secure Trade (FAST) program for commercial travel facilitation, and 

Global Entry (GE), an expedited clearance program for pre-approved international air travelers. While it has not requested additional funding for the purpose in fiscal year 2010, CBP informed 

the Committee that it is developing a global enrollment system 

that will, when fully operational, serve as the application gateway 

to a single trusted traveler program. 

The established systems—SENTRI, FAST, and NEXUS—are all 

seeing growth in part because, by participating, a traveler will satisfy the requirements of WHTI. GE, by comparison, is yet a fairly 

small program. GE was initiated in June 2008 on a pilot basis and 

currently operates at seven U.S. international airports. GE is 

scheduled to be extended to an additional 13 airports with funding 

provided by this Committee in fiscal year 2009. The Department 

reports it had approved 6,100 GE members as of January 2009 and 

estimates there will be 13,500 by October 2009. Initially limited to 

U.S. citizens and residents, GE is being expanded on a reciprocal, 

pilot basis, to participants in Privium, the Dutch expedited clearance program. 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
37 

While the Department reports GE has the potential to exceed 

this estimated enrollment—to more than 800,000, the number of 

frequent international travelers projected by DHS—initial registration efforts are clearly proceeding more slowly than expected. Furthermore, while the program collects fees from participants, it is 

not clear whether GE—or an eventual comprehensive ‘‘trusted traveler’’ program—could operate exclusively on a fee basis and still 

meet the needs of a significant growth in membership. The Committee needs to understand CBP’s capacity and requirements to 

make this program a success and so directs CBP to provide, not 

later than January 15, 2010, a detailed report on: (1) its progress 

in expanding the GE program; (2) the status of efforts to facilitate 

the migration of NEXUS and SENTRI users into Global Entry; (3) 

its progress in integrating FAST with the Automated Commercial 

Environment; and (4) prospects for developing a global enrollment 

system through a unified trusted traveler program. The report 

should also identify relevant implementation considerations and resource requirements for these efforts. 

SENTRI LANES AT PORT OF SAN YSIDRO

The Committee recognizes the San Ysidro port of entry as one of 

the busiest border crossings in the world, which continues to need 

major renovation and reengineering to handle its massive processing and security requirements. The Committee encourages CBP 

to explore the possibility of conducting a demonstration project to 

determine the effectiveness of operating up to ten SENTRI lanes at 

San Ysidro during peak hours, seven days a week, with the option 

of opening an additional SENTRI lane during peak crossing times 

of 5 a.m. to 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. to 9 p.m. whenever wait times exceed 15 minutes. 

INTERNATIONAL CARGO SCREENING

The Committee has great interest in the success of the International Cargo Screening program, which consists of the Container 

Security Initiative (CSI) and the Secure Freight Initiative (SFI), 

and funds it at $162,000,000, nine percent above the fiscal year 

2009 level. The CSI has deployed CBP Officers and specialists to 

58 major international seaports, scanning U.S.-bound cargo in a 

targeted fashion, based on estimated risk. CBP has been working 

to establish more permanent positions at its CSI locations, as well 

as to place more resources at the National Targeting Center. The 

Committee strongly encourages these efforts. 

The SFI, by contrast, is a pilot program to determine the feasibility of 100 percent scanning of U.S.-bound cargo in foreign ports. 

While these pilots have produced useful data and shown the potential of a 100 percent scanning approach for some ports and trade 

lanes, they have also revealed considerable challenges. Both the 

Secretary and the Acting CBP Commissioner have stated they do 

not expect to be able to meet the statutorily mandated target for 

100 percent overseas scanning of U.S.-bound cargo by 2012, and 

have expressed misgivings about the feasibility of such a goal given 

the formidable financial, technical and diplomatic obstacles. The 

Committee welcomes this candor. It has become increasingly clear 

that, at least for now, a 100 percent scanning goal is not feasible, 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
38 

and even if it were, would come at an unacceptably high cost monetarily and in the displacement of other efforts. 

While cargo security efforts should not be tied to one model, the 

threat of trade supply chains being used to move weapons, or to be 

themselves a target for economic disruption, remains. A number of 

programs help contribute to security in this regard, including the 

Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C–TPAT), the new 

security filing (10+2) rule, and improved exchange of information 

with friendly governments. However, assuming that 100 percent 

overseas scanning is not likely soon, if ever, to be achieved, it is 

not clear what mix of measures the Department assumes it should 

work toward to take its place. Might SFI be the best approach, 

based on the risk, for ports in high threat areas? How permanent 

a solution is CSI, and what is its optimal end-state? The Committee directs CBP to report, not later than January 15, 2010, on 

its strategy to achieve meaningful cargo and supply chain security 

in the absence of the total scanning requirement. 

MODEL PORTS OF ENTRY

The Committee strongly desires to see the Model Ports of Entry 

(MPOE) program significantly improve the quality of the arrival 

experience for both international visitors to the U.S. as well as returning U.S. citizens and residents. While Congress funded additional CBP Officers for airports in fiscal years 2008 and 2009, the 

Committee understands CBP has not adjusted staffing allocation 

and scheduling systems to most effectively improve the efficiency of 

passenger processing. As a result, additional CBP Officers has not 

translated into shorter wait times for international visitors at the 

20 MPOE airports. The Committee recognizes that CBP schedulers 

have limited flexibility as they face a complex scheduling environment, with significant and erratic variation in the number and mix 

of arriving international passengers, both daily and hourly. Nevertheless, the Committee expects CBP to correct any staffing model 

deficiencies, improve its scheduling capacity, and if required, automate its scheduling system and employ industrial engineering services to improve its MPOE passenger operations. The Committee is 

willing to consider reprogramming or reallocation requests to 

achieve this goal. The Committee directs CBP to report, not later 

than December 1, 2009, on its progress in making such improvements, to include an update on the information required in the fiscal year 2009 Committee report on MPOE implementation and performance. 

IN-BOND CARGO AND CONTAINER SECURITY

CBP continues to gather information from its tests of commercial 

off-the-shelf technology as a means to track shipments that transit 

the United States under CBP bond, including its radio frequency 

transponder technology demonstration for in-bond shipments. The 

Committee directs CBP to provide, not later than January 15, 

2010, an updated status report on its study of potential technology 

solutions for tracking and managing in-bond shipments, including 

the number of such in-bond shipments for fiscal years 2007–2009, 

and the number of times in-bond documents were not fully reconciled between arrival and destination ports. 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
39 

TEXTILE TRANSSHIPMENT ENFORCEMENT

The Committee includes $4,750,000, as in previous years, to continue textile transshipment enforcement. The Committee directs 

CBP to ensure that the activities of the Textile and Apparel Policies and Programs Office, specifically seizures, detention, and special operations, are maintained at least at the level of those activities in prior years. The Committee directs CBP to submit a report 

with the fiscal year 2011 budget on execution of its five-year strategic plan. The report should include information covering enforcement activities; textile production verification team exercises and 

special operations; numbers of seizures; penalties imposed; and the 

numbers and types of personnel responsible for enforcing textile 

laws (including headquarters staff in the Textile Enforcement Operations Division). 

PROJECT SEAHAWK

The Committee encourages CBP to continue its work with the 

Department of Justice and local law enforcement on the Project 

SeaHawk law enforcement task force to the maximum extent possible. 

CONTAINER SECURITY DEVICE

The Committee continues to believe a viable Container Security 

Device (CSD) is an essential element of an effective supply chain 

security framework. The Committee is disappointed by the failure 

of CBP and S&T to develop and deploy a viable CSD, despite years 

of effort and the expenditure of considerable resources. As numerous security experts have attested and CBP itself has noted such 

a CSD could be of value in high-risk trade lanes. The Committee 

remains strongly interested in seeing if this technology can advance, and directs CBP to continue to explore possible solutions 

with S&T for CSD testing and deployment, and to provide quarterly updates of its progress to the Committee. 

FRESNO AIRPORT

The Committee encourages CBP to review the port-of-entry status of Fresno Yosemite International Airport, which is currently 

operating at user-fee status, to determine if the airport meets the 

international flight threshold necessary to be designated a non-reimbursable Port-of-Entry. Further, the Committee asks CBP to provide an estimate on the costs the agency would incur should the 

status be adjusted at Fresno Yosemite International Airport and 

report to the Committee whether an increase in programmatic 

funds is necessary to achieve this change in status, if appropriate. 

JOINT OPERATIONS WITH THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

The Committee recognizes the Department’s exceptional coordination with the National Park Service along the border, specifically 

the joint operations and projects at Big Bend National Park and 

Amistad National Recreation Area. These joint operations are essential to combat illegal activity and keep park visitors safe. Furthermore, the Committee encourages expeditious completion of 

these projects. 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
40 

PORTABLE SOLAR CHARGING RECHARGEABLE BATTERY SYSTEM

The Border Patrol is frequently required to operate for extended 

periods of time in remote locations where access to electric power 

can only be provided by heavy auto and marine type batteries. The 

Committee includes $800,000 to meet the requirement of the Border Patrol for a quiet, lightweight power source. Solar rechargeable 

systems will enable agents to access wider areas and to remain deployed for longer periods of time on border observation and criminal interdiction operations. Funding shall be competitively awarded. 

AUTOMATION MODERNIZATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 ......................................................... $511,334,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 ..................................................... 462,445,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 462,445,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 .................................................. ¥48,889,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 .............................................. – – – 

MISSION

Automation Modernization includes funding for major information technology modernization and development projects for CBP, 

including the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) system 

and the multi-agency International Trade Data System (ITDS); 

support and transition of the legacy Automated Commercial System (ACS); the integration and connectivity of information technology infrastructure within CBP and DHS as part of Critical Operations Protection and Processing Support (COPPS); modernization of the TECS enforcement and compliance system; and the Terrorism Prevention Systems Enhancements (TPSE) initiative aimed 

at enhancing system infrastructure to ensure continuity of operations in critical passenger programs. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $462,445,000 for Automation Modernization, the same as the amount requested and $48,889,000 

below the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. Not less than 

$267,960,000 is for ACE development. CBP is directed to provide 

an expenditure plan detailing how it will distribute this funding to 

ACE/ITDS, COPPS, TECS, and TPSE, and the Committee includes 

bill language making $167,960,000 unavailable for obligation for 

ACE until 30 days after it receives a detailed expenditure plan. 

ACE PROGRAM DELAYS

The Committee is greatly concerned by delays in completing critical releases for ACE, in particular Entry Summary, Accounts, and 

Revenue (ESAR) and e-Manifest, which are now scheduled to be 

completed in 2012 and 2013 respectively. The need to field ACE 

with all its major functionality, and thereby automate all critical 

customs and trade transactions, has been a Committee priority 

since the inception of the program at the beginning of the decade. 

While ACE requirements changed initially due to the increased 

focus on security after the 9/11 attacks, continued delays in implementing critical functions are disappointing and costly to the effiVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:16 Jun 17, 2009 Jkt 050276 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR157.XXX HR157

smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
41 

ciency of trade. While the reduction in funding for ACE development may be consistent with technical or other development 

delays, promised ACE functionality would be a boon for the beleaguered trade sector in this economy. To ensure the Committee has 

information it needs to assess the effectiveness of the ACE effort, 

the Committee continues to require an expenditure plan to maintain effective oversight of this important modernization effort. 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE DATA SYSTEM

The International Trade Data System (ITDS) is a multi-agency 

initiative designed to establish a single ‘‘window’’ for the collection 

and sharing of data and statistics on trade, to be developed along 

with the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE). CBP has 

been named the ‘‘managing partner’’ for ITDS, which presently includes 46 participating government agencies (PGAs). However, 

CBP says that in order to achieve the effective ‘‘single window’’ objective for trade data, there needs to be participation from all 79 

key agencies with policy or regulatory roles affecting the collection 

and use of trade data. Until all 79 agencies are participating, the 

benefits of ITDS will be limited, as there will continue to be multiple and overlapping requirements for similar trade data. The 

Committee directs CBP to include in its expenditure plan a report 

on progress in implementing ITDS, with regard to the technical 

features of ITDS as well as the recruitment of all PGAs needed to 

enable ITDS to achieve the benefits of a ‘‘single window.’’ 

TECS

Funding for TECS modernization in the amount of $50,000,000, 

as requested, is included within the COPPS program, project and 

activity line, and covers the modernization program to replace existing mainframe elements of TECS with a sustainable modern architecture and graphical user interfaces. A joint effort between 

CBP and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), TECS 

modernization is to be completed in the next five years. The Committee directs CBP to brief the Committee not later than December 

1, 2010 on the status of modernization efforts. 

BORDER SECURITY FENCING, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND TECHNOLOGY

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 1 ....................................................... $775,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 ..................................................... 779,452,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 732,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 .................................................. ¥43,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 .............................................. ¥47,452,000 

1 Excludes $100,000,000 in appropriations in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 

111–5). 

MISSION

The Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology 

(BSFIT) account funds the technology and tactical infrastructure 

solutions to achieve effective control of the U.S. borders and coastlines. 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
42 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $732,000,000 for Border Security 

Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology (BSFIT), $47,452,000 

below the amount requested and $43,000,000 below the amount 

provided in fiscal year 2009. The Committee recommends 

$440,000,000 for development and deployment, which will fund 

technology and tactical infrastructure investment, including 

$40,000,000 for Northern Border technology and $40,000,000 for 

tactical communications; $200,000,000 for operations and maintenance; and $92,000,000 for program management, including 

$40,000,000 for environmental assessment and mitigation. Of this 

total, $150,000,000 may not be obligated until an expenditure plan 

is approved by the Committees on Appropriations and reviewed by 

GAO. The Committee retains bill language making no funds available for obligation for fencing or tactical infrastructure for which 

the Secretary intends to waive environmental or other legislation 

until 15 days after the intention to invoke such authority is published in the Federal Register. In addition, the Committee continues bill language stating no BSFIT funds may be obligated until 

the Secretary certifies that DHS has complied with the consultation provisions of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 

Responsibility Act of 1996. 

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

Budget estimate Recommended 

Development and Deployment 

• Technology and Infrastructure Investment ..................................................... 454,000,000 400,000,000 

• Northern Border Technology Investment ......................................................... 40,000,000 40,000,000 

Subtotal, Development and Deployment ................................................... 494,000,000 440,000,000 

Operations, Maintenance and Support (Integrated Logistics) .................................... 200,000,000 200,000,000 

Program Management 

• Personnel Operations and Support ................................................................. .............................. 52,000,000 

• Regulatory and Environmental Requirements ................................................ .............................. 40,000,000 

Subtotal, Program Management ................................................................ 85,452,000 92,000,000 

Total .................................................................................................. 779,452,000 732,000,000 

QUARTERLY REPORTS

The Committee directs the Department to continue its quarterly 

Secure Border Initiative status reports. The report should include 

an update on Northern Border and tactical communication investments. 

SECURE BORDER TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENT

Congress has appropriated over $3,500,000,000 for BSFIT activities since 2006. To date, this has resulted in completion of about 

624 miles (of 670 deemed appropriate and necessary by the previous administration) in pedestrian and vehicle fencing. Initial 

SBInet technology deployment is scheduled to begin in the Tucson 

area in summer 2009. This is a year later than originally planned, 

due in part to the need to ensure systems pass technology qualification testing and to avoid installing technology prematurely. BeVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:16 Jun 17, 2009 Jkt 050276 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR157.XXX HR157

smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
43 

cause this deployment has been delayed, the Committee has included $440,000,000 for Development and Deployment funding, a 

reduction of $54,000,000 from the request. The Committee will consider reprogramming of funds to accelerate technology deployment 

should that prove feasible. 

NORTHERN BORDER TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENT

The Committee is encouraged to see deployment of technology investments to the Northern Border, with mobile and remote video 

surveillance systems scheduled to be installed in Detroit, Swanton, 

and Buffalo this year. The Committee includes $40,000,000, as requested, for continued technology investments to address Northern 

Border vulnerabilities, and directs that quarterly SBI reports include a status report on technology investments on the Northern 

Border. 

OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE, AND SUPPORT

The Committee includes $200,000,000, as requested, for the operation and maintenance of systems and infrastructure deployed with 

BSFIT funding. This represents a 33 percent increase over the fiscal year 2009 appropriated level. Within this amount, the Committee understands that $75,000,000 is for operation and maintenance costs for tactical infrastructure, with the remaining 

$125,000,000 for support of technology, including tactical communications and integrated logistics support of newly deployed systems. The Committee expects to see a detailed rationale for the application of this funding in the fiscal year 2010 expenditure plan, 

and directs CBP to continue to provide a monthly report on operations, maintenance, and support obligations and expenditures. 

ENVIRONMENTAL AND REGULATORY ASSESSMENTS AND MITIGATION

The Committee includes $40,000,000 for regulatory and environmental assessments and mitigation. The Committee continues to 

support a policy of minimizing adverse environmental and other 

negative impacts from SBI construction, and expects CBP to use 

these funds to work in coordination with the Department of Interior and other government agencies with responsibilities for environmental policy on the border, as well as with State and local governments and subject matter experts from the scientific and environmental community. The funding should, as appropriate, be used 

for science-based approaches to monitor and mitigate environmental and ecological impacts. In particular, the Committee directs 

CBP to examine the use of ‘‘buffer areas’’ to accommodate both 

mitigation and security objectives for detecting and responding to 

illegal border crossing, such as those employed by the Department 

of Defense around bases and testing areas, and to report its findings with the submission of the fiscal year 2010 expenditure plan. 

The Committee also directs CBP to include a detailed environmental mitigation plan and report on mitigation efforts with its fiscal year 2010 expenditure plan submission. The plan should be 

science-based; include an extensive monitoring protocol; incorporate 

best practices developed in consultation with relevant federal, 

state, local and tribal authorities; and support land acquisition efforts for mitigation purposes, where applicable. The plan should 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
44 

also address mitigating and minimizing the impact not only of SBI 

construction and infrastructure, but also of increasingly intensive 

Border Patrol operations in sensitive border ecosystems. 

The Committee expects the Department to continue to limit any 

future exercise of the Secretary’s waiver authority to specific, narrow, unaggregated segments of the border, and retains bill language requiring the Secretary to provide 15 days’ notice in the Federal Register in those instances where a decision is made to invoke 

such authority. 

EXPENDITURE PLAN

The fiscal year 2009 BSFIT expenditure plan represented an improvement over previous submissions. There remain some gaps, 

however, as identified by the Government Accountability Office, including a failure to adequately show how proposed spending corresponded with the accomplishment of specific strategic objectives, 

and the lack of a documented comparison of construction alternatives in terms of their impacts, unintended or otherwise, on local 

communities. To help ensure future BSFIT investment decisions 

are transparent, maintain a foundation for effective investment, 

document performance against promises, and support a balanced 

approach to all threats along the borders, the Committee continues 

to include bill language restricting the availability of some funding 

for obligation until approval of an expenditure plan. 

The Committee understands that the Department has indicated 

it does not currently plan to initiate any significant new pedestrian 

or vehicle fence construction in 2010. Therefore the statutory requirements to explain and justify such decisions, and document the 

consultation and analytic processes that underlie them, should not 

pose any significant administrative burden for CBP or the Department. However, the Committee retains existing statutory language 

so that the process of identifying and pursuing any additional tactical infrastructure will be guided by the same requirements for 

transparency and rigor. In addition, the future size and growth of 

funding planned for the complex SBInet technology portion of 

BSFIT demands the level of accountability that the expenditure 

plan provides to the Committee. The Committee therefore makes 

$150,000,000 unavailable for obligation until an expenditure plan 

has been submitted to the Committee that: 

1. Defines activities, milestones, and costs for implementing 

the program; 

2. Demonstrates how specific projects will further the goals 

and objectives of the Secure Border Initiative (SBI) and how 

funding will be allocated to the highest priority border security 

needs; 

3. Includes an explicit plan of action for meeting program 

commitments; 

4. Identifies funding and staffing requirements; 

5. Describes how the plan addresses Northern Border and 

Port of Entry security needs; 

6. Reports on budgeting, obligations and expenditures, activities completed, and progress made related to obtaining effective operational control of the border. 

7. Lists all open GAO and Office of Inspector General recommendations and describes status of efforts to address them; 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
45 

8. Includes Chief Procurement Officer certification that investment management and acquisition requirements are met; 

9. Includes Chief Information Officer certification that information technology and risk management requirements are 

met; 

10. Includes Chief Human Capital Officer certification that 

the human capital needs are met; 

11. Includes a detailed analysis, with comparison of alternatives, for any segment of border for which fence or tactical 

infrastructure solutions are proposed, and includes evaluation 

of stakeholder-proposed alternatives as potential substitutes 

for tactical infrastructure; and 

12. Is reviewed by GAO. 

ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

To the extent that additional fencing is proposed, the Committee 

expects the fiscal year 2010 expenditure plan to contain analyses 

of alternatives for effective control of the border. These analyses 

should document the decision process that led to selection of fencing as the optimal solution. The Committee directs that such comparisons include the following: 

1. A methodology section to explain how CBP determined 

ratings and weightings, and the standard guidance applied to 

all segment analyses; 

2. A description of baseline costs of each segment, broken out 

by personnel, infrastructure, and technology, and a detailed 

comparison of the cost of each alternative against that baseline; 

3. A comparison of estimated level of border control, by segment, under each alternative (deterrence and time/distance) 

relative to the current level of border control. In defining the 

latter, CBP’s estimates should incorporate natural barriers or 

other features of the landscape as appropriate and fully describe the contribution of such features in the plan. 

Alternatives should consist of reasonable combinations of elements (e.g., agents, sensors, and cameras), instead of being limited 

to individual elements unlikely to be used in isolation. CBP should 

also include alternatives proposed by communities or other stakeholder groups, such as eradication of vegetation; enhancement of 

natural barriers; or incorporation of security features into projects. 

CONSULTATION WITH FEDERAL AGENCIES AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES

Section 564(2) of Public Law 110–161 required the Secretary to 

consult with other cabinet secretaries, State, local and tribal governments, and local landowners to minimize the impact of proposed 

fencing on the environment, culture, commerce, and quality of life 

of the affected communities. The Committee continues bill language that makes no BSFIT funding available for obligation until 

the Secretary certifies that DHS has complied with the consultation provisions of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 

Responsibility Act of 1996. 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
46 

BORDER INTEROPERABILITY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

The fiscal year 2009 BSFIT appropriation included $30,000,000, 

as authorized in section 320 of the 9/11 Act, for Border Interoperability Demonstration Projects in Northern and Southwestern border communities. A report on the implementation of this program 

was due on April 6, 2009, but has not yet been received. Indeed, 

the Committee understands no funding has been obligated for this 

program, and therefore no grants have been made to border communities, although funds were appropriated over eight months ago. 

The Committee directs the Department to proceed immediately to 

carry out this program and to report to the Committee as soon as 

possible on its status. 

AIR AND MARINE INTERDICTION, OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE, AND

PROCUREMENT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 ......................................................... $528,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 ..................................................... 505,826,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 513,826,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 .................................................. ¥14,174,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 .............................................. +8,000,000 

MISSION

CBP Air and Marine provides integrated and coordinated border 

interdiction and law enforcement support for homeland security 

missions; provides airspace security for high risk areas or National 

Special Security Events upon request; and combats efforts to smuggle narcotics and other contraband into the United States. CBP Air 

and Marine also supports counter-terrorism efforts of many other 

law enforcement agencies. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $513,826,000 for Air and Marine 

Interdiction, Operations, Maintenance, and Procurement, 

$8,000,000 above the amount requested and $14,174,000 below the 

amount provided in fiscal year 2009. The funding includes 

$374,217,000 for operations and maintenance, and $139,609,000 for 

procurement. Within the latter, $65,000,000 is included, as requested, to continue P–3 Service Life Extension. The Committee includes $66,600,000, as requested, for continued acquisition of items 

in the CBP Air and Marine strategic acquisition plan. In addition, 

the Committee provides $8,000,000 to undertake modernization of 

the Air and Marine Operations Center (AMOC). 

MARINE BOATS

The Committee is aware that there has been an increase in efforts to smuggle illegal drugs and immigrants into the United 

States by sea. CBP Air and Marine has approximately 200 marine 

vessels in its inventory, including new interceptor and riverine vessels funded in the past three years. At the same time, the Committee understands that the mission of the fleet has expanded, 

along with patrol areas, and that such intensive usage is degrading 

the current fleet. The Committee has included funding, as requested, for marine vessels, and directs CBP to report, not later 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
47 

than January 15, 2010, with an update on its strategic acquisition 

plan with regard to vessel procurement. The report should describe 

the operational status of its fleet, requirements to retire or replace 

vessels, and associated resource implications. 

AIR AND MARINE OPERATIONS CENTER

The Committee recognizes that the U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection Air and Marine Operations Center (AMOC) has developed the necessary expertise, technical capability, joint agency 

framework, and law enforcement foundation to serve the nation’s 

needs for general aviation air interdiction and security operations, 

as well as air investigations support. The Committee has included 

$8,000,000 towards the cost of upgrading the software and systems 

needed for AMOC to fulfill its role as a national air security center, 

and direct CBP to report to the Committee on the role and operation of the AMOC, its place in coordinating homeland security operations, and the status of efforts to modernize the AMOC and 

fully staff its operations. 

NORTHERN BORDER AIR BRANCHES

The Committee includes funding, as requested, to fill remaining 

gaps in assets and resources for the five primary air branches established on the Northern Border: Bellingham, Washington; Great 

Falls, Montana; Grand Forks, North Dakota; Detroit Michigan; and 

Plattsburg, New York. 

FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 1 ....................................................... $403,201,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 ..................................................... 678,633,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 682,133,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 .................................................. +278,932,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 .............................................. +3,500,000 1 Excludes $420,000,000 in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111–5). 

MISSION

The Facilities Management account is a new account that funds 

all CBP real estate and facilities, including consolidating all funding for construction, leasing acquisition, rent, facility program support, operations, management, headquarters support, and tunnel 

remediation activities. This consolidates funding previously carried 

in the Construction account and the Salaries and Expenses activities for rent, leasing, and program management costs. This includes the planning, design, and assembly of Border Patrol infrastructure, including Border Patrol stations, checkpoints, temporary 

detention facilities, mission support facilities, training facilities, 

and CBP-owned ports of entry. Tactical infrastructure (fencing, 

barriers, lighting and road improvements at the border) is funded 

through the Border Security, Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology account. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $682,133,000 for Facilities Management, $3,500,000 above the amount requested and $278,932,000 

above the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. The funding inVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:16 Jun 17, 2009 Jkt 050276 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR157.XXX HR157

smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
48 

cludes $242,857,000 for Facilities Construction and Sustainment, 

$402,263,000 for Rent, chiefly related to leases with the General 

Services Administration (GSA) and rent-related services; and 

$37,013,000 for Program Oversight and Management. 

LAND PORT OF ENTRY MODERNIZATION

As part of ARRA, $420,000,000 was provided to replace or modernize the 43 land ports of entry owned by CBP. Most land ports 

of entry are owned by GSA, particularly the largest urban crossings, and the projected cost to upgrade these ports has been estimated by CBP to be as high as $1,500,000,000. The Committee directs CBP to continue working with GSA to prioritize funding for 

modernizing these facilities. 

RURAL AND REMOTE HOUSING

Over the last five years, the number of Border Patrol agents has 

nearly doubled. There has also been a major increase in hiring of 

Customs and Border Protection Officers and other personnel. The 

border areas where many of these new agents and officers serve 

are in very rural and remote regions of the country, and in order 

for them to maintain a satisfactory quality of life, they need adequate access to housing for themselves and their families. These 

border areas already face housing challenges, which are exacerbated by the influx of new CBP personnel. The Committee recommends the Department provide a Quarters Management Plan 

that lays out in detail how it will ensure that its agents and officers have adequate housing opportunities in rural and remote 

areas of the border. 

AIR AND MARINE OPERATIONS EL PASO HANGAR

The Committee includes $3,500,000 for demolition and replacement of a hangar and office space at El Paso International Airport 

that will facilitate CBP air operations in a high priority mission 

area; will permit direct access to the longest runway at the airport; 

and enable CBP to establish a dedicated taxiway for a fully-secured 

site if required. 

U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 ......................................................... $4,927,210,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 ..................................................... 5,348,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 5,311,493,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 .................................................. +384,283,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 .............................................. ¥36,507,000 

MISSION

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is the lead 

agency responsible for enforcement of immigration laws, customs 

laws, and the security of Federal facilities. ICE protects the United 

States by investigating, deterring, and detecting threats arising 

from the movement of people and goods into and out of the country. 

ICE consists of more than 20,000 employees within four major proVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:16 Jun 17, 2009 Jkt 050276 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR157.XXX HR157

smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
49 

gram areas: Office of Investigations; Federal Protective Service; Office of Intelligence; and Detention and Removal Operations. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $5,311,493,000 for Salaries and Expenses, $36,507,000 below the amount requested and $384,283,000 

above the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. Within these 

amounts, the Committee allocates $1,500,000,000 to finance ICE’s 

various efforts to identify undocumented individuals with criminal 

records who are incarcerated or at-large and to remove those who 

are judged deportable in immigration court. Of this amount, 

$200,000,000 is provided for continued expansion of the Secure 

Communities program. The Committee believes that ICE should 

have no greater immigration enforcement priority than to remove 

deportable aliens with serious criminal histories from the United 

States, and applauds ICE’s efforts to develop productive relationships with local law enforcement and corrections agencies to implement this initiative. 

The Committee provides $1,643,360,000 for ICE’s domestic inves- tigatory responsibilities, $27,809,000 above the requested amount. 

In addition to funding the requested expansion of cyber-related investigations of child pornography and on-line fraud, the Committee 

has increased funding for ICE investigations aimed at disrupting 

drug-related violence along the Southwest border by providing 

more than the request for investigations related to transnational 

criminal gangs, illegal export of firearms, cross-border drug smuggling, and human smuggling and trafficking. 

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

Budget estimate Recommended 

Headquarters Management and Administration: 

Personnel, Services and Other Costs ................................................................. $321,850,000 $276,973,000 

Headquarters-Managed Information Technology Investments ........................... 243,264,000 209,414,000 

Legal Proceedings ........................................................................................................ 221,666,000 221,666,000 

Domestic Investigations .............................................................................................. 1,615,551,000 1,643,360,000 

International Investigations: 

International Operations ..................................................................................... 112,872,000 112,872,000 

Visa Security Program ........................................................................................ 30,186,000 30,186,000 

Subtotal, International Investigations ....................................................... 143,058,000 143,058,000 

Intelligence .................................................................................................................. 67,842,000 67,842,000 

Detention and Removal Operations: 

Custody Operations ............................................................................................. 1,771,168,000 1,771,168,000 

Fugitive Operations ............................................................................................. 229,682,000 229,682,000 

Criminal Alien Program ...................................................................................... 192,539,000 192,539,000 

Alternatives to Detention .................................................................................... 63,913,000 73,913,000 

Transportation and Removal Program ............................................................... 281,878,000 281,878,000 

Subtotal, Detention and Removal Operations ........................................... 2,539,180,000 2,549,180,000 

Identification and Removal of Criminal Aliens ........................................................... 195,589,000 200,000,000

Total, ICE Salaries and Expenses .................................................... 5,348,000,000 5,311,493,000 

ICE PROGRAMS TO IDENTIFY AND REMOVE CRIMINAL ALIENS

Over the past two years, Congress has emphasized that ICE 

must have no higher immigration enforcement priority than to 

identify foreign-born individuals who have been convicted of crimes 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
50 

and sentenced to imprisonment, and to remove those people from 

the country once they have been judged deportable by immigration 

court. In the 2008 and 2009 Appropriations Acts, Congress provided $350,000,000 in unrequested funding to initiate the Comprehensive Identification and Removal of Criminal Aliens (CIRCA) 

program, which ICE has renamed ‘‘Secure Communities.’’ In addition, in the 2009 Appropriations Act, Congress directed that at 

least $1,000,000,000 of ICE’s budget be used to identify aliens convicted of crimes, and to ensure their removal once they have been 

judged deportable. 

Using the funds previously appropriated for Secure Communities, ICE has instituted an effective pilot program that locates 

criminal aliens through coordination with local jail facilities, while 

maintaining the clear division between the law enforcement roles 

of Federal and local officers. In brief, the ICE system known as 

‘‘Interoperability’’ allows local law enforcement agencies to check 

fingerprints of individuals booked on criminal charges against both 

national criminal and immigration databases. If an individual is 

identified through this system as illegally present in the United 

States, ICE can take appropriate steps to ensure the most dangerous of these criminals are deported upon completion of their jail 

sentences, while those convicted of lesser crimes are identified and 

deported as resources allow. 

The Committee is strongly supportive of this approach, since it 

respects the traditional separation of local law enforcement responsibilities from the Federal role of enforcing immigration law. Because the Interoperability system locates the criminal records of 

those identified as in the country illegally, it allows ICE to target 

its resources to remove those illegal aliens who have proved their 

intent to do harm to U.S. communities. The system also provides 

important and timely information to local authorities on the criminal backgrounds and identities of individuals in their custody. Furthermore, the program is an economical solution because it requires no specialized training in Federal immigration law for local 

law enforcement officers. Considering these advantages, the Committee fully expects the Secure Communities program will prove 

more effective than many of the agreements ICE has established 

to delegate immigration enforcement authority to local patrol officers, an approach that can be effective but has also generated significant controversy when inappropriately implemented. 

Given the advantages of the Secure Communities approach, the 

Committee provides an additional $200,000,000 in the bill to continue the program’s expansion, with the ultimate goal of deploying 

Interoperability on a nation-wide basis and equipping ICE with 

adequate personnel and mission support to identify and remove all 

convicted criminal aliens from the country after they have been 

judged deportable but before they are released from custody. Consistent with past appropriations for this program, the Committee 

requires ICE to report every three months on the status of the program. Given problems with these reports being delivered to the 

Committee on a timely basis, the bill includes a statutory requirement making the reports due 30 days after the end of each quarter 

of the fiscal year. 

While the Committee supports Secure Communities, it also believes ICE must work to make sure the program’s implementation 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
51 

does not negatively impact other aspects of the judicial system and 

allows for appropriate transparency for those prosecuted for immigration violations. In particular, the Committee has heard concerns 

from some jurisdictions that ICE detains individuals in immigration custody while criminal charges are still pending against them, 

effectively trumping the administration of criminal justice. To minimize this occurrence, it is imperative for ICE field agents to maintain regular communication with local jails and courts on the actions ICE takes relative to individuals who are identified through 

the local booking process. Furthermore, in order to track the program’s performance and effectiveness, the Committee expects ICE 

to maintain and regularly update performance data from the locations where the Secure Communities program has been implemented, and to report frequently on the results of the program, 

both to the public and the Congress. 

In addition to its Secure Communities initiative, the Committee 

believes ICE must do more with its existing programs to ensure 

that it is focusing its efforts on those who represent the greatest 

threats to society and civil order. Whether it be efforts to locate atlarge criminals through the Fugitive Operations program, disrupt 

transnational criminal gangs through targeted investigations, or 

more effective use of the Interoperability system at prisons where 

ICE personnel are already stationed, the agency must make sure 

it is doing all that it can to find and remove criminals who have 

been judged deportable. In an analysis of its 2009 budget, ICE reported to the Committee that it will spend $1,411,795,000 on these 

efforts, well in excess of the $1,000,000,000 Congress directed be allocated to these activities. Recognizing the increased funding provided both for the Secure Communities program and other activities related to apprehending criminal aliens, the Committee directs 

ICE to use not less than $1,500,000,000 of its 2010 budget to address this issue. 

STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS

The Committee provides $117,394,000, as requested, for ICE 

State and Local programs, which is $17,741,000 more than provided in fiscal year 2009. Within this total, $68,047,000 is for the 

287(g) program; $14,357,000 is for the Forensics Document Laboratory, which supports all ICE investigatory programs and offers specialized assistances to State and local law enforcement agencies; 

and $34,990,000 is for the Law Enforcement Support Center. 

Since the 287(g) program delegates federal immigration enforcement authority to local law enforcement officers, ICE must provide 

appropriate oversight of how this authority is exercised. After reviewing the 287(g) program, GAO reported that ICE oversight was 

not consistently applied at the various jurisdictions with delegated 

authority, and in some cases ICE provided little to no oversight at 

all. Congress has expressed significant concern about the 287(g) 

program over the past several years. Therefore, the Committee is 

pleased that over half of the increase to State and Local Programs 

will be used to expand oversight and outreach for the 287(g) program. 

GAO also reported that ICE had not communicated specific program objectives to the local agencies involved in the 287(g) program. For example, GAO found four locations out of 29 jurisdicVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:16 Jun 17, 2009 Jkt 050276 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR157.XXX HR157

smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
52 

tions it reviewed where delegated authority was exercised in a 

manner inconsistent with ICE’s immigration enforcement goals. 

This, in addition to minimal federal oversight, has resulted in a 

program that has not been consistently implemented at the various 

jurisdictions with which ICE has signed Memoranda of Agreement 

(MOAs). The Committee understands that DHS has begun to develop a standard, legally-enforceable 287(g) contract for new enrollees in the system, and directs ICE to replace existing 287(g) MOAs 

with new agreements that reflect the accountability measures contained in the standard 287(g) contract as soon as it has been finalized. 

The Committee continues a provision enacted in the 2009 Appropriations Act that requires ICE to cancel any 287(g) agreements 

where the DHS IG has determined the terms of the agreement 

have been violated. The Committe also continues to direct the IG 

to review 287(g) agreements for any violation of the terms of such 

agreements. The IG should consult with GAO to ensure its reviews 

include the execution of agreements identified as problematic by 

GAO. 

SOUTHWEST BORDER ENFORCEMENT INITIATIVE

The Committee provides $97,809,000 to expand several ICE investigatory programs aimed at reducing the drug-related violence 

currently plaguing areas along our country’s Southwest border. 

This is an increase of $27,809,000 over the levels requested in the 

budget, including: a $10,000,000 expansion of ICE investigations of 

transnational gangs; an additional $10,000,000 for ICE to improve 

investigations of cross-border weapons smuggling, including expansion of Operation Armas Cruzadas; $5,000,000 more for ICE drug 

smuggling investigations; and $2,809,000 to expand human smuggling and trafficking investigations. In addition, the Committee approves the funding increases requested in the budget for the ICE 

Offices of Investigation, Intelligence, and International Affairs to 

implement the Administration’s Southwest Border Enforcement 

Initiative. These funds will support ICE’s expansion of the Border 

Enforcement Security Task Force program, additional financial and 

export investigations, additional overseas ICE agents working directly with Mexican government officials, and increased analytical 

support from the Border Violence Intelligence Cell. 

COORDINATION OF ILLEGAL WEAPONS INVESTIGATIONS

The Committee is aware of growing concerns in Mexico that 

many of the firearms and military-grade weapons used in violent 

attacks by drug cartels have been acquired in the United States 

and illegally exported to Mexico. While ICE has authority to enforce restrictions on the international trade of firearms and munitions, the Committee believes more can and should be done to 

ensure that arms sales in the Southwest border region are made 

legally and in accordance with all applicable regulations. Unfortunately, the Committee has discovered that the interagency Memorandum of Understanding governing investigatory coordination between ICE and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has not been updated to reflect either agency’s current operations. The Committee directs ICE to work expeditiously 

with ATF to update this important agreement, and to update ConVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:16 Jun 17, 2009 Jkt 050276 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR157.XXX HR157

smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
53 

gress immediately about any impediments that arise in this process. 

ICE CUSTODY OPERATIONS

The Committee provides $1,771,168,000 for ICE custody oper- ations, as requested, which is $49,900,000 over the 2009 appropriations level. This increase will allow ICE to maintain an aggregate 

annual detention capacity for 33,400 individuals, and funds the 

full-year salaries and benefits for staff added to Detention and Removals Operations over the past several years. At this point, ICE 

detention capacity is at the highest level in the agency’s history, 

having grown more than 67 percent since 2002. While there will always be need for ICE to detain individuals who are apprehended 

while in the country illegally, the Committee believes that further 

expansion of ICE detention must be based on a rigorous analysis 

illustrating what compelling need will be met by placing yet more 

individuals in Federal custody. Furthermore, given that ICE has 

been unable to implement a nation-wide Alternatives to Detention 

program despite strong interest and increased funding from the 

Congress, the Committee questions whether ICE is adequately and 

equitably evaluating the need to detain every individual the agency 

apprehends, particularly those without criminal histories and who 

do not pose a flight risk. At a minimum, until ICE can prove that 

its low-risk detainees have nation-wide access to supervision programs or bonded parole, the Committee will remain skeptical of expanding detention capacity further. 

MEDICAL CARE FOR ICE DETAINEES

A recent GAO report (GAO 09–308R) highlighted differences in 

the structure and quality of care provided across ICE detention facilities. In particular, the GAO analysis revealed varying degrees 

of ICE oversight of contract agreements with non-Federal detention 

providers, and highlighted the potential for inadequate or inconsistent medical care across the ICE detention system. Further, 

GAO noted the absence of almost any performance data about ICE 

detainees’ medical conditions or treatments. The Committee believes that if ICE must detain individuals in government custody, 

it should do so in a manner that provides all detainees equal access 

to necessary medical care, regardless of the location at which they 

are held. In addition, ICE detention staff should maintain detailed 

medical information about the health of their detained populations, 

not only to better inform management and investment decisions by 

ICE executives, but also to guard against the outbreak of epidemics 

and to identify emerging medical needs. The Committee directs 

ICE to report within 30 days of the end of each quarter of the fiscal 

year on actions it has taken to address inadequacies in its medical 

services to detainees. 

The Committee is especially concerned about cases of detainee 

death where it appears detainees did not receive appropriate emergency medical treatment or continuing medical care. The Committee directs the Department to review its medical care standards 

for all detention facilities, specifically evaluating the enforceability 

of current standards. Additionally, the Department should revise 

any standards that do not ensure appropriate medical treatment, 

the ability to access counsel and family, effective medical grievance 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
54 

procedures, or any other standards necessary for humane treatment of detainees. The Committee also directs the Department to 

notify the Congress and the DHS IG within 48 hours of any death 

that occurs in ICE custody. 

DETENTION STANDARDS OVERSIGHT AND COMPLIANCE

The Committee supports ICE’s proposal to expand the Office of 

Professional Responsibility (OPR) and Detention Facilities Inspection Group (DFIG), and provides an additional $12,400,000 for 

these programs in 2010, as requested. These funds will support deployment of DFIG personnel to ICE field offices throughout the 

country, growth of the OPR Management Investigations Unit, and 

associated mission support costs. As a means improve compliance 

with ICE performance standards, the Committee continues a provision prohibiting ICE expenditure of funds for any contracted detention facilities that receive two consecutive evaluations of less than 

‘‘acceptable’’ or the equivalent median score of any subsequent evaluation system, a requirement established by the fiscal year 2009 

Homeland Security Appropriations Act. 

The Committee understands that ICE is considering restructuring and possibly renaming the DFIG and other detention oversight programs. The Comittee directs ICE to work with the Department’s Chief Financial Officer to ensure this restructuring complies 

with all applicable provisions in the fiscal year 2009 Homeland Security Appropriations Act. 

DEPORTATION OF PARENTS OF U.S.-BORN CHILDREN

In February 2009, the DHS IG estimated that more than 100,000 

parents of U.S.-born children were deported from the country between 1998 and 2007. The IG also reported that ICE does not consistently track information about the U.S.-born children of those it 

deports. As a result, the Committee directs ICE to begin collecting 

data to track: the number of instances in which both parents of a 

particular child were removed; the length of time a parent lived in 

the United States before removal; and whether the U.S. citizen 

children remained in the United States after the parents’ removal. 

ICE should provide this data annually to the Office of Immigration 

Statistics, as well as to Congress with the annual budget submission. 

ALTERNATIVES TO DETENTION

The Committee provides $73,913,000 for ICE Alternatives to Detention programs, which is $10,000,000 more than requested. The 

Committee continues to recognize the value of Alternatives to Detention programs which have yielded a 98-percent appearance rate 

at immigration proceedings. When properly implemented and managed, Alternatives to Detention programs augment ICE’s regular 

detention capacity and provide a cost effective means of accounting 

for individuals accused of being in the country illegally but who do 

not require administrative custody during their immigration proceedings. The Committee is very concerned that ICE has not complied with the 2009 Appropriations Act, which required the agency 

to submit a plan for nation-wide deployment of the Alternatives to 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
55 

Detention program by January 5, 2009. The Committee directs ICE 

to submit this plan immediately. 

As a matter of principle, DHS should use the least restrictive 

and least costly means required to supervise individuals in removal 

proceedings. Whenever practical and appropriate, individuals who 

cannot be paroled without supervision or on bond should be enrolled in Alternatives to Detention programs, particularly those 

that are community-based and which emphasize the personal responsibility of the individual. These programs, which cost less per 

day than detention, are a more humane method for monitoring individuals who may have legitimate immigration claims but for 

whom detention is unreasonably burdensome, such as asylum seekers, families, and the elderly. 

The Committee has heard significant concerns from immigrant 

advocates about how ICE is using electronic monitoring programs 

for individuals who would otherwise be eligible for release on parole or bond, or would be eligible to enroll in intensive supervision 

programs that are not based on technology. The Committee directs 

ICE to develop a benefit-cost analysis of its various Alternatives to 

Detention approaches, and include this information in the 2011 

budget submission for the program. 

CHILD AND FAMILY DETENTION

The Committee believes that detention is not generally appropriate for families and is concerned that the Department does not 

routinely make Alternatives to Detention available to families it 

takes into custody. In addition, while the Committee is pleased 

that ICE developed and implemented detention standards for families held in its custody, it remains concerned that ICE family detention standards are based on adult prison standards. The Committee directs the Department to prioritize the use of Alternatives 

to Detention program for families who do not need to be held in 

immigration detention. The Committee further directs the Office of 

Professional Responsibility to conduct a review of families detained 

in ICE custody since 2007 and determine whether ICE complied 

with its own internal guidance for when to hold families in custody 

and when to release them to Alternatives to Detention programs. 

The Committee directs ICE to report on the results of this review 

no later than the submission of the 2011 budget. 

In addition, the Committee has heard reports of ICE prosecutors 

inappropriately using personal information about children when 

presenting cases in immigration court, such as medical records and 

psychological reviews. The Committee directs ICE to respect the 

privacy and confidentiality of detained children’s case information, 

including privileged medical, psychological and social worker reports, and only to request access to those files when relevant to the 

case. 

INAPPROPRIATE TREATMENT OF CHILDREN IN ICE CUSTODY

In last year’s appropriation report, the Committee directed ICE 

to report quarterly on any incidents involving strip searches of children, placement of children in restraints, or use of disciplinary 

weapons against children. ICE has not provided the Committee any 

report on these techniques, indicating that they have not been used 

to date in fiscal year 2009. As a result, the Committee directs ICE 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
56 

to review the necessity of retaining these practices within its child 

detention standards, and update the Committee on any changes to 

the policies by November 2, 2009. In addition, ICE is directed to 

continue to provide reports 30 days after the end of each quarter 

of the fiscal year on any incidents involving strip searches of children, placement of children in restraints, or use of disciplinary 

weapons against children. 

As in past years, the Committee provides no funding for ICE 

bone and dental forensic examinations to determine the age of children in ICE custody. This questionable methodology is not based 

on credible scientific principles, and puts children at risk of erroneous classification as adults and transfer to adult detention centers. The Committee directs the IG to continue to review ICE practices for determining the age of those in its custody, and to report 

to the Committees on Appropriations on any cases where ICE uses 

bone or dental forensic examinations. 

TRANSPORTATION OF UNACCOMPANIED ALIEN CHILDREN

In the 2009 Appropriations Act, the Committee directed ICE, the 

Office of Management and Budget, and the Department of Health 

and Human Services (HHS) to determine the appropriate agency 

for managing child transportation between DHS and HHS custody. 

To date, the Committee has not received this report, which has apparently been under review at the Department of Health and 

Human Services for several months. As a result, the Committee expects ICE will continue to pay for the cost of child transportation 

between DHS and HHS custody until the agencies determine the 

appropriate method for funding this activity. 

HUMANITARIAN REVIEW OF IMMIGRATION ARRESTS

The Committee continues to support ICE’s policies that allow for 

humanitarian review of those arrested in worksite enforcement actions affecting 150 or more individuals. Many who have been arrested in past worksite enforcement actions were primary care 

givers to infant children or elderly parents, meaning their detention would have harmed those unable to care for themselves. The 

Committee continues to believe ICE should expand this policy to 

cover all worksite enforcement activities. If ICE is unable to expand this policy, it must brief the Committee no later than November 2, 2009, about the impediments to doing so. 

TEXTILE TRANSSHIPMENT ENFORCEMENT

Section 352 of the Trade Act of 2002 authorizes funding for Customs Service textile transshipment enforcement, and specifies how 

the funds must be spent. The Committee includes $4,750,000, as 

requested, to continue these important activities. The Committee 

directs ICE to provide a report with its fiscal year 2011 budget request on its actual and projected obligations of this funding, covering fiscal years 2005 to 2010. The report should include staffing 

levels by fiscal year since 2005, and a five-year enforcement plan 

for transshipment violations. 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
57 

ICE DATA CENTER CONSOLIDATION

Consistent with recommendations contained throughout this report, the Committee provides no funding for ICE data center migration activities due to the IG’s recent findings described in the 

Chief Information Officer section of the report regarding possible 

unmitigated risks at the destination data center sites. 

ICE FIELD OFFICE CO-LOCATION

The Committee provides $47,123,000 for ICE field office co-location. This level includes $45,000,000 for the costs to consolidate disparate field offices, approximately half the requested amount, and 

$2,123,000 for personnel to manage the ICE field office co-location 

program. These funds should allow ICE to significantly improve 

field office coordination by integrating various legacy field locations 

into single ICE facilities in major U.S. cities, especially those located along or near the Southwest border region. The need to 

strengthen ICE operations by improving field office efficiencies was 

last highlighted by the Committee in the 2006 Appropriations Act. 

FEDERAL PROTECTIVE SERVICE

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 ......................................................... $640,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 1 ................................................... 1,115,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 1,115,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 .................................................. +475,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 .............................................. – – – 

1 In the 2010 budget, the Administration proposed realigning FPS responsibilities to the National Protection and Programs Directorate. Additionally, CBO re-structured FPS collections in its 2010 re-estimate of the 

President’s budget to include reimbursable contract guard service collections, which had not been included in 

previous year appropriations. 

MISSION

The Federal Protective Service (FPS) is responsible for the protection of federally owned and leased buildings and properties, particularly those under the charge and control of the General Services Administration. Funding for FPS is provided through a security fee charged to all GSA building tenants in FPS-protected buildings. FPS has three major law enforcement initiatives: Protection 

Services to all Federal facilities throughout the United States and 

its territories; expanded intelligence and anti-terrorism capabilities; and Special Programs, including weapons of mass destruction 

detection, hazardous material detection and response, and canine 

programs. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,115,000,000, the same as the 

amount requested for fiscal year 2010. At this time, the Committee 

denies the proposed transfer of FPS managerial oversight from ICE 

to the National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD). 

MANAGEMENT OF THE FEDERAL PROTECTIVE SERVICE

For the past two years Congress has been forced to set in law 

the staffing levels for the Federal Protective Service since there 

was no effort made by the Administration to determine the resources required to provide adequate security for Federal buildings. 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
58 

This neglect of the agency charged with protecting Federal workers 

from risks both small and large is unacceptable, particularly given 

the fact that Federal buildings have historically been a target of 

terrorists. As a result, in the 2009 Appropriations Act, the Committee directed the Government Accountability Office to make recommendations about what resources are required for the FPS to be 

able to adequately protect Federal facilities. That analysis is ongoing. 

It is unfortunate that rather than explicitly identifying the staff 

and funding levels necessary for FPS to perform its mission, the 

2010 budget proposes to transfer responsibility for the agency to 

NPPD. In theory, the FPS mission is probably better aligned with 

that of NPPD, which is the DHS component responsible for protecting the nation’s critical infrastructure. Furthermore, it is true 

that the managerial relationships between FPS and ICE have been 

strained, and that the growing significance of ICE enforcement of 

immigration and customs law does not particularly complement the 

FPS responsibility to protect Federal offices. However, the justification documents for this proposed transfer include no practical details about how the change will be implemented and identify no 

particular transition costs associated with the realignment. Furthermore, the justification fails to recognize the host of new and 

growing programs that NPPD currently manages, such as the National Cyber Security Initiative and the regulation of Ammonium 

Nitrate. Finally, the justification does not explain whether NPPD 

managers have the capacity to absorb a law enforcement responsibility like FPS, which would involve extensive field operations and 

contract oversight. Currently, NPPD field staff is limited, and the 

contracts it manages do not have the same nation-wide reach as 

those at FPS. 

If the Committee is to take the Administration’s FPS realignment proposal seriously, the Department must provide a more detailed discussion of the managerial steps that will be taken to ensure the transition functions smoothly and efficiently. There are too 

many examples of failed bureaucratic restructuring in the short 

history of the Department of Homeland Security to allow the Committee to proceed without further detail: the fruitless realignment 

of the Federal Air Marshals into ICE, the costly restructuring of 

the DHS Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate, and the calamitous dissolution of the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency to form the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate. 

The Committee therefore directs the Department to submit, no 

later than July 30, 2009, a detailed transition plan for the realignment of the Federal Protective Service, including an identification 

of the resources necessary to support a robust, nation-wide security 

presence at Federal facilities. Absent further information, it is premature to act on the proposed restructuring. 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
59 

AUTOMATION MODERNIZATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 1 ....................................................... $57,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 ..................................................... 110,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 105,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 .................................................. +48,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 .............................................. ¥5,000,000 1 Excludes $20,000,000 in appropriations in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 

111–5). 

MISSION

The Automation Modernization account funds major information 

technology (IT) projects for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $105,000,000 for Automation Modernization, which funds a variety of ICE technology investments 

critical to the future of the agency. The following table illustrates 

funding by specific investment project: 

Project name Budget estimate Recommended 

ATLAS ................................................................................................................................... $9,000,000 $9,000,000 

Detention and Removals Modernizations ............................................................................ 22,000,000 22,000,000 

Homeland Enforcement Communications System (HECS) .................................................. 16,400,000 16,400,000 

Field Investigations Support Systems ................................................................................. 23,600,000 23,600,000 

Electronic Health Records (eHR) ......................................................................................... 20,400,000 20,400,000 

Unspecified Reduction ......................................................................................................... – – – ¥5,000,000 

ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS

The Committee is pleased that ICE is tackling a persistent problem for all medical systems: the fallibility of paper-based patient 

records. Since ICE detainees can often be transferred between several detention facilities before their immigration cases are decided, 

portable medical records are an important part of ensuring the 

health of all those held in ICE custody. The Committee understands ICE will use funds provided for this project in 2010 to assess the Division of Immigrant Health Services electronic health 

records needs, and to initiate an acquisition of the most cost effective electronic health records system that meets those needs. The 

Committee directs ICE to review the electronic health records systems already used by other Federal agencies such as the Department of Veterans Affairs or the Bureau of Prisons, and to evaluate 

whether it would be cost effective to procure medical records management services from another Federal agency through an Economy Act transaction. In addition, the Committee directs ICE to ensure that whatever system of electronic health records it decides to 

implement, the system should be available and required to be used 

by all detention facilities that house ICE detainees. 

CONSTRUCTION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 ......................................................... $5,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 ..................................................... – – – 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 11,818,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 .................................................. +6,818,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 .............................................. +11,818,000 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
60 

MISSION

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

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $11,818,000 for Construction instead of no funding as proposed in the budget. This funding will 

provide for basic and emergency maintenance at ICE-owned detention facilities, called Service Processing Centers (SPCs). The Committee directs ICE to use the funds provided to address the highest-priority repair and alteration needs at the SPCs. 

The budget proposed a general provision allowing ICE to sell its 

SPCs and retain the proceeds to pay for the cost of consolidating 

field offices for ICE agents and officers. The Committee does not 

include this provision. Until ICE is able to prove that it can adequately provide for the medical care and oversight of detention 

standards at its existing contract detention facilities, the Committee believes it would be premature to move to an exclusively 

contract detention model. 

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

AVIATION SECURITY

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 1 ....................................................... $4,754,518,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 ..................................................... 5,310,850,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 5,265,740,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 .................................................. +511,222,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 .............................................. ¥45,110,000 

1 Excludes $1,000,000,000 in appropriations in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (P.L. 111–5). 

MISSION

Aviation security is focused on protecting the air transportation 

system against terrorist threats, sabotage and other acts of violence 

through the deployment of passenger and baggage screeners; detection systems for explosives, weapons, and other contraband; and 

other, effective security technologies. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $5,265,740,000 for Aviation Security, $45,110,000 below the amount requested and $511,222,000 

above the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. Funds within this 

account are partially offset through the collection of security user 

fees paid by aviation travelers and airlines. A comparison of the 

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

Budget estimate Recommended 

Screening operations ........................................................................................................... $4,475,117,000 $4,409,776,000 

Aviation security direction and enforcement ...................................................................... 835,733,000 855,964,000 

Mandatory aviation security capital fund 1 ......................................................................... 250,000,000 250,000,000 

Subtotal, aviation security ......................................................................................... 5,310,850,000 5,265,740,000 

1 The Aviation Security Capital Fund is a non-add because it is not directly appropriated and is paid for entirely from user fees. 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
61 

AVIATION SECURITY FEES

In total, the Committee assumes the collection of $2,100,000,000 

in aviation security user fees, $128,941,000 less than the budget. 

This level is based on a re-estimate of fees by the Congressional 

Budget Office that reflects the downward trend in air travel due 

to current economic conditions. These fees will be collected from 

both aviation passengers and the airlines and will partially offset 

the federal appropriation for aviation security. 

SCREENING OPERATIONS

The Committee recommends $4,409,776,000 for passenger and baggage screening operations, $65,341,000 below the amount requested and $474,066,000 above amount provided in fiscal year 

2009. A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee recommended level by budget activity is as follows: 

Budget estimate Recommended 

Screener Workforce: 

Privatized screening ........................................................................................... $149,643,000 $149,643,000 

Screener personnel, compensation and benefits... ............................................ 2,788,575,000 2,788,575,000 

Subtotal, screener workforce ..................................................................... 2,938,218,000 2,938,218,000 

Screener training and other ............................................................................... 203,463,000 204,713,000 

Checkpoint support ............................................................................................. 128,739,000 128,739,000 

EDS/ETD Systems: 

EDS procurement and installation ..................................................................... 856,591,000 800,000,000 

Screening technology maintenance and utilities ............................................... 326,625,000 316,625,000 

Operation integration .......................................................................................... 21,481,000 21,481,000 

Subtotal, EDS/ETD systems ....................................................................... 1,204,697,000 1,138,106,000 

Total, screening operations .............................................................. 4,475,117,000 4,409,776,000 

PRIVATIZED SCREENING

The Committee recommends $149,643,000 for privatized screen- ing, the same as the amount requested and $1,629,000 below the 

amount provided in fiscal year 2009. This reduction reflects cost 

savings in contracts that were recently renegotiated. To date, nine 

airports and one heliport across the country have chosen to ‘‘opt 

out’’ of federalized screening and participate in the Screening Partnership Program (SPP). The Committee is aware of seven airports 

in Montana that were federalized in early 2008, but which are now 

in the final process of joining the privatized screening program. 

When this is completed, a total of 17 airports and heliports will be 

participating in SPP, and the Committee recommendation fully 

funds that level of activity. If additional airports are federalized, 

the Committee expects TSA to continue to provide screener service 

to airports, either through SPP or with federal screeners, in fiscal 

year 2010. Should TSA seek to modify some element of an airport’s 

security apparatus, the Committee expects all stakeholders at the 

affected airport to be fully informed and consulted prior to implementation. 

Consistent with prior years, TSA is directed to notify the Committees on Appropriations if it expects to spend less than the appropriated amount for privatized screening due to instances in 

which no additional privatized screening airports are added or airVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:16 Jun 17, 2009 Jkt 050276 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR157.XXX HR157

smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
62 

ports currently using privatized screening convert to federal screeners. TSA shall adjust its PPAs within ten days of any changes to 

personnel, compensation, or benefit levels resulting from the award 

of SPP contracts, a change in such contracts, or the movement of 

airports from the SPP to federalized screening. 

SCREENER PERSONNEL, COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS

The Committee recommends $2,788,575,000 for screener personnel, compensation, and benefits, the same as the amount requested and $72,561,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 

2009. This level fully funds the pay and cost of living adjustments 

for all screeners and permits the agency to hire 55 new full-time 

equivalent bomb appraisal officers (BAOs). BAOs are highly 

trained individuals who are able to more accurately identify potential improvised explosive devices and their components and are 

trained in the disposal of these threat objects. After a screener 

identifies an item of concern, using a BAO for further analysis of 

the potential threat object can permit the resolution of the situation without the need to call in local law enforcement’s bomb disposal unit, thereby reducing airport delays and closures. With the 

additional FTEs, TSA expects to have BAOs deployed at 158 airports throughout the United States by the end of 2010. TSA is encouraged to ensure that BAOs have all the appropriate tools to do 

their job effectively. 

SCREENER TRAINING AND OTHER

The Committee recommends $204,713,000 for screener training 

and other, $1,250,000 above the amount requested and $7,395,000 

above the amount appropriated in 2009. The Committee notes the 

continued threat posed by rudimentary and ever evolving improvised explosive devices and recognizes the valuable security testing 

and evaluation provided by the Safe Skies Alliance. To further 

these efforts, the Committee provides $1,250,000 to develop and enhance research and training capabilities for Transportation Security Officer improvised explosive detection recognition training by 

the Safe Skies Alliance. 

CHECKPOINT SUPPORT

The Committee recommends $128,739,000 for checkpoint support, the same amount as requested and $121,261,000 below the 

amount appropriated in 2009. The reduction in funding reflects 

$300,000,000 provided in ARRA for checkpoint support activities, 

which permitted TSA to accelerate the testing, piloting, and deployment of next-generation checkpoint technologies. TSA has informed 

the Committee that with the infusion of ARRA funding, the agency 

will meet its current nationwide requirements for advanced technology screening systems and liquid bottle scanners at the checkpoint and make significant headway in procuring and deploying 

other next generation devices. With the funds recommended in 

2010, TSA plans to procure 895 additional systems, including 

whole body imagers, credential authentication technologies, shoe 

scanners, stand off detectors, enhanced metal detectors, next generation explosive trace machines, and technologies that may permit 

passengers to carryon larger sized liquids. These funds will also 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
63 

allow the agency to reconfigure airports to accommodate the 

‘‘checkpoint of the future’’ layout. 

Over the past few years, the Committee has made significant investments in next-generation checkpoint technologies to increase 

TSA’s ability to detect concealed weapons and explosives. It is critically important that these screening technologies are deployed in 

order to address changing and evolving threats to air passengers 

and crew members. While new technologies provide protection to 

the traveling public, it remains critically important to safeguard 

privacy. Within 45 days of enactment, the Committee directs TSA 

to report to the Committees on Appropriations the details and 

strategy for a comprehensive program to ensure passenger privacy 

related to whole body imaging (WBI). At a minimum, this strategy 

should include: off-site monitoring; a spend plan for upgrading the 

existing software to include new privacy algorithms; procedures to 

prohibit storing, transferring, or copying any images produced by 

the machines; and a concept of operations plan for those passengers that choose a physical search rather than the WBI screening. 

Consistent with fiscal year 2009, not later than 60 days after enactment of this Act, TSA shall provide the Committees on Appropriations a checkpoint support expenditure plan outlining how 

these funds will be spent. Also, TSA shall continue to update the 

Committees quarterly on checkpoint technology expenditures, on 

an airport-by-airport basis. These updates shall include information on the specific technologies for purchase, project timelines, a 

schedule for obligation, and a table detailing actual versus anticipated unobligated balances at the close of the fiscal year, with an 

explanation of any deviation from the original plan. 

EXPLOSIVE DETECTION SYSTEMS PROCUREMENT AND INSTALLATION

The Aviation and Transportation Security Act made the Federal 

government responsible for the electronic screening of all checked 

baggage using explosive detection machines. Although all commercial airports have explosive detection machines, many airports have 

older generation systems, which often occupy large amounts of 

lobby space, are more labor intensive, and are much less efficient 

than newer explosive detection system (EDS) machines. In 2006, 

TSA developed the EDS Strategic Plan that identified optimal 

screening solutions at the top 250 commercial airports, including 

the installation of in-line EDS and the replacement of explosive 

trace detection machines, which would address the challenges identified above. Earlier this year, TSA informed the Committee that 

it had approximately $1.5 billion in identified needs to procure and 

install in-line EDS machines at airports based on priorities established in the Strategic Plan. According to TSA, these airports had 

completed a significant amount of design work and could spend the 

funding expeditiously. As a result, $700,000,000 was provided in 

ARRA to address these needs. With this funding, TSA expects to 

acquire and install 41 in-line systems so that additional airports 

have optimal systems installed at some or at all terminals. 

The Committee recommends $800,000,000 for EDS procurement 

and installation, $56,591,000 below the budget request and 

$506,000,000 above the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2009. 

This funding will permit TSA to modify airport facilities to install 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
64 

about 20 additional in-line systems at some or all airport terminals. Including the existing mandatory Aviation Security Capital 

Fund of $250,000,000, the total appropriation (both mandatory and 

discretionary) for EDS procurement and installation is 

$1,050,000,000 in fiscal year 2010. This funding, coupled with the 

$700,000,000 provided in ARRA earlier in the year, fully satisfies 

TSA’s list of airports that have approved optimal screening designs 

that could be funded. Within the $800,000,000 of discretionary appropriations, 25 percent shall be applied to the needs of medium 

and small sized airports. 

When finalizing the cost agreements with airports using these 

funds, TSA may be able to achieve unanticipated cost savings during facility modifications and installation of EDS machines at airports. For example, TSA has already informed the Committee that 

with the ARRA funding provided earlier this year, airports have 

calculated project costs below their original estimates. As a result, 

TSA anticipates savings of between $50,000,000 and $150,000,000. 

These funds will be applied to the airports that are next on the optimal baggage screening list with completed designs. In addition, it 

has come to the attention of the Committee that installing an optimal baggage screening solution using a pre-engineered structure 

outside an existing airport terminal can significantly reduce costs 

when compared to placing the system inside the terminal. At least 

three airports are exploring this design. In addition to being cost 

effective, this approach also speeds implementation while creating 

minimal disruptions to existing TSA and airline baggage operations. Because this is an eligible activity under 49 U.S.C. 44923, 

the Committee encourages TSA to consider using some of the recommended funds for dedicated pre-engineered structures related to 

optimal baggage screening solutions for EDS installations. This 

may save the Federal government significant time and money. 

Last year, the Committee encouraged TSA to continue studying 

the efficacy of consolidating checked and carryon baggage screening 

systems at smaller and medium sized airports and to provide a 

progress report by February 16, 2009. This report has not been received. The Committee remains interested in the topic and urges 

TSA to provide this report expeditiously. 

Consistent with prior years, not later than 60 days after enactment of this Act, TSA shall provide the Committees on Appropriations an expenditure plan outlining how the EDS procurement and 

installation funds will be spent. If new requirements occur after 

the plan is submitted, TSA shall reassess and reallocate funds after 

notifying the Committees of any change. Also, TSA shall continue 

to update the Committees quarterly on EDS expenditures, on an 

airport-by-airport basis. These updates shall include information on 

the specific technologies for purchase, project timelines, a schedule 

for obligation, and a table detailing actual versus anticipated unobligated balances at the close of the fiscal year, with an explanation 

of any deviation from the original plan. 

SCREENING TECHNOLOGY MAINTENANCE AND UTILITIES

The Committee recommends $316,625,000 for screening technology maintenance and utilities, $10,000,000 below the amount requested and $11,000,000 more than the amount provided in fiscal 

year 2009. The Committee notes that the funding requirement for 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
65 

maintenance and utilities of explosive detection systems, checkpoint systems, and other technologies has grown by 7 percent from 

fiscal year 2009 to 2010. The maintenance increase is driven primarily by increases in deployed security equipment. Although TSA 

uses long-term maintenance contracts with fixed prices to try to 

safeguard the government against potential cost increases for 

maintaining aging technology systems, the agency nonetheless incurs double digit growth in this area year after year. Because of 

this, last year the Committee directed TSA to provide a detailed report on maintenance and utility costs for screening technologies 

and to identify ways that costs may be controlled in the future. 

That report is delinquent. Without an understanding of why these 

costs have escalated so dramatically and what TSA is doing about 

it, the Committee cannot fully support a 7 percent cost escalation. 

TSA plans to renegotiate its long term maintenance contract late 

in 2009 or perhaps in 2010. The Committee encourages TSA to undertake this renegotiation expeditiously and has taken an 

$11,000,000 reduction from the budget request to reflect cost savings anticipated under this new contract. 

AVIATION SECURITY DIRECTION AND ENFORCEMENT

The Committee recommends $855,964,000 for aviation security 

direction and enforcement, $20,231,000 above the amount requested and $57,156,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 

2009. The following table highlights funding levels by program, 

project, and activity: 

Budget estimate Recommended 

Aviation regulation and other enforcement ................................................................ $254,064,000 $254,064,000 

Airport management and support ............................................................................... 448,424,000 453,924,000 

Federal flight deck officer and flight crew training ................................................... 25,127,000 25,127,000 

Air cargo ...................................................................................................................... 108,118,000 122,849,000 

Subtotal, aviation security direction and enforcement ...................................... 835,733,000 855,964,000 

AVIATION REGULATION AND OTHER ENFORCEMENT

The Committee recommends $254,064,000 for aviation regulation 

and other enforcement, the same level as the budget request and 

$8,796,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. Within 

this funding is $8,696,000 to annualize 9/11 Act activities and to 

support implementation of new general aviation regulatory activities. Of the funding provided for general aviation, and consistent 

with prior years, $275,000 shall be used for activities to train and 

alert general aviation pilots to proper security measures and best 

practices. Since 2008, this funding has been available to be awarded competitively; however, TSA has been quite slow in doing so. 

TSA does not plan to award the 2008 funds until late May or June 

2009. The Committee is disappointed with the delay in awarding 

this program and directs the agency to move more expeditiously 

with the 2009 and 2010 funds. 

The Committee understands that TSA is currently working with 

stakeholders to develop a modified Large Aircraft Security Program 

rule that minimizes adverse effects on general aviation while addressing security concerns. We also understand that after this consultation TSA plans to issue a new notice of proposed rulemaking 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
66 

to ensure additional public comment. The committee applauds TSA 

for taking a deliberative approach to this issue and urges TSA to 

weight all the costs and benefits associated with new security mandates for general aviation operators and airports. 

AIRPORT MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT

The Committee recommends $453,924,000 for airport manage- ment and support, $5,500,000 above the budget request and 

$52,258,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. Within 

this total is $5,500,000 for the flight data initiative, to continue development, analysis and testing of deployable flight data recorders 

and other technologies to implement section 1620(2)(b) of the 9/11 

Act. This initiative will provide near real-time access to data for 

immediate analysis of potential terrorist threats, provide secondary 

storage of flight data if the flight data and cockpit voice recorders 

do not survive, and overcome the delay in recovery of critical flight 

data from accident locations. This funding will support on aircraft 

installation and flight testing for all associated technologies by September 30, 2011. 

AIR CARGO

The Committee recommends $122,849,000 for air cargo, $14,731,000 above the amount requested and the same amount 

provided in fiscal year 2009. Funding above the budget request 

shall be for additional domestic and international inspectors, for 

international air cargo activities to strengthen the development of 

a global air cargo security strategy, to continue air cargo pilots 

using emerging technologies that are being developed to screen 

larger sized items, and to convert law enforcement canine teams to 

TSA proprietary teams. 

The 9/11 Act required DHS to establish a system to screen 50 

percent of cargo transported on passenger aircraft by February 

2009 and 100 percent by August 2010. Screening 100 percent of air 

cargo carried on passenger aircraft is an important mandate, one 

that TSA can meet within the timeframe Congress has set for domestic activities. 

In February 2009, TSA stated that it was able to meet the 50 

percent deadline because of a variety of initiatives the agency undertook, including requiring its personnel to screen 100 percent of 

cargo carried on passenger aircraft at the nation’s 250 smallest airports, removing almost all cargo screening exemptions, and mandating that all nonexempt cargo carried on narrow body aircraft be 

screened. However, on March 18, 2009, GAO testified that TSA 

cannot verify that 50 percent of all nonexempt air cargo carried on 

passenger aircraft is actually being screened. This stems from the 

fact that TSA did not have a system in place to provide verification 

and to collect data from screening entities. Since then, TSA has developed a system to verify that this level of cargo screening is occurring. 

It will be significantly more difficult to achieve 100 percent 

screening mandated by August 2010. To do so, TSA is developing 

the Certified Cargo Screening Program, which would permit certified supply chain facilities to screen air cargo using a variety of 

technologies prior to its consolidation onto pallets or into containers 

before it leaves these facilities. The certified cargo screening faciliVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:16 Jun 17, 2009 Jkt 050276 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR157.XXX HR157

smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
67 

ties are required to ensure that the chain of custody for this cargo 

is maintained after it is screened. In the event of a break in the 

chain of custody, the affected cargo will be rescreened. All certified 

cargo screening facilities must meet stringent screening, facility, 

and personnel security standards, which will be validated by TSA. 

Under this program, all cargo, including palletized and shrinkwrapped cargo, is subject to screening. 

Earlier this year, TSA began a limited Phase One rollout in the 

eighteen major gateways, focusing on shippers in nine cities and 

freight forwarders in all eighteen airport markets. This work is all 

being done domestically; a similar program will need to occur overseas. TSA plans to evaluate the success of the Phase One program 

before expanding the program nationwide later this year. Consistent with the explanatory language accompanying Public Law 

110–329, TSA shall brief the Committee on the results of this pilot 

before it moves to a nationwide rollout. This briefing should detail 

the processes for securing air cargo through the supply chain and 

include the schedule, milestones, and performance measures for the 

program. Assuming that most domestic air cargo screening will 

permanently move away from the airports to certified off-site facilities (e.g. manufacturers, indirect air carriers, and freight forwarders), the Committee has included additional funds to hire domestic inspectors above the 450 already on board, to validate that 

these entities are screening appropriately and consistently before 

they consolidate the air cargo into pallets. Funding may also be 

used to hire additional personnel to support policy development, 

rollout, and program management oversight of the Certified Cargo 

Screening Program, specifically in the areas of enrollment, assessment, and certification; technology management; and international 

policy coordination/harmonization. 

To date, air cargo security has focused almost exclusively on the 

domestic market. However, a large amount of air cargo, particularly perishable items, is shipped from overseas locations to the 

United States. At this time, this cargo will be screened once it 

reaches the United States; however, TSA, in conjunction with U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection and international agencies, is developing a program to ensure the security of inbound cargo from 

outside the United States. Screening international air cargo poses 

unique challenges since TSA would need to place personnel overseas to screen U.S.-bound cargo and/or strengthen relations with 

foreign airports and companies to screen cargo before it is placed 

on an aircraft heading to the United States. TSA testified earlier 

this year that this problem would not be resolved by August 2010. 

The Committee has provided funding to hire and deploy international cargo transportation security inspectors to examine cargo 

operations at last points of departure to the United States, to enhance databases that assess risks and vulnerabilities of the air 

cargo being transported, and to develop a global air cargo security 

strategy. This additional funding should help TSA strengthen air 

cargo security throughout the worldwide supply chain. 

In addition to funding provided for personnel, the Committee includes $5,000,000 to support the testing, evaluation, and qualification of emerging screening technologies to screen larger sized items 

for inclusion on TSA’s Qualified Technology List. This list will idenVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:16 Jun 17, 2009 Jkt 050276 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR157.XXX HR157

smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
68 

tify appropriate screening technologies for industry to procure to 

enable TSA to meet the 100 percent screening requirement. 

Finally, within the total funding level for air cargo is $7,000,000 

to convert 35 canine teams from local law enforcement officer 

teams to TSA proprietary teams. To date, TSA has been unable to 

place 35 of the 85 canine teams previously allocated for placement 

with local law enforcement entities. These funds will enable TSA 

to convert these 35 teams such that they will be TSA owned and 

managed. This requires additional funding for TSA handlers, training, and logistics, and for other administrative support. These 

teams will work predominantly in the air cargo arena. 

NEW FEE COLLECTIONS

The budget requested $16,900,000 in new fee collections under 

Aviation Security for such activities as the certified cargo screening 

program ($5,200,000), large aircraft security program ($1,600,000), 

secure identification display area checks ($10,000,000), and other 

security threat assessments ($100,000). The Committee has provided this fee authority under the Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing program, which manages similar programs. 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION SECURITY

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 ......................................................... $49,606,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 ..................................................... 128,416,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 103,416,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 .................................................. +53,810,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 .............................................. ¥25,000,000 

MISSION

Surface Transportation Security is responsible for assessing the 

risk of terrorist attacks for all non-aviation transportation modes, 

issuing regulations to improve the security of those modes, and enforcing regulations to ensure the protection of the transportation 

system. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $103,416,000 for Surface Transportation Security, $25,000,000 below the amount requested and 

$53,810,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. Within 

this total, $42,293,000 is for surface transportation staffing and operations and $61,123,000 is for rail security inspectors and canines. 

Within the amounts provided, the Committee has fully funded activities mandated by the 9/11 Act, including funding to continue 

vulnerability and threat assessments of high risk entities, to conduct additional security exercises and training programs, and to 

continue information sharing activities. 

In addition to the funds provided for surface transportation security under this heading, the Committee has provided $262,000,000 

for rail, transit, and bus security grants under the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s ‘‘State and Local Programs’’ appropriation and $5,000,000 for new counter-explosive research and development activities in Science and Technology. S&T has other onVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:16 Jun 17, 2009 Jkt 050276 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR157.XXX HR157

smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
69 

going research activities that may be utilized to enhance security 

in the mass transit, rail, and bus environments. 

VISIBLE INTERMODAL PROTECTION AND RESPONSE TEAMS

The Committee recommends $25,000,000 for new rail inspectors 

to create new Visible Intermodal Protection and Response (VIPR) 

teams, half of the amount requested. These teams conduct unannounced, high-visibility exercises in mass transit or passenger rail 

facilities. TSA has informed the Committee that the requested 

funding reflects the entire cost to create 15 new teams. Past experience has shown that TSA has had substantial difficulty in hiring 

rail inspectors. In fact, TSA carried over about 47 percent of its fiscal year 2008 surface transportation appropriation into fiscal year 

2009 in part because of delays in hiring inspectors for VIPR teams. 

At this time, of the total 175 rail inspectors authorized, TSA has 

65 inspector positions that remain unfilled. Until TSA can show 

progress in hiring additional inspectors, it is premature to approve 

an additional 338 positions. 

Over the past two years, a number of entities have expressed 

concern about the effectiveness of VIPR teams. For example, a February 2009 DHS IG, report noted that surface transportation security inspectors do not add as much value in a VIPR exercise as 

other TSA participants, such as air marshals or screeners, because 

they are not trained in behavior detection, have no training in passenger screening, are unable to detect explosives, and are not law 

enforcement authorities. One year earlier, the IG reported that 

‘‘participants and outside observers question the value of VIPR exercises.’’ In particular, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association described the VIPR exercises as ‘‘clearly a waste of scarce 

Federal Air Marshal resources’’. Transportation security inspectors 

(TSI) also considered their participation in VIPR exercises ‘‘unproductive’’. The IG noted that in their survey of TSIs, 70 percent selected VIPR exercises as one of two duties they performed that 

were the least effective use of their time. 

Because of these concerns, last year the report accompanying the 

fiscal year 2009 Appropriations Act required TSA to report on performance standards to measure the success of its VIPR teams in 

detecting and disrupting terrorism. In addition, the report was also 

to identify the methodology used to determine the distribution of 

VIPR resources and personnel among the various modes of transportation. To date, the Committee has not received this report and 

cannot determine what is necessary to address these concerns and 

to make these teams more effective. These issues must be resolved 

before the agency increases staffing for VIPR teams by over 200 

percent as requested. 

TRANSPORTATION THREAT ASSESSMENT AND CREDENTIALING

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 ......................................................... $116,018,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 ..................................................... 191,999,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 171,999,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 .................................................. +55,981,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 .............................................. ¥20,000,000 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
70 

MISSION

The mission of Transportation Threat Assessment and 

Credentialing (TTAC) is to reduce the probability of a successful attack on the transportation system through the application of threat 

assessment methodologies that are intended to identify known or 

suspected terrorist threats working in or seeking access to the Nation’s transportation system. This appropriation consolidates the 

management of all TSA vetting and credentialing programs into 

one office and the following screening programs: Secure Flight; 

Crew Vetting; Transportation Worker Identification Credential; 

Registered Traveler; Hazardous Materials; and Alien Flight School. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a direct appropriation of 

$171,999,000 for TTAC, $20,000,000 below the amount requested 

and $55,981,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. In 

addition, the Committee anticipates TSA will collect $44,900,000 in 

fees, including $16,900,000 in a variety of new fees TSA proposed 

under Aviation Security. Because these new fees will be paid for by 

users undergoing background and credential checks, it is more appropriate to have these activities administered by the TTAC program, which already manages similar activities for transportation 

workers and hazardous materials truck drivers. A comparison of 

the budget estimate to the Committee’s recommended level by 

budget activity is as follows: 

Budget estimate Recommended 

Direct Appropriation: 

Secure flight ....................................................................................................... $84,363,000 $84,363,000 

Crew and other vetting programs ...................................................................... 107,636,000 87,636,000 

Subtotal, direct appropriations ................................................................. 191,999,000 171,999,000 

Fee Collections: 

Transportation worker identification credential ................................................. 9,000,000 9,000,000 

Hazardous materials ........................................................................................... 15,000,000 15,000,000 

Alien flight school (transfer from DOJ) .............................................................. 4,000,000 4,000,000 

Certified cargo screening program .................................................................... – – – 5,200,000 

Large aircraft security program ......................................................................... – – – 1,600,000 

Secure identification display area checks ......................................................... – – – 10,000,000 

Other security threat assessments .................................................................... – – – 100,000 

Subtotal, fee collections ............................................................................ 28,000,000 44,900,000 

SECURE FLIGHT

The Committee recommends $84,363,000 for Secure Flight, the same amount as requested and $2,152,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. Secure Flight became operational in lateJanuary 2009. At that time, TSA began to assume the watch-list 

matching function for a limited number of domestic flights for one 

airline, and has since phased in additional flights and airlines. 

Once Secure Flight’s advanced technology is fully implemented, enhanced watch list matching will be done solely by the government. 

Airlines will gather a passenger’s full name, date of birth, and gender when making an airline reservation to determine if the passenger is a match to the No Fly or Selectee lists. By providing the 

additional data elements of gender and date of birth, Secure Flight 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
71 

will more effectively help prevent misidentification of passengers 

who have similar names to individuals on the watch-list and better 

identify individuals who may pose a known or suspected threat to 

aviation. TSA plans to assume the watch-list-matching function for 

all domestic flights by March 2010. The agency will then take on 

the watch-list-matching function for international flights departing 

to and from the United States by the end of 2010, which is currently the responsibility of CBP. 

Since 2005, GAO has been evaluating TSA’s progress in developing the Secure Flight program. In May 2009, GAO issued its 

most recent evaluation of this program (GAO–09–292). The evaluation found that TSA had generally achieved nine of the 10 statutory conditions related to the development of the Secure Flight program and had conditionally achieved one condition. For that one 

condition, which pertains to life cycle cost estimates and program 

plans, GAO notes that TSA had defined plans, but had not completed all activities for this condition to be satisfied. GAO also expressed concern that TSA had not yet developed plans to periodically assess the performance of the Secure Flight system’s namematching capabilities, which would help ensure that the system is 

working as intended. GAO is directed to continue reviewing the Secure Flight program until all ten conditions are generally achieved 

and periodically update the Committee on its findings. 

CREW AND OTHER VETTING PROGRAMS

The Committee provides $87,636,000 for crew and other vetting programs instead of $107,636,000 as requested. This funding shall 

be used to support personnel working on a variety of vetting activities, including vetting flight crew members and employees with access to secure areas in the airports; the imposition of temporary 

flight restrictions; reviews of non-scheduled commercial operators 

(charters) to ensure a level of security equivalent to regularly 

scheduled airlines; the vetting of general aviation, charter, and 

business aircraft that fly into Ronald Reagan Washington National 

Airport and the three Maryland airports within 15 miles of Washington D.C. (Potomac Airpark, Washington Executive, and College 

Park); checks of alien flight school pilots seeking training in the 

United States; and infrastructure investments. Within the funds 

provided, the Committee fully funds the annualization of 9/11 Act 

vetting activities; includes funding for 33 new positions as requested; and recommends $56,500,000 for vetting infrastructure investments, as discussed below. None of this funding shall be used 

in support of the Secure Flight program, which has a separate appropriation. 

VETTING INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS

The Committee provides $56,500,000 for vetting infrastructure 

investments instead of $76,500,000 as requested in the budget. Because TSA has not clearly detailed in its budget justification the investments necessary to enhance its current vetting infrastructure 

in 2010, and the requested amount does not match data provided 

to the Committee earlier this spring, numerous questions remain 

unanswered about this modernization program. As such, the Committee has denied about one-third of the requested increase for this 

program. However, the Committee recognizes that improvements 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
72 

must be made to the Office of Transportation Threat Assessment 

and Credentialing’s screening infrastructure, including prototype 

development as well as software and hardware procurements. 

These investments will consolidate a number of arbitrarily separate 

screening systems into one system and address new requirements 

contained in the 9/11 Act to vet a variety of transportation employees. 

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY SUPPORT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 ......................................................... $947,735,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 ..................................................... 1,004,580,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 992,980,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 .................................................. +45,245,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 .............................................. ¥11,600,000 

MISSION

The Transportation Security Support account includes financial 

and human resources support; the Transportation Security Intelligence Service; information technology support; policy development 

and oversight; performance management and e-government; communications; public information and legislative affairs; training 

and quality performance; internal conduct and audit; legal advice; 

and overall headquarters administration. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $992,980,000 for Transportation Se- curity Support, $11,600,000 below the amount requested and 

$45,245,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee recommended 

level by budget activity is as follows: 

Budget estimate Recommended 

Headquarters administration ....................................................................................... $248,929,000 $248,929,000 

Human capital services ............................................................................................... 226,338,000 226,338,000 

Information technology ................................................................................................ 501,110,000 489,510,000 

Intelligence .................................................................................................................. 28,203,000 28,203,000 

Subtotal, transportation security support .......................................................... 1,004,580,000 992,980,000 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

The Committee recommends $489,510,000 for information technology, $11,600,000 below the amount requested and $16,711,000 

above the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. Consistent with 

funding recommendations contained throughout this report, the 

Committee provides no funding for Data Center Migration activities due to the IG’s recent findings described in the Chief Information Officer section of this report regarding possible unmitigated 

risks at the destination data center sites. 

COVERT TESTING

The Committee continues to support covert testing, which helps 

to identify vulnerabilities in critical systems, and directs TSA to 

continue developing innovative methods to test the weaknesses of 

our transportation security systems. Consistent with prior years, 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
73 

TSA shall continue to report biannually on its red teaming and covert testing activities, including specific discussions on the test results at airport checkpoints, in secure areas of airports, at air cargo 

facilities, and in other transportation modes. This testing is particularly critical in the air cargo arena to ensure that screening 

conducted at indirect air carriers, certified cargo shipping facilities, 

and by shippers and distribution centers consistently meets federal 

security requirements before air cargo is placed on passenger aircraft. 

EXPENDITURE PLANS FOR THE PURCHASE AND DEPLOYMENT OF

CHECKPOINT SUPPORT AND EXPLOSIVE DETECTION EQUIPMENT

Similar to actions taken last year, the Committee has included 

bill language requiring TSA to provide the Committee with a detailed spending and deployment plan for checkpoint support and 

explosive detection equipment. This plan shall be submitted no 

later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act. The 

Committee withholds $5,000,000 from obligation until receipt of the 

plan, which has consistently been received late. As previously discussed, the plan shall detail expenditures for checkpoint support 

and explosive detection procurement and installation on an airportby-airport basis for fiscal year 2010. The Committee recognizes 

that, after TSA has completed its expenditure plan, TSA may become aware of a high priority need that must be addressed. In 

those instances, TSA shall reassess the expenditure plan and reallocate funds in order to address the new requirement after providing notification to the Committees on Appropriations of this 

change. 

FEDERAL AIR MARSHALS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 ......................................................... $819,481,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 ..................................................... 860,111,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 860,111,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 .................................................. +40,630,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 .............................................. – – – 

MISSION

The Federal Air Marshals (FAMs) provide security for the nation’s civil aviation system through the effective deployment of 

armed Federal agents to detect, deter, and defeat hostile acts targeting U.S. air carriers, airports, passengers, and crews. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $860,111,000, as requested, for the 

Federal Air Marshals, $40,630,000 above the amounts provided in 

fiscal year 2009. Of the total funding provided, $762,569,000 is for 

management and administration and $97,542,000 is for travel and 

training. The Committee continues to expect quarterly reports on 

mission coverage, staffing levels, and hiring rates as directed in 

previous years. 

After September 11th, thousands of FAMs were deployed 

throughout the United States to detect, deter, and defeat hostile 

acts targeted against U.S. air carriers, airports, airline passengers, 

and air crews. FAMs protect both domestic and international 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
74 

flights. The federal government as well as airports and airlines 

have invested billions of dollars to develop and deploy a wide variety of security measures to make it increasingly difficult to attack 

the aviation sector. These activities include hardening cockpit doors 

on all aircraft; screening all checked baggage for explosives; deploying next generation technologies at airport checkpoints to look for 

explosives, weapons, or other threat objectives on a person or in 

their carry-on baggage; deploying screeners to identify suspicious 

behavior; random checks of passengers, air crew, and airport employees; perimeter screening at airports; and security threat assessments or background checks against a wide range of workers 

throughout the airport and airline system. In the meantime, FAMs 

has been developing a new risk assessment model to better target 

staff deployments, with a focus on high-risk flights. 

The Committee recognizes that the aviation sector continues to 

be an area of interest for those who wish to do us harm, and has 

recommended the amount requested for FAMs for 2010, which anticipates continuation of the present FTE level. However, the Committee believes it is time for the Department to reassess the appropriate long term staffing level for FAMs in light of the significantly 

enhanced security posture described above. This reassessment 

should include a determination of the appropriate mix of staff required on a day-to-day basis; an identification of the kinds and 

numbers of flights to which FAMs should be regularly assigned; 

whether legislative changes may be necessary to better tailor how 

FAMs deploys its marshals on a daily basis; and a detailed discussion on the methodology used to justify this optimal staffing mix. 

The results of this assessment should be provided to the Committees no later than February 1, 2010. 

COAST GUARD

OPERATING EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 1 ....................................................... $6,194,925,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 ..................................................... 6,556,188,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 6,822,026,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 .................................................. +627,101,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 .............................................. +265,838,000 

1 Excludes $110,000,000 transfer from DoD, pursuant to PL 110–181, for Iraqi war costs. 

MISSION

Coast Guard is the principal Federal agency charged with maritime safety, security and stewardship. The Operating Expenses appropriation provides funding for the operation and maintenance of 

multipurpose vessels, aircraft, and shore units strategically located 

along the coasts and inland waterways of the United States and in 

selected areas overseas. This is the primary appropriation financing operational activities of Coast Guard. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total appropriation of 

$6,822,026,000 for Operating Expenses. The recommended funding 

level is $265,838,000 above the amount requested and $627,101,000 

above the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. A comparison of the 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
75 

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

Budget estimate Recommended 

Military pay and allowance: 

Military pay and allowance ................................................................................ $2,708,923,000 $2,727,521,000 

Military health care ............................................................................................ 371,372,000 373,569,000 

Permanent change of station ............................................................................. 164,566,000 164,153,000

Counterdrug enforcement initiative .................................................................... 0 5,735,000 

Subtotal, military pay and allowance ....................................................... 3,244,861,000 3,270,978,000 

Civilian pay and benefits ............................................................................................ 699,594,000 700,490,000 

Training and recruiting: 

Training and education ...................................................................................... 103,388,000 103,847,000 

Recruitment ........................................................................................................ 102,582,000 102,929,000 

Subtotal, training and recruiting .............................................................. 205,970,000 206,776,000 

Operating funds and unit level maintenance: 

Atlantic Command .............................................................................................. 177,474,000 177,474,000 

Pacific Command ............................................................................................... 195,943,000 195,943,000 

1st District .......................................................................................................... 60,074,000 60,205,000 

5th District ......................................................................................................... 21,941,000 22,011,000 

7th District ......................................................................................................... 78,338,000 78,394,000 

8th District ......................................................................................................... 49,276,000 49,737,000 

9th District ......................................................................................................... 31,672,000 31,795,000 

11th District ....................................................................................................... 17,641,000 17,898,000 

13th District ....................................................................................................... 23,060,000 23,193,000 

14th District ....................................................................................................... 19,289,000 19,289,000 

17th District ....................................................................................................... 29,829,000 31,233,000 

Headquarters directorates .................................................................................. 285,193,000 291,970,000 

Headquarters managed units ............................................................................. 158,901,000 159,509,000 

Other activities ................................................................................................... 882,000 911,000 

Subtotal, operating funds and unit level maintenance ........................... 1,149,513,000 1,159,562,000 

Centrally managed accounts ....................................................................................... 353,071,000 331,058,000 

Intermediate and depot level maintenance: 

Aeronautical maintenance .................................................................................. 365,291,000 365,291,000 

Electronic maintenance ...................................................................................... 155,101,000 156,767,000 

Civil/ocean engineering and shore facilities maintenance ............................... 180,929,000 182,743,000 

Vessel maintenance ............................................................................................ 201,858,000 206,858,000 

Subtotal, intermediate and depot level maintenance .............................. 903,179,000 911,659,000 

Overseas Contingency Operations (OIF/OEF Support) ........................................ — 241,503,000 

Total, operating expenses ................................................................. 6,556,188,000 6,822,026,000 

OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS

The Committee includes $241,503,000 under operating expenses 

for the costs of the Coast Guard’s support for overseas contingencies, including operations in the Persian Gulf and against pirates off the coast of Somalia. These funds in the past had been 

carried in supplemental appropriations bills under the Department 

of Defense then transferred to the Coast Guard. The Committee believes moving these funds to regular order appropriations bills and 

providing them to the Coast Guard directly rather than as a transfer improves transparency and opportunities for effective oversight. 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
76 

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

The Coast Guard’s ongoing struggle with internal financial controls is a persistent area of concern. The Committee notes that the 

Coast Guard lags behind all other DHS components in terms of addressing material weaknesses in these systems, and it is the single 

largest holder of unauditable balances in the Department of Homeland Security, according to the IG. 

At the Committee’s direction, in December 2008 the Coast Guard 

produced an extensive financial management improvement plan for 

fiscal years 2009 and 2010. The Financial Strategy for Transformation and Audit Readiness (FSTAR) plan should help lead the 

Coast Guard and DHS out of the financial wilderness. The Committee therefore directs the Coast Guard to provide a report on the 

progress of this initiative no later than six months after the date 

of enactment of this Act, and every six months thereafter. This report should include an assessment of the performance of the Coast 

Guard against the milestones outlined in the FSTAR plan, identify 

any remaining major roadblocks to achieving a clean audit, and 

outline proposals on how to remove those roadblocks. 

MARITIME SAFETY AND SECURITY

According to the Coast Guard’s posture statement for fiscal year 

2010, it plans to obligate $1,924,760,000 for ports, waterways, and 

coastal security, $137,239,000 above the 2009 funding level, and 

the largest single increase in any mission area of the Coast Guard. 

Over the last two years, the Committee has provided nearly 

$93,800,000 in additional resources for these activities over and 

above the past Administration’s requests, investing in watchstanders, boat and marine inspectors, and increasing capacity for 

security-related activities and investigations. As a result, the Coast 

Guard has a more robust capability to ensure the safety and security of U.S. ports through domestic and international activities. For 

example, the Coast Guard helps reduce risk to the U.S. by 

verifying the use of effective anti-terrorism measures in foreign 

ports. Out of 500 ports screened in 135 countries, seven were found 

to have serious security flaws, requiring vessels from those ports 

to take additional security steps as a condition of entry into U.S. 

ports. The Committee has fully funded the budget request of 

$7,500,000 in new investments to improve marine safety by filling 

the gap between the size of its workforce and the growth of the 

shipping industry. The Coast Guard’s Marine Safety program inspects 70,000 domestic vessels and examines 11,000 foreign vessel 

examinations yearly. It is in the process of using resources this 

Committee provided to add more qualified marine inspectors and 

personnel to their ranks under the Marine Safety Enhancement 

Plan developed in 2007. This year, the Coast Guard will continue 

to grow the force by deploying 25 apprentice marine inspectors to 

11 ports, and establish Senior Marine Inspector Training Officers 

in seven ‘‘feeder ports.’’ Also, these new investments will expand 

training capacity and availability for Coast Guard personnel, and 

complete staffing for seven centers of expertise around the country 

to act as resources for inspectors and investigators. 

The Committee has provided $1,183,000 to make permanent the 

highly successful Biometrics at Sea program, as requested. The 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
77 

Coast Guard is directed to brief the Committee on their plans for 

the future growth of this program within 60 days of the enactment 

of this bill. 

Finally, the Committee has provided $1,088,000 as requested for 

the sustainment of the Seahawk Charleston Interagency Operations Center. 

COUNTERNARCOTICS ENFORCEMENT

This year, the Coast Guard anticipates spending $1,288,285,000 

in support of its role as the lead federal agency for maritime narcotics interdiction. The Coast Guard reports that fiscal year 2008 

was a record year for drug seizures, despite smugglers’ attempts to 

use new tactics. The Committee has provided $5,735,000 for counternarcotics enforcement above the budget’s proposed $57,116,000 

increase in this mission area. Funding includes a total of 

$2,970,000 to expand the deployment of Airborne Use of Force capabilities in the Coast Guard’s helicopter fleet, $2,125,000 above 

the amount requested. This will increase the capacity of the Helicopter Interdiction Squadron from 1,000 deployment days to 2,200 

deployment days per year. The Committee has also provided 

$3,610,000 above the request to standardize the size of Law Enforcement Detachments, increasing them to 12 members per detachment, and to provide four additional civilian trainers to meet 

sustainment requirements. 

INTERMEDIATE AND DEPOT LEVEL MAINTENANCE

The Committee recommends $911,659,000 for intermediate and 

depot level maintenance, $8,480,000 above the budget request and 

$87,866,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2009. The 

Committee has expressed concern in the past about the high demands being placed on a Coast Guard Cutter fleet whose key elements, such as the High Endurance Cutter (HEC), are in many 

cases reaching the end of their expected service lives. The Coast 

Guard reports a $5,000,000 backlog of maintenance on HECs based 

on the west coast, while the two HECs based on the east coast are 

currently not operational and are awaiting completion of structural 

work before they can return to service. Without investment in 

sustainment plans or service life extension programs, these vessels 

will no longer be able to meet the demand for their services. Medium Endurance Cutters and patrol boats have benefitted from 

such plans and programs, but still face unforseen maintenance 

issues. Therefore, the Committee has provided an additional 

$5,000,000 to address priority maintenance needs for all three 

classes of cutters. 

LORAN–C

Once again, the budget proposed terminating the Long Range 

Aids to Navigation (LORAN–C) program, as was proposed and rejected two years ago. Last year the Committee rejected another 

proposal to transfer LORAN–C from Coast Guard to the National 

Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), an agency that had 

neither the preparation nor the experience to operate the LORAN– 

C system. 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
78 

In late 2006, the Department of Transportation convened an 

Independent Assessment Team to determine the future of LORAN 

in cooperation with DHS, whose final report was released to the 

public this year as the result of a Freedom of Information Act request. It concluded that eLORAN, a fully modernized and upgraded 

version of LORAN–C, should serve as a long-term backup for GPS 

for positioning, navigation and timing for twenty years. On the 

basis of the report’s findings, DHS announced in February 2008 

that eLORAN would be the backup system for GPS, and the Coast 

Guard testified later that year that the existing, upgradable 

LORAN–C infrastructure was the logical support system for 

eLORAN. The immediate implementation of a long-term, robust 

backup system is vital, given the GAO’s recent finding that it is 

unclear whether new GPS satellites can be purchased and put in 

orbit in time to maintain uninterrupted GPS service to private and 

public sector consumers. Therefore, the Committee once again rejects termination of LORAN–C, denies the authority to sell existing 

LORAN–C sites as sought by the Administration, provides 

$36,000,000 for continuing operation and maintenance, and directs 

the Coast Guard to provide a plan to the Committee within 30 days 

of enactment of this Act for upgrading the existing LORAN–C system to eLORAN in a cost-efficient fashion that complies with existing international agreements. 

MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY EFFICIENCIES

Due to the continuation of the LORAN–C signal, the Committee 

recommendation includes only $19,723,000 of the proposed 

$55,723,000 of management efficiencies. Within 60 days of enactment of this Act, the Coast Guard is directed to report in detail on 

what management efficiencies will be implemented, and what their 

projected total cost/benefit is for Coast Guard and the American 

public over the next five years. 

A–76 ACTIVITIES

The Committee continues to provide no funding for A–76 activities in fiscal year 2010. In light of the ongoing challenges facing the 

Coast Guard, the Committee does not believe scarce resources 

should be used on A–76 studies. 

DATA CENTER MIGRATION

The Committee does not provide $22,400,000 requested for data 

center migration activities due to the IG’s recent findings described 

in the Office of the Chief Information Officer section of the report 

regarding possible unmitigated risks at the destination data center 

sites. 

POLAR ICEBREAKING OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS AND

FUTURE POLAR NEEDS

The Committee continues to be concerned about Coast Guard’s 

ability to meet its polar operations mission requirements and provide the United States with the capability to support national interests in the polar regions. These interests extend well beyond the 

realm of scientific research. As such, last year the Committee directed the Coast Guard and the National Science Foundation (NSF) 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
79 

to renegotiate the existing agreement on polar icebreaking in order 

to return the budget for operating and maintaining these vessels 

to the Coast Guard for fiscal year 2010, and to provide a new joint 

plan for Coast Guard support of scientific research by NSF and 

other Federal agencies, which was to be included in the 2010 budget request. No agreement was reached, and no plan was submitted. 

Negotiations are apparently underway between the Coast Guard 

and NSF, but the budget has yet to be returned to the Coast Guard 

accounts. Therefore, the Committee directs the Coast Guard to continue negotiating the agreement for the return of icebreaking in 

the 2011 budget, and to provide the joint plan for Coast Guard support as soon as possible. 

The Committee further directs the Coast Guard to use existing 

appropriations to continue its analysis of national mission needs in 

the high latitude regions to inform national polar policy. 

INVASIVE SPECIES PROTECTION

The Committee is concerned about the threat that harmful 

invasive species, such as the Asian carp, pose to the Great Lakes 

ecosystem. The Committee is aware that the Chicago Sanitary and 

Ship Canal second dispersal barrier is not yet operating at maximum capacity and that the voltage could be increased to provide 

maximum effectiveness. The Coast Guard is directed to initiate 

safety testing of the second barrier at operational strength of up to 

4 volts per inch, in coordination with the US Army Corps of Engineers, within 180 days of enactment of this Act. 

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE AND RESTORATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 ......................................................... $13,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 ..................................................... 13,198,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... +13,198,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 .................................................. +198,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 .............................................. – – – 

MISSION

The Environmental Compliance and Restoration appropriation 

assists in bringing Coast Guard facilities into compliance with applicable environmental regulations; preparing and testing facilities 

response plans; developing pollution and hazardous waste minimization strategies; conducting environmental assessments; and 

furnishing necessary program support. These funds permit the continuation of a service-wide program to correct environmental problems, such as through major improvements of storage tanks containing petroleum and regulated substances. The program focuses 

mainly on Coast Guard facilities, but also includes third party sites 

where Coast Guard activities have contributed to environmental 

problems. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $13,198,000 for Environmental 

Compliance and Restoration, the same amount as requested and 

$198,000 more than the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. The 

Committee is aware of the continuing backlog in environmental 

compliance projects and expects the Coast Guard to provide a 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
80 

prioritized list outlining the backlog and a five-year remediation 

plan for the most environmentally damaging and time-sensitive of 

the contaminated sites within six months of the date of enactment 

of this Act. 

RESERVE TRAINING

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 ......................................................... $130,501,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 ..................................................... 133,632,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 133,632,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 .................................................. +3,131,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 .............................................. – – – 

MISSION

This appropriation provides for the training of qualified individuals who are available for active duty in time of war or national 

emergency or to augment regular Coast Guard forces in the performance of peacetime missions. Program activities fall into the following categories: 

Initial training—The direct costs of initial training for three categories of non-prior service trainees; 

Continued training—The training of officer and enlisted personnel; 

Operation and maintenance of training facilities—The day-to-day 

operation and maintenance of reserve training facilities; and 

Administration—All administrative costs of the reserve forces 

program. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $133,632,000 for Reserve Training, 

the same as the amount requested and $3,131,000 above the 

amount provided in fiscal year 2009. 

ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, AND IMPROVEMENTS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 1 ....................................................... $1,494,576,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 ..................................................... 1,383,980,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 1,347,480,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 .................................................. ¥147,096,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 .............................................. ¥36,500,000 

1 Excludes $98,000,000 in appropriations in the American Recovery and Reinvestwent Act (P.L. 111–5). 

MISSION

The Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements appropriation 

finances the acquisition of new capital assets, construction of new 

facilities, and physical improvements to existing facilities and assets. The appropriation covers Coast Guard-owned and operated 

vessels, aircraft, shore facilities, and other equipment such as computer systems, as well as the personnel needed to manage acquisition activities. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,347,480,000 for Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements, $36,500,000 below the amount requested and $147,096,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
81 

2009. A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee recommended level by budget activity is as follows: 

Budget estimate Recommended 

Vessels and critical infrastructure: 

Response boat medium ...................................................................................... $103,000,000 $103,000,000 

Subtotal, vessels and critical infrastructure ................................... 103,000,000 103,000,000 

Deepwater: 

Aircraft: 

Maritime patrol aircraft ............................................................................. 175,000,000 138,500,000 

HH–60 conversions .................................................................................... 45,900,000 45,900,000 

HC–130H conversion/sustainment project ................................................ 45,300,000 45,300,000 

HH–65 conversions .................................................................................... 38,000,000 38,000,000 

H-C130J missionization ............................................................................. $1,300,000 1,300,000 

Subtotal, aircraft .............................................................................. 305,500,000 269,000,000 

Surface ships:.

National security cutter ............................................................................. 281,480,000 281,480,000 

Offshore patrol cutter ................................................................................ 9,800,000 9,800,000 

Fast Response Cutter/Replacement Patrol Boat ....................................... 243,000,000 243,000,000 

IDS small boats ......................................................................................... 3,000,000 3,000,000 

Patrol Boats sustainment .......................................................................... 23,000,000 23,000,000 

Medium endurance cutter sustainment .................................................... 31,100,000 31,100,000 

Subtotal, surface ships .................................................................... 591,380,000 591,380,000 

Technology obsolescence prevention .................................................................. 1,900,000 1,900,000 

C4ISR .................................................................................................................. 35,000,000 35,000,000 

Logistics .............................................................................................................. 37,700,000 37,700,000 

Systems engineering and integration ................................................................ 35,000,000 35,000,000 

Government program management .................................................................... 45,000,000 45,000,000 

Subtotal, Deepwater ......................................................................... 1,051,480,000 1,014,980,000 

Other equipment: 

Rescue 21 ........................................................................................................... 117,000,000 117,000,000 

HF recap ............................................................................................................. 2,500,000 2,500,000 

Subtotal, other equipment ................................................................ 119,500,000 119,500,000 

Shore facilities and aids to navigation: 

Survey and design, shore operational and support projects ............................. 6,000,000 6,000,000 

Waterways aids to navigation ............................................................................ 4,000,000 4,000,000 

Subtotal, shore facilities and aids to navigation ............................ 10,000,000 10,000,000 

Personnel and related support: 

Direct personnel costs ........................................................................................ 99,500,000 99,500,000 

AC&I core ............................................................................................................ 500,000 500,000 

Subtotal, personnel and related support ......................................... 100,000,000 100,000,000 

Total ......................................................................................... 1,383,980,000 1,347,480,000 

QUARTERLY REPORTS ON ACQUISITION PROJECTS AND MISSION

EMPHASIS

The Committee continues to find Coast Guard’s quarterly acquisition reports and mission emphasis reports extremely useful, and 

as such, directs Coast Guard to continue submitting these comprehensive reports in a timely fashion. The Coast Guard is directed 

to continue to include in the acquisition reports information on 

small boat purchases and leases made within the Operating Expenses appropriation. 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
82 

STATUTORY REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

The Committee is frustrated that the Coast Guard failed to provide several reports required in law that were to accompany the 

2010 budget request. Specifically, P.L. 110–329 requires the Coast 

Guard to submit a Deepwater expenditure plan and a capital investment plan, yet neither was received. While these are not simple documents, these are not new requests. The Coast Guard has 

been required to submit a capital investment plan every year since 

the agency moved to DHS. Similarly, the Coast Guard has been required to submit an annual expenditure plan using the fiscal year 

2006 revised Deepwater Implementation Plan as the base document since fiscal year 2007. These reports are critical because they 

provide the Committee with needed data to assess the effectiveness 

of one of the country’s largest annual investments in homeland security. The explanation provided in the budget justification for the 

lack of data from a Capital Investment Plan is wholly inadequate 

in satisfying the requirement. Although the Committee had chosen 

not to carry a withholding provision in the bill this year out of consideration for possible dislocations in the reporting process due to 

the transition of administrations, these documents should be provided to the Committee immediately, or there is little question that 

the question of withholdings will be revisited. 

DEEPWATER

The Committee recommends $1,014,980,000 for Deepwater, 

$36,500,000 below the amount requested and $19,014,000 below 

the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. 

MARITIME PATROL AIRCRAFT

The Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA) serves as the Coast Guard’s 

lead fixed-wing extended surveillance and quick response platform. 

The Committee recommends $138,500,000 for two additional 

MPAs, mission pallets, spares, and logistics support as requested. 

The Committee does not include $36,500,000 requested for accelerating the purchase of a MPA flight simulator ahead of its original 

schedule. 

MARITIME SURVEILLANCE

The Committee has consistently voiced its concerns over the gap 

between the Coast Guard’s stated mission hour needs for maritime 

surveillance and available resource hours of surveillance assets. 

These concerns are based upon the Coast Guard’s quantitative 

analysis of mission requirements and repeated testimony by operational personnel and security experts on the need for increased 

maritime surveillance capabilities, especially in the source and 

transit zones of the eastern Pacific Ocean and the Caribbean basin. 

The Committee is pleased the fiscal year 2010 budget request partially addresses this issue through funding for aircraft acquisition, 

conversion and sustainment. However, the Committee is concerned 

by the absence of requested funding to support operational testing 

and evaluation of either land-based or cutter-based unmanned aerial systems (UAS) in fiscal year 2010 given the unrealized potential 

of such assets for enhanced maritime surveillance. Furthermore, 

the Committee notes that even with these additional surveillance 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
83 

resources requested for fiscal year 2010, the Coast Guard’s available maritime surveillance hours will only be at approximately 65 

percent of stated mission needs. The Coast Guard is directed to report to the Committee no later than November 1, 2009, on its 

planned efforts to leverage available interagency resources and 

other temporary surveillance capabilities, including the operational 

testing and evaluation of UAS, in fiscal year 2010 to address the 

maritime surveillance mission hour gap. 

NATIONAL SECURITY CUTTER

The National Security Cutter (NSC) is the replacement for the 

378-foot High Endurance Cutter, and as such, is capable of worldwide operations, extended on-scene presence, long transit and forward deployments. The Committee recommends $281,480,000 for 

the NSC as requested, $72,220,000 below the amount provided in 

fiscal year 2009. The Committee does this despite persistent concerns regarding cost controls and the production schedule for this 

class of cutter. These concerns are predicated on the fact that the 

cost of the fourth NSC is more than $73,700,000 and fourteen percent higher than the previous two cutters in this class and that the 

Coast Guard’s current schedule delays the award for the fifth NSC 

until 2011. The Committee is troubled by a projected production 

schedule for the remaining NSCs that delays fulfillment of known 

operational needs and appears to enable further cost growth and 

delays in cutter delivery. These concerns are exacerbated by the absence of requested funding for known, immediate maintenance 

needs of the legacy high endurance cutters (HECs) in fiscal year 

2010. The Committee views the confluence of the NSC’s extended 

production schedule with the uncertain long-term availability of 

the legacy HEC fleet as a detriment to offshore maritime security 

operations and directs the Coast Guard to: prioritize maintenance 

needs of the HEC fleet, as addressed elsewhere in this report, and 

inform the Committee no later than July 1, 2009, of its efforts to 

put in place a contractual structure for the remaining NSCs that 

will provide expeditious delivery at the least cost and risk to the 

taxpayer. 

OFFSHORE PATROL CUTTER

The Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC) is the replacement vessel for 

the current 210-foot and 270-foot Medium Endurance cutters. The 

Committee provides the requested $9,800,000 to complete alternatives analysis and required acquisition documentation for the 

OPC, as well as beginning Phase I of preliminary design. The Committee understands from the Coast Guard that this approach will 

help reduce the risk of program cost growth. Given that such cost 

growth was behind the decision to stop work on the initial OPC, 

the Coast Guard is directed to brief the Committee on the result 

of the requirements analysis prior to initiating Phase I work on the 

new OPC. 

FAST RESPONSE CUTTER

The Fast Response Cutter (FRC) is the more capable replacement for the Coast Guard’s legacy 110-foot patrol boats. The Committee provides the requested $243,000,000 for full-rate production 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
84 

of four FRCs, $127,700,000 above the amount provided in fiscal 

year 2009. The Coast Guard is expected to take delivery of the first 

FRC in fiscal year 2010. The Committee directs the Coast Guard 

to include in its quarterly briefings to the Committee on the FRC’s 

progress information on the effectiveness of its various efforts to 

control cost growth. 

LEGACY CUTTER SUSTAINMENT

The Committee continues to be concerned about legacy cutter 

sustainment as new vessels are being slowly brought into service. 

The Committee understands that the funding level in the request 

for cutter sustainment allows for these programs to continue on 

schedule, with the shipyards working at optimal capacity. The 

Committee is pleased by the increases in vessel availability resulting from the sustainment programs in place for patrol boats and 

Medium-Endurance Cutters. Coast Guard reporting indicates that 

the Medium Endurance Cutter Sustainment Program has increased the fully-capable mission availability of 270-foot cutters by 

62 percent, and 210-foot cutters by 75 percent. Also, the Committee 

notes that attention to critical maintenance needs in the 378-foot 

High Endurance Cutter fleet has resulted in more marginal improvements in availability, and urges the Coast Guard to move 

ahead on a more robust sustainment option for the High Endurance Cutter. 

DEEPWATER REVIEW AND CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN

The Committee notes that neither the Secretary’s review of the 

Revised Deepwater Implementation Plan nor the future-years capital investment plan mandated in P.L. 110–329 were provided with 

the budget request. The Committee strongly urges the Department 

to produce those items expeditiously, and make sure that similar 

mandates carried in this legislation are met. 

SHORE FACILITIES AND AIDS TO NAVIGATION

The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for shore facilities and 

aids to navigation as requested, which is $58,000,000 below the 

amount provided in fiscal year 2009. In 2009, Congress provided a 

major investment to address the maintenance backlog for the Coast 

Guard’s shore facilities totaling $166,000,000, including funding 

under ARRA. The Coast Guard shall provide the Committee with 

a prioritized list of projects in the backlog and the Coast Guard’s 

plan to address them by January 15, 2010. 

In addition, a general provision is included to authorize the 

Coast Guard to use previously appropriated funds for the consolidation of Sector Buffalo to enhance public access to Buffalo Lighthouse. The Coast Guard is directed to brief the Committee within 

90 days of the date of enactment of this Act on how this aspect of 

the project will be completed by the end of fiscal 2011. 

RESCUE 21

The Committee recommends $117,000,000 for Rescue 21, the 

same as the amount requested. Rescue 21 will replace the existing 

National Distress and Response System with improved coastal communications and command and control capabilities. The Rescue 21 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
85 

system now stands watch along 22,292 miles of coastline, and is deployed at 41 percent of Coast Guard sectors. The Committee is 

aware of problems with siting some Rescue 21 towers that have resulted in cost increases and program delays, and urges the Coast 

Guard to be diligent in its planning processes to avoid such problems. 

PERSONNEL AND RELATED SUPPORT

The Committee recommends $100,000,000 for acquisition personnel, as requested, and $7,170,000 above the amount provided in 

fiscal year 2009. The Committee is supportive of the efforts the 

Coast Guard has made in confronting problems with its acquisition 

management and oversight, especially the establishment of an acquisition career path for Coast Guard military personnel. 

ALTERATION OF BRIDGES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 1 ....................................................... $16,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 ..................................................... – – – 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 10,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 .................................................. ¥6,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 .............................................. +10,000,000 1Excludes $142,000,000 in appropriations in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (P.L. 111–5). 

MISSION

The bill includes funding for alteration of bridges deemed a hazard to marine navigation pursuant to the Truman-Hobbs Act. The 

purpose of these alterations is to improve the safety of marine 

navigation under the bridge rather than the improvement of surface transportation on the bridge itself. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for Alteration of 

Bridges, $10,000,000 above the amount requested and $6,000,000 

below the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. The Committee directs the Coast Guard to fund bridges with the most critical needs, 

giving priority to ongoing projects that have received appropriations in the past but have not attained the Coast Guard’s threshold 

to begin construction. 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 ......................................................... $18,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 ..................................................... 19,745,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 19,745,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 .................................................. +1,745,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 .............................................. – – – 

MISSION

The purpose of Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation is 

to allow Coast Guard to maintain its non-homeland security research and development capability, while also partnering with DHS 

and the Department of Defense to leverage beneficial initiatives. 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
86 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $19,745,000 for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, the same as the amount requested and 

$1,745,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. The 

Committee notes the aggressive research agenda laid out in the 

budget request and requires a report from the Coast Guard within 

90 days of the date of enactment of this Act describing how the research projects outlined in the request will be supported with the 

resources provided. 

The report should include Coast Guard activities in support of 

the development of freshwater ballast treatment technologies. 

UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMS

The Committee recognizes the Coast Guard’s efforts to examine 

effective unmanned aerial systems (UAS) that pose low developmental risks and demonstrate cost-effectiveness. Furthermore, the 

Committee is pleased to see the Coast Guard working with the Department of Defense in an effort to leverage UAS development, 

testing, and engineering efforts. However, the Committee is concerned the National Security Cutter (NSC) is commencing operations without a viable UAS solution and therefore will not provide 

its projected surveillance capabilities. The Coast Guard is directed 

to report to the Committee no later than December 1, 2009, on its 

efforts and findings to date on determining the most effective UAS 

for maritime applications, including long range surveillance, midaltitude/mid-range surveillance, and for use with flight deck 

equipped cutters. The Coast Guard is further directed to include in 

this report a projected timeline for the integration and operation of 

a UAS with the NSC. 

MEDICARE ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH CARE FUND CONTRIBUTION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 1 ....................................................... $257,305,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 1 ................................................... 261,000,000 

Recommended in the bill 1 ................................................................. 261,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 .................................................. +3,695,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 .............................................. – – – 

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, retiree dependents, and their potential survivors. The authority for Coast 

Guard to make this payment on an annual basis was provided in 

the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 

2005. 

RECOMMENDATION

While this account requires no annual action by Congress, the 

Committee provides $261,000,000 to fund the Medicare-eligible retiree health care fund contribution. This number is based on a Congressional Budget Office re-estimate. 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
87 

RETIRED PAY

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 ......................................................... $1,236,745,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 ..................................................... 1,361,245,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 1,361,245,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 .................................................. +124,500,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 .............................................. – – – 

MISSION

This appropriation provides for the retired pay of Coast Guard 

military personnel and Coast Guard Reserve personnel, as well as 

career status bonuses for active duty personnel. In addition, it provides payments to members of the former Lighthouse Service and 

beneficiaries pursuant to the retired serviceman’s family protection 

plan and survivor benefit plan, as well as payments for medical 

care of retired personnel and their dependents under the Dependents’ Medical Care Act. 

RECOMMENDATION

The bill provides $1,361,245,000 for Retired Pay, the same as the 

amount requested and $124,500,000 above the amount provided in 

fiscal year 2009. The Committee includes bill language allowing 

funds to remain available until expended. This is scored as a mandatory appropriation in the Congressional budget process. 

UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 1 ....................................................... $1,408,729,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 ..................................................... 1,485,609,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 1,457,409,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 .................................................. +48,680,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 .............................................. ¥28,200,000 

1Does not include $100,000,000 in emergency funding provided in P.L. 111–8, the Fiscal Year 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act. 

MISSION

The United States Secret Service has statutory authority to carry 

out two primary missions: protection of the nation’s leaders and investigation of financial and electronic crimes. The Secret Service 

protects and investigates threats against the President and Vice 

President, their families, visiting heads of state, and other designated individuals; protects the White House, Vice President’s 

Residence, Foreign Missions, and other buildings within Washington, D.C.; and manages the security at National Special Security Events. The Secret Service also investigates violations of laws 

relating to counterfeiting of obligations and securities of the United 

States; financial crimes that include, but are not limited to, access 

device fraud, financial institution fraud, identity theft, and computer fraud; and computer-based attacks on financial, banking, and 

telecommunications infrastructure. The agency also provides support for investigations related to missing and exploited children. 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
88 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,457,409,000 for Secret Service 

Salaries and Expenses, $28,200,000 below the amount requested 

but $48,680,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. Excluding $26,082,000 of one-time Presidential campaign costs funded 

in fiscal year 2009, the 2010 funding level provides a 5.4 percent 

increase in Secret Service operating budgets, significantly above 

the rate of inflation. 

The Committee does not provide the $4,040,000 requested to establish a new compensation framework for the Secret Service Uniformed Division, as discussed below. The Committee also denies 

$21,260,000 requested for Secret Service computer network investments until the agency develops a plan that integrates Secret Service information technology systems with the Department’s longterm plan for data center consolidation. Finally, the Committee reduces the requested budget for White House mail processing by 

$2,900,000 to reflect one-time equipment purchases made in 2009. 

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

Budget estimate Recommended 

Headquarters Management and Administration ......................................................... $221,045,000 $199,785,000 

Protection: 

Protection of Persons and Facilities .................................................................. 759,561,000 755,521,000 

Protective Intelligence Activities ........................................................................ 67,824,000 67,824,000

National Special Security Event Fund ................................................................ 1,000,000 1,000,000 

White House mail screening ............................................................................... 25,315,000 22,415,000 

Total, Protection ......................................................................................... 853,700,000 846,760,000 

Investigations: 

Domestic field operations ................................................................................... 260,892,000 260,892,000 

International field office administration operations .......................................... 30,705,000 30,705,000 

Electronic Crimes Special Agent Program and Electronic Crimes Task Forces 56,541,000 56,541,000 

Support for missing and exploited children ...................................................... 8,366,000 8,366,000 

Total, Investigations .................................................................................. 356,504,000 356,504,000 

Training: 

Rowley Training Center ....................................................................................... 54,360,000 54,360,000 

Total, Salaries and Expenses ........................................................... 1,485,609,000 1,457,409,000 

PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN AND INAUGURATION

The Committee congratulates the Secret Service on its accomplishments in the 2008 presidential campaign, which was the most 

demanding in the agency’s history. Given the unprecedented interest in the campaign, and the large number of voters who turned 

out at rallies for both candidates, the Secret Service screened over 

five million people during the campaign, including nearly half-amillion at the party conventions. These statistics represent a 77 

percent increase over the number of attendees at 2004 campaign 

events. The Secret Service is to be commended for its diligence and 

professionalism in ensuring the safety and civil rights of those who 

participate in our democracy, as well as for ensuring the security 

of the candidates and their families. 

Apart from this otherwise sterling record, the Committee was 

disappointed by a series of missteps in the orchestration of the seVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:16 Jun 17, 2009 Jkt 050276 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR157.XXX HR157

smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
89 

curity plan for the 2009 presidential inauguration. A variety of factors, not all of which were under direct control of the Secret Service, led to thousands of ticketed guests being unable to witness the 

inauguration from the observation areas to which they were supposed to have been admitted. Problems such as insufficient pedestrian traffic direction, inadequate crowd control, and narrow entry 

gates that became bottlenecks all led to significant delays in processing attendees through ticket checkpoints and security screening. 

The Committee strongly urges the Secret Service, in conjunction 

with the Capitol Police, to further study the issues highlighted in 

the ‘‘Multi-Agency Response to Concerns Raised by the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies for the 56th Presidential Inauguration’’ and develop a plan for implementing that report’s major recommendations so that these mistakes are not repeated at any future inaugural celebration. 

FISCAL YEAR 2009 OMNIBUS APPROPRIATIONS

In response to operational requirements identified by the Secret 

Service, the Committee provided $61,470,000 in the 2009 Omnibus 

Appropriations Act for the Secret Service to expand its protective 

operations, including hiring 150 new Special Agents and 204 technical, administrative and support staff. Buried within the 2010 

budget request, the Secret Service proposed altering the number of 

personnel it planned to hire using these funds, unilaterally reducing the expansion of programs previously directed by Congress. The 

Committee notes that it is the role of the Congress, not the Executive Branch, to determine the appropriate resource levels for agency programs, and directs the Secret Service to ensure that all staff 

funded in the 2009 Omnibus Appropriation Act (P.L. 111–8) are indeed hired. The Committee directs the Secret Service to be more 

forthcoming about its hiring plans in future annual budget briefs. 

In addition, the Committee directs the Secret Service to provide an 

immediate briefing on its hiring plans for 2009 and 2010, including 

its schedule for filling any vacancies created by attrition or retirement, its schedule for hiring and annualizing new personnel funded 

in the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act, and its planned hiring to 

fill positions proposed in the 2010 budget. 

WHITE HOUSE MAIL SCREENING

The Committee recommends $22,415,000 to screen mail sent to 

the White House and other Executive Office of the President agencies, which is $2,900,000 below the amount requested. The budget 

proposed $25,315,000 for mail screening, a reduction of $8,386,000 

below the 2009 level. The request includes a cut of $11,600,000 for 

one-time equipment purchases funded in 2009 that is partially offset by an increase of $3,214,000 to annualize the rental budget for 

the facility. However, the 2009 appropriation actually included 

$14,500,000 to equip the White House mail screening facility. As 

a result, the Committee reduces the White House mail screening 

budget by an additional $2,900,000 to account for all of the onetime equipment costs funded in 2009. 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
90 

SECRET SERVICE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

The budget proposes $33,960,000 for Secret Service information 

technology recapitalization, including new network infrastructure, 

system security, and application stability investments. The Committee is well aware of the threats posed by inadequate network 

controls and out-of-date technology since it has invested more than 

$400,000,000 in DHS cybersecurity programs over the past two 

years. Furthermore, the Committee has also appropriated significant amounts for the construction of two state-of-the-art data centers that are supposed to consolidate all Departmental information 

storage at highly secure and protected locations. Although work remains to be done to ensure the Department’s data centers can provide the robust level of service planned, there is no compelling justification to exempt the Secret Service from this consolidation. 

Therefore, the Committee provides only $12,700,000 of this request, 

which will allow the agency to stabilize and secure its mission-critical applications through the database architecture and maintenance, information assurance, and cross-domain application/data 

environment initiatives. The Committee directs that none of this 

funding be used for planning or acquiring a stand-alone Secret 

Service data center. Further, the Committee directs the Secret 

Service to work with the Office of the Chief Information Officer for 

the Department of Homeland Security to develop immediately a 

transition plan to integrate the agency’s network systems and data 

into the Department’s data center consolidation effort after the risk 

assessment and mitigation work discussed elsewhere in this report 

is complete. 

UNIFORMED DIVISION MODERNIZATION

Included in the budget is a request for $4,040,000 to restructure 

the Secret Service Uniformed Division’s salary and benefits package. Many of the Uniformed Division’s governing authorities, including its salary tables, are codified as a section of the District of 

Columbia code because the White House police force (the ancestor 

agency of the Uniformed Division) was originally a part of the Metropolitan Police Department. As a result, Secret Service Uniformed 

Division officers are subject to both Federal and District of Columbia work regulations, which makes administration of the Uniformed Division both complex and burdensome. To address this 

issue, the Administration has proposed the ‘‘Uniformed Division 

Modernization Act of 2010,’’ which would establish a new pay 

schedule for Uniformed Division employees as part of the United 

States Code, and rectify anomalies between the Uniformed Division’s personnel authorities and those that apply to other Federal 

law enforcement agencies. While the Committee is sympathetic to 

the need to modernize the personnel laws that govern the Uniformed Division, it has no jurisdiction to do so, and therefore has 

not included the modernization proposal in the 2010 Appropriations bill. Furthermore, there appear to be equity and fairness 

issues related to other Federal law enforcement agencies also governed by the District of Columbia code that have not been fully addressed in the proposed legislation. As a result of these concerns, 

the Committee provides no funding to implement a new Uniformed 

Division pay and benefits system, and encourages the Department 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
91 

to work with the authorizing Committees of jurisdiction to address 

this issue through regular Congressional processes. 

ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENTS, AND RELATED

EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 ......................................................... $4,225,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 ..................................................... 3,975,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 3,975,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 .................................................. ¥250,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 .............................................. – – – 

MISSION

This account supports the acquisition, construction, improvement, equipment, furnishing and related cost for maintenance and 

support of Secret Service facilities, including the Secret Service Memorial Headquarters Building and the James J. Rowley Training 

Center (JJRTC). 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $3,975,000, the same levels as requested in the budget, and $250,000 below the 2009 enacted level. 

TITLE III—PROTECTION, PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE, AND 

RECOVERY 

NATIONAL PROTECTION AND PROGRAMS DIRECTORATE

MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 ......................................................... $ 51,350,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 ..................................................... 44,577,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 44,577,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 .................................................. ¥6,773,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 .............................................. – – – 

MISSION

The National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) includes programs focused on security of the country’s physical and 

cyber infrastructure, interoperable communications systems, and 

the US–VISIT entry-exit system. The Management and Administration account funds the immediate Office of the Under Secretary 

for National Protection and Programs; provides for administrative 

overhead costs such as IT support and shared services; includes a 

national planning office for development of standard doctrine and 

policy for infrastructure protection and cyber security; and includes 

a Risk Management and Analysis office, which develops standard 

doctrine and policy for DHS risk analyses. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $44,577,000 for Management and 

Administration, as requested. This amount is $6,773,000 below the 

amount provided in fiscal year 2009 due to the reallocation of several administrative budgets to the Infrastructure Protection and 

Information Security account, as described below. 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
92 

INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION AND INFORMATION SECURITY

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 ......................................................... $806,913,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 ..................................................... 918,166,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 883,346,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 .................................................. +76,433,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 .............................................. ¥34,820,000 

MISSION

Infrastructure Protection and Information Security (IPIS) works 

to reduce the vulnerability of the nation’s critical infrastructure, 

key resources, information technology networks, and telecommunications systems to terrorist attacks and natural disasters. IPIS is 

also responsible for maintaining effective telecommunications for 

government users in national emergencies, and for establishing 

policies and promoting solutions for interoperable communications 

at the Federal, State and local levels. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $883,346,000 for IPIS, $34,820,000 

below the amount requested, and $76,433,000 above the amount 

provided in fiscal year 2009. The Committee withholds 

$180,000,000 from obligation until the Department submits and 

the Committee approves expenditure plans for two programs, as 

described below. Given the lateness of the 2010 budget submission, 

the Committee is unable to re-arrange the Program, Project, and 

Activity display for the IPIS account, and instead presents funding 

in the same arrangement as past years. In addition, regardless of 

any restructuring proposals planned for the 2011 budget, the 

NPPD Chief Financial Officer is directed to submit the budget in 

a structure identical to that enacted in the 2010 Appropriations Act 

so that the Committee can easily compare funding levels for the 

myriad programs managed by NPPD. A comparison of the budget 

estimate to the Committee recommended level by budget activity is 

as follows: 

Budget estimate Recommended 

Infrastructure Protection: 

Identification and Evaluation ............................................................................. $86,610,000 $86,610,000 

Coordination and Information Sharing ............................................................... 50,582,000 62,912,000 

Mitigation Programs ........................................................................................... 196,111,000 196,961,000 

National Cyber Security Division: 

US-Computer Emergency Response Team .......................................................... 333,629,000 310,629,000 

Strategic Initiatives ............................................................................................ 57,679,000 64,179,000 

Outreach and Programs ..................................................................................... 9,346,000 7,096,000 

Office of Emergency Communications ........................................................................ 44,060,000 45,060,000

Nat’l Security/Emergency Preparedness Telecom: 

Priority Telecommunications Services ................................................................ 56,773,000 56,773,000 

Next Generation Networks ................................................................................... 50,250,000 25,000,000 

National Command and Coordination Capability (rescission, non-add) ........... 0 1 [¥5,963,000] 

Programs to Study and Enhance Telecommunications ...................................... 19,274,000 16,774,000 

Critical Infrastructure Protection Programs ....................................................... 13,852,000 11,352,000 

Total, Infrastructure Protection and Information Security ........................ 918,166,000 883,346,000 

1 Note: Rescission of balances for the National Command and Coordination Capability included in Title V. 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
93 

FACILITY RENT

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

and Administration account. 

CHEMICAL FACILITY ANTI-TERRORISM STANDARDS AND REGULATION

OF AMMONIUM NITRATE

For fiscal year 2010, the Committee provides $103,363,000 for 

the costs of regulating the security of chemical facilities and ammonium nitrate transactions, an increase of $25,363,000, or nearly 33 

percent over 2009. Of this increase, $12,000,000 will pay for implementation of new Ammonium Nitrate regulations, $7,000,000 will 

be used to continue expansion of the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) program, and $6,363,000 will fund inflationary increases and staff pay raises. The Committee is pleased 

that the Administration appears to be taking the security of chemical facilities and the control of potentially dangerous chemicals seriously by requesting these additional funds. 

NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PLAN MANAGEMENT

The 2010 request proposes a 40 percent cut to the budget for 

NPPD’s partnership efforts to implement the National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP) and its subsidiary Sector-Specific 

Agency (SSA) plans. The previous Administration proposed similar 

cuts to NIPP and SSA plan implementation programs. As envisioned in the NIPP, DHS and other sector-specific agencies work in 

conjunction with private stakeholders, State governments, and 

other participants to identify and mitigate the vulnerability of infrastructure to terrorist attack or natural disaster. The nation’s private sector infrastructure owners continue to inform the Committee 

of the value of collaborative working relationships between industry and government to address infrastructure security vulnerabilities. The Committee believes that such a cooperative approach to 

the security of the nation’s infrastructure is much more cost-effective than either the total absence of government involvement in security planning or the direct application of government security 

regulations. Given the value of these groups to the protection of our 

country’s infrastructure, the Committee provides $51,390,000 for 

NIPP and SSA plan partnerships, an increase of $12,390,000 over 

the requested level. 

OFFICE OF BOMBING PREVENTION

The Office of Bombing Prevention (OBP) is responsible for implementing the DHS National Strategy for Bombing Prevention, and 

also trains State and local governments in how to identify and safely handle bombs and IEDs. The Committee provides OBP 

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

PHILADELPHIA INFRASTRUCTURE MONITORING

The Committee provides $1,000,000 for NPPD to continue deployment of infrastructure monitoring and crime cameras in the 

city of Philadelphia. The Committee directs the agency to work 

with city administrators to position new cameras in areas of high 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
94 

threat or crime, to ensure that both the local and the Federal governments can benefit from their deployment. 

CYBER SECURITY

The Committee provides $381,904,000 for the Cyber Security Division (CSD), which includes the DHS share of the Administration’s 

National Cyber Security Initiative (NCSI). This amount is 

$68,404,000 more than was provided in fiscal year 2009, reflecting 

the Committee’s support of a robust effort to secure government 

networks and sensitive private networks, especially those related to 

critical infrastructure. 

The goal of the NCSI is to strengthen the security of government 

computer networks and reduce their vulnerability to attacks by 

outside forces by consolidating internet connection points while simultaneously developing and installing monitoring devices that examine network traffic across government computer systems. The 

Committee is concerned by recent reports from the Department 

that show costs for the NCSI have risen while schedules for deploying the network devices and consolidating internet connection 

points have been delayed by approximately one year. In the 2009 

Appropriations Act, Congress required DHS to submit an expenditure plan showing how the funds provided for the NCSI would be 

used to achieve the program’s goals, and restricted from obligation 

half of the budget for the U.S. Computer Emergency Response 

Team (US–CERT) until the plan was approved. The 2009 expenditure plan for the NCSI, which was submitted on April 29, 2009, 

provided the Committee with valuable insight into the goals, milestones, and costs of the program. To ensure continued discipline in 

program execution, the Committee withholds $155,000,000 of the 

2010 US–CERT budget until it receives and approves an updated 

expenditure plan for the NCSI, reflecting any changes in the plan 

since the submission of the last report and discussing how appropriations provided in this bill will be used. 

Because of lack of justification, the Committee has provided none of the $15,250,000 requested for ‘‘Cyber Security Coordination’’ and 

the ‘‘Cyber Security Information Sharing and Collaboration Program.’’ Consistent with funding recommendations contained 

throughout this report, the Committee also provides none of the 

$10,000,000 requested for data center migration activities due to 

the IG’s recent findings described in the Chief Information Officer 

section of the report regarding possible unmitigated risks at the 

destination data center sites. These reductions are offset by funding for several specific projects discussed below. 

CYBER SECURITY INTELLIGENCE ANALYSIS

The 2010 budget proposed to fund a new cadre of cyber security 

intelligence analysts in the Office of Intelligence and Analysis. 

While the Committee does not dispute the potential value of a dedicated team of analysts focused on emerging cyber security threats, 

it believes the expertise necessary for such analysis is best evaluated by the program managers for the NCSI. As a result, if CSD 

believes it requires additional cyber security analysts focused on intelligence activities, the Committee directs it to enter into a reimbursable agreement with the Office of Intelligence and Analysis to 

establish this function. 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
95 

CYBER SECURITY TRAINING

The Committee provides $5,847,000 for Cyber Security Training and Education, $1,000,000 more than requested. The Committee 

recognizes that protecting our country’s cyber infrastructure requires a workforce that is aware of and skilled in protecting computer networks. Therefore, within the total provided, $3,500,000 is 

for continued development and implementation of State and local 

cyber security training at the University of Texas at San Antonio, 

$500,000 is for Virginia’s Operational Integration Cyber Center of 

Excellence (VOICCE) in Hampton, Virginia, and $100,000 is for the 

Upstate New York Cyber Initiative at Clarkson University. 

CONTROL SYSTEMS SECURITY

Computerized control systems are an often unnoticed but critically important aspect of the nation’s physical and cyber infrastructure. These devices ensure the efficient and reliable operation of 

much of the nation’s power, water, information and other critical 

systems, and many have been shown to be unacceptably vulnerable 

to malicious attacks. To address this concern, the Committee provides $26,563,000 for Control Systems Security efforts, including 

$3,000,000 to conduct vulnerability analysis, testing, and protection 

of full-scale power systems and cyber-connected systems for the Department of Homeland Security, utilizing the range of unique resources available at the Idaho National Laboratory. 

CYBER SECURITY TEST BED AND EVALUATION CENTER

While the Department has made significant progress reducing 

the vulnerabilities of government computer networks, much remains to be done to mitigate the threats to privately-owned computer systems. Given that many companies have similar network 

vulnerabilities but are prevented by competitive strategies from 

sharing security tactics, a trusted third-party organization may be 

effective at providing both expertise and a neutral forum for information sharing. To address these challenges, the Committee provides $3,500,000 for the Research Triangle Institute in Research 

Triangle Park, North Carolina, to initiate a Cyber Security Test 

Bed and Evaluation Center demonstration project focused on creating strong partnerships between the government and private sector companies to promote the security of private information networks. 

MULTI-STATE INFORMATION SHARING AND ANALYSIS CENTER

The New York State Office of Cyber Security and Critical Infrastructure Coordination has developed an effective program to monitor and ensure the security of State and municipally-owned computer networks. This group, known as the Multi-State Information 

Sharing and Analysis Center (MS–ISAC), is the premier State and 

local government cyber security entity. While DHS has a current 

contract with MS–ISAC to support these efforts, the center requires capital investment to expand its operations. In addition to 

the amounts requested by DHS to continue MS–ISAC operations, 

the Committee provides $3,000,000 for expansion of the Managed 

Security Services effort, which will allow the center to protect several more States and localities from cyber attack. 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
96 

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS

The Committee recommends $45,060,000 for the Office of Emergency Communications, $1,000,000 over the requested level and 

$6,760,000 more than provided in fiscal year 2009. Of this amount, 

$1,000,000 is for SEARCH to provide interoperable communications 

training, certification, technical assistance, and outreach programs 

to State, regional, and local first responder communications coordinators. 

NATIONAL SECURITY/EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

TELECOMMUNICATIONS

The National Security/Emergency Preparedness Telecommunications budget incorporates a group of programs focused on ensuring the availability of land-line and wireless telecommunications 

channels to Federal, State and local government employees to use 

in times of emergency. The Committee provides the requested 

$56,773,000 for the Priority Telecommunications System. The Committee recommends $16,774,000 for the Program to Study and Enhance Telecommunications, $2,500,000 below the request because 

no funding is provided for the Continuity Communications Architecture due to inadequate justification. The Committee recommends $11,352,000 for Critical Infrastructure Protection Programs, a reduction of $2,500,000 below the request since no funding is provided for Regional Communications Coordinators, which 

would be duplicative of activities already carried out by FEMA. In 

the 2009 Appropriations Act, Congress required DHS to submit an 

expenditure plan showing how $50,250,000 provided for the Next 

Generation Networks (NGN) program would be used to achieve the 

program’s goals. Half of this amount was restricted from obligation 

until the plan was approved by the Committees on Appropriations. 

To date, this plan has not been submitted. As a result, the Committee recommends only $25,000,000 for the NGN program in 

2010, withholding the entire amount from obligation until an expenditure plan is provided. Since the unspent 2009 appropriations 

remain available through the end of fiscal year 2010, the Committee expects that this reduction will not significantly affect execution of the NGN program. 

NATIONAL COMMAND AND COORDINATION CAPABILITY

The fiscal year 2010 budget reports that the National Command 

and Coordination Capability (NCCC) has been discontinued. Since 

this program was never adequately explained or justified, the Committee supports this decision. Furthermore, given that NCCC appears never to have produced any meaningful results or products, 

the Committee also rescinds the 2009 NCCC appropriation, as discussed in Title V of the bill. 

UNITED STATES VISITOR AND IMMIGRANT STATUS INDICATOR

TECHNOLOGY

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 ......................................................... $300,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 ..................................................... 356,194,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 351,800,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 .................................................. +51,800,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 .............................................. ¥4,394,000 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
97 

MISSION

The mission of the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status 

Indicator Technology (US–VISIT) program is to enhance the security of U.S. citizens and visitors; facilitate legitimate travel and 

trade; ensure the integrity of the immigration system; and improve 

and standardize the processes, policies, and systems utilized to collect information on foreign nationals who apply for visas at an embassy or consulate overseas, attempt to enter the country at established ports of entry (POE), request benefits such as change of status or adjustment of status, or depart the United States. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $351,800,000 for US–VISIT, 

$4,394,000 below the amount requested and $51,800,000 above the 

amount provided in fiscal year 2009. The Committee includes: 

$118,692,000 for Program Management Services; $128,126,000 for 

Operations and Maintenance; $31,000,000 for Identity Management and Screening Services; $28,738,000 for Unique Identity/ 

Interoperability; and $45,244,000 for the costs of mirroring and 

preparing for the migration of data operations from the current Department of Justice data centers to a DHS data center, and establishing a disaster recovery site at a second DHS data center. 

EXPENDITURE PLANS

The Committee denies the request to remove requirements for an 

expenditure plan. Expenditure plans have proved to be effective 

means to provide information needed by the Committee to carry 

out productive oversight, particularly for projects that are long 

term in nature and where funding requests lack necessary detail. 

To help ensure funding is used effectively for US–VISIT program 

management and to support continued implementation of 10-print 

standards, interoperability, and identity management services, the 

Committee recommends that $276,800,000 be made available to the 

program upon enactment of this Act, with $75,000,000 withheld 

subject to receipt of an expenditure plan. 

The bill continues to require that the plan include: (1) a detailed 

account of program progress; (2) a plan of action showing how the 

funding will meet future program commitments; (3) the status of 

open Government Accountability Office and Inspector General recommendations and actions to address them; (4) certifications by the 

Chief Procurement, Chief Information, and Chief Human Capital 

Officers that the program satisfies investment and information 

technology risk management and acquisition control requirements, 

and reflects adequate human capital planning; and (5) a detailed 

account of costs associated with identity services. The Committee 

directs that the expenditure plan also include a current schedule 

for the transition of operations from the current Department of 

Justice data centers to the new DHS data centers, and a description of remaining funding required for this transition. 

COMPREHENSIVE BIOMETRIC EXIT SOLUTION

For the past two years, this Committee has called upon DHS to 

either provide a meaningful plan to implement an exit solution 

within five years or else explain why an exit solution is not feaVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:16 Jun 17, 2009 Jkt 050276 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR157.XXX HR157

smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
98 

sible. In this budget, the Department clearly has taken a conservative and realistic position. No additional funding was requested 

for biometric exit in fiscal year 2010, and the Committee does not 

recommend any in this bill. 

Despite longstanding Congressional direction through appropriations language and authorization statute for such a system to be 

developed, tested, and deployed, the United States currently has no 

biometric exit system in place. At present the only way to know 

whether a visitor departs the U.S. timely is for US–VISIT to analyze information from the Arrival and Department Information 

System (ADIS) and other records of travel to see if an exit corresponds with a recorded entry. This is clearly not a ‘‘real-time’’ 

system, and requires intensive analysis by US–VISIT’s Data Integrity Group (DIG) to identify and forward leads for further investigation or for amending databases to indicate a traveler has overstayed. The 9/11 Act called for implementation of a biometric system as a prerequisite for expansion of the visa waiver program, although the former Administration deemed that the law was satisfied by the existing, non-biometric exit record system. 

DHS has conducted pilot tests of some exit procedures, using kiosks at selected U.S. international airports (with no effective enforcement mechanism and no real-time capability) and testing 

radio frequency technology embedded in immigration forms for 

land ports of entry. These efforts provided some helpful information 

but did not provide a satisfactory permanent solution. Rather than 

test other approaches, including mandatory screening, DHS in 

2008 issued a notice of proposed rulemaking for a biometric exit solution for air and sea ports that would require air and sea carriers 

to collect and transmit biometric information to DHS. This received 

many objections from the airline industry, in particular because 

they believed cost projections were unrealistic and because there 

had been no realistic field testing of the proposed policy. The rule 

has not been implemented. 

To better inform rulemaking, Congress provided that no fiscal 

year 2009 US–VISIT appropriation funding could be obligated to 

implement a final air exit solution until the Committees on Appropriations received a report on at least two pilot tests, one where 

the airlines would collect biometric information and another where 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection would collect the information 

at airport departure gates. US–VISIT is currently beginning two 

pilots. One will be at Transportation Security Administration 

checkpoints, and the other conducted by CBP as described above. 

The Committee understands that no airline industry pilot will be 

conducted at this time, and that $34,000,000 in prior year appropriations will be used to conduct the pilot tests, evaluate their findings, and determine how to proceed on a final rule, consistent with 

9/11 Act requirements. The Committee recognizes that US–VISIT 

will use approximately $6,000,000 to complete planning and design 

for a land exit solution, and $3,600,000 will be used for a kioskbased pilot test for H–2 Visa agricultural workers. US–VISIT is 

also planning to deliver a Land Exit Planning document to DHS 

this year, which will address the viability of a land exit solution, 

the range of potential solutions under consideration, and any possible timeline for a future land exit solution. 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
99 

The Committee notes that CBP is undertaking significant efforts 

that could facilitate a land exit solution: the substantial renovation 

of CBP-owned ports of entry, and new investments in infrastructure and personnel to staff outbound lanes on the Southwest Border. The Department and US–VISIT should leverage these CBP 

initiatives to the extent possible to ensure that they are compatible 

with and facilitate planning, testing and implementing biometric 

exit solutions at land ports of entry. 

The Committee expects the Department to conduct its planned 

pilot tests and evaluations so as to establish a realistic policy and 

plan for addressing exit information. The Committee directs the 

Department to provide the Committee with its land exit planning 

document as soon as it is completed. It also directs US–VISIT to 

report not later than January 15, 2010, on the results of its exit 

pilot programs and prospects for implementing any broader exit solutions. In addition, the report should describe the status of continuing discussions with Canadian and Mexican governments on 

sharing immigration entry information (in lieu of a U.S. exit process). 

UNIQUE IDENTITY

The Unique Identity program was established to standardize collection of 10-print biometric information from travelers to the 

United States; share and compare biometric information collected 

and held by the Justice and State Departments, as well as other 

law enforcement agencies such as ICE; and make DHS’s automated 

Biometric Identification System (IDENT) fully compatible with new 

system and data requirements. Pilot testing of the 10-print system 

at U.S. international air-, sea-, and land-ports of entry was completed in 2008, and 10-print collection is in place at virtually all 

ports of entry into the U.S. It is also performed for all visa applicants at U.S. consulates overseas. In 2009, DHS is expanding its 

support of the ICE Secure Communities program, which may add 

substantially to the US–VISIT/IDENT workload, with as many as 

30,000 new biometric transactions daily. The Department is also 

developing interoperability with the Defense Department by entering data about known or suspected terrorists into IDENT, as well 

as helping DOD make near real-time checks of biometric information it collects. 

Funding in fiscal year 2009, including $112,000,000 in carry-forward funding, is $178,000,000. The fiscal year 2010 request for 

$28,700,000 is less than one-sixth of fiscal 2009 spending, which reflects the substantial completion of purchase and deployment of 10- 

print readers by DHS and CBP, and accomplishment of the initial 

interoperable capacity between the DOJ’s Integrated Automated 

Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) and the IDENT system. 

The Committee recommends funding this request level, which will 

continue expanding interoperability between IAFIS and IDENT, 

support expansion of ICE’s Secure Communities, and provide ‘‘wrap 

back’’, whereby authorized agencies will receive notifications of 

subsequent criminal activity by individuals with whom an initial 

encounter has occurred. 

One reason for the significant reduction in funding for Unique 

Identity in fiscal year 2010 is that US–VISIT has only a limited 

amount of work it can undertake toward achieving full operating 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
100 

capacity (FOC) with the Justice Department. The Justice Department and the FBI have said that they will not have completed necessary work on the Next Generation Identification biometric/fingerprint system (the successor to IAFIS) until 2014. Therefore, FOC 

will be delayed until that time. In the meantime, the ability of US– 

VISIT and its users to check records in the Justice databases will 

continue to be hampered by delays in checking and confirming biometric record matches. So for the time being, the potential benefits 

of real-time data sharing will not be realized for the purposes of 

border inspections or encounters with law enforcement or security 

personnel. Because of the importance of achieving this full interoperability as soon as possible, for border and travel security, as 

well as for counter terrorism and law enforcement, the Committee 

directs US–VISIT and its counterparts at the Justice Department 

to continue providing quarterly interoperability briefings. These 

should indicate the remaining gaps in system interoperability, the 

operational impacts such gaps have on agency operations, and 

measures being taken to close them in the near term. 

ENUMERATION

The fiscal year 2009 US–VISIT appropriation called for the 2010 

budget request to report on efforts to implement enumeration within the Department—the assignment of a unique numerical identifier for an individual’s biometric and biographic records and transactions. The Department has stated that IDENT will provide a 

unique identifier to any DHS or other U.S. government agency 

upon their submission of a new set of fingerprints to IDENT, which 

will enable IDENT to conduct one to one matching in the case of 

subsequent encounters against records associated with that unique 

identifier. However, DHS also has taken the position that it will 

not use any single enumerator for any ‘‘public-facing’’ use, due to 

potential risks to privacy and security for both DHS and individuals seeking license, privilege or status, without concomitant benefits. It instead has stated that use of multiple identifiers offers 

more options for individuals interacting the DHS while mitigating 

security and privacy risks. The Committee understands that the 

Department is in the process of establishing a policy with regard 

to its use of identifiers, and directs DHS to report not later than 

January 15, 2010, on the status of this policy and the steps it will 

take to ensure compliance of DHS components and programs with 

such policy. 

IDENTITY MANAGEMENT AND SCREENING SERVICES

The Committee includes $31,000,000 for Identity Management 

and Screening Services, $11,000,000 above the level funded in fiscal year 2009. This comprises four service activities: (1) the Biometric Support Center, which verifies matching fingerprints, processes 

latent prints, and provides enrollment services for candidates submitted by law enforcement users to include in watchlist or recidivist databases; (2) the Data Integrity Group, which matches arrival, departure, and status adjustments for individuals who overstay their terms of admission to the United States; (3) Law Enforcement and Intelligence, which reviews biometric watchlist encounters, supports U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services antifraud efforts, and shares information with international partners; 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
101 

and (4) Information Sharing and Technical Assistance, which partners with foreign governments on promoting standards for biometric use and data sharing for common border control and immigration enforcement efforts. These activities are likely to attract more 

demand for service support as the value of such biometric and analytical services is recognized. The Committee directs US–VISIT to 

brief the Committee not later than December 1, 2009 on its workload and performance in meeting demand for these services. 

OVERSTAYS

The Committee has been concerned about the growing backlog in 

the identification and resolution of ‘‘overstays’’ (foreign visitors and 

immigrants who do not leave the U.S. when required to do so based 

on the terms of their visa or temporary visitor status), which is a 

critical US–VISIT mission carried out by the agency’s DIG. The 

number of overstays reported to ICE for enforcement in fiscal year 

2008 was 13,343—a thousand more than in 2007. This resulted in 

715 arrests and 13,276 out of country lookouts—double the numbers in 2007. The number of Port or Visa refusals based on lookouts placed by US–VISIT/DIG tripled to 1,441. 

These are encouraging figures, and the Committee is pleased to 

note that US–VISIT is experiencing efficiencies in DIG operations 

as it has filled positions and established a stable, experienced 

workforce. The Committee is troubled, however, by the huge backlog in overstay records that US–VISIT has been unable to review— 

a number that exceeds 750,000 and is growing. This gap represents 

a major vulnerability. In the absence of an effective ‘‘exit’’ system, 

this overstay review process is the only means to detect whether 

individuals comply with the terms of their presence in the country, 

and to perhaps determine whether such a person is of concern to 

national security or general law enforcement. On the other hand, 

failure to correct a record of overstay that is inaccurate or nonthreatening could have the effect of incorrectly retaining derogatory 

immigration records on individuals, possibly jeopardizing their ability to enter or visit the United States. The Committee strongly supports efforts to extend overstay calculation to all travelers to the 

United States, while maintaining or improving the accuracy of its 

investigative leads. The Committee directs US–VISIT to report not 

later than December 1, 2009, on steps that are being taken to reduce the backlog of ‘‘unreviewed’’ overstay records. The report 

should also include a summary of DIG performance in meeting targets for credibility and cost identified in the 2010 budget submission. 

STAFFING AND CONTRACTOR SUPPORT

The budget includes $8,600,000 in funding for 62 positions currently filled by contractors that will be converted to government 

employee positions in fiscal year 2010, a change needed to enable 

US–VISIT to more effectively carry out its governmental operational and contract oversight responsibilities. The Committee is 

pleased to see this effort, and directs US–VISIT to include a status 

report on its hiring and conversion effort as part of its quarterly 

briefings to the Committees. 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
102 

OFFICE OF HEALTH AFFAIRS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 ......................................................... $157,191,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 ..................................................... 138,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 128,400,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 .................................................. ¥28,791,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 .............................................. ¥9,600,000 

MISSION

The Office of Health Affairs (OHA) serves as the Department of 

Homeland Security’s principal agent for all medical and public 

health matters. Working across local, State, Federal, Tribal and 

territorial governments and with the private sector, OHA has the 

lead DHS role in the establishment of a scientifically rigorous, intelligence-based, medical and biodefense architecture that ensures 

the health and medical security of our nation. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $128,400,000 for OHA, $9,600,000 

below the amount requested and $28,791,000 below the amount 

provided in fiscal year 2009. A comparison of the budget estimate 

to the Committee recommended level by budget activity is as follows: 

Budget Estimate Recommended 

BioWatch ...................................................................................................................... $94,513,000 $79,413,000 

National Biosurveillance Integration System: 

National Biosurveillance Integration Center ...................................................... 8,000,000 8,000,000 

North Carolina Collaboratory for Bio-Preparedness ........................................... 0 5,000,000 

Subtotal ..................................................................................................... 8,000,000 13,000,000 

Rapidly Deployable Chemical Detection System ......................................................... 2,600,000 2,600,000 

Planning and Coordination .......................................................................................... 2,476,000 2,976,000 

Salaries and Expenses ................................................................................................ 30,411,000 30,411,000 

Total .................................................................................................. 138,000,000 128,400,000 

BIOSURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES

The Committee recommends $79,413,000 for BioWatch, 

$15,100,000 less than the amount requested, and $32,193,000 

below the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. The Committee has 

expressed concerns regarding the management and functionality of 

BioWatch for two years. Unfortunately the Committee’s concerns 

have only increased over the past six months with revelations that 

Generation 2.5 systems, which were purchased without the direct 

consent of the Committee and described as necessary and emergency, were recently turned off because of concerns that their sensor readings were not accurate. The Committee understands that 

the next generation testing, funded last year at $34,498,000, has 

also fallen short. Specifically, the technology sought by OHA was 

not as developed as previously described and will require more extensive testing. 

The Committee is losing patience with the development of next 

generation systems and must take action to ensure that the taxpayers’ dollars are spent judiciously. The Committee directs S&T 

to lead the testing for Generation 3 systems. The Committee does 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
103 

not fund the Generation 3 testing in OHA as requested, but instead 

provides the requested $15,100,000 for Generation 3 testing within 

S&T. In addition, OHA is to transfer all of its activities related to 

Generation 3 testing to S&T, where S&T shall apply it in the same 

manner as originally appropriated. This transfer can be effectuated 

through a Memorandum of Understanding between OHA and S&T. 

In fiscal year 2009, the Committee required OHA to provide an 

expenditure plan on the BioWatch base program and an expenditure plan on the BioWatch Generation 3 field testing program within 60 days after enactment of that Act. The Committee has yet to 

receive either of these plans, which leads to the conclusion that 

OHA is directionless in its management of this program. It is unthinkable that OHA cannot provide the Committee with a complete 

reporting of its base program, which consists of Generation 1 and 

2, after two years of steady state. The Committee expects to receive 

the long overdue expenditure plan for the base BioWatch program 

immediately. Fiscal year 2010 funding for BioWatch will be unavailable for obligation until OHA submits that plan. The Committee notes the slow obligation rate of these funds and expects no 

interruption in the operation of this program due to this withholding. 

The Committee continues its requirement for OHA to notify the 

Committee 15 days prior to deploying any BioWatch device to new 

locations. 

The Committee understands that State and local governments 

are allowed to purchase chemical and biological sensors as part of 

certain DHS grant programs. The Committee is concerned that 

these systems are not fully validated and will be unable to detect 

deadly pathogens. The Committee directs OHA to work with the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Grants Directorate to 

validate systems prior to FEMA’s approval of such equipment requests. 

NATIONAL BIOSURVEILLANCE INTEGRATION CENTER

The Committee recommends $8,000,000 for the National BioSurveillance Integration Center, the same amount as requested 

and the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. The Committee also 

includes $5,000,000 for the North Carolina Collaboratory for BioPreparedness. The funds will support a demonstration project to 

support the development of a comprehensive, statewide system to 

analyze public health trends and detect incidents that may threaten homeland security. The Committee expects the OHA to utilize 

this demonstration to diversify its biosurveillance activities to include more robust syndromic surveillance, given the lack of confidence in certain BioWatch sensors, and to use the experience to 

potentially develop a model for a nationwide bio-preparedness system. 

PLANNING AND COORDINATION

The Committee recommends $2,976,000 for planning and coordination activities, $500,000 above the amount requested and 

$2,799,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. The 

Committee supports OHA’s role in planning for pandemic flu and 

provides the increase for OHA’s Office of Medical Readiness in support of its pandemic planning and coordination activities. 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
104 

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 ......................................................... $837,437,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 ..................................................... 852,200,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 844,500,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 .................................................. +7,063,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 .............................................. ¥7,700,000 

MISSION

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) manages 

and coordinates the Federal response to major domestic disasters 

and emergencies of all types in accordance with the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. It supports the 

effectiveness of emergency response providers at all levels of government in responding to terrorist attacks, major disasters, and 

other emergencies. FEMA also administers public assistance and 

hazard mitigation programs to prevent or reduce the risk to life 

and property from floods and other hazards. Finally, FEMA leads 

all Federal incident management preparedness and response planning through a comprehensive National Incident Management System that involves Federal, State, Tribal, and local government personnel, agencies, and regional authorities. 

FEMA provides for the development and maintenance of an integrated, nationwide capability to prepare for, mitigate against, respond to, and recover from the consequences of major disasters and 

emergencies of all types in partnership with other Federal agencies, State, local and Tribal governments, volunteer organizations, 

and the private sector. Management and Administration supports 

all of FEMA’s programs by coordinating all policy, managerial, resource, and administrative actions between headquarters and regional offices. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $844,500,000 for Management and 

Administration, $7,700,000 below the amount requested and 

$7,063,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. In addition, up to $90,080,000 may be transferred from the Disaster Relief 

fund, compared to $50,000,000 requested. As requested, 

$35,000,000 is to resolve employee pay shortfalls resulting from lax 

hiring and budgeting guidelines at FEMA. The Committee is perplexed at the notion that FEMA could hire employees at rates 

above what its budget could support. The Committee directs the IG 

to investigate the hiring practices of FEMA as it pertains to this 

issue and report to the Committee within three months after the 

date of enactment of this Act. As part of the investigation, the IG 

shall evaluate whether or not the budget request of $35,000,000 is 

sufficient to rectify FEMA’s pay deficiencies. Funding is unavailable for transfer from the Disaster Relief fund until the Committee 

receives an expenditure plan as specified in the Disaster Relief account. 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
105 

NATIONAL CAPITOL REGION

The Committee provides $6,995,000 for the Office of the National 

Capitol Region Coordination (ONCRC), the same amount as requested and $653,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 

2009. The Committee is supportive of ONCRC’s credentialing activities in the capitol region to ensure that first responders and 

emergency managers have appropriate access to disaster areas. 

FEMA is directed to capitalize on ONCRC’s credentialing program 

as it works with other parts of the country to implement similar 

concepts. 

MT. WEATHER

The Committee recommends $36,300,000 for the Mt. Weather facility, $13,600,000 below the amount requested and $23,600,000 

below the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. The denial of funding at the requested level is due to FEMA’s reluctance to develop 

and submit to the Committee a comprehensive ten-year capital improvement plan for Mt. Weather, a failure that is contrary to prior 

Congressional direction and unsuitable in terms of the Committee’s 

standards for the proper justification of funding and for the planning of costly, multi-year capital improvement projects. Until such 

time as an adequate ten-year capital improvement plan is developed and submitted to the Committee, additional funding will not 

be provided. Given the strategic importance of this facility and considering that $125,102,000 has been provided for its capital improvements since fiscal year 2007, the Committee believes there is 

no excuse for insufficient planning and such poor compliance with 

Congressional oversight. 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE

The Committee recommends $9,000,000 for the Emergency Man- agement Institute (EMI), $1,840,000 above the amount requested. 

EMI provides training to Federal, State, local, Tribal, public and 

private sector officials to strengthen emergency management core 

competencies. The additional funding is for emergency management course development and to increase the capacity of EMI to 

train additional State and local officials. 

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS OFFICE

The Committee understands FEMA is working with certain countries to develop international disaster agreements. To support this 

effort the Committee provides an additional $300,000 for FEMA to 

establish an exchange program with partner countries. Funding 

shall be used to support FEMA staff to travel to countries after disasters to offer and receive best practices and solutions. This program is not meant to establish diplomatic presence or to arrange 

international aid. 

TANK REMEDIATION

The Committee provides the requested $10,000,000 increase for 

FEMA to manage its inventory of fuel tanks in compliance with the 

law, some of which may be leaking and require remediation. The 

Committee understands this effort may require additional resources in future years. FEMA shall report regularly to the ComVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:16 Jun 17, 2009 Jkt 050276 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR157.XXX HR157

smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
106 

mittee as the Agency updates its estimates on remediating all leaking tanks. To the extent feasible, FEMA is directed to work with 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which has vast experience with the issue of storage tank remediation. 

DATA CENTER MIGRATION

Consistent with funding recommendations contained throughout 

this report, the Committee denies FEMA’s request of $7,900,000 for 

data center migration activities due to the IG’s recent findings, described in the Chief Information Officer section of this report, regarding possible unmitigated risks at the destination data center 

sites. Beyond the problems identified by the IG, the Committee is 

concerned that FEMA does not have a plan for migrating data and 

has not accounted for the full cost of this project. FEMA shall submit a data migration plan to the Committee prior to any approval 

of data migration. The plan shall detail the types of data that 

FEMA will move, safeguards needed to protect that data, and costs 

associated with moving the data. 

CONGRESSIONAL JUSTIFICATION

The Committee continues bill language requiring FEMA to submit its fiscal year 2011 budget request by office. The Committee is 

pleased that this year’s budget submission provided fiscal year 

2010 budget request levels for many programs of interest, including: $8,997,000 for the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction 

Program; $2,156,000 for the National Hurricane Program; 

$10,281,000 for the National Dam Safety Program; $16,800,000 for 

the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System; and $16,218,000 

for the Mobile Emergency Response System. For the fiscal year 

2011 budget submission, FEMA is directed to continue to provide 

the same level of budget information for programs and activities 

identified in the fiscal year 2010 budget request. 

URBAN SEARCH AND RESCUE RESPONSE SYSTEM

The Committee recommends $32,500,000 for Urban Search and 

Rescue (US&R) response system, $4,500,000 above the amount requested and the same as the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. 

The Committee is concerned with the readiness level of US&R 

teams and provides additional funding to ensure the teams are 

properly trained and equipped to respond to future disasters. While 

FEMA estimated in 2006 that each team would require $1,662,200 

to operate, the 28 teams received an average of only $1,022,474 in 

fiscal year 2009, leaving local agencies responsible for meeting 

shortfalls. In fiscal year 2009, FEMA was directed to report to the 

Committees on the feasibility of adding an additional team along 

with geographical preference and any associated costs. This report 

has not been received. The Committee directs FEMA to submit this 

report immediately. 

TRANSPARENCY

The Committee is concerned that FEMA utilizes grant guidance 

and policies instead of the regulations process to alter the policies 

of major programs. That results in little to no public input, even 

though most changes affect State and local partners. As an examVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:16 Jun 17, 2009 Jkt 050276 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR157.XXX HR157

smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
107 

ple, the Committee notes that no regulations have ever been issued 

to guide the Predisaster Mitigation Grant Program, and the Agency’s annual grant guidance changes eligibility guidelines every 

year. Also, FEMA recently published a National Disaster Housing 

Plan for hurricane season and indicated that it could be changed 

every year without public input. The Committee directs FEMA to 

put all policies, including grant guidance that contains policy 

changes, online for five days prior to implementation. FEMA shall 

give the public a forum in which to comment. FEMA shall also 

present all new policies or policy changes to the National Advisory 

Council prior to approval. 

SPECIAL POPULATIONS

In fiscal year 2009, the Committee directed FEMA to report on 

its efforts to coordinate with Limited English Proficiency populations to address their needs following a disaster. The report has 

not been provided to the Committee. The Committee is especially 

concerned that translation of materials is insufficient to ensure 

that all disaster victims receive necessary information prior to, during, and after disasters. The Committee directs FEMA to consider 

utilizing the National Virtual Translation Center (NVTC) to enhance its translation services. FEMA is to report to the Committee 

within six months after enactment of this Act on its translation 

services and possible uses of NVTC. 

EMERGENCY ALERT SYSTEMS

The Committee remains committed to ensuring that emergency 

alert and notification systems are present in areas at high risk of 

natural and manmade disasters. The Committee supports the administration’s request of $16,800,000 for the Integrated Public 

Alert and Warning System. FEMA is directed to work with States 

and urban areas to ensure that alert systems are in place in high 

risk areas such as New York. 

ENHANCING INCIDENT MANAGEMENT

The National Incident Management System (NIMS) provides a 

systematic, proactive approach to guide departments and agencies 

at all levels of government, nongovernmental organizations, and 

the private sector to work seamlessly to prevent, protect against, 

respond to, recover from, and mitigate the effects of incidents, regardless of cause, size, location, or complexity. NIMS is the backbone of effective emergency management, and the Committee directs FEMA to ensure that all communities are educated and 

trained on the system. The Committee provides an additional 

$9,000,000 to support and enhance ongoing incident management 

efforts that shall include: mutual aid, simulated and virtual emergency operations support, information systems development, technology integration, training on best-practices and standardization 

guidelines, as well as test and evaluation of first responder tools. 

Furthermore, the Committee urges FEMA to examine existing 

NIMS resources as part of their ongoing efforts with S&T to improve and standardize multi-jurisdictional emergency operations 

centers. 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
108 

TERRORISM AWARENESS TRAINING

The Committee recognizes ongoing security officer terrorism 

awareness training programs, which have been used by over 10,000 

security officers from all 50 states. Providing professional security 

officers with critical security, fire prevention, crowd management, 

and emergency response training is essential in deterring potential 

criminal and terrorist activity. 

STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 1 ....................................................... $3,105,700,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 2 ................................................... 3,867,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 2,829,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 .................................................. ¥276,700,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 .............................................. ¥1,038,000,000 

1 Excludes $300,000,000 in appropriations in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (P.L. 111–5). 

2The Administration proposed moving Emergency Management Performance Grants and Firefighter Assistance Grants under State and Local Programs. In fiscal year 2009, these grant programs had separate appropriations totaling $1,090,000,000 within FEMA, not within this program. 

MISSION

State and Local Programs help build and sustain the preparedness and response capabilities of the first responder community. 

These programs include support for various grant programs; training programs; planning activities; and technical assistance. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $2,829,000,000 for State and Local 

Programs, $1,038,000,000 below the amount requested and 

$276,700,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. As 

part of the budget request, the Administration proposed including 

the Firefighter Assistance Grants and Emergency Management 

Performance Grants under this program. The Committee has denied this proposal and provides funding for both of these grant programs as separate appropriations, consistent with prior years. A 

comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee recommended 

level by budget activity is as follows: 

Budget estimate Recommended 

State Homeland Security Grant Program .................................................................... $950,000,000 $950,000,000 

Operation Stonegarden ....................................................................................... [60,000,000] [60,000,000] 

Urban Area Security Initiative ..................................................................................... 887,000,000 887,000,000 

Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grants .............................................................. 35,000,000 0 

Metropolitan Medical Response System ...................................................................... 40,000,000 40,000,000

Citizen Corps program ................................................................................................. 15,000,000 15,000,000 

Public Transportation Security Assistance and Railroad Security Assistance ........... 250,000,000 250,000,000 

Port Security Grants .................................................................................................... 250,000,000 250,000,000 

Over-the-Road Bus Security Assistance ...................................................................... 0 12,000,000 

Buffer Zone Protection Program grants ...................................................................... 50,000,000 50,000,000 

Real ID grants ............................................................................................................. 50,000,000 50,000,000 

Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program ........................................ 50,000,000 50,000,000 

Emergency Operations Centers .................................................................................... 0 40,000,000 

Firefighter Assistance Grants 1 .................................................................................... 590,000,000 0 

Fire Grants .......................................................................................................... [170,000,000] 0 

Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) grants ............. [420,000,000] 0 

Emergency Management Performance Grants 1 .......................................................... 315,000,000 0 

National Programs: 

National Domestic Preparedness Consortium .................................................... 51,500,000 92,000,000 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
109 

Budget estimate Recommended 

Center for Domestic Preparedness ............................................................ 62,500,000 40,000,000 

National Exercise Program ................................................................................. 42,000,000 40,000,000

Technical Assistance .......................................................................................... 13,000,000 13,000,000 

Continuing Training Program ............................................................................. 23,000,000 31,000,000 

Evaluations and Assessments ............................................................................ 18,000,000 16,000,000 

Rural Domestic Preparedness Consortium ......................................................... 0 3,000,000 

Subtotal, National Programs ............................................................ 210,000,000 235,000,000 

Management and Administration ................................................................................ 175,000,000 0 

Total State and Local Programs ............................................. 3,867,000,000 2,829,000,000 

1 Funded in a separate account. 

The Committee includes bill language allowing the transfer of up 

to three percent of State and Local program dollars to FEMA’s 

Management and Administration account for costs associated with 

administering grants and training programs, instead of the request 

for a direct appropriation of $175,000,000. FEMA is required to 

submit an expenditure plan within 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act on the use of the administrative funds. The Committee continues bill language mandating timeframes for the application process of certain grants to ensure that funds do not languish at DHS. 

For the purposes of eligibility for funds, any county, city, village, 

town, district, borough, parish, port authority, transit authority, 

intercity rail provider, commuter rail system, freight rail provider, 

water district, regional planning commission, council of government, Indian tribe with jurisdiction over Indian country, authorized 

tribal organization, Alaskan Native village, independent authority, 

special district, or other political subdivision of any State shall constitute a ‘‘local unit of government.’’ 

The Committee includes a general provision requiring FEMA to 

brief the Committee five days prior to any announcement of State 

and Local Programs grant awards. Such briefings shall include detailed information on the risk analysis employed, the process for 

determining effectiveness, the process or formula used for selecting 

grantees, and any changes to methodologies used in the previous 

fiscal year. 

STATE HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM

The Committee recommends $950,000,000 for the State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP), the same as the amount requested and provided in fiscal year 2009. In accordance with the 

9/11 Act, at least 25 percent of SHSGP and Urban Area Security 

Initiative funds shall be used for Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention activities. Each state and Puerto Rico shall pass on no less 

than 80 percent of their grant funding to local units of government 

within 45 days of receiving the funds. 

The Committee is aware that previous grant guidance conflicted 

with the 9/11 Act by limiting the amount of funds that can be used 

to pay the salaries and expenses for intelligence analysts. The restriction is not in line with the 9/11 Act, which did not set a limit 

on paying salaries and expenses for new and existing intelligence 

analysts. The Committee understands the FEMA has taken steps 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
110 

to correct this in current guidelines and expects FEMA to continue 

to comply with the 9/11 Act. 

Within the funds available, the Committee recommends 

$60,000,000 for Operation Stonegarden. All awards under Operation Stonegarden shall be made on a competitive basis to tribal 

governments and units of local government, including towns, cities, 

and counties along borders of the United States to enhance the coordination between local and Federal law enforcement agencies. 

Operation Stonegarden’s eligible costs include, but shall not necessarily be limited to: overtime; vehicle maintenance; vehicle and 

equipment rental costs; reimbursement for mileage; fuel costs; 

equipment replacement costs; and travel costs for law enforcement 

entities assisting other local jurisdictions in law enforcement activities. The Committee directs that only the U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection and FEMA make award decisions. No administrative 

costs shall be deducted from Operation Stonegarden award totals 

by States. 

URBAN AREA SECURITY INITIATIVE GRANTS

The Committee recommends $887,000,000 for Urban Area Security Initiative Grants, the amount as requested and $49,500,000 

above the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. The funds should 

be distributed based on terrorism risk as called for in the 9/11 Act. 

Of the amount available, $15,000,000 is for grants to non-profit organizations determined by the Secretary to be at high risk of terrorist attack, the same amount as requested. 

METROPOLITAN MEDICAL RESPONSE SYSTEM

The Committee recommends $40,000,000 for the Metropolitan 

Medical Response System, the same as the amount requested and 

$1,000,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. The 

Committee directs FEMA to work with the Office of Health Affairs 

to develop guidelines for the program. This funding enables local 

jurisdictions to prepare for and respond to all-hazards mass casualty incidents, including terrorism, epidemic disease outbreaks, 

natural disasters, and large-scale hazardous materials incidents. 

The Committee does not agree to change the structure of this program to only focus on medical surge capacity. Instead, DHS should 

work with the Department of Health and Human Services’ Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response to develop medical 

surge guidelines for communities. 

CITIZEN CORPS PROGRAM

The Committee recommends $15,000,000 for the Citizen Corps 

program, the same as the amount requested and provided in fiscal 

year 2009. This funding supports programs to engage citizens in 

preventing, preparing for, and responding to all hazards. Eligible 

activities include planning and evaluation; public education and 

communication; training; and participation in exercises. 

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND RAILROAD

SECURITY ASSISTANCE

The Committee recommends $250,000,000 for Public Transportation Security Assistance and Railroad Security Assistance, the 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
111 

same amount as requested and $150,000,000 below the amount 

provided in fiscal year 2009. These funds are in addition to the 

$150,000,000 provided in the recently passed American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, which have yet to be 

awarded. The Committee notes that ARRA grant guidance was 

only published by DHS on May 29, 2009. Awards will not be made 

until late fiscal year 2009 and early fiscal year 2010. The Committee continues the requirement that grants be made directly to 

transit agencies. The Committee is also aware that States serve an 

integral role in coordinating regional interests in regard to transit 

security and therefore directs FEMA to allow transit agencies to 

permit States to act as sub-grantees to better facilitate regional 

planning and programs. 

Since 2002, and including the recently enacted economic recovery 

package, Congress has appropriated a total of $1.67 billion for 

mass transit and passenger rail grants. These funds are used for 

security enhancements, including infrastructure protection, deterrence, facility hardening, and employee training. There are numerous statutory requirements placed on TSA and FEMA as to how 

quickly this funding must be awarded and provided to transit and 

passenger rail agencies; however, once the award has been made, 

the funding commonly remains unspent for up to two years. Based 

on latest estimates from FEMA, about 90 percent of funds appropriated in fiscal year 2006 for rail and transit have not been drawn 

down. Partly to address this concern, the 9/11 Act and last year’s 

appropriations bill required grant awards to be made directly to 

transit and passenger rail agencies instead of being administered 

through the States. The Committee notes that after two recent 

hearings, FEMA and TSA understand that they must work diligently to comprehend this issue and provide solutions. The Committee expects FEMA and TSA to report on their progress, by August 2009, in working with the transit agencies to get funds drawn 

down from fiscal years 2006, 2007 and 2008. 

PORT SECURITY GRANTS

The Committee recommends $250,000,000 for Port Security 

grants, the same amount as requested and $150,000,000 below the 

amount provided in fiscal year 2009. These funds are in addition 

to the $150,000,000 provided in the recently passed American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which have yet to be awarded. The Committee notes that ARRA grant guidance was only published by DHS on May 29, 2009. Awards will not be made until late 

fiscal year 2009 and early fiscal year 2010. The Committee includes 

bill language waiving the cost-share requirement for these grants. 

OVER-THE-ROAD BUS SECURITY ASSISTANCE

The Committee recommends $12,000,000 for Over-the-Road Bus 

Security grants, $12,000,000 above the amount requested and the 

same as the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. 

BUFFER ZONE PROTECTION GRANTS

The Committee includes $50,000,000 for the Buffer Zone Protection (BZP) grants, the same as the amount requested and provided 

in fiscal year 2009. The Committee is concerned that these grants 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
112 

have done little to eliminate vulnerabilities among critical infrastructure and have instead provided funding to localities for basic 

security costs. While that is important, the Committee funds other 

grant programs, such as SHSGP and UASI, for communities to use 

for security costs. The Committee directs FEMA and The National 

Protection and Programs Directorate to provide an expenditure 

plan to the Committee prior to award of any BZP grants. The expenditure plan shall include a new approach to awarding these 

grants with a focus on eliminating vulnerabilities at high risk assets. 

REAL ID GRANTS

The Committee recommends $50,000,000 for grants to assist 

States in complying with the largely unfunded mandate of the 

REAL ID Act, the same as the amount requested and provided in 

fiscal year 2009. DHS estimates the total cost to States of implementing REAL ID to be $3,965,000,000 over eleven years. An additional $25,000,000 is available in the United States Citizenship and 

Immigration Services appropriations to support REAL ID hub activities. 

INTEROPERABLE EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS GRANTS

The Committee recommends $50,000,000 for interoperable emergency communications grants, the same as the amount requested 

and provided in fiscal year 2009. FEMA is directed to work with 

the Office of Emergency Communications to develop program guidance for these grants. 

The Committee agrees with FEMA’s priority on leadership and 

governance, common planning and operation protocols, and skills 

and capabilities. However, States and localities also should be 

given the flexibility to purchase equipment if they have made 

progress or have separate funding sources to address FEMA’s priority areas. Therefore, FEMA is directed to allow States and local 

governments to purchase equipment pursuant to requirements in 

the 9/11 Act. 

EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTERS

The Committee recommends $40,000,000 for Emergency Oper- ations Centers (EOCs), $40,000,000 above the amount requested 

and $5,000,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. 

Funding is available until expended. Funding is provided for equipping, upgrading, and constructing EOCs pursuant to section 614 of 

the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 

Act. 

The Committee provides funding for the Emergency Operations 

Center projects in the following amounts: 

Emergency Operations Centers Amount 

Winston County Commission, AL .......................................................................................................................... $20,000 

Lincoln Parish Sheriff Department, LA ................................................................................................................ 300,000 

City of Las Vegas, NV .......................................................................................................................................... 600,000 

Mobile County Commission, AL ............................................................................................................................ 800,000 

City of Moreno Valley, CA ..................................................................................................................................... 400,000 

Benton County Emergency Management Commission, IA ................................................................................... 500,000 

City of Green Cove Springs, FL ............................................................................................................................ 400,000 

Lake County, FL .................................................................................................................................................... 800,000 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
113 

Emergency Operations Centers Amount 

Dorchester County, SC .......................................................................................................................................... 400,000 

Sarasota County, FL ............................................................................................................................................. 300,000 

City of Greenville, NC ........................................................................................................................................... 600,000 

New Orleans Emergency Medical Services, LA .................................................................................................... 750,000 

Lycoming County, PA ............................................................................................................................................ 250,000 

Mercer County Emergency Management Agency, KY ........................................................................................... 300,000 

Jackson County Sheriff’s Office, MO .................................................................................................................... 500,000 

Williamsburg County, SC ...................................................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

City of Brookings, OR ........................................................................................................................................... 350,000 

Johnson County, TX .............................................................................................................................................. 750,000 

City of Minneapolis, MN ....................................................................................................................................... 750,000 

Howell County Emergency Preparedness, MO ...................................................................................................... 250,000 

City of Brawley, CA .............................................................................................................................................. 500,000 

City of Hopewell, VA ............................................................................................................................................. 250,000 

Morris County, New Jersey Office of Emergency Management, NJ ...................................................................... 1,000,000 

City of Tavares, FL ............................................................................................................................................... 500,000 

Tohono O’odham Nation ....................................................................................................................................... 500,000 

Minooka Fire Protection District, IL ...................................................................................................................... 250,000 

Township of Old Bridge, NJ .................................................................................................................................. 500,000 

City of Cupertino, CA ........................................................................................................................................... 300,000 

Calvert County Department of Public Safety, MD ............................................................................................... 338,000 

City of Detroit, MI ................................................................................................................................................. 1,000,000 

Scotland County, NC ............................................................................................................................................ 650,000 

The City of Maitland, FL ...................................................................................................................................... 158,000 

County of Union, NJ .............................................................................................................................................. 500,000 

Providence Emergency Management Agency & Office of Homeland Security, RI ............................................... 500,000 

City of Hartford, CT .............................................................................................................................................. 800,000 

City of Torrington, CT ........................................................................................................................................... 400,000 

City of Ames, IA ................................................................................................................................................... 600,000 

Fulton County (Atlanta) Emergency Management Agency, GA ............................................................................ 200,000 

City of Brigantine, NJ ........................................................................................................................................... 300,000 

Village of Elmsford, NY ........................................................................................................................................ 165,000 

Town of Harrison, NY ........................................................................................................................................... 275,000 

City of Elk Grove, CA ............................................................................................................................................ 750,000 

City of Palm Coast, FL ......................................................................................................................................... 350,000 

Somerset County, ME ........................................................................................................................................... 500,000 

Macomb County Emergency Management and Communications, MI .................................................................. 250,000 

City of La Habra, CA ............................................................................................................................................ 254,500 

City of Scottsdale, AZ .......................................................................................................................................... 500,000 

Westmoreland County Department of Public Safety, PA ..................................................................................... 900,000 

Brazoria County Emergency Management, TX ..................................................................................................... 100,000 

Township of Irvington, NJ ..................................................................................................................................... 750,000 

San Francisco Department of Emergency Management, CA ............................................................................... 800,000 

North Carolina Office of Emergency Management, NC ....................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Butte-Silver Bow, MT ............................................................................................................................................ 800,000 

Middle Rio Grande Development Council, TX ...................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Town of Shorter, AL .............................................................................................................................................. 500,000 

Kentucky Emerency Management, KY .................................................................................................................. 500,000 

Monroe County, FL ................................................................................................................................................ 200,000 

City of Newark, NJ ................................................................................................................................................ 1,000,000 

Passaic County Prosecutor, NJ ............................................................................................................................. 250,000 

City of Commerce, CA .......................................................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

State of Maryland, MD ......................................................................................................................................... 1,500,000 

City of Alamosa Fire Department, CO .................................................................................................................. 425,000 

City of Whittier, CA .............................................................................................................................................. 500,000 

Washington Parish Government, LA ..................................................................................................................... 350,000 

City of Monterey Park, CA .................................................................................................................................... 375,000 

Towamencin Township, PA ................................................................................................................................... 75,000 

Upper Darby Township Police Department, PA .................................................................................................... 500,000 

North Hudson Regional Fire and Rescue, NJ ....................................................................................................... 500,000 

City of Boerne, TX ................................................................................................................................................ 250,000 

Lea County, NM .................................................................................................................................................... 600,000 

City of Port Gibson, MS ........................................................................................................................................ 750,000 

City of Wichita, KS ............................................................................................................................................... 500,000 

City of Lauderdale Lakes, FL ............................................................................................................................... 750,000 

City of Sunrise, FL ................................................................................................................................................ 750,000 

Columbia County, OR ........................................................................................................................................... 500,000 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
114 

The remaining funds, not directed by the Committee, shall be 

used for program administration. 

NATIONAL PROGRAMS

The Committee recommends $235,000,000 for National Programs, $25,000,000 above the amount requested and $29,200,000 

below the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. 

NATIONAL DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS CONSORTIUM

Included within the amount provided for National Programs, the 

Committee recommends $132,000,000 for the National Domestic 

Preparedness Consortium, $18,000,000 above the amount requested 

and $32,500,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. Of 

the total amount, $23,000,000 is for the National Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center, New Mexico Institute of Mining 

and Technology; $23,000,000 is for the National Center for Biomedical Research and Training, Louisiana State University; 

$23,000,000 is for the National Emergency Response and Rescue 

Training Center, Texas A&M University; $23,000,000 is for the National Exercise, Test, and Training Center, Nevada Test Site; and 

$40,000,000 is for the Center for Domestic Preparedness (CDP). Because the 9/11 Act recognizes CDP as a consortium member, the 

Committee has reduced funding for this center to make it more in 

line with funding levels elsewhere under this program. 

NATIONAL EXERCISE PROGRAM

Included within the amount provided for National Programs, the 

Committee recommends $40,000,000 for the National Exercise Program, $2,000,000 below the amount requested and the same as the 

amount provided in fiscal year 2009. This program provides the opportunity for key leaders at the Federal, State, local, territory and 

Tribal levels, along with representatives of nongovernmental organizations and the private sector, to gauge the effectiveness of plans, 

policies and procedures for responding to natural disasters and terrorist attacks. In fiscal year 2009, the Committee required FEMA 

to provide a report on incident management lapses during the Top 

Officials 4 exercise. The Committee is still awaiting that report and 

directs FEMA to provide the report immediately. 

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

Included within the amount provided for National Programs, the Committee recommends $13,000,000 for technical assistance, the 

same as the amount requested and $2,000,000 above the amount 

provided in fiscal year 2009. The Committee recognizes that State 

and local officials require technical assistance to ensure that equipment is used properly and to support effective planning. 

CONTINUING TRAINING GRANTS

Included within the amount provided for National Programs, the 

Committee recommends $31,000,000 for continuing training grants, 

$8,000,000 above the amount requested and equal to the amount 

provided in fiscal year 2009. The Committee recommends full funding for the graduate-level homeland security education programs 

currently supported by the Department. The Department is diVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:16 Jun 17, 2009 Jkt 050276 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR157.XXX HR157

smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
115 

rected to maintain its strong support for these proven curricula, 

and to continue to leverage them where appropriate as the Department meets the growing need for education within its own ranks 

and by States and localities around the Nation. 

EVALUATIONS AND ASSESSMENTS

Included within the amount provided for National Programs, the 

Committee recommends $16,000,000 for evaluations and assessments, $2,000,000 below the amount requested and the same as 

the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. FEMA shall brief the 

Committee every six months on results from completed evaluations. 

RURAL DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS CONSORTIUM

Included within the amount provided for National Programs, the 

Committee recommends $3,000,000 for the Rural Domestic Preparedness Consortium. Funds will be used to provide and deliver 

training to rural first responders consistent with the National Preparedness Goal. 

TRUCKING INDUSTRY SECURITY GRANTS

The Committee is aware that of the $8,000,000 appropriated for 

trucking industry security grants in fiscal year 2009, only 

$2,200,000 was awarded due to the lack of worthy applications. 

Therefore, the Committee includes a provision rescinding the balance of programmatic funds, $5,572,000, from fiscal year 2009. The 

Committee notes that funds appropriated in fiscal year 2008 are 

supporting a three year education and training program. The Committee will revisit the needs of that program at the conclusion of 

that project period. 

MEASURING THE IMPACT OF GRANTS

In fiscal year 2009, the Committee provided $5,000,000 to accelerate efforts at FEMA to develop tools to measure the achievement 

and effectiveness of certain grant programs. The Committee is 

aware that the department is developing a system called Cost-toCapabilities (C2C) aimed at measuring the impact of grants on 

State and local capabilities. GAO has told the Committee that C2C, 

as currently designed, would not directly measure preparedness. 

That revelation gives the Committee grave concerns and directs 

FEMA to brief the Committee on how it plans to achieve the fiscal 

year 2009 mandate to develop tools that measure the achievement 

and effectiveness of certain grant programs within one month after 

the date of enactment of this Act. GAO shall continue to monitor 

the development of any DHS system to measure the effectiveness 

of grant programs and report regularly to the Committee with updates. 

EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES

The Committee supports the Department’s efforts to complete capability assessments for emergency medical service (EMS) providers. However, the Committee remains concerned that current 

funding levels for the EMS community for training and equipment 

for disaster preparedness may be insufficient to meet capability requirements. Of particular concern is that EMS providers do not 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
116 

have essential personal protection equipment, such as powered air 

purifying respirators. FEMA is directed, in conjunction with the Office of Health Affairs, to report to the Committee regarding the current state of disaster preparedness capabilities of EMS providers. 

This report is due no later than six months after the enactment of 

this Act and shall include an analysis of the gap between current 

and target capabilities. FEMA is directed to include language in its 

grants guidance requiring States to include EMS providers in their 

Statewide Homeland Security Plans as well as their UASI plans. 

FEMA shall also make States aware that EMS personal protection 

equipment is an allowable expense under the State and UASI 

grant programs. If a State provides no funding to EMS providers, 

the State should justify its lack of funding by demonstrating that 

related capabilities have been met or by identifying other pressing 

priorities. 

DISASTER COMMUNICATIONS

The Committee is aware of the capability gap that exists for resilient communications at the State and local level. This gap has 

exacerbated the impact of many recent disasters, especially in communities with limited vehicle access and during the first 72 hours 

following the onset of a disaster event. While the Committee is 

aware of the efforts of FEMA, DHS’s Office of Emergency Communications (OEC), and SAFECOM to address communications gaps 

at the national level, more can be done to leverage the next generation of communications technologies currently available at the 

State and local level. Therefore, the Committee directs FEMA, 

OEC, and SAFECOM to report to the Committee no later than 90 

days after enactment of this Act on their collective efforts to provide technical assistance to States and localities on effective disaster and resilient communications systems. The report should also 

identify efforts to encourage States and localities to incorporate resilient communications into their emergency response planning and 

training. This report shall include a description of completed and 

planned tests and evaluations of resilient communications systems 

currently available for purchase or lease by States and localities. 

Furthermore, the report shall include data on the percentage of 

Public Safety Interoperable Communications grant funding allocated by States and localities for resilient communications. 

FIREFIGHTER ASSISTANCE GRANTS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 1 ....................................................... $ 775,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 2 ................................................... – – – 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 800,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 .................................................. +25,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 .............................................. +800,000,000 

1 Excludes $210,000,000 in appropriations in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (P.L. 111–5). 

2The budget request includes $590,000,000 for Firefighter Assistance Grants within State and Local Programs. 

MISSION

Firefighter Assistance Grants are provided to local fire departments for the purpose of protecting the health and safety of the 

public and protecting fire fighting personnel, including volunteers 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
117 

and emergency medical service personnel, against fire and fire-related hazards. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $800,000,000 for Firefighter Assist- ance Grants, $25,000,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 

2009. The budget did not include a separate appropriation for Firefighter Assistance Grants but instead proposed $590,000,000 for 

this activity within State and Local Programs. 

The budget proposed a significant reallocation of funding for the 

two Firefighter Assistance Grant programs, the Assistance for Firefighters Grants (AFG) and the Staffing for Adequate Firefighter 

Response (SAFER) programs. The budget requests a cut of almost 

70 percent for AFG, from $565,000,000 in fiscal year 2009 to 

$170,000,000. This level is woefully inadequate given the vast 

needs of fire departments across the nation for equipment. For the 

fiscal year 2008 alone, FEMA received 21,022 applications for AFG 

funds, with requests totaling $3,137,121,053. Therefore, the Committee recommends $380,000,000 for AFG grants, an increase of 

$210,000,000 above the request. The Committee provides the budget request, of $420,000,000, a $210,000,000 increase above fiscal 

year 2009, for the SAFER program. The Committee recognizes that 

communities are in need of assistance during this recession with 

maintaining critical public safety staff, including firefighters. The 

additional funding is part of a targeted and temporary effort to 

stem the tide of layoffs and ensure our communities are protected 

by an adequate number of firefighters. The Committee urges 

FEMA to consider the prospect and occurrence of firefighter layoffs 

at a local fire department when evaluating SAFER grant applications. In addition to the funding, the pending supplemental appropriations bill contains language allowing the waiver of certain restrictions and broadens the use of SAFER to allow the grants to 

be used for the hiring, rehiring, and retaining of firefighters for fiscal years 2009 or 2010. Also, the cost-share requirements for 

SAFER were waived for fiscal years 2009 and 2010 in ARRA. 

FEMA is directed to continue granting funds directly to local fire 

departments and to include the United States Fire Administration 

during the grant decision process. FEMA is also directed to maintain an all-hazards focus and is prohibited from limiting the list of 

eligible activities, including those related to wellness. According to 

the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, sudden 

cardiac death represents the most common cause of fire fighter fatalities. Funds are available until September 30, 2011, and no more 

than five percent may be used for administrative expenses. FEMA 

is required to submit an expenditure plan within 60 days after the 

date of enactment of this Act on the use of the administrative 

funds. 

The Committee continues the requirement for FEMA to peer-review FIRE and SAFER grant applications that meet criteria established by FEMA and the Fire Service; to clearly define the criteria 

for peer-review in the grant application package; to rank order applications according to peer-review; and to fund applications according to their rank order. For those applicants whose grant applications are not reviewed, FEMA must provide an official notification 

detailing why the application did not meet the criteria for review. 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
118 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE GRANTS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 ......................................................... $ 315,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 1 ................................................... – – – 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 330,000,000 

Bill compared with:.

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 .................................................. +15,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 .............................................. +330,000,000 

1The budget request includes $315,000,000 for Emergency Management Performance Grants within State 

and Local Programs. 

MISSION

Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) funds are 

used to support comprehensive emergency management at the 

State and local levels and to encourage the improvement of mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery capabilities for all hazards. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $330,000,000 for EMPG, 

$15,000,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. The 

budget did not include a separate appropriation for EMPG but instead proposed $315,000,000 for this activity within State and 

Local Programs. The Committee does not agree to transfer EMPG 

to State and Local Programs, continuing instead to fund the EMPG 

program as a separate appropriation. EMPG is the one true source 

of funding for emergency managers that is focused on preparing for 

all hazards. EMPG is the only grant program within FEMA that 

requires a 50/50 match at the State and local level, which is evidence of the commitment by State and local governments to make 

emergency management a top priority, especially while most are 

experiencing financial crisis. Many of the EMPG funds help pay for 

the personnel to run key programs and funds for this program 

must remain flexible to ensure they support the full gamut of responsibilities required of emergency managers. 

The Committee directs FEMA to continue EMPG grant practices 

used in fiscal year 2007, including a continued emphasis on all-hazards activities and the inclusion of personnel expenses and Emergency Operations Centers as eligible uses of funding. Up to three 

percent may be used for program administration. 

RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAM

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 ......................................................... $¥505,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 ..................................................... ¥265,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... ¥265,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 .................................................. +240,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 .............................................. – – – 

MISSION

The Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program (REPP) ensures that the public health and safety of citizens living near commercial nuclear power plants will be adequately protected in the 

event of a nuclear power station incident. In addition, the program 

informs and educates the public about radiological emergency preparedness. REPP provides funding only for emergency preparedVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:16 Jun 17, 2009 Jkt 050276 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR157.XXX HR157

smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
119 

ness activities of State and local governments that take place beyond nuclear power plant boundaries. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee provides for the receipt and expenditure of REPP 

fees, which are collected as authorized by Public Law 105–276. The 

request estimates that fee collections will exceed expenditures by 

$265,000 in fiscal year 2010. 

UNITED STATES FIRE ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 ......................................................... $44,979,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 ..................................................... 45,588,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 45,588,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 .................................................. +609,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 .............................................. – – – 

MISSION

The mission of the United States Fire Administration (USFA) is 

to reduce economic losses and loss of life due to fire and related 

emergencies through leadership, coordination, and support. USFA 

trains the Nation’s first responder and health care leaders to evaluate and minimize community risk, enhance the security of critical 

infrastructure, and better prepare communities to react to emergencies of all kinds. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $45,588,000 for USFA, the same as 

the amount requested and $609,000 above the amount provided in 

fiscal year 2009. The Committee includes $1,419,000 to continue 

implementation of the National Fire Incident Reporting System, as 

requested, and $9,304,000 for the National Fire Academy, as requested. The Committee expects the overdue facilities plan to be 

submitted immediately. 

DISASTER RELIEF

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 1 ....................................................... $1,400,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 ..................................................... 2,000,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 2,000,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 .................................................. +600,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 .............................................. – – – 

1 Excludes the $7,960,000,000 appropriated in Public Law 110–329. 

MISSION

FEMA is responsible for administering disaster assistance programs and coordinating the Federal response following presidential 

disaster declarations. Major activities under the Disaster Relief 

fund are: providing aid to families and individuals; supporting the 

efforts of State and local governments to take emergency protective 

measures, clearing debris and repairing infrastructure damage; 

mitigating the effects of future disasters; and helping States and 

local communities manage disaster response, including the assistVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:16 Jun 17, 2009 Jkt 050276 PO 00000 Frm 00119 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR157.XXX HR157

smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
120 

ance of disaster field office staff and automated data processing 

support. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $2,000,000,000 for Disaster Relief, 

the same as the amount requested and $600,000,000 above the 

amount provided in fiscal year 2009, excluding emergency funding. 

The Committee includes a provision to allow the transfer of up to 

$90,080,000 to the FEMA Management and Administration account. FEMA shall provide the Committee with an expenditure 

plan detailing the uses of these funds prior to transfer. The Committee also includes a provision to allow the transfer of $16,000,000 

to IG for disaster related audits and investigations. 

The Disaster Relief fund (DRF) was appropriated 

$13,157,000,000 in fiscal year 2008 and $1,400,000,000 has been 

provided, to date, in fiscal year 2009. Close to 80 percent of these 

funds were emergency appropriations to respond to floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, and ice storms. Congress often provided these 

funds in the absence of a formal request from the Administration 

but based on analysis by FEMA at the request of the Committee. 

The Committee expects the current Administration to properly 

monitor the fund and provide timely budget requests that are adequate to continue to support disaster response and recovery costs. 

FEMA spends approximately $300,000,000 annually on disaster 

readiness and support costs from the DRF. FEMA shall submit an 

expenditure plan to the Committees detailing the use of funds for 

disaster readiness and support costs within 60 days after the date 

of enactment of this Act. FEMA shall provide a quarterly report detailing obligations against the expenditure plan and a justification 

for any changes in spending. 

FEMA is directed to notify the Committees prior to transferring 

funds to the United States Agency for International Development 

for international disaster assistance. Further, FEMA is to notify 

the Committees prior to closing or moving logistics distribution 

centers. 

The Committee directs FEMA to continue to submit the monthly 

report detailing allocations, obligations, and undistributed amounts 

related to all disasters, including Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and 

Wilma. The report shall maintain the same level of data as currently presented to the Committee. 

Beginning July 1, 2009, FEMA shall report monthly to the Committee on the number of individuals and households in need of and 

denied Federal disaster assistance as a result of severe storms, tornados, flooding and mudslides in the Commonwealth of Kentucky 

in May 2009 (FEMA–1841–DR). The report shall detail the reason 

and circumstance for each denial. 

The Committee is concerned about the costs associated with the 

establishment of multiple Joint Field Offices (JFOs) after disasters. 

The Committee directs FEMA to report back to the Committee, no 

later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, on 

whether cost efficiencies can be achieved by collocating JFO offices 

for disasters, especially for disasters that affect multiple States in 

the same region. 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
121 

ECONOMIC HARDSHIP AND DISASTER RECOVERY

The Committee is concerned that States and localities that are 

already suffering from economic crisis are unable to adequately recover when hit by a natural disaster. With many States facing dramatic widespread budget cuts due to the economic downturn, reductions in public services may diminish a state’s preparedness 

and response capabilities. Many governors are eyeing federal funding to offset and supplement these shortfalls. That is especially 

true after disasters. States that receive Robert T. Stafford Disaster 

Relief and Emergency Assistance Act Disaster Declarations often 

receive a 75 percent Federal cost-share for Public Assistance 

projects. The Committee notes that FEMA can recommend adjustments in Federal-state cost-sharing agreements to assist State and 

local governments and certain nonprofit entities that incur extraordinary expenses in the wake of disasters. In many cases that assistance can be adjusted to a 100 percent Federal cost-share. However, it is unclear to the Committee and many communities how 

often, if at all, FEMA takes into consideration a state’s economic 

hardship. FEMA shall report to the Committee on how economic 

factors contribute to cost-share decisions and on how the agency 

plans to deal with cost-share adjustments during the recession. The 

report is due within three months after the date of enactment of 

this Act. 

REMAINING CHALLENGES IN POST-DISASTER HOUSING

The Committee continues to be concerned with the post-disaster 

housing situation in the Gulf Coast as a result of hurricanes 

Katrina and Rita. Based on the latest estimates from FEMA, nearly 30,000 households are still receiving disaster housing assistance, 

of which nearly 3,000 are in trailers and about 27,000 are in rental 

units as part of the joint Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)/FEMA program called the Disaster Housing Assistance Program (DHAP). In fiscal year 2009 the Committee required 

the Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding to 

host a panel of experts to develop a framework for developing and 

sustaining affordable rental housing in affected Gulf Coast communities. The panel was tasked to provide recommendations for how 

HUD, the private sector, and the States could achieve a sufficient 

stock of affordable rental housing to meet the needs of all those displaced after the hurricanes who still lack permanent housing options. The Office’s report focused on issues specific to the Gulf 

Coast, but several of its recommendations should be studied and 

incorporated by Federal, State and local governments to deal with 

future disasters, including improved case management services for 

families in interim housing and the need for new sources of funding 

for long-term, post-disaster housing. 

The Committee remains committed to addressing the many challenges that face our citizens in the Gulf Coast and to ensuring this 

type of failure to provide a long-term, post-disaster housing solution never occurs again. FEMA was never equipped to sustain 

much more than a short-term housing effort after disasters, focused 

on travel trailers and mobile homes. HUD must use its expertise 

following disasters that clearly overwhelm the capacity of FEMA 

and local governments to provide adequate housing. 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
122 

The Committee notes that the last administration developed the 

National Disaster Housing Strategy, as mandated by the PostKatrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006. The Strategy 

states that FEMA and HUD will partner to provide Federal interim housing assistance, each bringing its expertise and experience to bear. It goes on to state that when Federal permanent 

housing assistance is needed, HUD will have the lead responsibility 

under this Strategy and will coordinate with its partners to provide 

housing and community development resources; legislative authority, staffing, and other resources may be required for HUD’s new 

responsibilities. 

While the Committee supports the concept of the Strategy, it 

simply does not go far enough to prepare a response for the next 

major disaster that displaces large numbers of people over a long 

period of time. The Committee notes that there are no formal 

agreements between the agencies and there are no executive orders 

specifying HUD’s role after disasters. The Committee firmly believes that HUD must bring its experience to bear after catastrophic disasters that overwhelm the traditional FEMA mission of 

providing short-term provisional housing. Therefore, the Committee 

directs FEMA to formalize an agreement with HUD, outlining the 

roles and responsibilities of both agencies following a disaster and 

clearly delineating when and how HUD should take the lead role 

in the Federal housing response. FEMA is also directed to report 

to the Committee on the resources and legislative authority needed 

for HUD to take a formal role in disaster housing. The Committee 

expects that FEMA would continue to support disaster costs under 

an agreement between HUD and FEMA, as it does for DHAP in 

the Gulf Coast. 

The Committee is pleased to note that FEMA and HUD have recognized that there must be some interplay between the agencies 

after disaster. The two agencies work in tandem to operate DHAP 

in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas following Hurricanes Katrina, 

Rita, and Ike. The Committee expects FEMA to use DHAP as a 

model as it develops its agreements with HUD. 

The Committee remains concerned about FEMA trailers that 

have high levels of formaldehyde emissions, possibly leading to adverse health effects. The Committee understands FEMA is pursuing alternative housing solutions and demonstration projects and 

directs FEMA to work with multiple technologies and building solutions during this phase. 

CHILDREN AND DISASTERS

The Committee is aware that Central Elementary School, located 

on the banks of the Illinois River, in Ottawa, Illinois was flooded 

in September 2008 during a record flood. Water levels rose two feet 

above the floor elevation of the building, causing damage throughout the building and flooding the crawlspace below the building. 

The flooding also revealed severe environmental hazards, including 

the presence of hazardous chemicals on the surface of the grounds 

and asbestos. The school has since been condemned by the Illinois 

State Board of Education until such time as the asbestos issues are 

addressed. A presidential declaration was issued to allow Federal 

assistance for this community and to address damages such as 

those at Central Elementary School. Children who attend this 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
123 

school are now attending classes in an abandoned Wal-Mart, attempting to learn in this ill-suited venue. While the Committee understands the pace of public assistance and hazard mitigation is 

often slow to ensure integrity in the process, the pace of FEMA approval for relocation or repair of this facility is unacceptably slow, 

given that these children have been in an unfit learning environment for most of the school year. 

FEMA should prioritize its disaster work to ensure that decisions 

on critical facilities are made in a time frame that is least harmful 

to those who are affected, especially when children and other vulnerable populations are involved. The Committee directs FEMA to 

expedite its discussions with Ottawa and to come to resolution on 

this project so that children will not return to an abandoned WalMart for school next year. As they deliberate, FEMA and the affected community should address the continued flooding of this 

school and area. FEMA and the community should consider taking 

the mitigation action of moving the school from the floodplain. 

The Committee will continue to monitor this situation. FEMA 

shall act with due haste and report to the Committee when the 

final project is approved. 

EVALUATING FEMA’S READINESS

The Committee has heard anecdotal evidence from disasters in 

2008 and 2009 that the Agency is much improved from the FEMA 

that responded to Hurricane Katrina. However, unlike government 

programs that are easily assessed against specific performance 

goals, FEMA does not lend itself to simple evaluation. The agency 

is best judged during disaster response and, unfortunately, it is not 

an option to wait until the next catastrophic disaster to determine 

FEMA’s capabilities. Therefore, the Committee directs GAO to conduct red team exercises during the hurricane season and report to 

the Committee on its findings. GAO shall evaluate how well the 

agency provides disaster assistance to survivors and, if possible, to 

States and localities. 

DISASTER ASSISTANCE DIRECT LOAN PROGRAM ACCOUNT

SUBSIDY

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 ......................................................... $295,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 ..................................................... 295,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 295,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 .................................................. – – – 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 .............................................. – – – 

LIMITATION ON DIRECT LOANS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 ......................................................... $25,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 ..................................................... 25,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 25,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 .................................................. – – – 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 .............................................. – – – 

MISSION

Beginning in 1992, loans made to States under the cost sharing 

provisions of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
124 

Assistance Act were funded in accordance with the Federal Credit 

Reform Act of 1990. The Disaster Assistance Direct Loan Program 

Account, which was established as a result of the Federal Credit 

Reform Act, records the subsidy costs associated with the direct 

loans obligated beginning in 1992 to the present. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $25,000,000 for the limitation on direct loans from the Disaster Assistance Direct Loan Program, pursuant to section 319 of the Stafford Act, and a subsidy of $295,000 

to cover the cost of loans. 

FLOOD MAP MODERNIZATION FUND

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 ......................................................... $220,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 ..................................................... 220,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 220,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 .................................................. – – – 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 .............................................. – – – 

MISSION

The mission of the Flood Map Modernization Program is to modernize, maintain, and digitize the inventory of over 100,000 of the 

nation’s flood maps. These flood maps are used to determine appropriate risk-based premium rates for the National Flood Insurance 

Program, complete hazard determinations required for the nation’s 

lending institutions, and develop appropriate disaster response 

plans for Federal, State, and local emergency management personnel. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $220,000,000 for the Flood Map 

Modernization Fund, the same as the amount requested and provided in fiscal year 2009. In fiscal year 2010, FEMA will continue 

to focus these funds on reviewing, updating, and maintaining maps 

to accurately reflect flood hazards. The goal shall be to review and, 

where necessary, to update and maintain data, methodologies, 

models and maps that have been modernized, and to issue map updates no later than five years past the modernized dates of the 

maps. To support this goal, FEMA is directed to provide no less 

than 20 percent of the funds provided under this heading for map 

updates and maintenance conducted by Cooperating Technical 

Partners that provide at least a 25 percent cash match and have 

a strong record of working effectively with FEMA on floodplain 

mapping activities. With the fiscal year 2011 budget request, 

FEMA shall submit to the Committee a status report on the 

progress made towards the five year Risk Mapping, Assessment, 

and Planning strategy. 

As noted in a recent National Academies of Science report, high 

resolution elevation data is the cornerstone of quality floodplain 

maps. FEMA is directed to develop a National Digital Elevation Acquisition and Utilization plan for the purposes of supporting floodplain map updates. FEMA shall collaborate with the United States 

Geological Survey, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Aeronautics Space Administration, and States 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
125 

that have experience in acquiring and incorporating high resolution 

elevation data in the floodplain map updates. FEMA shall submit 

this plan to the Committee within six months after the date of enactment of this Act. 

When allocating map modernization funds, the Committee encourages FEMA to prioritize as criteria the number of stream and 

coastal miles within the State and the participation of the State in 

leveraging non-federal contributions. 

NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE FUND

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 ......................................................... $156,599,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 ..................................................... 159,469,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 159,469,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 .................................................. +2,870,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 .............................................. – – – 

MISSION

The National Flood Insurance Fund (NFIF), which was established in the Treasury by the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 

is a fee-generated fund that supports the National Flood Insurance 

Program (NFIP). The Act, as amended, authorizes the Federal Government to provide flood insurance on a national basis. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee includes bill language providing up to $52,149,000 for salaries and expenses to administer the NFIF, the 

same as the budget request and $2,731,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. The Committee includes bill language 

providing up to $70,000,000 for the severe repetitive loss property 

mitigation pilot program under section 1361A of the National Flood 

Insurance Act; $10,000,000 for the repetitive insurance claims 

properties under section 1323 of the National Flood Insurance Act; 

and $40,000,000 for Flood Mitigation Assistance under section 1366 

of the National Flood Insurance Act. No less than $107,320,000 is 

available for flood plain management and flood mapping. Flood 

mitigation funds are available until September 30, 2011, and funding is offset by premium collections. 

FEMA requests fee authority in the amount of $159,469,000 for 

fiscal year 2010, an increase of $2,870,000 above the fiscal year 

2009 level. The Committee is concerned that FEMA’s fee estimates 

are too optimistic, given that the Agency has acknowledged that 

flood insurance policies may not increase as expected. A decline in 

fees would threaten valuable flood plain management and mitigation activities. Given the uncertainty in the fee collection, the Committee includes language allowing FEMA to restructure its budget 

for salaries and expenses and flood plain management if fee collection does not rise as projected in the budget. 

The Community Assistance Program (CAP) is a product-oriented 

financial assistance program directly related to the flood loss reduction objectives of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). 

States that are participating in the NFIP are eligible for this Federally funded assistance. The CAP is intended to help States identify, prevent, and resolve floodplain management issues in participating communities before a flood event. The Committee encourVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:16 Jun 17, 2009 Jkt 050276 PO 00000 Frm 00125 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR157.XXX HR157

smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
126 

ages FEMA to give ample consideration to population growth when 

determining grant awards to States. The Committee believes this 

will ensure that States most at risk of flooding because of rapid 

growth receive adequate funds to mitigate flood losses through increased floodplain management. 

NATIONAL PREDISASTER MITIGATION FUND

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 ......................................................... $90,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 ..................................................... 150,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 100,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 .................................................. +10,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 .............................................. ¥50,000,000 

MISSION

The National Predisaster Mitigation Fund provides technical assistance and grants to State, local, and tribal governments, and to 

universities to reduce the risks associated with disasters. Resources 

support the development and enhancement of hazard mitigation 

plans, as well as the implementation of disaster mitigation 

projects. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $100,000,000 for the National 

Predisaster Mitigation Fund (PDM), $50,000,000 below the amount 

requested, and $10,000,000 above the amount provided in fiscal 

year 2009. The Committee notes that FEMA has $143,000,000 in 

unobligated balances in its regular program and therefore reduces 

the request. 

As part of the budget, FEMA requested to drastically change the 

distribution methodology used for awarding PDM grants. However, 

the Agency was unable to adequately articulate to the Committee 

the ramifications or benefits of their new approach and signaled 

that the proposal was still being developed. Due to this lack of forethought, as well as pending legislation that is vastly different from 

FEMA’s new approach, the Committee will not approve the proposed change. Instead, the Committee directs FEMA to continue 

this program as it operated last fiscal year. The Committee includes bill language extending the authorization of the PDM Grant 

Program for one year to continue the current program. Up to three 

percent may be used for program administration. 

The Committee includes the following predisaster mitigation 

projects in the following amounts: 

Predisaster mitigation projects Amount 

City of Hartselle, AL ............................................................................................................................................. $245,000 

City of Colton, CA ................................................................................................................................................. 200,000 

Alabama Emergency Management Agency, AL .................................................................................................... 200,000 

Arkansas Department of Emergency Management, AR ....................................................................................... 750,000 

Brigham City Corporation, UT .............................................................................................................................. 250,000 

Town of Shelter Island, NY .................................................................................................................................. 200,000 

City of Camanche, IA ........................................................................................................................................... 187,500 

City of Prattville, AL ............................................................................................................................................. 500,000 

City of Venice, FL ................................................................................................................................................. 200,000 

Orange County Fire Authority, CA ........................................................................................................................ 252,000 

City of Kannapolis, NC ......................................................................................................................................... 425,000 

Shelby County, Memphis, TN ................................................................................................................................ 325,000 

Town of Occoquan, VA ......................................................................................................................................... 25,000 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
127 

Predisaster mitigation projects Amount 

City of Hidalgo, TX ............................................................................................................................................... 500,000 

Harris County Flood Control District, TX .............................................................................................................. 1,000,000 

City of Brooksville, KY .......................................................................................................................................... 18,500 

City of Maryville, MO ............................................................................................................................................ 175,000 

City of Reno, NV ................................................................................................................................................... 500,000 

Town of Union and City of Binghamton, NY ....................................................................................................... 462,000 

Westport Fire Department, CT .............................................................................................................................. 265,000 

City of Trenton, NJ ................................................................................................................................................ 300,000 

Lucas County Engineer, OH .................................................................................................................................. 500,000 

City of Coconut Creek, FL .................................................................................................................................... 500,000 

Lake County Stormwater Management Agency, OH ............................................................................................. 725,000 

City of Emeryville, CA ........................................................................................................................................... 600,000 

Village of La Grange Park, IL .............................................................................................................................. 150,000 

Village of Pelham, NY .......................................................................................................................................... 562,500 

San Miguel County, NM ........................................................................................................................................ 400,000 

DeKalb County, IL ................................................................................................................................................. 350,000 

Town of Winthrop, MA .......................................................................................................................................... 500,000 

City of Santa Clarita, CA ..................................................................................................................................... 500,000 

City of Miami, FL .................................................................................................................................................. 600,000 

City of Flagler Beach, FL ..................................................................................................................................... 750,000 

Town of Hambleton and Town of Davis, WV ....................................................................................................... 450,000 

City of Robstown, TX ............................................................................................................................................ 500,000 

CHRISTUS St. Elizabeth Hospital, Beaumont, TX ................................................................................................. 250,000 

North Carolina Office of Emergency Management, NC ....................................................................................... 165,000 

King County, WA ................................................................................................................................................... 750,000 

Kentucky Emergency Management, KY ................................................................................................................ 500,000 

Drew County, AR ................................................................................................................................................... 366,564 

City of Los Angeles, CA ........................................................................................................................................ 1,000,000 

State of Maryland, MD ......................................................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

City of Burbank, CA ............................................................................................................................................. 225,000 

Henry County, GA .................................................................................................................................................. 275,000 

City of Los Angeles, CA ........................................................................................................................................ 500,000 

McDowell Hospital, NC ......................................................................................................................................... 220,000 

City of New Braunfels, TX .................................................................................................................................... 500,000 

Arkansas State University-Beebe, AR .................................................................................................................. 452,000 

Lorain County, OH ................................................................................................................................................ 200,000 

City of Davis, CA .................................................................................................................................................. 275,000 

Mississippi Homeland Security Office, MS .......................................................................................................... 500,000 

City of Rockville, MD ............................................................................................................................................ 650,000 

City of Hokah, MN ................................................................................................................................................ 590,000 

City of Miami Beach, FL ...................................................................................................................................... 750,000 

Jackson Health System, FL ................................................................................................................................... 500,000 

Russell County Fiscal Court, KY .......................................................................................................................... 200,000 

Ohio University, OH .............................................................................................................................................. 200,000 

Louisville-Metro Government, KY .......................................................................................................................... 500,000 

EMERGENCY FOOD AND SHELTER

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 1 ....................................................... $200,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 ..................................................... 100,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 200,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 .................................................. – – – 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 .............................................. +100,000,000 

1 Excludes $100,000,000 in appropriations in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (P.L. 111–5). 

MISSION

The Emergency Food and Shelter National Board Program was 

created in 1983 to supplement the work of local social service organizations within the United States, both private and governmental, 

to help people in need of emergency assistance. The program provides funds to local communities for homeless programs, including 

soup kitchens, food banks, shelters, and homeless prevention services. 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
128 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $200,000,000 for the Emergency 

Food and Shelter Program (EFSP), $100,000,000 above the amount 

requested and the same as the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. 

Since the recession began in December 2007, the U.S. has lost a 

net total of 5.7 million jobs. As of April 2009, the nationwide unemployment rate is 8.9 percent—a quarter-century high. Behind these 

statistics are people who are in need of the very services provided 

through EFSP. This funding helps local community organizations 

provide food, shelter, and support services to the nation’s hungry, 

homeless, and people in economic crisis. EFSP uses measures of 

unemployment and poverty to allocate the funds it receives from 

FEMA to city and county jurisdictions around the country. Up to 

3.5 percent may be used on administrative costs. 

TITLE IV—RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, TRAINING, AND 

SERVICES 

UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 ......................................................... $101,740,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 ..................................................... 364,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 248,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 .................................................. +146,260,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 .............................................. ¥116,000,000 

MISSION

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

USCIS also maintains substantial records and data related to the 

individuals who have applied for immigration benefits. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $248,000,000 in discretionary appropriations for USCIS, $116,000,000 below the requested level and 

$146,260,000 above the amount provided in 2009. As requested, the 

Committee provides $25,000,000 to complete REAL ID hub development within the USCIS appropriation, but withholds the funds 

from obligation until USCIS, in conjunction with the State or 

States responsible for developing the system, submits an expenditure plan showing how these funds will be utilized. As discussed 

below, the Committee provides $100,000,000 of the requested 

$206,000,000 to pay for processing refugee applications and asylum 

claims. Consistent with recommendations contained throughout 

this report, the Committee provides no funding for data center migration activities because of the IG’s recent findings described in 

the Chief Information Officer section of the report regarding possible unmitigated risks at the destination data center sites. 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
129 

USER FEE FUNDED PROGRAMS

The budget estimates that USCIS will make $2,503,232,000 in 

fee-funded expenditures in fiscal year 2010, which assumes the 

Congress funds the entire discretionary request for processing asylum, refugee, and military naturalization. Revenues from fees paid 

by persons applying for immigration benefits constitute the majority of USCIS’s resources, and support adjudication of applications 

for immigration benefits and fraud prevention activities. 

The Committee is concerned about several aspects of this feefunded expenditure estimate. Most significantly, USCIS revenues 

have fallen 6.2 percent below projections for the first six months 

of fiscal year 2009, and economic and sociological indicators suggest 

that fee revenue will continue to be below projections well into fiscal year 2010. Based on the Committee’s analysis, without operational changes, fiscal year 2010 processing costs may exceed fee 

collections by at least $100,000,000. While the Committee does not 

directly control USCIS fee authorities, it believes that the agency 

should construct its budget based on anticipated revenue, not anticipated cost. Unlike agencies for which Congress determines appropriate resource levels by legislating specific appropriations, 

USCIS is supposed to balance its operations with the revenues it 

collects from its customers. As a result, the Committee cannot in 

good conscience provide USCIS the authority to expend more on its 

fee-funded operations than would be supported by projected revenue. 

The Committee is also troubled that USCIS has not provided the 

public with a detailed analysis of whether or how it plans to adjust 

application fees to finance its 2010 expenditure estimates. The 

March 2009 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) baseline estimate 

projects 2010 fee collections at $2,511,000,000, which is roughly 

equivalent to the 2010 budget estimate, even though the CBO projection assumes the current schedule of immigration application 

charges and does not account for a change in financing the cost to 

process refugee applications, asylum claims, or military naturalizations. Alternatively, the USCIS budget assumes that no fee collections will be expended to process refugee applications, asylum 

claims, and military naturalizations, and that other processing 

costs will increase due to inflationary cost growth, pay raises, and 

staff annualizations. These conflicting estimating methodologies, 

combined with a lack of detailed regulatory analysis on the part of 

USCIS, make it exceptionally difficult for the Committee and the 

public to understand the revenue outlook for USCIS. 

In recognition of these concerns and the general correlation between CBO’s March 2009 estimate of USCIS’s collections and the 

fiscal year 2010 budget estimate, the Committee provides for the 

requested level of fee-funded expenditures with modest adjustments to reflect only partial approval of the requested appropriation for processing asylum, refugee, and military naturalization applications. Pursuant to Section 503 of the bill, USCIS will be required to submit a reprogramming request if it believes that its expenses will be substantially different from what the Committee has 

provided. In addition, within 60 days of enactment of this bill, the 

Committee directs USCIS to provide an operating plan for fiscal 

year 2010 that reflects how CIS activities will be financed for the 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
130 

year under its current schedule of fees, any additional revenue the 

agency expects to collect if it implements a new schedule of fees, 

any prior-year balances the agency plans to spend in 2010 to fund 

operations, and how discretionary appropriations will be used. The 

following table illustrates for historical purposes CIS’s estimates of 

prior year fee expenditures in the new budget structure the Committee has included in table at the back of this report: 

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

District Operations ....................... 606,388 649,203 755,726 745,570 1,015,722 1,041,687 

Service Center Operations ............ 346,025 367,941 409,057 418,213 536,397 519,334 

International Operations ............... 135,977 140,256 143,043 140,638 174,227 168,728 

Records Operations ...................... 86,890 86,599 88,174 88,080 113,324 109,920 

Business Transformation .............. .................... .................... .................... 53,000 139,000 139,000 

National Customer Service Centers ........................................... 50,997 46,000 47,000 48,000 55,600 53,747 

Information Services ..................... 101,996 92,001 94,000 95,999 112,199 114,052 

Administration .............................. 235,727 233,000 237,000 214,500 373,899 373,899 

SAVE ............................................. .................... .................... .................... .................... 18,504 18,818 

Within the total fees collected, the Committee directs USCIS to 

provide no less than $29,000,000 to convert immigration records to 

digital format, as requested in the budget. No more than $10,000 

of the fees collected shall be used for official reception and representation expenses. 

REFUGEE APPLICATIONS, ASYLUM CLAIMS, AND MILITARY

NATURALIZATIONS

USCIS does not currently charge application fees to individuals 

who apply for refugee status or make asylum claims, and likewise 

processes without charge naturalization applications from activeduty military members. Instead of collecting fees from these individuals, the agency imposes a surcharge on all other immigration 

applications to pay for these special programs. In its 2007 fee rule, 

USCIS estimated this surcharge at $40 per application. 

The 2010 budget proposes that the cost of processing refugee applications, asylum claims, and military naturalizations be paid by 

direct appropriations rather than the surcharge on other immigration applications. As a national policy, it may be appropriate for 

the costs of these programs to be paid from general tax revenues 

since they support fundamental values of the United States such 

as freedom from persecution, compassion for the disadvantaged, 

and gratitude for those who serve our country in the military. However, because the Administration has published no Federal Register notice detailing how discontinuing the surcharge will affect 

the schedule of fees for other application types, it is impossible for 

the Committee to evaluate the practicality of the proposal or to 

comprehend the full impact of a new and large appropriation on 

agency operations that historically have been funded by fees. 

In addition, GAO reported in January 2009 that the methodology 

used by USCIS to develop its 2007 fee rule included several significant flaws that led to an overstatement of agency processing costs. 

GAO encouraged USCIS to conduct timely fee reviews to ensure 

that the agency is making regular efforts to identify and reduce 

processing costs (GAO reports 09–70 and 09–180). The Committee 

itself has urged USCIS to make every attempt to lower its costs 

and application fees so that legal immigration is available to all 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
131 

who seek it. Moreover, the current economic downturn has likely 

decreased the number of people who can afford to become U.S. citizens. The Committee strongly encourages USCIS to conduct regular reviews of fee rules, as recommended by GAO, and to incorporate equitable processes for fee waivers and other consideration 

for those who may not possess the financial wherewithal to afford 

application charges. 

Since it will take the Administration at least several months to 

effectuate a new schedule of immigration application fees, the Committee provides USCIS $100,000,000 in discretionary appropriations to process refugee applications and asylum claims, which is 

half the requested amount. The Committee provides none of the requested $5,100,000 for military naturalizations, and instead expects USCIS to be reimbursed by the Department of Defense for 

the foregone revenue associated with military naturalization fee 

waivers. In order to make sure the public and Congress have an 

accounting of how this direct appropriation will reduce the 

amounts USCIS charges immigration applicants, and of how the 

agency will further adjust fees to address issues raised by GAO, 

the Committee restricts obligation of the $100,000,000 until the 

Administration publishes a final rule in the Federal Register implementing a new schedule of fees for immigration applications. 

BASIC PILOT/E-VERIFY

While the Committee provides $112,000,000, as requested, for 

the Basic Pilot/E-Verify system, it is concerned that USCIS does 

not have an updated analytical audit for the system. The most recent audit, which is nearly two years old, shows an unacceptably 

high rate of individuals falsely identified as ineligible to work. Of 

particular concern is the report’s conclusion that nearly 1 in 10 

naturalized citizens is reported by Basic Pilot/E-Verify as non-work 

authorized. While USCIS claims these results have improved as 

the system’s functionality has evolved, new evidence of increased 

accuracy has been largely anecdotal. The Committee strongly urges 

USCIS to update and publish regular Basic Pilot/E-Verify accuracy 

and performance audits, so that Congress and Administration policy makers can remain informed of the system’s strengths and 

weaknesses. 

The Committee strongly supports efforts by USCIS to establish 

a compliance group to monitor use of the Basic Pilot/E-Verify system and to ensure that companies enrolled in the program are not 

using it to take inappropriate or illegal employment actions. Within 

the additional funds provided for Basic Pilot/E-Verify in the Bill, 

USCIS will hire 40 Monitoring and Compliance staff to ensure the 

system is not used for prohibited purposes. 

In the budget, the Administration proposed a 3-year extension of 

the Basic Pilot/E-Verify program. The Committee has included an 

extension in the general provisions section of the bill. 

IMMIGRATION INTEGRATION PROGRAMS

An important responsibility for USCIS is the promotion of legal 

paths to U.S. citizenship and outreach to immigrant communities. 

Encouraging individuals to seek naturalized citizenship not only 

helps non-native-born residents better assimilate into their communities, but also affirms our country’s policy of welcoming those who 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
132 

chose to become Americans. The Committee notes the unprecedented demand from approximately 700 non-profit and immigrantserving organizations that filed notices of intent to apply for the 

$1,200,000 appropriated for immigration integration grants in fiscal year 2009. As a result, the Committee provides $11,000,000 for 

this program in 2010, $1,000,000 more than requested. These additional funds shall be used by the USCIS Office of Citizenship to 

hire up to 10 additional staff to support the review, award, and 

oversight of the grants and other activities related to immigration 

integration. 

VISA FRAUD

The budget included a request to expand the use of H and L Visa 

Fraud collections to include fraud investigations in other programs, 

pursuant to the priorities identified by the Fraud Detection and 

National Security Division of USCIS. The Committee has included 

this revision in the general provisions section of the Bill. 

CHANGES TO FEES CHARGED TO TEMPORARY PROTECTED STATUS

APPLICANTS

The budget included a request to raise the statutorily-capped $50 

application fee for those seeking Temporary Protected Status 

(TPS), and to clarify that USCIS is permitted to charge TPS applicants for related application services such as fingerprint collection. 

In the general provisions section of the Bill, the Committee has 

clarified that USCIS is allowed to charge fees for services related 

to TPS applications. The Committee has not acted to raise the $50 

application charge since Congress has determined in the past that 

this humanitarian program should be available for a modest fee. 

NATURALIZATION CEREMONIES

The Committee directs USCIS to identify, in the 2011 budget 

submission, all funds allocated to naturalization and oath of allegiance ceremonies. In addition, the Committee directs USCIS to 

work with local public and private groups to ensure that naturalization and oath of allegiance ceremonies are held as part of 

Independence Day celebrations. 

FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING CENTER

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 ......................................................... $246,530,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 ..................................................... 245,356,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 239,356,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 .................................................. ¥7,174,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 .............................................. ¥6,000,000 

MISSION

The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) provides the necessary facilities, equipment, and support services to 

conduct advanced, specialized, and refresher training for Federal 

law enforcement personnel. Specifically, FLETC serves as an interagency law enforcement training organization for over 80 Federal 

agencies with personnel located throughout the United States and 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
133 

its territories. FLETC also provides services to State, local, and 

international law enforcement agencies, and on a space available 

basis, to other Federal agencies with related law enforcement missions. 

FLETC is headquartered in Glynco, GA and has facilities in 

Artesia, NM and Charleston, SC. Each of these facilities is designed primarily for residential training operations. A fourth training facility is located in Cheltenham, MD, and provides in-service 

and re-qualification training for officers and agents in the Washington, D.C. area. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $239,356,000 for FLETC, $6,000,000 

below the amount requested and $7,174,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. Within the funds provided is $1,309,000 

for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Accreditation Board and 

$4,100,000 for the Train21 program, a business training and transformation initiative to examine the best training and business 

practices across the Agency. Since 2001, CBP has doubled its number of Border Patrol agents and has begun to slow additional hiring 

of Border Patrol agents in 2010. Accordingly, the President’s budget decreased funding for basic training requirements by 

$12,512,000. The Committee provides no funding for Data Center 

Migration activities due to the recent IG report findings regarding 

possible unmitigated risks at the destination data center sites, as 

described in the Chief Information Officer section of this report 

This action is consistent with funding recommendations contained 

throughout this report. 

ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENTS, AND RELATED

EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 ......................................................... $86,456,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 ..................................................... 43,456,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 43,456,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 .................................................. ¥43,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 .............................................. – – – 

MISSION

This account provides for the acquisition, construction, improvements, equipment, furnishings, and related costs for expansion and 

maintenance of facilities of the Federal Law Enforcement Training 

Center. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $43,456,000 for Acquisition, Construction, Improvements, and Related Expenses, the same as the 

amount requested and $43,000,000 below the amount provided in 

fiscal year 2009. The decrease is due to a deletion of one-time costs. 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
134 

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 ......................................................... $132,100,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 ..................................................... 142,200,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 142,200,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 .................................................. +10,100,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 .............................................. – – – 

MISSION

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

(S&T). 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $142,200,000 for Science and Technology Management and Administration, the same amount as requested and $10,100,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 

2009. Within this total, the Committee provides $10,000 for reception and representation costs. 

The Committee is pleased with the progress that S&T has made 

in filling vacant positions within the agency and hopes that S&T 

can reach a steady-state of employment in fiscal year 2010. 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, ACQUISITION, AND OPERATIONS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 ......................................................... $800,487,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 ..................................................... 826,191,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 825,356,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 .................................................. +24,869,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 .............................................. ¥835,000 

MISSION

The mission of Science and Technology is to develop and deploy 

technologies and capabilities to secure our homeland. This Directorate conducts, stimulates, and enables research, development, 

testing, evaluation, and the timely transition of homeland security 

capabilities to Federal, State, and local operational end-users. This 

activity includes investments in both evolutionary and revolutionary capabilities with high payoff potential; early deployment of 

off-the-shelf, proven technologies to provide for initial defense capability; near-term utilization of emerging technologies to counter 

current terrorist threats; and development of new capabilities to 

thwart future and emerging threats. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $825,356,000 for Research, Development, Acquisition, and Operations (RDA&O), $835,000 below the 

amount requested and $24,869,000 above the amount provided in 

fiscal year 2009. A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee recommended level by budget activity is as follows: 

Budget estimate Recommended 

Border and Maritime Security ..................................................................................... $40,181,000 $40,181,000 

Chemical and Biological ............................................................................................. 206,800,000 221,900,000 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
135 

Budget estimate Recommended 

Command, Control and Interoperability ...................................................................... 80,264,000 80,764,000 

Explosives .................................................................................................................... 120,809,000 120,809,000 

Human Factors ............................................................................................................ 15,087,000 16,887,000 

Infrastructure and Geophysical ................................................................................... 44,742,000 52,093,000 

Innovation .................................................................................................................... 44,000,000 44,000,000 

Laboratory Facilities .................................................................................................... 154,500,000 123,188,000 

Test and Evaluations/Standards ................................................................................. 28,674,000 29,000,000 

Transition ..................................................................................................................... 45,134,000 46,134,000 

University Programs ..................................................................................................... 46,000,000 50,400,000 

826,191,000 825,356,000 

BORDER AND MARITIME SECURITY

The Committee recommends $40,181,000 for border and maritime security, the same as the amount requested and $7,131,000 

above the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. Included in this 

amount is $4,000,000 for a pilot to develop a replicable port security system that would improve maritime domain awareness. The 

Committee denies the Administration’s request for additional funding for basic research in border and maritime security. The Committee continues to believe that funding for basic research on new 

maritime technologies is better conducted within the Coast Guard’s 

Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation account. The Committee recognizes that it is in S&T’s mission to provide science and 

technology management to all components of DHS, and encourages 

S&T to maintain a working relationship with the Coast Guard despite this denial of funds. 

The Committee continues to believe that a viable container security device (CSD) is an essential tool within an effective cargo supply chain security regime. The Committee is disappointed that it 

has taken so long to produce a viable container security device. The 

Committee maintains its interest in both the container security device, and the advanced container security device as possible solutions, and is eager to see progress from S&T on both of those efforts, as well as the mobile asset tag tracking system and the hybrid-composite container project. S&T is directed to continue its 

quarterly updates on its efforts to explore a viable CSD solution. 

CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL

The Committee recommends $221,900,000 for chemical and biological, $15,100,000 above the amount requested, and $21,492,000 

above the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. The Committee approves the additional funding requested to enable DHS to provide 

the basic research needed to help secure food and agricultural sectors from potential security threats in support of Homeland Security Presidential Directive 9. 

BIOWATCH

As previously discussed under the Office of Health Affairs, the 

Committee is frustrated with the slow development and testing of 

the next generation BioWatch program. It appears that since this 

program was transferred from S&T to OHA two years ago, development and testing efforts have fallen significantly behind where 

S&T planned to be at this time, largely because OHA decided to 

instead focus on an alternative technology that has since been deVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:16 Jun 17, 2009 Jkt 050276 PO 00000 Frm 00135 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR157.XXX HR157

smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
136 

activated. As a result, $15,100,000 is included within S&T’s Chemical and Biological program to resume developmental testing of the 

BioWatch Generation 3 systems. In addition, S&T shall assume 

control of all activities related to Generation 3, and shall enter into 

a Memorandum of Understanding with OHA so that any monies 

provided to OHA in fiscal year 2009 shall be utilized by S&T for 

the originally intended purpose of Generation 3 testing. 

The Committee recognizes a troubling lack of coordination across 

the federal government with regards to development of the 

BioWatch program. Therefore, S&T is directed to coordinate with 

the Department of Health and Human Services, specifically the 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in developing 

assays for use in any BioWatch system. Additionally, CDC shall approve any assays developed for a final Generation 3 system. 

COMMAND, CONTROL, AND INTEROPERABILITY

The Committee recommends $80,764,000 for command, control, 

and interoperability, $500,000 above the amount requested and 

$5,874,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. Included 

in this amount is $500,000 for a demonstration project to develop 

situational awareness and decision support capabilities through remote sensing technologies. Within the funds provided, the Committee includes $19,498,000 to invest in next generation technologies to improve cyber security and $2,000,000, as requested, for 

S&T to continue its web-distributed environment for critical infrastructure decision making exercises. 

FIRST RESPONDER COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT STANDARDS

Federal funding for first responder communications equipment 

shall comply with common system standards for public safety communications (voice and data), as appropriate, to ensure interoperability. Where programs exist, standards-based equipment must be 

assessed for compliance to existing standards. This includes, but is 

not limited to, the Project 25 Compliance Assessment Program for 

P25 products and the National Incident Management System Supporting Technology Evaluation Program for Emergency Data Exchange Language products. The Office for Interoperability and 

Compatibility, in conjunction with the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, shall continue assessing the 

compliance of first responder communications equipment, and shall 

establish additional compliance assessment programs for emerging 

technology as necessary. 

EXPLOSIVES

The Committee recommends $120,809,000 for explosives, the 

same as the amount requested and $24,660,000 above the amount 

provided in fiscal year 2009. Within the amount provided, 

$5,000,000 is to improve detection capabilities of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) specifically in non-aviation, mass transit settings. The Committee eagerly awaits the development of new technologies that can preemptively detect, effectively mitigate, and defeat IEDs. 

Over the past two years, the explosives program has received 

strong support from this Committee, as reflected in a 56 percent 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
137 

growth in funding (+$43,155,000). In light of this large investment, 

S&T is encouraged to accelerate its efforts to achieve results in the 

nearer term, specifically within the next one or two years, and is 

directed to brief the Committee no later than January 15, 2010 on 

the status of new technologies and research within the explosives 

program. 

HUMAN FACTORS

The Committee recommends $16,887,000 for human factors, 

$1,800,000 above the request and $4,427,000 above the amount 

provided in fiscal year 2009. Within this total, $4,000,000 is for the 

biometrics program in the Personal Identification Thrust Area of 

S&T, $1,200,000 above the request; and $1,000,000 is for the credentialing program, $600,000 above the request. Advanced capabilities in the field of biometrics would have positive effects across all 

DHS components, and the Committee provides a corresponding investment in order to develop new techniques as well as improve 

flexibility of biometric apparatus and the overall capability of biometric detectors, screening capabilities, and credentialing. 

INFRASTRUCTURE AND GEOPHYSICAL

The Committee recommends $52,093,000 for infrastructure and 

geophysical, $7,351,000 above the amount requested and 

$23,723,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. Included within these funds is $10,000,000 for the National Institute 

for Hometown Security to support existing work in research, development and application of technology for community-based critical 

infrastructure protection. The Committee includes $5,979,000, as 

requested, for continued development of emergency responder 

tracking, monitoring and rescue systems. Such systems would permit incident commanders to wirelessly locate, track, and monitor 

individual first responders throughout multi-story structures in 

real-time. 

NEW TECHNOLOGIES

New technologies may significantly help the Department as it 

seeks to secure our homeland. The Committee encourages S&T to 

assess technologies and evaluate research opportunities in areas 

such as energy and sensor informatics; rural community resiliency 

to disaster; large scale high wind infrastructure resistance testing; 

3D simulation environment technologies to help first responders 

with coordination and planning; large-scale graph analytic technologies; energetic materials and the structure and behavior of explosives; and threat analysis techniques to better understand and 

predict potential terrorist behavior. 

MULTI-FUNCTION PHASED ARRAY RADARS

The Committee notes that S&T has been engaged with a working 

group on the development of a Multi-Function Phased Array Radar 

that includes the Department of Defense, the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, and the Federal Aviation Administration. The Committee encourages S&T to continue its involvement 

with this working group and to contribute to the development of 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
138 

this technology if it is determined to provide clear advantages to 

DHS components. 

LABORATORY FACILITIES

The Committee recommends $123,188,000 for laboratory facilities, $31,312,000 below the amount requested, and $38,752,000 

below the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. Included in the 

amount provided for laboratory facilities is $12,000,000 for ongoing 

construction at Area 300 of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). This will fully fund the last year of DHS’s obligations 

to PNNL pursuant to the multi-agency memorandum of understanding. 

The Committee recommends no funding for construction of the 

National Bio and Agro defense Facility (NBAF), instead of the 

$36,312,000 requested. In January 2009, DHS published an Environmental Impact Statement which detailed the site selection process, including a risk assessment for the proposed NBAF site. A recent GAO review has found the design and execution of that study 

to be seriously flawed, specifically as it relates to the risk of researching Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD) on the U.S. mainland. 

Therefore, the Committee cannot currently support construction of 

the NBAF as proposed. 

The bill contains language that continues to prohibit obligation 

of funds for NBAF design and construction until a third party risk 

analysis is completed to determine whether FMD research can be 

done safely on the U.S. mainland. The Committee provides 

$5,000,000 for DHS to contract with a third party to conduct and 

complete another risk assessment before any funding can be obligated. The Committee expects that such third party should have 

the appropriate expertise to conduct an in-depth analysis of whether FMD work can be done safely on the mainland, should have access to validated plume modeling capabilities, and should have experience with or could contract for experts who have worked with 

FMD. 

BIOLOGICAL SURETY

With the increased use of and need to manage biological select 

agents and toxins at DHS laboratories, the Committee recognizes 

the need for a reliable and consistent method for maintaining biological surety. The Committee recommends that DHS develop a Department-wide bio-surety policy and program to be implemented 

across all DHS laboratories. S&T is directed to brief the Committee, no later than January 15, 2010, on the development and 

implementation of such a plan. 

TEST AND EVALUATIONS/STANDARDS

The Committee recommends $29,000,000 for Test and Evaluations/Standards, $326,000 above the budget request and the 

amount provided in fiscal year 2009. Included within this funding 

is $5,000,000 to continue work supporting the first responder community through objective assessments and validations of emergency responder equipment. This initiative provides valuable information to decision-makers in the selection, procurement, use and 

maintenance of equipment available to the first responder commuVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:16 Jun 17, 2009 Jkt 050276 PO 00000 Frm 00138 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR157.XXX HR157

smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
139 

nity including urban search and rescue, law enforcement, fire services, and hazardous material response. The Committee believes 

this to be a cost- and time-saving asset to federal, State and local 

emergency responders. 

TRANSITION

The Committee recommends $46,134,000 for transition, 

$1,000,000 above the budget request and $17,304,000 above the 

amount provided in fiscal year 2009. Included in the funds provided is $2,000,000, the same as requested, for DHS to continue its 

work with the Naval Postgraduate School regarding field experiments for first responder technologies. The Committee is aware of 

numerous challenges confronting industry in keeping up with the 

growing demand for critical homeland security equipment, and the 

fact that such challenges have contributed to expenditure delays in 

State and local first responder funding. Therefore, within the funds 

provided is $1,000,000 to continue a pilot program to identify, research, develop and transition advanced technologies and manufacturing processes that would achieve significant productivity and efficiency gains in the homeland security industrial base. 

UNIVERSITY PROGRAMS

The Committee recommends $50,400,000 for university programs, $4,400,000 above the amount requested and $130,000 above 

the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. Within this funding level, 

a total of $39,380,000 has been provided for the Centers of Excellence, $4,400,000 above the budget request. 

The Committee is concerned that the office of university programs continues to request inadequate funding to support the research missions of its Centers of Excellence. The Committee notes 

that in each of the last three years, the budget either proposed reductions in funding for previously established Centers in order to 

establish new Centers and/or reductions to overall program funding. This seriously undermines the ability of the Centers to contribute to the research mission of the Department and the protection of the homeland. 

Within the recommended level for university programs is 

$3,870,000 for minority serving institutions, as requested. S&T 

should continue to explore ways to prepare minority youths for careers in homeland security by promoting skills and educational curriculum in this field. 

UNOBLIGATED BALANCES

The Committee is pleased that S&T has been making progress 

in reducing high unexpended obligations throughout its RDA&O 

account. The increased level of detail that S&T uses to track both 

its obligations and expenditures is encouraging, and should continue as a means of both efficiency and oversight to better track 

S&T funds. Furthermore, the Committee is pleased with the efforts 

that S&T has made to recover and realign funds that have lain 

dormant due to expired programs, or lack of expenditure. S&T is 

directed to continue briefing the Committee on the results of its 

quarterly validation and verification reviews, report the amount 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
140 

available to de-obligate, and identify how S&T plans to use these 

funds. 

DOMESTIC NUCLEAR DETECTION OFFICE

MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 ......................................................... $37,500,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 ..................................................... 39,599,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 39,599,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 .................................................. +2,099,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 .............................................. – – – 

MISSION

The Management and Administration (M&A) appropriation provides for the salaries and expenses of Domestic Nuclear Detection 

Office (DNDO) employees. This is a jointly-staffed office that consists of both federal employees and interagency detailees. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $39,599,000 for Management and Administration, the amount requested and $2,099,000 above the 

amount provided in fiscal year 2009. The Committee funds the full 

request for 130 FTE positions. Although DNDO currently has 16 

vacancies, it has identified candidates for those positions who are 

either awaiting clearance or in the hiring process at this time. The 

Committee encourages the Department to expedite the background 

investigations and related clearance process to fill these positions 

as soon as possible. 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND OPERATIONS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 ......................................................... $323,200,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 ..................................................... 326,537,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 326,537,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2009 .................................................. +3,337,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2010 .............................................. – – – 

MISSION

The Research, Development and Operations appropriation funds 

all DHS nuclear detection research, development, test, evaluation 

and operational support activities. DNDO has developed a global 

nuclear detection architecture (GNDA) that the Federal government will use to detect and report attempts to import or transport 

a nuclear device or fissile or radiological material intended for illicit use. DNDO is continuing to improve the domestic portion of 

this architecture through an integrated research, development, 

test, and evaluation program, while providing support to current 

operations. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $326,537,000 for Research, Development, and Operations, the amount requested, and $3,337,000 above 

the amount provided in fiscal year 2009. A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee recommended level by budget activity 

is as follows: 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
141 

Budget estimate Recommended 

Systems Engineering and Architecture ....................................................................... $25,448,000 $25,448,000 

Systems Development .................................................................................................. 100,000,000 100,000,000 

Transformational Research and Development ............................................................ 110,537,000 110,537,000 

Assessments ................................................................................................................ 32,416,000 32,416,000 

Operational Support ..................................................................................................... 38,436,000 38,436,000 

National Technical Nuclear Forensics Center ............................................................. 19,700,000 19,700,000 

Total .................................................................................................................... 326,537,000 326,537,000 

DEFINING AND RESPONDING TO FUTURE THREATS

While DNDO has been heavily engaged in acquiring and deploying radiation detection technology to scan cargo for radioactive and 

nuclear materials at ports of entry, it has moved to fulfill more 

broadly its preventive radiation/nuclear detection (PRND) mission. 

DNDO plans for and designs architecture for nuclear detection, and 

supports pilot studies and assessments of new technologies to reduce vulnerabilities from aircraft, both commercial and general 

aviation; small vessels and other potential risk in the maritime environment; land border threats, including rail and in areas beyond 

ports of entry; and to threats in urban areas and critical locations 

in the nation’s interior. DNDO is also guiding and implementing 

strategies for the GNDA, both at home and internationally. In addition to cross-cutting research and development work, DNDO has 

adopted an approach to align systems development work to four 

principal mission areas: the maritime domain, aviation, land borders, and the interior. The Committee directs DNDO to continue 

quarterly briefings to the Committees on Appropriations on its 

progress designing architecture to underpin technology research 

and applications; the status of such technologies, with their 

strengths and weaknesses; and timetables to develop and deploy 

such technologies. 

SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT

The Committee includes $100,000,000, as requested, for Systems 

Development. Within this, the Committee provides $43,000,000 for 

mission-directed efforts, including $18,000,000 for maritime 

projects such as maritime standoff detection, on-dock rail detection, 

and architecture for other challenging maritime environments, including inland waterways, the Great Lakes, and non-container 

modes of commercial shipping. The Committee believes it is important to continue the advancement of next generation technology 

that will address the vulnerability gaps that exist in rail cargo and 

transshipment without interruptions to productivity at the port. 

The Committee understands work towards solutions for on-dock 

rail detection will proceed in 2010 to further testing of straddle 

portal prototypes and mobile radiation detection systems. The Committee also urges DNDO to consider additional testing of spreader 

bar configurations for monitors, including by demonstrating this 

technology in a port environment, as it understands that there 

have been significant improvements in the capability of such systems since prototypes were tested in 2008. The Committee encourages this work to proceed apace, and notes that the experience 

gained in managing testing at the Tacoma test site and various national laboratory sites should facilitate the ability of DNDO to iniVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:16 Jun 17, 2009 Jkt 050276 PO 00000 Frm 00141 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR157.XXX HR157

smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
142 

tiate and carry out tests of promising systems and technologies in 

the cargo environment. 

CARGO ADVANCED AUTOMATED RADIOGRAPHY SYSTEM AND THE JOINT

INTEGRATED NON INTRUSIVE INSPECTION

Among several major systems development efforts, the Cargo Advanced Automated Radiography System and the Joint Integrated 

Non Intrusive Inspection program are scheduled to move into test 

and evaluation of prototypes, including cost/benefit analyses, and 

broad area announcements to manufacturers for the production of 

prototype systems, with the potential award of contracts for such 

work in fiscal year 2010. The Committee encourages DNDO to 

meet these test and evaluation objectives, and includes 

$29,000,000, as requested, for this effort. The Committee expects to 

receive information about the status of this endeavor as part of 

quarterly project update briefings. 

RED TEAM EXERCISES AND ASSESSMENTS

Within the assessments budget, $10,000,000 is provided as requested for red teaming and net assessments. The Committee expects this will support red teaming through covert and overt exercises, including key initiatives such as the West Coast Maritime 

pilot. The Committee directs DNDO to continue providing quarterly 

reports on exercises and assessments, including vulnerabilities 

identified and recommendations for addressing such vulnerabilities. 

NATIONAL TECHNICAL NUCLEAR FORENSICS

The Committee includes $19,700,000 as requested for the National Technical Nuclear Forensics Center. Collection, analysis, 

evaluation and interpretation of pre- and post-detonation evidence 

are critical to enable accurate attribution for such an incident and 

to enhance deterrence against an event. DHS and DNDO play a 

critical role in this mission by integrating the federal government 

effort across domestic and international activities, as well as 

through law enforcement, regulatory, defense, and intelligence communities. The Committee supports technical improvements in the 

ability to identify and track materials, and encourages joint demonstrations to test forensic capabilities. In addition, the Committee 

supports the initiative to expand the development program by increasing the number of graduate and post-doctoral fellowships and 

enhancing recruitment from academia. 

In addition, the Committee includes $3,000,000 as requested 

under System Development to expand and demonstrate new tools 

for Nuclear Forensics pattern analysis and predictive modeling, including the Knowledge Management and Assessment System. The 

Committee directs DNDO to report, along with its fiscal year 2011 

budget submission, on its progress in employing this system. 

The Committee understands that DNDO, along with the Defense 

and Energy Departments, is sponsoring a study through the National Academies on sustaining and improving the nation’s nuclear 

forensics capabilities that is expected to be completed in 2009. The 

results of this study should be shared with the Committee. 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
143 

HUMAN PORTABLE RADIATION DETECTION SYSTEMS (HPRDS)

The Human Portable Radiation Detection Systems (HPRDS) systems development effort is funded, as requested, at $12,000,000. 

The Committee strongly supports the effort to develop handheld 

and backpack systems, including tripwire and wide area search 

programs. The Committee understands this funding will support 

operational testing for handheld systems, including production of a 

new technology for advanced operations. The Committee directs 

DNDO to report on this effort as part of quarterly update briefings 

provided to the Committees on Appropriations. 

TRANSFORMATIONAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

The Committee is extremely interested in research to find alternatives to existing detection materials and systems, including 

scintillators and semiconductors that might result in smaller, more 

reliable, and more accurate radiation and nuclear detection devices. 

In addition, the Committee strongly supports DNDO efforts to accelerate development of alternatives to neutron detectors that are 

based on Helium–3, and directs DNDO to report on its progress in 

this area with its 2011 budget submission. 

SYSTEM ACQUISITION

RADIATION PORTAL MONITOR PROGRAM

The Committee agrees with the Department’s decision to request 

no new funding for the advanced spectroscopic portal (ASP) systems in fiscal year 2010. DNDO has informed the Committee to expect Secretarial certification of the ASP systems—originally promised for 2008—to be completed by first quarter of fiscal year 2010, 

and that prior year funding balances will be sufficient for 2010 acquisition and deployment. The Committee continues bill language 

prohibiting full scale procurement of ASP systems until the Secretary has certified and reported to the Committees that a significant increase in operational effectiveness merits such a decision. 

Separate and distinct certification must be made for primary and 

secondary deployments. Should certification not occur or be further 

delayed, the Committee expects the Department to submit a reprogramming proposal, to include additional procurement of polyvinyl toluene (PVT) monitors, if requirements remain. 

The Committee underscores that it wants the Department to 

make the best possible decision about future portal monitor solutions, with no rush to judgment, and so urges the Department to 

ensure certification decisions are based on adequate test information, to include appropriate use of modeling, and robust cost-benefit 

analysis. To the extent existing low rate initial production ASP systems (improved as necessary and feasible) can be deployed in operational environments to generate data to inform this decision, the 

Committee encourages DNDO to work with CBP to undertake such 

deployments. 

Should this funding be used for ASP procurement in fiscal year 

2010, the Committee will regard it as base funding for purposes of 

comparison against any additional funding considered in fiscal year 

2011. 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
144 

SECURING THE CITIES

The request includes no funding for further development or acquisition costs associated with the Securing the Cities (STC) pilot 

program. The Committee agrees with this decision, as the activity 

undertaken by DNDO—structured as a three-year pilot test of an 

approach to urban detection systems—has run its course for that 

purpose. The Committee does not disagree with advocates for continued funding of the program who point to the distinct improvements STC has brought to cooperative efforts to detect and defend 

against nuclear and radiological threats in the greater New York 

City area, one of the most critical and potentially vulnerable urban 

complexes in the world. 

However, the scope of the work within DNDO was for a test, and 

the testing stage is completed. By the end of fiscal year 2009, 

DNDO will have deployed over 4,000 personal radiation detectors, 

50 radioisotope identifiers with associated communications and 

computer support, 100 backpack detectors, and 30 mobile detection 

systems, along with associated training. The issue at this point is 

whether this should continue as an operational program. DNDO 

has indicated, properly, that it plans to take the results of the pilot 

program and incorporate them into development of the next version 

of architecture and systems that could be applied to these efforts, 

to include examining the possibility of pilot efforts in other urban 

centers. It has also made the argument, and the Committee agrees, 

that DNDO’s mission is not to manage ongoing, operational regional PRND programs. 

The Committee believes that a decision to continue STC is the 

responsibility of the greater New York City community, to include 

whether and how to apply homeland security grants to the costs of 

continuing operations. In November 2008 the Department issued 

guidance to State, local, and tribal governments on the potential 

application of Homeland Security Grant Program funding for planning, equipment, training and exercise support. In addition, the 

Committee understands that DNDO will continue to provide technical guidance and other informational support on a 24/7 basis. The 

Committee supports this potential use of grant funding, as ongoing 

acquisition and operations costs for STC should properly be borne 

by the regional governments using the system. DNDO, which has 

been assigned the mission to design and test technologies, should 

be permitted to build on its STC experience in developing yet more 

advanced and effective PRND architecture and systems, including 

ones that New York may benefit from in the future. 

TITLE V—GENERAL PROVISIONS—THIS ACT 

Section 501. The Committee continues a provision providing that 

no part of any appropriation shall remain available for obligation 

beyond the current year unless expressly provided. 

Section 502. The Committee continues a provision providing that 

unexpended balances of prior appropriations may be merged with 

new appropriation accounts and used for the same purpose, subject 

to reprogramming guidelines. 

Section 503. The Committee continues and modifies a provision 

providing reprogramming authority for funds within an account 

and not to exceed 5 percent transfer authority between appropriaVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:16 Jun 17, 2009 Jkt 050276 PO 00000 Frm 00144 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR157.XXX HR157

smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
145 

tions accounts with the requirement for a 15-day advance Congressional notification. A detailed funding table identifying each Congressional control level for reprogramming purposes is included at 

the end of this Report. These reprogramming guidelines shall be 

complied with by all agencies funded by the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010. 

The Department shall submit reprogramming requests on a timely basis and provide complete explanations of the reallocations proposed, including detailed justifications of the increases and offsets, 

and any specific impact the proposed changes will have on the 

budget request for the following fiscal year and future-year appropriations requirements. Each request submitted to the Committees 

on Appropriations should include a detailed table showing the proposed revisions at the account, program, project, and activity level 

to the funding and staffing (full-time equivalent position) levels for 

the current fiscal year and to the levels requested in the President’s budget for the following fiscal year. 

The Department shall manage its programs and activities within 

the levels appropriated. The Department should only submit reprogramming or transfer requests in the case of an unforeseeable 

emergency or situation that could not have been predicted when 

formulating the budget request for the current fiscal year. When 

the Department submits a reprogramming or transfer request to 

the Committees on Appropriations and does not receive identical 

responses from the House and Senate, it is the responsibility of the 

Department to reconcile the House and Senate differences before 

proceeding, and if reconciliation is not possible, to consider the reprogramming or transfer request unapproved. 

The Department is not to submit a reprogramming or transfer of 

funds after June 30 except in extraordinary circumstances that imminently threaten human life or the protection of property. If a reprogramming or transfer is needed after June 30, the notice should 

contain sufficient documentation as to why it meets this statutory 

exception. 

Section 504. The Committee continues a provision that prohibits 

funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department 

to make payment to the Department’s Working Capital Fund 

(WCF), except for activities and amounts allowed in the President’s 

fiscal year 2010. Funds provided to the WCF are available until expended. The Department can only charge components for direct 

usage of the WCF and these funds may be used only for the purposes consistent with the contributing component. Any funds paid 

in advance or reimbursed must reflect the full cost of each service. 

The WCF shall be subject to the requirements of section 503 of this 

Act. 

Section 505. The Committee continues a provision providing that 

not to exceed 50 percent of unobligated balances remaining at the 

end of fiscal year 2010 from appropriations made for salaries and 

expenses shall remain available through fiscal year 2011 subject to 

reprogramming guidelines. 

Section 506. The Committee continues a provision providing that 

funds for intelligence activities are deemed to be specifically authorized during fiscal year 2010 until the enactment of an Act authorizing intelligence activities for fiscal year 2010. 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
146 

Section 507. The Committee continues and modifies a provision 

requiring notification of the Committees on Appropriations three 

days before grant allocations, grant awards, contract awards, letters of intent, or other transactional agreements totaling 

$1,000,000 or more are announced by the Department. The Department is required to brief the Committees on Appropriations five 

full day business days prior to announcing the intention to make 

a grant under State and Local Programs. Notification shall include 

a description of the project or projects to be funded, including city, 

county and state. 

Section 508. The Committee continues a provision providing that 

no agency shall purchase, construct, or lease additional facilities for 

federal law enforcement training without advance approval of the 

Committees on Appropriations. 

Section 509. The Committee continues a provision providing that 

none of the funds may be used for any construction, repair, alteration, and acquisition project for which a prospectus, if required 

under chapter 33 of title 40, United States Code, has not been approved. 

Section 510. The bill continues a provision that consolidates by 

reference prior year statutory bill language into one provision. 

These provisions relate to reporting requirements of the privacy officer; contracting officer’s technical representative training; sensitive security information; federal building performance and requirements outlined in title V of the National Energy Conservation 

Policy Act or subtitle A of title I of the Energy Policy Act of 2005; 

use of funds in conformance with section 303 of the Energy Policy 

Act of 1992; and Executive Order 13149 relating to fleet and transportation efficiency. 

Section 511. The Committee continues a provision that none of 

the funds may be used in contravention of the Buy American Act. 

Section 512. The Committee continues a provision regarding competitive sourcing. 

Section 513. The Committee continues and modifies a provision 

directing TSA to research, develop, and procure new technologies 

to inspect and screen air cargo. In the interim, TSA shall utilize 

existing checked baggage explosive detection equipment and 

screeners to screen cargo on passenger aircraft when practicable. 

TSA shall work with air carriers and airports to ensure the screening of cargo carried on passenger aircraft, as required by the 9/11 

Act, increases incrementally each quarter. TSA shall take all possible measures to ensure air carriers are submitting data consistent with current security directives, including enforcement actions for non-compliance. TSA is required to report air cargo inspection statistics detailing how incremental progress is being 

made to the Committees within 45 days of the end of each quarter 

of the fiscal year. Finally, TSA shall submit a report on how they 

plan to meet the 100 percent mandate contained in the 9/11 Act. 

Section 514. The Committee continues a provision that directs 

that any funds appropriated or transferred to TSA ‘‘Aviation Security’’, ‘‘Administration’’, and ‘‘Transportation Security Support’’ in 

fiscal years 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007, which are recovered or 

deobligated, shall be available only for procurement and installation of explosive detection systems for air cargo, baggage and 

checkpoint screening systems, subject to section notification. The 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
147 

Committee also requires quarterly reports on recovered or 

deobligated funds. 

Section 515. The Committee continues a provision requiring any 

funds appropriated to the Coast Guard’s 110–123 foot patrol boat 

conversion that are recovered, collected, or otherwise received as a 

result of negotiation, mediation, or litigation, shall be available 

until expended for the Fast Response Cutter program. 

Section 516. The Committee continues a provision requiring the 

Chief Financial Officer to submit monthly budget execution and 

staffing reports within 45 days after the close of each month. 

Section 517. The Committee continues a provision relating to undercover investigative operations authority of the Secret Service for 

fiscal year 2010. 

Section 518. The Committee continues and modifies a provision 

classifying the functions of the instructor staff at the Federal Law 

Enforcement Training Center as inherently governmental for purposes of the of the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act. 

Section 519. The bill continues a provision pertaining to the 

human resource management system. 

Section 520. The Committee continues a provision regarding the 

enforcement of section 4025(1) of Public Law 108–458. 

Section 521. The Committee continues a provision prohibiting the 

Secretary of Homeland Secretary from reducing operations within 

the Coast Guard’s civil engineering program except as specifically 

authorized in statute after enactment of this Act. 

Section 522. The Committee continues a provision prohibiting the 

obligation of funds to the Office of the Secretary and Executive 

Management, the Office of the Under Secretary for Management, 

and the Office of the Chief Financial Officer for grants or contracts 

awarded by any means other than full and open competition. Certain exceptions apply, and this provision does not require new competitions of existing contracts during their current terms. The bill 

also requires the IG to review Departmental contracts awarded 

noncompetitively and report on the results to the Committees. 

Section 523. The Committee continues a provision that prohibits 

funding for any position designated as a Principal Federal Official 

(PFO) during a Stafford Act declared disaster or emergency. 

This prohibition shall apply to any PFO, successors to that position, and any similar position created by the Department. The 

Committee is concerned that the Department has not defined a 

clear role for a PFO and that the position conflicts with the Federal 

Coordinating Official’s (FCO) role during Presidentially-declared 

disasters and emergencies. States and emergency management organizations have also expressed concern that use of both an FCO 

and PFO leads to confusion in the field following disasters and undermines FEMA’s emergency management role. The Committee understands there may be instances in which FEMA should not be 

the lead agency in charge of response, such as pandemic outbreak 

or an Olympic event, and therefore limits the prohibition to Presidentially-declared disasters or emergencies that require Stafford 

Act assistance. The Department must work with all homeland security partners to achieve common understanding regarding incident management. 

Section 524. The Committee continues a provision prohibiting 

funding to grant an immigration benefit to any individual unless 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
148 

the results of background checks required in statute to be completed prior to the grant of the benefit have been received by DHS. 

Section 525. The Committee continues a provision prohibiting 

use of funds to destroy or put out to pasture any horse or other 

equine belonging to the Federal government unless adoption has 

been offered first to its trainer or handler. 

Section 526. The Committee continues a provision that precludes 

the Secretary from using funds in this Act to carry out unilateral 

reorganization of the Department. 

Section 527. The Committee continues a provision prohibiting 

funds to be used to conduct or implement the results of a competition under Office of Management and Budget Circular A–76 with 

respect to the Coast Guard National Vessel Documentation Center. 

Section 528. The Committee continues a provision that requires 

the Secretary to link all contracts that provide award fees to successful acquisition outcomes. 

Section 529. The Committee continues a provision prohibiting the 

obligation of funds for the Office of Secretary and Executive Management for any new hires at DHS if they are not verified through 

the basic pilot program (E-Verify). 

Section 530. The Committee continues a provision related to prescription drugs. 

Section 531. The Committee continues a provision prohibiting 

funds available in this Act from being used to implement a rule or 

regulation which implements the notice of proposed rulemaking related to Petitions for Aliens to Perform Temporary Nonagricultural 

Services or Labor (H–2B) set out beginning on 70 Federal Register 

3984 (January 27, 2005). 

Section 532. The Committee continues and modifies a provision 

relating to other transactional authority of the DHS through fiscal 

year 2010. Language continues to require the Secretary to issue 

policy guidance detailing the appropriate use of other transactional 

authority and provide training to each employee that has authority 

to handle procurements under this authority. The Secretary shall 

report on projects for which this authority was used. 

Section 533. The Committee continues a provision prohibiting 

funds for planning, testing, piloting or developing a national identification card. 

Section 534. The Committee continues a provision that requires 

a report summarizing damage assessment information used to determine whether to declare a major disaster. 

Section 535. The Committee continues and modifies a provision 

relating to the liquidation of Plum Island assets and how the proceeds from this sale may be applied to construction costs of the new 

National Bio and Agro-defense Facility. 

Section 536. The Committee continues a provision directing that 

any official required by this Act to report or certify to the Committees on Appropriation may not delegate any authority unless expressly authorized to do so in this Act. 

Section 537. The Committee continues a provision requiring the 

Secretary of Homeland Security, in conjunction with the Secretary 

of the Treasury, to notify the Committees of any proposed transfers 

from the Department of Treasury Forfeiture Fund to any agency 

within the Department of Homeland Security. No funds may be obligated until the Subcommittees approve the proposed transfers. 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
149 

Section 538. The Committee continues a provision requiring the 

Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security (Transportation Security 

Administration) to certify that no security risks will result if an 

airport does not participate in the basic pilot program. 

Section 539. The Committee rescinds $2,203,000 from the unobligated balances of prior year appropriations made available for 

‘‘Analysis and Operations’’. 

Section 540. The Committee includes a new provision on fiscal 

year 2008 predisaster mitigation grants. 

Section 541. The Committee continues and modifies a provision 

extending the authority of the Predisaster Mitigation Fund until 

September 30, 2010. 

Section 542. The Committee rescinds $5,963,000 from unobligated balances of prior year appropriations made available to Infrastructure Protection and Information Security. 

Section 543. The Committee includes a new provision permitting 

unobligated amounts of appropriations made available to the Coast 

Guard in fiscal years 2008 and 2009 for Sector Buffalo to be used 

to make improvements to the land for public access to Buffalo 

Lighthouse. 

Section 544. The Committee includes a new provision that permits the Secretary to extend certain travel benefits and reimbursements for those overseas personnel consistent with the Foreign 

Service Act of 1980. 

Section 545. The Committee continues a provision that extends 

E-Verify until September 30, 2011, ensures the protection of Social 

Security benefits and requires two GAO studies. 

Section 546. The Committee includes a new provision on the use 

of H and L visa fraud prevention and detection fees. 

Section 547. The Committee includes a new provision clarifying 

the Temporary Protected Status fee. 

Section 548. The Committee includes a new provision that extends the date of the chemical security program. 

Section 549. The Committee includes a new provision that permits the Department to collect fees from non-Federal participants 

in a conference, seminar, exhibition, symposium, or similar meeting 

and those fees will be credited to the costs of the conference, seminar, exhibition, symposium, or meeting. Any excess fees will be deposited into the treasury as miscellaneous receipts. 

Section 550. The Committee rescinds $5,572,000 from unobligated balances of fiscal year 2009 appropriations made available to 

Federal Emergency Management Agency ‘‘Trucking Industry Security Grants’’. 

Section 551. The Committee continues a provision that prohibits 

full scale procurement of ASPs until the Secretary certifies and reports that they are operationally more effective. Separate certifications are required for primary and secondary screening. 

Section 552. The Committee includes a new provision that requires an individualized threat assessment of each and every individual detained at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as of 

April 30, 2009; inclusion of the names of such detainees on the No 

Fly List; and a limitation on funds from being used to grant an immigration benefit to such detainees, except for the purposes of prosecution. 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
150 

APPROPRIATIONS CAN BE USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH

MADE

Title 31 of the United States Code makes clear that appropriations can be used only for the purposes for which they were appropriated as follows: 

Section 1301. Application. 

(a) Appropriations shall be applied only to the objects for which 

the appropriations were made except as otherwise provided by law. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORT REQUIREMENTS

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

TRANSFER OF FUNDS

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2), rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 

Representatives, the following is submitted describing the transfer 

of funds provided in the accompanying bill. 

The table shows, by title, department and agency, the appropriations affected by such transfers: 

APPROPRIATION TRANSFERS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL

Account to which transfer is to be made Amount Account from which transfer is to be made Amount 

Office of Inspector General .......................... 16,000,000 Disaster Relief Fund .................................... 16,000,000 

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

RESCISSION OF FUNDS

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following table is submitted describing the 

rescissions recommended in the accompanying bill: 

Account/Activity Recissions 

Analysis and Operations ................................................................................. $2,203,000 

Infrastructure Protection and Information Security .................................... $5,963,000 

State and Local Programs/Trucking Industry Security Grants ................... $5,572,000 

APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW

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

House of Representatives, the following table lists the appropriations in the accompanying bill that are not authorized by law: 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
151 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 014 HR157.001
152 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 015 HR157.002
153 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 016 HR157.003
154 

COMPARISON WITH BUDGET RESOLUTION

Section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget Act requires the 

report accompanying a bill providing new budget authority to contain a statement comparing the levels in the bill to the suballocations submitted under section 302(b) of the Act for the most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget for the applicable fiscal year. That information is provided in the table headed 

‘‘Comparison of Reported Bill to Section 302(b) Suballocation.’’ 

[In millions of dollars] 

302(b) Allocation This Bill 

Budget 

Authority Outlays Budget Authority Outlays 

Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations 

to its subcommittees of amounts in the First Concurrent Department of Homeland Security appropriations Act, 2010: 

General purpose discretionary .............................................. 42,384 46,062 42,625 1 46,256 

Mandatory ............................................................................. 1,265 1,262 1,265 1,262 

1 Includes outlays from prior year budget authority. 

FIVE YEAR OUTLAY PROJECTIONS

In compliance with clause (3)(c)(2) of rule XIII and section 

308(a)(1)(B) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (Public Law 

93–344), as amended, the following table contains five-year projections associated with the budget authority provided in the accompanying bill: 

Projection of outlays associated with the recommendation: 

2010 ........................................................................................................... 2 26,330 

2011 ........................................................................................................... 8,453 

2012 ........................................................................................................... 5,259 

2013 ........................................................................................................... 1,982 

2014 and future years .............................................................................. 1,421 2 Excludes outlays from prior year budget authority. 

ASSISTANCE TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the Congressional 

Budget Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–344), as amended, the financial 

assistance to state and local governments is as follows: 

Budget Authority ............................................................................................. 4,813 

Outlays ............................................................................................................. 2 482 2 Excludes outlays form prior year budget authority. 

REVENUES AND COMPLIANCE WITH PAY-AS-YOU-GO RULE

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY

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

Each report of a committee on a bill or joint resolution 

of a public character, shall include a statement citing the 

specific powers granted to the Congress in the Constitution 

to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint resolution. 

The Committee on Appropriations bases its authority to report 

this legislation from Clause 7 of Section 9 of Article I of the Constitution of the United States of America that states: 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
155 

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

Appropriations contained in this Act are made pursuant to this 

specific power granted by the Constitution. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following is a statement of general performance goals and objectives for which this measure authorizes funding: 

The Committee on Appropriations considers program performance, including a program’s success in developing and attaining 

outcome-related goals and objectives, in developing funding recommendations. 

DIRECTED SPENDING BY CONGRESS AND BY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH

This bill contains $2.7 billion in grant funding awarded solely at 

the discretion of the Administration, and $112.6 million in funding 

requested by the President for specific projects. The Committee has 

taken unprecedented action to increase transparency and reduce 

funding for member earmarks. In this bill since 2006, the total 

funding earmarked solely at the request of members has been reduced by 50 percent as seen in the table below. When combined 

with earmarked funding from the Senate, it is expected that the 

total member requested earmark funding will be nearly 5 percent 

below last year, and will equal just over one half of one percent of 

the cost of the bill. It should also be noted that under the policies 

adopted by the Committee the use of member earmarks awarded 

to for-profit entities as a functional equivalent of no bid contracts 

is ended. In cases where the Committee funds an earmark designated for a for-profit entity, the Committee includes legislative 

language requiring the Executive Branch to nonetheless issue a request for proposal that gives other entities an opportunity to apply 

and requires the agency to evaluate all bids received and make a 

decision based on merit. This gives the original designee an opportunity to be brought to the attention of the agency, but with the 

possibility that an alternative entity may be selected. 

[Dollars in Millions] 

FY 2006 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 Committee 

$469 $242 $231 $110 

DISCLOSURE OF EARMARKS AND CONGRESSIONALLY 

DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS 

The following table is submitted in compliance with clause 9 of 

rule XXI, and lists the congressional earmarks (as defined in paragraph (e) of clause 9) contained in the bill or in this report. Neither 

the bill nor the report contain any limited tax benefits or limited 

tariff benefits as defined in paragraphs (f) or (g) of clause 9 of rule 

XXI. 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
156 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

[Presidentially Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount 

Requester(s) 

Administration House 

CG Operating Expenses Project Seahawk, SC $1,088,000 The President CG Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements Shore and Operational Support projects, various locations $6,000,000 The President FEMA State and Local Programs National Domestic Preparedness Consortium, various locations $92,000,000 The President Edwards (TX); Carter; Alexander FEMA State and Local Programs Center for Domestic Preparedness, AL $40,000,000 The President Rogers (AL) S&T Research, Development, Acquisition, and Operations Naval Postgraduate School, CA $2,000,000 The President Farr S&T Research, Development, Acquisition, and Operations Physical Science Facility, Pacific Northwest National Labora- tory, WA $12,000,000 The President Dicks; Hastings (WA) 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

[Congressionally Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

DHS Office of the Under Secretary for Management Center of Excellence in Logistics and Technology (LOGTECH), 

Institute for Defense and Business, The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 

$1,000,000 Price (NC) 

CBP Salaries and Expenses Portable Solar Charging Rechargeable Battery System, Global 

Solar, AZ 

$800,000 Pastor (AZ) 

CBP Facilities Management Hangar and Offices for U.S. Customs and Border Patrol, City of 

El Paso, TX 

$3,500,000 Reyes 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
157 

TSA Aviation Security Transportation Security Research and Training Center, National 

Safe Skies Alliance, TN 

$1,250,000 Duncan 

NPPD Infrastructure Protection and Information Security Philadelphia Buffer Zone Protection Video Surveillance Expansion Project, City of Philadelphia, PA $1,000,000 Fattah NPPD Infrastructure Protection and Information Security Multi-State Information Sharing and Analysis Center (MSISAC), NY, Office of State Cyber Security & Critical Infrastructure Coordination $3,000,000 Lowey; Clarke NPPD Infrastructure Protection and Information Security The Upstate NY Cyber Initiative, Clarkson University, NY $100,000 McHugh NPPD Infrastructure Protection and Information Security Cyber Security Test Bed & Evaluation Center, RTI International, 

NC 

$3,500,000 Price (NC) 

NPPD Infrastructure Protection and Information Security State and Local Cyber Security Training, University of Texas, 

San Antonio, TX 

$3,500,000 Rodriguez 

NPPD Infrastructure Protection and Information Security SEARCH, Sacramento, CA $1,000,000 Rothman (NJ) NPPD Infrastructure Protection and Information Security Power and Cyber Systems Protection, Analysis, and Testing 

Program at the Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho National Laboratory, ID 

$3,000,000 Simpson 

NPPD Infrastructure Protection and Information Security Virginia Operational Integration Cyber Center of Excellence 

(VOICCE), City of Hampton, VA 

$500,000 Nye; Wittman 

DHS Office of Health Affairs North Carolina Collaboratory for Bio-Preparedness (NC B-Prepared), School of Information & Library Science, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NC $5,000,000 Price (NC); Etheridge; Miller (NC) FEMA State and Local Programs Rural Domestic Preparedness Consortium, Eastern Kentucky 

University, KY 

$3,000,000 Rogers (KY) 

FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, Winston County Commission, AL $20,000 Aderholt FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, Lincoln Parish Sheriff Department, LA $300,000 Alexander 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
158 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY—Continued 

[Congressionally Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, City of Las Vegas, NV $600,000 Berkley; Titus FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, Mobile County Commission, AL $800,000 Bonner FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, City of Moreno Valley, CA $400,000 Bono Mack FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, Benton County Emergency Management Commission, IA $500,000 Boswell FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, City of Green Cove Springs, FL $400,000 Brown, Corrine FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, Lake County, FL $800,000 Brown, Corrine; Stearns FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, Dorchester County, SC $400,000 Brown (SC) FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, Sarasota County, FL $300,000 Buchanan FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, City of Greenville, NC $600,000 Butterfield FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, New Orleans Emergency Medical 

Services, LA 

$750,000 Cao; Scalise 

FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, Lycoming County, PA $250,000 Carney FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, Mercer County Emergency Management Agency, KY $300,000 Chandler FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, Jackson County Sheriff’s Office, 

MO 

$500,000 Cleaver 

FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, Williamsburg County, SC $1,000,000 Clyburn FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, City of Brookings, OR $350,000 DeFazio 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
159 

FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, Johnson County, TX $750,000 Edwards (TX) FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, City of Minneapolis, MN $750,000 Ellison FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, Howell County Emergency Preparedness, MO $250,000 Emerson FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, City of Brawley, CA $500,000 Filner FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, City of Hopewell, VA $250,000 Forbes FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, Morris County, New Jersey Office 

of Emergency Management, NJ 

$1,000,000 Frelinghuysen 

FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, City of Tavares, FL $500,000 Grayson FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, Tohono O’odham Nation $500,000 Grijalva FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, Minooka Fire Protection District, 

IL 

$250,000 Halvorson 

FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, Township of Old Bridge, NJ $500,000 Holt FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, City of Cupertino, CA $300,000 Honda FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, Calvert County Department of 

Public Safety, MD 

$338,000 Hoyer 

FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, City of Detroit, MI $1,000,000 Kilpatrick (MI); Conyers FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, Scotland County, NC $650,000 Kissell FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, The City of Maitland, FL $158,000 Kosmas FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, County of Union, NJ $500,000 Lance FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, Providence Emergency Management Agency & Office of Homeland Security, RI $500,000 Langevin 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
160 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY—Continued 

[Congressionally Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, City of Hartford, CT $800,000 Larson (CT) FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, City of Torrington, CT $400,000 Larson (CT); Murphy (CT) FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, City of Ames, IA $600,000 Latham FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, Fulton County (Atlanta) Emergency Management Agency, GA $200,000 Lewis (GA), Scott (GA) FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, City of Brigantine, NJ $300,000 LoBiondo FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, Village of Elmsford, NY $165,000 Lowey FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, Town of Harrison, NY $275,000 Lowey FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, City of Elk Grove, CA $750,000 Lungren, Dan FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, City of Palm Coast, FL $350,000 Mica FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, Somerset County, ME $500,000 Michaud FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, Macomb County Emergency 

Management and Communciations, MI 

$250,000 Miller (MI) 

FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, City of La Habra, CA $254,500 Miller, Gary FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, City of Scottsdale, AZ $500,000 Mitchell FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, Westmoreland County Department of Public Safety, PA $900,000 Murtha FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, Brazoria County Emergency 

Mangement, TX 

$100,000 Paul 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
161 

FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, Township of Irvington, NJ $750,000 Payne FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, San Francisco Department of 

Emergency Management, CA 

$800,000 Pelosi 

FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, North Carolina Office of Emergency Management, NC $1,000,000 Price (NC) FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, Butte-Silver Bow, MT $800,000 Rehberg FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, Middle Rio Grande Development 

Council, TX 

$1,000,000 Rodriguez 

FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, Towm of Shorter, AL $500,000 Rogers (AL) FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, Kentucky Emergency Management, KY $500,000 Rogers (KY) FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, Monroe County, FL $200,000 Ros-Lehtinen FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, City of Newark, NJ $1,000,000 Rothman (NJ) FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, Passaic County Prosecutor, NJ $250,000 Rothman (NJ) FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, City of Commerce, CA $1,000,000 Roybal-Allard FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, State of Maryland, MD $1,500,000 Ruppersberger FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, City of Alamosa Fire Department, CO $425,000 Salazar FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, City of Whittier, CA $500,000 Sa ́ nchez, Linda FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, Washington Parish Government, 

LA 

$350,000 Scalise 

FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, City of Monterey Park, CA $375,000 Schiff FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, Towamencin Township, PA $75,000 Schwartz 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
162 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY—Continued 

[Congressionally Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, Upper Darby Township Police 

Department, PA 

$500,000 Sestak 

FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, North Hudson Regional Fire and 

Rescue, NJ 

$500,000 Sires 

FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, City of Boerne, TX $250,000 Smith (TX) FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, Lea County, NM $600,000 Teague FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, City of Port Gibson, MS $750,000 Thompson (MS) FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, City of Wichita, KS $500,000 Tiahrt FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, City of Lauderdale Lakes, FL $750,000 Wasserman Schultz; Hastings (FL) FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, City of Sunrise, FL $750,000 Wasserman Schultz; Wexler; Hastings (FL) FEMA State and Local Programs Emergency Operations Center, Columbia County, OR $500,000 Wu FEMA Predisaster Mitigation City of Hartselle, AL $245,000 Aderholt FEMA Predisaster Mitigation City of Colton, CA $200,000 Baca FEMA Predisaster Mitigation Alabama Emergency Management Agency, AL $200,000 Bachus FEMA Predisaster Mitigation Arkansas Department of Emergency Management, AR $750,000 Berry FEMA Predisaster Mitigation Town of Shelter Island, NY $200,000 Bishop (NY) FEMA Predisaster Mitigation Brigham City Corporation, UT $250,000 Bishop (UT) FEMA Predisaster Mitigation City of Camanche, IA $187,500 Braley (IA) 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
163 

FEMA Predisaster Mitigation City of Prattville, AL $500,000 Bright FEMA Predisaster Mitigation City of Venice, FL $200,000 Buchanan FEMA Predisaster Mitigation Orange County Fire Authority, CA $252,000 Calvert FEMA Predisaster Mitigation City of Kannapolis, NC $425,000 Coble FEMA Predisaster Mitigation Shelby County, Memphis, TN $325,000 Cohen FEMA Predisaster Mitigation Town of Occoquan, VA $25,000 Connolly (VA) FEMA Predisaster Mitigation City of Hidalgo, TX $500,000 Cuellar FEMA Predisaster Mitigation Harris County Flood Control District, TX $1,000,000 Culberson FEMA Predisaster Mitigation City of Brooksville, KY $18,500 Davis (KY) FEMA Predisaster Mitigation City of Maryville, MO $175,000 Graves FEMA Predisaster Mitigation City of Reno, NV $500,000 Heller FEMA Predisaster Mitigation Westport Fire Department, CT $265,000 Himes FEMA Predisaster Mitigation Town of Union and City of Binghamton, NY $462,000 Hinchey FEMA Predisaster Mitigation City of Trenton, NJ $300,000 Holt; Smith (NJ) FEMA Predisaster Mitigation Lucas County Engineer, OH $500,000 Kaptur FEMA Predisaster Mitigation City of Coconut Creek, FL $500,000 Klein (FL); Wexler FEMA Predisaster Mitigation Lake County Stormwater Management Agency, OH $725,000 LaTourette FEMA Predisaster Mitigation City of Emeryville, CA $600,000 Lee (CA) FEMA Predisaster Mitigation Village of La Grange Park, IL $150,000 Lipinski FEMA Predisaster Mitigation Village of Pelham, NY $562,500 Lowey 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
164 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY—Continued 

[Congressionally Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

FEMA Predisaster Mitigation San Miguel County, NM $400,000 Luja ́ n FEMA Predisaster Mitigation DeKalb County, IL $350,000 Manzullo FEMA Predisaster Mitigation Town of Winthrop, MA $500,000 Markey (MA) FEMA Predisaster Mitigation City of Santa Clarita, CA $500,000 McKeon FEMA Predisaster Mitigation City of Miami, FL $600,000 Meek (FL); Ros-Lehtinen FEMA Predisaster Mitigation City of Flagler Beach, FL $750,000 Mica FEMA Predisaster Mitigation Town of Hambleton and Town of Davis $450,000 Mollohan FEMA Predisaster Mitigation City of Robstown, TX $500,000 Ortiz FEMA Predisaster Mitigation CHRISTUS St. Elizabeth Hospital, Beaumont, TX $250,000 Poe (TX) FEMA Predisaster Mitigation North Carolina Office of Emergency Management, NC $165,000 Price (NC) FEMA Predisaster Mitigation King County, WA $750,000 Reichert FEMA Predisaster Mitigation Kentucky Emergency Management, KY $500,000 Rogers (KY) FEMA Predisaster Mitigation Drew County, AR $366,564 Ross FEMA Predisaster Mitigation City of Los Angeles, CA $1,000,000 Roybal-Allard FEMA Predisaster Mitigation State of Maryland, MD $1,000,000 Ruppersberger FEMA Predisaster Mitigation City of Burbank, CA $225,000 Schiff FEMA Predisaster Mitigation Henry County, GA $275,000 Scott (GA) 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
165 

FEMA Predisaster Mitigation City of Los Angeles, CA $500,000 Sherman FEMA Predisaster Mitigation McDowell Hospital, NC $220,000 Shuler FEMA Predisaster Mitigation City of New Braunfels, TX $500,000 Smith (TX) FEMA Predisaster Mitigation Arkansas State University-Beebe, AR $452,000 Snyder FEMA Predisaster Mitigation Lorain County, OH $200,000 Sutton FEMA Predisaster Mitigation City of Davis, CA $275,000 Thompson (CA) FEMA Predisaster Mitigation Mississippi Homeland Security Office, MS $500,000 Thompson (MS) FEMA Predisaster Mitigation City of Rockville, MD $650,000 Van Hollen FEMA Predisaster Mitigation City of Hokah, MN $590,000 Walz FEMA Predisaster Mitigation City of Miami Beach, FL $750,000 Wasserman Schultz FEMA Predisaster Mitigation Jackson Health System, FL $500,000 Wasserman Schultz; Meek (FL); Diaz-Balart, 

Mario; Ros-Lehtinen 

FEMA Predisaster Mitigation Russell County Fiscal Court, KY $200,000 Whitfield FEMA Predisaster Mitigation Ohio University, OH $200,000 Wilson (OH) FEMA Predisaster Mitigation Louisville-Metro Government, KY $500,000 Yarmuth S&T Research, Development, Acquisition, and Operations Homeland Security Research, Development, and Manufacturing Pilot, Long Island Forum for Technology, NY $1,000,000 Israel; King (NY) S&T Research, Development, Acquisition, and Operations Remote Sensing for Situational Awareness and Decision Sup- port, Rochester Institute of Technology, NY $500,000 Maffei; Lee (NY) S&T Research, Development, Acquisition, and Operations National Institute for Hometown Security, KY $10,000,000 Rogers (KY) 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
166 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY—Continued 

[Congressionally Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

S&T Research, Development, Acquisition, and Operations Maritime Domain Awareness and Maritime Security Technology Pilot, SRI International, FL $4,000,000 Young (FL) General Provisions Town of Branchville, SC Clyburn General Provisions Monterey County Water Resource Agency, CA Farr General Provisions Sector Buffalo, NY, Coast Guard Higgins General Provisions Office of Environmental Health and Safety, Umass, MA Olver General Provisions Town of Lanesborough, MA Olver General Provisions Franklin Regional Council of Governments, MA Olver 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
167 

COMPLIANCE WITH RULE XIII, CL. 3(e) (RAMSEYER RULE) 

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italics, 

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

SECTION 1202 OF THE ACT OF AUGUST 2, 2002 

(Public Law 107–206) 

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

SEC. 1202. (a) The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center 

may, for a period ending not later than øDecember 31, 2011¿ December 31, 2012, appoint and maintain a cadre of up to 350 Federal 

annuitants: (1) without regard to any provision of title 5, United 

States Code, which might otherwise require the application of competitive hiring procedures; and (2) who shall not be subject to any 

reduction in pay (for annuity allocable to the period of actual employment) under the provisions of section 8344 or 8468 of such title 

5 or similar provision of any other retirement system for employees. A reemployed Federal annuitant as to whom a waiver of reduction under paragraph (2) applies shall not, for any period during 

which such waiver is in effect, be considered an employee for purposes of subchapter III of chapter 83 or chapter 84 of title 5, 

United States Code, or such other retirement system (referred to 

in paragraph (2)) as may apply. 

* * * * * * * 

SECTION 532 OF THE ACT OF OCTOBER 4, 2006 

(Public Law 109–295) 

AN ACT Making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the 

fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes. 

Sec. 532. (a) UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE USE OF PROCEEDS

DERIVED FROM CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS.—During fiscal year 

ø2009¿ 2010, with respect to any undercover investigative operation of the United States Secret Service (hereafter referred to in 

this section as the ‘‘Secret Service’’) that is necessary for the detection and prosecution of crimes against the United States— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

HOMELAND SECURITY ACT OF 2002 

* * * * * * * 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
168 

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, 2009¿ Until September 30, 

2010, and subject to subsection (d), the Secretary may carry out a 

pilot program under which the Secretary may exercise the following authorities: 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(d) ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The authority of the Secretary under this 

section shall terminate øSeptember 30, 2009,¿ September 30, 

2010, unless before that date the Secretary— 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ROBERT T. STAFFORD DISASTER RELIEF AND 

EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE ACT 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE II—DISASTER PREPAREDNESS 

AND MITIGATION ASSISTANCE 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 203. PREDISASTER HAZARD MITIGATION. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(m) TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.—The authority provided by this 

section terminates øSeptember 30, 2009¿ September 30, 2010. 

* * * * * * * 

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

SEC. 143. Section 401(b) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and 

Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1324a note) shall 

be applied by substituting øSeptember 30, 2009¿ September 30, 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
169 

2011 for ‘‘the 11-year period beginning on the first day the pilot 

program is in effect’’. 

* * * * * * * 

CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005 

* * * * * * * 

DIVISION J—OTHER MATTERS 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE IV—VISA REFORM 

* * * * * * * 

Subtitle B—H–1B Visa Reform 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 426. FRAUD PREVENTION AND DETECTION FEE. 

(a) * * * 

(b) ESTABLISHMENT OF ACCOUNT; USE OF FEES.—Section 286 of 

the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1356) is amended 

by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(v) H–1B AND L FRAUD PREVENTION AND DETECTION AC- COUNT.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—There is established in the general fund of 

the Treasury a separate account, which shall be known as the 

‘H–1B and L Fraud Prevention and Detection Account’. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, there shall be deposited as offsetting receipts into the account all fees collected 

under section 214(c)(12). 

‘‘(2) USE OF FEES TO COMBAT FRAUD.— ø‘‘(A) SECRETARY OF STATE.—One-third of the amounts 

deposited into the H–1B and L Fraud Prevention and Detection Account shall remain available to the Secretary of 

State until expended for programs and activities at United 

States embassies and consulates abroad— 

ø‘‘(i) to increase the number diplomatic security personnel assigned exclusively to the function of preventing and detecting fraud by applicants for visas described in subparagraph (H)(i) or (L) of section 

101(a)(15); 

ø‘‘(ii) otherwise to prevent and detect such fraud 

pursuant to the terms of a memorandum of understanding or other cooperative agreement between the 

Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security; and 

ø‘‘(iii) upon request by the Secretary of Homeland 

Security, to assist such Secretary in carrying out the 

fraud prevention and detection programs and activities described in subparagraph (B). 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
170 

ø‘‘(B) SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY.—One-third of 

the amounts deposited into the H–1B and L Fraud Prevention and Detection Account shall remain available to the 

Secretary of Homeland Security until expended for programs and activities to prevent and detect fraud with respect to petitions under paragraph (1) or (2)(A) of section 

214(c) to grant an alien nonimmigrant status described in 

subparagraph (H)(i) or (L) of section 101(a)(15). 

ø‘‘(C) SECRETARY OF LABOR.—One-third of the amounts 

deposited into the H–1B and L Fraud Prevention and Detection Account shall remain available to the Secretary of 

Labor until expended for enforcement programs and activities described in section 212(n).¿ 

‘‘(A) SECRETARAY OF STATE.—One-third of the amounts 

deposited into the Fraud Prevention and Detection Account 

shall remain available to the Secretary of State until expended for programs and activities— 

‘‘(i) to increase the number of consular and diplomatic security personnel assigned primarily to the 

function of preventing and detecting fraud by applicants for visas described in subparagraph (H)(i), 

(H)(ii), or (L) of section 101(a)(15); 

‘‘(ii) otherwise to prevent and detect visa fraud, including fraud by applicants for visas described in subparagraph (H)(i), (H)(ii), or (L) of section 101(a)(15), as 

well as the purchase, lease, construction, and staffing 

of facilities for the processing of these classes of visa, 

in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security as appropriate; and 

‘‘(iii) upon request by the Secretary of Homeland Security, to assist such Secretary in carrying out the 

fraud prevention and detection programs and activities 

described in subparagraph (B). 

‘‘(B) SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY.—One-third of 

the amounts deposited into the Fraud Prevention and Detection Account shall remain available to the Secretary of 

Homeland Security until expended for programs and activities to prevent and detect immigration benefit fraud, including fraud with respect to petitions filed under paragraph (1) or (2)(A) of section 214(c) to grant an alien nonimmigrant status described in subparagraph (H) or (L) of 

section 101(a)(15). 

‘‘(C) SECRETARY OF LABOR.—One-third of the amounts deposited into the Fraud Prevention and Detection Account 

shall remain available to the Secretary of Labor until expended for wage and hour enforcement programs and activities otherwise authorized to be conducted by the Secretary of Labor that focus on industries likely to employ 

nonimmigrants, including enforcement programs and activities described in section 212(n) and enforcement programs and activities related to section 214(c)(14)(A)(i). 

* * * * * * * 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
171 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE V—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

* * * * * * * 

Sec. 550. (a) * * * 

(b) Interim regulations issued under this section shall apply until 

the effective date of interim or final regulations promulgated under 

other laws that establish requirements and standards referred to 

in subsection (a) and expressly supersede this section: Provided, 

That the authority provided by this section shall terminate øthree 

years after the date of enactment of this Act¿ October 4, 2010. 

* * * * * * * 

SECTION 44903 OF TITLE 49, UNITED STATES CODE 

§ 44903. Air transportation security 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(j) SHORT-TERM ASSESSMENT AND DEPLOYMENT OF EMERGING SE- CURITY TECHNOLOGIES AND PROCEDURES.— (1) * * * 

(2) COMPUTER-ASSISTED PASSENGER PRESCREENING SYSTEM.— (A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(C) ADVANCED AIRLINE PASSENGER PRESCREENING.— 

(i) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(v) INCLUSION OF DETAINEES ON NO FLY LIST.—The 

Assistant Secretary, in coordination with the Terrorist 

Screening Center, shall include on the No Fly List any 

individual who was a detainee held at the Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, unless the President certifies in writing to Congress that the detainee poses no 

threat to the United States, its citizens, or its allies. 

For purposes of this clause, the term ‘‘detainee’’ means 

an individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States as a result of armed conflict. 

* * * * * * * 

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

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee has inserted at the appropriate 

place in the report a description of the effects of provisions proposed in the accompanying bill which may be considered, under 

certain circumstances, to change the application of existing law, either directly or indirectly. 

The bill provides, in some instances, funding of agencies and activities where legislation has not yet been finalized. In addition, the 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
172 

bill carries language, in some instances, permitting activities not 

authorized by law. Additionally, the Committee includes a number 

of general provisions. 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY AND EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT

The Committee includes language providing funds for reception 

and representation expenses. 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR MANAGEMENT

The Committee includes language providing funds for reception 

and representation expenses; for logistics training; for costs necessary to consolidate headquarters operations, including tenant improvements and relocation costs; and for the human resources information technology program. 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

The Committee includes language providing funds for the Chief 

Financial Officer. 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER

The Committee includes language providing funds for the Chief 

Information Officer (CIO) and for the development and acquisition 

of information technology equipment, software, services, and related activities. 

ANALYSIS AND OPERATIONS

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

OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL COORDINATOR FOR GULF COAST

REBUILDING

The Committee includes language providing funds for the Office 

of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

The Committee includes language providing funds for certain 

confidential operational expenses, including the payment of informants. 

TITLE II—SECURITY, ENFORCEMENT, AND 

INVESTIGATIONS 

CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Committee includes language making funds available for 

border security, immigration, customs, and agricultural inspections 

and regulatory activities; purchase or lease of vehicles; contracting 

with individuals for personal services; Harbor Maintenance Fee collections; official reception and representation expenses; Customs 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
173 

User Fee collections; and payment of rental space in connection 

with pre-clearance operations; compensation of informants. 

AUTOMATION MODERNIZATION

The Committee includes language making funds available until 

expended for automated systems and includes language requiring 

the submission of an expenditure plan prior to the obligation of 

funds. 

BORDER SECURITY FENCING, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND TECHNOLOGY

The Committee includes language making funds available until 

expended for border security fencing, infrastructure, and technology and includes language requiring the submission of an expenditure plan prior to the obligation of funds. In addition, language is included requiring Committee notification on the award of 

task orders requiring an obligation of greater than $25,000,000 or 

a task order that would cause cumulative obligations of funds to 

exceed 50 percent of the total amount appropriated. Finally, the 

Committee prohibits obligating any funds unless the Department 

complies with consultation requirements in the law. 

AIR AND MARINE INTERDICTION, OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE, AND

PROCUREMENT

The Committee includes language making funds available for the 

operation, maintenance and procurement of marine vessels, aircraft, unmanned aircraft systems, and other equipment; travel; 

rental payments for facilities; and assistance to other law enforcement agencies and humanitarian efforts. The Committee includes 

language prohibiting the transfer of aircraft and related equipment 

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

FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

The Committee includes language making funds available until 

expended for the planning, construction, renovating, equipping, and 

maintaining of buildings and facilities and permits payment for 

rental space in conjunction with preclearance operations. 

IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Committee includes language making funds available for enforcement of immigration and customs laws, detention and removals, and investigations; purchase of replacement vehicles; special 

operations; official reception and representation expenses; compensation to informants; and reimbursement of other Federal agencies for certain costs. The Committee includes language regarding 

overtime compensation and forced child labor laws. The Committee 

also includes language that requires the Secretary to identify illegal aliens held in custody who are eligible for removal and initiate 

their removal when such individuals are released from custody. 

The Committee prohibits the delegation of law enforcement authority for the 287(g) program if terms of the agreement have been violated. The Committee prohibits funds to continue any contract for 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
174 

detention services if two recent evaluations are less than adequate. 

Finally, the Committee prohibits funds to be obligated to co-locate 

field offices until receipt of a nation-wide Alternatives to Detention 

plan. 

FEDERAL PROTECTIVE SERVICE

The Committee includes language making funds available until 

expended for the operations of the Federal Protective Service. The 

Committee prohibits funds provided in this Act, previous appropriations Act or any revenue or collections of security fees credited 

to the Federal Protective Service to be used to reduce the number 

of in-service police officers unless certain conditions are met. The 

Committee prohibits the restructuring of the Federal Protective 

Service. 

AUTOMATION MODERNIZATION

The Committee includes language making funds available until 

expended for automated systems. 

CONSTRUCTION

The Committee includes language making funds available until 

expended for the planning, constructing, renovating, equipping, and 

maintaining of buildings and facilities. The Committee prohibits 

funds to solicit or consider any request to privatize facilities and 

to detain aliens unlawfully in the United States until receipt of a 

plan for carrying out such privatization. 

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

AVIATION SECURITY

The Committee includes language making funds available until 

expended for civil aviation security; and establishing conditions 

under which security fees are collected and credited. The Committee also includes language providing funds for reception and 

representation expenses. Finally, the bill includes language clarifying a variety of people are not exempt from screening. 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION SECURITY

The Committee includes language providing funds for surface 

transportation security programs of the Transportation Security 

Administration. 

TRANSPORTATION THREAT ASSESSMENT AND CREDENTIALING

The Committee includes language on the development and implementation of screening programs. The Committee requires the Assistant Secretary to notify the Committee that there are no security 

risks if the Secure Flight program does not check airline passenger 

names against the full terrorist watch list. 

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY SUPPORT

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

requiring the submission of a detailed spend plan for checkpoint 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
175 

support systems and explosive detection systems refurbishment, 

procurement and installation. 

FEDERAL AIR MARSHALS

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

COAST GUARD

OPERATING EXPENSES

The Committee includes a provision regarding passenger motor 

vehicles, small boats, repairs and service life-replacements, minor 

shore construction projects, recreation and welfare, the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, and prohibits the use of funds for yacht documentation except under certain circumstances and for administrative expenses in connection with shipping commissioners in the 

United States. The Committee also includes language on reception 

and representation expenses, and on reporting sexual assaults. 

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE AND RESTORATION

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

RESERVE TRAINING

The Committee includes language providing funds for the Coast 

Guard reserve, including maintenance and operation of the reserve 

program, personnel and training costs, equipment and services. 

ACQUISITIONS, CONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENTS

The Committee includes language providing for funds for the 

Coast Guard acquisition, construction, renovation, and improvement of aids to navigation, shore facilities, vessels, and aircraft as 

well as for maintenance, rehabilitation, lease and operations of facilities and equipment. The Committee includes a provision requiring a capital investment plan for future appropriations years with 

certain conditions. The Committee includes language requiring that 

the Commandant of the Coast Guard submit revisions to the acquisition schedule of the Deepwater program with the fiscal year 2011 

budget request, as well as other Deepwater related reporting requirements. 

ALTERATION OF BRIDGES

The Committee provides funds for bridge alteration projects. 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

The Committee includes language providing funds for applied scientific research, development, test, and evaluation; and for maintenance, rehabilitation, lease and operation of facilities and equipment. The Committee includes language allowing funds to remain 

available until expended; authorizing funds to be derived from the 

Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund; and authorizing funds received from 

State and local governments, other public authorities, private 

sources, and foreign countries to be credited to this account and 

used for certain purposes. 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
176 

RETIRED PAY

The Committee includes language providing funds for retired pay 

and medical care for the Coast Guard’s retired personnel and their 

dependents and makes these funds available until expended. 

UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Committee includes language that provides funds for the 

purchase and replacement of vehicles; the hire of aircraft; purchase 

of motorcycles; services of expert witnesses as may be necessary; 

rental of certain buildings; improvements to buildings as may be 

necessary for protective missions; per diem and subsistence allowances; firearms matches; presentation of awards; protective travel; 

research and development; grants for behavioral research; official 

reception and representation expenses; technical assistance and 

equipment to foreign law enforcement organizations; advance payment for commercial accommodations; and uniforms. The Committee provides for two year availability of funds for protective 

travel. The Committee authorizes the obligation of funds in anticipation of reimbursements for training, under certain conditions. 

The Committee also restricts the obligation of funds to compensate 

employees for overtime in an annual amount in excess of $35,000 

except under certain conditions. Finally the Committee prohibits 

funds to be available for the protection of the head of a Federal 

agency other than the Secretary of Homeland Security unless the 

Secret Service has entered into a reimbursable agreement. 

ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENTS, AND RELATED

EXPENSES

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

Service facilities and makes these funds available until expended. 

TITLE III—PREPAREDNESS AND RECOVERY 

NATIONAL PROTECTION AND PROGRAMS DIRECTORATE

MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

The Committee includes language providing funds for the Office 

of the Under Secretary for National Protection and Programs and 

the National Planning Office as well as to support business operations, information technology and risk management. The Committee also includes language providing funds for official reception 

and representation expenses. 

INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION AND INFORMATION SECURITY

The Committee includes language making funds available until 

September 30, 2010. The Committee limits the amount of funds 

available for obligation for cyber security activities until an expenditure plan is provided. 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
177 

UNITED STATES VISITOR AND IMMIGRANT STATUS INDICATOR

TECHNOLOGY

The Committee includes language making funds available until 

expended for the US–VISIT program and includes language requiring the submission of an expenditure plan prior to the obligation 

of funds. 

OFFICE OF HEALTH AFFAIRS

The Committee includes language making funds available for 

biosurveillance, BioWatch, medical readiness planning, and chemical detection. The Committee also includes language providing 

funds for official reception and representation expenses. 

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

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

provision limiting administrative costs for Urban Search and Rescue response system, and funding for the Office of National Capital 

Region Coordination. 

STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS

The Committee includes language that provides funds for grants, 

contracts, cooperative agreements, other activities, including grants 

to State and local governments for terrorism prevention. The Committee also includes a provision identifying the amount of funds 

available for homeland security grants, including State Homeland 

Security Grants and Operation Stonegarden; urban area security 

initiative grants, nonprofit security grants; rail and transit security 

grants; port security grants; intercity bus security grants; buffer 

zone protection grants; Metropolitan Medical Response System; 

Citizen Corp; interoperable communication grants, REAL ID; emergency operations centers; training, exercises, technical assistance, 

and other programs. The Committee includes language specifying 

the conditions under which both applications and grants are made 

to certain grants made in the Act. The Committee also includes 

language specifying the conditions for distribution of certain grants 

and the availability of funds. 

FIREFIGHTER ASSISTANCE GRANTS

The Committee includes language providing that not to exceed 

five percent of the total is available for program administration and 

requires an expenditure plan for program administration. 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE GRANTS

The Committee includes language providing that not to exceed 

three percent of the total appropriation is available for administrative costs. 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
178 

RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAM

The Committee includes a provision regarding charges assessed 

for the radiological emergency preparedness program, including 

conditions and methodology for the assessment and collection of 

fees. 

UNITED STATES FIRE ADMINISTRATION

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

DISASTER RELIEF

The Committee includes language making funds available until 

expended and requires a variety of reporting requirements. The 

Committee includes language permitting the transfer of these 

funds to FEMA management and administration and by the IG. 

DISASTER ASSISTANCE DIRECT LOAN PROGRAM ACCOUNT

The Committee includes a provision limiting gross obligations for 

direct loans; includes a provision regarding the cost of modifying 

loans; and provides for administrative expenses of the direct loan 

program. 

FLOOD MAP MODERNIZATION FUND

The Committee includes provisions regarding non-Federal sums 

for cost-shared mapping activities and limiting total administrative 

costs to 3 percent of the total appropriation. The Committee also 

includes language making funds available until expended. 

NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE FUND

The Committee includes language limiting funds available for 

salaries and expenses; language making funds available for floodplain management and flood mapping available until September 

30, 2011; and language authorizing the transfer of funds to the National Flood Mitigation Fund. The Committee includes provisions 

limiting operating expenses; for interest on Treasury borrowings; 

for agents’ commissions and taxes; for fees collected and available 

for floodplain management; and for flood mitigation activities associated with sections 1361A and 1323 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968. The Committee includes language permitting additional fees collected be credited as an offsetting collection and 

available for floodplain management. The Committee includes language providing that not to exceed four percent of the total appropriation is available for administrative costs. 

NATIONAL PREDISASTER MITIGATION FUND

The Committee includes language authorizing grant awards to be 

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


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
179 

EMERGENCY FOOD AND SHELTER

The Committee includes language making funds available until 

expended and limiting total administrative costs to 3.5 percent of 

the total appropriation. 

TITLE IV—RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, TRAINING, AND 

SERVICES 

UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES

The Committee includes language making funds available for 

citizenship and immigration services, E-Verify, REAL ID hub development, and for replacement vehicles. 

FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING CENTER

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Committee includes language making funds available for 

official representation expenses; purchase of police type pursuit vehicles; student athletic and related recreational activities; conducting and participating in firearms matches; public awareness 

and community support; marketing; room and board; services; services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; law enforcement accreditation; reimbursements for certain mobile phone expenses. The Committee 

includes language authorizing the training of certain law enforcement personnel; authorizes the use of appropriations and reimbursements for such training and establishes a cap on total obligations. The Committee also includes language authorizing funds for 

the compensation of accreditation costs for participating agencies; 

authorizing the hiring of retired Federal employees until 2011; and 

on the scheduling of basic or advanced law enforcement training. 

ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENTS AND RELATED

EXPENSES

The Committee includes language making funds available until 

expended for real property and facilities and authorizes reimbursement from government agencies requesting construction of special 

use facilities. 

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

The Committee includes language providing funds for reception 

and representation expenses. 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, ACQUISITION AND OPERATIONS

The Committee includes language making funds available until 

expended and prohibits funds for construction of the National Bio 

and Agro-defense Facility until a risk assessment of foot-and-mouth 

disease work being studied on the mainland is prepared. 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
180 

DOMESTIC NUCLEAR DETECTION OFFICE

MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

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

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, ACQUISITION, AND OPERATIONS

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

included making funds available until expended. 

TITLE V—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Section 501. The Committee continues a provision providing that 

no part of any appropriation shall remain available for obligation 

beyond the current year unless expressly provided. 

Section 502. The Committee continues a provision providing that 

unexpended balances of prior appropriations may be merged with 

new appropriation accounts and used for the same purpose, subject 

to reprogramming guidelines. 

Section 503. The Committee continues and modifies a provision 

providing reprogramming authority for funds within an account 

and not to exceed 5 percent transfer authority between appropriations accounts with the requirement for a 15-day advance Congressional notification. A detailed funding table identifying each Congressional control level for reprogramming purposes is included at 

the end of this Report. These reprogramming guidelines shall be 

complied with by all agencies funded by the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010. 

Section 504. The Committee continues a provision that prohibits 

funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department 

to make payment to the Department’s Working Capital Fund, except for activities and amounts allowed in the President’s fiscal 

year 2010. Funds provided to the WCF are available until expended. The Department can only charge components for direct 

usage of the WCF and these funds may be used only for the purposes consistent with the contributing component. Any funds paid 

in advance or reimbursed must reflect the full cost of each service. 

The WCF shall be subject to the requirements of section 503 of this 

Act. 

Section 505. The Committee continues a provision providing that 

not to exceed 50 percent of unobligated balances remaining at the 

end of fiscal year 2010 from appropriations made for salaries and 

expenses shall remain available through fiscal year 2011 subject to 

reprogramming guidelines. 

Section 506. The Committee continues a provision providing that 

funds for intelligence activities are deemed to be specifically authorized during fiscal year 2010 until the enactment of an Act authorizing intelligence activities for fiscal year 2010. 

Section 507. The Committee continues and modifies a provision 

requiring notification of the Committees on Appropriations three 

days before grant allocations, grant awards, contract awards, letters of intent, or other transactional agreements totaling 

$1,000,000 or more are announced by the Department. The DepartVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:16 Jun 17, 2009 Jkt 050276 PO 00000 Frm 00180 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR157.XXX HR157

smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
181 

ment is required to brief the Committees on Appropriations five 

full business days prior to announcing the intention to make a 

grant under State and Local Programs. Notification shall include 

a description of the project or projects to be funded, including city, 

county and state. 

Section 508. The Committee continues a provision providing that 

no agency shall purchase, construct, or lease additional facilities for 

federal law enforcement training without advance approval of the 

Committees on Appropriations. 

Section 509. The Committee continues a provision providing that 

none of the funds may be used for any construction, repair, alteration, and acquisition project for which a prospectus, if required 

under chapter 33 of title 40, United States Code, has not been approved. 

Section 510. The bill continues a provision that consolidates by 

reference prior year statutory bill language into one provision. 

These provisions relate to reporting requirements of the privacy officer; contracting officer’s technical representative training; sensitive security information; federal building performance and requirements outlined in title V of the National Energy Conservation 

Policy Act or subtitle A of title I of the Energy Policy Act of 2005; 

use of funds in conformance with section 303 of the Energy Policy 

Act of 1992; and Executive Order 13149 relating to fleet and transportation efficiency. 

Section 511. The Committee continues a provision that none of 

the funds may be used in contravention of the Buy American Act. 

Section 512. The Committee continues a provision regarding competitive sourcing. 

Section 513. The Committee continues and modifies a provision 

directing TSA to research, develop, and procure new technologies 

to inspect and screen air cargo. The Committee also requires the 

quarterly submission of air cargo inspection statistics and a report 

on how TSA will meet the 100 percent mandate contained in the 

9/11 Act. 

Section 514. The Committee continues a provision that directs 

that any funds appropriated or transferred to TSA ‘‘Aviation Security’’, ‘‘Administration’’, and ‘‘Transportation Security Support’’ in 

fiscal years 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007, which are recovered or 

deobligated, shall be available only for procurement and installation of explosive detection systems for air cargo, baggage and 

checkpoint screening systems, subject to section notification. The 

Committee also requires quarterly reports on recovered or 

deobligated funds. 

Section 515. The Committee continues a provision requiring any 

funds appropriated to the Coast Guard’s 110–123 foot patrol boat 

conversion that are recovered, collected, or otherwise received as a 

result of negotiation, mediation, or litigation, shall be available 

until expended for the Fast Response Cutter program. 

Section 516. The Committee continues a provision requiring the 

Chief Financial Officer to submit monthly budget execution and 

staffing reports within 45 days after the close of each month. 

Section 517. The Committee continues a provision relating to undercover investigative operations authority of the Secret Service for 

fiscal year 2010. 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
182 

Section 518. The Committee continues and modifies a provision 

classifying the functions of the instructor staff at the Federal Law 

Enforcement Training Center as inherently governmental for purposes of the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act. 

Section 519. The bill continues a provision pertaining to the 

human resource management system. 

Section 520. The Committee continues a provision regarding the 

enforcement of section 4025(1) of Public Law 108–458. 

Section 521. The Committee continues a provision prohibiting the 

Secretary of Homeland Security from reducing operations within 

the Coast Guard’s civil engineering program except as specifically 

authorized in statute after enactment of this Act. 

Section 522. The Committee continues a provision prohibiting the 

obligation of funds to the Office of the Secretary and Executive 

Management, the Office of the Under Secretary for Management, 

and the Office of the Chief Financial Officer for grants or contracts 

awarded by any means other than full and open competition. Certain exceptions apply. The bill also requires the IG to review Departmental contracts awarded noncompetitively and report on the 

results to the Committees. 

Section 523. The Committee continues a provision that prohibits 

funding for any position designated as a Principal Federal Official 

(PFO) during a Stafford Act declared disaster or emergency. 

Section 524. The Committee continues a provision prohibiting 

funding to grant an immigration benefit to any individual unless 

the results of background checks required in statute to be completed prior to the grant of the benefit have been received by DHS. 

Section 525. The Committee continues a provision prohibiting 

use of funds to destroy or put out to pasture any horse or other 

equine belonging to the Federal government unless adoption has 

been offered first. 

Section 526. The Committee continues a provision that precludes 

DHS from using funds in this Act to carry out reorganization authority. 

Section 527. The Committee continues a provision prohibiting 

funds to be used to conduct or implement the results of a competition under Office of Management and Budget Circular A–76 with 

respect to the Coast Guard National Vessel Documentation Center. 

Section 528. The Committee continues a provision that requires 

the Secretary to link all contracts that provide award fees to successful acquisition outcomes. 

Section 529. The Committee continues a provision prohibiting the 

obligation of funds for the Office of Secretary and Executive Management for any new hires at DHS if they are not verified through 

the basic pilot program (E-Verify). 

Section 530. The Committee continues a provision related to prescription drugs. 

Section 531. The Committee continues a provision prohibiting 

funds available in this Act from being used to implement a rule or 

regulation which implements the notice of proposed rulemaking related to Petitions for Aliens to Perform Temporary Nonagricultural 

Services or Labor (H–2B) set out beginning on 70 Federal Register 

3984 (January 27, 2005). 

Section 532. The Committee continues and modifies a provision 

relating to other transactional authority of the DHS through fiscal 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
183 

year 2010. Language continues to require the Secretary to issue 

policy guidance detailing the appropriate use of other transactional 

authority and provide training to each employee that has authority 

to handle procurements under this authority. The Secretary shall 

report on projects for which this authority was used. 

Section 533. The Committee continues a provision prohibiting 

funds for planning, testing, piloting or developing a national identification card. 

Section 534. The Committee continues a provision that requires 

a report summarizing damage assessment information used to determine whether to declare a major disaster. 

Section 535. The Committee continues and modifies a provision 

relating to the liquidation of Plum Island assets and how the proceeds from this sale may be applied to construction costs of the new 

National Bio and Agro-defense Facility. 

Section 536. The Committee continues a provision directing that 

any official required by this Act to report or certify to the Committees on Appropriation may not delegate any authority unless expressly authorized to do so in this Act. 

Section 537. The Committee continues a provision requiring the 

Secretary of Homeland Security, in conjunction with the Secretary 

of the Treasury, to notify the Committees of any proposed transfers 

from the Department of Treasury Forfeiture Fund to any agency 

within the Department of Homeland Security. No funds may be obligated until the Subcommittees approve the proposed transfers. 

Section 538. The Committee continues a provision requiring the 

Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security (Transportation Security 

Administration) to certify that no security risks will result if an 

airport does not participate in the basic pilot program. 

Section 539. The Committee rescinds $2,203,000 from the unobligated balances of prior year appropriations made available for 

‘‘Analysis and Operations’’. 

Section 540. The Committee includes a new provision on fiscal 

year 2008 predisaster mitigation grants. 

Section 541. The Committee continues and modifies a provision 

extending the authority of the Predisaster Mitigation Fund until 

September 30, 2010. 

Section 542. The Committee rescinds $5,963,000 from unobligated balances of prior year appropriations made available to Infrastructure Protection and Information Security. 

Section 543. The Committee includes a new provision permitting 

unobligated amounts of appropriations made available to the Coast 

Guard in fiscal years 2008 and 2009 for Sector Buffalo to be used 

to make improvements to the land for public access to Buffalo 

Lighthouse. 

Section 544. The Committee includes a new provision that permits the Secretary to extend certain travel benefits and reimbursements for those overseas personnel consistent with the Foreign 

Service Act of 1980. 

Section 545. The Committee continues a provision that extends 

E-Verify until September 30, 2011, ensures the protection of Social 

Security benefits and requires two GAO studies. 

Section 546. The Committee includes a new provision on the use 

of H and L visa fraud prevention and detection fees. 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
184 

Section 547. The Committee includes a new provision clarifying 

the Temporary Protected Status fee. 

Section 548. The Committee includes a new provision that extends the date of the chemical security program. 

Section 549. The Committee includes a new provision that permits the Department to collect fees from non-Federal participants 

in a conference, seminar, exhibition, symposium, or similar meeting 

and those fees will be credited to the costs of the conference, seminar, exhibition, symposium, or meeting. Any excess fees will be deposited into the treasury as miscellaneous receipts. Section 550. The Committee rescinds $5,572,000 from unobligated balances of fiscal year 2009 appropriations made available to 

Federal Emergency Management Agency ‘‘Trucking Industry Security Grants’’. 

Section 551. The Committee continues a provision on operational 

effectiveness and certification requirements for ASP monitors. 

Section 552. The Committee includes a new provision that requires an individualized threat assessment of each and every individual detained at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as of 

April 30, 2009; inclusion of the names of such detainees on the No 

Fly List; and a limitation on funds from being used to grant an immigration benefit to such detainees, except for the purposes of prosecution. 

DETAILED EXPLANATIONS IN REPORT

It should be emphasized again that a more detailed statement 

describing the effect of the above provisions inserted by the Committee which directly or indirectly change the application of existing law may be found at the appropriate place in this report. 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
185 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 029 here HR157.040
186 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 030 here HR157.041
187 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 031 here HR157.042
188 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 032 here HR157.043
189 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 017 here HR157.004
190 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 018 here HR157.005
191 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 019 here HR157.006
192 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 020 here HR157.007
193 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 021 here HR157.008
194 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 022 here HR157.009
195 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 023 here HR157.010
196 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 024 here HR157.011
197 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 025 here HR157.012
198 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 026 here HR157.013
199 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 027 here HR157.014
200 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 028 here HR157.015
201 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 029 here HR157.016
202 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 030 here HR157.017
203 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 031 here HR157.018
204 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 032 here HR157.019
205 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 033 here HR157.020
206 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 034 here HR157.021
207 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 035 here HR157.022
208 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 036 here HR157.023
209 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 037 here HR157.024
210 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 038 here HR157.025
211 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 039 here HR157.026
212 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 040 here HR157.027
213 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 041 here HR157.028
214 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 042 here HR157.029
215 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 043 here HR157.030
216 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 044 here HR157.031
217 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 045 here HR157.032
218 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 046 here HR157.033
219 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 047 here HR157.034
220 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 048 here HR157.035
221 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 049 here HR157.036
222 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 050 here HR157.037
223 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 051 here HR157.038
224 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 052 here HR157.039
(225) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF JERRY LEWIS AND HAROLD 

ROGERS 

On June 12, 2009, the full committee unanimously approved the 

fiscal year 2010 Homeland Security Appropriations bill. This bill 

continues the Subcommittee’s bipartisan tradition, and we sincerely appreciate the majority’s willingness to listen to our concerns and accommodate them as much as possible. We are especially appreciative of the majority’s commitment to move this bill 

through the regular appropriations process, including floor consideration under an open rule. However, we note with disappointment 

the apparent decision to stifle debate through the requirement to 

have all potential amendments pre-printed in the Congressional 

Record prior to the bill being considered on the floor of the House 

of Representatives. Such arbitrary and unnecessary rules inhibit a 

fair and open airing of views on this important bill and are contrary to the best traditions of the Committee on Appropriations. 

BUDGET PRINCIPLES

We remain concerned about the overall funding level of the 

President’s fiscal year 2010 budget request for the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) and note a 302(b) allocation for this bill 

that is nearly half a billion dollars lower than the request. We not 

the majority’s insistence to compare a 302(b) allocation that includes $241.5 million in overseas contingency operations funding 

for the Coast Guard to a discretionary request that does not include such funding. This flawed comparison gives the misleading 

impression that the majority’s fiscal year 2010 allocation for this 

homeland security bill is a smaller reduction below the President’s 

request. On the contrary and as previously noted, a direct and accurate comparison shows a larger, near half billion dollar reduction 

below the budget request. 

The President’s request for and the majority’s subsequent endorsement of marginal funding for security relative to enormous 

and poorly justified increases on domestic spending, constitutes a 

prioritization of government functions and a fiscal outlook that we 

do not share. At a time of such economic turmoil, we maintain that 

a much more fiscally disciplined fiscal year 2010 budget is a far 

more prudent and responsible course of action. We are supportive 

of budget priorities that invoke fiscal discipline, reduce overall 

spending, provide greater support for defense and security-related 

activities, and limit other government functions to sufficient, inflationary gains. 

CONCERNS WITH THE BILL

As for the substance of the fiscal year 2010 Homeland Security 

Appropriations bill, we are supportive of this thoughtful and reasonable piece of legislation. The bill provides funding for critical seVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:16 Jun 17, 2009 Jkt 050276 PO 00000 Frm 00225 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR157.XXX HR157

smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
226 

curity functions ranging from overseas contingency operations and 

interdiction efforts, to fortification of our borders and immigration 

enforcement to improvement of our Nation’s preparedness. However, we do have a few specific concerns for homeland security in 

fiscal year 2010 we wish to note, including: relatively large funding 

increases for administrative and policy functions compared to marginal gains for operations; a lack of clear planning and consideration of the security implications of the closure of the detention facility at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; an overstatement 

of the prioritization of immigration enforcement resources upon 

criminal aliens; and an incomplete commitment to the vital EVerify system. All of these concerns were addressed during the 

Committee’s consideration of the bill through either an amendment 

or the statements of several Republication Members. 

BUREAUCRACY VS. OPERATIONS

We note the President’s misguided priorities contained in his fiscal year 2010 budget proposal that requested a more than 30 percent increase for administrative and policy functions at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), but a more than 11 percent decrease in CBP’s procurement of operational assets and, for the first 

time we can recall, a decrease in active duty Coast Guard personnel. These flawed priorities are contradicted by the Administration’s strategy on Southwest Border enforcement and combating 

the Mexican drug cartels, released on June 5, 2009 (approximately 

one month after the fiscal year 2010 budget was submitted to Congress). This strategy professes the need to enhance our intelligence 

and drug interdiction capabilities; and yet, the President’s budget 

proposal only marginally increases DHS’s intelligence office and 

Border Patrol and actually proposes resource reductions to the very 

agencies responsible for drug interdiction along our borders and in 

the source and transit zones, as noted. Given the current threat environment and the pervasive aggression of the Mexican drug cartels, we maintain that now is perhaps the absolute worst time to 

shortchange operations and to espouse such blatant hypocrisy in 

the support of such critical security functions. While the majority 

has endeavored to significantly improve an extremely imbalanced 

and poorly prioritized request from the President through this 

spending bill, we continue to believe much more can be done to 

support our front line Coast Guardsmen, Border Patrol agents, 

CBP Officers, and ICE and Secret Service investigators. 

The fiscal year 2010 Homeland Security Appropriations bill endeavors to make some notable efforts to correct the President’s imbalanced request by curtailing increases in bureaucratic functions 

and somewhat enhancing operations. Therefore, we applaud the 

majority’s increases to ICE’s Southwest Border enforcement operations, CBP’s Air and Marine Operations Center, and to the Coast 

Guard’s airborne use of force and law enforcement detachment operations. However, we note that the bill still supports a 15.8 percent increase for DHS’s administrative offices and that increase is 

on top of $205 million provided for such functions in the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). We maintain that under 

the prevailing economic conditions, and with known, yet unfunded 

operational priorities, it is certainly more than reasonable to ask 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
227 

the headquarters and policy functions of DHS to make due with a 

funding increase for fiscal year 2010 that is much closer to inflation 

than a disproportional 15.8 percent increase. 

CBP and the Coast Guard both have known personnel and acquisition needs unfunded by both the budget request and by this bill. 

Whether it is additional aerial surveillance assets or more operational personnel, these resources are absolutely vital to the safety 

and security of our Nation. Insufficient funding for priorities such 

as the operational test and evaluation of unmanned aerial systems 

for cutter applications, additional land-based unmanned aerial systems for maritime and coastal applications, and additional manned 

surveillance and transport assets along our border, increase the 

risk of contraband smuggling and illicit penetration of our territorial waters and borders. We maintain that more can and should 

be done and we will continue to voice our support for the further 

enhancement of operations. 

SECURITY IMPLICATIONS OF CLOSING THE DETENTION FACILITY AT

NAVAL STATION GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA

As the President moves forward with his pledge to close the detention facility at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the Congress has voiced a near unanimous concern over the lack of planning for this effort. Given the complexities surrounding this facility 

and the diplomatic, legal, and security implications of its closure, 

we strongly believe it is only prudent for the Administration to 

present its plan to Congress and the American people before undertaking piecemeal efforts to satisfy a campaign promise. Furthermore, we are troubled by the Administration’s actions to release 

and transfer detainees without regard for the concerns currently 

being expressed by Congress through the pending fiscal year 2009 

supplemental appropriations bill and the recently filed fiscal year 

2010 Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. Such blatant disregard for Congress by the Administration is unacceptable. Therefore, we are sincerely appreciative of the 

bipartisan and thoughtful manner in which the Committee approached the debate and adoption of our amendment pertaining to 

disposition of detainees at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. 

This amendment requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to 

conduct a thorough threat assessment of each and every individual 

detained at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as of April 30, 

2009, as part of the plan for disposition of the detention facility. 

The amendment also requires the names of all detainees be placed 

on the No Fly list and prevents direct appropriations from being 

used to grant an immigration benefit. We perfected this amendment to allay the majority’s concerns and clarify that the limitation 

on direct appropriations from being used to grant an immigration 

benefit would not inhibit transfers for the purposes of prosecution. 

PRIORITIZING CRIMINAL ALIENS AT THE EXPENSE OF HOMELAND

SECURITY

Over the past few years, the majority has undertaken an effort 

to concentrate ICE’s resources upon the identification and removal 

of illegal aliens who are convicted of a crime and judged deportable. 

We fully support this laudable effort, but maintain that an emphaVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:16 Jun 17, 2009 Jkt 050276 PO 00000 Frm 00227 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR157.XXX HR157

smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
228 

sis upon criminal aliens must not come at the expense of other, 

critical immigration enforcement functions such as fugitive operations, worksite enforcement, terrorist travel, and transnational 

criminal investigations. We vigorously oppose efforts to ‘‘prioritize’’ 

immigration enforcement resources as a means to reform the immigration system. We also remind those who wish to prioritize immigration enforcement resources that none of the 9/11 hijackers could 

have been classified as ‘‘criminal aliens’’ and that all of those terrorists exploited our legal immigration system. We believe immigration enforcement plays a critical role within our homeland security and should not be inhibited or confined to one subset of illegal 

aliens. Therefore, we respectfully disagree with the majority’s position that, ‘‘. . . Congress has emphasized that ICE must have no 

higher immigration enforcement priority . . .’’ in reference to criminal aliens and as stated on page 49 of the report accompanying the 

bill. 

SUPPORTING E-VERIFY AND LAWFUL EMPLOYMENT

The electronic employment eligibility verification system known 

as E-Verify is the best and only tool available for employers to determine whether potential employees are lawful applicants. We believe that such a system is absolutely essential to the American 

economy as unemployment remains unacceptably high. We appreciate the bill’s inclusion of $112 million, as requested, for E-Verify, 

but are disappointed by the bill’s truncation of the requested threeyear extension of E-Verify’s underlying authorization to only two 

years. We are further dismayed that this reduction is based upon 

a projected timeline for the ‘‘completion of comprehensive immigration reform’’. We do not see this as a realistic timeline or a justifiable excuse for reducing the President’s request for a three-year extension. therefore, we were fully supportive of a thoughtful amendment offered during the Committee’s consideration of the bill to include a permanent reauthorization of this vital system. Unfortunately, this amendment was defeated on a party-line vote. In addition, we are supportive of efforts to mandate the Federal Government to require its contractors to participate in E-Verify and fail 

to understand why the current Administration has postponed implementation of such a requirement three times in the last five 

months. Another thoughtful amendment was offered during the 

Committee’s consideration of the bill that would have required all 

DHS contractors to participate in E-Verify. Unfortunately, this 

amendment was also defeated on a party-line vote. Given the sensitivity of the security-related work of DHS, it is only prudent that 

its contractors be required to verify the eligibility of their employees. 

OTHER FUNDING ISSUES

We note the bill continues to fund State and local first responder 

grants at a total of nearly $4 billion, or almost ten percent of the 

bill’s discretionary funding. While we are absolutely committed to 

assisting our State and local homeland security partners and improving our National preparedness, we remain concerned at the 

slow expenditure of these grants. Including the funds provided in 

the bill, more than $30 billion have been provided via first reVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:16 Jun 17, 2009 Jkt 050276 PO 00000 Frm 00228 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR157.XXX HR157

smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
229 

sponder grants since 9/11 and more than a third of that total is 

unspent. Unfortunately, there is no way to measure the effectiveness of these funds in terms of how they have either improved our 

preparedness or reduced our known vulnerabilities. While we appreciate the nascent efforts of FEMA to assess the impacts of grant 

monies, we believe more can and should be done in that regard. 

The American people deserve a reasonable, measurable security return on an investment of this magnitude. 

We note that the Administration requested no funding for procuring and deploying additional radiation detection equipment and 

that the bill supports this request. We understand that the decision 

to provide no funding for the procurement of the still unproven Advanced Spectroscopic Portal monitors was made on the basis of 

compelling budgetary reasons as opposed to a policy determination. 

We believe that it is crucial to note, however, that the decision to 

provide absolutely no funding for additional detection equipment 

that is presently in use (using the current generation of proven 

technology) can potentially result in a security liability at a time 

of persistent threat. We maintain that more can and perhaps 

should be done in this regard. 

While we have been very direct in voicing our concerns, we believe this bill has the potential to do a lot of good. There are many 

provisions and funding recommendations that we agree with and 

applaud the bill’s efforts in keeping DHS on track to produce results, as well as continuing the Committee’s tradition of strict accountability. We look forward to working with the majority as this 

bill continues to move through the fiscal year 2010 appropriations 

cycle. 

JERRY LEWIS. HAROLD ROGERS. 

Æ 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS