Report text available as:

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

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

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



 
       DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2009

                                _______
                                

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

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T 

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 6947]

    The Committee on Appropriations submits the following 
report in explanation of the accompanying bill making 
appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2009.

                        INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT

                                                            Page number

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

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


    The accompanying bill contains recommendations for new 
budget (obligational) authority for fiscal year 2009 for the 
Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The following table 
summarizes these recommendations and reflects comparisons with 
the budget, as amended, and with amounts appropriated to date 
for fiscal year 2008:


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

              Summary of Major Recommendations in the Bill

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

                         Priorities in the Bill

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

                ENSURING TAXPAYER DOLLARS ARE WELL SPENT

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

                     CORRECTING CURRENT SHORTFALLS

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

               SETTING PRIORITIES FOR LONG-TERM PROGRESS

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

                       DEFINING RESPONSIBILITIES

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

            TITLE I--DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS


            Office of the Secretary and Executive Management





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


                                MISSION

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

                             RECOMMENDATION

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Budget estimate            Recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immediate Office of the Secretary.............................               $3,378,000               $2,904,000
Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary......................                1,505,000                1,235,000
Chief of Staff................................................                2,693,000                2,693,000
Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement........................                4,018,000                4,018,000
Executive Secretariat.........................................                5,848,000                7,778,000
Office of Policy..............................................               43,693,000               43,963,000
Office of Public Affairs......................................                8,291,000                5,991,000
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs...........                5,697,000                4,900,000
Office of General Counsel.....................................               20,914,000               18,439,000
Office of Civil Rights and Liberties..........................               17,917,000               17,917,000
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman................                6,471,000                6,471,000
Privacy Officer...............................................                6,804,000                6,804,000
Adjustment....................................................                        0               -5,700,000
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................................................              127,229,000              117,413,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   IMMEDIATE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

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

                IMMEDIATE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SECRETARY

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

                         EXECUTIVE SECRETARIAT

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

                            OFFICE OF POLICY

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

                             CREDENTIALING

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

                        OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

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

          OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

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

                       OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL

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

                 OFFICE OF COUNTERNARCOTICS ENFORCEMENT

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

                         BUDGET JUSTIFICATIONS

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

                          WORKING CAPITAL FUND

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

                      RECEPTION AND REPRESENTATION

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

                        GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

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

              Office of the Under Secretary for Management





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

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

                                MISSION

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

                             RECOMMENDATION

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Budget estimate            Recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under Secretary for Management................................               $2,654,000               $2,404,000
Office of Security............................................               60,882,000               59,682,000
Office of the Chief Procurement Officer.......................               42,003,000               38,355,000
Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer.....................               46,827,000               38,827,000
Office of the Chief Administrative Officer....................              167,727,000               50,427,000
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................................................              320,093,000              189,695,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             FUNDING LEVELS

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

                     UNDER SECRETARY FOR MANAGEMENT

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

                           OFFICE OF SECURITY

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

                OFFICE OF THE CHIEF PROCUREMENT OFFICER

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

          DHS INVESTMENT REVIEW PROCESS FOR MAJOR PROCUREMENTS

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

               OFFICE OF THE CHIEF HUMAN CAPITAL OFFICER

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

               OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER

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

                      DHS HEADQUARTERS FACILITIES

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

                      MOVE TO ST ELIZABETHS CAMPUS

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

                             RENT TRANSFER

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

                 Office of the Chief Financial Officer





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


                                MISSION

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

                             RECOMMENDATION

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

                TRANSFORMATION AND SYSTEMS CONSOLIDATION

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

                    FINANCIAL SYSTEM TRANSFORMATION

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

                  CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET JUSTIFICATIONS

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

                    BELOW ACCOUNT LEVEL DETAIL PLAN

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

               DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND

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

                     MONTHLY REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

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

                Office of the Chief Information Officer





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


                                MISSION

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

                             RECOMMENDATION

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Budget estimate            Recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salaries and Expenses.........................................              $86,928,000              $86,928,000
Information Technology Activities.............................               42,445,000               42,445,000
Security Activities...........................................               70,323,000               70,323,000
Homeland Secure Data Network..................................               47,673,000               47,673,000
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
    Total, Chief Information Officer..........................              247,369,000              247,369,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         Salaries and Expenses

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

                          SECURITY ACTIVITIES

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

                     HOMELAND SECURITY DATA NETWORK

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

              CIO-LED INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACQUISITIONS

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

                        Analysis and Operations





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

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

                             RECOMMENDATION

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

                            STAFF TRANSFERS

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

                 DIRECTORATE OF OPERATIONS COORDINATION

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

                  OFFICE OF INTELLIGENCE AND ANALYSIS

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

   NATIONAL APPLICATIONS OFFICE AND NATIONAL IMMIGRATION INFORMATION 
                             SHARING OFFICE

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

                          CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS

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

      Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding

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

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

                             RECOMMENDATION

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

                      Office of Inspector General

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

                                MISSION

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

                             RECOMMENDATION

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

                             AUDIT REPORTS

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

          TITLE II--SECURITY, ENFORCEMENT, AND INVESTIGATIONS


                   U.S. Customs and Border Protection


                         Salaries and Expenses

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

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

                             RECOMMENDATION

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

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

                   LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER CONVERSION

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

                         BORDER PATROL STAFFING

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

                         WORKLOAD AND STAFFING

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

                       TUCSON SECTOR CHECKPOINTS

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

                            INTERNAL AFFAIRS

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

                         INTELLIGENCE STAFFING

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

                  WESTERN HEMISPHERE TRAVEL INITIATIVE

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

                        NORTHERN BORDER STAFFING

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

               ELECTRONIC SYSTEM FOR TRAVEL AUTHORIZATION

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

                      MODEL PORTS OF ENTRY PROGRAM

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

             INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED TRAVELER/GLOBAL ENTRY

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

                      CARGO AND CONTAINER SECURITY

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

                         SUPPLY CHAIN SECURITY

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

                  IN-BOND CARGO AND CONTAINER SECURITY

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

                       US-VISIT FUNCTION SUPPORT

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

                         SYSTEMS FOR TARGETING

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

                   TEXTILE TRANSSHIPMENT ENFORCEMENT

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

                        AGRICULTURAL SPECIALISTS

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

                        UNIFORM COMPLAINT SYSTEM

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

                      UNACCOMPANIED ALIEN CHILDREN

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

                              CARRIZO CANE

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

                  PANDEMIC FLU AND INFECTIOUS DISEASE

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

                       RADIATION PORTAL MONITORS

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

                            PROJECT SEAHAWK

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

                    CONTAINER SECURITY DEVICE (CSD)

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

                        Automation Modernization

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

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

                             RECOMMENDATION

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

                                ACE PLAN

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

                           TECS MODERNIZATION

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

        Border Security, Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology

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

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

                             RECOMMENDATION

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Budget estimate            Recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Development and Deployment....................................             $275,000,000             $245,000,000
     Technology and Infrastructure Investment.........                        0              175,000,000
     Border Interoperability Demostration Project.....                        0               30,000,000
     Northern Border Technology Investment............                        0               40,000,000Operations and Support (Integrated Logistics).................              410,000,000              410,000,000Program Management............................................               90,000,000              120,000,000
     Personnel Operations and Support.................                        0               70,000,000
     Regulatory and Environmental Requirements........                        0               50,000,000
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
        Total.................................................              775,000,000              775,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           QUARTERLY REPORTS

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

                        SECURE BORDER INVESTMENT

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

                 NORTHERN BORDER TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENT

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

             BORDER INTEROPERABILITY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

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

                         OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT

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

                ENVIRONMENTAL AND REGULATORY ASSESSMENTS

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

                            EXPENDITURE PLAN

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

                         ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

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

        CONSULTATION WITH FEDERAL AGENCIES AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES

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

 Air and Marine Interdiction, Operations, Maintenance, and Procurement

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

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

                             RECOMMENDATION

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

                    MULTI-ROLE ENFORCEMENT AIRCRAFT

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

                       UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS

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

           PRIVATE AIRCRAFT ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM NONCOMPLIANCE

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

                              Construction

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

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

                             RECOMMENDATION

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

                    LAND PORT OF ENTRY MODERNIZATION

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

                U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT


                         Salaries and Expenses

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

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

                             RECOMMENDATION

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Budget estimate            Recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Headquarters Management and Administration....................             $374,537,000             $360,968,000
Identification and Removal of Criminal Aliens (IRCA):
    Criminal Alien Program*...................................              189,069,000              189,069,000
    Fugitive Operations*......................................              226,477,000              226,477,000
    Custody Operations*.......................................               46,000,000               46,000,000
    State and Local Programs**................................               83,380,000               78,474,000
    Immigration Investigations**..............................              164,905,000              164,905,000
    Other Criminal Investigations**...........................               40,545,000               40,545,000
    Additional IRCA funding...................................                        0               54,530,000
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
        Subtotal, IRCA........................................              750,376,000              800,000,000
Detention and Removal Operations:
    Custody Operations........................................            1,650,495,000            1,650,495,000
    Alternatives to Detention.................................               55,791,000               63,000,000
    Transportation and Removal Program........................              281,399,000              281,399,000
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
        Subtotal, Detention and Removal Operations............            1,987,685,000            1,994,894,000
Legal Proceedings.............................................              214,332,000              215,134,000
Domestic Investigations:
    Customs and Trade.........................................              757,000,000              758,120,000
    Counterterrorism/JTTF Support.............................               66,734,000               66,734,000
    Human Smuggling and Trafficking...........................              109,991,000              109,991,000
    Immigration Investigations................................              124,783,000              124,783,000
    Gang Enforcement..........................................               35,070,000               47,070,000
    Worksite Enforcement......................................               92,300,000               90,000,000
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
        Subtotal, Domestic Investigations.....................            1,185,878,000            1,196,698,000
International Investigations:
    International Operations..................................              106,741,000              107,021,000
    Visa Security Program.....................................               18,400,000               18,500,000
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
        Subtotal, International Investigations................              125,141,000              125,521,000
Intelligence..................................................               52,956,000               52,956,000
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
            Total, ICE Salaries and Expenses..................            4,690,905,000           4,746,171,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Previously displayed within Detention and Removal Operations.
** Previously displayed within Domestic Investigations.

         PRIORITIZING THE REMOVAL OF DEPORTABLE CRIMINAL ALIENS

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

                       QUARTERLY PROGRESS REPORTS

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

                        ICE RESOURCE ALLOCATION

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

                          DETENTION BED SPACES

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

                   DETENTION CENTER MEDICAL SERVICES

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

              DETENTION STANDARDS OVERSIGHT AND COMPLIANCE

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

              CRIMINAL GANG INVESTIGATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT

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

                        STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS

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

                    CUSTOMS AND TRADE INVESTIGATIONS

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

                   TEXTILE TRANSSHIPMENT ENFORCEMENT

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

                           ICE LEGAL PROGRAMS

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

                       ALTERNATIVES TO DETENTION

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

                       CHILD AND FAMILY DETENTION

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

           INAPPROPRIATE TREATMENT OF CHILDREN IN ICE CUSTODY

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

             TRANSPORTATION OF UNACCOMPANIED ALIEN CHILDREN

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

                          WORKSITE ENFORCEMENT

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

          REDUCING THE SOCIAL COSTS OF IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT

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

                TREATMENT OF INDIVIDUALS SEEKING ASYLUM

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

                       Federal Protective Service

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

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

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $616,000,000, the same as the 
amount requested and $3,000,000 above the amounts provided in 
fiscal year 2008. The Committee notes that in February 2008, 
the Secretary of Homeland Security announced increased FPS fees 
for fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2009 to support the 
expanded staffing levels mandated in the 2008 Appropriations 
Act, and encourages the Department to update the fiscal year 
2009 FPS collections estimates in the 2009 mid-session review 
update.

                   FEDERAL PROTECTIVE SERVICE POLICE

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

                       Automation Modernization 

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

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

                             RECOMMENDATION

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Budget estimate            Recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATLAS.........................................................              $13,000,000              $13,000,000
Detention and Removals Modernizations.........................               11,300,000               11,300,000
Homeland Enforcement Communications System (HECS).............               15,700,000               15,700,000
Tactical Communications Hub...................................               10,000,000               10,000,000
ICE Financial Systems.........................................                7,000,000                7,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         ICE FINANCIAL SYSTEMS

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

                             Construction 

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

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

                             RECOMMENDATION

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

                  Student and Exchange Visitor Program

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

                 Transportation Security Administration


                 BUDGET FORMAT AND REALIGNMENT PROPOSAL

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

                           Aviation Security


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

                                MISSION

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

                             RECOMMENDATION

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Budget estimate            Recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Screening operations..........................................           $3,678,287,000           $3,940,710,000
Aviation security direction and enforcement...................              825,248,000              792,308,000
Federal Air Marshals..........................................              786,000,000                        0
Additional 9/11 Act requirements..............................                        0               10,000,000
Mandatory aviation security capital fund \1\..................              250,000,000              250,000,000
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal, aviation security...............................            5,289,535,000           4,743,018,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Aviation Security Capital Fund is a non-add because it is not directly appropriated and is paid for
  entirely from user fees.

                         AVIATION SECURITY FEES

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

                          SCREENING OPERATIONS

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Budget estimate            Recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Screener Workforce:
    Privatized screening......................................             $151,272,000             $151,272,000
    Passenger and baggage screener, personnel, compensation               2,716,014,000            2,716,014,000
     and benefits.............................................
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
        Subtotal, screener workforce..........................            2,867,286,000            2,867,286,000
Screening training and other..................................              197,318,000              197,318,000
Checkpoint support............................................              127,683,000              250,000,000
EDS/ETD Systems:
    EDS procurement and installation..........................              153,894,000              294,000,000
    Screening technology maintenance and utilities............              310,625,000              310,625,000
    Operation integration.....................................               21,481,000               21,481,000
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
        Subtotal, EDS/ETD systems.............................              486,000,000              626,106,000
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
            Total, screening operations.......................            3,678,287,000            3,940,710,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PRIVATIZED SCREENING

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

  PASSENGER AND BAGGAGE SCREENER PERSONNEL, COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS

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

                          SCREENING WAIT TIMES

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

                           CHECKPOINT SUPPORT

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

             STERILE AREA ACCESS SYSTEMS FOR AIRLINE CREWS

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

        EXPLOSIVE DETECTION SYSTEMS PROCUREMENT AND INSTALLATION

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

             SCREENING TECHNOLOGY MAINTENANCE AND UTILITIES

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

                        THREAT CONTAINMENT UNITS

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

              AVIATION SECURITY DIRECTION AND ENFORCEMENT

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Budget estimate            Recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aviation regulation and other enforcement.....................             $209,991,000             $246,268,000
Airport management and support................................              373,010,000              407,166,000
Federal flight deck officer and flight crew training..........                        0               25,025,000
Air cargo.....................................................                        0              109,849,000
Perimeter security............................................                        0                4,000,000
Law enforcement...............................................              242,247,000                        0
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal, aviation security direction and enforcement.....              825,248,000              792,308,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

               AVIATION REGULATION AND OTHER ENFORCEMENT

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

                     AIRPORT MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT

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

          FEDERAL FLIGHT DECK OFFICER AND FLIGHT CREW TRAINING

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

                               AIR CARGO

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

                           PERIMETER SECURITY

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

               IMPLEMENTING REQUIREMENTS OF THE 9/11 ACT

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

                    Surface Transportation Security

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

                                MISSION

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

                             RECOMMENDATION

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

            REAL-TIME TRACKING OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ASSETS

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

           Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing

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

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

                             RECOMMENDATION

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Budget estimate            Recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Appropriation:
    Secure flight.............................................              $82,211,000              $75,000,000
    Crew and other vetting programs...........................               50,807,000               33,807,000
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
        Subtotal, direct appropriations.......................              133,018,000              108,807,000
Fee Collections:
    Registered traveler.......................................               10,000,000               10,000,000
    Transportation worker identification credential...........                9,000,000                9,000,000
    Hazardous materials.......................................               18,000,000               18,000,000
    Alien flight school (transfer from DOJ)...................                3,000,000                3,000,000
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
        Subtotal, fee collections.............................               40,000,000               40,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             SECURE FLIGHT

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

                    CREW AND OTHER VETTING PROGRAMS

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

                   VETTING INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS

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

                             CREDENTIALING

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

                    Transportation Security Support

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

                                MISSION

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

                             RECOMMENDATION

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Budget estimate            Recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Headquarters administration...................................             $213,135,000             $237,370,000
Human capital services........................................              218,105,000              218,105,000
Information technology........................................              472,799,000              472,799,000
Intelligence..................................................               21,961,000               21,961,000
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal, transportation security support.................              926,000,000              950,235,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      HEADQUARTERS ADMINISTRATION

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

                         HUMAN CAPITAL SERVICES

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

                         INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

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

                             COVERT TESTING

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

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

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

                          Federal Air Marshals

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

                                MISSION

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

                             RECOMMENDATION

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

                              Coast Guard


                           Operating Expenses

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

                                MISSION

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

                             RECOMMENDATION

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

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

                          FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

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

                      MARITIME SAFETY AND SECURITY

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

                         ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE

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

                       AVIATION MISSION HOUR GAP

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

                       LEGACY CUTTER SUSTAINMENT

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

                          MAINTENANCE BACKLOGS

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

                               DIVERSITY

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

                    INLAND RIVER AIDS TO NAVIGATION

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

                           COUNTER SMUGGLING

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

                         ACQUISITION PERSONNEL

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

                 MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY EFFICIENCIES

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

                                LORAN-C

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

                        INTELLIGENCE INTEGRATION

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

                            A-76 ACTIVITIES

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

  POLAR ICEBREAKING OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS AND FUTURE POLAR 
                                 NEEDS

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

                          BAY AREA LIGHTHOUSES

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

                Environmental Compliance and Restoration

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

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

                             RECOMMENDATION

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

                            Reserve Training

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

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

                             RECOMMENDATION

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

              Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements


                         (INCLUDING RESCISSION)
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2008.......................      $992,634,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2009.....................     1,205,118,000
Recommended in the bill...............................     1,339,068,000
Bill compared with:
  Appropriation, fiscal year 2008.....................      +346,434,000
  Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2009...................      +133,950,000
                                MISSION

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

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $1,339,068,000 for Acquisition, 
Construction, and Improvements, $133,950,000 above the amount 
requested and $346,434,000 above the amount provided in fiscal 
year 2008. A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee 
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:

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

                QUARTERLY REPORT ON ACQUISITION PROJECTS

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

                       DEEPWATER EXPENDITURE PLAN

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

                               DEEPWATER

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

                     MARITIME PATROL AIRCRAFT (MPA)

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

                       UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS

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

               LONG RANGE SURVEILLANCE AIRCRAFT (HC-130J)

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

                        NATIONAL SECURITY CUTTER

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

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

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

                      OFFSHORE PATROL CUTTER (OPC)

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

                                 C4ISR

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

                SHORE FACILITIES AND AIDS TO NAVIGATION

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

                               RESCUE 21

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

                               PERSONNEL

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

                    COAST GUARD HEADQUARTERS PROJECT

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

                         Alteration of Bridges

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

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

                             RECOMMENDATION

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

              Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation

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

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

                             RECOMMENDATION

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

                    BALLAST WATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS

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

                        UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMS

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

             PORT OPEN SOURCE SECURITY ENFORCEMENT (POSSE)

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

        Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund Contribution

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

                                MISSION

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

                             RECOMMENDATION

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

                              Retired Pay

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

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

                             RECOMMENDATION

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

                      United States Secret Service


                         Salaries and Expenses

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

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

                             RECOMMENDATION

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Budget estimate            Recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Headquarters Management and Administration....................             $182,104,000             $182,104,000
Protection:
    Protection of Persons and Facilities......................              710,468,000              703,168,000
    Protective Intelligence Activities........................               59,761,000               59,761,000
    National Special Security Events..........................                1,000,000                1,000,000
    White House mail screening................................               36,701,000                        0
    Presidential candidate nominee protection.................               41,082,000               41,082,000
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
        Total, Protection.....................................              867,190,000              805,011,000
Investigations:
    Domestic field operations.................................              241,772,000              241,772,000
    International field office administration operations......               28,342,000               28,342,000
    Electronic Crimes Special Agent Program and Electronic                   47,836,000               47,836,000
     Crimes Task Forces.......................................
    Support for missing and exploited children................                8,366,000                8,366,000
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
        Total, Investigations.................................              326,316,000              326,316,000
Training:
    Rowley Training Center....................................               53,189,000               53,189,000
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
        Total, Salaries and Expenses..........................            1,410,621,000            1,366,620,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN

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

                        POST PRESIDENTIAL DETAIL

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

                    DISCONTINUED PROTECTIVE DETAILS

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

                             DISCRIMINATION

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

                       WHITE HOUSE MAIL SCREENING

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

                        SECRET SERVICE OVERTIME

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

     Acquisition, Construction, Improvements, and Related Expenses

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

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

                             RECOMMENDATION

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

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


              NATIONAL PROTECTION AND PROGRAMS DIRECTORATE


                     Management and Administration

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

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

                             RECOMMENDATION

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

                            STAFFING LEVELS

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

                       INTERGOVERNMENTAL PROGRAMS

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

           Infrastructure Protection and Information Security

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

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

                             RECOMMENDATION

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Budget estimate            Recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Infrastructure Protection:
    Identification and Analysis...............................              $70,603,000              $70,603,000
    Coordination and Information Sharing......................               52,367,000               68,232,000
    Mitigation Programs.......................................              149,830,000              173,671,000
National Cyber Security Division:
    US-Computer Emergency Response Team.......................              242,424,000              242,424,000
    Strategic Initiatives.....................................               41,638,000               49,138,000
    Outreach and Programs.....................................                9,438,000                7,188,000
National Security/Emergency Preparedness Telecommunications:
    Priority Telecommunications Services......................               58,740,000               58,740,000
    Next Generation Networks..................................               56,000,000               48,000,000
    National Command and Coordination Capability..............               61,000,000               14,100,000
    Programs to Study and Enhance Telecommunications..........               15,100,000               15,100,000
    Critical Infrastructure Protection Programs...............               11,260,000               11,260,000
    eLORAN Development........................................               34,500,000                        0
Office of Emergency Communications............................               38,300,000               38,300,000
REAL ID Hub...................................................                        0               50,000,000
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
        Total, Infrastructure Protection and Information                    841,200,000              846,756,000
         Security.............................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         NPPD PROGRAM PLANNING

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

 CHEMICAL FACILITY ANTI-TERRORISM STANDARDS AND REGULATION OF AMMONIUM 
                                NITRATE

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

           NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PLAN MANAGEMENT

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

                    ETHANOL TRANSLOADING FACILITIES

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

                         WATER SYSTEM SECURITY

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

                      BUSINESS COUNTERINTELLIGENCE

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

                      OFFICE OF BOMBING PREVENTION

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

                    PHILADELPHIA VIDEO SURVEILLANCE

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

                  UNDERGROUND CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

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

                    MAPPING CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

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

               US-CERT/NATIONAL CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE

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

     PRIORITY TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES/NEXT GENERATION NETWORKS

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

              NATIONAL COMMAND AND COORDINATION CAPABILITY

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

                        CYBER SECURITY TRAINING

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

      CYBER SECURITY INFORMATION SHARING AND COLLABORATION PROGRAM

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

                        CONTROL SYSTEMS SECURITY

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

                                E-LORAN

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

                   OFFICE OF EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS

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

                              REAL ID HUB

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

    United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology

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

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

                             RECOMMENDATION

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

                           EXPENDITURE PLANS

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

                             EXIT SOLUTION

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

                            UNIQUE IDENTITY

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

                               OVERSTAYS

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

                          STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT

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

                    STAFFING AND CONTRACTOR SUPPORT

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

                        Office of Health Affairs

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

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

                             RECOMMENDATION

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

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

                       SURVEILLANCE AND DETECTION

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

                           PANDEMIC INFLUENZA

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

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

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

               EMERGENCY PERSONNEL AND DISASTER RESPONSE

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

                       PLANNING AND COORDINATION

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

                         ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE

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

                  FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY


                     Management And Administration 

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

                                MISSION

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

                             RECOMMENDATION

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

                                STAFFING

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

                            REGIONAL OFFICES

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

                              MT. WEATHER

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

                     EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE

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

                      NATIONAL DAM SAFETY PROGRAM

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

                URBAN SEARCH AND RESCUE RESPONSE SYSTEM

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

                      LOGISTICS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

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

                         EMERGENCY ALERT SYSTEM

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

                             READY CAMPAIGN

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

                   CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET JUSTIFICATION

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

                       FIRST RESPONDER READINESS

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

                        INCREASED ACCOUNTABILITY

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

                     STATE AND LOCAL COLLABORATION

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

                          SPECIAL POPULATIONS

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

                 IMPACT OF CLIMATE ON FUTURE DISASTERS

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

       FLOOD CONTROL AND HAZARD MITIGATION DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM

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

                       FLORIDA HURRICANE RECOVERY

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

                       State and Local Programs 


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

                                MISSION

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

                             RECOMMENDATION

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Budget estimate            Recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Homeland Security Grant Program.........................             $200,000,000             $950,000,000
Urban Area Security Initiative................................              825,000,000              850,000,000
Metropolitan Medical Response System..........................                        0               50,000,000
Citizen Corps Program.........................................               15,000,000               15,000,000
Public Transportation Security Assistance and Railroad                      175,000,000              400,000,000
 Security Assistance..........................................
Port Security Grants..........................................              210,000,000              400,000,000
Over-the-Road Bus Security Assistance.........................               12,000,000               12,000,000
Trucking Security Grants......................................                8,000,000                8,000,000
Real ID grants................................................                        0               50,000,000
Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program..........                        0               50,000,000
Emergency Operations Centers..................................                        0               35,000,000
National Security and Terrorism Prevention Grants.............              110,000,000                        0
Emergency Management Performance Grants.......................              200,000,000                        0
National Programs:
    National Domestic Preparedness Consortium.................               32,000,000               92,000,000
    Center for Domestic Preparedness..........................               47,000,000               47,000,000
    National Exercise Program.................................               40,000,000               40,000,000
    Technical Assistance......................................               10,000,000               10,000,000
    Continuing Training Program...............................                        0               31,000,000
    Evaluations and Assessments...............................               16,000,000               16,000,000
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
        Total State and Local Programs........................            1,900,000,000            3,056,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                    MEASURING PREPAREDNESS AND RISK

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

             IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE 9/11 ACT

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

                 STATE HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM

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

                 URBAN AREA SECURITY INITIATIVE GRANTS

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

                  METROPOLITAN MEDICAL RESPONSE SYSTEM

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

                         CITIZEN CORPS PROGRAM

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

    PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND RAILROAD SECURITY 
                               ASSISTANCE

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

                          PORT SECURITY GRANTS

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

                 OVER-THE-ROAD BUS SECURITY ASSISTANCE

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

                   TRUCKING INDUSTRY SECURITY GRANTS

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

                             REAL ID GRANTS

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

             INTEROPERABLE EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS GRANTS

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

                      EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTERS

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

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

                           NATIONAL PROGRAMS

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

               NATIONAL DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS CONSORTIUM

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

                    CENTER FOR DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS

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

                       NATIONAL EXERCISE PROGRAM

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

                       CONTINUING TRAINING GRANTS

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

                          TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

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

                      EVALUATIONS AND ASSESSMENTS

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

                       EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES

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

                    STOCKPILING OF CRITICAL SUPPLIES

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

                     Firefighter Assistance Grants

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

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

                             RECOMMENDATION

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

                Emergency Management Performance Grants

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

                                MISSION

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

                             RECOMMENDATION

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

              Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program

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

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

                             RECOMMENDATION

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

                   United States Fire Administration

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

                                MISSION

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

                             RECOMMENDATION

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

                            Disaster Relief


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

                                MISSION

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

                             RECOMMENDATION

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

          POST-DISASTER HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM (HMGP)

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

            Disaster Assistance Direct Loan Program Account


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

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

                             RECOMMENDATION

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

                      Flood Map Modernization Fund

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

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

                             RECOMMENDATION

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

                     National Flood Insurance Fund

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

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

                             RECOMMENDATION

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

                  National Predisaster Mitigation Fund

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

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

                             RECOMMENDATION

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

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

                       Emergency Food and Shelter

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

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

                             RECOMMENDATION

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

                        Cerro Grande Fire Claims

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

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


           UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES

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

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

                             RECOMMENDATION

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

                        USER FEE FUNDED PROGRAMS

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

                          ACCURACY OF E-VERIFY

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

                           REFUGEE PROCESSING

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

           NONIMMIGRANT SPECIALTY WORKER VISA (H-1B) ANALYSIS

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

       VISA PROGRAMS AUTHORIZED BY THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT

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

                       NATURALIZATION CEREMONIES

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

                         ORPHANS FIRST PROGRAM

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

                FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING CENTER


                         Salaries and Expenses

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

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

                             RECOMMENDATION

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

     Acquisitions, Construction, Improvements, and Related Expenses

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

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

                             RECOMMENDATION

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

                         SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY


                     Management and Administration

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

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

                             RECOMMENDATION

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

           Research, Development, Acquisition, and Operations

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

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

                             RECOMMENDATION

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Budget estimate            Recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Border and Maritime Security..................................              $35,300,000              $30,300,000
Chemical and Biological.......................................              200,408,000              200,408,000
Command, Control and Interoperability.........................               62,390,000               62,390,000
Explosives....................................................               96,149,000               96,149,000
Human Factors.................................................               12,460,000               12,460,000
Infrastructure and Geophysical................................               37,816,000               48,816,000
Innovation....................................................               45,000,000               38,660,000
Laboratory Facilities.........................................              146,940,000              151,940,000
Test, Evaluation and Standards................................               24,674,000               28,674,000
Transition....................................................               31,830,000               33,830,000
University Programs...........................................               43,770,000               51,270,000
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................................................              736,737,000              754,897,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      BORDER AND MARITIME SECURITY

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

                 COMMAND, CONTROL, AND INTEROPERABILITY

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

           FIRST RESPONDER COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT STANDARDS

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

                               EXPLOSIVES

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

                     INFRASTRUCTURE AND GEOPHYSICAL

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

                               INNOVATION

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

                            NEW TECHNOLOGIES

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

                         LABORATORY FACILITIES

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

                   MULTI-FUNCTION PHASED ARRAY RADARS

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

                     TEST, EVALUATION AND STANDARDS

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

                               TRANSITION

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

                          UNIVERSITY PROGRAMS

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

        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING PROJECTS

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

                          UNOBLIGATED BALANCES

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

                   DOMESTIC NUCLEAR DETECTION OFFICE


                     Management and Administration

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

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

                             RECOMMENDATION

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

                 Research, Development, and Operations

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

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

                             RECOMMENDATION

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Budget estimate            Recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Systems Engineering and Architecture..........................              $25,147,000              $25,147,000
Systems Development...........................................              108,100,000              108,100,000
Transformational Research and Development.....................              113,300,000              113,300,000
Assessments...................................................               32,000,000               32,000,000
Operations Support............................................               37,753,000               37,753,000
National Technical Nuclear Forensics Center...................               17,900,000               16,900,000
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................................................              334,200,000              333,200,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              NEXT THREATS

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

                       SCREENING CARGO CONTAINERS

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

            SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT OF CRANE-BASED TECHNOLOGIES

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

                   RED TEAM EXERCISES AND ASSESSMENTS

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

              NATIONAL TECHNICAL NUCLEAR FORENSICS CENTER

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

           RISK ASSESSMENT ON RADIOLOGICAL DISPERSION DEVICES

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

                          Systems Acquisition

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

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

                             RECOMMENDATION

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Budget estimate            Recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radiation Portal Monitor program..............................             $157,700,000             $142,700,000
Securing the Cities...........................................               20,000,000               20,000,000
Human Portable Radiation Detection Systems program............               13,000,000               13,000,000
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................................................              190,700,000              175,700,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    RADIATION PORTAL MONITOR PROGRAM

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

                            NORTHERN BORDER

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

                          SECURING THE CITIES

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

               HUMAN PORTABLE RADIATION DETECTION SYSTEMS

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

                      TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

    Section 501. The Committee continues a provision providing 
that no part of any appropriation shall remain available for 
obligation beyond the current year unless expressly provided.
    Section 502. The Committee continues a provision providing 
that unexpended balances of prior appropriations may be merged 
with new appropriation accounts and used for the same purpose, 
subject to reprogramming guidelines.
    Section 503. The Committee continues and modifies a 
provision providing reprogramming authority for funds within an 
account and not to exceed 5 percent transfer authority between 
appropriations accounts with the requirement for a 15-day 
advance Congressional notification. A detailed funding table 
identifying each Congressional control level for reprogramming 
purposes is included at the end of this report. These 
reprogramming guidelines shall be complied with by all agencies 
funded by the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations 
Act, 2009.
    Section 504. The Committee continues a provision that 
prohibits funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the 
Department to make payment to the Department's Working Capital 
Fund, except for activities and amounts allowed in the 
President's fiscal year 2008 budget, excluding sedan service, 
shuttle service, transit subsidy, mail operations, parking, and 
competitive sourcing. Additional activities are subject to 
approval.
    Section 505. The Committee continues a provision providing 
that not to exceed 50 percent of unobligated balances remaining 
at the end of fiscal year 2009 from appropriations made for 
salaries and expenses shall remain available through fiscal 
year 2010 subject to reprogramming guidelines.
    Section 506. The Committee continues a provision providing 
that funds for intelligence activities are deemed to be 
specifically authorized during fiscal year 2009 until the 
enactment of an Act authorizing intelligence activities for 
fiscal year 2009.
    Section 507. The Committee continues a provision requiring 
notification of the Committees on Appropriations three days 
before grant allocations, discretionary grant awards, 
discretionary contract awards, or a letter of intent totaling 
$1,000,000 or more is announced by the Department. The 
Department is required to brief the Committees on 
Appropriations five full business days prior to announcing the 
intention to make formula-based State Homeland Security grants 
and Urban Area Security Initiatives. Notification shall include 
a description of the project or projects to be funded, 
including city, county and state.
    Section 508. The Committee continues a provision providing 
that no agency shall purchase, construct, or lease additional 
facilities for federal law enforcement training without advance 
approval of the Committees on Appropriations.
    Section 509. The Committee continues a provision providing 
that none of the funds may be used for any construction, 
repair, alteration, and acquisition project for which a 
prospectus, if required under chapter 33 of title 40, United 
States Code, has not been approved except funds for the 
development of a proposed prospectus.
    Section 510. The Committee continues longstanding 
provisions contained in previous Appropriations Acts into 
fiscal year 2009. These provisions relate to the Buy American 
Act; reporting requirements of the privacy officer; contracting 
officer's technical representative training; Sensitive Security 
Information; replacement patrol boat (FRC-B) program; federal 
building performance and requirements outlined in title V of 
the National Energy Conservation Policy Act or subtitle A of 
title I of the Energy Policy Act of 2005; classifying the 
functions of the instructor staff at the Federal Law 
Enforcement Training Center as inherently governmental for 
purposes of the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act; use of 
funds in conformance with section 303 of the Energy Policy Act 
of 1992; Executive Order 13149, relating to fleet and 
transportation efficiency; and linking all contracts that 
provide award fees to successful acquisition outcomes.
    Section 511. The Committee continues a provision regarding 
Secure Flight.
    Section 512. The Committee continues a provision mandating 
that no funds can be used to contract out the services provided 
by United States Citizenship and Immigration Services 
immigration information officers, contact representatives, or 
investigative assistants.
    Section 513. The Committee continues a provision directing 
the Secretary to research, develop, and procure new 
technologies to inspect and screen air cargo and to utilize 
existing checked baggage explosive detection equipment and 
screeners to screen cargo on passenger aircraft where 
practicable at each airport. In addition, language requires TSA 
to work with air carriers and airports to ensure that the 
screening of cargo carried on passenger aircraft, as required 
by the 9/11 Act, increases incrementally each quarter. The 
Committee requires quarterly submission of air cargo inspection 
statistics detailing incremental progress.
    Section 514. The Committee continues and modifies a 
provision that directs that any funds appropriated or 
transferred to TSA ``Aviation Security'', ``Administration'', 
and ``Transportation Security Support'' in fiscal years 2004, 
2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008, which are recovered or deobligated, 
shall be available only for procurement and installation of 
explosive detection systems, for air cargo, baggage and 
checkpoint screening systems, subject to section notification. 
The Committee also requires quarterly reports on recovered or 
deobligated funds.
    Section 515. The Committee continues a provision that 
extends the authorization of the Department's Working Capital 
Fund through fiscal year 2009.
    Section 516. The Committee continues a provision requiring 
the Chief Financial Officer to submit monthly budget execution 
and staffing reports within 45 days after the close of each 
month.
    Section 517. The Committee continues and modifies a 
provision relating to undercover investigative operations 
authority of the Secret Service for fiscal year 2009.
    Section 518. The Committee continues a provision regarding 
the enforcement of section 4025(1) of Public Law 108-458.
    Section 519. The Committee continues and modifies a 
provision prohibiting the Secretary of Homeland Secretary from 
reducing the Coast Guard's civil engineering program except as 
specifically authorized in statute after enactment of this Act.
    Section 520. The Committee continues and modifies a 
provision prohibiting the obligation of funds to the Office of 
the Secretary and Executive Management, Office of the Under 
Secretary, or Office of the Chief Financial Officer for grants 
or contracts awarded by any means other than competitively. 
Certain exceptions apply. The Secretary may waive the 
application in a national emergency, with notification to the 
Committees on Appropriations. The bill also requires the 
Inspector General to review departmental contracts awarded 
noncompetitively and report on the results to the Committees on 
Appropriations.
    Section 521. The Committee continues and modifies a 
provision prohibiting funds for any position designated as a 
Principal Federal Official (PFO). The position shall not be 
designated for a Robert T. Stafford Act declared disaster or 
emergency or at the same time as any Federal Coordinating 
Officer (FCO). This prohibition on PFOs shall apply to PFOs, 
any successors to that position and any similar position 
created by the Department.
    The Committee remains concerned that the Department has not 
defined a clear role for the PFO and that the position 
conflicts with the FCO's role during Presidentially-declared 
disasters and emergencies. States and emergency management 
officials have also expressed concern that use of both an FCO 
and PFO lead to confusion in the field following disasters and 
undermines FEMA's emergency management role. The prohibition 
does not apply to major non-Stafford Act responses that may 
include a Stafford Act component. In instances when a PFO is 
designated, the Department is expected to work with State and 
local governments and other Federal partners to clearly define 
the role of the PFO and ensure there is no conflict with the 
well-tested role of the FCO.
    Section 522. The Committee continues a provision 
prohibiting funding to grant an immigration benefit to any 
individual unless the results of background checks legally 
required to be completed prior to the grant of the benefit have 
been received by DHS.
    Section 523. The Committee continues a provision 
prohibiting use of funds to destroy or put to pasture any horse 
or other equine belonging to the Federal Government unless 
adoption has been offered first.
    Section 524. The Committee continues a provision 
prohibiting funds made available to the Office of the Secretary 
and Executive Management to be expended for any new hires that 
are not verified through the basic pilot program under section 
401 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
Responsibility Act.
    Section 525. The Committee continues a provision 
prohibiting funds available in this Act from being used to 
implement a rule or regulation which implements the notice of 
proposed rulemaking related to Petitions for Aliens to Perform 
Temporary Nonagricultural Services or Labor (H-2B) set out 
beginning on 70 Federal Register 3984 (January 27, 2005).
    Section 526. The Committee continues and modifies a 
provision extending other transactional authority of DHS 
through fiscal year 2009. Language requires the Secretary to 
issue policy guidance detailing the appropriate use of other 
transaction authority and provide additional training to each 
employee that has authority to handle procurements under other 
transaction authority. The Committee also includes reporting 
requirements for projects in which this authority was used.
    Section 527. The Committee includes a new provision 
relating to the liquidation of Plum Island assets if the site 
is not chosen for the new National Bio and Agro-defense 
Facility and how proceeds from this sale may be applied.
    Section 528. The Committee includes a new provision that 
prohibits the delegation of authority unless delegation is 
specifically authorized.
    Section 529. The Committee includes a new provision 
requiring the Secretary to submit a listing of programs, 
projects, and activities by account, including amounts, from 
which all reprogramming will be based.
    Section 530. The Committee includes a new provision 
pertaining to the human resource management system.
    Section 531. The Committee includes a new provision 
requiring the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consolidation 
with the Secretary of Treasury, to notify the Committees on 
Appropriations of any proposed transfers from the Department of 
Treasury Forfeiture Fund to any agency within the Department of 
Homeland Security. No funds may be obligated until the 
Subcommittees approve the proposed transfers.
    Section 532. The Committee includes a new provision 
prohibiting funds for grants or contracts that do not comply 
with subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 40.
    Section 533. The Committee includes a new provision 
pertaining to alien flight school training.
    Section 534. The Committee includes a new provision on 
unmanned aerial systems.
    Section 535. The Committee continues a provision relating 
to prescription drugs.
    Section 536. The Committee includes a new provision 
permitting the Secretary to utilize cost savings from any 
recovered or deobligated funds or from staffing shortfalls for 
fuel costs that exceed the amount requested in fiscal year 
2009.
    Section 537. The Committee includes a new provision 
requiring the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security 
(Transportation Security Administration) to certify that no 
security risks will result if an airport does not participate 
in the basic pilot program.

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

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

    APPROPRIATIONS CAN BE USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH MADE

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

              HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORT REQUIREMENTS

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

                           TRANSFER OF FUNDS

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

            Appropriation Transfers Recommended in the Bill


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Account from which transfer is
   Account to which transfer is to be made          Amount                 to be made                 Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of Inspector General..................      $15,000,000  Disaster Relief Fund...........      $15,000,000
FEMA, Management and Administration..........       90,600,000  Disaster Relief Fund...........       90,600,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          RESCISSION OF FUNDS

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following table is submitted 
describing the rescissions recommended in the accompanying 
bill:

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

                  APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW

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


                   COMPARISON WITH BUDGET RESOLUTION

    Clause 3(c)(2) of Rule XIII and section 308(a)(1)(A) of the 
Congressional Budget Act requires the report accompanying a 
bill providing new budget authority to contain a statement 
comparing the levels in the bill to the suballocations 
submitted under section 302(b) of the Act for the most recently 
agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget for the 
applicable fiscal year. That information is provided in the 
following table.

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

                      FIVE YEAR OUTLAY PROJECTIONS

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

                        [In millions of dollars]

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

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

               ASSISTANCE TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

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

                        [In millions of dollars]

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

                        Constitutional Authority

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

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

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

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

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

         STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

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

                         Congressional Earmarks

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


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

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

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


                          (Public Law 107-206)

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE I--SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



CHAPTER 12

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS CHAPTER

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007


                          (Public Law 109-295)

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


HOMELAND SECURITY ACT OF 2002

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                        Subtitle D--Acquisitions

SEC. 831. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS.

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) Additional Requirements.--
          (1) In general.--The authority of the Secretary under 
        this section shall terminate September 30, 2008, unless 
        before that date the Secretary--
                  (A) issues policy guidance detailing the 
                appropriate use of that authority; and
                  (B) provides additional training to each 
                employee that is authorized to exercise that 
                authority.
          (2) Report.--The Secretary shall provide an annual 
        report to the Committees on Appropriations of the 
        Senate and the House of Representatives and the 
        Committee on Homeland Security of the House of 
        Representatives detailing the projects for which the 
        authority granted by subsection (a) was used, the 
        rationale for its use, the funds spent using that 
        authority, the outcome of each project for which that 
        authority was used, and the results of any audits of 
        such projects.
  [(d)] (e) Definition of Nontraditional Government 
Contractor.--In this section, the term ``nontraditional 
Government contractor'' has the same meaning as the term 
``nontraditional defense contractor'' as defined in section 
845(e) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 1994 (Public Law 103-160; 10 U.S.C. 2371 note).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004

                          (Public Law 108-90)

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                      TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


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

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

             TITLE I--DEPARTMENT MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS

            Office of the Secretary and Executive Management

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

              Office of the Under Secretary for Management

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

                 Office of the Chief Financial Officer

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

                Office of the Chief Information Officer

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

                        Analysis and Operations

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

      Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding

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

                      Office of Inspector General

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

          TITLE II--SECURITY, ENFORCEMENT, AND INVESTIGATIONS

                   U.S. Customs and Border Protection

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

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

                        AUTOMATION MODERNIZATION

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

        BORDER SECURITY FENCING, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND TECHNOLOGY

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

 AIR AND MARINE INTERDICTION, OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE, AND PROCUREMENT

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

                              CONSTRUCTION

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

                U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

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

                       FEDERAL PROTECTIVE SERVICE

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

                        AUTOMATION MODERNIZATION

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

                              CONSTRUCTION

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

                 Transportation Security Administration

                           AVIATION SECURITY

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

                    SURFACE TRANSPORTATION SECURITY

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

           TRANSPORTATION THREAT ASSESSMENT AND CREDENTIALING

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

                    TRANSPORTATION SECURITY SUPPORT

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

                          FEDERAL AIR MARSHALS

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

                              Coast Guard

                           OPERATING EXPENSES

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

                ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE AND RESTORATION

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

                            RESERVE TRAINING

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

              ACQUISITIONS, CONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENTS

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

                         ALTERATION OF BRIDGES

    The Committee provides funds for bridge alteration 
projects.

              RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

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

                              RETIRED PAY

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

                      United States Secret Service


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

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

     ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENTS, AND RELATED EXPENSES

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

                  TITLE III--PREPAREDNESS AND RECOVERY


              National Protection and Programs Directorate


                        MANAGEMENT AND EXPENSES

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

           INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION AND INFORMATION SECURITY

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

    UNITED STATES VISITOR AND IMMIGRANT STATUS INDICATOR TECHNOLOGY

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

                        OFFICE OF HEALTH AFFAIRS

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

                  Federal Emergency Management Agency


                     MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

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

                        STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS

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

                     FIREFIGHTER ASSISTANCE GRANTS

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

                EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE GRANTS

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

              RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAM

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

                   UNITED STATES FIRE ADMINISTRATION

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

                            DISASTER RELIEF

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

            DISASTER ASSISTANCE DIRECT LOAN PROGRAM ACCOUNT

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

                      FLOOD MAP MODERNIZATION FUND

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

                     NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE FUND

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

                  NATIONAL PREDISASTER MITIGATION FUND

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

                       EMERGENCY FOOD AND SHELTER

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

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


           United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

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

                Federal Law Enforcement Training Center


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

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

     ACQUISITIONS, CONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENTS AND RELATED EXPENSES

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

                         Science and Technology


                     MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

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

           RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, ACQUISITION AND OPERATIONS

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

                   Domestic Nuclear Detection Office


                     MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

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

           RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, ACQUISITION, AND OPERATIONS

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

                          SYSTEMS ACQUISITION

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

                      TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

    Section 501. The Committee continues a provision providing 
that no part of any appropriation shall remain available for 
obligation beyond the current year unless expressly provided.
    Section 502. The Committee continues a provision providing 
that unexpended balances of prior appropriations may be merged 
with new appropriation accounts and used for the same purpose, 
subject to reprogramming guidelines.
    Section 503. The Committee continues and modifies a 
provision providing reprogramming authority for funds within an 
account and not to exceed 5 percent transfer authority between 
appropriations accounts with the requirement for a 15-day 
advance Congressional notification. A detailed funding table 
identifying each Congressional control level for reprogramming 
purposes is included at the end of this report. These 
reprogramming guidelines shall be complied with by all agencies 
funded by the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations 
Act, 2009.
    Section 504. The Committee continues a provision that 
prohibits funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the 
Department to make payment to the Department's Working Capital 
Fund, except for activities and amounts allowed in the 
President's fiscal year 2008 budget, excluding sedan service, 
shuttle service, transit subsidy, mail operations, parking, and 
competitive sourcing. Additional activities are subject to 
approval.
    Section 505. The Committee continues a provision providing 
that not to exceed 50 percent of unobligated balances remaining 
at the end of fiscal year 2009 from appropriations made for 
salaries and expenses shall remain available through fiscal 
year 2010 subject to reprogramming guidelines.
    Section 506. The Committee continues a provision providing 
that funds for intelligence activities are deemed to be 
specifically authorized during fiscal year 2009 until the 
enactment of an Act authorizing intelligence activities for 
fiscal year 2009.
    Section 507. The Committee continues a provision requiring 
notification of the Committees on Appropriations three days 
before grant allocations, discretionary grant awards, 
discretionary contract awards, or a letter of intent totaling 
$1,000,000 or more is announced by the Department. The 
Department is required to brief the Committees on 
Appropriations five full day business days prior to announcing 
the intention to make formula based State Homeland Security 
grants and Urban Area Security Initiatives. Notification shall 
include a description of the project or projects to be funded, 
including city, county and state.
    Section 508. The Committee continues a provision providing 
that no agency shall purchase, construct, or lease additional 
facilities for federal law enforcement training without advance 
approval of the Committees on Appropriations.
    Section 509. The Committee continues a provision providing 
that none of the funds may be used for any construction, 
repair, alteration, and acquisition project for which a 
prospectus, if required under chapter 33 of title 40, United 
States Code, has not been approved except funds for the 
development of a proposed prospectus.
    Section 510. The Committee continues longstanding 
provisions contained in previous Appropriations Acts into 
fiscal year 2009. These provisions relate to the Buy American 
Act; reporting requirements of the privacy officer; contracting 
officer's technical representative training; Sensitive Security 
Information; replacement patrol boat (FRC-B) program; federal 
building performance and requirements outlined in title V of 
the National Energy Conservation Policy Act or subtitle A of 
title I of the Energy Policy Act of 2005; classifying the 
functions of the instructor staff at the Federal Law 
Enforcement Training Center as inherently governmental for 
purposes of the of the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act; 
use of funds in conformance with section 303 of the Energy 
Policy Act of 1992; Executive Order 13149, relating to fleet 
and transportation efficiency; and linking all contracts that 
provide award fees to successful acquisition outcomes.
    Section 511. The Committee continues a provision regarding 
Secure Flight.
    Section 512. The Committee continues a provision mandating 
that no funds can be used to contract out the services provided 
by United States Citizenship and Immigration Services 
immigration information officers, contract representatives, or 
investigative assistants.
    Section 513. The Committee continues a provision directing 
the Secretary to research, develop, and procure new 
technologies to inspect and screen air cargo and to utilize 
existing checked baggage explosive detection equipment and 
screeners to screen cargo on passenger aircraft where 
practicable at each airport. In addition, language requires TSA 
to work with air carriers and airports to ensure that the 
screening of cargo carried on passenger aircraft, as required 
by the 9/11 Act, increases incrementally each quarter. The 
Committee requires quarterly submission of air cargo inspection 
statistics detailing incremental progress.
    Section 514. The Committee continues and modifies a 
provision that directs that any funds appropriated or 
transferred to TSA ``Aviation Security'', ``Administration'', 
and ``Transportation Security Support'' in fiscal years 2004, 
2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008, which are recovered or deobligated, 
shall be available only for procurement and installation of 
explosive detection systems, for air cargo, baggage and 
checkpoint screening systems, subject to section notification. 
The Committee also requires quarterly reports on recovered or 
deobligated funds.
    Section 515. The Committee continues a provision that 
extends the authorization of the Department's Working Capital 
Fund through fiscal year 2009.
    Section 516. The Committee continues a provision requiring 
the Chief Financial Officer to submit monthly budget execution 
and staffing reports within 45 days after the close of each 
month.
    Section 517. The Committee continues and modifies a 
provision relating to undercover investigative operations 
authority of the Secret Service for fiscal year 2009.
    Section 518. The Committee continues a provision regarding 
the enforcement of section 4025(1) of Public Law 108-458.
    Section 519. The Committee continues and modifies a 
provision prohibiting the Secretary of Homeland Secretary from 
reducing the Coast Guard's civil engineering program except as 
specifically authorized in statute after enactment of this Act.
    Section 520. The Committee continues and modifies a 
provision prohibiting the obligation of funds to the Office of 
the Secretary and Executive Management, Office of the Under 
Secretary, or Office of the Chief Financial Officer for grants 
or contracts awarded by any means other than competitively. 
Certain exceptions apply. Bill language permits the Secretary 
to waive the application in a national emergency, with 
notification. The bill also requires the Inspector General to 
review departmental contracts awarded noncompetitively and 
report on the results to the Committees on Appropriations.
    Section 521. The Committee continues and modifies a 
provision prohibiting funds for any position designated as a 
Principal Federal Official (PFO). The position shall not be 
designated for a Robert T. Stafford Act declared disaster or 
emergency or at the same time as any Federal Coordinating 
Officer. This prohibition on PFOs shall apply to PFOs, any 
successors to that position and any similar position created by 
the Department.
    Section 522. The Committee continues a provision 
prohibiting funding to grant an immigration benefit to any 
individual unless the results of background checks legally 
required to be completed prior to the grant of the benefit have 
been received by DHS.
    Section 523. The Committee continues a provision 
prohibiting use of funds to destroy or put to pasture any horse 
or other equine belonging to the Federal Government unless 
adoption has been offered first.
    Section 524. The Committee continues a provision 
prohibiting funds made available to the Office of the Secretary 
and Executive Management to be expended for any new hires that 
are not verified through the basic pilot program under section 
401 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
Responsibility Act.
    Section 525. The Committee continues a provision 
prohibiting funds available in this Act from being used to 
implement a rule or regulation which implements the notice of 
proposed rulemaking related to Petitions for Aliens to Perform 
Temporary Nonagricultural Services or Labor (H-2B) set out 
beginning on 70 Federal Register 3984 (January 27, 2005).
    Section 526. The Committee continues a provision extending 
other transactional authority of DHS through fiscal year 2009. 
Certain training and reporting requirements are included.
    Section 527. The Committee includes a new provision 
relating to the liquidation of Plum Island assets if the site 
is not chosen for the new National Bio and Agro-defense 
Facility and how proceeds from this sale may be applied.
    Section 528. The Committee includes a new provision that 
prohibits the delegation of authority unless delegation is 
specifically authorized.
    Section 529. The Committee includes a new provision 
requiring the Secretary to submit a listing of programs, 
projects, and activities by account, including amounts, from 
which all reprogramming will be based.
    Section 530. The Committee includes a new provision 
pertaining to the human resource management system.
    Section 531. The Committee includes a new provision 
requiring the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consolidation 
with the Secretary of Treasury, to notify the Committees on 
Appropriations of any proposed transfers from the Department of 
Treasury Forfeiture Fund to any agency within the Department of 
Homeland Security. No funds may be obligated until the 
Committees approve the proposed transfers.
    Section 532. The Committee includes a new provision 
prohibiting funds for grants or contracts that do not comply 
with subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 40.
    Section 533. The Committee includes a new provision 
pertaining to alien flight school training.
    Section 534. The Committee includes a new provision on 
unmanned aerial systems.
    Section 535. The Committee continues a provision relating 
to prescription drugs.
    Section 536. The Committee includes a new provision 
permitting the Secretary to utilize cost savings from any 
recovered or deobligated funds or from staffing shortfalls for 
fuel costs that exceed the amount requested in fiscal year 
2009.
    Section 537. The Committee includes a new provision 
requiring the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security 
(Transportatipn Security Administration) to certify that no 
security risks will result if an airport does not participate 
in the basic pilot program.

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

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

                    DETAILED EXPLANATIONS IN REPORT

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



                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

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

                    Balancing Oversight With Results

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

                  Immigration and Customs Enforcement

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

                           Operational Needs

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

                        Transportation Security

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

                              Coast Guard

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

                  Emergency Preparedness and Response

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

                       Policy and Authorizations

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

                         Fiscal Responsibility

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

                                   Jerry Lewis.
                                   Harold Rogers.