- TXT
-
PDF
(PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.)
Tip
?
109th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 109-476
======================================================================
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2007
_______
May 22, 2006.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Rogers of Kentucky, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted
the following
R E P O R T
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 5441]
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, 2007.
INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT
Page number
Bill Report
TITLE I--DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS
Office of the Secretary and Executive Management... 2
6
Office of Screening Coordination and Operations....
12
Office of the Under Secretary for Management....... 3
13
Office of the Chief Financial Officer.............. 4
16
Office of the Chief Information Officer............ 4
17
Analysis and Operations............................ 5
19
Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast
Rebuilding..................................... 5
20
Office of Inspector General........................ 5
21
TITLE II--SECURITY, ENFORCEMENT, AND INVESTIGATIONS
United States Visitor and Immigrant Status
Indicator Technology........................... 6
23
Customs and Border Protection...................... 7
24
Salaries and Expenses...................... 7
24
Automation Modernization................... 11
32
CBP Air and Marine Interdiction,
Operations, Maintenance and Procurement 12
33
Construction............................... 13
34
Immigration and Customs Enforcement................ 14
35
Salaries and Expenses...................... 14
35
Federal Protective Service................. 15
43
Automation Modernization...................
44
Construction............................... 15
45
Transportation Security Administration............. 15
45
Aviation Security.......................... 15
45
Surface Transportation Security............ 18
53
Transportation Threat Assessment and
Credentialing.......................... 18
53
Transportation Security Support............ 18
55
Federal Air Marshals....................... 19
56
United States Coast Guard.......................... 19
58
Operating Expenses......................... 19
58
Environmental Compliance and Restoration... 20
61
Reserve Training........................... 20
61
Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements 20
62
Alteration of Bridges...................... 23
67
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation. 24
67
Retired Pay................................ 24
68
United States Secret Service....................... 25
69
Protection, Administration, and Training... 25
69
Investigations and Field Operations........ 26
71
Special Event Fund......................... 27
73
Acquisition, Construction, Improvements,
and Related Expenses................... 27
73
TITLE III--PREPAREDNESS AND RECOVERY
Preparedness....................................... 28
73
Under Secretary for Preparedness........... 28
73
Office of Grants and Training.............. 28
77
State and Local Programs................... 28
77
Firefighter Assistance Grants.............. 31
86
Emergency Management Performance Grants.... 32
87
Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program 32
87
United States Fire Administration and
Training............................... 33
88
Infrastructure Protection and Information
Security............................... 33
88
Federal Emergency Management Agency................ 34
92
Administrative and Regional Operations..... 34
92
Readiness, Mitigation, Response and
Recovery............................... 34
93
Public Health Programs..................... 35
98
Disaster Relief............................ 35
99
Disaster Assistance Direct Loan Program
Account................................ 35
99
Flood Map Modernization Fund............... 36
100
National Flood Insurance Fund.............. 36
100
National Flood Mitigation Fund............. 37
102
National Predisaster Mitigation Fund....... 38
102
Emergency Food and Shelter................. 38
103
TITLE IV--RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, TRAINING, AND SERVICES
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. 39
103
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center............ 39
107
Salaries and Expenses...................... 39
107
Acquisition, Construction, Improvements,
and Related Expenses................... 40
107
Science and Technology............................. 41
108
Management and Administration.............. 41
109
Research, Development, Acquisition, and
Operations............................. 41
109
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office.................. 42
118
TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS
This Act........................................... 61
120
Compliance with House Rules........................
124
Tables.............................................
137
Summary of the Total Bill..........................
The accompanying bill contains recommendations for new
budget (obligational) authority for fiscal year 2007 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 2006:
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New budget Bill compared with . . .
(obligational) Budget estimates -------------------------------------
Title authority fiscal of (obligational) Recommended in New budget
year 2006 enacted authority, fiscal the bill authority fiscal Budget estimate,
to date year 2007 year 2006 fiscal year 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Departmental Management and Operations................... $945,599 $1,073,599 $1,061,466 +$115,867 -$12,133
Security, Enforcement, and Investigations................ 22,164,851 22,670,507 23,705,970 +1,541,119 +1,035,463
Preparedness............................................. 6,627,249 6,385,259 6,525,473 -101,776 +140,214
Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and 1,880,459 1,964,605 1,871,014 -9,445 -93,591
Services................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand total*......................................... 31,602,103 32,077,970 33,143,147 +1,541,044 +1,065,177
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Grand total include mandatory appropriations. Grand total for fiscal year 2006 does not include rescission of emergency funds (P.L. 109-148).
Summary of Major Recommendations in the Bill
The Committee recommends $32,080,000,000 in discretionary
resources for the Department of Homeland Security,
$1,065,353,000 above the amount proposed by the President and
$1,822,300,000 above fiscal year 2006 revised enacted levels.
BUDGETARY GIMMICKS
For the second year in a row, the President has submitted a
budget request for DHS that assumes the Committee will almost
double the amount of aviation security fees it collects from
airline passengers. This proposed fee increase funds critical
areas within the Department, permitting the Secretary and
President to say that the budget request for fiscal year 2007
contains an increase of $2.1 billion or six percent from the
current year. But the truth is, excluding new user fees in
order to make a fair comparison, the President's request is a
one percent increase from the current fiscal year. As the
Committee noted last year, it lacks jurisdiction to enact such
a fee proposal. The Committee views this repeated attempt to
artificially inflate DHS' budget as counterproductive and has
reduced funding throughout the Department to make up for the
gap in essential program funding created by this gimmick.
PRIORITIES IN THE BILL
The Department of Homeland Security was established in
March 2003 to prevent terrorist attacks in the United States,
reduce America's vulnerabilities to terrorism, and minimize
damage and recovery from attacks should they occur. While DHS
has undoubtedly improved the security of our nation, the
Department has been slow to effectively integrate the missions
of its disparate legacy agencies with new homeland security
functions and to develop comprehensive strategies and
architectures to accomplish its goals. Of particular concern is
the Department's ability to balance the allocation of resources
for the new counterterrorism mission with that of its legacy
missions. Over the past three years, the Congress has strived
to help DHS achieve this balance.
This year, the Committee has focused more directly on the
following critical issues: border security and immigration
enforcement; ports, container, and cargo security; lessons
learned from Hurricane Katrina; and supporting key legacy
missions that may not relate directly to thwarting terrorism
but nonetheless play an important role in ensuring our homeland
is secure. Funding for these issues is linked to the
Department's ability to provide sound strategies to accomplish
specific objectives. The Congress will continue to direct the
Department to allocate resources based upon rational
methodologies for achieving results. Each of these priorities
is discussed more fully below.
BORDER SECURITY AND IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT
The Committee believes that border security and immigration
enforcement are core DHS missions, and provides significant
resources as well as extensive planning and performance
requirements for these missions in fiscal year 2007. While the
Committee supports the goals of the Department's recently
announced Secure Border Initiative (SBI), it is apparent that
this proposal was not fully incorporated into the fiscal year
2007 budget request. The Committee is concerned, absent a
strategic management plan that links funding to results, the
SBI will fail to realize the Department's desired outcomes. The
Committee is committed to preventing such a failure and views
fiscal year 2007 as a turning point in the improvement of our
nation's border security systems. The Committee takes a broad
view of the SBI, to include the abilities to interdict threats
before they reach our border, to support local law enforcement
when they encounter illegal aliens in the interior, and to
ensure that employers comply with the law when hiring immigrant
labor. The Committee views these elements just as essential to
effective, comprehensive border security as the performance of
the SBI's physical security systems and provides oversight
directing DHS in that regard.
PORTS, CONTAINER, AND CARGO SECURITY
The Committee is very concerned about DHS' progress towards
securing our nation's ports and inbound commerce. While the
Department is to be commended for establishing many noteworthy
security programs to address this issue, sustained, measurable
improvement of our nation's port and commerce security as a
whole remains unclear. To address this concern, the Committee
provides extensive resources across the Department, and
includes stringent performance requirements for the improvement
of DHS' port, container, and cargo security programs.
LESSONS LEARNED FROM HURRICANE KATRINA
The Gulf Coast hurricanes of 2005 and the corresponding
government failures in preparation and response to those events
have resulted in a nationwide reevaluation of our emergency
preparedness and response capabilities. The Committee believes
that DHS needs to capitalize on the lessons learned from the
2005 hurricanes and make significant changes to better prepare
for future events. To that end, the Committee, throughout this
report, references the findings and recommendations found in
the House Bipartisan Committee on Katrina, the White House's
``The Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina-Lessons Learned'',
and investigative reports from the Government Accountability
Office and the Office of Inspector General to help guide the
Department in its corrective actions. Congressional oversight
will continue to ensure DHS is taking proactive measures to
prevent future breakdowns, particularly in FEMA and the
Preparedness Directorate.
LEGACY MISSIONS
Concern has been expressed since DHS was formed that, as
the Department maintains principal focus on protecting our
homeland from terrorists, it may degrade legacy DHS missions.
The Committee continues to believe that the Department should
not skew its priorities and funding requests to terrorism
related missions, while leaving other critical missions to
scramble for the remaining funds. The Committee is further
concerned that DHS leadership, while addressing pressing
homeland security priorities such as Hurricane Katrina or
immigration and border security, fails to recognize critical
needs of other DHS components. The Committee has expressed this
concern in the past, particularly about the Coast Guard's aging
fleet and growing gaps in key mission hours, such as those for
search and rescue operations. This year, the Committee notes
gaps in funding for drug interdiction, human smuggling, cyber
crimes, child pornography, Secret Service investigations, and
funding for our first responders. Additional funding for these
vital legacy missions has been provided. The Department is
cautioned to remember that DHS was formed by integrating 22
disparate organizations, all of which have a critical role to
play in fighting the war on terror and protecting our homeland.
The Committee directs the Department to ensure that all
agencies receive attention from leadership, not just those that
are newsworthy.
IMPROVING ACCOUNTABILITY AND OVERSIGHT
The Appropriations Committee must have a clear
understanding of how homeland security funds are being spent
and how risk analysis guides important funding decisions. The
funding must be coupled with planned strategies to make
measurable improvements along our borders; at our ports,
airports, and land ports of entry; and for emergency
preparedness. In several programs the Committee directs the
Department to develop strategic plans with measurable outcome-
oriented goals and directs that certain targets be met. Target
levels or performance metrics shall include benchmarks for
measuring achievement and shall be modified to reflect the
completion of targets. In cases where the Department awards
funds to States, localities, and nongovernmental organizations,
the Committee directs that outcomes assessments not rely
exclusively on self-reported data but include objective methods
to measure performance. Risk based funding must entail a
continuous process that includes setting strategic goals and
objectives, assessing and quantifying risks, selecting which
measures to undertake, and then measuring the outcomes of those
investments. This is in the national interest and that of DHS--
not just our obligation as guardians of the taxpayers' dollar.
For many years, the Committee has advocated stronger
accountability and oversight of DHS. To this end, the Committee
has included bill and report language requiring the development
of strategic plans and overarching architectures for a variety
of programs. Throughout the Department, a total of $1.3 billion
has been withheld from obligation in pertinent accounts until
these plans are received. In those instances where the
Committee has not received previously requested plans or
sufficient responsiveness to inquiries made to the Department,
specific reductions have been applied, totaling $228,690,000.
The Committee cannot support requests for appropriations absent
sufficient justifications for how these resources will be
spent.
TITLE I--DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS
Office of the Secretary and Executive Management
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 \1\................... $125,898,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2007...................... 97,508,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 95,884,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006................... -30,014,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2007.................. -1,624,000\1\ Includes $47,283,000 in supplemental appropriations from Public Law
109-148 for avian flu.
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 minimizing the damage and
recovery from attacks that may occur.
Recommendation
The Committee recommends $95,884,000 for the Office of the
Secretary and Executive Management, $1,624,000 below the
President's request and $30,014,000 below the amounts provided
in fiscal year 2006, after accounting for supplemental
appropriations. To adequately oversee expenditures and
personnel changes within each office, the Committee has
provided separate funding recommendations as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immediate Office of the Secretary. $3,148,000 $2,648,000
Immediate Office of the Deputy 1,648,000 1,248,000
Secretary........................
Chief of Staff.................... 5,779,000 5,642,000
Executive Secretary............... 5,001,000 5,001,000
Office of Policy.................. 31,093,000 27,093,000
Secure Border Initiative Program - - - 5,000,000
Executive Office.................
Office of Public Affairs.......... 6,808,000 6,000,000
Office of Legislative and 6,479,000 5,700,000
Intergovernmental Affairs........
Office of General Counsel......... 14,065,000 14,065,000
Office of Civil Rights and 13,125,000 13,125,000
Liberties........................
Citizenship and Immigration 5,927,000 5,927,000
Services Ombudsman...............
Privacy Officer................... 4,435,000 4,435,000
-------------------------------------
Total....................... $97,508,000 $95,884,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STAFFING ADJUSTMENTS
The President requested 35 new full-time equivalents (FTEs)
under the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management,
including 15 FTEs within the Office of Policy, 11 FTEs for the
Office of General Counsel, 2 FTEs for the Office of
Counternarcotics Enforcement, 2 FTEs for the Executive
Secretary, and 5 FTEs for the Office of Civil Rights and Civil
Liberties. The Committee has fully funded all of the new FTEs.
IMMEDIATE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
The Committee recommends $2,648,000 for the Immediate
Office of the Secretary, $500,000 below the President's request
and $279,000 above amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. The
President's budget assumed an increase in aviation passenger
fees in order to fund this program at the requested levels.
This fee is not within the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Appropriations and the Committee has adjusted its fiscal year
2007 recommendation for this account accordingly.
IMMEDIATE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SECRETARY
The Committee recommends $1,248,000 for the Immediate
Office of the Deputy Secretary, $400,000 below the President's
request and $127,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year
2006. The President's budget assumed an increase in aviation
passenger fees in order to fund this program at the requested
levels. This fee is not within the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Appropriations and the Committee has adjusted its
fiscal year 2007 recommendation for this account accordingly.
CHIEF OF STAFF
The President requested to separate the budget for the
Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement (CNE) from that of the
Chief of Staff. The Committee denies this proposal. At this
time, the CNE has not made a compelling case why this
separation should occur and has been unable to fully justify
their budget request. While the Committee recognizes the
potential value of this office, it is disappointed with a lack
of productivity. The Committee views this office as responsible
for monitoring the resource needs of the traditional
counternarcotics functions of DHS agencies as well as examining
the nexus of drugs and terrorism. The Committee directs this
office to report, in conjunction with the fiscal year 2008
budget request, on its annual productivity and performance. The
Committee provides a total of $2,741,000 for the Office of
Counternarcotics Enforcement within the total funding
appropriated to the Chief of Staff.
OFFICE OF POLICY
The Committee recommends $27,093,000 for the Office of
Policy, $4,000,000 below the President's request and $6,597,000
above amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. The Committee fully
funds all 15 new FTEs requested, including new FTEs for work
with the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States
(CFIUS). In addition, the Committee has transferred
responsibilities for the Office of Screening Coordination and
Operations to the Office of Policy. Last year, a separate
appropriation for the Office of Screening Coordination and
Operations was provided; however, eight months into the fiscal
year, this office has not hired any staff or obligated any
funding. As such, the Committee cannot continue to support this
office as a stand alone appropriation and has merged activities
into the Office of Policy. Finally, the Committee has included
the funds and two FTEs requested within the Office of Policy
for the Secure Border Initiative (SBI) in a separate
appropriation for the SBI Program Executive Office. A separate
discussion about this office follows.
SECURE BORDER INITIATIVE
Announced in November of 2005, the Secure Border Initiative
(SBI) is intended to revitalize DHS' approach to border
security and provide a broad, multi-year resource strategy
towards achieving operational control of our nation's borders.
To support this effort, the Committee provides $19,632,348,000
towards the border security and immigration programs across the
Department. This includes an increase of $1,088,145,000 above
the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006 for core SBI
functions, including the SBI Program Executive Office and
strategic elements of Customs and Border Protection (CBP),
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration Services.
The Committee is concerned that SBI was not fully
incorporated into the fiscal year 2007 budget request and a
funding request of over $1,300,000,000 for core SBI programs
was presented prior to the submittal of a strategic plan. Since
1995, spending on border security has increased tenfold from
$1.2 billion to over $12.7 billion, and the number of Border
Patrol Agents has more than doubled from 5,000 to 12,319; yet
during that same time period, the number of illegal immigrants
in the U.S. has jumped from five million to over eleven
million. The Committee is concerned that, absent a strategic
management plan that links funding to results, this pattern
will continue. In order to address this concern, the Committee
includes a provision directing the Secretary to submit an SBI
strategic plan to the House Committee on Appropriations and the
House Committee on Homeland Security by November 1, 2006. This
plan should clearly align resources to tasks for the entire
timeframe of the SBI and toward the program's ultimate goal of
achieving operational control of our borders over the next
three years. The Committee also includes bill language under
Customs and Border Protection withholding $25,000,000 from the
SBInet program, project, and activity until the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations receive and approve a plan
for expenditure that is certified by the Department's
Investment Review Board and reviewed by the Government
Accountability Office (GAO).
The Committee has consistently supported a comprehensive
strategy that puts together the right mix of resources to
address the most critical vulnerabilities along our borders and
coastlines, while also taking into account the economic
realities of immigrant labor. However, the Committee believes
that a border strategy must not be limited to a focus on
counterterrorism; operational control of our borders includes
the prevention of all contraband--whether it's narcotics,
humans, terrorists, money, or weapons of mass destruction--from
entering our nation. While the Committee acknowledges the
significant resources needed to meet the challenges of such a
comprehensive approach to border and immigration security, the
Secretary is directed, through the SBI strategic plan, to
establish performance metrics to demonstrate how the SBI is a
more efficient and effective approach than the failed
initiatives of the past.
The Committee is also very concerned by the discrepancy
between the projected resources of the SBI Program Executive
Office (PEO) for fiscal year 2006 and the request for this
office for fiscal year 2007. The Committee sees the SBI PEO as
a relatively small investment towards the strategic planning
for almost 50 percent of DHS' resources and therefore provides
$5,000,000 for this function through a separate program,
project, activity under the Office of the Secretary and
Executive Management. The additional $1,000,000 above the
President's request for this office is provided to fund
enhancements to program planning and performance management. As
part of the required strategic plan, the SBI PEO is directed to
submit its staffing and resource requirements for meeting the
goals and objectives of the SBI.
PORT, CONTAINER, AND CARGO SECURITY
The Committee is committed to building upon and improving
the Department's port, container, and cargo security programs,
such as CBP's Container Security Initiative (CSI) and Customs-
Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT); the Coast Guard's
port security patrols and facility inspections; Science and
Technology's Cargo Security programs; and the Domestic Nuclear
Detection Office (DNDO). The Committee believes the
Department's port, container, and cargo security capabilities
must evolve to combat new and emerging threats as well as to
support the continuous growth of international trade. To
address this concern, the Committee provides over
$4,185,000,000 across DHS' component agencies, an increase of
$447,800,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006,
and includes stringent performance requirements for the
improvement of the Department's port, container, and cargo
security programs.
The Committee withholds $10,000,000 from the Office of the
Secretary and Executive Management until the Secretary submits
a port, container, and cargo security strategic plan that
comprehensively addresses the role of all Departmental
components in providing for controlled access to U.S. ports,
the integrity of the supply chain, and the physical integrity
of U.S. ports. As part of this plan, the Secretary shall ensure
all inbound cargo is screened through CBP's Automated Targeting
System and shall ensure the percentage of inbound cargo
currently inspected by CBP is doubled. Furthermore, as part of
this plan, the Secretary is directed to ensure, by the end of
fiscal year 2007, the CSI program maintains a one hundred
percent manifest review rate; the C-TPAT program conducts
validations of all new certified partners within the first year
of participation and revalidations of all certified partners
not less than once every three years following initial
validation; and the percentage of inbound, containerized cargo
screened for radiation as of January 1, 2006, is doubled. This
plan must also address how the CSI program is coordinating its
functions with the Department of Energy's Megaports program as
well as how the CSI program is promoting the use of CBP-
approved non-intrusive inspection equipment in all
participating foreign ports. This plan must also include
minimum standards, as established by CBP and the Science and
Technology Directorate, for securing cargo containers from
their point of origin to their arrival in the U.S. and explain
how these standards align with C-TPAT protocols. These cargo
container standards must consist of general guidelines to
industry for securing cargo containers including the most
immediate, practicable standard and the best available,
technological standard under the precepts of the Container
Security Device and Advanced Container Security Device
programs. This strategic plan should also include a detailed
evaluation of cargo inspection systems utilized at high-volume
foreign ports, such as the port of Hong Kong, for their
applicability to CBP's cargo screening and inspection
operations. This strategic plan should also address the
staffing and resource needs of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement for investigations of internal conspiracies and
smuggling organizations, and for enforcement to prevent
criminals and terrorists from penetrating and crippling
critical ports. Finally, this strategic plan must also address
how the implementation of the Transportation Worker
Identification Credential (TWIC) in the maritime environment,
as well as the awarding of port security grants based upon risk
and need, aligns with DHS' port, container, and cargo security
programs. The Committee directs that this plan be submitted to
the House Committee on Appropriations and the House Committee
on Homeland Security.
OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
The Committee recommends $6,000,000 for the Office of
Public Affairs, $808,000 below the President's request and
$2,229,000 below the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006.
Funding has been reduced due to a large number of vacancies
within this office that are estimated to continue through the
remainder of fiscal year 2006 and into fiscal year 2007.
OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
The Committee recommends $5,700,000 for the Office of
Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, $779,000 below the
President's request and $562,000 below the amounts provided in
fiscal year 2006. Funding has been reduced due to a large
number of vacancies within this office that are estimated to
continue through the remainder of fiscal year 2006 and into
fiscal year 2007.
OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL
The Committee is very disappointed that the Office of
General Counsel failed to cooperate with the House
Appropriations Committee Surveys and Investigations staff
during their audit of how funds provided in response to the
Gulf Coast hurricanes were spent. The Office of the General
Counsel delayed the Committee's investigations by two and half
months, engaged in a costly effort to monitor and control the
conduct of staff interviews which resulted in less than a frank
exchange of information, and required legal presence at every
interview regardless of their expertise on the issue. The
Committee expects the Office of General Counsel to be more
responsive in the future and provide the Committee with
unfettered access to information and personnel in a timely
basis. If this obfuscation continues, the Committee will be
unable to fully support the budget request for this office.
TRAINING
The Committee is concerned that there are multiple funding
sources supporting first responder training in both the
Preparedness Directorate and the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA). When the Department was formed, it was to meld
the unique mission of each legacy agency and to develop
comprehensive strategies and training programs. For training,
it is still unclear whether these programs are interrelated or
operate only within their individual agencies. The Committee
directs the Secretary to provide a report, no later than
January 16, 2007, providing an inventory of funds supporting
training in the Preparedness Directorate and FEMA, including a
description of each program, specific measures for success
within each program, and how the programs work together to
provide an integrated approach to training. The Committee
further directs the Secretary to provide a much greater level
of detail on the training programs for the Preparedness
Directorate and FEMA as part of the fiscal year 2008
congressional budget justifications.
BUDGET JUSTIFICATIONS
In fiscal year 2008, the Committee directs that the
Congressional budget justifications for the Office of the
Secretary and Executive Management include the same level of
detail as the table contained in the back of the Committee
report. All funding and staffing changes for each individual
office must be highlighted and explained. The Committee expects
this level of detail to include separate discussions for
personnel, compensation, and benefits; travel; training; and
other services. The Committee urges the Department to make a
better effort to fully explain all new FTEs requested. In many
instances, the fiscal year 2007 submissions only provided a
limited justification for new staff, including
responsibilities, and associated costs.
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 2008. 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 the organization is providing in
fiscal years 2007 and 2008. 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 that all cross-cutting initiatives
funded by multiple DHS organizations 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 explain the
omission.
The Committee expects to be notified promptly of any
additions, deletions, or changes that are made to the WCF
during the fiscal year. Furthermore, the Department should not
fund any activities within the WCF that the House or Senate
Committees on Appropriations have disapproved either in report
language or in their response to reprogramming requests.
For fiscal year 2008, the same level of detailed
information on the WCF is to be provided in the budget
justification document submitted for Departmental Operations
and the corresponding information contained in the salaries and
expenses accounts for each organization that is funding the
WCF. The Department should work with the Committee to ensure
that the budget justifications provide all necessary
information at the appropriate level of detail.
2010 VANCOUVER OLYMPICS
The Committee understands that the 2010 Olympic and
Paralympic Winter Games will be conducted in Vancouver, British
Columbia. The Committee anticipates that these events will
greatly increase the number of people and goods crossing the
border between Washington State and Canada. The Committee
directs the Department of Homeland Security to conduct a
review, in conjunction with appropriate Washington State and
Canadian entities, and to report to the Committee within six
months of enactment of this Act on all relevant issues related
to the Vancouver Olympic and Paralympic Games, including:
expected increases in border flow, necessary enhancements to
border security, estimated border crossing wait times, and any
need for increased border personnel.
Office of Screening Coordination and Operations
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006....................... $3,960,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2007...................... 3,960,000
Recommended in the bill............................... - - -
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006................... -3,960,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2007.................. -3,960,000
MISSION
The Office of Screening Coordination and Operations aims to
improve security screening by creating unified DHS standards
and policies for traveler programs and assists in setting
standards between the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative and
Strategic Prosperity Partnership. Functions of this office
include strategic planning for screening people; developing
standards and coordinating policies; and overseeing DHS
screening programs and credential acquisitions.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee provides no separate appropriation for the
Office of Screening Coordination and Operations. Instead, these
activities are funded in the Office of Policy within the
Offices of the Secretary and Executive Management. While the
Committee was supportive of a separate appropriation for this
work last year, the Department has failed to hire any staff or
obligate any funding during the first eight months of the
fiscal year and finds no justification for maintaining a
separate account for these activities in fiscal year 2007.
Office of the Under Secretary for Management
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006....................... $167,146,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2007...................... 209,138,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 159,489,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006................... -7,657,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2007.................. -49,649,000
MISSION
The Office of the Under Secretary for Management's primary
mission is to deliver quality administrative support services
such as human resources and personnel; facilities, property,
equipment and other material resources management; and
identification and tracking of performance measurements
relating to the responsibility 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 $159,489,000 for the Office of the
Under Secretary for Management, $49,649,000 below the
President's request and $7,657,000 below the amounts provided
in fiscal year 2006. 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.... $2,012,000 $2,012,000
Office of Security................ 58,514,000 51,914,000
Business Transformation Office.... 2,017,000 1,317,000
Office of the Chief Procurement 16,895,000 16,895,000
Officer..........................
Office of the Chief Human Capital 81,276,000 38,927,000
Officer..........................
Office of the Chief Administrative 48,424,000 48,424,000
Officer..........................
-------------------------------------
Total....................... 209,138,000 159,489,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STAFFING ADJUSTMENTS
The President requested 55 new full-time equivalents (FTEs)
under the Office of the Under Secretary for Management,
including 25 FTEs for the Office of Procurement, 15 FTEs for
the Office of the Human Capital Officer to work on the new
human resource management system; 11 FTEs for the Office of
Security; 2 FTEs for the Immediate Office of the Under
Secretary for Management; and 2 FTEs for the Business
Transformation Office. The Committee has fully funded all new
FTEs except for two FTEs requested for the Business
Transformation Office and six FTEs related to the new human
resource management system.
OFFICE OF SECURITY
The Committee recommends $51,914,000 for the Office of
Security, $6,600,000 below the amounts proposed by the
President and $1,149,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal
year 2006. The President's budget assumed an increase in
aviation passenger fees in order to fund this program at the
requested levels. This fee is not within the jurisdiction of
the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee has adjusted
its fiscal year 2007 recommendation for this account
accordingly. The recommended funding level will permit the
Office of Security to annualize the FTEs it began to hire in
fiscal year 2006.
STORAGE OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION
While the Department is taking steps to comply with the
requirement to protect classified information by using GSA-
approved containers and vaults secured with locking mechanisms
that meet the latest federal specifications for storage, its
contractors may not be using these same high security locks and
containers. The Committee is aware that some contractors may
not be upgrading to newer protective measures because they can
charge the costs of supplemental guard services needed to make
up for the use of outdated equipment. While it may be more
costly for contractors to upgrade their security equipment, in
the long run DHS would save a significant amount of money by
not paying for supplemental security costs. The Committee
directs the Office of Security and Office of the Chief
Procurement Officer to work jointly with DHS contractors to
ensure that use of non-GSA approved containers is avoided.
BUSINESS TRANSFORMATION OFFICE
The Committee recommends $1,317,000 for the Business
Transformation Office, $700,000 below the President's request
and $544,000 below the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006.
Funding has been reduced due to a large number of vacancies
within this office that are estimated to continue through the
remainder of fiscal year 2006 and into fiscal year 2007. In
addition, the Committee has denied the two new FTEs requested
for fiscal year 2007. The Committee believes that business
transformation is a temporary function, necessary when the
Department was first established to integrate the functions of
22 legacy agencies. However, this should not be a permanent
office. For fiscal year 2008, the Department shall submit a
more robust budget justification detailing why this office
should continue to receive funding, if necessary, and the
specific tasks it needs to complete before ``transformation''
of DHS is concluded.
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF PROCUREMENT OFFICER
The Department has had numerous procurement problems,
primarily due to the large number of broad contracts awarded
and the lack of appropriate contract oversight. The Committee
supports the Department's efforts to hire more procurement
staff both within this office (25 FTEs) as well as within a
variety of DHS components, including the Customs and Border
Protection, Coast Guard, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the Transportation
Security Administration. The Committee expects the Department
to develop a procurement oversight plan, identifying necessary
oversight resources and how improvements in the Department's
performance of its procurement functions will be achieved. This
plan shall be provided to the House Commitee on Appropriations
and GAO no later than January 16, 2007. The Committee directs
GAO to review this procurement oversight plan and brief the
Committee no later than April 16, 2007 on their analysis.
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF HUMAN CAPITAL OFFICER
The Committee recommends $38,927,000 for the Office of the
Chief Human Capital Officer, $42,349,000 below the President's
request and $416,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year
2006. Of this total, $9,227,000 is recommended for the salaries
and expenses of the Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer
and $29,700,000 for the new human resource system (MAX-HR). The
Committee has denied funding for six new FTEs for the Labor
Relations Board, which directly pertains to the pending
litigation on MAX-HR. In addition, the Committee has held
funding for MAX-HR at the fiscal year 2006 enacted level
because the President's budget assumed an increase in aviation
passenger fees in order to fund this program at the requested
levels. This fee is not within the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Appropriations and the Committee has adjusted its
fiscal year 2007 recommendation for this account accordingly.
DHS HEADQUARTERS
The Committee is dismayed with the Department's haphazard
approach to proposing and requesting funding for DHS
headquarters and a proposed move of the Coast Guard's
headquarters to St. Elizabeth's campus. Since September 11th,
and before this Department was formed, Congress has been
presented a variety of proposals for DHS headquarters that have
neither been well thought out nor fully justified. In the
interim, this Committee has provided a significant amount of
funding for DHS to improve facilities at the Nebraska Avenue
Complex as well as other facilities in the greater Washington,
DC area. Included in the President's budget was a request for
$50,200,000 to relocate the Coast Guard's headquarters from
southwest Washington, DC to the St. Elizabeth's hospital campus
on the east bank of the Anacostia River. In subsequent
briefings on this subject, the Coast Guard and the Department
informed the Committee that this move was the first phase to
move most or all of DHS on to the St. Elizabeth's campus.
However, the Department could not elaborate on the reason why
St. Elizabeth's is the best location for a permanent DHS
headquarters, what other sites had been considered, the costs
of this proposed move, and what agencies would be impacted. The
Committee directs the Department not to move forward with
relocating the Coast Guard's headquarters, or any other DHS
component, until it completes a new headquarters master plan
and submits a prospectus for Congressional review and approval.
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006....................... $19,211,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2007...................... 44,380,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 43,480,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006................... +24,269,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2007.................. -900,000
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 and business management systems
across all agencies and directorates, and credit card programs
and audit liaisons.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $43,480,000 for the Office of the
Chief Financial Officer (CFO), $900,000 below the President's
request and $24,269,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal
year 2006. Within this total, $18,000,000 has been realigned
from the Office of the Chief Information Officer to the Office
of the Chief Financial Officer for the Department's new
financial management system (eMerge2) as proposed in the
budget.
STAFFING ADJUSTMENTS
The President requested 10 new full-time equivalents (FTEs)
to continue to address financial weaknesses highlighted in the
last two audit reports to improve budget execution and perform
more budgetary reviews; to develop timely and accurate
financial data; and to integrate the Department's lines of
business. The Committee has fully funded these new FTEs.
However, a slight reduction was made to the overall funding
requested due to a large number of vacancies within this office
that are estimated to continue through the remainder of the
fiscal year. The funding reduction should not impact activities
of the Appropriations Liaison Office, an office that has
enormously improved the Department's relationship with this
Committee including greater exchange of information on key
policies, programs, initiatives, and budget line items. The
Committee remains extremely pleased with the operations of the
Appropriations Liaison office and directs the Secretary to fill
key vacancies within this office as expeditiously as possible.
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET JUSTIFICATIONS
The Committee directs the Department to submit all of its
fiscal year 2008 budget justifications on the first Monday in
February 2007, concurrent with the official submission of the
President's budget to Congress. This should include all
classified budgets as well as non-classified budgets. These
justifications should have the customary level of detailed data
and explanatory statements to support the appropriations
requests, including tables that detail each agency's programs,
projects, and activities for fiscal years 2007 and 2008. The
Committee directs the CFO to ensure that adequate justification
is given to each increase, decrease, and staffing change
proposed in fiscal year 2008, particularly within the
Departmental operations and management account, the Federal
Emergency Management Agency and the Science and Technology
Directorate. The CFO shall submit, as part of the
justifications, a detailed table identifying the last year that
authorizing legislation was provided by Congress for each
appropriation line; the amount of the authorization; and the
appropriation in the last year of the authorization.
MONTHLY REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
For the past three years, the Department has been directed
to submit to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations
a monthly budget execution report showing the status of
obligations and costs for all components of the Department 45
days after the end of the month. In fact, it is quite common
for the Department to provide information that is over six
months old. For example, the most recent reporting data that
the Committee has is from November 2005--six months old. These
delays are unacceptable and prevent the Committee from
accurately analyzing budgetary needs, particularly when
considering reprogramming and supplemental requests. As a
result, the Committee has included this monthly reporting
requirement in bill language for fiscal year 2007 (Sec. 529).
The Committee also withholds from obligation $10,000,000 until
it is assured that these reports will be submitted on a timely
basis.
Office of the Chief Information Officer
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006....................... $294,257,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2007...................... 323,765,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 364,765,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006................... +70,508,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2007.................. +41,000,000
MISSION
The Office of the Chief Information Officer has oversight
of all information technology projects in the Department. For
projects that are estimated to cost over $5,000,000, the Chief
Information Officer (CIO) is consulted, participates in the
evaluation of proposals, and provides recommendations. The CIO
also has input into the development and execution of each
directorate's information technology budgets.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $364,765,000 for the Office of the
Chief Information Officer, an increase of $41,000,000 above the
President's request and $70,508,000 above the amounts provided
in fiscal year 2006. A comparison of the budget estimate to the
Committee recommended level by budget activity is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salaries and Expenses............. $79,521,000 $79,521,000
Information Technology Services... 61,013,000 61,013,000
Security Activities............... 64,139,000 105,139,000
Wireless Programs................. 86,438,000 86,438,000
Homeland Secure Data Network...... 32,654,000 32,654,000
-------------------------------------
Total, Office of the Chief 323,765,000 364,765,000
Information Officer........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY OVERSIGHT
The Committee recognizes DHS continues to attempt to
coordinate and establish firm links between its component
agencies, which often have well established legacy information
technology (IT) systems, communications, management, and
processes in place. With differing infrastructures among the
components, the Department must work harder to ensure
information sharing occurs between components, investments are
made with an eye toward the Enterprise Architecture, wireless
activities are coordinated, and components make required
investments toward the Information Transformation Program. The
Committee believes that if the Department is to achieve these
goals the Chief Information Officer must have greater oversight
of IT related resources spent by the various components.
Therefore, the Committee directs that no funds be made
available in this Act for obligation for any IT procurement of
$5,000,000 or more without approval of the DHS CIO that the
procurement conforms with the Enterprise Architecture.
SECURITY ACTIVITIES
The Committee recommends $105,139,000 for Security
Activities, $41,000,000 above the President's request and
$86,329,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2006. Of
this total, $41,000,000 is for establishing a mirror data
center.
INFRASTRUCTURE TRANSFORMATION PROGRAM
The Committee recognizes the Department's significant
information management challenges, including a substantial need
to migrate to a unified network and consolidate its many data
centers. The Department is attempting to address these
challenges through its ``Infrastructure Transformation
Program'' (ITP) that will move the 22 legacy information
technology frameworks into a single infrastructure, all with
the aim of unifying operations, reducing costs and redundancy.
However, the Committee is concerned that consolidating to the
single National Center for Critical Information Processing and
Storage (NCCIPS) may lead to a lack of data backup and
recommends additional funding to find a cost effective means to
mirror those data center activities at a separate remote
location.
COMPUTER SECURITY
The Committee is aware that the House Government Reform
Committee has given the Department an ``F'' for computer
security for the third straight year, a grade based on
compliance with the Federal Information Security Management Act
(FISMA). While the Department should be a leader in computer
security, it appears to be lagging behind many other federal
agencies. As the Department has a number of databases that may
include private, corporate or national security sensitive
information, it must make every effort to maintain and protect
this information. The Committee directs the Department to
expedite its compliance efforts and to report on the status,
and each component's status, of compliance and any resources
needed to achieve full compliance with the fiscal year 2008
budget submission. The Committee cautions the Department from
treating the FISMA process, which relies heavily on
documentation of procedures and establishing good operational
practices, as a form filling exercise to simply fulfill the
letter of the law; the Department must devote adequate
resources to address real vulnerabilities and fulfill the
spirit of the law. Further, the CIO and CFO shall jointly
report on the status of the Department and each component in
supporting the mitigation of internal control weaknesses, and
should specifically address the processes being taken to retire
the IT material weakness as it relates to FISMA, as well as any
funds needed to address the material weakness.
Analysis and Operations
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006....................... $252,940,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2007...................... 298,663,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 298,663,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006................... +45,723,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2007.................. - - -
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 $298,663,000 for Analysis and
Operations, the same as the President's request and $45,723,000
above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006.
DIRECTORATE OF OPERATIONS COORDINATION
The Committee denies the Directorate of Operations
Coordination's request to rename itself to the Directorate of
Operations. The Committee believes the Directorate's function
is to support decision makers rather than to direct activities.
HOMELAND SECURITY OPERATIONS CENTER (HSOC)
The House Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the
Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina notes the
Homeland Security Operations Center failed to provide valuable
situational information to the White House and other officials
during the disaster. Subsequent to the President's budget
submission, HSOC and Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
officials have indicated that they will create situational
awareness teams comprised of ICE personnel, possibly
complemented by other DHS agencies. These teams would be
rapidly deployed throughout the country during an event to
provide ``ground truthing'' and situational awareness. The
Committee hopes that these teams will contribute to the ability
of HSOC and DHS to understand conditions that exist in such
fluid and dangerous circumstances. The Committee directs HSOC
and ICE to report not later than January 16, 2007, on the
number and composition of these teams; their locations; their
actual and planned deployments in fiscal years 2006 and 2007;
any impact the establishment of such teams has had on existing
ICE operations; and their associated budgets and staffing
resources, to include the costs of training, equipment,
facilities, vehicles and operations.
INTELLIGENCE AND ANALYSIS
The Committee is encouraged by the leadership put into
place for the Department's Office of Intelligence and Analysis
(IA) and looks forward to learning more about the evolving role
of this office in the intelligence community. The Committee
notes that understanding the threats facing the Nation is
essential for prudent budgeting of scare resources, and directs
IA to continue providing the Committee quarterly threat
briefings.
FUSION CENTERS
The Committee continues to strongly support information
sharing between the intelligence community and the people
responsible for taking action on that intelligence. An emerging
venue for passing information is the ``fusion center''. The
Committee understands that intelligence fusion centers have
been established in a number of metropolitan areas and that the
Department is encouraging expansion of the number of centers
through the use of state or urban area preparedness grant
funding. The Committee directs the Department to report by
January 16, 2007, on the total number of intelligence fusion
centers today, their funding sources and amounts, and where
additional fusion centers are necessary.
STAFFING
The Committee supports IA's recent effort to develop a
staffing, recruitment and training plan. This type of
comprehensive planning should be undertaken elsewhere in the
Department. The Committee expects IA to expend unobligated
personnel resources on recruitment and training, including
fellowships and other tools deemed necessary and to report to
the Committee bi-annually on its efforts.
Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006....................... - - -
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007..................... - - -
Recommended in the bill............................... $3,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006................... +3,000,000
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2007................. +3,000,000
MISSION
The President created the Gulf Coast Rebuilding Office and
designated a Coordinator of Federal support for the recovery
and rebuilding of the Gulf Coast Region by Executive Order
13390 on November 1, 2005. The Coordinator is responsible for
working with State and local officials to identify the priority
needs for long-term rebuilding; communicating those needs to
the decision makers in Washington, D.C.; and advising the
President on the most effective, integrated, and fiscally
responsible Federal strategies for support of the Gulf Coast
recovery.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $3,000,000 for the Office of the
Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding, $3,000,000 above
the President's request and $3,000,000 above amounts provided
in fiscal year 2006. The Committee is concerned to learn that
the Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding
is being supported by appropriations made to the Disaster
Relief Fund as well as funds provided for other purposes within
the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management. The
Committee is extremely concerned by what appears to be a
violation of section 503 of Public Law 109-90 which requires
the Department to send advance notification of the
reprogramming and transfer of funds. Specifically, it appears
that DHS has reprogrammed funds from the Office of the
Secretary and Executive Management in order to fund the Office
of the Federal Coordinator. The Committee was not notified of
this reprogramming and directs the Department to immediately
submit proper notification on the reprogramming of these funds.
FEDERAL MILESTONES IN GULF COAST REBUILDING
In creating the Office of the Federal Coordinator, the
President assigned it responsibility for managing long term
Federal rebuilding efforts. However, the Executive Order
establishing this Office (EO 13390) does not include specific
roles, responsibilities and milestones for the Coordinator. The
Committee is concerned that, absent a specific definition of
the Coordinator's role in Federal response efforts, there can
be no measures of performance either for the Office of the
Federal Coordinator or for federal rebuilding efforts. The
Committee directs the Office of the Coordinator to submit, by
November 1, 2006, a strategic plan for Gulf Coast rebuilding
that defines the objectives of the Office of the Coordinator;
the specific tasks and milestones associated with each
objective; and the goals, policies and programs that constitute
the Federal Response for Gulf Coast rebuilding. The plan shall
also identify specific milestones for each goal of the federal
response as well as estimates of total federal cost by goal and
program.
Office of Inspector General
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006....................... $82,187,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2007...................... 96,185,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 96,185,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006................... +13,998,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2007.................. - - -
MISSION
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 established an Office of
the Inspector General 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 more effective in: (1) preventing
and detecting fraud, waste, and abuse in departmental programs
and operations; (2) providing a means of keeping the Secretary
of Homeland Security and the Congress fully and currently
informed of problems and deficiencies in the administration of
programs and operations; (3) fulfilling statutory
responsibilities for the annual audit of the Department's
financial statements and to ensure security of its information
technology pursuant to the Federal Information Security
Management Act; and (4) reviewing and making recommendations
regarding existing and proposed legislation and regulations to
the Department's programs and operations. According to the
authorizing legislation, the Inspector General is to report
dually to the Secretary of Homeland Security and to the
Congress.
While oversight of DHS disaster response is included in the
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 oversight, the Inspector
General established the Gulf Coast Hurricane Recovery Office to
focus exclusively on preventing problems through a proactive
program of internal control reviews and contract audits to
ensure 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 $96,185,000 for the Office of
Inspector General (OIG), the same as the budget request and
$13,998,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. Of
this total, $11,000,000 is provided to continue and expand
audits and investigations related to Gulf Coast hurricanes and
coordinate work with 23 other federal Inspector General's to
review all federal spending on Gulf Coast relief. The remaining
funding ($2,998,000) will permit the IG to hire five additional
FTEs; investigate allegations of criminal or administrative
misconduct on the part of DHS employees, contractors, or
grantees; provide additional funding for audits of high
priority procurement efforts such as MAX-HR, Deepwater, and US-
VISIT; and provide necessary pay and inflationary increases.
AUDIT REPORTS
The Committee directs the Inspector General to forward
copies of all audit reports to the Committee immediately after
they are issued and to immediately make the Committee aware of
any review that recommends cancellation of, or modification to,
any major acquisition project or grant, or that recommends
significant budgetary savings. The OIG is also directed to
withhold from public distribution for a period of 15 days any
final audit or investigation report which was requested by the
House Committee on Appropriations.
Title II--Security, Enforcement, and Investigations
United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006....................... $336,600,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007..................... 399,494,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 362,494,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006................... +25,894,000
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2007................. -37,000,000
MISSION
The mission of the United States Visitor and Immigrant
Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) program is to enhance
the security of U.S. citizens and visitors; facilitate
legitimate travel and trade; ensure the integrity of the
immigration system; and to 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 $362,494,000 for US-VISIT,
$37,000,000 below the President's request and $25,894,000 above
the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. The President's
budget assumed an increase in aviation passenger fees in order
to fund this program at the requested levels. This fee is not
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations and
the Committee has adjusted its fiscal year 2007 recommendation
for this account accordingly.
The Committee is pleased by initial results coming from the
deployment of US-VISIT assets to the nation's ports of entry.
The program has been deployed to all airports and seaports with
international arrivals and to secondary inspection areas of
land ports of entry. The program reports many instances of
detecting and preventing criminals and other undesirable
individuals from entering the country.
EXPENDITURE PLANS
The Committee denies the Administration's request to remove
requirements on DHS to provide an expenditure plan that has
been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
reviewed by GAO and approved by the Committee before resources
may be obligated. However, in order to ensure that program
management is not disrupted by this expenditure plan
requirement, the Committee recommends $50,000,000 be made
available to the program immediately upon enactment of this
Act, an amount significantly reduced from fiscal year 2006 to
encourage the Department to accelerate completion of future
expenditure plans and other planning documents, such as the US-
VISIT strategic plan.
IAFIS-IDENT INTEROPERABILITY
The Committee is pleased by the Administration's decision
to migrate the US-VISIT program to a ten-fingerprint system--a
major step toward full interoperability of DHS' Integrated
Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) and FBI's
IDENT fingerprint databases. The fiscal year 2006 appropriation
conference report directs the Department to provide cost and
schedule estimates no later than November 20, 2005, so the
results could be incorporated into the fiscal year 2006 US-
VISIT expenditure plan and the fiscal year 2007 President's
Budget. However, the fiscal year 2007 budget did not contain
cost and schedule estimates. The Committee directs the
Department to complete its strategic planning and cost/schedule
estimates so that proper planning and budgeting can be made and
to report on the status of this effort no later than July 1,
2006.
INTERPOL
The Committee has learned that the US-VISIT and other
programs have been working closely with the international
police organization, Interpol. The Committee encourages the
Department to continue to develop this relationship and aid the
development of lost and stolen passport databases and other
activities that will be mutually beneficial to all
participating countries.
Customs and Border Protection
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 \1\................... $4,802,190,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007..................... 5,519,022,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 5,435,310,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006................... +633,120,000
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2007................. -83,712,000\1\ Includes $24,100,000 in emergency appropriations provided in P.L.
109-148.
MISSION
The mission of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is to
protect the borders of the United States by preventing,
preempting and deterring threats against the United States
through ports of entry and to interdict illegal crossing
between ports of entry. CBP's mission integrates homeland
security, safety, and border management in an effort to ensure
that all goods and persons crossing the borders of the United
States do so in accordance with applicable laws and
regulations, while posing no threat to the United States.
Specifically, the priority of CBP is to prevent terrorists and
terrorist weapons from entering the United States, and
supporting related homeland security missions affecting border
and airspace security. CBP is also responsible for apprehending
individuals attempting to enter the United States illegally;
stemming the flow of illegal drugs and other contraband;
protecting our agricultural and economic interests from harmful
pests and diseases; protecting American businesses from theft
of their intellectual property; and regulating and facilitating
international trade, collecting import duties, and enforcing
U.S. trade laws. CBP has a workforce of over 42,000, including
inspectors, pilots and air and marine enforcement officers,
canine enforcement officers, Border Patrol agents, trade
specialists, intelligence analysts, and mission support staff.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $5,435,310,000 for CBP salaries
and expenses, $83,712,000 below the President's request and
$633,120,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006.
This recommendation provides $2,328,954,000 for Border Security
and Control between ports of entry, including $384,547,000 to
hire 1,200 new border patrol agents and facilitate the training
of 2,000 new Border Patrol agents, and $115,000,000 for SBInet.
Costs associated with the training of Border Patrol agents are
adjusted proportionally to the number of new agents supported
in this bill and include a reduction of $3,753,000 which the
Committee includes in the Federal Law Enforcement Training
Center appropriation. As part of the Committee's support of
port, container, and cargo security, $1,694,991,000 is provided
for Border Security Inspections and Trade Facilitation,
including an additional $15,100,000 above the President's
request to facilitate validation and periodic re-validation of
all certified Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-
TPAT) participants. The Committee also provides $162,976,000
for CBP Air and Marine Personnel Compensation and Benefits,
including an additional $3,100,000 to fully staff the Air and
Marine Operations Center (AMOC) and enhance the AMOC's
intelligence and surveillance capabilities. The Committee
provides $1,248,389,000 for CBP's Headquarters, Management, and
Administration, including $4,000,000 for 15 FTEs and contract
support for internal audit controls and procurement staffing.
The Committee reduces the request for CBP's Headquarters,
Management, and Administration by a total of $10,000,000 due to
CBP's poor responsiveness on the submittal of critical reports.
In addition, the Committee's reductions reflect the fact that
the President's budget assumed an increase in aviation
passenger fees in order to fully fund this account. The
Committee notes the aviation passenger fee is not within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations and adjusts the
fiscal year 2007 recommendation for this account accordingly.
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, $663,943,000 $658,943,000
Border Security Inspections
and Trade Facilitation.......
Management and Administration, 594,446,000 589,446,000
Border Security and Control
between Ports of Entry.......
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, Headquarters 1,258,389,000 1,248,389,000
Management and
Administration...........Border Security Inspections and
Trade Facilitation:
Inspections, Trade, and Travel 1,282,102,000 1,282,102,000
Facilitation at Port of Entry
Harbor Maintenance Fee 3,026,000 3,026,000
Collection (Trust Fund)......
Container Security Initiative. 139,312,000 139,312,000
Other international programs.. 8,701,000 8,701,000
Customs Trade Partnership 75,909,000 91,009,000
Against Terrorism/Free and
Secure Trade (FAST)/NEXUS/
SENTRI.......................
Inspection and Detection 94,317,000 94,317,000
Technology Investments.......
Automated Targeting Systems... 27,298,000 27,298,000
National Targeting Center..... 23,635,000 23,635,000
Other Technology Investment, 1,027,000 1,027,000
including information
technology...................
Training...................... 24,564,000 24,564,000
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, Border Security 1,679,891,000 1,694,991,000
Inspections and Trade
Facilitation.............Border Security and Control
between Ports of Entry:
Border Security Control....... 2,243,619,000 2,176,679,000
Border Technology (formerly 131,559,000 - - -
ASI and ISIS)................
Security Border Initiative - - - 115,000,000
Technology and Tactical
Infrastructure (SBInet)......
Training...................... 45,688,000 37,275,000
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, Border Security 2,420,866,000 2,328,954,000
and Control between POEs.Air and Marine Personnel 158,876,000 162,976,000
Compensation and Benefits........
-------------------------------------
Total, Salaries and 5,519,022,000 5,435,310,000
Expenses.............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WORKLOAD AND STAFFING
The Committee is concerned about the balance of CBP
personnel across all of the agency's mission areas. The
Committee directs CBP to submit its staffing model in
conjunction with the fiscal year 2008 budget request. This
model shall address CBP's operational assumptions in requesting
resources per mission component as well as the methodology for
aligning staffing levels to threats, vulnerabilities, and
workload across all mission areas and per port of entry, Border
Patrol sector, and Foreign Trade Zone. This model shall also
address CBP's ability to recruit, hire, and train new Border
Patrol agents and CBP officers. Specifically, this model should
include the FTE history of Border Patrol agents and CBP
officers, including details on attrition rates and training
productivity (number of agents and officers trained per year),
from fiscal year 1995 through the fiscal year 2008 budget
request. This model should also include the funding assumptions
used to formulate all costs associated with the hiring,
training, and deployment of new agents and officers. It is the
Committee's expectation that, in conjunction with addressing
its staffing needs, CBP also evaluate the office and inspection
space needed per port of entry. CBP is directed to report on
office and inspection space per location, specifically
identifying areas of greatest need and CBP's plans to address
such needs. The staffing model and report on office and
inspection space shall be submitted to the House Committee on
Appropriations and the House Committee on Homeland Security.
AIRPORT PROCESSING WAIT TIMES
The Committee is very concerned about an increase in
airport processing wait times and CBP's ability to effectively
process the growing passenger workload at our nation's
airports. The Committee is aware that a number of international
airports are experiencing a significant increase in passenger
volume and wait times, including the International Arrival
Building (IAB) and Federal Inspection Services Station (FIS) at
Washington Dulles International Airport and comparable
facilities at Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport, John
F. Kennedy International Airport, Ontario International
Airport, Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport,
Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport, and Miami
International Airport. CBP is directed to provide quarterly
reports to the House Committee on Appropriations and the House
Committee on Homeland Security no later than 30 days after the
end of the quarter, beginning January 30, 2007, on flight
arrivals by airport that took longer than the 60-minute CBP
standard to process. The report shall include the number of CBP
inspectors processing the flight arrival, flight information,
and the actual maximum wait time per airport. This report
should also include CBP's plans to address the increased
workload at the busiest U.S. airports, as determined by the
volume of passenger traffic, as well as the airports listed
above. In addition, the Committee requests that CBP expand the
wait time information per airport on its web site to include
times of day, similar to the wait time information listed on
the web site of the Transportation Security Administration.
This report shall be submitted to the House Committee on
Appropriations and the House Committee on Homeland Security.
PORT, CONTAINER, AND CARGO SECURITY
The Committee recommends $4,185,000,000 across DHS's
components for port, container, and cargo security, an increase
of $447,800,000 above fiscal year 2006 enacted levels. However,
as stated under the Office of the Secretary and Executive
Management, the Committee is very concerned about the
Department's progress towards securing our nation's ports and
inbound commerce. While CBP is to be commended for its efforts
in establishing multiple, noteworthy security programs, such as
the Container Security Initiative (CSI), Customs-Trade
Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT), and Automated Targeting
System (ATS), sustained, measurable improvement of our nation's
port, container, and cargo security as a whole remains unclear.
To address this concern, the Committee includes bill language
under the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management
requiring the development and submission of a comprehensive
port, container, and cargo security strategic plan.
Within CBP, the Committee provides $1,694,991,000 for port,
container, and cargo security, $15,100,000 above the
President's request and $89,874,000 above the amounts provided
in fiscal year 2006. This fully funds the President's request
and provides an additional $15,100,000 for staffing and
contract support to enhance the validation capabilities of the
C-TPAT program, including the costs of personnel compensation
and benefits, training, validation visits, and contracts for
third-party auditors. Of the funds provided for CBP's port and
commerce security functions, $6,800,000 is included to enhance
the staffing at the National Targeting Center (NTC) by 30 FTEs;
$12,000,000 is included to enhance CBP's radiological detection
staffing by 53 FTEs; and $139,312,000 and 155 FTEs are included
for the CSI program to support expansion of the program to 58
foreign ports and coordination with the Department of Energy's
Megaports program.
The Committee is aware CBP, in cooperation with the DHS
Science and Technology (S&T;) Directorate, has a number of
initiatives underway addressing the security of cargo
containers. As part of the Committee's port, container, and
cargo security initiative and the strategic plan requirement
under the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management, CBP
is directed, in partnership with S&T;, to establish minimum
standards for securing cargo containers and explain how these
standards align with C-TPAT protocols. CBP is also directed to
work with S&T; in accelerating the development of Container
Security Device and Advanced Container Security Device,
including a pilot test of such devices within the C-TPAT
program, if appropriate.
COMBATING NUCLEAR SMUGGLING
The Committee has consistently supported robust efforts to
combat nuclear smuggling and is very concerned about recent GAO
findings (GAO-06-389, ``Combating Nuclear Smuggling, DHS Has
Made Progress Deploying Radiation Detection Equipment at U.S.
Ports-of-Entry, but Concerns Remain''), most notably, the
inability of CBP to verify proper licensing and documentation
for handling and transporting radioactive material. Though CBP
had the technological means to detect this material, they did
not have processes in place to confirm its legitimacy. While
CBP has stated such deficiencies have been addressed, the
Committee believes CBP, through its partnership with the
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO), should be
implementing all practicable technical and procedural measures
to detect and interdict illicit transport of radiological
materials. The Committee is aware of the technological
improvements made by CBP and DNDO and has been an unwavering
supporter of the acquisition of radiological detection and
monitoring systems, as noted elsewhere in this report. The
Committee is also aware of CBP's ongoing work with the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) to address proper licensing
procedures. However, the Committee is troubled by the process
deficiencies identified in GAO-06-389. The Committee directs
CBP to report to the Committee no later than January 16, 2007,
on its process improvements in combating nuclear smuggling,
including CBP's documentation verification capabilities (such
as licenses and governmental documentation) and container
inspection procedures.
IN-BOND CARGO CONTAINER SECURITY PROGRAM
The Committee is pleased to see that CBP is working with
the Science and Technology Directorate to address the security
and control vulnerability presented by in-bond container
shipments that transit the U.S. In support of this program, the
Committee provides $1,027,000, the same as the President's
request and $19,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year
2006. While the emphasis of the study to date has focused on
the 10,000 to 15,000 agricultural shipments that transit the
U.S. for delivery outside the U.S., the Committee reminds CBP
that the program should address all shipments that enter and
move through the U.S. in-bond, not only those carrying
agricultural products.
IMMIGRATION ADVISORY PROGRAM
The Committee believes CBP's Immigration Advisory Program
(IAP) has shown great potential and provides $6,000,000 to
support 21 FTEs, as requested by the President. This program
has placed CBP inspectors at two foreign airports (Warsaw and
Amsterdam) to prevent people who are identified as national
security threats from traveling to the United States, and
proposes to expand to London and Tokyo within fiscal year 2007.
The program has resulted in thousands of intercepts, including
hundreds of smuggling cases, and the saving of millions of
dollars to the U.S. Government in avoided removal and
processing costs. The Committee directs CBP to report on the
performance of the IAP no later than January 16, 2007, to the
House Committee on Appropriations and the House Committee on
Homeland Security.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS INFRINGEMENT
The Committee is concerned about the growing workload
related to the prevention of intellectual property rights (IPR)
infringement. In fiscal year 2005, CBP reported 8,022 IPR
seizures with a domestic value of over $93,200,000. Preliminary
statistics for fiscal year 2006 indicate a projected increase
in this workload of almost fifty percent. The Committee
recognizes the detrimental impact of IPR infringement upon our
nation's economy and is concerned about CBP's ability to
adequately combat this activity. The Committee directs CBP to
submit a detailed report to the Committee no later than January
16, 2007, on the resources devoted to the prevention of IPR
infringement. This report shall include the funding amounts and
FTE devoted to IPR enforcement for fiscal years 2004 through
2007 (projected) as well as a detailed explanation of how CBP
is addressing the growing IPR infringement workload, detailed
by port of entry. This report should also include CBP's
detailed IPR infringement statistics for fiscal years 2000-2007
(projected).
TEXTILE TRANSSHIPMENT ENFORCEMENT
Section 352 of the Trade Act of 2002 authorizes funding for
Customs Service textile transshipment enforcement, and
specifies how the funds be spent. The Committee includes
$4,475,000 to continue this effort and directs CBP to provide a
report, at the time it transmits the fiscal year 2008 budget,
on its actual and projected obligations of this funding, as
well as of funds appropriated for this purpose in fiscal year
2006. The report should include staffing levels in fiscal years
2005-2007, differentiated by position, as authorized in section
352 of the Trade Act of 2002, and include a five-year
enforcement plan.
BORDER SECURITY
As stated under Departmental Management and Operations, the
Committee is supportive of the Secure Border Initiative (SBI)
but is concerned about the absence of a strategic plan for an
issue that has a history of failed, large-scale procurements.
The Committee believes that the submittal and review of a
strategic plan should have been the first step in establishing
the SBI, rather than a haphazard funding request for fiscal
year 2006 followed by a request for a significant increase in
funding for fiscal year 2007. Given the recent failures of the
Integrated Surveillance Intelligence Systems (ISIS) and
America's Shield Initiative (ASI), the Committee remains
skeptical at providing huge sums of money at the persistent
problem of border control--especially without any strategic
justification for why the SBI is any more effective than its
predecessors. Therefore, as stated within the bill and report
under the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management, the
Committee directs the Secretary to submit the SBI strategic
plan to the Committee no later than November 1, 2006.
Despite the concerns stated above, the Committee remains
committed to establishing a comprehensive system within the DHS
border security and immigration components to achieve
operational control of our borders and reform of our
immigration system. To support this effort, the Committee
provides $2,328,954,000 towards CBP's Border Security and
Control beween Ports of Entry, $550,455,000 above the amounts
provided in fiscal year 2006. Of this total, an increase of
$472,329,000 is provided in direct support of core SBI
components, including an increase of $384,547,000 to support
the hiring of 1,200 new Border Patrol agents, the training of
2,000 new Border Patrol agents, and a total Border Patrol
workforce of over 13,580 agents by the end of fiscal year 2007;
an increase of $84,029,000 for the SBInet Technology and
Tactical Infrastructure program; and an increase of $8,500,000
to fund additional operational costs associated with the
Arizona Border Control Initiative. The Committee provides
$5,000,000 for the SBI Program Executive Office under Office of
the Secretary and Executive Management and includes $3,753,000
for training costs for Border Patrol agents under the Federal
Law Enforcement Training Center.
SBINET
The Committee combines funds for tactical infrastructure
and border technology into a new program, project, and activity
entitled ``Secure Border Initiative Technology and Tactical
Infrastructure (SBInet)'' and provides $115,000,000 for this
function. Funds are available until expended. When combined
with unobligated balances in CBP's inspection and detection
technology investments that will be applied toward SBInet at
the end of fiscal year 2006, a total of $215,884,477 is
available for this budget activity. Of the amount provided in
fiscal year 2007, $30,000,000 shall be for the San Diego Border
Infrastructure System. Funds for border technology and tactical
infrastructure in Western Arizona are reduced from the
President's request due to a poor budget justification,
uncertainty surrounding the SBInet procurement, and the absence
of the SBI strategic plan. The Committee is very concerned
about the planning and controls for the SBInet prime integrator
contract and includes bill language withholding $25,000,000
until the Committees on Appropriations receive and approve a
plan for expenditure that is certified by the Department's
Investment Review Board and reviewed by the Government
Accountability Office.
TUNNEL REMEDIATION
The Committee is concerned about the steady increase in the
use of tunnels to smuggle contraband across the U.S. border.
The Committee is aware of the significant costs associated with
the remediation of these tunnels and notes that CBP has not
budgeted for this function. The Committee encourages CBP, in
concert with the SBInet program and the DHS Science and
Technology Directorate, to establish a program for detecting,
and addressing this smuggling tactic and to incorporate the
cost of such a program into future budget submissions.
CBP VEHICLE FLEET MANAGEMENT PLAN
The Committee is extremely disappointed by the content
included in the vehicle management plan dated June 28, 2005 and
submitted in response to the fiscal year 2005 appropriations
bill. The Committee directs CBP to re-submit the Vehicle Fleet
Management plan with the required, detailed, five-year
investment plan across all types of CBP vehicles, no later than
November 1, 2006. The report submitted on June 28, 2005, was
almost five months late and did not fully comply with the
Committee's direction. The report required by this Act should
address the plans, requirements, and milestones for all CBP
vehicles, including off road vehicles, severe off road
vehicles, all terrain vehicles, and high mobility multipurpose
wheeled vehicles as well as the maintenance and logistics
systems to support these vehicles for fiscal years 2007-2011.
The Committee reduces funds provided to CBP's Headquarters,
Management, and Administration by $1,000,000 due to the
insufficient compliance with the fiscal year 2005 requirement.
BORDER PATROL CHECKPOINTS
Bill language is continued prohibiting funds for the site
acquisition, design, or construction of any permanent Border
Patrol checkpoint in the Tucson sector. Customs and Border
Protection is reminded that it must relocate a checkpoint no
more than seven days after its establishment and may not return
to the previous location until at least seven days after
relocation. The intent of this requirement is to foster
randomness and unpredictability in the location of Border
Patrol's checkpoints throughout the Tucson Sector.
CARRIZO CANE
The Committee understands that removal of Carrizo cane from
certain Rio Grande border locations may improve conditions for
Border Patrol operations, and directs CBP to utilize the
resources necessary for this removal if it is determined to be
necessary.
CBP AIR AND MARINE, PERSONNEL, COMPENSATION, AND BENEFITS
The Committee provides $162,976,000 for CBP Air and Marine,
Personnel, Compensation, and Benefits, $3,100,000 above the
President's request and $1,052,000 above the amounts provided
in fiscal year 2006. This fully funds the President's request
for the salaries and expenses of all CBP airwings, including
$2,100,000 for the new Northern Border airwing established in
fiscal year 2006 in Great Falls, Montana. The Committee also
provides an additional $3,100,000 to support 25 FTEs and
enhancements to airspace security monitoring, aerial
surveillance, and intelligence capabilities of the Air and
Marine Operations Center (AMOC). The Committee believes the
AMOC plays a central role in CBP's border security mission and
provides the resources to fully staff and upgrade this
Departmental command and control resource.
The Committee is wholly disappointed by CBP's failure to
submit an Air and Marine recapitalization plan. The Committee
reduces funds provided to CBP's Headquarters, Management, and
Administration by $4,000,000 due to the unacceptably poor
responsiveness on this requirement. CBP is directed to submit a
comprehensive Air and Marine recapitalization plan no later
than November 1, 2006.
Automation Modernization
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006....................... $451,440,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007..................... 461,207,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 451,440,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006................... - - -
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2007................. -9,767,000
MISSION
The Automation Modernization Account includes funding for
major information technology projects for the Bureau of Customs
and Border Protection (CBP). Projects included in this request
are the planned Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) system,
continued support and transition of the legacy Automated
Commercial System (ACS), and technology associated with
integration and connectivity of information technology within
CBP and the Department of Homeland Security.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $451,440,000, for Automation
Modernization, $9,767,000 below the President's request and the
same as amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. This includes
$316,800,000 for the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) and
for International Trade Data System (ITDS). The President's
budget assumed an increase in aviation passenger fees in order
to fund this program at the requested levels. This fee is not
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations and
the Committee has adjusted its fiscal year 2007 recommendation
for this account accordingly.
The Committee denies the Administration's request to remove
requirements on CBP to provide an expenditure plan that has
been approved by OMB, reviewed by GAO and approved by the
Committee before resources can be obligated. However, in order
to ensure that program management is not disrupted by this
expenditure plan requirement, the Committee recommends
$100,000,000 be made available to the program upon enactment of
this Act.
ACE PROGRAM OVERSIGHT
The Committee is pleased that CBP has aggressively moved
forward with deployments of ACE releases. However, the
Government Accountability Office, as part of its review of the
fiscal year 2006 expenditure plan, points out that the program
is still considered risky because operational performance of
deployed releases has been mixed and the relationships among
goals, benefits and desired business outcomes are not visible.
The Committee directs CBP to improve oversight by assuring
releases are ready to proceed beyond critical design and
production readiness review before deployment. Also, CBP shall
ensure ACE aligns its goals, benefits, desired business
outcomes, and performance metrics. Future appropriations
decisions will be affected by CBP progress towards these goals
over the year.
CBP Air and Marine Interdiction, Operations, Maintenance, and
Procurement
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006....................... $396,228,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007..................... 337,699,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 373,199,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006................... -23,029,000
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2007................. +35,500,000
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 the illegal entry of narcotics and other contraband
into the United States. CBP Air and Marine also provides
aviation and marine support for the counter-terrorism efforts
of many other law enforcement agencies.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $373,199,000 for CBP Air and
Marine Interdiction, Operations, Maintenance, and Procurement,
$35,500,000 above the President's request and $23,029,000 below
the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. The Committee
provides an additional $16,000,000 for the P-3 service life
extension program; $5,000,000 for an additional 1,000 P-3
flight hours; $10,000,000 for the missionization of three
manned covert surveillance aircraft; $2,500,000 for unmanned
aerial vehicle (UAV) logistics and communications upgrades; and
$2,000,000 for the replacement of five marine interceptor
boats. As requested by the President, the Committee includes
$7,610,000 for operation and maintenance costs of the multi-
role patrol aircraft and $5,500,000 for the new Northern Border
airwing established in fiscal year 2006 in Great Falls,
Montana.
CBP AIR AND MARINE CONSOLIDATION
It is the Committee's expectation that last year's
consolidation of the Office of Border Patrol air and marine
assets with the Office of Air and Marine Operations (AMO) into
the newly formed ``CBP Air and Marine'', achieves operational
and cost efficiencies that support the full range of homeland
security missions, including counter terrorism, immigration
enforcement, and counter smuggling. The Committee views CBP Air
and Marine as a national strategic asset that should be
deployed accordingly--providing airborne and seaborne law
enforcement support to the air, sea, and land approaches into
the United States; along our northern and southern borders; and
within the confines of our borders, as warranted. While the
Committee strongly supports the increased use of aviation
assets to physically secure our borders, such support should
not come at the expense of other critical homeland security
missions in the source/transit zones and throughout the
nation's interior that are vital, contributing elements of a
comprehensive border security strategy. The Committee expects
this comprehensive approach to be reflected in the required,
but overdue, CBP Air and Marine re-capitalization plan
previously referenced in this report. Furthermore, CBP is
directed to report not later than January 16, 2007 on requests
made in fiscal year 2006 for investigative and surveillance
support, the response to those requests, and any consequences
of reduced support to Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
AERIAL SURVEILLANCE CAPABILITY ENHANCEMENT
The Committee views CBP aerial surveillance capabilities as
a force multiplier for the Department's border security and
port and commerce security missions. Therefore, the Committee
provides aerial surveillance enhancements above the President's
request to include $21,000,000 to increase P-3 operations and
$12,500,000 for manned and unmanned covert surveillance
capabilities along our borders and coastlines. The Committee is
very concerned about the recent crash of CBP's first UAV that
occurred on April 25, 2006 outside of Nogales, Arizona. The
Committee withholds $6,800,000 included within the budget
request for the procurement of a UAV until CBP reports on the
findings of the crash investigation and implications of those
findings for CBP's future UAV operations along the U.S. border
and coastline. The Committee also fully funds the operation and
maintenance costs of the multi-role patrol aircraft and
encourages CBP Air and Marine, as part of its recapitalization
plan, to pursue greater efficiencies and acceleration in the
procurement of the remaining 12 multi-role aircraft.
NATIONAL AIR TRAINING CENTER
The Committee views the National Air Training Center (NATC)
as a training and operational resource for the entire
Department. CBP Air and Marine is encouraged to continue the
NATC's highly successful and cost-effective computer based
instruction and simulation program and to complete the planned
NATC hangar expansion.
HELICOPTER PROCUREMENT
The Committee directs CBP to provide, as part of the fiscal
year 2008 budget justification, a comparison of the costs and
benefits of leasing and purchasing helicopters for the purpose
of operational testing and evaluation. This report should
include detailed comparisons over the last five years, as
available, and should also address the procurement of light
observation helicopters and light enforcement helicopters
scheduled in fiscal years 2006 and 2007.
Construction
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 \1\................... $277,700,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007..................... 255,954,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 175,154,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006................... -102,546,000
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2007................. -80,800,000\1\ Includes $10,400,000 in emergency appropriations provided in P.L.
109-148.
MISSION
The construction account funds the planning, design, and
assembly of Border Patrol infrastructure, including border
stations, checkpoints, temporary detention facilities, mission
support facilities, and tactical infrastructure such as
fencing, vehicle barriers, lighting, and road improvements at
the border.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $175,154,000 for Construction,
$80,800,000 below the President's request and $102,546,000
below the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. Funds for
tactical infrastructure in support of the SBI are provided
under the SBInet program, project, and activity within the CBP
Salaries and Expenses account. CBP is encouraged to consolidate
funding for Border Patrol tactical infrastructure within the
SBInet budget activity in future budget submissions.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 \1\................... $3,090,414,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007..................... 3,902,291,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 3,843,257,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006................... +752,843,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007................. -59,034,000\1\ Includes $13,000,000 in emergency appropriations provided in P.L.
109-148.
MISSION
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is the lead
agency responsible for enforcement of immigration laws, customs
laws, and Federal facilities security. ICE protects the United
States by investigating, deterring, and detecting threats
arising from the movement of people and goods into and out of
the United States. ICE consists of more than 15,000 employees
within four major program areas: Office of Investigations,
Federal Protective Service, Office of Intelligence, and
Detention and Removal Operations.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $3,843,257,000 for Salaries and
Expenses, $59,034,000 below the President's request and
$752,843,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006.
This reflects an increase of $275,000,000 over fiscal year 2006
for detention bed space and related transportation and removal
efforts associated with the Secure Border Initiative. It also
reflects a decrease in $4,444,000 requested for basic training
for additional Deportation Officers and Immigration Enforcement
Agents, which the Committee includes in the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center appropriation. The Committee adds
$57,100,000 in program increases as follows: $33,400,000 for an
additional 70 fugitive operations team members; $13,700,000 for
financial and trade investigations to support the Trade
Transparency Initiative; $1,000,000 to fund ICE participation
in the Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center; $5,000,000 to
fund 20 additional Alternatives to Detention positions and
expand the Intensive Supervisory Appearance Program from ten to
twelve cities; and $4,000,000 and 40 positions to expand the
Criminal Alien Program. The Committee recommendation includes
$5,000,000, the same as the fiscal year 2006 level, for memory
and technology support for the Cyber Crimes Center. The
recommendation reflects a reduction from the President's
request for Custody Management and Transportation and Removal
of $111,690,000, in part due to inadequate information about
the Department's detention management plan, and budget
constraints caused by the increase to aviation passenger fees
included in the President's budget. This fee is not within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations and the
Committee has adjusted its fiscal year 2007 recommendation for
this account accordingly.
The President's request proposed a budget structure that
would spread Headquarters and information technology costs
across other programs, projects and activities (PPAs). The
Committee prefers the existing PPA budget structure. A
comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee recommended
level by budget activity is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Headquarters management and
administration:
Personnel compensation and - - - $131,287,000
benefits, services and other
costs........................
Headquarters managed IT - - - 134,015,000
investment...................
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, headquarters - - - 265,302,000
management and
administration...........
Legal proceedings................. 206,511,000 187,353,000
Investigations:
Domestic...................... 1,456,650,000 1,317,992,000
International................. 104,744,000 105,181,000
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, investigations.. 1,561,394,000 1,423,173,000
Intelligence...................... 57,932,000 51,379,000
Detention and removal operations:
Custody operations............ 1,432,702,000 1,291,220,000
Fugitive operations........... 173,784,000 199,853,000
Criminal alien program........ 110,250,000 105,357,000
Alternatives to detention..... 42,702,000 46,145,000
Transportation and removal 317,016,000 273,475,000
program......................
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, detention and 2,076,454,000 1,916,050,000
removal operations.......
=====================================
Total, ICE salaries 3,902,291,000 3,843,257,000
and expenses.........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURE BORDER INITIATIVE
The Committee supports the aim of the Secure Border
Initiative (SBI): to gain control over our borders and the
people, conveyances, and cargo that cross them. The SBI will
involve many ICE components ranging from intelligence,
investigations, training, legal proceedings, and detention and
removal operations. The Administration requests an increase of
$541,000,000 to cover such enhancements. However, because the
SBI began in the middle of an appropriations cycle, the
Committee has not received a detailed strategy, as noted
previously in this report under Departmental Management and
Operations, and as would be expected for such a major
enterprise. For interior enforcement, the Department recently
announced its ``comprehensive immigration enforcement
strategy.'' While this strategy is comprehensive in scope, its
aim--to ``reverse the tolerance'' for illegal immigration--does
not satisfy criteria called for in the fiscal year 2006
appropriation bill to reduce the illegal alien population by 10
percent per year. The Committee expects the SBI strategy to be
linked to this goal.
The Committee funds increases for enhanced worksite and
compliance enforcement and investigations; legal proceedings;
fugitive operations; and training, to address acknowledged gaps
in interior enforcement. As the Department has yet to supply
the immigration enforcement strategy directed by Congress in
fiscal year 2006, the Committee does not fully fund the
President's request for detention, removal and transportation
operations, providing an increase of $275,000,000 instead of
$387,000,000 as proposed by the President.
DETENTION MANAGEMENT AND CONSOLIDATION
In April 2006 the Committee received the cost and benefit
analysis of a national contract approach to ICE detention
management--a year after the report was due. That report
expressed reservations about a specific approach to detention
contracting, but did indicate that ICE was looking at
consolidation and possible regional approaches to its
operations. The Committee expects ICE to demonstrate it is
making the best possible use of detention funding. The
Committee continues to await a report on the national detention
management plan called for in the fiscal year 2006
Appropriations Act, and notes that $5,000,000 remains
unavailable for obligation until such a plan is submitted. As
ICE has indicated its intention of moving to a more
consolidated regional approach, the Committee expects that the
forthcoming report will address mechanisms to accomplish this,
including the use of regional contracts for integrated
detention services. The Committee believes advances in
Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) should include both
organizational and technology elements, such as a ``hoteling''
system to manage bedspace. The Committee also urges ICE to give
consideration to regional pilots that might test concepts for
consolidation and possibly accelerate the process of
streamlining DRO operations.
ALIEN ABSCONDERS
One goal of the SBI with which the Committee strongly
agrees is to reduce the number of ``absconders'', those who
disappear after failing to comply with removal orders or are
ordered removed in absentia, now estimated to be 558,000, and
growing by 40,000 per year. The Department has requested
funding for 70 teams in fiscal year 2007, an increase of 18,
and estimates that these will apprehend 24,125 absconders in
fiscal year 2007. This represents an average of 460
apprehensions per team with a ``performance target'' of 1,000
per team. This good start will slow the increase, but not
reduce the number of absconders. Therefore, the Committee
recommends an additional $33,400,000 for ten more fugitive
operations teams--for a total of 80--with associated bed space.
While this increase will not eliminate the absconder problem,
it will accelerate progress toward the SBI goal of 100 teams,
and speed up apprehension and removal of absconders. The
Committee wishes to see ICE achieve the performance target for
fugitive operations, and directs ICE to report not later than
January 16, 2007, on steps it is taking, including improving
systems, equipment, management and intelligence, and any
additional resources needed, to make progress towards this
goal. This report shall be provided to the House Committee on
Appropriations and the House Committee on Homeland Security.
CRIMINAL ALIEN PROGRAM
ICE estimates that 551,000 alien criminals in U.S. jails
and prisons have not been identified for removal, and another
275,000 are at large. While ICE must certainly be prudent as it
absorbs a substantial increase in funding to grow the Criminal
Alien Program (CAP), there is still a sizeable population of
criminal aliens yet to be addressed. Of particular concern are
aliens held in State and local facilities, who may be held for
only a matter of days and released before ICE is aware of their
presence. The Committee thus urges ICE to take the necessary
steps to ensure removal or detention of this population before
they are released into communities. The Committee recommends an
additional $4,000,000 to accelerate CAP efforts, including
completing its transfer to Detention and Removal Operations.
WORKSITE ENFORCEMENT AND INVESTIGATIONS OF CIVIL VIOLATIONS
The President's request more than doubles the fiscal year
2006 funding level to strengthen ICE enforcement of immigration
laws affecting employers and worksites. The Committee strongly
endorses this effort as critical to a comprehensive approach to
deterring illegal immigration. In fiscal year 2006, the
Committee provided $9,000,000 for additional Immigration
Enforcement Agents (IEAs) to be dedicated to investigating
employers' civil violations of immigration law. The Committee
intended that increasing these investigative resources for
administrative or civil sanctions would permit criminal
investigators to pursue more complex criminal cases. Instead of
following this direction, the Department reported in February
that it intends to use IEAs in support of the CAP. In addition,
for worksite enforcement, in lieu of IEAs, ICE plans to use
civilian forensic auditors to undertake regulatory action and
case preparation for civil worksite and employer cases. These
plans are contrary to Committee direction and the intended use
of appropriations. The Department is directed to take no action
until a reprogramming has been submitted and approved in
accordance with section 503 of Public Law 109-90.
ALTERNATIVES TO DETENTION
The Alternatives to Detention program addresses aliens who
are not mandatory detainees, but are deemed unlikely to appear
at their immigration hearings. Programs for electronic
monitoring devices and telephonic reporting, and especially the
Intensive Supervision Appearance Program (ISAP), contribute to
more effective enforcement of immigration laws at far less cost
($22/night) than for detention ($95/night). The first full year
of the ISAP program has seen significant success, with 94
percent of participants in the eight pilot cities appearing at
immigration proceedings, compared to 34 percent for non-ISAP
participants. In at least one case, the results showed a 98
percent appearance rate, a much higher rate of compliance with
court orders, and gained Executive Office of Immigration Review
agreement to expedite such cases. The Committee recommends an
additional $5,000,000 for this promising program, with the
expectation that it be expanded to at least two more cities.
SBI AND IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT COOPERATION WITH STATE AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
The burgeoning undocumented alien population places a
burden on State and local law enforcement agencies, which lack
authority and resources needed to enforce federal immigration
law. The problem is particularly acute in border communities
and major trafficking routes in the Southwest and urban areas
but the Committee is also aware that encounters with illegal
aliens are commonplace nationally and can overwhelm small law
enforcement organizations. at their destinations within
America's heartland as well. This is exacerbated in areas where
there is no ICE or Border Patrol presence, and has frustrated
local law enforcement agencies who believe this gap adds to
local crime problems and poses a homeland security
vulnerability.
Some relief may come from SBI funding the Committee has
added to target fugitive and criminal aliens, but the SBI must
have a more comprehensive goal--to achieve a cooperative
federal, State and local capacity to enforce immigration law at
entry points, corridors of transit, and destination points. To
this end, the Committee supports expanding the use of the
287(g) program to train State and local law enforcement,
enhancing the Law Enforcement Support Center, and establishing
federal, State and local Border Enforcement and Security Task
Forces (BEST). In particular, joint efforts such as BEST help
leverage the resources of all agencies, enable better State and
local participation in enforcement efforts, relieve pressures
on communities, and help this immigration enforcement gap. In
addition, further relief will come when ICE can promptly assume
custody, process and detain illegal aliens encountered by State
and local law enforcement, where appropriate.
The Committee therefore directs DHS, as part of the SBI, to
examine the potential of establishing joint operations in high
intensity immigration trafficking and smuggling areas,
comparable to existing programs directed at countering drugs
and money laundering, and submit findings and implementation
options for such a program to the Committee not later than
January 16, 2007. The Committee also directs ICE, working with
the Department, to include as an SBI performance criterion the
requirement that ICE respond fully to State and local requests
for immigration enforcement operational assistance. Finally,
the Committee encourages ICE to not limit SBI's initial
implementation to border control only, but also to develop an
integrated plan that concurrently phases in actions to place
pressure on destinations where illegal aliens seek to find
employment.
CBP AIR AND MARINE SUPPORT
In fiscal year 2005 Congress funded transfer of the former
Air and Marine Operations division of ICE to Customs and Border
Protection (now CBP Air and Marine) and directed it, as a
Departmental asset, to continue to provide critical
investigative and surveillance missions for ICE. The Committee
is displeased to hear that CBP and ICE have been unable to
reach agreement on how this can best be done, with the result
being a failure to maintain this support. The Committee directs
the Department, ICE and CBP to rectify this apparent
dysfunctional situation immediately, and directs ICE to report
not later than January 16, 2007, on requests made in fiscal
year 2006 for operational support, the response to those
requests, and any consequences of reduced support to ICE.
TRADE TRANSPARENCY INITIATIVE
ICE, together with CBP and the Departments of State and
Treasury, has mounted a new initiative focused on trade-based
money laundering through a new Trade Transparency Unit (TTU).
The TTU focuses on the laundering of millions of dollars
through seemingly legitimate trade, employing analytic tools,
intelligence, and reciprocal information sharing with foreign
governments. The initial success of this program has been
followed by requests from foreign governments for more
cooperative efforts and data sharing to stop such fraud, and
demonstrates the potential of TTU to block criminal and
potentially terrorist financing and to facilitate new and
productive law enforcement arrangements in key countries. The
Committee recommends providing $13,700,000 to fund the TTU, to
include the cost of 34 full time equivalents (FTEs), equipment,
materials and facilities. The Committee directs ICE to submit a
detailed report on the performance of the TTU with its fiscal
year 2008 budget submission.
HUMAN SMUGGLING AND TRAFFICKING CENTER
The Committee commends ICE for its role as director of the
Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center, an interagency joint
intelligence fusion center focused specifically on human
smuggling and human trafficking. To ensure that ICE can carry
out this effort to reduce the number of victims of such
despicable crimes, the Committee recommends providing
$1,000,000 to fully fund ICE costs to support the Center.
CYBER CRIMES CENTER
The Cyber Crimes Center (C3) has made significant
contributions in the investigations of crimes committed over
the Internet, operating through its child exploitation,
computer forensics, and cyber crimes sections. C3 has
experienced swiftly growing workload and a growing demand for
skills and technology to analyze data encountered in criminal
and homeland security investigations. The Committee recommends
maintaining the funding level of $5,000,000 for continued
expansion of C3 data storage and processing capacity to support
ICE operations nationwide.
287(G) PROGRAM
The Committee continues to support the voluntary
participation of state, local and tribal law enforcement in
immigration enforcement, as authorized under section 287(g) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act. In fiscal year 2006 the
Committee provided $5,000,000 in support of this program,
including the training of participants. Currently, 7 State and
local law enforcement entities participate, with another 11
requesting to participate. The Committee includes $5,400,000 in
fiscal year 2007, as requested, to continue these efforts. The
Committee expects training to be provided efficiently and cost-
effectively. Furthermore, the Committee encourages ICE to
optimize its efforts through use of law enforcement sensitive,
secure, encrypted, Web-based e-learning, and including, where
appropriate, working with the Distributed Learning Program of
the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, and to provide
basic immigration enforcement training, mentoring and updates
as appropriate.
WORKLOAD AND STAFFING
While the Committee recognizes that ICE has been undergoing
rapid organizational change and growth, it is concerned that
ICE achieve balance in its staffing and mix of personnel across
all of the agency's mission areas. The Committee directs ICE to
submit its staffing model in conjunction with the fiscal year
2008 budget request. This model shall address ICE operational
assumptions in requesting resources per mission component as
well as the methodology for aligning staffing levels to
threats, vulnerabilities, and workload across all mission areas
and per field office. The staffing model shall be submitted to
the House Committee on Appropriations and the House Committee
on Homeland Security.
ENFORCEMENT AND DETENTION OPERATIONS IN THE CARIBBEAN
The Committee is very concerned about illegal immigration
in the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, and the mix of
Departmental resources available to address it. The Committee
agrees with DHS that the apparent volume of illegal immigration
and drug smuggling is lower than seen on the mainland,
especially the Southwest Border, and that it is preferable to
catch smugglers, traffickers and illegal immigrants while at
sea. Moreover, the islands pose a special degree of criminal
and terrorism risk unlike that seen on the mainland, due to the
wide variety of nationalities in the region; the ease with
which smugglers and illegal immigrants can reach U.S. territory
and blend into island communities; and the simplicity of travel
to the mainland. The Committee is unconvinced that ICE staffing
adequately addresses both immigration and other criminal
activities, as there is virtually no detention capacity or
personnel in the Virgin Islands, exacerbated by a lack of
Border Patrol presence. As a result, criminal investigators are
diverted from their core missions to pursue complex smuggling,
trafficking or other criminal cases, and are compelled to
detain, process and escort illegal aliens--operations better
suited and more efficiently done by Detention and Removal
personnel.
The Committee is aware that former Department of Defense
facilities on the islands are being considered by DHS as
possible co-location facilities for ICE and other DHS agencies.
This offers a potential for improving the detention capacity
now lacking. The Committee directs ICE to investigate such
options and keep the Committee informed of progress in gaining
such capacity and potential efficiencies. The Committee also
directs ICE to work with the Department to seek an appropriate
balance of personnel to fully support the ICE investigative
mission and ensure effective immigration enforcement on both
the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico.
DETAINEE BONDS AND TIMELY INFORMATION ON REMOVAL ORDERS
The Committee understands that ICE has no duty to notify
holders of cash or surety bonds (obligors) that an alien
released on bond has been ordered removed. ICE has pointed out
that obligors, in accepting the terms of bonds, agree to
produce aliens when so requested by ICE for hearings, removal
or other reasons. ICE therefore believes that obligors have a
duty to be aware of circumstances regarding the compliance,
residence and activity of any alien for whom a bond is held,
and no notification should be required. Furthermore, ICE notes
that bondholders can get information regarding the status or
disposition of alien cases by contacting the immigration courts
directly. On the other hand, bondholders argue that routine
notification of removal orders could better enable them to
fulfill their obligations to produce aliens when requested for
hearings or removal. While the Committee believes both
arguments have merit, it notes that ICE operations depend on
the significant funding derived from breached bonds, and
directs ICE to submit a report with the fiscal year 2008 budget
request describing actions it is taking or proposes to improve
information sharing and cooperation with bondholders, including
incentives to reduce the absconder population.
TEXTILE TRANSSHIPMENT ENFORCEMENT
Section 352 of the Trade Act of 2002 authorizes funding for
Customs Service textile transshipment enforcement, and
specifies how the funds be spent. The Committee includes
$4,475,000 to continue this effort and directs ICE to provide a
report, at the time it transmits the fiscal year 2008 budget,
on its actual and projected obligations of this funding, as
well as of funds appropriated for this purpose in fiscal year
2006. The report should include staffing levels in fiscal years
2005-2007, differentiated by position, as authorized in section
352 of the Trade Act of 2002, and include a five-year
enforcement plan.
The Committee directs ICE to submit a Vehicle Fleet
Management plan, with a detailed, five-year investment plan
across all types of ICE vehicles, with its fiscal year 2008
budget submission. This should include the age and mileage of
vehicles in use by the Office of Investigations, Intelligence,
and Detention and Removal Operations, and any investment plans,
requirements, and milestones for the ICE fleet.
LEGAL ORIENTATION PROGRAM
The Department has reported that the legal orientation
program, run by the Executive Office of Immigration Review
(EOIR) of the Department of Justice, improves judicial
efficiency in detention cases, with cases likely to be
completed faster, resulting in fewer hearings and less time in
detention. In recent years, EOIR has funded this program with
transfers from ICE, and $2,000,000 remains in the ICE base, as
requested by the President. The Committee supports the
continuation of this program, and therefore does not reduce
this funding; however, it directs ICE and the Department to
work with EOIR to see that any future funding is included in
the appropriations requests for the Department of Justice, as
directed by the fiscal year 2006 Appropriations Act.
UNACCOMPANIED ALIEN MINORS
The Committee is concerned by reports that unaccompanied
alien children are not routinely transferred from DHS custody
to the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) within the three-
to-five day timeframe provided in the 1996 Flores Settlement
agreement, and are being held in unacceptable conditions (e.g.,
Border Patrol stations or jail-like facilities) for many days.
The Committee directs ICE to contact ORR immediately upon
apprehension of such children, explore the possible transfer of
responsibility for transporting such children from DHS to ORR,
continue its negotiations with ORR to resolve their differences
over processing and transfer of custody, encourage
establishment of ORR facilities near DHS detention facilities,
and otherwise ensure that ORR gains custody within 72 hours.
The Committee directs ICE to consider using holistic age-
determination methodologies recommended by medical and child
welfare experts, which take into account a child's physical
appearance and psychological maturity to determine the age of
the child when it is uncertain, rather than relying exclusively
on forensic evidence. The Committee is also concerned about the
dearth of repatriation services for unaccompanied alien
children who are removed from the United States to face
uncertain fates in their homelands. The Committee urges the
Department, in consultation with the Department of State and
ORR, to develop policies and procedures to ensure the safe
repatriation of these children to their home countries,
including placement with their families or other sponsoring
agencies.
DETENTION CONDITIONS
The Committee is concerned with recent reports of possible
deficiencies in the health care at some ICE detention
facilities. The Committee directs ICE to report by January 16,
2007, on all activities undertaken to ensure compliance with
detention standards, including how ICE monitors compliance.
SEPARATION OF FAMILIES
The Committee remains concerned about reports that children
apprehended by DHS, some as young as nursing infants, continue
to be separated from their parents. The Committee encourages
ICE to work with reputable non-profit organizations to consider
allowing family units to participate in the Intensive
Supervision Appearance Program, where appropriate, or, if
detention is necessary, to house these families together in
non-penal, homelike environments until the conclusion of their
immigration proceedings.
Federal Protective Service
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006....................... $487,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007..................... 516,011,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 516,011,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006................... +29,011,000
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2007................. - - -
MISSION
The Federal Protective Service (FPS) is responsible for the
protection of federally owned and leased buildings, property,
and personnel, in particular in federal public buildings and
other areas under the charge and control of the General
Services Administration (GSA). FPS is also responsible for the
enforcement of laws enacted for the protection of persons and
property, the prevention of breaches of peace, suppression of
affrays or unlawful assemblies, and enforcement of any rules
and regulations made and promulgated jointly by the Department
of Homeland Security and the GSA. This authority can also be
extended, by agreement, to any area with a significant federal
interest. Funding for the FPS is provided through a security
fee charged to all building tenants in FPS protected buildings.
FPS has major law enforcement initiatives, including:
Protection Services to all Federal facilities throughout the
United States and its territories; and Special Programs for
hazardous material detections and response, including Weapons
of Mass Destruction (WMD) detection, and explosive detection
canine programs. The FPS mission focuses on reducing
vulnerability of federal facilities to criminal and terrorist
threats, while ensuring that public facilities are safe and
secure.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $516,011,000, the same as the
President's request and $29,011,000 above the amounts provided
in fiscal year 2006.
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
The Committee is aware that, in light of the transition of
FPS from the General Services Administration (GSA) to ICE,
elements of weakness in payroll, procurement and financial
controls became apparent. Symptomatic of this were many cases
of delays in recording invoices and paying for security guard
services. As a result, ICE has been devoting significant
resources and staff to analyzing and auditing FPS, to ensure
that FPS financial management is effective, beyond reproach,
and not adversely affecting FPS missions. In addition to
establishing an independent capacity to manage and account for
its finances, FPS is undergoing reorganization from the GSA
regional structure to a four-region structure, with attendant
changes in financial offices. ICE is directed to keep the
Committee fully informed of progress in stabilizing FPS
procurement and accounting systems.
Automation Modernization
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006....................... $39,749,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007..................... - - -
Recommended in the bill............................... - - -
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006................... -39,749,000
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2007................. - - -
MISSION
The Automation Infrastructure Modernization Account funds
major information technology (IT) projects for U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends no funding for Automation
Modernization as requested by the President and $39,749,000
below the amount provided in fiscal year 2006. While the
Committee does not provide funding for this program, it
recognizes ICE's considerable need to modernize its IT assets.
However, the Administration has not been able to produce
expenditure plans that will allow the program to obligate
appropriated resources in a timely manner. The Committee urges
the Administration to expedite review of any future expenditure
plans.
Construction
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006....................... $26,281,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007..................... 26,281,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 26,281,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006................... - - -
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2007................. - - -
MISSION
The Construction account funds the planning, design,
construction, equipment and maintenance for ICE-owned buildings
and facilities.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $26,281,000 for Construction, as
requested by the President and the same level as appropriated
in fiscal year 2006.
Transportation Security Administration
Aviation Security
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006....................... $4,561,312,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007..................... 4,654,884,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 4,704,414,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006................... +143,102,000
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2007................. +49,530,000
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 $4,704,414,000 for Aviation
Security, $49,530,000 above the President's request and
$143,102,000 above amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. In
addition to the amounts appropriated, a mandatory appropriation
of $250,000,000 is available to support the Aviation Security
Capital Fund. Funds 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.............. $3,685,866,000 $3,740,866,000
Aviation security direction and 969,018,000 963,548,000
enforcement......................
Aviation security capital fund\1\. 250,000,000 250,000,000
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, aviation security... $4,654,884,000 $4,704,414,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 has assumed the collection of
$2,420,000,000 in aviation security user fees in addition to
the $250,000,000 in aviation security user fees that are
deposited in the Aviation Security Capital Fund. The Committee
assumes that, of this total, $1,874,000,000 shall be collected
from aviation passengers and $546,000,000 shall be collected
from airlines. The airline amount assumes the collection of
retroactive fees for fiscal years 2005 and 2006, following the
release of the Government Accountability Office's audit on this
subject. Unless a rulemaking is issued that changes the current
air carrier billings, the Committee assumes that $448,000,000
will be collected in 2007 and future fiscal years. The
Committee cannot support the budget request to increase
passenger security fees from a two-tiered to a flat fee of
$5.00. While the fee increase was proposed as a General
Provision in the President's fiscal year 2007 appropriations
request, amending existing aviation security law falls under
the jurisdiction of the House Homeland Security Committee.
Until the authorizing Committee passes legislation to enact
this fee increase, this Committee is unwilling to adopt this
budget proposal. In order to make up for the shortfall in the
President's budget brought upon by this untenable fee proposal,
the Committee has reduced or deleted key funding proposals
throughout the Department, including funding within the Office
of the Assistant Secretary, as discussed throughout this
report.
SCREENING OPERATIONS
The Committee recommends $3,740,866,000 for passenger and
baggage screening operations, $55,000,000 above the President's
request and $171,483,000 above amounts provided in fiscal year
2006. While TSA refers to the screener workforce as
``Transportation Security Officers'', for the purpose of this
bill and report, these personnel are referred to as ``passenger
and baggage screeners''. A comparison of the budget estimate to
the Committee recommended level by budget activity is as
follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Screener Workforce:
Privatized screening.......... $148,600,000 $148,600,000
Passenger and baggage 2,470,200,000 2,470,200,000
screeners, personnel,
compensation and benefits....
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, screener 2,618,800,000 2,618,800,000
workforce................
Screening training and other...... 244,466,000 244,466,000
Human resource services........... 207,234,000 207,234,000
Checkpoint support................ 173,366,000 173,366,000
EDS/ETD Systems:
EDS purchase.................. 91,000,000 136,000,000
EDS installation.............. 94,000,000 94,000,000
EDS/ETD maintenance........... 234,000,000 234,000,000
EDS/ETD refurbishment......... - - - 10,000,000
Operation integration......... 23,000,000 23,000,000
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, EDS/ETD systems. 442,000,000 497,000,000
=====================================
Total, screening $3,685,866,000 $3,740,866,000
operations...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRIVATIZED SCREENING
The Committee recommends $148,600,000 for privatized
screening, the same level as requested and $10,343,000 above
the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. The Committee
continues to be surprised that only six airports have opted to
use non-federal screeners. The Committee strongly encourages
TSA to look at innovative ways that airports may employ private
screeners, for example in hybrid situations to screen air cargo
or to backfill at airports that may be experiencing significant
attrition with their federal screeners. If additional airports
are not interested in privatization, either fully or partially,
or airports currently participating in the privatized screening
program decide to begin using federal screeners during the
fiscal year, TSA is directed to notify the Committees on
Appropriations ten days prior to these changes occurring. After
that time period has expired, TSA shall adjust its program,
project, and activity line to account for changes in privatized
screening contracts and screener personnel, compensation, and
benefits to reflect the changing status of these contracts.
PASSENGER AND CHECKED BAGGAGE SCREENERS
The Committee recommends $2,470,200,000 for passenger and
checked baggage screeners, the same level as requested and
$100,583,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006.
The Committee continues bill language that limits the
number of screeners to no more than 45,000 full-time
equivalents on its payroll at the end of fiscal year 2007, the
same provision that has been included since 2004. The Committee
is pleased that the President's request supports a maximum of
45,000 screeners. However, the Committee continues to believe
that, without this language, TSA may increase their dependence
on people for screening instead of procuring and deploying more
advanced technologies that can screen faster and more
accurately for weapons and explosives. This cap is retained, in
part, to ensure TSA accelerates installation of additional
explosive detection systems (EDS) in line or at the ticket
counters and deployment of the latest technologies at passenger
screening checkpoints. This language permits the agency to
realign its workforce as necessary and provides the agency with
the flexibility to hire screeners during the fiscal year at
those airports where additional or replacement screeners are
necessary to maintain aviation security and customer service.
DECENTRALIZATION OF SCREENER HIRING
The Committee applauds TSA's efforts to decentralize the
screener hiring process but has heard that this hiring
continues to be encumbered due to the fact that funding has not
been decentralized. The Committee directs TSA to report on how
decentralized screener hiring is being instituted in light of
this discrepancy by January 16, 2007.
SCREENING WAIT TIMES
The Committee is concerned that screening wait times vary
disproportionately by airport. The Committee directs TSA to
review screening wait times over the past three years to
identify airports with wait times consistently above average.
This study should be provided to the Committee with the fiscal
year 2008 budget request.
CHECKPOINT SUPPORT
The Committee recommends $173,366,000 for checkpoint
support, the same amount as requested and $10,016,000 above
amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. Because of the growth in
airline traffic and the emergence of new technologies at
checkpoints that can better identify explosives and concealed
weapons, the Committee strongly endorses TSA's plan to purchase
and field test a variety of emerging technologies such as
automated EDS for carry-on bags; automated explosive spot
samplers; whole body imagers; and cast/prosthetic scanners. To
date, TSA has installed 70 explosive trace portals at 27
airports and plans to install next-generation checkpoint
technologies, such as explosive spot samplers and whole body
imagers, later in fiscal year 2006. The Committee encourages
TSA to expand the use of these technologies to the highest risk
airports.
Of the total amount appropriated, $40,000,000 is provided
for maintenance of existing checkpoint equipment, as requested.
For fiscal year 2008, the Committee directs TSA to combine all
maintenance expenses (checkpoint and EDS) into one program,
project and activity line providing a complete picture of all
maintenance costs for equipment deployed throughout our
nation's airports.
EDS PURCHASES
The Committee recommends $136,000,000 for EDS purchases,
$45,000,000 above the President's budget request and
$37,250,000 below the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006.
Within the funds provided, the Committee directs that not less
than $56,600,000 be used to procure next-generation in-line and
stand alone EDS systems to replace explosive trace detection
machines (ETDs). In-line EDS is not only more effective than
ETDs, it is considerably less costly to operate. Both TSA and
the GAO have reported that in-line baggage screening could
reduce the Administration's dependence on TSA screeners by 50
to 78 percent. Consistent with TSA's strategic plan, the
Committee directs that none of this funding shall be used to
procure ETDs unless they are necessary for secondary screening
of checked baggage or to replace an aging ETD system in those
airports that are primarily dependent on ETD technology.
EDS INSTALLATIONS
In addition to the statutory allocation of $250,000,000 for
the Aviation Security Capital Fund, the Committee recommends
$94,000,000 for EDS installations, the same level as requested
and $49,450,000 above the amounts provided in 2006. As
requested in the President's budget, this funding will fully
support the five airports that have Letters of Intent (LOIs)
through fiscal year 2007 (Atlanta, Las Vegas, Los Angeles,
Seattle and Phoenix), totaling $187,822,333. TSA has fulfilled
the remaining three LOIs with fiscal year 2006 funding. The
remainder of the appropriation ($156,177,667) is available to
non-LOI airports to install next generation technologies as
well as modify their checked baggage systems to reduce false
alarm rates, increase the amount of baggage screened, reduce
the dependence on federal screeners, improve foot traffic in
airport lobbies, and to ensure that airports remain 100 percent
compliant with federal requirements. TSA has informed the
Committee that, of this total, $131,400,000 is for the
installation of next-generation systems. The Committee directs
that no funding should be used for new ETD installations unless
they are necessary for secondary screening of checked baggage.
Instead, TSA should expedite the installation of in-line,
reduced size, or stand alone EDS machines to replace ETD
equipment now used for primary screening at airports where
practicable.
EDS REFURBISHMENT
Most of the EDS machines currently at our nation's airports
were deployed in 2002 and 2003 and will need to be replaced or
refurbished shortly. TSA has informed the Committee that EDS
equipment is estimated to have a seven-year life cycle before
requiring upgrades and/or refurbishment, giving the systems
another four years of useful life. Total refurbishment costs
may be as high as $5 billion over a 25-year period, but it is
half the cost of procuring new systems. Additionally, such a
refurbishment program would result in better detection, higher
bag throughput and require substantially fewer screeners to
operate.
The Committee recommends $10,000,000 to begin EDS
refurbishment of stand-alone units by upgrading them with the
latest detection and throughput capabilities and reinstituting
manufacturer warranties covering replacement parts, future
upgrades and maintenance. The Committee understands that these
units could be redeployed to in-line configuration at large
airports or to replace existing trace machines at medium/small
airports. Because of the escalating maintenance costs for EDS
machines once they are out of warranty, the Committee strongly
encourages TSA to refurbish only those machines that
manufacturers are willing to place back under warranty.
EDS/ETD MAINTENANCE
The Committee has had longstanding concerns about the
increasing costs for EDS/ETD maintenance. Costs have risen from
$75,000,000 in 2003 to $200,000,000 in 2006. From 2002-2005,
TSA has obligated $470,000,000 on EDS/ETD maintenance and
expects to obligate an additional $199,000,000 in 2006. In
2004, the DHS Inspector General completed an audit on the EDS/
ETD maintenance contract and found that: (1) TSA did not
``follow sound contracting practices'' in administering this
program and (2) TSA paid provisional award fees totaling
$44,000,000 without any evaluation of the contractor's
performance. The IG recommended that TSA recover any excess
award fees. To date, none has been collected but TSA plans to
use any cost recoveries to purchase and install additional EDS
machines. Because of concerns with the contractor and
skyrocketing costs, in mid-2005, TSA moved to a firm fixed
priced contract with a new vendor instead of cost reimbursement
contracts. In May, 2006, GAO reported on this topic and found:
(1) unresolved issues still remain with the previous EDS/ETD
contractor; (2) TSA does not determine the reliability and
validity of EDS maintenance data submitted by the contractors
for payment; (3) TSA does not ensure that contractors perform
scheduled preventive maintenance; and (4) TSA needs to provide
stronger oversight to ensure contract costs are controlled in
the future. GAO recommended that TSA should complete lifecycle
cost models for all EDS and ETD machines and revise its
policies and procedures to provide reasonable assurance that
contractor performance data are recorded and reported in
accordance with TSA contractual requirements. The Committee
fully supports these recommendations and directs TSA to adopt
them expeditiously. In the case of excess award fees, TSA
should report to the House Appropriations Committee on any
action it has taken to collect excessive award fees, how much
have been received to date, and specific plans to obligate
these collections.
ALTERNATIVE SCREENING PROCEDURES
The Committee is concerned about TSA's occasional reliance
on alternative screening procedures for checked baggage, which
can be very time consuming and screener intensive. GAO recently
reviewed TSA's management of checked baggage screening
procedures and cited concerns with alternative procedures. For
example, GAO noted that, while TSA has conducted national
covert testing of standard screening procedures for checked
baggage screening technologies and screener performance, TSA
does not conduct covert testing specifically focused on
alternative screening procedures. By not collecting data that
could help determine how effective these alternative screening
procedures are in an operational setting, TSA cannot learn how
to improve security effectiveness of these procedures.
Similarly, GAO found that while TSA has taken steps to reduce
the use of alternative screening procedures at airports, it has
not created targets to minimize the use of these procedures.
The Committee directs TSA to (1) develop performance measures
and performance targets for the use of alternative screening
procedures; (2) track the use of alternative screening
procedures at airports; (3) assess the effectiveness of these
measures; (4) conduct covert testing at airports that use
alternative screening procedures; and (5) develop a plan to
stop alternative screening procedures at airports as soon as
practicable. TSA shall report to the House Committee on
Appropriations and the House Committee on Homeland Security by
January 16, 2007, on implementation of these requirements. The
Committee notes that, in 2005, GAO reported that additional EDS
systems integrated into the airport's baggage handling system
could reduce, by 78 percent, the number of baggage screeners
and supervisors needed to screen checked baggage at airports
with these systems. After in-line EDS systems are installed and
staffing reductions are achieved, redistributing the screener
positions to other airports with staffing shortages could also
reduce the need to use alternative screening procedures at
these airports.
AVIATION SECURITY DIRECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
The Committee recommends $963,548,000 for aviation security
direction and enforcement, $5,470,000 less than requested and
$28,381,000 less than amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. A
comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee recommended
level by budget activity is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aviation, regulation and other $217,516,000 $217,516,000
enforcement......................
Airport management, information 666,032,000 666,032,000
technology and support...........
Federal flight deck officer and 30,470,000 25,000,000
flight crew training.............
Air cargo......................... 55,000,000 55,000,000
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, aviation security $969,018,000 $963,548,000
direction and enforcement....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL FLIGHT DECK OFFICERS AND FLIGHT CREW TRAINING
The Committee recommends $25,000,000 for federal flight
deck officers and flight crew training, $5,470,000 less than
requested and $5,195,000 below amounts provided in fiscal year
2006. This reduction was made due to high unobligated balances
in this program.
AIR CARGO
The Committee recommends $55,000,000 for air cargo, the
same level as requested and $550,000 above the amounts provided
in fiscal year 2006. The Committee continues to be strongly
committed to increasing the amount of air cargo that is
screened before it is carried on passenger and all-cargo
aircraft as well as making other regulatory changes to
strengthen the air cargo security program. However, TSA
continues to drag its feet in this area. While the Committee is
pleased that the percentage of cargo screened has increased
substantially, TSA is utilizing airport screeners to screen air
cargo in a number of locations, and TSA has shut down some
indirect air carriers that are not complying with federal
security requirements; the Committee is extremely disappointed
that TSA has not finalized a rule to strengthen cargo security
as required by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention
Act. This regulation is almost two years behind schedule and
may leave some important aspects of air cargo security
unaddressed. Further, TSA continues to carry forward large
unobligated balances in this program. For example, TSA failed
to obligate 27 percent of the fiscal year 2005 air cargo
appropriation. Additionally, the Department has been extremely
slow to award the air cargo pilot projects funded in fiscal
year 2006. Of the three projects, only one has been agreed to
by the Science and Technology Directorate and TSA; the
remaining two pilots are still being discussed. Finally, TSA
has failed to provide a variety of air cargo reports that were
specified in bill language in fiscal year 2006. Specifically,
the Committee has not yet received a monthly report that
identifies, by airport, the amount of cargo carried on
passenger aircraft that has been screened by TSA; a report on
actions taken to increase the level of air cargo screened at
each airport beyond what was mandated under Public Law 108-334;
and a biweekly report on any airports that did not comply with
air cargo screening requirements identified in Public Law 108-
334. The Committee has learned of 55 instances of air cargo
non-compliance so far in this fiscal year. The Committee has
modified bill language to require quarterly reporting of air
cargo inspection statistics. This quarterly report shall
include the total number of cargo packages (including exempt
items) and the number inspected by TSA, canines, and the air
carrier, by airport and air carrier.
In October 2005, GAO reported on federal action needed to
strengthen domestic air cargo security (GAO-06-76). They found
that while TSA has established a centralized database on people
and businesses that routinely ship air cargo, there were
problems with the reliability of the information and how TSA is
using the information to identify shippers who may pose a risk.
Also, GAO reported that while TSA has established requirements
for air cargo to be randomly inspected, some cargo is exempt
from these inspections. TSA did not have a good estimate of how
much air cargo is exempt from inspections and whether air
carriers are taking actions to make air cargo fit into these
exempt categories. GAO recommended that TSA reexamine the
existing air cargo inspection exemptions; ensure data being
used in identifying elevated risk cargo is complete, accurate
or current; define, analyze and gather information on air cargo
security breaches; assess the effectiveness of compliance
enforcement actions; and develop measures to gauge air carrier
and indirect air carrier compliance. TSA agreed with GAO's
recommendations. Because TSA action on each of these
recommendations is critical to enhancing aviation security, the
Committee has included bill language requiring that TSA submit
a detailed action plan, with milestones and dates, for
addressing these recommendations to the Committee before
obligating any air cargo security funding, other than that for
air cargo inspectors, screeners, and canines. The Committee
directs that this action plan also be submitted to the House
Committee on Homeland Security. The Committee also strongly
encourages TSA to use some of its unobligated balances or
fiscal year 2007 appropriation to hire additional permanent
staff to enhance their internal air cargo security analytic
capabilities.
Because of these failures, the Committee has reduced
funding for Headquarters Administration--specifically the
offices of the Assistant Secretary and Chief Counsel--by
$2,000,000. The Committee urges TSA to focus more attention on
the security issues surrounding air cargo.
GENERAL AVIATION
The Committee continues to support the Airport Watch
program and expects TSA to continue funding the toll free
number to reinforce security at the nation's 5,400 public use
general aviation airports. The Committee recommends $275,000
for this program, the same level as provided in fiscal year
2006.
Surface Transportation Security
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006....................... $35,640,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007..................... 37,200,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 37,200,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006................... +1,560,000
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2007................. - - -
MISSION
Surface Transportation Security is responsible for
assessing the risk of terrorist attacks to all non-aviation
transportation modes, issuing regulations to improve the
security of the modes, and enforcing regulations to ensure the
protection of the transportation system.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $37,200,000 for Surface
Transportation Security, the same as the President's request
and $1,560,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006.
Within this total, $24,000,000 is for surface transportation
staffing and operations and $13,200,000 is for rail security
inspectors and canines.
RAIL AND TRANSIT SECURITY PILOTS
The Committee is concerned that TSA did not obligate
$5,265,000--22 percent--of its fiscal year 2005 appropriation
for surface transportation staffing and operations. While the
Committee recognizes that there have been vacancies in this
office, this funding may also be used for pilot projects and
studies. As such, the Committee recommends that this carryover
funding be used to test, procure and deploy qualified screening
systems in mass transit and rail terminals in densely populated
and heavily transited metropolitan areas in our nation. The
Committee recommends a variety of screening systems be pilot
tested, including next-generation explosive detection machines,
to screen passengers and their baggage. This equipment should
have significant detection capabilities, high throughput, and a
low false alarm rate. Limited testing was done by TSA in 2004
and the Science and Technology Directorate began testing a
variety of technologies in early 2006. The Committee supports
continuing these pilots in order to reduce vulnerabilities to
security breaches in these modes of transportation.
Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006....................... $74,246,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007..................... 54,700,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 74,700,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006................... +454,000
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2007................. +20,000,000
MISSION
The Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing
mission is to reduce the probability of a successful terrorist
or other criminal attack to the transportation system through
application of threat assessment methodologies that are
intended to identify known or suspected terrorist threats
working or seeking access to the Nation's transportation
system. This appropriation consolidates the management of all
TSA vetting and credentialing programs into one office and
includes the following screening programs: Secure Flight, Crew
Vetting, Transportation Worker Identification Credential,
Registered Traveler, Hazardous Materials, and Alien Flight
School.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a direct appropriation of
$74,700,000 for Transportation Threat Assessment and
Credentialing, $20,000,000 above the President's request and
$454,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. In
addition, the Committee anticipates TSA will collect
$76,101,000 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................. $40,000,000 $40,000,000
Crew vetting.................. 14,700,000 14,700,000
Transportation worker - - - 20,000,000
identification credential....
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, direct 54,700,000 74,700,000
appropriations...........
Fee Collections:
Registered traveler........... 35,101,000 35,101,000
Transportation worker 20,000,000 20,000,000
identification credential....
Hazardous materials........... 19,000,000 19,000,000
Alien flight school (transfer 2,000,000 2,000,000
from DOJ)....................
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, fee collections. $76,101,000 $76,101,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSPORTATION WORKER IDENTIFICATION CREDENTIAL
As part of the Committee's port, container, and cargo
security initiative, the Committee recommends a direct
appropriation of $20,000,000 for the Transportation Worker
Identification Credential (TWIC) in addition to the $20,000,000
that the President expects will be collected from user fees.
This funding is necessary to accelerate the implementation of
the TWIC program in the maritime environment. Funding may be
used for enrollment start-up, card production infrastructure,
and final development costs of the Identity Management System,
which are not permissible under user fee collections. The
Committee is pleased that the Department plans to begin
implementing TWIC as soon as possible. This credentialing
program strengthens the Department's ability to detect threats
to our nation's ports by only permitting authorized employees
access to our ports and the containers and cargo within the
port.
As in past years, the Committee again directs the
Department to develop a personalization system that is
centralized and that uses an existing government card
production facility for these purposes. These two conditions
are integral to the success of the TWIC program as they relate
to operational and physical security of the product.
SECURE FLIGHT
The Committee recommends $40,000,000 for the Secure Flight
program, the same as the President's request and $16,129,000
below the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. While the
Committee remains supportive of the Secure Flight concept,
longstanding concerns still exist. In fact, TSA is in the
process of reviewing this program for privacy and security
issues, as well as rebaselining cost and schedule data. These
efforts have once again delayed this program.
The Committee is concerned that TSA has made little
progress in ensuring the security of its Secure Flight
passenger screening program and, because of this, all passenger
names are checked only against the No Fly and Selectee lists,
not the full terrorist watch list. However, the Committee is
cognizant that these two lists are derived from the full
terrorist watch list. If the Administration believes that a
security vulnerability exists because the full watch list is
not checked, then TSA is directed to provide a detailed program
plan describing key milestones and a schedule for implementing
this full watch list check through the Secure Flight program to
the House Appropriations Committee no later than January 16,
2007.
The Committee continues a general provision (Sec. 513) that
directs the Government Accountability Office to continue to
evaluate DHS and TSA actions to meet the ten elements listed in
section 522 of Public Law 108-334. This provision also
prohibits the use of commercial data.
REGISTERED TRAVELER
The Committee directs the Secretary to ensure that the
privacy of those who sign up for Registered Traveler is
protected. As part of Registered Traveler, the Committee
directs DHS to require that each applicant be provided
information on how the personal information they provide in the
application will be used and protected. In addition, TSA shall
report to the Committee on Appropriations no later than January
16, 2007 on: (1) how TSA plans to measure the success of the
Registered Traveler pilot program, (2) the estimates of actual
benefits derived to the participating passengers, (3)
interoperability among the airports, (4) estimated program
costs, and (5) plans for internal controls and audits of the
program.
Transportation Security Support
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006....................... $505,378,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007..................... 527,283,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 523,283,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006................... +17,905,000
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2007................. -4,000,000
MISSION
The Transportation Security Support account includes
financial and human resources support; the Transportation
Security Intelligence Service; information technology support;
policy development and oversight; performance management and e-
government; communications; public information and legislative
affairs; training and quality performance; internal conduct and
audit; legal advice; and overall headquarters administration.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $523,283,000 for Transportation
Security Support, $4,000,000 below the President's request and
$17,905,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. As
part of this increase, TSA plans to hire 30 new FTEs to improve
the agency's procurement processes and internal controls. The
Committee encourages the prompt hiring of these staff. TSA has
had numerous procurement problems in the past years that may
have been avoided with additional procurement and internal
controls staff. A comparison of the budget estimate to the
Committee recommended level by budget activity is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Headquarters administration....... $296,191,000 $292,191,000
Information technology............ 210,092,000 210,092,000
Intelligence...................... 21,000,000 21,000,000
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, transportation $527,283,000 $523,283,000
security support.............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HEADQUARTERS ADMINISTRATION
The Committee recommends $292,191,000 for headquarters
administration, $4,000,000 below the President's request and
$15,594,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. Of
this reduction, $2,000,000 has been specifically applied to
both the Office of the Assistant Secretary and the Office of
the Chief Counsel due to failures in the air cargo program and
because of the untenable budget request to raise aviation
security fees, as previously discussed.
EXPLOSIVE DETECTION EQUIPMENT SPENDING AND DEPLOYMENT PLANS
Consistent with actions taken last year, the Committee has
included bill language that withholds $5,000,000 from
obligation until TSA provides the Committee with a detailed
spending and deployment plan for explosive detection equipment.
This plan shall be submitted no later than 60 days after
enactment of this Act and shall detail: (1) expenditures for
explosive detection procurement and installation on an airport-
by-airport basis for fiscal year 2007 that clearly delineates
funding for next generation systems; and (2) a plan for EDS
refurbishment, including a comparison of refurbishment costs
versus procuring a new system, what enhancements were made, and
where these refurbished systems will be used. The Committee
does not believe that ETD equipment should be refurbished.
Federal Air Marshals
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006....................... $679,338,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007..................... 699,294,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 699,294,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006................... +19,956,000
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2007................. - - -
MISSION
The Federal Air Marshals (FAMs) provide for the security of
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 $699,294,000 for the Federal Air
Marshals (FAMs), the same as the President's request and
$19,956,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. Of
this total, $628,494,000 is for management and administration
and $70,800,000 is for travel and training. The Committee
anticipates that this funding level will maintain mission
coverage on both domestic and international flights as well as
provide FAMs with the flexibility to begin conducting law
enforcement operations in some of the nation's larger airports.
MULTI-MODAL SECURITY ENHANCEMENT TEAMS
The Committee is concerned about TSA's proposal to use FAMs
in multi-modal security enhancement teams that would look to
counter potential criminal or terrorist activities throughout
the transportation sector. Led by a supervisory FAM, teams
would consist of FAMs, transportation security inspectors,
aviation security officers, explosive canine teams, and local
law enforcement officers. They would patrol transportation
properties (rail, ports, and ferries) to make sure that they
are implementing security directives correctly. These teams
would also be deployed during special events or when
intelligence or specific threats necessitate it. According to
TSA, these teams are designed to supplement state or local law
enforcement agencies. This activity goes well beyond what is
authorized for FAMs, which ``is to protect passenger flights
deemed a high security threat''. While the Committee is
supportive of expanding the roles and responsibilities of the
air marshals in airports, as necessary, it cannot support a
broader expansion of the FAMs mission to work in other modes of
transportation. The Committee directs TSA to cease using FAMs
in multi-modal security enhancement teams outside the aviation
environment, including any pilot tests.
AIR-TO-GROUND COMMUNICATIONS
The Committee remains supportive of the air-to-ground
communications program being developed by FAMs in conjunction
with the private industry and Federal Aviation Administration.
However, there have been numerous delays in this program, in
part due to delays by the Federal Communications Commission to
auction frequency spectrum. Until the spectrum sale occurs and
FAMs completes a one-year pilot test of proposed systems, the
Committee cannot provide additional funding above the base for
this activity. However, there is $10,000,000 in carryover funds
from prior appropriations that will sustain this program
through fiscal year 2007.
United States Coast Guard
OPERATING EXPENSES
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 \1\................... $5,293,771,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007..................... 5,518,843,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 5,481,643,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006................... +187,872,000
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2007................. -37,200,000\1\ Includes supplemental appropriations and rescissions from Public Law
109-148.
MISSION
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 the Coast Guard.
RECOMMENDATION
Including $340,000,000 for national security activities,
the Committee recommends a total appropriation of
$5,481,643,000 for Operating Expenses. The recommended funding
level is $37,200,000 below the President's request and
$187,872,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. 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................................ $2,342,434,000 $2,342,434,000
Military health care...................................... 337,324,000 337,324,000
Permanent change of station............................... 108,518,000 108,518,000
-------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, military pay and allowance.................. 2,788,276,000 2,788,276,000Civilian pay and benefits..................................... 569,434,000 569,434,000Training and recruiting:
Training and education.................................... 83,556,000 83,556,000
Recruitment............................................... 97,320,000 97,320,000
-------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, training and recruiting..................... 180,876,000 180,876,000Operating fund and unit level maintenance:
Atlantic Command.......................................... 188,982,000 188,982,000
Pacific Command........................................... 196,449,000 196,449,000
1st District.............................................. 50,388,000 50,388,000
7th District.............................................. 63,771,000 63,771,000
8th District.............................................. 39,985,000 39,985,000
9th District.............................................. 28,756,000 28,756,000
13th District............................................. 20,569,000 20,569,000
14th District............................................. 15,754,000 15,754,000
17th District............................................. 25,604,000 25,604,000
Headquarters directorates................................. 305,453,000 253,253,000
Headquarters managed units................................ 125,104,000 125,104,000
Other activities.......................................... 759,000 759,000
-------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, operating funds and unit level maintenance.. 1,061,574,000 1,009,374,000Centrally managed accounts.................................... 207,954,000 207,954,000Immediate and depot level maintenance:
Aeronautical maintenance.................................. 265,979,000 265,979,000
Electronic maintenance.................................... 111,736,000 111,736,000
Civil/ocean engineering and shore facilities maintenance.. 176,394,000 176,394,000
Vessel maintenance........................................ 156,620,000 156,620,000
-------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, immediate and depot level maintenance....... 710,729,000 710,729,000Port security................................................. - - - 15,000,000
=================================================
Total, operating expenses......................... 5,518,843,000 5,481,643,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW COAST GUARD HEADQUARTERS
The Committee has denied $50,200,000 requested in the
President's budget to relocate the Coast Guard headquarters to
St. Elizabeth's campus in Washington, D.C. According to DHS,
this campus may house all or most of the Department; however, a
plan to finalize this major move has not been completed. Until
DHS has determined how many agencies it plans to move to the
St. Elizabeth's campus, it is premature to relocate the Coast
Guard's headquarters, as discussed previously in this report
under Departmental Management and Operations.
PORT SECURITY
In fiscal year 2005, the Coast Guard obligated
approximately $115,000,000 implementing the Maritime
Transportation Security Act (MTSA). Approximately 3,000
facilities and 11,000 vessels are required to have security
plans under MTSA. To date, the Coast Guard has inspected all of
the facilities and more than half of the vessels, with all
vessels to be inspected by the end of 2006. Since 2004, the
Coast Guard has imposed 143 major control actions and found 339
security deficiencies on foreign vessels as a result of its
security examinations. Many of these deficiencies involved poor
access controls. The Coast Guard has also begun visiting
international ports to assess security. Half of the countries
that conduct maritime trade with the United States will be
visited by the end of 2006.
The Committee recommends $15,000,000 for port security
inspections, $15,000,000 above the President's budget request.
Funding shall be allocated to two activities. First, this
funding shall be used to double the amount of foreign port
assessments, as required by MTSA. The Committee anticipates
that, with these additional funds, the Coast Guard will be able
to reduce the amount of time it will take to complete all
foreign port assessments by half. Second, the funding will
permit the Coast Guard to conduct unannounced inspections of
domestic port facilities to ensure that they are maintaining
agreed upon security levels. This funding is provided to
strengthen the Department's overall port, container, and cargo
security initiatives as discussed previously under the Office
of the Secretary and Executive Management.
Currently, the Coast Guard does not gather complete
ownership information as part of its facility and vessel
security plans. The Committee directs the Coast Guard to amend
these plans so that it may gather ownership information in
addition to information about the immediate entity running the
facility or vessel.
HEADQUARTERS DIRECTORATES
The Committee recommends $253,253,000 for headquarters
directorates, $52,200,000 below the President's request and
$1,722,000 below amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. As
discussed previously, the Committee has reduced funding by
$50,200,000 for the relocation to St. Elizabeth's campus. An
additional $2,000,000 reduction has been applied because the
President's budget assumed an increase in aviation passenger
fees in order to fund this program at the requested levels.
This fee is not within the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Appropriations and the Committee has adjusted its fiscal year
2007 recommendation accordingly.
MERCHANT MARINER LICENSING
The Committee understands the Coast Guard has a new rule
under development to increase the number of locations where
merchant mariner applicants may appear for fingerprinting and
identification. The Committee supports this effort and directs
the Coast Guard to complete it expeditiously.
OFFICE OF GREAT LAKES PILOTAGE
The Committee has received conflicting information as to
whether or not the Coast Guard intends to reduce support for
the Office of Great Lakes Pilotage. While a reduction is not
shown in the fiscal year 2007 budget request, recent
documentation contradicts the budget. The Committee directs the
Coast Guard to maintain funding for this office at the 2006
level.
LORAN C
The Coast Guard has proposed terminating the LORAN C
program in the President's budget request because this system
is no longer necessary for a secondary means of navigation. The
Committee understands that a decision to terminate LORAN C is
dependent upon agreement by the Department of Transportation,
which has not yet occurred. The Committee assumes the
continuation of LORAN C since this decision has not been fully
coordinated within the Executive Branch.
INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR AT THE COAST GUARD ACADEMY
The Committee is aware that the Coast Guard Academy
announced in March that it would take immediate action to
improve the Adademy's response to sexual harassment claims made
by cadets. Specifically, Academy administrators stated that
female counselors or officers would be involved in
investigations requested by female cadets, the reporting
process would be made easier for victims and cadet training
about sexual harassment would be improved.
The Committee appreciates these efforts, and believes that
they are positive steps for the Coast Guard Academy, where
women represent about 30 percent of cadets, compared to less
than 20 percent at the Air Force and Naval Academies and about
15 percent at West Point. However, the Committee requires
assurances that these promised changes are being implemented.
Therefore, the Committee directs the Government Accountability
Office to conduct a study of the progress made by the Coast
Guard Academy in response to sexual harassment claims, and to
report its findings to the House Appropriations Committee and
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee not later
than 180 days after the enactment of this Act.
Environmental Compliance and Restoration
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006....................... $11,880,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007..................... 11,880,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 11,880,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006................... - - -
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2007................. - - -
MISSION
The Environmental Compliance and Restoration appropriation
assists in bringing Coast Guard facilities into compliance with
applicable federal, state and environmental regulations;
conducting facilities response plans; developing pollution and
hazardous waste minimization strategies; conducting
environmental assessments; and conducting necessary program
support. These funds permit the continuation of a service-wide
program to correct environmental problems, such as 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 $11,880,000 for Environmental
Compliance and Restoration, the same as the President's request
and amounts provided in fiscal year 2006.
Reserve Training
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006....................... $117,810,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007..................... 123,948,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 122,348,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006................... +4,538,000
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2007................. -1,600,000
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 $122,348,000 for Reserve Training,
$1,600,000 below the President's request and $4,538,000 above
the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. Funding has been
reduced due to lapsed appropriations in this account.
Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 \1\................... $1,204,882,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007..................... 1,169,537,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 1,139,663,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006................... -65,219,000
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2007................. -29,874,000\1\ Includes emergency supplemental funding of $74,500,000 from Public
Law 109-148.
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 $1,139,663,000 for Acquisition,
Construction, and Improvements, $29,874,000 below the
President's request and $65,219,000 below amounts provided in
fiscal year 2006. A comparison of the budget estimate to the
Committee recommended level by budget activity is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vessels and critical $24,750,000 $24,750,000
infrastructure: Response boat
medium...........................
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, vessels and critical 24,750,000 24,750,000
infrastructure...............Deepwater:
Aircraft:
Maritime patrol aircraft.. 77,616,000 77,616,000
VTOL unmanned aerial 4,950,000 4,950,000
vehicle (VUAV)...........
HH-60 conversion projects. 49,302,000 49,302,000
HC-130H conversion/ 53,955,000 53,955,000
sustainment project......
HH65 re-engining project.. 32,373,000 32,373,000
Armed helicopter equipment 25,740,000 25,740,000
C-130J missionization..... 4,950,000 4,950,000
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, aircraft.... 248,886,000 248,886,000 Surface ships:
National security cutter.. 417,780,000 417,780,000
Fast response cutter...... 41,580,000 - - -
IDS patrol boat long range 1,188,000 1,188,000
interceptor..............
Medium endurance cutter 37,818,000 37,818,000
sustainment..............
Replacement patrol boat... - - - 10,000,000
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, surface 498,366,000 466,786,000
ships................ C4ISR......................... 60,786,000 60,786,000 Logistics..................... 42,273,000 32,062,000 Systems engineering and 35,145,000 35,145,000
integration.................. Government program management. 48,975,000 48,975,000
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, Deepwater........... 934,431,000 892,640,000Other equipment:
Automatic identification 11,238,000 11,238,000
system.......................
Rescue 21..................... 39,600,000 39,600,000
HF recap...................... 2,475,000 2,475,000
National Capital region air 48,510,000 48,510,000
defense......................
Counter Terrorism Training 1,683,000 - - -
Infrastructure shoot house...
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, other equipment. 103,506,000 101,823,000Shore facilities and aids to
navigation:
Survey and design, shore 2,600,000 2,600,000
operational and support
projects.....................
Minor AC&I; shore construction 2,850,000 1,450,000
projects.....................
Renovate USCGA Chase Hall 2,000,000 2,000,000
barracks, phase I............
Replace multi-purpose building- 1,000,000 1,000,000
Group Long Island Sound......
Construct breakwater-Station 1,100,000 1,100,000
Neah Bay.....................
Waterways aids to navigation.. 3,000,000 3,000,000
Cordova, Alaska housing....... 5,500,000 5,500,000
ISC Seattle, Group Sector 2,600,000 2,600,000
admin operations facility....
Base Galveston, rebuild 5,200,000 5,200,000
station and waterfront.......
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, shore facilities 25,850,000 24,450,000
and aids to navigation...Aircraft:
HH-60 replacement............. - - - 15,000,000
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, aircraft........ 15,000,000Personnel and related support:
Direct personnel costs........ 80,500,000 80,500,000
AC&I; core..................... 500,000 500,000
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, personnel and 81,000,000 81,000,000
related support..........
===================================== Total................... 1,169,537,000 1,139,663,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT
The Committee is very concerned about the Coast Guard's
ability to manage complex, large-scale contracts. As evidenced
by contracts for Rescue 21, HH-65 helicopter re-engining, and
the Fast Response Cutter (FRC), the Coast Guard's executive
leadership is consistently failing to manage its acquisitions
and meet critical, operational requirements. In all three of
these projects, the Coast Guard has moved forward with
contracts before design, model testing, and integrated
baselines were completed. This approach increases the risks
associated with the projects, increases the likelihood of
schedule slippages and cost overruns, and creates uncertainty
with the design of the project. In the case of re-engining the
HH-65 helicopter, the delivery schedule has continued to slip--
from December 2006 until mid-to-late 2007--and the cost of the
project has almost doubled--from about $190,000,000 to
$355,000,000. Rescue 21 has experienced repeated software
problems, schedule slippages, and has grown in cost from
$250,000,000 to $710,500,000, culminating in the Coast Guard
having to issue a stop work order and then terminate the vessel
subsystem contract. The FRC acquisition has continued to grow
in costs and schedule delays while also failing to produce a
cogent business case for use of a composite hull form. The
Committee believes this trend is unacceptable and directs the
Coast Guard to take appropriate actions to immediately improve
its acquisition management in order to meet its present and
future operational requirements.
DEEPWATER
The Committee recommends $892,640,000 for Deepwater,
$41,791,000 below the President's request and $31,129,000 below
amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. Specific changes to the
President's request are discussed below.
The Committee directs the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) to continue its oversight of the Deepwater program. GAO
should focus on (1) the status of development and delivery of
the major aviation and maritime assets; (2) maintenance,
logistics and training; and (3) the Coast Guard's management of
the ICGS contract. GAO should provide the Committee the results
of its work annually and the first report should be delivered
no later than April 2007.
FAST RESPONSE CUTTER (FRC)
The Committee denies $41,580,000 for the production of the
Fast Response Cutter (FRC) requested by the President. This
program is experiencing substantial difficulties and the
estimated delivery date of the first FRC has been pushed back
at least three fiscal years (2010). Until ongoing problems are
resolved, the Committee cannot continue to support a program
that has so much risk of failure that it may be terminated or
substantially revised.
The FRC was slated to replace the 110-foot and 123-foot
patrol boats. According to the revised Deepwater implementation
plan, the Coast Guard planned to acquire 58 FRCs by 2027. The
FRC was to be built from composite materials to increase
performance through weight savings; increase operational
availability and extend the time between required maintenance
activities; and reduce total ownership costs. However, since
January 2005, well before the revised Deepwater plan was
finalized, the Coast Guard and independent contractors began
outlining as many as 14 concerns with the FRC's hull form,
potential speed, and propulsion systems. The Coast Guard
appeared to ignore these concerns until October 2005. At that
time, the Coast Guard slowed down the critical design review of
the FRC, scheduled for December 2005 to March 2006. This design
review has been further delayed to June 2006. On February 28,
2006, the Coast Guard's Deepwater Program Office temporarily
suspended the work on the FRC design because of high technical
risks associated with the current design. On April 6, 2006, the
Coast Guard issued a request for information to obtain data
about the state of the market for proven patrol boat design. It
appears that the Coast Guard may procure ``off-the-shelf''
patrol boats instead of the FRC or procure two types of patrol
boats (FRC and traditional patrol boats) concurrently. The
Committee is extremely concerned that the Coast Guard continues
to flounder to find an effective solution to replace the 110-
foot patrol boats--the workhorse of the Coast Guard's maritime
fleet. Until a decision has been reached about what will be
procured, it is premature for the Committee to continue funding
the production of the first FRC. Further, the Committee expects
the Coast Guard to provide monthly briefings on the patrol boat
replacement problem.
The Coast Guard has $79,347,002 in unobligated balances
available to the FRC and for service life extensions of the
110-foot patrol boat. Bill language (Sec. 521) has been
included that reprograms these unobligated balances to the
acquisition of traditional patrol boats (what the Coast Guard
is referring to as the ``parent craft'' in their recent request
for information) so that the Coast Guard may continue to
maintain patrol boat hours and meet operational requirements in
the near-term. Also, funding may continue to be used for
service life extensions of the 110-foot patrol boat. Procuring
new patrol boats and completing service life extensions is even
more critical now that the Navy has informed the Coast Guard
that they are not willing to extend the current Memorandum of
Agreement to permit the Coast Guard to continue operating the
Navy's five 179-foot patrol boats past 2008. Without these
assets, the Coast Guard will have to reduce patrol hours by
12,500 (7 percent) per year, further exacerbating a mission
hour deficit.
REPLACEMENT PATROL BOAT
The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for the replacement
patrol boat, $10,000,000 above the President's budget. This
funding is the first installment to procure ``off-the-shelf''
patrol boats (known as the ``parent craft'') discussed in the
April 6, 2006 request for information. Based on the current
timeline, the Coast Guard plans to award this contract at the
beginning of fiscal year 2007. This funding, coupled with the
rescission of $79,347,002, should provide the Coast Guard with
sufficient funding to maintain sufficient patrol boat hours.
UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES
The Committee recommends $4,950,000 for unmanned aerial
vehicles (UAV), the same level as requested and $34,650,000
below amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. The Committee is
aware of an in-flight mishap with the UAV. While this aircraft
was not one that the Coast Guard owns or is funding, but
instead is a developmental UAV, the mishap resulted in damage
to the system. The Coast Guard shall inform the Committee what
the root cause of the mishap was, and what, if any, implication
this may have on the planned procurements of these UAVs.
LOGISTICS
The Committee recommends $32,062,000 for logistics,
$10,211,000 below the President's request and $13,450,000 above
amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. The Committee is
concerned with funding contained in the budget for logistics
support in Alaska, Florida and Puerto Rico. It is unclear
whether funds are necessary as early as requested for these
stations because of delays in surface ships.
COUNTERTERRORISM TRAINING INFRASTRUCTURE SHOOT HOUSE
The Committee denies $1,683,000 requested by the President
for a counterterrorism training shoot house. Instead, the
Committee encourages the Coast Guard to look at all training
options, including those offered by the Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center by local law enforcement, or by the Department
of Defense, to meet this need.
RESCUE 21
The Committee remains concerned about the acquisition of
Rescue 21. Earlier this year, the GAO highlighted significant
issues with project management, contractor oversight, and
executive-level involvement that led to cost overruns and
schedule delays. GAO found that: (1) costs of this program have
almost tripled, from $250,000,000 to $710,500,000; (2) the life
cycle costs for Rescue 21 may increase by another $161,000,000;
(3) the schedule may slip past 2011, already five years behind
the original completion date of 2006; and (4) the system will
not be able to reduce coverage gaps to the extent originally
promised. GAO also determined that the Coast Guard's executive
oversight of Rescue 21 was not adequate and management did not
take action to respond to risks and problems presented. Strong
executive oversight is needed to improve the cost and schedule
performance of the Rescue 21 acquisition.
As discussed previously, the Committee has little
confidence in the Coast Guard's contract management capability
and their plans to aggressively oversee cost, schedule, and
risk for the remaining development and deployment of Rescue 21.
Given its failures in the past to develop accurate and reliable
cost estimates and schedules, the Committee directs the Coast
Guard to provide a detailed breakout of its revised costs and
schedule and fully justify each estimate. This should be done
on a quarterly basis or with any major change in the project.
In addition, the Coast Guard shall provide the Committee with a
detailed report on the membership of the Rescue 21's executive
committee and a schedule of planned meetings for the upcoming
fiscal year. The Committee expects that the oversight body will
include executives from both the acquiring and the customer
organizations, as well as the DHS Chief Financial Officer and
the DHS Chief Information Officer. Additionally, planned
meetings should occur monthly or quarterly, given this
program's troubled past.
The Coast Guard has been forced to terminate the portion of
the Rescue 21 contract for vessel initiatives because of
repeated and longstanding problems in this area. To provide
vessel functionality, the Coast Guard is studying alternative
solutions, including the use of Automatic Identification System
for asset tracking and data transfers on vessels. If a decision
is made to pursue an alternate vessel system, the Committee
directs the Coast Guard to provide a detailed assessment of its
impact on end users and the timeframes for implementing this
solution that includes the effect, if any, on the remaining
Rescue 21 development and deployment efforts. Bill language is
included that limits the obligation of funds for Rescue 21 to
just the shore facilities. No funds may be obligated for the
vessel subsystem until a solution has been provided to the
Committee.
HH-60 REPLACEMENT
The Committee recommends $15,000,000 to replace the HH-60
helicopter that was lost during a rescue in Alaska in 2004. The
Committee understands that this funding will permit the Coast
Guard to acquire one aircraft from the United States Navy and
missionize it for Coast Guard specific work.
SHORE FACILITIES AND AIDS TO NAVIGATION
The Committee recommends $24,450,000 for shore facilities
and aids to navigation, $1,400,000 below the President's
request and $1,450,000 above amounts provided in fiscal year
2006. The Committee has deleted funding within minor AC&I; shore
construction projects for the CGC HICKORY cutter support
building because this project will not be completed in 2007.
Alteration of Bridges
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006....................... $14,850,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007..................... - - -
Recommended in the bill............................... 17,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006................... +2,150,000
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2007................. +17,000,000
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. Because there
are occasionally unsafe conditions on the waterway beneath a
bridge which has an adequate surface or structural condition,
Federal-aid highways funding is not appropriate to address the
purpose of the Truman-Hobbs program.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $17,000,000 for Alteration of
Bridges, $17,000,000 above the President's request and
$2,150,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. The
Committee directs that, of the funds provided, $10,000,000
shall be allocated to the Fourteen Mile Bridge in Mobile,
Alabama; $3,000,000 for Chelsea Street Bridge in Chelsea,
Massachusetts, and $4,000,000 for the Canadian Pacific Railway
Bridge in LaCrosse, Wisconsin. The Committee expects that, with
this funding, the federal commitment to the Fourteen Mile
Bridge will be completed.
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006....................... $17,573,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007..................... 13,860,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 13,860,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006................... -3,713,000
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2007................. - - -
MISSION
The purpose of research, development, test and evaluation
is to allow the United States Coast Guard to maintain its non-
homeland security research and development capability, while
also partnering and leveraging initiatives identified by the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of
Defense (DOD) for efforts beneficial to the Coast Guard, DHS,
and DOD.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $13,860,000 for Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation, the same as the President's
request and $3,713,000 below the amounts provided in fiscal
year 2006. In addition to this appropriation, the Coast Guard
may supplement these funds with ongoing reimbursable agreements
with the Science and Technology Directorate. At this time, the
Committee is aware of $2,800,000 that Science and Technology is
directing to Coast Guard research and development activities in
fiscal year 2007. Half of this funding will be directed toward
improving the boarding officers program while the other half
will be devoted to advancing and adapting technologies used to
stop or control threatening vessels or people.
Medicare Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund Contribution
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 \1\................... $(260,533,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007 \2\................. 278,704,000
Recommended in the bill \2\........................... 278,704,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006................... +18,171,000
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2007................. - - -\1\ The Medicare-eligible retiree health care fund was part of the Coast
Guard's operating expenses in fiscal year 2006. This figure is shown
for comparison purposes only.
\2\ This expenditure requires no annual action by Congress, however, it
is counted towards the Coast Guard's discretionary spending.
MISSION
The Medicare-eligible retiree health care fund contribution
provides funding to maintain the cost of accruing the military
Medicare-eligible health benefit contributions to the
Department of Defense Medicare-eligible health care fund.
Contributions are for future Medicare-eligible retirees
currently serving active duty in the Coast Guard, retiree
dependents, and their potential survivors. The authority for
the 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 agrees with the recommendation contained in the
budget request to provide $278,704,000 to fund the Medicare-
eligible retiree health care fund.
Retired Pay
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006....................... $1,014,080,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007..................... 1,063,323,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 1,063,323,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006................... +49,243,000
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2007................. - - -
MISSION
This appropriation provides for the retired pay of military
personnel of the Coast Guard and the Coast Guard Reserve,
including career status bonuses for active duty personnel. Also
included are 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 $1,063,323,000 for Retired Pay, the same
as the budget request and $49,243,000 above the amounts
provided in fiscal year 2006. This is scored as a mandatory
appropriation in the Congressional budget process.
United States Secret Service
Protection, Administraton, and Training
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 \1\................... $(895,556,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007 \1\................. (930,879,000)
Recommended in the bill............................... 954,399,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 \1\............... +(58,843,000)
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2007 \1\............. +(23,520,000)\1\ Figures are shown for comparative purposes only. Funds for this
purpose are requested under the Salaries and Expenses account, but are
recommended to be provided in this new appropriations account for
fiscal year 2007. Amounts for fiscal year 2006 include $3,600,000 in
emergency supplemental appropriations provided in P.L. 109-148.
MISSION
The Protection, Administration, and Training appropriation
supports the protection of the President and Vice President,
their families, heads of state, and other designated
individuals; the investigations of threats against these
protectees; and the protection of the White House, Vice
President's Residence, Foreign Missions, and other buildings
within Washington, DC as authorized by 18 U.S.C. 3056. This
appropriation also supports the agency's administrative and
training functions.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a new appropriation structure for
the United States Secret Service, separating funds previously
provided for salaries and expenses into two, new accounts:
Protection, Administration, and Training and Investigations and
Field Operations. To ensure accountability in budgeting for the
Secret Service's dual missions of protection and
investigations, the Committee recommends a separate
appropriation of $954,399,000 for Protection, Administration,
and Training. This is $23,520,000 above the President's request
and $58,843,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006.
The Committee provides an additional $13,920,000 to support
protection costs of the 2008 Presidential Campaign and fully
staff the President's Post-Presidency Protective Detail; an
additional $2,400,000 for twenty new intelligence analysts and
eight new protective systems specialists; and an additional
$7,200,000 for replacement of critical equipment including
ammunition, communications, and vehicles. Funds supporting the
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children are provided
within the new Investigations and Field Operations account.
A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Protection, Administration, and
Training Budget estimate Recommended \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Protection:
Protection of persons and $639,747,000 $657,267,000
facilities...................
Protective intelligence 55,509,000 61,509,000
activities...................
White House mail screening.... 16,201,000 16,201,000
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, Protection...... 711,457,000 734,977,000
Administration:
Headquarters, management and 169,370,000 169,370,000
administration...............
Training:
Rowley training center........ 50,052,000 50,052,000
=====================================
Total, Protection, 930,879,000 954,399,000
Administration, and
Training.............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funds to support Investigations and Field Operations are recommended
within a new, separate account for fiscal year 2007, as stated later
in this report.
WORKLOAD AND BUDGET
The Committee is very concerned about the ability of the
Secret Service to align its resource requirements to workload
and mission needs. Since 9/11, the protective and investigative
operations of the Secret Service have become increasingly
complex, but the agency's budget has grown in only nominal
terms. This disparity has resulted in an erosion of the base
budget and the inability of the Secret Service to meet its
basic mission requirements. At a time when the Secret Service's
budget has reached this critical juncture, culminating in
severe limitations on overtime pay and equipment replacement,
the Secret Service's administrative systems are failing to
provide timely information on budget execution, workload, and
performance. The Committee is aware that the Secret Service is
taking considerable actions to address these deficiencies and
improve its budgeting for the uncontrollable demands of
protective operations, including: implementation of real time
tracking for labor hours; implementation of a new Enterprise
Financial Management System; establishment of refined
performance metrics for both protection and investigations; and
improved monitoring of monthly budget execution reports. The
Committee believes the protective and investigative resources
of the Secret Service are a vital national security asset and
is committed to improving the agency's budgetary systems and
processes. The Committee directs the Secret Service to submit a
status report, in conjunction with the fiscal year 2008 budget
request, on the implementation of its budgetary system
improvements. This report shall include a detailed explanation
of how the agency is progressing in the improvement of its
resource planning for both protection and investigations.
The Committee continues to await the workload rebalancing
report required in Conference Report 109-241 and includes bill
language withholding $2,000,000 from obligation until this
report is submitted.
2008 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN AND POST-PRESIDENCY PROTECTIVE DETAIL
The Committee recognizes the unique protective challenges
associated with the 2008 Presidential campaign and the Post-
Presidency protective detail. The Committee is disappointed
that the Administration failed to request adequate funding for
these critical and resource-intensive efforts. The Committee
provides an additional $13,920,000 to support the protective
requirements of the 2008 Presidential Campaign and fully staff
the President's Post-Presidency Protective Detail. The
Committee believes the special agents required to staff the
Post-Presidency Protective Detail should also support the 2008
Presidential campaign and provides funds to hire, train, and
indoctrinate new special agents in fiscal year 2007 to backfill
staffing vacancies as current agents are assigned to such
protective assignments. The Committee directs the Secret
Service to submit status reports on January 1, 2007 and June 1,
2007, on the hiring and training of these new special agents.
2008 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURE PLAN
The Committee directs the Secret Service to submit an
expenditure plan for the 2008 Presidential Campaign no later
than January 16, 2007, that includes the full costs of
additional staffing, equipment, vehicles, and required
training. This plan should include the funds provided in fiscal
year 2007, by appropriations account, through the completion of
the Presidential campaign and the January 2009 Presidential
Inauguration.
PROTECTIVE INTELLIGENCE AND THREAT ANALYSIS
The Committee recognizes the Secret Service's expertise in
applying protective intelligence and threat analysis to
operations, but is concerned that these functions are currently
staffed at only 53 percent. To partially address this issue,
and to augment the staffing needs of the 2008 Presidential
Campaign, the Committee provides an additional $2,400,000 for
twenty new intelligence analysts and eight new protective
systems specialists.
Investigations and Field Operations
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 \1\................... $(304,271,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007 \1\................. (309,599,000)
Recommended in the bill............................... 312,499,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 \1\............... +(8,228,000)
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2007 \1\............. +(2,900,000)\1\ Figures are shown for comparative purposes only. Funds for this
purpose are requested under the Salaries and Expenses account, but are
recommended to be provided in this new appropriations account for
fiscal year 2007.
MISSION
The Investigations and Field Operations appropriations
account supports the investigative functions of the United
States Secret Service as authorized by 18 U.S.C. 3056 (b) 470,
471, 472, 473, 1028, 1029 and 1030, including: the
investigations of violations of laws relating to counterfeiting
of obligations and securities of the United States; financial
crimes such as: access device fraud, financial institution
fraud, identity theft, and computer fraud; and computer-based
attacks on our nation's financial, banking, and
telecommunications infrastructure. This account also supports
investigations involving missing and exploited children, as
authorized by 18 U.S.C. 3056 (f).
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $312,499,000 for Investigations
and Field Operations, $2,900,000 above the President's request
and $8,228,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006.
To ensure accountability in the budgeting for the Secret
Service's dual missions of protection and investigations, the
Committee recommends a new, distinct appropriations account for
Investigations and Field Operations. The Committee is very
concerned about the erosion of funds from investigations due to
the uncontrollable draw of protective operations. The Committee
believes a separate and distinct appropriations account for
each mission area will ensure improved budgetary planning by
the Secret Service. The Committee reminds the Secret Service
that transfers between appropriations accounts are not
available for obligation unless approved by the Committee, as
per the guidelines listed within Section 503 of this Act. Of
the total, $7,811,000 is included to support the National
Center for Missing and Exploited Children as follows:
$5,445,000 for grants and $2,366,000 for forensic support. A
comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee recommended
level by budget activity is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Investigations and Field
Operations Budget estimate Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Domestic field operations......... $236,093,000 $236,093,000
International field office 21,616,000 24,516,000
administration and operations....
Electronic Crimes Special Agent 44,079,000 44,079,000
Program and Electronic Crimes
Task Forces......................
Grants and forensic support for 7,811,000 7,811,000
the National Center for Missing
and Exploited Children...........
=====================================
Total, Investigations and 309,599,000 312,499,000
Field Operations...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS
The Committee recommends $24,516,000 for International
Field Office Administration and Operations, $2,900,000 above
the President's request and $3,758,000 above the amounts
provided in fiscal year 2006. Given the significant increase in
financial crime originating overseas and the expansion of
protective intelligence operations, the Committee believes new
field offices at the following locations are critical to the
Secret Service's investigative and protective missions:
Beijing, China; Madrid, Spain; and Moscow, Russia. Funds are
provided to support the staffing and equipment needs of these
three locations.
PERFORMANCE METRICS
The Committee continues to be concerned about the impact of
the persistent resource demands of protection upon
investigations. The Committee is aware of the Secret Service's
efforts to establish robust performance metrics that
demonstrate the productivity and value of its investigative
mission as well as quantify the impact of taking resources from
investigations to fund protective operations. The Committee
strongly supports this initiative and directs the Secret
Service to report to the Committee no later than January 16,
2007 on the implementation of these new performance metrics.
Furthermore, the Secret Service is directed to apply these
metrics to its budgetary system improvement efforts, discussed
previously within the Protection, Administration, and Training
account.
Special Event Fund
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006....................... $- - -
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007..................... 20,900,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 20,900,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006................... +20,900,000
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2007................. - - -
MISSION
The Special Event Fund supports the Secret Service's
extraordinary costs associated with National Special Security
Events (NSSEs) and Presidential campaigns.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $20,900,000, the same as the
President's request and $18,425,000 above the amounts provided
in fiscal year 2006 for NSSEs.
Acquisition, Construction, Improvements, and Related Expenses
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006....................... $3,662,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007..................... 3,725,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 3,725,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006................... +63,000
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2007................. - - -
MISSION
This account supports the acquisition, construction,
improvement, equipment, furnishing and related cost for
maintenance and support of Secret Service facilities, including
the Secret Service Memorial Headquarters Building and the James
J. Rowley Training Center (JJRTC).
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $3,725,000, the same as the
President's request and $63,000 above the amounts provided in
fiscal year 2006.
REVISED JJRTC MASTER PLAN
The Committee continues to await the revised JJRTC Master
Plan required in House Report 109-79 and includes bill language
withholding $1,000,000 from obligation until this report is
submitted.
TITLE III--PREPAREDNESS AND RECOVERY
Preparedness
UNDER SECRETARY FOR PREPAREDNESS
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006....................... $15,918,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007..................... 74,468,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 39,468,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006................... +23,550,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007................. -35,000,000
MISSION
The key focus of the Preparedness Directorate is risk
management. The Office of the Under Secretary for Preparedness
works with federal, State, local, tribal governments and
private sector partners to enhance coordination of preparedness
to defend and secure the United States from terrorist attack,
and to respond to and recover from catastrophic incidents,
major disasters, and other emergencies.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $39,468,000 for the Office of the
Under Secretary for Preparedness, $35,000,000 below the
President's request and $23,550,000 above the amounts provided
in fiscal year 2006. A comparison of the budget estimate to the
Committee recommended level by budget activity is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immediate Office of the Under $17,497,000 $17,497,000
Secretary for Preparedness.......
Office of the Chief Medical 4,980,000 4,980,000
Officer..........................
Office of National Capital Region 1,991,000 1,991,000
Coordination.....................
National Preparedness Integration 50,000,000 15,000,000
Program..........................
-------------------------------------
Total....................... $74,468,000 $39,468,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Preparedness Integration Program
The Committee recommends $15,000,000 for the National
Preparedness Integration Program (NPIP), $35,000,000 below the
amounts proposed by the President. The President's budget
assumed an increase in aviation passenger fees in order to fund
this program at the requested levels. Authorization of this fee
is not within the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Appropriations and the Committee has adjusted its fiscal year
2007 recommendation accordingly. Additionally, the
justifications provided for NPIP were overly broad. The
Committee has repeatedly asked for a prioritization of the
initiatives proposed to be accomplished by the NPIP but has not
yet received this list. Absent that, the Committee provides
$15,000,000 for first year funding of the NPIP. The Under
Secretary is directed to provide an expenditure plan for these
funds, including priorities and performance metrics, no later
than November 1, 2006.
PREPAREDNESS STRATEGY
Since September 11, 2001, and including funds in this bill,
$37,400,000,000 has been provided to State and local entities
to build our Nation's preparedness. The funding has been
provided to States, urban areas, and territories to enable them
to develop local strategies and plans, equip and train
emergency responders, and exercise operational plans. However,
the funding has gone to the State and local levels without
detailed guidance from the Department on the definition of
preparedness and without coherent standards and measures to
accomplish the missions of prevention, protection, response,
and recovery. The Department of Homeland Security has not
clearly defined what constitutes preparedness so that the
States understand and can measure their level of preparedness.
Simply stated--the enhancement of national preparedness from
the money invested in the States and territories is unknown.
A consistent strategy for preparedness in the United States
is required. The Committee understands that the NPIP will serve
as the Preparedness Directorate's lead in organizing,
implementing, and monitoring initiatives to integrate and
synchronize national preparedness. The Committee directs the
Under Secretary for Preparedness to develop a comprehensive
preparedness strategy that provides measures of preparedness
for the States, urban areas and territories. This strategy
shall specifically address threats, risks, vulnerabilities,
capabilities, and priorities for preparedness. The strategy
shall be based on the National Preparedness Goal; the required
missions of prevention, protection, response, and recovery; and
the supporting Target Capabilities for each mission. Inherent
in this comprehensive strategy must be instructions for local
jurisdictions as well as States to measure their respective
preparedness against established standards to prevent, protect
against, respond to, and recover from a terrorist incident or
natural disaster. The Committee directs the Secretary to
provide this strategy by January 16, 2007 to the House
Committee on Appropriations and the House Committee on Homeland
Security.
HURRICANE KATRINA LESSONS LEARNED
Even though the Preparedness Directorate was not in place
during Hurricane Katrina, the Directorate shares the burden,
along with FEMA, of implementing changes to correct failures
highlighted by Katrina. As noted above, the Committee has been
forced to adjust its fiscal year 2007 recommendation throughout
the bill to account for the assumed increase in aviation
passenger fees. However, while the Committee has been compelled
to make hard choices and adjustments to programs throughout the
Department to account for the fee increase, it should be noted
as evidence of the Committee's commitment to building a
stronger federal preparedness and response system, that the
Committee has increased funds for the Preparedness Directorate
and FEMA. For the Preparedness Directorate, the Committee
provides an increase of $464,991,000 or 13 percent above the
President's request. The White House, House of Representatives,
and Senate reports on the federal response to Hurricane Katrina
all call for action, not more planning. The Committee provides
the full funding requested by the President for the Immediate
Office of the Under Secretary for Preparedness. With this level
of funding, the Committee directs the Under Secretary for
Preparedness to implement effective initiatives that respond to
the findings of the Katrina investigations. The Committee
specifically notes several key recommendations of the White
House's ``The Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina--Lessons
Learned.''
Training and Exercises.--Hurricane Katrina revealed a lack
of familiarity of emergency responders with large-scale
incident management, including the National Response Plan (NRP)
and National Incident Management System (NIMS). The White
House's ``Lessons Learned,'' recommends a system of exercises
at all levels of government. The foundation for these exercises
should be training first responders on their role and
responsibilities as described in the NRP and the NIMS. The
Committee understands that the Under Secretary for Preparedness
plans to develop and implement a campaign to ensure awareness
of the NRP and the NIMS. The Committee expects the NPIP will
support command and control expertise, as well as exercise
planning to strengthen and test existing local and regional
plans. The Committee directs the Under Secretary for
Preparedness to report on improvements to training and
exercises no later than November 1, 2006.
Communications.--Hurricane Katrina destroyed the core
communications infrastructure in the affected area, leaving
emergency responders without reliable means of communications.
The White House's ``Lessons Learned'' recommends the
development of a National Emergency Communications Strategy
that supports communications operability and interoperability.
The Committee directs the Preparedness Directorate to develop
and coordinate a revised strategy, procedures, and instructions
for supporting emergency response operations. In addition, the
Committee expects that within the funds provided, the NPIP will
test and evaluate commercially available communications
equipment and technologies that can provide immediate emergency
communications services, and to acquire rapidly deployable
equipment. The Committee directs the Under Secretary for
Preparedness to report on the National Emergency Communications
Strategy no later than November 1, 2006.
Capabilities Assessments.--The investigations into
Hurricane Katrina have revealed gaps and shortfalls in
preparedness capabilities. They also revealed the need for an
accurate inventory of the Nation's capabilities. The fiscal
year 2006 conference report directs the Department to complete
the National Assessment and Reporting System by September 30,
2006, and the Committee expects that the Department is on
schedule to meet this deadline. HSPD-8 and the White House's
``Lessons Learned'' also direct the Department to develop a
national assessment system. The Committee further expects that
the National Assessment and Reporting System will not rely
exclusively on self-reported data but that the system will
include objective methods to measure State and local
capabilities. This data should form the basis for decision
making and national investments. The Committee has provided
$700,000, as requested for the establishment of a Program
Management Office to implement the National Assessment and
Reporting System.
ENHANCING ALL-HAZARDS CAPABILITIES
The Committee supports an all-hazards emergency
preparedness approach--that is, preparedness for domestic
terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies. The
Committee is aware that 30 of the 37 capabilities on the Target
Capabilities List (TCL) are common to both terrorist attacks
and natural or accidental disasters. The Committee believes
that the Office of the Under Secretary for Preparedness must
continue to encourage an all-hazards approach to preparedness
in grants, assistance, and funding requests and allocations.
The House Bipartisan Committee on Hurricane Katrina concluded
that, while a majority of State and local preparedness grants
are required to have a terrorism purpose, this does not
preclude a dual use application. The fiscal year 2006 homeland
security grant guidance states that, while funding remains
primarily focused on terrorism, the allowable scope of the
activities includes all catastrophic events, provided that
these activities also build capabilities that relate to
terrorism. The Committee expects that the fiscal year 2007
grant guidance will further support all-hazards activities. The
Committee encourages the Under Secretary for Preparedness to
give natural disasters appropriate weight in its risk based
funding methodology.
NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS GOAL
The Committee is concerned by the delay in issuing the
final National Preparedness Goal (NPG). In the fiscal year 2006
conference report, the conferees directed the Department to
issue the final NPG, including the final Universal Task List
and Target Capabilities List, no later than December 31, 2005.
To date, the Committee has not seen the final NPG. Without such
a plan, the Committee remains concerned about the direction of
the Department's allocation of resources for first responders.
Pursuant to HSPD-8, federal preparedness assistance is to be
predicated on adoption of Statewide comprehensive all-hazards
preparedness strategies that should be consistent with the
national preparedness goal. However, the Committee remains
concerned that federal preparedness assistance is being
allocated for planning, procurement, and training absent a
final goal, and identification of expected capabilities. The
Committee withholds from obligation $4,400,000 from the Office
of the Under Secretary for Preparedness until the Committee
receives the final NPG.
DOMESTIC PHARMACEUTICAL MANUFACTURING CAPACITY
The Committee is concerned that the U.S. no longer has the
manufacturing capacity to produce the drugs necessary to
counter a bio-weapon attack or a pandemic threat. The Bioshield
program was enacted to help resolve this problem, but the
program has been slow in implementation. The Committee directs
the Chief Medical Officer to examine the areas where U.S.
manufacturing capacity is inadequate and make recommendations
for Departmental action.
Office of Grants and Training
STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006....................... $2,476,287,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007..................... 2,281,559,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 2,524,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006................... +47,713,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007................. +242,441,000
MISSION
State and Local Programs provide for building and
sustaining the preparedness of the first responder community.
This program includes support of various grant programs,
training programs, planning activities, and technical
assistance. The grant programs funded by this appropriation
include State homeland security grants, law enforcement
terrorism prevention grants, emergency management performance
grants, high-threat high-density urban area grants, transit
grants, port security grants, and critical infrastructure
grants. For purposes of eligibility for funds under this
heading, any county, city, village, town, district, borough,
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, Alaska Native village, independent authority,
special district, or other political subdivision of any State
shall constitute a ``local unit of government.''
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $2,524,000,000 for State and Local
Programs, $242,441,000 above the President's request and
$47,713,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006.
Including $500,000,000 for Firefighter Assistance Grants,
$40,000,000 for the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency
Response Act (SAFER), and $186,000,000 for Emergency Management
Performance Grants, the Committee provides a total of
$3,250,000,000 for first responders in fiscal year 2007,
$499,991,000 above the President's request. Since September 11,
and including the funds provided in this bill, $37,400,000,000
has been made available for assistance to State and local
governments for terrorism prevention and preparedness, general
law enforcement, firefighter assistance, transportation
security, seaport security, and training and technical
assistance. The Committee does not include a separate
appropriation of $5,000,000 for Management and Administration
as these programs are fully funded through the grant programs.
A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State and Local Programs:
State Formula Grants:
State Homeland Security $633,000,000 $545,000,000
Grant Program............
Law Enforcement Terrorism - - - 400,000,000
Prevention...............
-------------------------------------
Subtotal State Grants... 633,000,000 945,000,000
Discretionary Grants:
High-Threat, High-Density 838,000,000 750,000,000
Urban Area Grants........
Targeted Infrastructure 600,000,000 - - -
Protection Program.......
Buffer Zone Protection - - - 50,000,000
Program..................
Port Security Grants...... - - - 200,000,000
Rail and Transit Security - - - 150,000,000
Grants...................
Trucking Industry Security - - - 5,000,000
Grants...................
Intercity Bus Security - - - 10,000,000
Grants...................
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, Discretionary 1,438,000,000 1,165,000,000
Grants.................
Commercial Equipment Direct - - - 75,000,000
Assistance Program...........
National Programs:
National Domestic 89,351,000 135,000,000
Preparedness Consortium..
National Exercise Program. 48,708,000 49,000,000
Technical Assistance...... 11,500,000 25,000,000
Metropolitan Medical - - - 30,000,000
Response System..........
Demonstration Training - - - 30,000,000
Grants...................
Continuing Training Grants 3,000,000 35,000,000
Citizen Corps............. 35,000,000 - - -
Evaluations and 23,000,000 23,000,000
Assessments..............
Rural Domestic - - - 12,000,000
Preparedness Consortium..
Subtotal, National 175,559,000 339,000,000
Programs...............
=====================================
Total, State and Local $2,281,559,000 $2,524,000,000
Programs.............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATE HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM
The Committee recommends $545,000,000 for State Homeland
Security grants, $88,000,000 below the President's request and
$500,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2006. These
funds are available to all States for purposes of training,
procuring equipment, planning, and conducting exercises, based
on each State's approved updated homeland security strategy.
The Committee notes that, not including fiscal year 2006
grants, more than $5,100,000,000, or 46 percent of the amount
appropriated between fiscal years 2002-2005 for first responder
funding, remains unspent at the close of the 2nd quarter of the
fiscal year. At the same time in fiscal year 2005, the
percentage of funds in the pipeline was also 46 percent. The
Committee is concerned that there doesn't seem to be an
increase in the spend-out rate, and therefore has maintained
level funding for the program.
Fiscal year 2006 was the first year that States and
territories were to be awarded a base level of 0.75 percent of
the total funding with the remaining appropriation allocated
based on the Department's determination of risk and need. The
President's request proposes to reduce the guaranteed amount to
each State or territory to a minimum of 0.25 percent of the
total. The Committee believes that each State and territory
must have funds in order to meet minimum essential capabilities
and continues to make these funds available to all States using
on the formula authorized by section 1014 of the USA PATRIOT
Act, (Public Law 107-56). Each State shall continue to be
guaranteed a base of 0.75 percent of the total with the
Department assessing each State's risk and need to determine
their minimum essential preparedness capability levels and
allocating remaining funds to address those identified gaps in
preparedness. The Committee directs the Office of Grants and
Training to brief the Committee 15 days prior to announcement
of the awarding of these funds. That briefing shall include all
threat and risk analysis applied and the process for
determining need based on filling gaps in preparedness levels.
The Committee expects the application kits to be made available
within 45 days after enactment of this Act, that States will
have 90 days to apply after the grant is announced, and the
Office of Grants and Training will act within 90 days of its
receipt. States must identify gaps in levels of preparedness
when applying and the Office of Grants and Training must
evaluate all applications based on threat and risk before
awards are made. The Committee also agrees that no less than 80
percent of these funds shall be passed by the State to local
units of government within 60 days of the State receiving
funds. None of the funds may be used for construction or
overtime, except overtime to backfill those first responders
attending Office of Grants and Training certified training
classes. Not to exceed three percent may be used for
administrative expenses.
LAW ENFORCEMENT TERRORISM PREVENTION GRANTS
The Committee recommends $400,000,000 for State and local
Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention grants, $400,000,000 above
the President's request and $4,000,000 above the amount
provided in fiscal year 2006.
The Committee does not agree with the President's proposal
to set aside a percentage of first responder grant funding for
prevention activities and has reestablished Law Enforcement
Terrorism Prevention grants as a separate grant program. The
Committee continues to make these funds available to all States
using the formula basis authorized by section 1014 of the USA
PATRIOT Act, (Public Law 107-56). Each State shall continue to
be guaranteed a base of 0.75 percent of the total with the
Department assessing each State's risk and need to determine
their minimum essential preparedness capability levels and
allocating remaining funds to address those identified gaps in
preparedness. Law enforcement terrorism prevention activities
that involve compensation of overtime shall be limited to those
specifically related to homeland security, such as providing
expanded investigation and intelligence efforts. Funding may
not be used to supplant ongoing, routine public safety
activities of State and local law enforcement. State
applications must certify that all requests for overtime comply
with this requirement. The Committee expects the application
kits to be made available within 45 days after enactment of
this Act, that States will have 90 days to apply after the
grant is announced, and the Office of Grants and Training will
act within 90 days of its receipt. States must identify gaps in
levels of preparedness when applying and the Office of Grants
and Training must evaluate all applications based on threat and
risk before awards are made. The Committee also agrees that no
less than 80 percent of these funds shall be passed by the
State to local units of government within 60 days of the State
receiving funds. None of the funds may be used for
construction. Not to exceed three percent may be used for
administrative expenses.
HIGH-THREAT, HIGH-DENSITY URBAN AREA GRANTS
The Committee recommends $750,000,000 for discretionary
grants to high-threat, high-density urban areas, $88,000,000
below the President's request and $7,350,000 below the amounts
provided in fiscal year 2006. The Committee expects the
application kits to be made available within 45 days after
enactment of this Act, that States will have 90 days to apply
after the grant is announced, and the Office of Grants and
Training will act within 90 days of its receipt. States must
identify gaps in levels of preparedness when applying and the
Office of Grants and Training must evaluate all applications
based on risk and need. The Committee also agrees that no less
than 80 percent of these funds shall be passed by the State to
local units of government within 60 days of the State receiving
funds. None of the funds may be used for construction. However,
for those projects that specifically address enhanced security
at critical infrastructure facilities, such as improved
perimeter security, minor construction or renovation for
necessary guard facilities, fencing, and related efforts,
project construction or renovation not exceeding $1,000,000 is
allowable, as deemed necessary by the Secretary. The Committee
expects the Office of Grants and Training to continue the
practice of reimbursing eligible overtime expenses as
designated in ODP Information Bulletin No. 127, dated August 3,
2004. Not to exceed three percent may be used for
administrative expenses.
BUFFER ZONE PROTECTION PROGRAM
The Committee recommends $50,000,000 for the Buffer Zone
Protection Program, $500,000 above the amounts provided in
fiscal year 2006. The President's request combined all
infrastructure protection grants into a single Targeted
Infrastructure Protection Program (TIPP). The Committee denies
this request. The Committee directs the Office of Grants and
Training to continue to work with Infrastructure Protection and
Information Security to identify critical infrastructure,
assess vulnerabilities at those sites, and direct funding to
gaps in those vulnerabilities.
PORT SECURITY
The Committee recommends $200,000,000 for Port Security
grants, $26,750,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year
2006, as part of the Committee's port, container, and cargo
security funding initiative as outlined under Office of the
Secretary and Executive Management Operations. The President's
request combined all infrastructure protection grants into a
single TIPP. The Committee denies this request. The Committee
directs the Office of Grants and Training to ensure the
coordination of all port security grants with the State, local
port authority, and the Captain of the Port, to ensure all
vested parties are involved and that the limited resources are
maximized.
The Committee is concerned about the effectiveness of the
port security grant program. The Department's Inspector General
report (OIG-06-24) assessed the Department's actions to improve
the port security grant program based on recommendations of an
earlier IG report (OIG-05-10). The February 2006 report
continues to criticize grant scoring and some award decisions.
The Committee directs the Office of Grants and Training to work
with the Infrastructure Protection and Information Security to
determine the threat environment at individual ports and with
the U.S. Coast Guard to evaluate each port's vulnerability. The
Committee expects that funds will be directed at those ports
with the highest risk and largest vulnerabilities.
RAIL AND TRANSIT SECURITY
The Committee recommends $150,000,000 for Rail and Transit
Security grants, $1,500,000 above the amounts provided in
fiscal year 2006. The President's request combined all
infrastructure protection grants into a single TIPP. The
Committee denies this request. The Committee encourages the
Office of Grants and Training to continue to work with the
Transportation Security Administration to develop a robust rail
and transit security program, as well as with the Science and
Technology Directorate on the identification of possible
research and design requirements.
TRUCKING INDUSTRY SECURITY
The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for Trucking Security
grants, $50,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006.
The President's request combined all infrastructure protection
grants into a single TIPP. The Committee denies this request.
The Committee encourages the Office of Grants and Training to
implement within the trucking industry security program an
outbound contact effort to assist with overall recruitment
efforts and to enhance emergency and disaster information
assistance.
INTERCITY BUS SECURITY
The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for Intercity Bus
Security grants, $100,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal
year 2006. The President's request combined all infrastructure
protection grants into a single TIPP. The Committee denies this
request.
COMMERCIAL EQUIPMENT DIRECT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
The Committee recommends $75,000,000 for the Commercial
Equipment Direct Assistance Program (CEDAP), $75,000,000 above
the President's request and $25,500,000 above the amounts
provided in fiscal year 2006. This program, formerly known as
the Technology Transfer Program, provides basic technologies,
which are immediately deployable to smaller local
jurisdictions. These jurisdictions do not always benefit
directly from other first responder grants, yet have the same
need for basic technologies, such as interoperable
communications, defensive protection equipment, and
vulnerability assessment tools.
Phase I of the CEDAP program made available eight equipment
choices, and Phase II of the program added 34 new pieces of
equipment. CEDAP officials considered not only equipment
available through the DHS Prepositioned Equipment Program and
ONDCP's Technology Transfer Program but also through other
government off-the-shelf equipment programs and commercial off-
the-shelf equipment. These pieces of equipment were selected
from criteria established by the Committee in its fiscal year
2005 report that defined equipment to include interoperable
communications technology, defensive protective equipment for
first responders, and vulnerability assessment technology
appropriate to rural jurisdictions. The Committee understands
that the selected equipment is continually evaluated. The
Committee is pleased with the initial phases of the CEDAP
program and supports an expansion from core direct assistance
to grants for equipment and technical assistance not currently
available through the CEDAP catalogue to jurisdictions of any
size.
NATIONAL PROGRAMS
The Committee recommends $339,000,000 for National
Programs, $5,837,000 below the amounts provided in fiscal year
2006. The President requested $175,559,000 for these programs
under separate accounts.
NATIONAL DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS CONSORTIUM
Of the funds recommended for National Programs, the
Committee provides $135,000,000 for the National Domestic
Preparedness Consortium, $45,649,000 above the President's
request and $8,550,000 below the amounts provided in fiscal
year 2006. Of this amount, the Committee provides $47,000,000
for the Center for Domestic Preparedness. The Committee directs
that the remaining funds will be split evenly among the
existing members.
NATIONAL EXERCISE PROGRAM
Of the funds recommended for National Programs, the
Committee provides $49,000,000 for the National Exercise
Program, $292,000 above the President's request and $2,480,000
below the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006.
The Committee has heard time and time again from different
offices within the Department that disaster exercises,
including Federal TOPOFF exercises, and State and local
exercises are critical to ensuring the preparedness of our
nation to respond to terrorist attacks and disasters. The
Committee has also heard that the lessons learned from these
exercises and the actions taken in response to the lessons
learned are more important than the exercises themselves. Yet
the Committee is unclear how the Department is ensuring that
these lessons learned are comprehensively addressed and directs
the Department to report by January 16, 2007 on its method for
tracking the results of exercises. The Committee also
encourages the Department to provide additional funding to
those areas that participate in Federal TOPOFF exercises.
METROPOLITAN MEDICAL RESPONSE SYSTEM
Of the funds recommended for National Programs, the
Committee provides $30,000,000 for the Metropolitan Medical
Response System, $30,000,000 above the President's request and
$300,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006.
DEMONSTRATION TRAINING GRANTS
Of the funds recommended for National Programs, the
Committee provides $30,000,000 for Demonstration Training
Grants, $30,000,000 above the President's request and $300,000
above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. The Committee
agrees that these shall be peer reviewed competitive grants for
first responder pilot and demonstration training projects,
covering the local, regional, and national levels.
CONTINUING TRAINING GRANTS
Of the funds recommended for National Programs, the
Committee provides $35,000,000 for Continuing Training Grants,
$32,000,000 above the President's request and $10,250,000 above
the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. The Committee agrees
that these grants shall be used to fund current first responder
training programs. The Committee recommends full funding for
the graduate-level homeland security education programs
currently supported by the Department. The Committee is
particularly supportive of programs that have consistently
delivered homeland security curricula in the form of executive
education programs for State Governors and other leaders and
accredited Masters Degree education already vetted by the
Department of Homeland Security. Such programs are the building
blocks of our next generation of homeland security leaders. The
Department is encouraged to leverage these existing programs
that have proven curricula to meet the growing need for
graduate-level education.
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
Of the funds recommended for National Programs, the
Committee provides $25,000,000 for Technical Assistance,
$13,500,000 above the President's request and $5,200,000 above
the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006.
The fiscal year 2006 conference report encouraged ODP (now
the Office of Grants and Training) to review the use of
logistics centers, which would consolidate State and local
assets, provide life-cycle management and maintenance of
equipment, allow for easy identification and rapid deployment
during an incident, and allow for the sharing of inventories
across jurisdictions. The Committee acknowledges that an
important component of increasing regional and local homeland
security capacity is the application of modern day logistics
practices to the movement of equipment and supplies during a
catastrophic event. The Committee therefore directs the Office
of Grants and Training to use no less than $5,000,000 to
develop a demonstration program with regional and local
governments in the formation of innovative public and private
logistical partnerships and centers to improve readiness,
increase response capacity, and maximize the management and
impact of homeland security resources.
The Committee encourages the Department to continue the
National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism's
Lessons Learned system and the Responder Knowledge Base. These
two databases provide invaluable information on currently
available equipment and procedures, and are a cost-effective
way to improve national preparedness, and should be kept intact
under the oversight of the Office of Grants and Training.
EVALUATIONS AND ASSESSMENTS
Of the funds recommended for National Programs, the
Committee provides $23,000,000 for Evaluations and Assessments,
the same as the budget request and $8,843,000 above the amounts
provided in fiscal year 2006.
RURAL DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS CONSORTIUM
Of the funds recommended for National Programs, the
Committee provides $12,000,000 for the Rural Domestic
Preparedness Consortium (RDPC), $12,000,000 above the
President's request and $2,100,000 above the amounts provided
in fiscal year 2006. The RDPC provides technical assistance and
training for terrorism prevention, preparedness, response, and
recovery in support of rural homeland security requirements.
Rural communities pose unique training challenges for first
responders and medical and government officials, such as the
protection of critical infrastructure located in rural areas
and the response to urban migration following an incident in an
urban area. The Committee directs the Office of Grants and
Training to continue the development of specialized and
innovative training curricula for rural first responders and
ensure the coordination of such efforts with existing Grants
and Training partners.
TRANSPARENCY OF GRANT FUNDING DISTRIBUTION
At Committee hearings this year, the Under Secretary for
Preparedness stated that his goal was to make DHS' risk based
grant determinations and the factors that go into those
determinations as transparent as possible for State and local
officials. The Committee applauds this goal and directs the
Preparedness Directorate to report by November 1, 2006, on the
steps taken to make the methodology transparent.
GRANTS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
The fiscal year 2006 conference report directed the
Department to provide a report, no later than January 16, 2006,
on the requirements, feasibility, and costs of an automated
grants management system. The Committee has not yet received
this report. However, the Committee is aware that the Office of
Grants and Training and the Under Secretary for Management are
working collaboratively on the identification of a system
solution for all DHS non-disaster grants. The Committee is
supportive of this effort and directs the Department to
include, in its fiscal year 2008 budget request, a solution
that facilitates the full life-cycle of grants management.
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
The Committee is very concerned with the lack of first
responder grant funding being provided to the Emergency Medical
Services (EMS) community. The Committee directs the Office of
Grants and Training to require in its grant guidance that State
and local governments include EMS representatives in planning
committees as an equal partner and to facilitate a nationwide
EMS needs assessment. In addition, no later than January 16,
2007, the Department is to report to the House Committee on
Appropriations and the House Committee on Homeland Security on
the use of State and local, urban area security initiative, and
firefighter assistance grant funds for EMS. Finally, no less
than ten percent of State Homeland Security Grants and the High
Threat, High Density Urban Area Grants must be provided to EMS
providers to better train and equip them to provide critical
life-saving assistance.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PARTICIPATION IN STATE PROCESS
The Committee believes that the strong participation of
local governments, including those of midsize and rural
communities and counties and multi-county regional
cooperatives, is essential to the development of sound homeland
security plans within each State. The Committee expects that
the Department will include outreach to localities as a
required State/territorial action for fiscal year 2007
compliance in the fiscal year 2007 grant guidance.
RAPID DECONTAMINATION PREPAREDNESS
The Committee remains concerned with the lack of planning
and preparation for a rapid decontamination response in the
event of a large scale biological or chemical attack. The
fiscal year 2006 conference report directed the Department to
report, not later than February 10, 2006, on the feasibility
and plan for establishing a regionally based, pre-positioned
rapid response capability for the decontamination of biological
and chemical agents based on technologies that meet the
decontamination standards for those agents. The Committee is
extremely concerned by the Department's inability to submit
this report on time. The Committee expects this report by
August 1, 2006.
FIRST RESPONDER INTEGRATED INFORMATION SYSTEM
The Committee is aware that Justice Information Exchange
Modeling (JIEM) software is being used successfully by criminal
justice agencies. The Committee expects that the Department of
Homeland Security will investigate this software and, if
appropriate, encourage and promote its use by first responders
to build integrated information systems to effectuate the
sharing of critical information among first responders and
criminal justice agencies and between these agencies, the
Department of Homeland Security and other appropriate federal
agencies.
Firefighter Assistance Grants
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006....................... $648,450,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007..................... 293,450,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 540,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006................... -108,450,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007................. +246,550,000
MISSION
Firefighter Assistance Grants provide grants to local fire
fighting departments for the purpose of protecting the health
and safety of the public and fire fighting personnel, including
volunteers and emergency medical service personnel, against
fire and fire-related hazards.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $540,000,000 for Firefighter
Assistance Grants, $246,550,000 above the President's request
and $108,450,000 below the amounts provided in fiscal year
2006. Of this amount, $40,000,000 shall be 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). The Committee directs the
Office of Grants and Training to continue grant administrative
practices in a manner identical to the current fiscal year,
including a peer review process of applications, granting funds
directly to local fire departments, and the inclusion of the
United States Fire Administration during grant administration.
The Committee does not agree to place priority on terrorism,
and directs the Office of Grants and Training to maintain an
all-hazards focus. The Committee also does not agree to limit
the list of eligible activities. Not to exceed five percent may
be used for administrative expenses. Funds are available until
September 30, 2008.
Emergency Management Performance Grants
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006....................... $183,150,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007..................... 170,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 186,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006................... +2,850,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007................. +16,000,000
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. EMPG funds may also be used to support
activities that contribute to the capability to manage
consequences of acts of terrorism.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $186,000,000 for Emergency
Management Performance Grants (EMPGs), $16,000,000 above the
President's request and $2,850,000 above the amount provided in
fiscal year 2006. The Committee does not agree to transfer
EMPGs to State and Local Programs, and continues to fund the
EMPG program as a separate appropriation. The Committee also
directs the Office of Grants and Training to continue grant
administrative practices in a manner identical to the current
fiscal year, including remaining focused on all-hazards and not
limiting personnel expenses. Not to exceed three percent may be
used for administrative expenses.
Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006....................... $-1,266,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007..................... -477,000
Recommended in the bill............................... -477,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006................... +789,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007................. - - -
MISSION
The Radiological Emergency Preparedness (REP) program
ensures that the public health and safety of citizens living
around commercial nuclear power plants is adequately protected
in the event of a nuclear power station accident and informs
and educates the public about radiological emergency
preparedness. The REP program responsibilities encompass only
``offsite'' activities--State and local government emergency
preparedness activities that take place beyond the nuclear
power plant boundaries.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee provides for the receipt and expenditure of
Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program fees collected as
authorized by Public Law 105-276. The President's request
estimates fee collections to exceed expenditures by $477,000 in
fiscal year 2007.
United States Fire Administration and Training
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006....................... $44,499,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007..................... 46,849,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 46,849,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006................... +2,350,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007................. - - -
MISSION
The mission of the United States Fire Administration is to
reduce economic losses and loss of life due to fire and related
emergencies through leadership, coordination, and support, and
also to prepare the Nation's first responder and health care
leaders through ongoing, and when necessary, expedited training
regarding how to evaluate and minimize community risk, improve
protection to critical infrastructure, and to be better
prepared to react to all hazard and terrorism emergencies of
all kinds.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $46,849,000 for the U.S. Fire
Administration and Training, the same as the President's
request and $2,350,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year
2006. Of the amount provided, $5,962,000 is for the Noble
Training Center.
Infrastructure Protection and Information Security
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006....................... $619,245,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007..................... 549,140,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 549,140,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006................... -70,105,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007................. - - -
MISSION
Infrastructure Protection and Information Security (IPIS)
aims to reduce the vulnerability of the nation's critical
infrastructures, key resources, information technology and
telecommunications to terrorists and natural disasters and aid
in the recovery of these resources after an event.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $549,140,000 for Infrastructure
Protection and Information Security (IPIS) programs, the same
as the President's request and $70,105,000 below the amounts
provided in fiscal year 2006.
A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee
recommended level by budget activity as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Management and Administration..... $84,650,000 $84,650,000
Critical Infrastructure Outreach 101,100,000 101,100,000
and Partnership..................
Critical Infrastructure 71,631,000 71,631,000
Identification and Evaluation....
National Infrastructure Simulation 16,021,000 16,021,000
and Analysis Center..............
Biosurveillance................... 8,218,000 8,218,000
Protective Actions................ 32,043,000 32,043,000
Cyber Security.................... 92,205,000 92,205,000
National Security/Emergency 143,272,000 143,272,000
Preparedness Telecommunications..
-------------------------------------
Total, Infrastructure 549,140,000 549,140,000
Protection and Information
Security...................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUDGET JUSTIFICATION
IPIS, created with the Department and reorganized the last
year, continues to define itself and clarify its mission. One
impediment to achieving mission clarity is providing
rudimentary budget information for programs relative to the
goals and activities of the programs. Unfortunately, the
current account lines do not align with programs, making
budgetary judgments difficult. For sound decisions to be made
in the appropriations process, timely and detailed programmatic
and budgetary information is needed. Components of the
Department provide such information slowly, if at all. The
Committee expects IPIS, as a newly organized component of the
Department, to provide more detailed supporting information to
support its budgetary request; the Committee will not accept
incomplete, vague or inaccurate submissions and expects IPIS
will provide timely and complete information to the Committee.
The Committee directs the Department, in consultation with the
Committee, to submit its fiscal year 2008 budget and
justification with budget lines that align with the operational
divisions and programs of IPIS.
PROGRAM TRANSFERS
The Committee notes that the IPIS request reflects a number
of program ``transfers'' within IPIS and between IPIS and other
components that are poorly justified or not discussed within
the budget at all. While reorganizations can reflect sound
management and reprioritization of programs, such action must
be clearly documented and in compliance with the Committee's
reprogramming and transfer requirements. Therefore, the
Committee directs the Department to fully describe all program
transfers in future budget submissions, including where the
program has been transferred to and reasons for program
changes.
ANALYSIS CENTERS
The Committee believes that IPIS analysis centers have the
potential to provide valuable insights to other programs,
enabling better judgments about where grant monies should be
directed. Though these programs are not large, they can
influence the spending of billions of dollars, so their value
should not be underestimated. While IPIS continues to redefine
itself after the Second Stage Review and retools itself to
address the needs of national priorities such as supporting
implementation of the National Infrastructure Protection Plan,
it must sustain and strengthen the basic analytic services it
provides to other departmental functions and outside groups.
The Committee supports the work of IPIS with the Protective
Security Analysis Center to provide a more accurate,
comprehensive, and real-time common operating picture. The
Committee encourages IPIS to continue this effort to enable the
targeted deployment of improved protective actions. The
Committee directs IPIS to report on organizational placement,
status and activities of its various analysis centers no later
than January 16, 2007.
NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PLAN (NIPP)
The Committee approves the $35,000,000 requested for the
creation of the National Infrastructure Protection Plan program
to aid in the implementation of a framework to establish
national priorities, goals and requirements for infrastructure
protection. The White House's ``The Federal Response to
Hurricane Katrina: Lessons Learned'' lists infrastructure
protection as one of seventeen ``critical challenges'' and
recommends finalization of the National Infrastructure
Protection Plan as a major step toward addressing that
challenge. Despite repeated promises, the Department has not
yet released the NIPP. Therefore, the Committee makes
$20,000,000 of the sums provided for Management and
Administration unavailable for obligation until DHS finalizes
the National Infrastructure Protection Plan to help address
weaknesses discussed in the White House report.
OPERATION ARCHANGEL
The Committee recognizes the work that DHS has done through
Operation Archangel to provide a national model for protecting
critical infrastructure and encourages DHS to continue such
activities.
COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW
The Committee notes IPIS has made progress on the
Comprehensive Review of commercial nuclear reactors and
associated spent fuel storage facilities, including development
of a standardized process to assess functions of the site,
local law enforcement, and emergency response agencies in
protecting and securing nuclear facilities. The Committee is
pleased with IPIS' plans to expand the comprehensive review to
other nuclear sector segments and expects to be kept apprised
of any conclusions drawn from the process, especially as they
relate to spent nuclear fuel or emerging weaknesses in
protecting these facilities.
HOMELAND INFRASTRUCTURE THREAT ANALYSIS AND RISK CENTER (HITRAC)
The Committee is pleased to learn that IPIS has established
the Homeland Infrastructure Threat and Analysis Center (HITRAC)
in partnership with Intelligence and Analysis, which some
consider the first successful bridge between the infrastructure
community and the intelligence community. The Government
Accountability Office and others have pointed out that a lack
of information sharing was the single greatest failure of
government in the lead-up to the 9/11 attacks. The Committee
encourages such partnerships and other activities that lead to
enhanced information sharing between the intelligence community
and those who will take action on it.
PROTECTIVE SECURITY FIELD OPERATIONS
The Committee is pleased with ongoing training and
deployment of Protective Security Advisors (PSAs) and Field
Security Detachments (FSDs). These individuals and teams are
essential for carrying out the Department's nationwide critical
infrastructure protection efforts. The Committee directs IPIS
to continue its quarterly report summarizing the status of the
implementation of the PSA and FSD programs, including the
number and locations of field personnel, the number of site
assistance visits, buffer zone protection plans, and site
verification and assistance visits that have been completed.
These reports should be provided no later than 30 days after
the end of each quarter.
CHEMICAL SITE SECURITY
The Committee is deeply concerned by recent statements from
the Secretary indicating the chemical industry and the nation
are held ``hostage to those few [chemical companies] who do not
undertake the responsibility that they have to make sure
security is at an appropriate level.'' Further, despite
testimony from the Director of Central Intelligence that the
chemical industrial infrastructure is vulnerable to a terrorist
attack, no federal security measures have been established for
the chemical sector. Finally, the Department has concluded
that, from a regulatory perspective, the existing patchwork of
authorities does not permit the effective regulation of the
chemical industry.
While the Administration requests $10,000,000 for
establishment of the new Chemical Site Security program to help
facilitate the security and safety of chemical sites, the
request is poorly justified and it is unclear what this money
will be used for. Ideally, this request would have been
accompanied by separate legislation requesting authority for
the Department to properly regulate chemical site security. No
legislation has been sent for consideration. Further, as part
of the fiscal year 2006 conference report, the Secretary was
directed to submit a report to the Committees on Appropriations
by February 10, 2006, on the resources needed to implement
mandatory security requirements for the Nation's chemical
sector and to create a system for auditing and ensuring
compliance with security standards. The report was to include a
description of security requirements and any reasons why the
requirements should differ from those already in place for
chemical facilities that operate in a port zone. This report
has not been received.
The Committee recommends fully funding the $10,000,000
request for the Chemical Site Security program, but directs the
Department to provide the Committee a spend plan showing how
these resources will be used. The Committee also includes a
provision to make $10,000,000 of the sums provided for IPIS
Management and Administration unavailable for obligation until
DHS submits the national security strategy for the chemical
sector.
CYBER SECURITY
The Committee recommends $92,205,000 for Cyber Security,
$211,000 less than amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. Cyber
Security functions as the Federal government coordination
point, bridging public and private institutions, to advance
computer security preparedness and the response to cyber
attacks and incidents through the United States Computer
Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT). Additionally, the Cyber
Security program studies the interconnection of cyber assets to
identify critical points in our Nation's cyber infrastructure
that could be exploited by malicious persons. The Committee is
encouraged by US-CERT advisories issued recently and is hopeful
that this proactive approach will continue to prevent cyber
threats.
INFORMATION SHARING AND ANALYSIS CENTERS (ISACS)
The Committee understands ISACs were developed after the
issuance of Presidential Directive 63 to share important
information about vulnerabilities, threats, intrusions, and
anomalies within and between industry sectors and the National
Infrastructure Protection Center. The Committee recognizes the
positive work the Multi-State ISAC has accomplished to monitor
for cyber intrusions so systems can respond more quickly to
these threats and supports this ongoing work.
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Administrative and Regional Operations
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006....................... $236,228,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007..................... 255,499,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 254,499,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006................... +18,271,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007................. -1,000,000
MISSION
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 ensures 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 to reduce the risk to life and property
from floods and other hazards. Finally, FEMA leads all federal
incident management preparedness and response planning by
building a comprehensive National Incident Management System
(NIMS) that incorporates federal, State, Tribal, and local
government personnel, agencies, and regional authorities.
Administrative and Regional Operations includes the
salaries and expenses required to provide executive direction
and administrative staff support for all agency programs in
both the headquarters and field offices. This account funds
both program support and executive direction activities.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $254,499,000 for Administrative
and Regional Operations, $1,000,000 less than the President's
request and $18,271,000 above the amount provided in fiscal
year 2006. The President's request includes funding for 1,115
FTEs, an increase of 83 FTEs. As of March 2006, the Department
only had 754 FTEs on board. The Committee is concerned about
this high level of vacancy, and is particularly concerned about
the number of senior management positions that are in an acting
capacity. While the Committee understands that the number of
staff vacancies is being reduced through the Acting Director's
hiring push, and that a few senior management positions were
nominated on April 6, 2006, the Committee remains concerned
about the lack of personnel and leadership. Therefore the
Committee has reduced funding for Administrative and Regional
Operations by $1,000,000 and directs the Department to provide
a comprehensive staffing strategic plan for FEMA within 30 days
of enactment. This strategic plan shall include recruitment and
training needs and identify resources required. The Committee
expects that all Regional and Division Directors will be on
board by the start of fiscal year 2007.
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET JUSTIFICATIONS
FEMA's Congressional budget justifications do not address
the needs of the Congress in its role of reviewing and
allocating federal budgetary resources. The Committee directs
the Secretary to submit the fiscal year 2008 budget
justifications based on the specific budget activities within
the divisions.
IMPROVING PUBLIC ALERT AND WARNING
The Committee is aware of an innovative project in which
the Department of Homeland Security and Public Television have
successfully demonstrated the capability of public television
stations to provide critical public warning information over
their digital broadcast transmission facilities. The project is
designed to begin the build out of a national network that
enables the American public to receive timely and critical
alerts via a range of technologies, such as cell-phones,
personal digital assistants, lap tops, pagers, televisions,
radios, satellite radio and cable and wireless networks. This
technology uses the digital broadcast transmission
infrastructure of public television stations as the backbone
for the reception, relay and retransmission of emergency alerts
in the system.
The first phase of the pilot focused primarily on
technology demonstration and proved that digital broadcasts to
media and telecommunications service providers will
significantly improve and enhance the ability of Federal, State
and local governments to provide critical, lifesaving emergency
messages to the public. The second phase expanded the number of
participants and lays the foundation for a digitally-based
federal public safety alert and warning system. This system
will supplement the current Emergency Alert System to provide
the President and other designated officials the capability to
speak to the American public in periods of national emergency.
The Committee directs the Department to finish the national
build-out and to provide for origination of emergency alert
messages from authorized local and state officials.
Readiness, Mitigation, Response, and Recovery
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006....................... $202,017,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007..................... 233,499,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 238,199,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006................... +36,182,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007................. +4,700,000
MISSION
The Readiness, Mitigation, Response, and Recovery activity
provides for the development and maintenance of an integrated,
nationwide operational capability to prepare for, mitigate
against, respond to, and recover from the consequences of
disasters and emergencies, regardless of their cause, in
partnership with other federal agencies, State and local
governments, volunteer organizations, and the private sector.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $238,199,000 for Readiness,
Mitigation, Response, and Recovery activities, $4,700,000 above
the President's request and $36,182,000 above the amounts
provided in fiscal year 2006.
HURRICANE KATRINA LESSONS LEARNED
Consistent with other areas of this report, the Committee
expects the Department to vigorously correct failures
identified by Hurricane Katrina. The House Bipartisan Committee
on Katrina, the White House's ``The Federal Response to
Hurricane Katrina--Lessons Learned'', and investigative results
from the Government Accountability Office and the Office of
Inspector General point to changes that should be made to
programs and responsibilities of the Federal Emergency
Management Administration (FEMA). The Committee directs that,
with the funds provided for fiscal year 2007, FEMA will
implement recommended improvements, with particular emphasis on
measures outlined below.
Incident Management.--The investigations into Hurricane
Katrina found that management capabilities were insufficient at
both the headquarters and field levels. To strengthen incident
management, the White House's ``The Federal Response to
Hurricane Katrina--Lessons Learned'' recommends the
establishment of a National Operations Center to replace the
situational awareness mission of the Homeland Security
Operations Center (HSOC) and FEMA's National Response
Coordination Center (NRCC). The Committee understands that FEMA
is developing protocols to improve operations between the NRCC
and the HSOC, including upgrading equipment and installing
software to improve the interface, coordination, and exchange
of information. The Committee directs the Department to improve
operations so that the NRCC can function as a true interagency
command center. Below the headquarters level, the Committee
directs FEMA to identify and train field personnel to fill the
roles of future Principal Federal Official and Joint Field
Office staffs. The Committee commends the Department's April 26
predesignation of 28 federal officials to coordinate the
federal government's role in the 2006 storm season. The
Department is directed to define the roles of these officials
and fully train these officials before the start of the 2006
hurricane season. FEMA is directed to report no later than July
1, 2006, on the status of these teams and the Department's
efforts to identify and train field personnel.
Logistics.--All States affected by Katrina have reported
they could not rely on FEMA to provide the commodities
requested and that federal and State managers had trouble
determining what resources were available and where and when
they were needed. The White House's ``Lessons Learned''
recommends that FEMA develop a modern, flexible logistics
system. The Committee understands that FEMA is developing a new
commodity tracking initiative (Total Asset Visibility: Phase I)
that will provide FEMA with an improved ability to manage its
inventory of certain commodities and to track the location of
trailers carrying commodities. The Committee understands that,
within the funds provided, FEMA will continue its efforts to
expand this tracking system to encompass all logistics centers.
FEMA is directed to report on the status of these efforts no
later than July 1, 2006.
Evacuations.--More than 70,000 individuals failed to
evacuate New Orleans before Hurricane Katrina hit, resulting in
catastrophe when it did. The White House's ``Lessons Learned''
found that, when local evacuations fail, the federal government
must be prepared to fulfill this task. The Committee concurs
with the recommendation that FEMA work with the Department of
Transportation to plan and exercise mass evacuations. A related
issue to mass evacuation is the resultant dislocated population
needing temporary shelter. The Committee concurs with the
``Lessons Learned'' recommendation that the Department must
maintain awareness of the movement of shelter and temporary
housing for residents. The Committee understands that FEMA is
working with its nonprofit partners to improve the ability to
meet temporary housing needs and the registration process and
directs FEMA to report on the status of these efforts no later
than July 1, 2006.
Debris Removal.--The estimated 118 million cubic yards of
debris caused by Hurricane Katrina were unprecedented. The
Committee recognizes that FEMA has revised its debris removal
policy to ensure consistent cost-sharing for federal
contracting (through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) and
local government contracting. Further, FEMA is establishing a
nationwide list of debris removal contractors that can help
States and local communities better plan for, and more rapidly
respond to, debris removal requirements in times of disaster.
FEMA is directed to notify the Committee of any changes to
current debris removal policies prior to implementing these
changes.
HURRICANE KATRINA FRAUD AND ABUSE
The Committee is concerned by widespread reports of fraud
and abuse associated with victim assistance programs for the
2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes. GAO found in (GAO-06-403T,
``Expedited Assistance for Victims of Hurricanes Katrina and
Rita'') significant flaws in the process for registering
disaster victims that leave the federal government vulnerable
to fraud and abuse of Expedited Assistance payments. While the
Committee recognizes the importance of providing aid as quickly
as possible to disaster victims, FEMA must have in place basic
controls to ensure that assistance goes to only those in need
and affected by a disaster. The Committee directs FEMA to
revise the validating and authenticating processes as
recommended in the February GAO statement. The Committee
concurs with the GAO--once fraudulent registrations are made
and money is disbursed, recouping those funds is a costly and
cumbersome process. The controls must be in place up front
through validation of identities and addresses and enhanced use
of automated system verification intended to prevent fraudulent
disbursements. FEMA shall report on instituting revisions to
its identity validation process no later than July 1, 2006, and
provide an update of implemented reforms by January 16, 2007.
The Committee directs the Department to provide a specific line
item by program, project, and activity in its fiscal year 2008
budget submission requesting necessary funds to implement
revisions to the registration processes that will safeguard
taxpayer dollars from fraud and abuse.
CATASTROPHIC PLANNING
While support for planning has largely moved to the
Preparedness Directorate, there continues to be a role for FEMA
in this area. The Preparedness Directorate is responsible for
providing assistance to State and local governments to carry
out their planning efforts while FEMA remains responsible for
planning the Federal-level effort required for effective
catastrophic disaster response operations. The Committee
provided $5,300,000 in fiscal year 2005, $20,000,000 in fiscal
year 2006, and recommends $20,000,000 in fiscal year 2007 for
catastrophic planning, as requested by the President. The
$25,300,000 previously appropriated are ``no-year'' funds which
remain available until expended. These appropriations indicate
the Committee's support for catastrophic planning. However, the
Committee remains concerned about the lack of detailed plans on
the use of these funds and notes that FEMA is four months late
in submitting the report on the status of catastrophic planning
required in fiscal year 2006. The Committee includes bill
language withholding from obligation the $20,000,000 provided
in fiscal year 2007 until FEMA develops and provides a detailed
catastrophic planning expenditure plan. This plan shall
include: a schedule of catastrophic planning events; exercises
of the NRP's Catastrophic Incident Supplement; and cost
estimates, schedule milestones, and expected performance goals
for each planning event. This detailed expenditure plan is in
addition to the report requested in fiscal year 2006 due
February 10, 2006, which the Committee expects no later than
August 1, 2006.
NATIONAL RESPONSE PLAN AND NATIONAL INCIDENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
The fiscal year 2007 President's request for Readiness,
Mitigation, Response, and Recovery (RMRR) included $5,300,000
to initiate improvements to the National Response Plan. The
Committee has included these funds in the pending fiscal year
2006 supplemental appropriations bill to accelerate the
revision process, and therefore does not include the $5,300,000
in the amounts recommended for fiscal year 2007. The Federal
response to Hurricane Katrina revealed several areas for
revision in the NRP. The Committee recommends the following
improvements: (1) clarify what constitutes an Incident of
National Significance to eliminate the confusion and academic
debate that surrounds this issue; (2) clarify the roles,
authorities and responsibilities between the PFO and FCO; and
(3) require that all Federal signatories to the NRP train
deployable disaster response personnel. Of the funds provided
for RMRR, $30,000,000 is included for the National Incident
Management System (NIMS). The Committee directs FEMA to use no
less than $10,000,000 to continue to implement NIMS nationwide,
with a focus specifically on standards identification, testing
and evaluation of equipment, and gap and lessons learned
identification.
NATIONAL CENTER FOR MISSING AND EXPLOITED CHILDREN
The Committee commends the National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children (NCMEC) for its laudable contributions to
Hurricane Katrina relief efforts. In the six months that
followed the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes, NCMEC recovered and
reunited all of the 5,192 children reported as missing. While
NCMEC has traditionally served the law enforcement community,
the Committee views NCMEC as a unique national resource that
has the potential to fill a critical need within DHS' response
programs. The Committee is aware of ongoing discussions between
FEMA and NCMEC that would include NCMEC in disaster relief
operations. The Committee is extremely supportive of this
relationship and encourages FEMA to examine how NCMEC can best
contribute to the National Response Plan.
PREPOSITIONED EQUIPMENT PROGRAM AND LOGISTICS CENTERS
The Committee includes $7,000,000 as requested for further
equipment purchase, maintenance, deployment, training and
outreach for the Prepositioned Equipment Program. The Committee
has learned that four of the nine Prepositioned Equipment
Program Pods have been released. The Committee understands
that, in some instances, this was because the Pods were housed
in non-government buildings scheduled for closure or
demolition. However, the Committee understands that instead of
leasing new space for the Pods in a nearby location, the
Department has moved the equipment to FEMA logistics centers.
The Committee directs the Department to provide, by July 1,
2006, the strategic or business plan that guided the site
selection for the relocation of the materials housed in the
four recently released Pods including the risk based
methodology used to position the equipment. The Committee
directs the Department to provide the strategy behind co-
locating the Pod equipment with logistics centers, as well as
the original methodology used to select the locations of the
logistics centers. As part of this plan, the Committee directs
the Department to provide an accounting of the actions taken to
date to extend the West Coast Logistics Center.
The Committee is aware of failures in providing temporary
housing structures in a reasonable time following Hurricane
Katrina and of more than 14,945 hastily ordered, purchased, and
now unused mobile homes. The Committee strongly recommends FEMA
consider acquiring and storing at logistics centers temporary,
stackable, and reusable emergency structures that can be
expanded during assembly to increase useable space. The
structures should also be suitable to address other
infrastructure needs including offices, schools, and medical
centers. The Committee believes these multiple reuse and
expandable structures will result in cost-savings as well as
provide immediate assets for improving delivery times, service,
and enhance response capabilities.
The Committee directs FEMA to consider prepositioning
portable water purification systems and meals-ready-to-eat
(MREs) near known natural disaster and other critical emergency
response areas.
URBAN SEARCH AND RESCUE
In 2005, the Department reported that the current 28 Urban
Search and Rescue teams have the capacity to meet the Stafford
Act urban search and rescue needs of this country. The
Committee notes that the country has again been well served by
the Urban Search and Rescue teams. Three days before Hurricane
Katrina hit landfall, three Urban Search and Rescue Teams were
initially deployed, and ultimately all 28 teams were deployed,
to assist in rescue efforts in heavily impacted areas in
Louisiana and Mississippi. The Committee is extremely impressed
by the work of the teams, which consist of local emergency
services personnel who helped 6,582 people reach safety in the
hours and days immediately after Hurricane Katrina, and
searched for trapped victims in 22,313 structures in New
Orleans alone. The Committee is concerned that the personnel of
the 28 existing teams worked around the clock from August 27,
2005, through September 30, 2005, and encourages FEMA to expand
the numbers of teams and to request appropriate funds to
support additional teams in the fiscal year 2008 budget.
LEVEE RECERTIFICATION
The Committee directs FEMA, in working with the Corps of
Engineers, to provide a status report by January 16, 2007 on
any levee inventories including the number and location of
federal levees that require recertification, the estimated
costs of recertification, and, a description of the
Administration's policy on how these cost requirements should
be met.
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
The Committee understands that the emergency preparedness
demonstration program is in the information collection phase.
The Committee directs FEMA to expand this pilot demonstration
project so that information from Hurricane Katrina victims can
be added to this study. The Committee recognizes that this may
cause the time of the study to lengthen and directs that FEMA
provide an interim report to the committee by March 31, 2007.
Public Health Programs
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006....................... $33,660,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007..................... 33,885,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 33,885,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006................... +225,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007................. - - -
MISSION
The Public Health Program account provides for the
coordination of much of the federal health, medical, and mental
health response to major emergencies, federally declared
disasters and terrorist acts. This nationwide response capacity
supplements State and local medical resources during disasters
and emergencies.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $33,885,000 for Public Health
Programs, the same as the budget request and $225,000 above the
amounts provided in fiscal year 2006.
Disaster Relief
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006....................... $1,750,800,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007..................... 1,941,390,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 1,662,891,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006................... -87,909,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007................. -278,499,000
MISSION
The Federal Emergency Management Agency is responsible for
administering disaster assistance programs and coordinating the
federal response in Presidential disaster declarations. Major
activities under the Disaster Relief program are: human
services which provides aid to families and individuals;
infrastructure which supports the efforts of State and local
governments to take emergency protective measures, clear debris
and repair infrastructure damage; hazard mitigation that
sponsors projects to diminish effects of future disasters; and
disaster management, including disaster field office staff and
automated data processing support.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $1,662,891,000 for the Disaster
Relief Fund, $278,499,000 below the President's request and
$89,409,000 below the amount provided in the regular fiscal
year 2006 bill.
The Committee has appropriated $35,000,000,000 in Emergency
Funds to the Disaster Relief Fund since September, 2005, and
has recommended an additional $9,550,000,000 in the pending
Supplemental bill. These funds remain available until expended
for declared disasters and emergencies. Of these emergency
funds provided in fiscal year 2005, Hurricane Katrina, almost
$778,000,000 were expended to purchase 21,322 mobile homes,
14,945 of which have not been used. The Committee expects that
these homes will be used for housing needs for the upcoming
hurricane seasons, thereby reducing estimated needs for the
Disaster Relief Fund.
Disaster Assistance Direct Loan Program Account
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006....................... $561,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007..................... 569,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 569,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006................... +8,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007................. - - -
LIMITATION ON DIRECT LOANS
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006....................... $25,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007..................... 25,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 25,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006................... - - -
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007................. - - -
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, as well as administrative expenses of this
program.
RECOMENDATION
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 $569,000 for
administrative expenses of the program, the same as the budget
request.
Flood Map Modernization Fund
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006....................... $198,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007..................... 198,980,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 198,980,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006................... +980,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007................. - - -
MISSION
The mission of the Flood Map Modernization Program is to
modernize and digitize the inventory of over 100,000 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 to develop appropriate disaster
response plans for federal, State, and local emergency
management personnel.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $198,980,000 for the Flood Map
Modernization Fund, the same as the President's request and
$980,000 above amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. The
Committee directs FEMA to continue funding ongoing flood
mapping projects at those levels identified in the statement of
managers accompanying P.L. 108-7. The Committee further directs
FEMA to provide funding to update the flood maps of the
following: Independence County in Arkansas; Flint River in
Albany, Georgia; Pike and Bell Counties in Kentucky; Hearne and
Abilene, Texas; Brazos and Robertson Counties in Texas. Not to
exceed three percent may be used for administrative expenses.
Funds are available until expended.
The Committee is concerned the Flood Map Modernization
Program is using data that is outdated and inaccurate to
produce its maps. The Committee therefore directs FEMA to use
newly collected elevation data produced by using the best
available technologies being utilized by other Federal
agencies, such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency,
and the Department of Defense. This should include consultation
and coordination with, at a minimum, the U.S. Geological Survey
and the Army Corps of Engineers.
National Flood Insurance Fund
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006....................... $123,854,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007..................... 128,588,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 128,588,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006................... +4,734,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007................. - - -
MISSION
The Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 requires the
purchase of insurance in communities where it is available as a
condition for receiving various forms of federal financial
assistance for acquisition and construction of buildings or
projects within special flood hazard areas identified by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency. All existing buildings and
their contents in communities where flood insurance is
available, through either the emergency or regular program, are
eligible for a first layer of coverage of subsidized premium
rates.
Full risk actuarial rates are charged for new construction
or substantial improvements commenced in identified special
flood hazard areas after December 31, 1974, or after the
effective date of the flood insurance rate map issued to the
community, whichever is later. For communities in the regular
program, a second layer of flood insurance coverage is
available at actuarial rates on all properties, and actuarial
rates for both layers apply to all new construction or
substantial improvements located in special flood hazard areas.
The program operations are financed with premium income
augmented by Treasury borrowings.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee has included bill language for salaries and
expenses to administer the National Flood Insurance Fund, not
to exceed $38,230,000, the same as the budget request. The
Committee has included bill language that not to exceed
$50,000,000 for severe repetitive loss property mitigation
expenses under section 1361A of the National Flood Insurance
Act of 1968 and a repetitive loss property mitigation pilot
program under section 1323 of the Act shall remain available
until expended. Not to exceed $90,358,000 is available for
flood mitigation activities, of which $31,000,000 is available
under section 1366 of the Act for transfer to the National
Flood Mitigation Fund. Flood mitigation funds are available
until September 30, 2008. Total funding of $128,588,000 is
offset by premium collections.
National Flood Mitigation Fund
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006....................... $28,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007..................... 31,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 31,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006................... +3,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007................. - - -
MISSION
The National Flood Mitigation Fund assists States and
communities in implementing measures to reduce or eliminate the
long-term risk of flood damage to buildings, manufactured
homes, and other structures insurable under the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP).
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $31,000,000 for the National Flood
Mitigation Fund, the same as the President's request and
$3,000,000 below the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006, to
be derived by transfer from the National Flood Insurance
Program. Funds are available until September 30, 2008.
National Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006....................... $49,500,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007..................... 149,978,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 100,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006................... +50,500,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007................. -49,978,000
MISSION
The National Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund assists State and
local governments (to include Indian Tribal governments) in
implementing cost-effective hazard mitigation activities that
complement a comprehensive mitigation program. All applicants
must be participating in the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP) if they have been identified through the NFIP as having
a Special Flood Hazard Area (a Flood Hazard Boundary Map or
Flood Insurance Rate Map has been issued). In addition, the
community must not be suspended or on probation from the NFIP.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $100,000,000 for the National Pre-
Disaster Mitigation Fund, $49,978,000 below the President's
request and $50,000,000 above amounts provided in fiscal year
2006. In addition to the funds recommended for fiscal year
2007, the Committee understands that FEMA has approximately
$75,000,000 in carryover funding from previous fiscal years.
Further, the President's budget assumed an increase in aviation
passenger fees in order to fund this program at the requested
levels. Authorization of this fee is not within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations and the
Committee has adjusted its fiscal year 2007 recommendation
accordingly.
Emergency Food and Shelter
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006....................... $151,470,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007..................... 151,470,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 151,470,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006................... - - -
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007................. - - -
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.
This collaborative effort between the private and public
sectors has disbursed over $2.4 billion in Federal funds during
its 23-year history.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $151,470,000 for the Emergency
Food and Shelter program, the same as the budget request and as
the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. Not to exceed 3.5
percent may be used for administrative expenses. Funds are
available until expended.
TITLE IV--RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, TRAINING, AND SERVICES
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006....................... $113,850,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007..................... 181,990,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 161,990,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006................... +48,140,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007................. -20,000,000
MISSION
The mission of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
(CIS) is to process all immigrant and non-immigrant benefits
provided to visitors to the United States, naturalization
requests, promote national security as it relates to
immigration issues, eliminate immigration adjudications
backlogs, and implement solutions to improve immigration
customer services. While essentially a service organization,
CIS maintains substantial records and data relevant to both
individuals who seek immigration benefits, as well as for law
enforcement and other homeland security purposes.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $161,990,000 for Citizenship and
Immigration Services, a decrease of $20,000,000 below the
President's request and $48,140,000 above the amount provided
in fiscal year 2006. This includes $47,000,000 to support
business system and information technology transformation;
$24,500,000 to fully fund the Systematic Alien Verification for
Entitlements (SAVE) program and expand it to meet requirements
of the REAL ID Act; and $90,490,000 to expand the Employment
Eligibility Verification (EEV) program. As noted earlier in
this report, these investments are critical to the ultimate
success of the SBI and immigration reform, while providing
immediate efficiency and security benefits for current
operations. The Committee reduced the overall discretionary
funding for the EEV program from that requested due to the
assumption in the President's budget of an increase in aviation
passenger fees to fund this program at the requested levels.
This fee is not within the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Appropriations and the Committee has adjusted its fiscal year
2007 recommendation for this account accordingly.
The following table specifies funding by program, project,
and activity, and includes both direct appropriation and
estimated collections:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct appropriations Budget estimate Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Business and IT Transformation.... $47,000,000 $47,000,000
Systematic Alien Verification for 24,500,000 24,500,000
Entitlements (SAVE)..............
Employment Eligibility 110,490,000 90,490,000
Verification (EEV) program.......
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, Direct 181,990,000 161,990,000
Appropriations...............
Adjudication Services (Immigration
Examination Fee Account):
Pay and Benefits.............. 624,600,000 624,600,000
District Operations........... 385,400,000 385,400,000
Service Center Operations..... 267,000,000 267,000,000
Asylum, Refugee and 75,000,000 75,000,000
International Operations.....
Records Operations............ 67,000,000 67,000,000
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, Adjudication 1,419,000,000 1,419,000,000
Services.................
Information and Customer Services
(Immigration Examination Fee
Account):
Pay and Benefits.............. 81,000,000 81,000,000
National Customer Service 48,000,000 48,000,000
Center.......................
Information Services.......... 15,000,000 15,000,000
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, Information and 144,000,000 144,000,000
Customer Service.........
Administration (Immigration
Examination Fee Accounts):
Pay and Benefits.............. 45,000,000 45,000,000
Operating Expenses............ 196,000,000 196,000,000
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, Administration.. 241,000,000 241,000,000
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, Immigration 1,760,000,000 1,760,000,000
Examination Fee Account
Fraud Prevention and Detection Fee 31,000,000 31,000,000
Account..........................
H-1B Non-Immigrant Petitioner Fee 13,000,000 13,000,000
Account..........................
=====================================
Total, U.S. 1,985,990,000 1,965,990,000
Citizenship and
Immigration Services.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
USER FEE FUNDED PROGRAMS
Current estimates of fee collections, which constitute the
majority of CIS offsetting resources, are $1,804,000,000. These
will support adjudication of applications for immigration
benefits and fraud prevention activities, and be derived from
fees collected from persons applying for immigration benefits.
Within the $1,760,000,000 of immigration examination fees
collected, the Committee directs CIS to provide not less than
$48,000,000 to support the National Customer Service Center
operations, and not to exceed $5,000 shall be available for
official reception and representation expenses.
OFFSETTING FEE COLLECTIONS
CIS operations depend on a variety of fees to offset
operations, particularly the Immigration Examination Fee. The
potential fluctuation of these fees can adversely affect
operations if spending is not appropriately prioritized. The
Committee directs CIS to ensure that it fully funds current,
ongoing base operations that are fee-supported before
undertaking new initiatives.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND BUSINESS SYSTEM TRANSFORMATION
The Committee is convinced that CIS must dramatically
upgrade its business operations, which are chained to
anachronistic paper processes, to avoid future backlogs in
processing, particularly in the event a temporary worker
program or some significant demand for benefits or
naturalization should arise. Of perhaps greater concern, the
need to access and share CIS data by law enforcement and
national security agencies will continue to be frustrated until
such information can be digitized and standardized. The
Committee therefore strongly supports the President's request
for information technology and business system transformation,
and provides $47,000,000 in fiscal year 2007. In order to
ensure that this effort is consistent with best practices, the
Committee makes this funding unavailable for obligation until
CIS submits to the Committee, and the Committee approves, a
strategic transformation plan that has been reviewed by the
Secretary and the Government Accountability Office. The
Committee directs that CIS submit with this plan a detailed
breakout of costs associated with its business and information
technology transformation effort in fiscal year 2007. The
Committee also directs that CIS include in the report materials
reflecting the alignment of the transformation process with
Departmental architecture, as well as details on expected
project performance and deliverables.
The Committee is concerned that CIS may have changed its
plans for the use of fiscal year 2006 funding provided for
information transformation and digitization efforts. If so, the
Committee directs CIS to submit a new expenditure plan for
approval by the Committee before obligating these funds.
EMPLOYER COMPLIANCE
Ensuring that CIS can respond to State and employer
requests for information on immigration status is key to
preventing illegal aliens from using fraud or counterfeit
identity documents to gain credentials for employment and
public services--the ``magnets'' that drive illegal
immigration. The Committee fully supports development of SAVE
and EEV systems. Because of budget constraints, the Committee
reduces EEV funding by $20,000,000, with the expectation that
this should not seriously delay investment in EEV.
One element of IT and business system transformation
relates to electronic communications with the State Department.
The Committee is disappointed that it has not received the
report on this information exchange, as required in the fiscal
year 2006 Committee report, and directs that report be provided
as soon as possible.
SECURITY AND INTERNAL AFFAIRS
The Committee is aware of reports that CIS may be
vulnerable to significant security lapses. One concern is that,
because the Office of Security and Investigations (OSI) has a
significant case backlog, critical enforcement action may be
delayed--for example, were it later discovered that immigration
benefits had been granted inappropriately. Another is that CIS
adjudicators may lack necessary security clearances, with the
result that immigration benefits or naturalization may have
been granted without adequate background or watch list checks--
for which such security clearances may be required. At the same
time, the Committee applauds the CIS Director for his
declaration that security is the top priority for CIS--not
maximizing output. The Committee strongly urges CIS to work
closely with Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Office
of the Inspector General to resolve any outstanding security
gaps, and to keep the Committee fully informed of progress in
this effort.
BACKGROUND CHECKS
The Committee understands some individuals have been
waiting over two years for the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI) to complete adjudication of their background checks. The
Committee further understands the FBI has recognized this
problem and is devoting additional resources to resolve these
background checks. The Committee directs CIS to ensure those
cases that have been held up the longest and those with the
most compelling need are given priority in this process.
IMMIGRATION SERVICES
The Committee encourages CIS to continue to expand its
immigration service programs throughout the country in areas
with high immigrant populations.
AVAILABILITY OF OFFICIAL FILES
The Committee recognizes the importance of ensuring asylum
applicants receive copies of their DHS files to prepare for
their cases in immigration court, where this is appropriate.
The Committee is concerned that, due to a backlog at the
National Records Center, few, if any, asylum applicants who
file FOIA requests for their files shortly after being served
with a notice to appear in immigration court receive those
files in time to prepare for their hearings. The Committee
directs CIS to develop a plan to ensure that such requests are
filled expeditiously, when appropriate, and to submit the plan
to the Committee not later than January 16, 2007.
U-VISA
The Committee is concerned that CIS has yet to issue
regulations on the U-visa for immigrant victims of crime. This
visa was established pursuant to the Trafficking Victims
Protection Act of 2000, but few victims have applied in the
last six years, as only interim relief exists. The Committee
directs CIS to report not later than January 16, 2007, on its
plan for issuing U-visa regulations.
FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING CENTER
Salaries and Expenses
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006....................... $192,060,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007..................... 202,310,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 210,507,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006................... +18,447,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007................. +8,197,000
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 75 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, other
federal agencies with related law enforcement missions.
FLETC is headquartered in Glynco, Georgia with facilities
in Artesia, New Mexico and Charleston, South Carolina. Each of
these facilities is designed primarily for residential training
operations. There is a fourth training center for officers and
agents in the Washington, D.C. area.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $210,507,000 for FLETC, an
increase of $8,197,000 above the President's request and
$18,447,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006.
This increase supports the increased training needs of the
Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The
Committee includes bill language and $300,000 as requested for
compensation to recipients receiving law enforcement
accreditation, and language permitting FLETC to hire retired
Federal employees as instructors.
The Committee encourages FLETC to explore the use of high
fidelity interactive simulators to practice and assess critical
incident preparedness skills. This would provide an authentic
physics-based dynamic disaster environment to train decision
makers and first responders, without the high costs or risks
associated with live exercises.
Acquisition, Construction, Improvements, and Related Expenses
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006....................... $87,474,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007..................... 42,246,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 42,246,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006................... -45,228,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007................. - - -
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, to include its facilities in
Georgia, South Carolina, Maryland, and New Mexico.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $42,246,000 for FLETC Acquisition,
Construction, Improvements, and Related Expenses, the same as
the President's request and $45,228,000 below the amounts
provided in fiscal year 2006. The decrease is due to one time
facility construction costs funded in fiscal year 2006.
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Management and Administration
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006....................... $80,288,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007..................... 195,901,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 180,901,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006................... +100,613,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007................. -15,000,000
MISSION
The Management and Administration (M&A;) appropriation
provides for the salaries and expenses of federal employees of
the Science and Technology Directorate (S&T;).
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $180,901,000 for Management and
Administration, $15,000,000 below the President's request and
$100,613,000 above amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. The
request reflects $112,013,000 in administrative costs
previously funded in the Research, Development, Acquisition,
and Operations (RDA&O;) account in order to better account for
resources S&T; devotes to research, as distinguished from
resources applied to administrative overhead.
HIRING
The Committee has reduced M&A; funding by $10,000,000 due to
the large number of vacancies within this office that are
estimated to continue through the remainder of fiscal year 2006
and into fiscal year 2007.
COMMUNICATIONS
The Committee is very disappointed by S&T;'s poor response
to Congressional requests for information, including a failure
to provide congressionally directed reports. After three years,
there has been no measurable improvement in this area, which is
unacceptable. Therefore, the Committee's recommendation
reflects a $5,000,000 reduction to the M&A; account for lack of
responsiveness.
BUDGET JUSTIFICATIONS
Only with great difficulty has the Committee been able to
gather basic budgetary information in support of the
President's fiscal year 2007 request for S&T.; This is
disconcerting, since a budget should be built upon sound,
mission-oriented planning and fiscal analysis rather than
simply being cobbled together. In particular, inadequate
justification was given for S&T; administrative overhead
funding, and how it would be employed. The Committee therefore
makes $98,000,000 unavailable for obligation until S&T; provides
an expenditure plan with sufficient detail on how it developed
its cost estimates, and explains the differences between the
fiscal year 2007 congressional justification and S&T;'s
projected plans for using these resources.
ADMINISTRATIVE COST ASSESSMENTS
The Committee is extremely disappointed to learn S&T; has
adopted the practice of assessing significant fractions of S&T;
activities' appropriated funds to cover Directorate overhead
costs. This has resulted in hiding true costs and a
diminishment of resources aimed at critical initiatives. In
addition, the method employed by S&T; for such assessments is
baffling--some programs are assessed less than ten percent,
others more than 20 percent, with no clear reason for the
difference. This practice must stop. The Committee directs S&T;
to identify and report any future assessments of a program
within RDA&O; to the Committee, and ensure that no assessment
may exceed five percent of the total program appropriation. Any
exception to the five percent cap must be approved by the
Committee in accordance with section 503 of this Act.
LEADERSHIP
The Committee directs the Department to expedite the naming
of a new Under Secretary. To its credit, acting management has
begun to provide the Committee with better information on the
operations of S&T; programs and priorities. Nevertheless,
regardless of the competency of the acting Under Secretary and
staff, S&T; has a need for permanent leadership to take
responsibility for corrective changes, be accountable for
policy decisions, and set a clear agenda for the organization.
Research, Development, Acquisition, and Operations
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006....................... $1,406,787,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007..................... 806,370,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 775,370,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006................... -631,417,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007................. -31,000,000
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, test, 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
terrorist threats; and development of new capabilities to
thwart future and emerging threats.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $775,370,000 for Research,
Development, Acquisition and Operations (RDA&O;), $31,000,000
below the President's request and $631,417,000 below amounts
provided in fiscal year 2006. The President's budget assumed an
increase in aviation passenger fees in order to fund this
program at the requested levels. This fee is not within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations and the
Committee has adjusted its fiscal year 2007 recommendation for
this account accordingly. Decreases include $38,000,000 from
the Chemical Countermeasures program; $10,000,000 from the
Explosives Countermeasures program; $7,000,000 from the
Regional Technology Integration (RTI) program and $3,000,000
from the Response and Recovery activities, both within
Conventional Missions Support. These decreases correspond to
areas of research where other governmental agencies are taking
the lead. The Committee directs S&T; to work with the Department
of Defense on its ongoing Chemical and Explosives
Countermeasures activities and leverage those much larger
programs to benefit the safety and security of the homeland.
Further, the Department is directed to work with the Office of
Grants and Training to assume a greater share of any RTI-type
activities the Department wishes to pursue. Finally, S&T; is
directed to work with the Environmental Protection Agency on
Chemical Response and Recovery activities.
A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biological Countermeasures........ $337,200,000 $337,200,000
Chemical Countermeasures.......... 83,092,000 45,092,000
Explosives Countermeasures........ 86,582,000 76,582,000
Threat Awareness.................. 39,851,000 39,851,000
Conventional Missions............. 88,622,000 85,622,000
Standards......................... 22,131,000 22,131,000
Emergent and Prototypical 19,451,000 19,451,000
Technologies.....................
Critical Infrastructure Protection 15,413,000 35,413,000
University Programs Fellowship 51,970,000 51,970,000
Programs.........................
Counter MANPADS................... 4,880,000 4,880,000
SAFETY Act........................ 4,710,000 4,710,000
Cyber Security.................... 22,733,000 22,733,000
Interoperability and Compatibility 29,735,000 29,735,000
=====================================
Total, Research, 806,370,000 775,370,000
Development, Acquisition,
and Operations.............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUSINESS MODEL
The Committee continues to be concerned about the ability
of S&T; to advance the use of science and technology in battling
terrorism and against other hazards related to homeland
security. Despite its promise, S&T; has failed to adequately
convey its role or how it supports missions of DHS component
agencies. Vendors continue to complain that S&T; is slow to
evaluate potentially valuable tools, and many DHS components
express skepticism or even ignorance about the value of S&T; in
serving their agencies. Until recently, S&T; has failed to
explain how it is using resources appropriated in prior years,
or even how it derived its request for fiscal year 2007.
Reports on activities have been left undone and progress on
ongoing reports has ceased when responsible staff left the
Department.
The Department is directed to report to the House Committee
on Appropriations, the House Homeland Security Committee and
the House Science Committee no later than 180 days after
enactment of this Act on the status of its efforts to develop
and implement a business model to enable it to: employ its
countermeasure activities to combat weapons of mass
destruction; lead and coordinate homeland security research and
cultivate the next generation of scientists; provide research
and consulting services to the component agencies; deliver new,
validated technologies to first responders and those who need
them most; and other activities deemed necessary by the
Secretary.
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
The Committee is disappointed to learn DHS's independent
financial auditors reported that during fiscal year 2005 S&T;
had financial reporting deficiencies, including serious
difficulties maintaining accurate financial records related to
obligations and disbursements. In addition, S&T; was unable to
provide breakdowns of funds obligated to private and public
sector facilities, used multiple systems to track contracts,
and lacked an automated system to provide information about
obligations and unexpended obligations associated with
contracts. Until these financial management challenges are
addressed, uncertainty about the reliability of S&T;'s reported
financial data may prevent DHS from resolving financial
reporting deficiencies and raises questions about the fiscal
year 2007 budget formulation. Therefore, the Committee makes
$400,000,000 unavailable for obligation until the Committee
receives and approves a report prepared by the Under Secretary
that describes its progress to address financial management
deficiencies; improve its management controls; and implement
performance measures and conduct independent evaluations to
assess the scope, quality and effectiveness of its research and
development programs.
DNDO TRANSFER
The proposed transfer of the Domestic Nuclear Detection
Office (DNDO) from S&T; is puzzling since all other DHS
Countermeasures activities are located within S&T.; This is
particularly unusual given most of the DNDO budget is
specifically directed toward research and development.
Furthermore, the Department has failed to explain why such a
move was necessary. While the Committee is dissatisfied with
this, it recognizes the critical importance of the DNDO
mission, and the liability it would face by remaining in a
leaderless Directorate. The Committee therefore approves the
transfer of DNDO.
However, the Committee is concerned that, if DNDO is housed
outside the primary research and development body of DHS, it
may encounter unexpected hurdles in achieving its research
aims. The Committee directs S&T; to work with DNDO and support
the R&D; related needs of this new office. In addition, the
Committee is aware DNDO does not have certain grant making and
contracting authority; the Committee includes a new general
provision (Sec. 531) providing this authority.
BIOLOGICAL COUNTERMEASURES
The Biological Countermeasures program develops and
implements an integrated systems approach to reducing the
probability and potential consequences of a biological attack
on this nation's civilian population, infrastructure, or
agricultural system. The Committee recommends $337,200,000 for
Biological Countermeasures as requested by the President. The
Committee notes that the current deployed technologies are
labor intensive, costly and detect a limited range of
pathogens. The Committee supports the requested BioWatch Gen 2
enhancements and expects S&T; to proceed expeditiously in the
development and deployment of Gen 3 instruments. The Committee
notes that operational costs of the currently deployed systems
that require personnel to manually extract samples daily are
substantial and that fully autonomous Gen 3 systems currently
in development will lead to decreased operational costs while
increasing specificity and sensitivity.
BIOLOGICAL COUNTERMEASURES STRATEGIC PLAN
The Committee notes the Department's other major weapons of
mass destruction countermeasure program, DNDO, has made efforts
to develop an ``architecture'' to distinguish its efforts from
those of other federal Departments, to coordinate those
Departments' activities, and to chart its future activities and
goals. Given the serious consequences of a successful
biological attack and the disparate number of agencies working
on the issue (e.g., the Centers for Disease Control, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, and Food and Drug Administration)
the Biological Countermeasures program should pursue a similar
coordinating effort, as soon as practicable. The Committee
directs S&T;, in coordination with the DHS Chief Medical Officer
and other related federal departments, to develop a similar
strategic plan and to report not later than January 16, 2007 to
the House Committee on Appropriations, the House Homeland
Security Committee and the House Science Committee on DHS'
roles and responsibilities, its framework for deploying
sensors, its scope of activities, including how detector alerts
would be managed, how it plans to enhance advance animal
vaccine research and other agro-terrorism defense efforts,
overall fulfillment of the Department's obligations under HSPD-
10, and how other activities of this portfolio relate to such
efforts by other government agencies.
MATERIAL THREAT ASSESSMENTS
The Committee is concerned with the lack of progress on
completing the Material Threat Assessments authorized under the
Public Health Service Act. These assessments are a vital
component of the national preparedness posture and are
essential for identifying the risks for which the Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS) must develop countermeasures.
The Committee urges the Department, in coordination with HHS,
to finish all necessary assessments of chemical, biological,
radiological, and nuclear agents capable of significantly
affecting national security as quickly as possible. The
Committee directs S&T; to report on its plan for completing
these assessments by January 16, 2007.
URBAN DISPERSION
The Committee supports S&T;'s ongoing Urban Dispersion
Program to provide urban first responders information they will
need during a radiological, biological or chemical attack and
recommends continued funding of this program.
CHEMICAL COUNTERMEASURES
The Chemical Countermeasures program focuses on
characterizing and reducing the vulnerability posed by toxic
industrial materials in use, storage or transport within the
nation as well as providing countermeasures to emerging
chemical threats. The Committee recommends $45,092,000 for
Chemical Countermeasures, $48,958,000 below the amounts
provided in fiscal year 2006. The Committee believes that
ongoing work by other federal departments can be leveraged to
benefit protecting the homeland. Of the amount provided, the
Committee recommends $18,800,000 for the Chemical
Countermeasures detection program. The Committee directs the
Under Secretary for S&T; to work with the Assistant to the
Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical and Biological
Defense Programs to help leverage DOD research toward the
protection of the homeland where practicable. Included in the
Committee's recommendations is $7,600,000 for the Chemical
Countermeasures response and recovery activity. The Committee
directs the Under Secretary to coordinate with the
Environmental Protection Agency on its ongoing activities to
prevent duplication of effort.
EXPLOSIVE COUNTERMEASURES
The Explosive Countermeasures program provides the science
and technology needed to significantly increase the probability
of interdicting an explosives attack on buildings, critical
infrastructure, and this nation's civilian population. The
Committee recommends $76,582,000 for Explosive Countermeasures
$33,022,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. Of
the amount provided, the Committee recommends $4,200,000 for
the Explosive Countermeasures suicide bomb detection program
and $4,300,000 for the vehicle bomb program. The Committee
directs the Under Secretary for S&T; to work with the Assistant
to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical and
Biological Defense Programs to help leverage DOD research
toward the protection of the homeland where practicable.
MANHATTAN II
The Committee is very interested in the progress and
outcomes of the Manhattan II project and has provided
$13,500,000 in fiscal year 2007. This ongoing long-term
research and development program focuses on developing highly
efficient and fast next-generation explosive detection systems.
This program, commenced by TSA, has been transferred to the
Science and Technology Directorate.
With the ``proof of concept'' phase now completed, the
Committee expects S&T; to release its next broad area
announcement and begin the next phase of development as quickly
as possible and to award funding to participants with
capability to transition technology to the marketplace and who
will likely be able to produce cost effective machines once in
production. The Committee supports the program's efforts to
reduce false alarm positives, increase throughput, reduce
manpower costs, enhance resolution, and improve reliability and
operating efficiencies.
AREA 300
The Committee is aware S&T; is working with the Department
of Energy on replacement facilities at Area 300 of the Pacific
Northwest National Laboratories, but no reference to this
activity was in the budget justification. The Committee directs
the Department to fully fund its obligations and characterize
its efforts at this site in the fiscal year 2008 budget
submission.
THREAT AWARENESS
The Committee recommends $39,851,000 for Threat Awareness,
the same as the President's request and $2,719,000 below the
amount provided in fiscal year 2006. Within the Threat
Awareness Portfolio, S&T; has created the knowledge management
architecture known as Analysis, Dissemination, Visualization,
Insight, Synthesis, and Enhancement (ADVISE) to integrate
various information capabilities. The Committee remains unclear
of the Department's plans for ADVISE and directs S&T; to submit
a program plan, including goals and costs to the Committee by
November 3, 2006.
CONVENTIONAL MISSIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE DEPARTMENT
The Committee recommends $85,622,000 for Conventional
Missions, $6,422,000 above amounts provided in fiscal year
2006. The Committee recommends $3,500,000 for the Regional
Technology Integration (RTI) program and $6,200,000 for the
Response and Recovery activities within Conventional Missions
Support. As noted previously in this report, the Committee is
concerned that component managers seem unaware that S&T; is
performing work on their behalf. The Committee believes that
component needs should be incorporated into Conventional
Missions activities to provide customer-oriented, requirements-
based research. The Committee directs S&T; to include such
criteria in the business model described previously in this
report.
The Committee believes new technologies may significantly
help the Department as it seeks to secure our homeland. The
Committee endorses the Department's plans to assess
technologies such as infrared illumination systems, laser radar
sensors, and aerial imaging technologies.
CARGO AND CONTAINER SECURITY
The Committee is aware that S&T;, in cooperation with the
Transportation Security Administration and Customs and Border
Protection (CBP), has a number of initiatives underway
concerning the security of containers, including the detection
of materials within the container and the security of the
container itself. The Committee believes that unsecured
containers pose a significant threat to the homeland since
terrorists could exploit the nation's open commerce and
transport a weapon of mass destruction or themselves to this
country. As described in the Office of the Secretary and
Executive Management, the Committee recommends aggressive
support of port, container, and cargo security. Within this
account, the Committee recommends $23,000,000 for Border and
Transportation Cargo Security, an increase of $7,100,000 over
the amount requested. The Committee directs S&T;, in partnership
with CBP, to use these resources to pilot test, if appropriate,
and accelerate development of Container Security Devices,
Advanced Container Security Devices and other ongoing
Department initiatives.
STANDARDS COORDINATION
The Committee recommends $22,131,000 for the Standards
program, the same as the President's request. The Committee
also recommends that the program be renamed Standards
Coordination. Setting standards is vital. For example, without
appropriate standards, interoperability of radios will never be
achievable, money cannot be wisely spent on the best safety
product, and manufacturers' claims cannot be verified. However,
setting standards is not S&T;'s role, and this program has no
authority to do so. Rather, it supports the development and
adoption of standards to help public safety agencies select
equipment and tools that are safe, effective, and reliable. The
current name and frequent communications from the Department
lead many to believe DHS has this authority and ability--and
leaves S&T; vulnerable to criticism. However, within its mission
space, S&T; should encourage the rapid development of standards
for technologies and training programs and be certain they are
designed and validated to ensure that they perform as needed.
EMERGENT AND PROTOTYPICAL TECHNOLOGIES
The Committee recommends $19,451,000, for Emergent and
Prototypical Technologies, the same as the President's request
and $17,300,000 below the combined amount provided to Emerging
Threats and Rapid Prototyping in fiscal year 2006. The
Committee supports the President's request for the Public
Safety and Security Institute for Technology (PSITEC) to
continue to implement the centralized technology clearinghouse
for federal, State and local governments and for the
development and execution of programs that assist DHS in
implementing Section 313 of the Homeland Security Act. This
includes programs to: provide assistance in assessing
technology needs and establish requirements for the development
of new technologies; facilitate the transfer of technologies to
end users; and test and evaluate new technologies. The
Committee understands there are other related activities within
other components that, if properly linked to PSITEC, could
bring synergies to end users. The Committee directs the
Department to make information and databases of other DHS
websites and portals integrated into the centralized
Clearinghouse.
CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION
The Critical Infrastructure Protection program conducts
vulnerability, consequence and risk analyses to identify the
best approaches to protecting the nation's infrastructure,
allowing priorities to be established based on a rational
process, and resources to be invested with the highest payoff
of risk reduction and damage mitigation. The Committee
recommends $35,413,000 for Critical Infrastructure Protection
$20,000,000 above the President's request, and $4,979,000 below
the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. The Committee
recommends $20,000,000 to support existing work in research and
development and application of technology for community based
critical infrastructure protection efforts.
UNIVERSITY PROGRAMS/FELLOWSHIP PROGRAMS
The Committee recommends $51,970,000 for University
Programs/Fellowship Programs, the same as the President's
request and $10,400,000 below the amounts provided in fiscal
year 2006. The Committee is concerned that this program has an
unobligated balance of $67,399,000 halfway through the fiscal
year and reduces funds below fiscal year 2006 accordingly. S&T;
is encouraging universities to become centers of multi-
disciplinary research, including long-term research, through
its Centers of Excellence activities and fostering the
development of the next generation of scientists through its
Scholars and Fellows Program. The Committee continues to
support S&T; efforts to interest and educate the next generation
of researchers, and notes the continued intense interest from
universities with proposals to perform homeland security
activities. The Committee directs S&T; to report on activities
funded under this appropriation by January 16, 2007.
COUNTER-MANPADS
The Counter-MANPADS program is focused on identifying,
developing, and testing a cost-effective capability to protect
the nation's commercial aircraft against the threat of man-
portable air defense systems (MANPADS), commonly called anti-
aircraft missiles. The Committee recommends $4,880,000 for the
Counter-MANPADS program, the same as the President's request
and $104,020,000 below the amounts provided in fiscal year
2006. The Committee notes that the request reflects the
completion of Phase 3 testing in fiscal year 2006, which will
provide the Administration and Congress information about the
applicability, reliability, and cost of airborne counter-
MANPADS currently being evaluated. The Committee directs S&T; to
complete and report on this testing as quickly as practicable.
SAFETY ACT
The ``Support Anti-terrorism by Fostering Effective
Technologies Act of 2002'', (SAFETY Act) facilitates the
development of homeland security technologies that otherwise
would not be deployed because of the risk of liability.
Companies can apply to have their products and services deemed
``qualified anti-terrorism technologies''. The Committee
recommends $4,710,000 for the SAFETY Act program, the same as
the President's request and $2,220,000 below amounts provided
in fiscal year 2006.
The Committee is encouraged by the progress S&T; has made in
reducing the processing time for SAFETY Act applications. The
Committee directs S&T; to explore new ways to expedite the
SAFETY Act process, including: developing a procedure to
identify active procurements that are eligible under the SAFETY
Act and invite the vendors to apply for designation and
certification; aligning SAFETY Act criteria for utility and
effectiveness with procurement criteria where possible; and
avoiding repeat technical reviews of anti-terrorism technology
that other government agencies have conducted.
SAFECOM
The Committee notes that SAFECOM has worked diligently
within its mission space and is pleased with its efforts to
enhance and accelerate communications interoperability for the
nation's emergency responders. The Committee supports the
continuation of the development and implementation of tools
such as the Statewide Communications Interoperability Planning
tools and is encouraged by results of regional planning
efforts. The Committee supports the joint work of SAFECOM and
the Office of Grants and Training (G&T;) in continuing the
Rapidcom initiative, and in overseeing the implementation of
the grant guidance provided to State, regional and local
jurisdictions. The Committee directs SAFECOM to work with G&T;
to assess the success of Rapidcom and the grant guidance, and
to recommend steps to enhance the use of that guidance.
The Committee directs OIC to test and report findings on
the performance specifications of Internet-Protocol (IP) based
interoperability solutions and corresponding transmission
equipment. SAFECOM guidelines should then be amended to clarify
that, for purposes of providing near-term interoperability,
funding requests to improve interoperability need not be
limited to the purchase of new radios, but can also fund the
purchase of these successfully tested Internet-Protocol (IP)
based interoperability solutions that connect existing and
future radios over an IP interoperability network. Likewise,
funding requests for successfully tested transmission equipment
to construct mutual aid channels and upgrade such channels with
IP connectivity will also be considered, so long as P-25 and
other digital radios utilizing the public safety portions of
the 700 MHz band can operate over an IP interoperability
network.
RISK ASSESSMENT
The Committee acknowledges the Department's assertion that
the fiscal year 2007 budget request was formulated based on
``risk''. In a world with limited resources, a department
tasked with missions that range from finding persons lost at
sea to detecting renegade nuclear weapons, prioritizing
spending based on mitigating the greatest risk is not only
proper budgeting, but the best means to save lives and protect
property. Without a relative risk scale ranking the greatest
dangers to society, decisionmaking can become arbitrary and
lead to the use of resources for the most frightening threats
rather than ones most likely to harm us. Unfortunately, the
fiscal year 2007 budget request offers no details of how risk
assessment was used in its formulation or even which DHS agency
was tasked with prioritizing risks and assigning them
resources.
The Committee is aware of the work of the Risk Assessment
Policy (RAP) Group and is pleased with the RAP Group approach
to addressing conflicting risk assessment methodologies. The
Committee directs DHS to report by January 16, 2007, on the
direction that will be taken to make certain all elements of
the Department involved in risk assessment activities are using
compatible risk assessment methodologies including risks from
all hazards and are coordinated with each other. The Committee
also directs the RAP Group to work with the Office of Grants
and Training and the Office of Infrastructure Protection and
Information Security to develop grant guidance for all grant
programs within DHS establishing common risk assessments to be
used by all grantees.
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 \1\................... $(314,834,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007..................... 535,788,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 500,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006................... +185,166,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007................. -35,788,000\1\ The Domestic Nuclear Detection Office was part of Science and
Technology's Research, Development, Acquisition and Operations account
in fiscal year 2006. This figure is shown for comparison purposes
only.
MISSION
The Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) leads the
Department's efforts to prevent nuclear or radiological
terrorism by improving the nation's capability to detect
unauthorized possession of radiological material.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $500,000,000 for the Domestic
Nuclear Detection Office, $35,788,000 below the President's
request and $185,166,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal
year 2006. The President's budget assumed an increase in
aviation passenger fees in order to fund this program at the
requested levels. This fee is not within the jurisdiction of
the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee has adjusted
its fiscal year 2007 recommendation for this account
accordingly. The Committee does not recommend funding the
proposed SURGE program and proposes the transformational
research activities be funded at $85,200,000. While the
Committee recommends reductions to the budget request, it notes
that this still represents an increase of 59 percent over the
amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. The Committee is
impressed with the aggressive efforts and focus of this new
organization. Though only a year old, DNDO has provided timely
and accurate information, worked with Congress to clarify its
important mission, and appears well on its way to greatly
expanding domestic capability for detection of illicit nuclear
materials. A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget
estimate Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Management and administration........... $30,468,000 $30,468,000
Research, development, and operations... 327,320,000 291,532,000
Systems acquisition..................... 178,000,000 178,000,000
===============================
Total, Office of the Chief 535,788,000 500,000,000
Information Officer..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONTAINER SECURITY
As described under the Office of the Secretary and
Executive Management, the Committee recommends aggressive
support of port, container, and cargo security. As part of the
Department's strategic plan, Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) and DNDO are required to double the percentage of in-
bound, containerized cargo that is screened, with January 1,
2006 as a baseline.
RADIATION PORTAL MONITOR DEPLOYMENT
GAO recently found that CBP's delays in deployment of
radiation portal monitors (RPMs) were caused by DHS' lengthy
review process and negotiations with seaport operators on the
placement of the equipment. The Committee directs CBP and DNDO
to streamline the RPM deployment process so that seaport
placement plans are developed in advance and DHS does not delay
the number of monitors that can be deployed within the funding
available.
ADVANCED SPECTROSCOPIC PORTALS (ASP)
The Committee is concerned over the lack of a quantitative
analysis which demonstrates the increased effectiveness of
sodium-iodide based Advanced Spectroscopic Portal monitors
compared to the current generation RPMs. DNDO shall not expend
any funds provided in this Act to create a Sodium-Iodide
Manufacturing Program until DNDO demonstrates that Advanced
Spectroscopic Portal monitors will significantly speed up
commerce, reduce the costs of secondary inspection or
significantly increase sensitivity over current generation
RPMs. Until this assessment is completed, the current monitors
should be deployed in an expeditious manner. The Committee
directs DNDO to conduct a cost-benefit analysis to compare the
benefits of ASP deployment to that of current RPMs and report
to the Committee on the results of this analysis no later than
July 1, 2006.
RED TEAMING
The Committee is concerned that GAO recently succeeded in
smuggling nuclear material into the country during a red team
exercise (GAO-06-389, ``Combating Nuclear Smuggling, DHS Has
Made Progress Deploying Radiation Detection Equipment at U.S.
Ports-of-Entry, but Concerns Remain''). While the RPM detected
the radioactive source, CBP failed to verify proper
documentation transporting radioactive material. The Committee
is also aware that DNDO proposes to begin red teaming
activities to test the portions of the architecture over the
coming years. The Committee cautions DNDO to not only test the
technological component of the architecture, but to also
explore administrative and bureaucratic weaknesses. The
Committee directs DNDO to submit a report on red team exercises
and any recommendations made by January 16, 2007.
SECOND LINE OF DEFENSE
The Committee is pleased DNDO has been working closely with
DOE's Second Line of Defense program--the first layer of
defense in the global nuclear architecture to detect illicit
nuclear materials. While DNDO's efforts focus on protecting the
homeland and DOE's program focuses overseas, the Committee
urges DNDO to continue to work closely with this parallel
program to share intelligence, technology and best practices.
INTELLIGENCE
The Committee believes that there is value in deploying
technologies to potentially detect a nuclear weapon or dirty
bomb. However, simply because technology has been deployed to
ports and border crossings does not mean the nation is safe
from a smuggled radiological weapon. Since we have not been
confronted with a smuggled device to date, lessons may be drawn
from looking at other types of smuggling or ways to develop a
radiological weapon with common materials that exist in the
United States already. Of most importance is the power of
intelligence in leading to seizures. The Committee directs DNDO
to strengthen its links to the intelligence community and to
account for this aspect in its planning.
TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS ACT
Section 501. The Committee continues a provision 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 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 a provision that
provides authority to reprogram 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, 2007.
Section 504. The Committee continues a provision that not
to exceed 50 percent of unobligated balances remaining at the
end of fiscal year 2007 from appropriations made for salaries
and expenses shall remain available through fiscal year 2008
subject to reprogramming guidelines.
Section 505. The Committee continues a provision that funds
for intelligence activities are deemed to be specifically
authorized during fiscal year 2007 until the enactment of an
Act authorizing intelligence activities for fiscal year 2007.
Section 506. The Committee continues a provision directing
the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center to lead the Federal
law enforcement training accreditation process.
Section 507. The Committee continues a provision requiring
notification of the Committees on Appropriations three days
before any grant allocation, discretionary grant award,
discretionary contract award, or letter of intent totaling
$1,000,000 or more is made or announced by the Department.
Section 508. The Committee continues a provision 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 requiring
the Director of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center to
ensure that all training facilities are operated at optimal
capacity throughout the fiscal year.
Section 510. The Committee continues a provision that none
of the funds may be used for any construction, repair,
alteration, and acquisition project for which a prospectus, if
required by the Public Buildings Act of 1959, has not been
approved.
Section 511. The Committee continues a provision that none
of the funds may be used in contravention of the Buy American
Act.
Section 512. The Committee continues a provision
authorizing the Department of Homeland Security to conduct
background investigations for certain employees.
Section 513. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision regarding Secure Flight.
Section 514. The Committee continues a provision
prohibiting the use of funds to amend the oath of allegiance
required by section 337 of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(8 U.S.C. 1448).
Section 515. The Committee continues a provision regarding
OMB Circular A-76.
Section 516. The Committee continues a provision
prohibiting the use of funds to maintain the United States
Secret Service as anything but a distinct entity within the
Department of Homeland Security and shall not be used to merge
the United States Secret Service with any other department
function, cause any personnel and operational elements of the
United States Secret Service to report to an individual other
than the Director of the United States Secret Service, or cause
the Director to report directly to any individual other than
the Secretary of Homeland Security.
Section 517. The Committee continues a provision
prohibiting the use of funds in this or previous appropriations
Acts for the protection of the head of a Federal agency other
than the Secretary of Homeland security unless the Secret
Service is fully reimbursed.
Section 518. The Committee continues a provision regarding
standards and protocols for increasing the use of explosive
detection equipment to screen air cargo.
Section 519. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision requiring the Transportation Security Administration
to utilize existing checked baggage explosive detection
equipment and screeners to screen cargo carried on passenger
aircraft to the greatest extent practicable at each airport.
The Committee also requires the quarterly submission of air
cargo inspection statistics. If the quarterly report is
delayed, the appropriation for Aviation Security is reduced by
$100,000 per day.
Section 520. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision prohibiting the obligation of funds for the
transportation worker identification credential program using a
decentralized personalization system or card production
capability that does not utilize an existing government card
production facility.
Section 521. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision rescinding unexpended balances within the United
States Coast Guard ``Acquisition, Construction, and
Improvements'' account.
Section 522. The Committee continues a provision that
directs that only the privacy officer, appointed pursuant to
section 222 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, may alter,
direct that changes be made to, delay or prohibit the
transmission of a privacy officer report to Congress.
Section 523. The Committee continues a provision
prohibiting the use of funds made available in this or previous
Appropriations Acts to pay the salary of any employee serving
as a contracting officer's technical representative (COTR) who
has not received COTR training.
Section 524. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision that directs that any funds appropriated or
transferred to TSA ``Aviation Security'' and ``Administration''
in fiscal years 2004, 2005 and 2006, 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
503 of this Act.
Section 525. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision regarding Sensitive Security Information.
Section 526. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision extending the authorization of the Working Capital
Fund.
Section 527. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision rescinding prior year balances from the
Counterterrorism Fund.
Section 528. The Committee continues a provision regarding
weekly reporting requirements for the Disaster Relief Fund, as
required by Public Law 109-62.
Section 529. The Committee includes a new provision
requiring the Secretary to submit, within 45 days after the
close of each month, a monthly budget execution report for each
Departmental component and the Working Capital Fund at the
level of detail shown in the table of detailed funding
recommendations included in this report.
Section 530. The Committee includes a new provision
authorizing the United States Secret Service to apply proceeds
from undercover operations to further investigations.
Section 531. The Committee includes a new provision giving
the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office grant making authority
identical to that of Science and Technology.
Section 532. The Committee includes a new provision
regarding the importation of prescription drugs.
Section 533. The Committee includes a new provision
rescinding previously appropriated funds for the Transportation
Security Administration ``Aviation Security'' and
``Headquarters Administration.''
Section 534. The Committee includes a new provision
regarding the Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance
Act for building purposes.
Section 535. The Committee includes a new provision
regarding funds for Disaster Assistance for Unmet Needs for
specific purposes.
Section 536. The Committee includes a new provision
providing the Secretary the authority to issue an interim final
rule regarding chemical facility security.
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Flood Mitigation Fund................ $31,000,000 National Flood Insurance Fund... $31,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rescission of Funds
In compliance with clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee reports that it
recommends the following rescissions:
[In thousands of dollars] U.S. Coast Guard, Fast Response Cutter................ -$79,347
Counter Terrorism Fund................................ -16,000
Transportation Security Administration................ -4,776
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.
Compliance With Rule XIII, Cl. 3 (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 (new matter is
printed in italic and 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)
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2002, and for other purposes, namely:
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 [5 years after the date
of the enactment of this Act] December 31, 2009, appoint and
maintain a cadre of up to [250] 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.
* * * * * * *
Financial Assistance to State and Local Governments
In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as
amended, the financial assistance to state and local
governments is as follows:
[In millions of dollars] FY 2007 new budget authority.......................... $4,816
FY 2007 outlays resulting therefrom................... 10,685
Comparison With Budget Resolution
Clause 3(c)(2) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires an explanation of compliance with
section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as
amended, which requires that the report accompanying a bill
providing new budget authority contain a statement detailing
how the authority compares with the reports submitted under
section 302 of the Act for the most recently agreed to
concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal year from
the Committee's section 302(a) allocation. This information
follows:
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
302(b) allocation This bill
Comparison with Allocation ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Authority Outlays Budget Authority Outlays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Purpose Discretionary....... $32,080 $38,730 $32,080 $38,711
Mandatory........................... 1,017 1,014 1,017 1,014
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................... 33,097 39,744 33,097 39,725
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the following is a statement of
general performance goals and objectives for which this measure
authorizes funding:
The Committee on Appropriations considers program
performance, including a program's success in developing and
attaining outcome-related goals and objectives, in developing
funding recommendations.
[In millions of dollars] Outlays:
2007................................................ $20,406
2008................................................ 6,904
2009................................................ 3,554
2010................................................ 1,362
2011 and beyond..................................... 569
Five Year Outlay Projections
In compliance with 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:
Compliance With Rule XIII, Clause 3(f)(1)
Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee has inserted at the
appropriate place in the report a description of the effects of
provisions proposed in the accompanying bill which may be
considered, under certain circumstances, to change the
application of existing law, either directly or indirectly.
The bill provides, in some instances, for 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. The Committee also
restricts funds available for obligation until certain
reporting requirements are satisfied.
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 at the Nebraska Avenue
Complex, including tenant improvements and relocation costs.
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
The Committee includes language providing funds for the
Chief Financial Officer, including $18,000,000 for the eMerge2
program.
The Committee also restricts funds available for obligation
until monthly reporting requirements in general provisions are
met.
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.
Analysis and Operations
The Committee includes language providing funds for
information analysis and operations coordination activities, as
authorized by title II of the Homeland Security Act of 2002,
including $5,000 for official representation expenses.
Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding
The Committee includes language providing funds for the
Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding and
restricts funds for obligation until the Federal Coordinator
submits a report on Federal rebuilding efforts.
Office of the Inspector General
The Committee includes language providing funds for certain
confidential operational expenses, including the payment of
informants.
TITLE II--SECURITY, ENFORCEMENT, AND INVESTIGATIONS
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.
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; acquisition, lease,
maintenance and operation of aircraft; purchase of vehicles;
contracting with individuals for personal services; Harbor
Maintenance Fee collections; official reception and
representation expenses; inspection and surveillance
technology, and equipment for the Container Security
Initiative; Customs User Fee collections; payment of rental
space in connection with pre-clearance operations; compensation
of informants; and contractual or reimbursable agreements with
State and local law enforcement agencies. The Committee
includes provisions regarding average overtime limitations,
Border Patrol checkpoints in the Tucson sector, and a
restriction on the obligation of funds until a SBInet
expenditure plan is submitted and approved.
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.
CBP AIR AND MARINE INTERDICTION, OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE, AND
PROCUREMENT
The Committee includes language making funds available for
the operation, maintenance and procurement of aircraft, marine
vessels, 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. The Committee includes language restricting the
obligation of funds until a report on the crash of an unmanned
aerial vehicle is submitted.
CONSTRUCTION
The Committee includes language making funds available
until expended for the planning, construction, renovating,
equipping, and maintaining of buildings and facilities.
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; promotion of public
awareness of the child pornography tipline; Project Alert; and
reimbursement of other Federal agencies for certain costs. The
Committee includes language regarding overtime compensation and
forced child labor laws.
FEDERAL PROTECTIVE SERVICE
The Committee includes language making funds available
until expended for the operations of the Federal Protective
Service.
CONSTRUCTION
The Committee includes language making funds available
until expended for the planning, constructing, renovating,
equipping, and maintaining of buildings and facilities.
Transportation Security Administration
AVIATION SECURITY
The Committee includes language making funds available
until expended for civil aviation security; and establishing
conditions under which security fees are collected and
credited. The Committee includes language limiting screener
staffing levels to 45,000 full time equivalents. The Committee
includes language that limits the federal share of any letter
of intent to 75 percent for any medium or large airport and no
more than 90 percent for any other airport and permits
appropriations authorized for aviation security to be
distributed in any manner necessary to ensure aviation security
and fulfill the government's cost share under existing letters
of intent. The Committee includes language on reimbursement of
security services for general aviation at Ronald Reagan
Washington National Airport. The Committee includes language on
an air cargo security action plan. 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.
TRANSPORTATION SECURITY SUPPORT
The Committee includes language providing funds for
transportation security support programs of the Transportation
Security Administration. The Committee includes language
requiring the submission of a detailed spending plan for
explosive detection systems refurbishment, procurement and
installation prior to the obligation of funds.
FEDERAL AIR MARSHALS
The Committee includes language providing funds for the
Federal Air Marshals.
United States Coast Guard
OPERATING EXPENSES
The Committee includes a provision regarding passenger
motor vehicles and the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, and
prohibits the use of funds for yacht documentation except under
certain circumstances and for administrative expenses in
connection with shipping commissioners in the United States.
The Committee also includes language on reception and
representation expenses.
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 a provision requiring a capital
investment plan for future appropriations years with certain
conditions. The Committee includes language requiring that the
Commandant of the Coast Guard submit revisions to the
acquisition schedule of the Deepwater program with the fiscal
year 2008 budget request, as well as other Deepwater related
reporting requirements. Also, the Committee includes language
requiring the submission of a vessel subsystem plan for Rescue
21 prior to the obligation of funds.
ALTERATION OF BRIDGES
The Committee includes a provision specifying certain
conditions for the availability of 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.
United States Secret Service
PROTECTION, ADMINISTRATION AND TRAINING
The Committee includes language that provides funds for the
purchase and replacement of vehicles; the hire of aircraft;
services of expert witnesses; purchase of motorcycles; rental
of certain buildings; improvements to buildings as may be
necessary for protective missions; per diem and subsistence
allowances; firearms matches; presentation of awards;
protective travel; research and development; grants for
behavioral research; official reception and representation
expenses; technical assistance and equipment to foreign law
enforcement organizations; advance payment for commercial
accommodations; and uniforms. The Committee provides for two
year availability of funds for protective travel. The Committee
authorizes the obligation of funds in anticipation of
reimbursements for training, under certain conditions. The
Committee also makes funds unavailable for obligation until a
workload re-balancing report is submitted.
INVESTIGATIONS AND FIELD OPERATIONS
The Committee includes language providing funds for
investigative operations including office space and services of
expert witnesses as may be necessary. The Committee includes
language limiting funds that can be provided to provide
technical assistance and equipment to foreign law enforcement
organizations in counterfeit investigations. The Committee also
includes language making funds available for investigations of
missing and exploited children, including grants.
SPECIAL EVENT FUND
The Committee includes language providing funds for the
extraordinary costs associated with Presidential campaigns and
National Special Security Events and makes these funds
available until expended.
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. The Committee also makes funds unavailable for
obligation until a revised James J. Rowley Training Center
master plan is submitted.
TITLE III--PREPAREDNESS AND RECOVERY
Preparedness
UNDER SECRETARY FOR PREPAREDNESS
The Committee includes language providing funds for the
Office of the Under Secretary for Preparedness, the Office of
the Chief Medical Officer, and the Office of National Capital
Region Coordination, including funds for the National
Preparedness Integration Program. The Committee also includes
language providing funds for official reception and
representation expenses. The Committee also makes funds
unavailable for obligation until the Secretary submits the
final National Preparedness Goal.
Office of Grants and Training
STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS
The Committee includes language that provides funds for
grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, other activities,
including grants to State and local governments for terrorism
prevention. The Committee also includes a provision identifying
the amount of funds available for formula-based grants; law
enforcement terrorism prevention grants; high-threat, high-
density urban area grants; rail and transit security grants;
port security grants; trucking security grants; intercity bus
security grants; buffer zone protection grants; training,
exercises, technical assistance, and other programs; and the
Commercial Equipment Direct Assistance Program. 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 that limits the availability of funds
for construction, except for port security, rail and transit
security, and buffer zone grants; allows for law enforcement
terrorism prevention grants and high-threat, high-density urban
area grants to be used for operational expenses such as
overtime in certain situations; and directs grantees to report
on use of funds as deemed necessary by the Secretary.
FIREFIGHTER ASSISTANCE GRANTS
The Committee includes language providing that not to
exceed five percent of the total is available for program
administration.
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE GRANTS
The Committee includes language providing that not to
exceed three percent of the total appropriation is available
for administrative costs.
RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAM
The Committee includes a provision regarding charges
assessed for the radiological emergency preparedness program,
including conditions and methodology for the assessment and
collection of fees.
INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION AND INFORMATION SECURITY
The Committee includes language making funds available
until September 30, 2008 and includes language requiring
submission of an expenditure plan prior to obligating certain
funds.
Federal Emergency Management Agency
ADMINISTRATION AND REGIONAL OPERATIONS
The Committee includes language that provides funds for
administrative and regional operations. The Committee also
includes a provision providing funds for reception and
representation expenses.
READINESS, MITIGATION, RESPONSE, AND RECOVERY
The Committee includes language that provides funds for
readiness, mitigation, response, and recovery activities,
including funds for Urban Search and Rescue Teams and
administrative costs. The Committee also restricts funds until
FEMA provides a catastrophic planning expenditure plan.
DISASTER RELIEF
The Committee includes language making funds available
until expended.
DISASTER ASSISTANCE DIRECT LOAN PROGRAM ACCOUNT
The Committee includes a provision limiting gross
obligations for direct loans; includes a provision regarding
the cost of modifying loans; and provides for administrative
expenses of the direct loan program.
FLOOD MAP MODERNIZATION FUND
The Committee includes provisions regarding non-Federal
sums for cost-shared mapping activities and limiting total
administrative costs to 3 percent of the total appropriation.
The Committee also includes language making funds available
until expended.
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE FUND
The Committee includes language limiting funds available
for salaries and expenses; language making funds available for
flood hazard mitigation available until September 30, 2008; and
language authorizing the transfer of funds to the National
Flood Mitigation Fund. The Committee includes provisions
limiting operating expenses; for interest on Treasury
borrowings; for agents' commissions and taxes; and for flood
mitigation activities associated with sections 1361A and 1323
of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968. The Committee
includes language making funds for mitigation activities
available until expended. The Committee includes language
providing that not to exceed three percent of the total
appropriation is available for administrative costs.
NATIONAL FLOOD MITIGATION FUND
The Committee includes language regarding authorized
activities and authorizing the transfer of funds from the
National Flood Insurance Fund. The Committee also includes
language making funds available until September 30, 2008.
NATIONAL PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION FUND
The Committee includes language authorizing grant awards to
be made on a competitive basis without reference to State
allocations, quotas, or other formula-based allocation of
funds. The Committee includes a provision limiting total
administrative costs to 3 percent of the total appropriation.
The Committee also includes language making funds available
until expended.
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
CITIZEN AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES
The Committee includes language making funds available for
citizenship and immigration services and makes funds
unavailable for obligation until a strategic transformation
plan is submitted.
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
The Committee includes language making funds available for
official representation expenses; purchase of police type
pursuit vehicles; student athletic and related recreational
activities; conducting and participating in firearms matches;
public awareness and community support; marketing; room and
board; services; services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; law
enforcement accreditation; reimbursements for certain mobile
phone expenses. The Committee includes language authorizing the
training of certain law enforcement personnel; authorizes the
use of appropriations and reimbursements for such training and
establishes a cap on total obligations. The Committee also
includes language authorizing funds for the compensation of
accreditation costs for participating agencies; and authorizing
the hiring of retired Federal employees until 2009.
ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENTS AND RELATED EXPENSES
The Committee includes language making funds available
until expended for real property and facilities and authorizes
reimbursement from government agencies requesting construction
of special use facilities.
Science and Technology
MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION
The Committee includes language providing funds for
reception and representation expenses and includes language
requiring submission of an expenditure plan prior to obligating
certain funds.
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, ACQUISITION AND OPERATIONS
The Committee includes language making funds available
until expended.
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, ACQUISITION, AND OPERATIONS
The Committee includes language making funds available to
the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, including nuclear
detection research, development, testing and evaluation,
acquisition, operations, management and administration.
Language is included making funds available until expended and
providing funds for the purchase and deployment of radiation
detection equipment; transformational research and development;
and management and administration.
TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 501. The Committee continues a provision 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 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 a provision that
provides authority to reprogram 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.
Section 504. The Committee continues a provision that not
to exceed 50 percent of unobligated balances remaining at the
end of fiscal year 2007 from appropriations made for salaries
and expenses shall remain available through fiscal year 2008
subject to reprogramming guidelines.
Section 505. The Committee continues a provision that funds
for intelligence activities are deemed to be specifically
authorized during fiscal year 2007 until the enactment of an
Act authorizing intelligence activities for fiscal year 2007.
Section 506. The Committee continues a provision directing
the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center to lead the Federal
Law Enforcement training accreditation process.
Section 507. The Committee continues a provision requiring
notification of the Committees on Appropriations three days
before any grant allocation, discretionary grant award,
discretionary contract award, or letter of intent totaling
$1,000,000 or more is made or announced by the Department.
Section 508. The Committee continues a provision 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 requiring
the Director of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center to
ensure that all training facilities are operated at optimal
capacity throughout the fiscal year.
Section 510. The Committee continues a provision that none
of the funds may be used for any construction, repair,
alteration, and acquisition project for which a prospectus, if
required by the Public Buildings Act of 1959, has not been
approved.
Section 511. The Committee continues a provision that none
of the funds may be used in contravention of the Buy American
Act.
Section 512. The Committee continues a provision
authorizing the Department of Homeland Security to conduct
background investigations for certain employees.
Section 513. The Committee modifies a provision regarding
Secure Flight.
Section 514. The Committee continues a provision
prohibiting the use of funds to amend the oath of allegiance
required by section 337 of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(8 U.S.C. 1448).
Section 515. The Committee continues a provision regarding
OMB Circular A-76.
Section 516. The Committee continues a provision
prohibiting the use of funds to maintain the United States
Secret Service as anything but a distinct entity within the
Department of Homeland Security and shall not be used to merge
the United States Secret Service with any other department
function, cause any personnel and operational elements of the
United States Secret Service to report to an individual other
than the Director of the United States Secret Service, or cause
the Director to report directly to any individual other than
the Secretary of Homeland Security.
Section 517. The Committee continues a provision
prohibiting the use of funds in this or previous appropriations
Acts for the protection of the head of a Federal agency other
than the Secretary of Homeland security unless the Secret
Service is fully reimbursed.
Section 518. The Committee continues a provision regarding
standards and protocols for increasing the use of explosive
detection equipment to screen air cargo.
Section 519. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision regarding screening of air cargo.
Section 520. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision prohibiting the obligation of funds for the
transportation worker identification credential program using a
decentralized personalization system or card production
capability that does not utilize an existing government card
production facility.
Section 521. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision rescinding unexpended balances within the United
States Coast Guard ``Acquisition, Construction, and
Improvements'' account.
Section 522. The Committee continues a provision regarding
the DHS privacy officer reporting to Congress.
Section 523. The Committee continues a provision
prohibiting the paying of the salary of any employee serving as
a contracting officer's technical representative (COTR) who has
not received COTR training.
Section 524. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision that directs that any funds appropriated or
transferred to TSA ``Aviation Security'' and ``Administration''
in fiscal years 2004, 2005 and 2006, 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
503 of this Act.
Section 525. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision regarding Sensitive Security Information.
Section 526. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision extending the authorization of the Working Capital
Fund.
Section 527. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision rescinding prior year balances from the
Counterterrorism Fund.
Section 528. The Committee continues a provision regarding
weekly reporting requirements for the Disaster Relief Fund, as
required by Public Law 109-62.
Section 529. The Committee includes a new provision
requiring the Secretary to submit a monthly budget execution.
Section 530. The Committee includes a new provision
authorizing the United States Secret Service to apply proceeds
from undercover operations to further investigations.
Section 531. The Committee includes a new provision giving
the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office grant making authority
identical to that of Science and Technology.
Section 532. The Committee includes a new provision
regarding the importation of prescription drugs.
Section 533. The Committee includes a new provision
rescinding previously appropriated funds for the Transportation
Security Administration ``Aviation Security'' and
``Headquarters Administration''.
Section 534. The Commission includes a new provision
regarding the Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Act for
building purposes.
Section 535. The Commission includes a new provision
regarding funds for Disaster Assistance for Unmet Needs for
specific purposes.
Section 536. The Commission includes a new provision
providing the Secretary the authority to issue an interim final
rule regarding chemical facility security.
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.
Appropriations Not Authorized by Law
Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the House of
Representatives, the following table lists the appropriations
in the accompanying bill that are not authorized by law:
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF DAVID OBEY AND MARTIN OLAV SABO
Four and a half years after September 11th, America still
has far too many vulnerabilities left wide open for terrorists
to exploit. Last September, we also witnessed the terrible
suffering and loss caused by inexcusable bureaucratic bungling
in the response to a natural disaster.
The creation of the Department of Homeland Security was
supposed to be the solution to these problems. Instead, it is
plain to see that the Department's bureaucracy presents many
high hurdles to effective terrorism prevention and disaster
response. The Department has been underfunded and fractured--
and far too focused on internal organization than on achieving
results on our greatest security vulnerabilities. These
handicaps undoubtedly contributed to the disgraceful response
to Hurricane Katrina.
We are also concerned about allowing the Federal Emergency
Management Agency to remain under the control of the Department
of Homeland Security. History tends to repeat itself, and only
fools ignore the lessons of history. President Clinton made
FEMA a cabinet-level agency based on National Academy of Public
Administration recommendations following the response to
Hurricane Andrew in 1992. Hurricane Katrina taught similar
lessons, but it appears that the federal government will not
acknowledge them. Instead, this Administration and House
Republicans seem intent on creating a new bureaucracy to deal
with preparedness and response, when one lean, mean
organization, like the Clinton-era FEMA, would do. We fear that
once again, the American public will suffer the consequences.
We cannot afford not to learn from our past mistakes. We
must be honest and proactive about addressing our remaining
vulnerabilities. Leadership, proper funding and professional
expertise are the keys to successfully meeting our nation's
homeland security needs--whether in providing citizens with
food and shelter after a disaster, or in shielding vulnerable
targets from terrorist attack.
Our nation cannot afford to underfund homeland programs
that are so critical to our health and security. Unfortunately,
the Committee bill does just that. It provides $165 million
less than the Administration's request, and the President's
request was inadequate to meet our security and preparedness
needs.
Given the total amount of funding provided by the
Republican majority to homeland security, we do not disagree
with many of the funding choices made in the Committee bill.
However, we believe it is irresponsible to set an arbitrary cap
which leaves many homeland security priorities poorly funded.
To address this gap, Democrats offered a fiscally
responsible amendment in Committee to provide an additional
$3.5 billion for critical border, port, aviation and disaster
preparedness and response programs. The amendment was part of a
fiscally-balanced approach that would return Congressional
budgeting to the principle of ``pay-as-you-go'', providing
additional funding for key investments and reducing the deficit
by scaling back supersized tax cuts for those making more than
$1 million per year. The amendment would have reduced their tax
savings from $114,172 to $104,503. Unfortunately, that
amendment was defeated by a 33-25 party line vote.
Border Security
A goal of the President's 2007 budget, submitted in
February, was to gain operational control of 388 miles of our
5,000 mile border with Canada and Mexico. Just this week, the
President sent Congress an Emergency Supplemental bill to
address border security problems. He has called it a
``comprehensive proposal,'' yet the Department of Homeland
Security cannot tell us how many additional border miles will
be controlled under this proposal.
The Democratic amendment, defeated in Committee, would have
provided an additional $2.1 billion to enhance border security.
It would have provided the funding to hire to the levels in the
Intelligence Reform Act, by adding 1,800 border patrol agents,
9,000 detention beds, and 800 immigration investigators above
the Committee bill. It would have provided the funding to
purchase about 500 additional radiation portal monitors, so
that some of our land border locations do not have to wait
another four years to screen traffic for radiation. It would
have provided funding for the fifth planned northern border air
wing and increased air patrols of our borders, because ``eyes
in the sky'' are important to directing resources on the
ground.
How did we get here?
Border Patrol and Customs agents
To improve border security, we need more border agents and
surveillance equipment. Yet, from September 11, 2001 to April
2006 only 1,641 new border patrol agents were hired, which is
less than a 17 percent increase in 4\1/2\ years. Congress has
repeatedly authorized border security improvements. The PATRIOT
Act of 2001 called for the tripling of border agents and
customs and immigration inspectors on our northern border. The
Intelligence Reform Act, enacted in December 2004, called for
2,000 additional border agents, 800 additional immigration
investigators, and 8,000 additional detention beds per year
2006 through 2010.
When Congress has provided additional border security
resources, the Administration has dragged its feet in making
the improvements. For example, to help meet the northern border
hiring and equipment goals in the PATRIOT Act, Congress
provided $308 million in 2002 to beef up northern border
security with more agents, inspectors and equipment. The Bush
Administration requested only one-third of this funding.
In 2006 Congress funded only half of the 2,000 additional
border patrol agents authorized in the Intelligence Reform Act
of 2004. Yet, even with the President's top priority of border
control, as of the end of April, 2006, the Administration has
brought on board only 194 of these 1,000 additional border
patrol agents. This 2007 appropriations bill continues the
history of not funding the Intelligence Reform Act staffing
mandates by providing for only 1,200 additional border patrol
agents.
Seven times over the last four and a half years, Democrats
have offered amendments that would have resulted in over 6,600
more border patrol agents, 14,000 more detention beds and 2,700
more immigration and customs agents than exist today. Every
time, their efforts were rejected by the Republican majority.
The Democratic amendment defeated in Committee would have
funded 1,800 additional border patrol agents, meeting the
Intelligence Reform Act mandates.
Congress undermines its credibility when we pass
legislation dictating new homeland security mandates, but do
not appropriate the necessary resources to meet them.
Detention beds
A similar story must be told for detention beds. Detention
beds and detention alternatives are key to our success in
removing those apprehended by our border agents. Yet, the
detention office at Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
has had three different leaders in the three years it has been
in the Department of Homeland Security. It is without a
permanent leader today.
ICE has been plagued by budget shortfalls since its
formation: ICE was underfunded when DHS was created, and DHS
leadership at all levels has failed to manage the budget. In
2003, 2004 and 2005 ICE faced a hiring freeze and a reduced
number of detention beds due to poor management. The number of
detention beds dropped from 19,801 in 2002 to 18,500 in 2005.
The DHS Inspector General has estimated that close to
35,000 detention beds are needed just to detain criminal and
special interest aliens. Yet, the President requested only
27,516 detention beds and the Committee funded 25,670, 1,846
less than the President.
It is obvious that ICE lacks the resources necessary to be
fully successful. Six times since September 11th, Democrats
have offered amendments to increase detention bed space by
14,000, but were rejected on party-line votes. If those
Democratic amendments had been successful, we would now have
the number of detention beds recommended by the Inspector
General. Instead, today we are close to 14,000 below that level
and the Committee bill will leave us about 9,000 beds short of
the IG-recommended level. The Democratic amendment rejected in
Committee would have provided these 9,000 additional beds.
Radiation portal monitors
A number of other border security programs are underfunded
and ill-managed. This bill makes no great inroads in correcting
these problems.
Many of our ports of entry lack radiation portal monitors.
GAO recently found that these monitors work, but that delay in
deploying these monitors were caused by DHS' lengthy review
process and negotiations on the placement of the equipment.
Approximately 2,400 of these monitors are needed, but less than
30 percent are in place today. The funding provided in the bill
would leave 1,000 monitors left to be purchased and deployed.
To correct this misguided decision, the Democratic amendment
offered would have provided funding to purchase up to 500
additional radiation monitors.
Port Security
In defense of the Dubai port deal, the White House was
quick to remind the public that port security lies in the hands
of federal border agents, the Coast Guard, port authorities and
police agencies. However, the Bush Administration and this
House have left our ports vulnerable by rejecting needed
funding for these agencies at every opportunity.
The evidence is clear. In 2000, the Interagency Commission
on Crime and Security concluded American ports were highly
vulnerable to potential terrorist attacks. In 2001, the Hart-
Rudman Commission reported that port security was underfunded
and seaports were vulnerable to terrorist attacks.
With great fanfare, the President signed legislation
requiring ports to assess their vulnerabilities and develop
security plans. In 2002, the Coast Guard estimated that $7
billion were needed in infrastructure improvements and
operating costs to improve port security. However, the Bush
Administration has never proposed funding specifically for port
security grants that could be used to pay for these needs.
Congress has taken the lead in providing $910 million for the
distinct port security grant program and operation safe
commerce since the 9/11 attacks, but this is only 13 percent of
the Coast Guard's estimate. Six Democratic amendments since
2001, if adopted by the House, would have doubled port security
funding and many necessary security improvements would already
be taken care of.
This bill contains $200 million in total for port security
grants. The Democratic amendment would have doubled this
amount, consistent with House passage of the Safe Port Act two
weeks ago. Unfortunately it was defeated in Committee.
Critical Infrastructure Protection, Including Chemical Facility
Security
We continue to be frustrated with the Administration's
approach to protecting critical infrastructure, including
transit, railroad and chemical facilities. The Administration
generally leaves security decisions to these entities, without
providing needed guidance from the federal government.
Chemical Security
The fact that the federal government requires no security
standards for most U.S. chemical facilities is one of our
greatest security vulnerabilities. In 2003, GAO recommended the
Administration develop a comprehensive national chemical
security strategy. We just received this strategy from the
Department on May 19, 2006. The Department's strategy concludes
by calling for legislation that allows the Secretary to
regulate the chemical sector. We are pleased that the Committee
took an important first step in this regard by adopting Mr.
Sabo's amendment to provide the Secretary of Homeland Security
the authority he said that he needs to issue chemical facility
security regulations. Mr. Sabo's letter laying out the key
reasons why the Committee needed to include this provision on
this appropriations bill is attached to these views. We
strongly urge that this amendment be protected on the House
floor.
We note that:
The Department of Homeland Security estimates that
roughly 680, or 20 percent, of the 3,400 chemical facilities
that it views as high risk adhere to no security guidelines. If
attacked, 300 of these facilities could kill or injure 50,000
or more people.
At an April 27, 2005 Senate hearing, Carolyn
Merritt, chair of the US Chemical Safety and Hazard
Investigation Board said her agency has investigated 35 major
chemical accidents and issued nearly 300 safety
recommendations. She said the Safety Board has discovered
``serious gaps'' that may allow for intentionally malicious
acts.
Transit Security
As we saw in London and Madrid, transit systems are
terrorist targets. Yet, DHS has provided only $416 million
since 9/11 to secure them. The transit industry estimates that
$6 billion is needed for security training, radio
communications systems, security cameras, and limiting access
to sensitive facilities. Again, the President's 2006 budget
requested no separate funding for transit security. We are
pleased that $150 million is contained in this legislation to
improve transit security. The Democratic amendment defeated in
Committee would have increased this amount by 67 percent, to
$250 million, so that high-risk vulnerabilities in transit
systems could begin to be addressed.
Local Police, Fire and Emergency Responder Preparedness
It is widely agreed that our local police, firefighters and
emergency personnel need increased funding to improve their
ability to respond to terrorist acts or disasters. The 2003
Hart-Rudman report found that responders were ``Drastically
Underfunded, Dangerously Unprepared,'' and that ``America will
fall approximately $98 billion short of meeting critical
emergency responder needs over the next five years if current
funding levels are maintained.''
A report by the ``Task Force on A Unified Security Budget
for the United States, 2006'' found that funding reductions for
preparedness and response programs ``translate into dangerous
vulnerabilities, given the scope and character of the terrorist
threat.''
President Bush, speaking to the nation from New Orleans
just eight months ago said, ``Four years after the frightening
experience of September the 11th, Americans have every right to
expect a more effective response in a time of emergency.'' We
agree with the President. However, there was nothing in the
President's budget request and there is nothing in this 2007
appropriations bill that will ensure that Americans will not
once again be left stranded in a crisis by the federal
government.
In 2003, funding for state homeland security grants (not
including fire grants or port grants that were funded elsewhere
in 2003) and emergency management performance grants totaled
$3.3 billion. This legislation includes only $2 billion for
these same programs in 2007, a 39 percent reduction.
The Democratic amendment defeated in Committee would have
provided a total of $600 million to improve our communities'
ability to respond to and prepare for disasters, including an
additional $150 million for state and local emergency
preparedness personnel, $50 million for additional exercises to
test response plans, $150 million for better flood maps in high
risk locations, and $150 million to improve the capabilities of
our fire fighters.
The Administration and the majority in Congress are willing
to defer acting on these preparedness vulnerabilities. The
majority argues that only 55 percent of the funding so far
provided to states and localities to improve preparedness has
been spent, but this argument ignores the fact that all of
these funds have been committed to specific equipment
purchases. We believe that the Department bears a large share
of responsibility for the delay in getting these equipment
orders filled. In addition, DHS has not even distributed 2006
funding to the states yet. The Department should better manage
these programs, rather than make excuses to cut their funding.
Fire grants are probably the most successful grant program
in the Department of Homeland Security. Local fire departments
submit grant requests, which are independently evaluated. The
needs of our fire departments are great. A recent needs
analysis identified that today 28 percent of firefighters per
shift are not equipped with self-contained breathing apparatus,
and 39,000 fire fighters lack personnel protective clothing.
The fire grant program helps local fire departments deal with
these and other problems.
Everyone knows that local fire and police will be on the
front line in all disasters, whether a man-made or natural
event or pandemic outbreak. Yet, the Administration proposes to
cut fire grant funding deeply. The Bush budget would reduce
funding for this program by $355 million, or 55 percent. This
bill makes up roughly two-thirds of the President's proposed
reductions. At a minimum, we believe that fire grants should be
fully funded at last year's level of $649 million. The
Democratic amendment rejected in Committee would have provided
a total of $690 million for fire grants.
Aviation Security
We are disappointed that the Administration continues to
leave aviation security vulnerabilities unaddressed despite
having spent over $28 billion on it since September 11th. The
perimeters of passenger airports are not fully secured; it is
not known how many of the general aviation security
improvements suggested by TSA have been implemented; and most
of air cargo is still not screened.
The cargo carried on passenger aircraft is not inspected
like either the passengers or their baggage. In fact, TSA today
does not know how much air cargo is actually screened because
its security system only tracks the reviews of its cargo
inspectors. We are pleased that this bill requires TSA to
report air cargo inspection statistics quarterly.
The Administration is willing to give short shrift to the
9/11 Commission recommendations to screen all passengers and
carry-on bags for explosives and to speed up the installation
of in-line explosive detection systems. The Administration's
2007 budget does not fund any additional in-line screening
systems beyond the current eight approved airports, nor does
the Committee bill. The Democratic amendment defeated in
Committee would have provided $200 million more to expand
passenger and carry-on baggage explosive screening to more than
the 28 airports that currently have these systems.
Conclusion
Despite its rhetoric, the White House does not give
homeland security the top priority it deserves. If the
Administration thinks that the American public should be
content with the fact that America has not been hit by
terrorists in the last 4-\1/2\ years, it is seriously mistaken.
The Congress is also absurdly complacent. We should be furious
over the events of the past year: a bungled response to a
massive hurricane, a port takeover deal that was not properly
reviewed, chemical plants open to attack and a border that is
not secure. What will it take before this Administration and
this Congress will be willing to take the actions needed to
make our homeland secure?
