Home > Committee Reports > 109th Congress > H. Rept. 109-79

H. Rept. 109-79 - DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2006109th Congress (2005-2006)

Committee Report

Report Type:	House Report
Accompanies:	H.R.2360
Committees:	House Appropriations Committee

Reports for H.R.2360

Listen to this page

Report text available as:

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

109th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 109-79

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2006

_______

May 13, 2005.--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. 2360]

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, 2006.

INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT

_______________________________________________________________________

Page number

Bill Report
TITLE I--DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS:
Office of the Secretary and Executive Management... 2
5
Office of the Under Secretary for Management....... 3
13
Office of the Chief Financial Officer.............. 3
14
Office of the Chief Information Officer............ 4
16
Office of Inspector General........................ 5
18
TITLE II--SECURITY, ENFORCEMENT, AND INVESTIGATIONS:
Office of the Under Secretary for Border and
Transportation Security........................ 5
19
Automation Modernization........................... 5
22
Customs and Border Protection...................... 7
24
Salaries and Expenses...................... 7
24
Automation Modernization................... 10
31
Air and Marine Interdiction, Operations,
Maintenance and Procurement............ 11
31
Construction............................... 12
33
Immigration and Customs Enforcement................ 12
33
Salaries and Expenses...................... 12
33
Federal Air Marshals....................... 14
40
Federal Protective Service................. 14
41
Automation Modernization................... 14
42
Construction............................... 15
42
Transportation Security Administration............. 16
43
Aviation Security.......................... 16
43
Surface Transportation Security............ 17
51
Transportation Vetting and Credentialing... 17
52
Transportation Security Support............ 18
56
United States Coast Guard.......................... 18
57
Operating Expenses......................... 18
57
Environmental Compliance and Restoration... 19
61
Reserve Training........................... 19
62
Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements 20
62
Alteration of Bridges...................... 23
69
Retired Pay................................ 23
70
United States Secret Service....................... 24
70
Salaries and Expenses...................... 24
70
Acquisition, Construction, Improvements,
and Related Expenses................... 26
75
TITLE III--PREPAREDNESS AND RECOVERY:
Office for State and Local Government Coordination
and Preparedness............................... 26
76
Management and Administration.............. 26
76
State and Local Programs................... 26
76
Firefighter Assistance Grants.............. 30
87
Emergency Management Performance Grants.... 30
88
Counterterrorism Fund.............................. 31
88
Office of the Under Secretary for Emergency
Preparedness And Response...................... 31
89
Emergency Preparedness and Response........ 31
89
Preparedness, Mitigation, Response, and
Recovery............................... 31
90
Administrative and Regional Operations..... 32
91
Public Health Programs..................... 33
92
Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program 33
93
Disaster Relief............................ 34
93
Disaster Assistance Direct Loan Program
Account................................ 34
94
Flood Map Modernization Fund............... 34
94
National Flood Insurance Fund.............. 35
95
National Flood Mitigation Fund............. 36
96
National Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund...... 36
97
Emergency Food and Shelter................. 37
97
TITLE IV--RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, TRAINING, ASSESSMENTS,
AND SERVICES:
Citizenship and Immigration Services............... 37
98
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center............ 37
101
Salaries and Expenses...................... 37
101
Acquisition, Construction, Improvements,
and Related Expenses................... 39
102
Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection. 39
102
Management and Administration.............. 39
102
Assessments and Evaluations................ 39
103
Science and Technology............................. 40
109
Management and Administration.............. 40
109
Research, Development, Acquisition, and
Operations............................. 40
109
TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS:
This Act...................................................
119
Compliance with House Rules................................
124
Tables.....................................................
135
Summary of the Total Bill..................................
138
The accompanying bill contains recommendations for new
budget (obligational) authority for fiscal year 2006 for the
Department of Homeland Security. The following table summarizes
these recommendations and reflects comparisons with the budget,
as amended, and with amounts appropriated to date for fiscal
year 2005:

[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New budget Bill compared with . . .
(obligation) Budget estimates -------------------------------------
Title authority fiscal of (obligational) Recommended in New budget
year 2005 authority, fiscal the bill authority fiscal Budget estimate,
enacted to date year 2006 year 2005 fiscal year 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Departmental Management and Operations................... 606,774 747,689 684,545 +77,771 -63,144
Security, Enforcement, and Investigations................ 20,629,096 20,565,937 22,013,963 +1,384,867 +1,448,026
Preparedness and Recovery................................ 15,971,218 6,709,433 6,588,393 <9,382,825 -121,040
Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and 2,391,515 2,545,689 2,580,179 +188,664 +34,490
Services................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Total.......................................... 39,598,603 30,568,748 31,867,080 -7,731,523 +1,298,332
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY OF MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE BILL

The Committee recommends $30,846,000,000 in discretionary
resources for the Department of Homeland Security,
$1,291,332,000 above the amount proposed by the President and
$1,133,776,000 below fiscal year 2005 enacted levels, after
scorekeeping adjustments.

TITLE I--DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS

Office of the Secretary and Executive Management

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005......................... $ 85,034,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2006........................ 195,848,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 133,239,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2005..................... +48,205,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2006.................... -62,609,000

MISSION

The mission of management and operations is to provide
efficient services to the Department for Homeland Security
(DHS) 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 $133,239,000 for the Office of the
Secretary and Executive Management, $62,609,000 below the
President's request and $48,205,000 above the amounts provided
in fiscal year 2005. To adequately oversee expenditures and
personnel changes within each office of the Office of the
Secretary and Executive Management, the Committee has provided
separate funding recommendations on an office-by-office basis
as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate Recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immediate Office of the Secretary......................................... $2,393,000 $2,393,000
Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary.................................. 1,132,000 1,132,000
Office of Security........................................................ 61,278,000 51,278,000
Chief of Staff............................................................ 4,103,000 4,103,000
Executive Secretary....................................................... 5,491,000 5,400,000
Office of Policy, Planning and International Affairs...................... 8,770,000 8,770,000
Special Assistant to the Secretary-Private Sector......................... 4,181,000 4,181,000
Office of National Capital Region Coordination............................ 1,072,000 982,000
Public Affairs............................................................ 9,312,000 9,172,000
Legislative Affairs....................................................... 6,182,000 5,500,000
General Counsel........................................................... 11,947,000 11,800,000
Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.......................................... 13,000,000 13,000,000
Citizenship and Immigration Ombudsman..................................... 3,652,000 3,652,000
Privacy Officer........................................................... 3,981,000 4,381,000
Regions................................................................... 49,895,000 0
Operation Integration Staff............................................... 9,459,000 7,495,000
-------------------------------------
Total................................................................. $195,848,000 $133,239,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

STAFFING ADJUSTMENTS

The President requested 100 new full-time equivalents
(FTEs) under the Office of the Secretary and Executive
Management, including 60 FTEs for the Office of Security, 24
FTEs for the operation integration staff, two FTEs for the
Executive Secretary, four FTEs for the Office of Policy,
Planning and International Affairs, two FTE for the Office of
National Capital Region Coordination, five FTEs for Public
Affairs, two FTEs for General Counsel and one FTE for the
Privacy Officer. Funding for all new FTEs was requested for the
full fiscal year. While the Department has been reducing the
number of vacancies it has within the Office of the Secretary
and Executive Management, it is unrealistic to believe that
these new staff will be on board the first day of the fiscal
year. As a result, the Committee denies full year funding for
any new FTEs except for the Privacy Officer. Instead, the
Committee has assumed in its recommendations that these new
staff will be on board beginning in the second quarter of
fiscal year 2006, with the exception of the Office of Security
and the operation integration staff, which are addressed
separately.

OFFICE OF SECURITY

The Committee recommends $51,278,000 for the Office of
Security, $10,000,000 below the President's request and
$18,854,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005,
including the recently approved reprogramming. The Committee
has only provided half year funding for the 60 new staff
requested. Further reductions were made due to insufficient
justification.
The Committee is concerned that the Department's classified
and security sensitive documents also contain information that
is unclassified. Unfortunately, the unclassified information is
not clearly marked on the documents. Therefore, as is done in
other agencies, the Committee directs DHS to ensure that its
classified and security sensitive documents contain
classifications by paragraph and clearly mark which paragraphs
are unclassified.

BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS

The Committee remains concerned by apparent delays in
personal security and suitability background investigations,
update investigations, and periodic reinvestigations for
Departmental employees. The Committee continues a provision
(Section 516) to expand authority to conduct background
investigations during fiscal year 2006 and modifies the
provision to include Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which
currently has over 500 pending investigations. The Committee
directs that this authority be used to expeditiously process
background investigations, including updates and
reinvestigations, as necessary. The Committee directs the
Secretary to submit a report by January 16, 2006, on the use of
this authority and the status of any backlog in background
investigations by component agency.

SENSITIVE SECURITY INFORMATION DESIGNATION

The General Accountability Office (GAO) recently completed
a review of the Transportation Security Administration's (TSA)
Sensitive Security Information designation process. GAO found
that TSA has no clear SSI designation policies and procedures,
that TSA has no monitoring controls on SSI designations, and
that TSA has insufficient training for employees on SSI
designation. In addition, TSA has not officially limited the
number of TSA staff who can designate SSI documents, so in
essence all TSA employees currently may designate a document as
SSI.
The Committee finds this situation completely unacceptable.
The Committee expects the Department to try to release as much,
not as little, information to the public as possible. The
current situation at TSA provides for a large amount of
information to be prevented from public disclosure with no
oversight of the designation to be prevented from public
disclosure with no oversight of the designation process.
Therefore, the Committee expects the headquarters Office of
Security to develop SSI policies and procedures Department-
wide. The Committee withholds $10,000,000 from the Office of
Security until a report is provided to the Committee on the
number of documents designated as SSI today, Department-wide
SSI designation policies and procedures, and the total number
of staff able to designate SSI within the Department. The
ensure consistency, the Committee expects the Department and
TSA to limit the number of employees able to designate
information as SSI. The Committee has included a cop of sixty
on the number of people within TSA able to designate SSI
information.

OPERATION INTEGRATION STAFF

The Committee recommends $7,495,000 for the operation
integration staff, a decrease of $1,964,000 below the
President's request. To date, this office has been staffed with
detailees provided from agencies within DHS. The budget
proposed hiring 24 full-time staff for this office and ceasing
its dependence on detailees. The Committee has approved the
hiring of 12 new full-time staff, instead of the 24 requested.
The Committee strongly encourages the Department to continue to
rely on detailees to augment the staff, and suggests that DHS
consider using these detailees for a two-year period, instead
of for shorter time frames.

OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS

The Committee recommends $5,500,000 for the Office of
Legislative Affairs, $682,000 below the budget request and an
increase of $100,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year
2005. The Committee has reduced funding for this office because
of the slowness in hiring and believes that vacancies will
exist at the beginning of fiscal year 2006.

REGIONAL STRUCTURE

The Committee has denied the $49,895,000 requested by the
President to develop a new regional structure. The regional
structure concept is currently under review by the Secretary.
It is unclear at this time what, if any, regional structure
will be proposed. Until a decision has been made, Congress has
been briefed, and any outstanding concerns have been adequately
addressed, it is premature to provide funding for this new
structure.
Once the Department has announced its new regional
structure, the Committee directs the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to review the costs and benefits of the proposed
structure. DHS may not enact such a new structure until GAO
issues a report to the House Committee on Appropriations on its
findings and the Committee has had time to adequately analyze
the Department's regional proposal and GAO's results.

PRIVACY OFFICER

The Committee recommends $4,381,000 for the Privacy
Officer, $400,000 above the budget request and an increase of
$607,000 above amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. Funding
has been provided for four new FTEs, including the one
requested in the budget.
The Committee has included a new general provision (Section
528) to ensure that the Privacy Officer has the independence
necessary to report privacy abuses directly to Congress and has
all documents and information necessary to carry out statutory
responsibilities. The Privacy Officer, while an officer within
the Department of Homeland Security, is a position that
requires separateness from the leadership of the Department, in
order to turn a critical eye upon Departmental activities and
programs, with a focus on protecting individual privacy. The
Privacy Officer should provide Congress, and thus the public,
an unfettered view into the operations of the Department and
its impact on personal privacy. In order to fulfill this
relationship, the Privacy Officer must both have unrestricted
access to information, and unrestrained ability to report
critical findings to Congress and the public. The Committee
directs the Secretary to instruct all Department of Homeland
Security entities, whether programs, offices, directorates,
contractors, inter-agency or private-sector partners, or
individuals, that they must respond to information and document
requests from the Privacy Officer within the time frames set by
the Privacy Officer so that privacy issues may be analyzed and
resolved expeditiously.

INTERACTION WITH CONGRESS

The Committee continues to be frustrated by the
Department's inability to respond quickly, or at all, to items
of Congressional interest or direction. Agencies throughout the
Department have not submitted reports on time. Some notable
examples include: (1) the Coast Guard's failure to submit a
Deepwater rebaseline that meets statutory requirements, such as
an acquisition timeline for each new and/or legacy asset over
the 20 to 25-year program, funding projections for each year of
the program, and detailed descriptions of the revised mission
needs requirements; (2) an inability to provide Congress with a
plan to re-open National Airport to charter, business, and
general aviation aircraft even though this has been requested
multiple times, in multiple bills; and (3) failure to comply
with language for the past two years that requires the
Transportation Security Administration to submit quarterly
reports on their plans to procure and install explosive
detection systems at airports throughout the United States, as
well as make other modifications, that will continue to permit
these airports to screen 100-percent of checked baggage.
The Committee also continues to be frustrated with the lack
of responsiveness from various agencies within the Department.
Key questions that are asked are not followed up on. Requests
for meetings are delayed or disregarded. Meetings to brief the
Committee on high priority topics do not consistently involve
the same Departmental officials which results in inconsistent,
and often times contradictory, information being provided.
While the Committee recognizes that there were growing pains
when the Department was first formed and it might have been
unclear which agency should respond to an inquiry, the
Department is now over two years old. Responsiveness should no
longer be a challenge. The Committee expects the Department to
review its policies for handling of questions and requests for
meetings. The current practice is unacceptable and it must
change. In addition, the Department should make every effort to
send the same knowledgeable staff to meetings, so that the
information presented does not change randomly or selectively
to suit a specific policy argument or audience.
Finally, there is a growing public perception that the
Department is not making advances in key areas, particularly in
the review, purchase, and installation of new technologies that
might enhance security in the field. Repeatedly constituents
tell Members of Congress that the Department is unwilling and
very slow to meet with vendors and evaluate their technologies,
or to purchase technology for deployment. It is critical that
the Department make every effort to speed this process along.
It is the sense of the Committee that the Department needs a
robust and perhaps innovative technology transfer program that
not only reviews technologies, but also helps get products into
production and assures rapid use once built. The Committee
addresses this issue further within the Office of the Under
Secretary for Science and Technology (S&T;) and provides
$10,000,000 within S&T; to ensure that the Department moves
forward with its efforts to evaluate technologies, make those
evaluations more transparent, and to expedite placement of
workable solutions.

MEETING REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

The Committee is extremely concerned by the Department's
inability to submit reports on a timely basis. At this time,
123 of 169 reports required by the fiscal year 2005
appropriations bill are late. The Committee has requested these
reports in order to further its understanding of the
Department's operations in critical homeland security areas
including immigration; aviation security; and mission and asset
requirements of the Coast Guard, to name but a few. It is
unacceptable that the Department continues to miss important
deadlines and, in many instances submits reports that are not
in compliance with Committee direction. The Committee has
included a new provision within the Office of the Secretary and
Executive Management that requires timely and comprehensive
submission of all reports. The Committee withholds from
obligation $20,000,000 until all reports are received. The
Committee will not entertain the submission of draft reports in
order to meet the intent of this bill language. The Committee
cautions the Department to adequately plan for all necessary
Departmental and Administration review in the calculation of
time needed to submit Congressional reports.

BUDGET JUSTIFICATIONS

In fiscal year 2007, the Committee directs that the
Congressional budget justification for the Office of the
Secretary and Executive Management be submitted in the same
level of detail as the table contained in the back of this
report. All funding and staffing changes for each individual
office must be highlighted and explained. The Committee expects
this level of detail to include separate discussions for
personnel, compensation, and benefits; travel; training; and
other services.

WORKING CAPITAL FUND

The Working Capital Fund (WCF) was established to provide
funding for selected services, activities, and programs that
benefit more than one Departmental organization. The WCF will
also be used to consolidate funding for government-wide,
mandated initiatives assessed to the Department by central
management agencies, and DHS crosscutting initiatives
identified by the Secretary.
The Department has not adequately explained to the
Committee what activities are funded by the WCF in fiscal year
2005 and planned for in fiscal year 2006. Without more clarity,
it is very difficult for the Committee or the component
agencies within the Department to adequately fund these
activities within their budget requests. The Committee
therefore directs the Department to submit a report identifying
all services, activities, programs, government-wide and
Secretarial initiatives supported through the WCF in fiscal
years 2005 and 2006 by January 16, 2006. This is to include a
description of each activity, the basis for the pricing policy,
the estimated cost for fiscal years 2005 and 2006, (if the
activity is a multi-year project with a defined cost, scope,
and schedule for completion, also provide the total estimated
cost of the activity by fiscal year and the estimated date for
completion), 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 2005 and 2006. The
report should also 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 all cross-cutting initiatives funded
by multiple organizations to be included in the WCF and to be
promptly notified of any additions, deletions, or changes that
are made to the WCF during the fiscal year. Taxing Departmental
organizations for cross-cutting initiatives outside the WCF
will not be approved by the Committee. Furthermore, the
Department should not fund any activities within the WCF that
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations have
disapproved either in report language or in its response to
reprogramming requests.
For fiscal year 2007, the same level of detailed
information on the WCF is to be provided in the budget
justification document submitted for the Departmental
Operations account 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 justification documents
provide all necessary information at the appropriate level of
detail.

SHARED SERVICES

Problems and confusion over the administration of shared
services between Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE),
Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and Citizen and
Immigration Services (CIS) continue to plague the Department.
The problem stems from the difficulty in adjusting to changes
in these agencies' previous structure and systems found in the
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and Customs
Service, and lack of guidance during the transition into the
new structure. Field managers lack information about how shared
services are handled. The Committee directs the Secretary to
submit a report not later than January 16, 2006, on how shared
services are defined, what policies are in place to guide
managers on how to administer those services, and what
mechanism is in place to resolve interagency disputes.

IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT

The number of illegal aliens in the United States is now
estimated to exceed 11,000,000, including 465,000 aliens with
outstanding orders of deportation who have absconded, of whom
80,000 have criminal records. The number of illegal aliens in
the United States is growing by 485,000 per year. This
troubling growth is the result of multiple factors: porous
borders, lack of interior enforcement, and the lure of
employment opportunities within the United States. The burden
of immigration enforcement is split amongst many federal
agencies, but falls primarily upon ICE and CBP. ICE is
responsible for apprehending immigration violators inside the
United States and CBP is charged with securing the border from
illegal crossings. The combination of current threats facing
our nation and the sheer magnitude of the growth in the illegal
population reveals the fact that immigration enforcement
efforts have not kept pace. Simply stated--immigration
enforcement and border control is not working.
The Committee believes a fundamental shift in the
Department's approach to immigration enforcement and border
management is long overdue. The Committee includes a provision
directing the Secretary to review the Department's current
immigration enforcement strategy and develop a comprehensive
immigration enforcement strategy that achieves a 10 percent per
year reduction in the total number of undocumented aliens in
the United States, based on estimates using data from the U.S.
Census Bureau. This strategy shall specifically address
threats, risks, vulnerabilities, capabilities and priorities
for the enforcement of immigration and border security in the
context of the Department's overall mission to protect our
homeland. This strategy shall address all factors effecting
immigration enforcement and border security, including but not
limited to: force multipliers; repatriation, detention, and
removal practices; worksite enforcement; interaction and
coordination with immigration courts; technology;
organizational structure; interagency coordination; staffing;
and assets. Bill language is included that makes $20,000,000
unavailable for obligation until an immigration enforcement
strategy to reduce the number of undocumented aliens by 10
percent per year is submitted to the Committee.

THREAT ASSESSMENT

The Committee recognizes the threat assessment experience
within the Secret Service and believes other DHS agencies can
benefit from it. The Secret Service has developed innovative
partnerships across government, the private sector, and
academia to profile various types of threats, including
targeted violence, assassins, and cyber security breaches. The
National Threat Assessment Center (NTAC), created in 1999 to
provide leadership and guidance to the field of threat
assessment, has demonstrated considerable value to the work of
the Secret Service and, more recently, to DHS. NTAC has
provided technical analysis of current terrorist tactics being
used in Iraq and Afghanistan and applied the results to the
enhancement of domestic protective operations. In August 2004,
NTAC completed an Insider Threat Study that utilized the
expertise of the Secret Service's Electronic Crimes Special
Agent Program (ECSAP) to develop profiles of illicit insider
activities affecting information systems and data in critical
infrastructure sectors. NTAC's work, combined with the
resources of the Secret Service's Intelligence Division and the
ECSAP, has furthered the testing and evaluation of protective
technologies and led to the creation of tools, such as the
Targeted Violence Information Sharing System (TAVISS). The
Committee believes that DHS can make better use of the Secret
Service's proficiency in developing and providing threat
assessment training and operational research, but the demand
for such expertise far exceeds Secret Service resources. The
Committee encourages the Secret Service to work with the
Department to expand the application of its threat assessment
resources across the critical infrastructure protection and
cyber security functions of DHS.

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY

In the statement of managers accompanying the fiscal year
2005 Appropriations Act for DHS, the conferees directed the
Secretary to submit a five-year integrated strategic
transportation security plan. To date, the Committee has not
received this plan. Without such a plan, the Committee remains
concerned that the Department has concentrated homeland
security funding and technology on aviation security, without
placing equal resources on securing the Nation's rail lines,
tunnels, bridges, and ports. The Committee directs the
Department to submit a report no later than January 16, 2006,
on what progress has been made in securing this critical
infrastructure, outlining a 5-year plan to achieve this
objective. This report shall include how: infrastructure is
identified; vulnerability assessments are accomplished;
technologies are identified, tested, and deployed; funding is
targeted; cooperation with private infrastructure owners is
achieved; and progress in securing this infrastructure is
measured. The Department shall accomplish this report in
consultation with the Information Analysis and Infrastructure
Protection Directorate, the Science and Technology Directorate,
the Transportation Security Administration, the Office of State
and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness, the United
States Coast Guard, Customs and Border Protection and
Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

SECURITY POLICIES RELATED TO RELEASE OF PERSONAL INFORMATION

The Committee directs the Secretary to ensure that every
contract the Department enters into for services performed by
any entity or person engaged in interstate commerce that owns,
licenses, or collects data containing personal information,
including electronically, must include a provision requiring
that entity to have a security policy in place that contains
procedures to promptly notify any individual whose personal
information was, or is reasonably believed to have been, lost
or acquired by an unauthorized person. Notification can either
be delayed or shall not occur if it would impede a law
enforcement investigation or cause damage to national security.
The Committee is concerned about the security of personal data,
as highlighted recently by several security breaches at large
companies that resulted in the theft of personal data.

PROTECTION OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION

The Committee is pleased that the Department is taking
steps to comply with the requirements for protecting classified
information by using GSA-approved containers and vaults secured
with a locking mechanism meeting the latest federal
specifications for storage. The Committee urges the Department
to complete these upgrades no later than January 16, 2006.

Office of the Under Secretary for Management

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005......................... $151,153,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2006........................ 146,619,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 146,084,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2005..................... -5,069,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2006.................... -535,000

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; safety,
health and environment; and identification and tracking of
performance measurements relating to the responsibility of the
Department. This office is also in charge of implementing a new
mission support structure for the Department of Homeland
Security to deliver administrative services while eliminating
redundancies and reducing support costs.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $146,084,000 for the Office of the
Under Secretary for Management, $535,000 below the President's
request and $5,069,000 below the amounts provided in fiscal
year 2005. In order to adequately oversee expenditures for each
office, the Committee has provided separate funding
recommendations as detailed in the following table:

STAFFING ADJUSTMENTS

The President requested 12 new full-time equivalents (FTEs)
under the Office of the Under Secretary for Management,
including one FTE for the Under Secretary for Management, one
FTE for the Office of Chief Human Capital Officer and 10 FTEs
for the Office of Chief Administrative Officer. Funding for all
new FTEs was requested for the full fiscal year. While the
Department has been reducing the number of vacancies it has
with the offices of the Under Secretary for Management, it is
unrealistic to believe that these new staff will be on board
the first day of the fiscal year. As a result, the Committee
denies full year funding for any new FTEs. Instead, the
Committee has assumed in its budgetary recommendations, that
these new staff will be on board beginning in the second
quarter of fiscal year 2006.

OFFICE OF CHIEF HUMAN CAPITAL OFFICER

The Committee recommends $61,951,000 for the Office of
Chief Human Capital Officer, $45,000 below the President's
request. The funding reduction is applied to personnel,
compensation and benefits. No reduction has been made to the
$53,000,000 requested for the new human resource system.

OFFICE OF CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER

The Committee recommends $66,356,000 for the Office of
Chief Administrative Officer, $445,000 below the President's
request. The funding reduction is applied to personnel,
compensation and benefits. No reduction has been made to the
$26,070,000 requested to continue construction related
activities at the Nebraska Avenue complex.

MANAGEMENT INTEGRATION STRATEGY

In March 2005, the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
reported that, while DHS has made some progress in its
management integration efforts, it should implement a more
comprehensive and sustained approach. GAO recommended that the
Under Secretary for Management: (1) develop an overarching
management integration strategy for the Department, (2)
designate the Business Transformation Office (BTO) as the
dedicated implementation team for the Department's management
integration, and (3) provide the BTO with the requisite
authority and responsibility to help set priorities and make
strategic decisions to drive the integration across all
functions. The Under Secretary for Management is directed: (1)
to report to the House Committee on Appropriations, no later
than August 1, 2005, on whether BTO has sufficient authority to
serve as a dedicated implementation team to help set priorities
and make strategic decisions to drive integration across all
functions, and (2) to report quarterly, beginning on January 1,
2006, on the progress of DHS management integration.

Office of the Chief Financial Officer

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005......................... $13,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2006........................ 18,505,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 18,505,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2005..................... +5,505,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2006.................... - - -

MISSION

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

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $18,505,000 for the Office of the
Chief Financial Officer, the same as the budget request and
$5,505,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. The
Committee also approves the request for nine additional FTEs,
including one new appropriations liaison staff.

FINANCIAL AUDIT

The Committee is very concerned about the results of the
2004 financial audit. In it, the auditor noted that DHS was
experiencing a ``financial setback'' and had serious
``structural problems''. As a result, the auditor was unable to
issue an opinion on the Department's financial statement and
identified 10 material weaknesses, largely within Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Office of the Chief
Financial Officer, and the U.S. Coast Guard. For example, the
auditor found: ICE did not adequately maintain its accounting
records in FY 2004; the Chief Financial Officer did not prepare
timely financial statements and did not monitor bureau
compliance with financial reporting requirements; and the Coast
Guard lacked a process to adequately track property and
equipment. While the Committee is aware that the CFO is working
to address these problems, a repeat of such a negative audit in
2005 will be unacceptable. The Committee has fully funded the
budget request so that the CFO can deploy these additional
funds to address financial weaknesses highlighted in the audit,
to perform more budgetary reviews of each agency within the
Department, improve budget execution, and more closely track
reprogramming needs and requests.

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET JUSTIFICATIONS

The Committee directs the Department to submit all of its
fiscal year 2007 budget justifications on the first Monday in
February of 2006, concurrent with the official submission of
the President's budget to Congress. These justifications should
have the customary level of detailed data and explanatory
statements to support the appropriations requests, including
tables that detail each agencies programs, projects, and
activities for fiscal years 2006 and 2007. The Committee
directs the CFO to ensure that adequate justification is given
to each increase, decrease, and staffing change proposed in the
fiscal year 2007 budget, particularly within the Departmental
operations and management accounts.
The Committee directs the Department to submit, as part of
the fiscal year 2007 budget justification, a table identifying
the last year that authorizing legislation was provided by
Congress for each program, project, or activity; the amount of
the authorization; and the appropriation in the last year of
the authorization.

CLASSIFIED BUDGET JUSTIFICATIONS

Several components of the Department have classified
programs that require preparation and submission of a separate
classified budget justification document. These classified
budget justification documents must be submitted to the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations at the same time the
unclassified budget justifications are transmitted.

MONTHLY REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

For the past two years, the Department has been directed to
submit to the Committee a monthly budget execution report
showing the status of obligations and costs for all components
of the Department. Consistently, the Department has been very
tardy in providing this information. These delays are
unacceptable and prevent the Committee from accurately
analyzing budgetary needs, particularly when considering
reprogrammings and supplemental requests.
The Committee directs the Department to submit monthly
budget execution reports. Each report shall include the total
obligational authority appropriated (new budget authority plus
unobligated carryover), undistributed obligational authority,
amount allotted, current year obligations, unobligated
authority, beginning unexpended obligations, year-to-date
costs, and ending unexpended obligations. This budget execution
information is to be provided at the level of detail shown in
the tables displayed at the end of this report for each
Departmental component. The Committee expects to receive these
reports no later than 60 days following the end of the
reporting month.

Office of the Chief Information Officer

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005......................... $275,270,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2006........................ 303,700,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 303,700,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2005..................... +28,430,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2006.................... - - -

MISSION

The Chief Information Office (CIO) has oversight of all
information technology projects in the Department. For projects
that are estimated to cost over $5,000,000, the CIO is
consulted, participates in the evaluation of proposals, and
provides recommendations. The Chief Information Officer also
has input into the development and execution of each
directorate's information technology budgets.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $303,700,000 for the Office of the
Chief Information Officer, the same as the budget request and
$28,430,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005.
Within the total, the Committee recommends $5,255,000 for
geospatial activities, the same as the budget request. The
following table highlights funding levels by program, project
and activity:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salaries and Expenses............. $75,756,000 $75,756,000
Information Technology Services... 110,944,000 110,944,000
Security Activities............... 31,000,000 31,000,000
Wireless Programs................. 86,000,000 86,000,000
-------------------------------------
Total......................... 303,700,000 303,700,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Committee recognizes the sound leadership and hard work
of the Department's CIO over the last two years as the
Department has attempted to coordinate, restructure and improve
its Information Technology (IT) systems. The Committee also
recognizes the Department's IT challenges of standardizing and
integrating the legacy systems and management practices of
disparate agencies, while simultaneously attempting to maintain
and enhance critical homeland security operations in a dynamic
environment. The Committee appreciates how an enterprise
architecture and other strategic IT management structures and
controls are critical to the Department's integration of
stovepiped processes. Currently, there are multiple enterprise
architectures within each of the operating agencies; multiple
stovepipe systems with significant redundancy; and no apparent,
comprehensive blueprint to guide investments and priorities.
In the interest of fully leveraging and optimizing the
potential contribution of IT investments in meeting the
homeland security mission, while controlling IT investment
costs, maintaining schedules, and delivering capabilities, it
is critical that DHS develop an enterprise architecture. The
Committee is concerned that DHS may continue to invest in IT at
a time when its needs and goals have not been properly
articulated through its strategic planning. The Committee has
directed the Department, in bill language, to report on the
following, with the aim of describing the maturity of each
strategic element, how far along the Department is in
implementing each element, and what activities remain to be
done: (1) an enterprise architecture, as defined in OMB
Circular A-130 and the Federal Chief Information Officers'
guidance; (2) an Information Technology Capital Plan, to
include an inventory of current IT work skills, a gap analysis
of any shortfalls, and a plan for addressing any shortfalls;
(3) a capital investment plan for implementing the enterprise
architecture; and (4) a description of the IT capital planning
and investment control process. The report must be reviewed and
approved by OMB, reviewed by GAO, and delivered to Congress
within 180 days of enactment of this Act.
Finally, the Committee is concerned that the Department of
Homeland Security, an agency charged with securing the
homeland, continues to face significant challenges in securing
its own information systems. The Department lacks a complete
and accurate inventory of its information systems; has not
tested the contingency plans for the majority of the
information systems that it knows it has; is well below the
government-wide average in reviewing contractor operations,
even though contractors perform a large percentage of its
information systems operations; and, according to the
Department's Inspector General, has a poor certification and
accreditation process that is not performed consistently across
the Department. The Committee directs the Department's CIO to
develop a plan by October 1, 2005, to address the weaknesses in
DHS' information security. The Inspector General is directed to
review the CIO's plan and report back to the Committee by
November 30, 2005, on the thoroughness of the CIO's plan.

GEOSPATIAL INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

The Committee directs the Chief Information Officer to
report to the Committee, by January 16, 2006, on its efforts to
develop a complete and accurate Global Geospatial Intelligence,
Geographic Information System (GGI/GIS) border mapping
inventory of critical U.S. infrastructure and assets through
its Department-wide enterprise GIS (E-GIS) system.

Office of Inspector General

OPERATING EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005......................... $82,317,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2006........................ 83,017,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 83,017,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2005..................... +700,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2006.................... - - -

MISSION

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 established an Office of
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.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $83,017,000 for the Office of
Inspector General (OIG), the same as the budget request and
$700,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005.

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.

BUY AMERICAN ACT

The Committee is disappointed that the Inspector General
has still to report back to the Committee with an audit on the
Department's compliance with the Buy American Act and directs
them to submit this report as soon as possible. The Committee
directs the Inspector General to audit the Department's
compliance with the Buy American Act and submit the report at
the same time the President submits to Congress the budget for
fiscal year 2007.
Furthermore, the Committee directs the Secretary to issue a
report to the Committees on Appropriations that describes the
articles, materials, and supplies acquired by the Department
during fiscal years 2004-2006 that were manufactured outside of
the United States as well as an itemized list of all waivers
granted with respect to such articles, materials, or supplies
under the Buy American Act. The report should include a summary
of the total funds spent by the Department of Homeland Security
on goods manufactured within the United States compared with
funds spent on goods manufactured outside of the United States.
The Committee includes bill language prohibiting funds from
being used in contravention of the applicable provisions of the
Buy American Act. The House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations expect to be notified when the Department
deviates from this direction pursuant to permissible
exceptions.

TITLE II--SECURITY, ENFORCEMENT, AND INVESTIGATIONS

Office of the Under Secretary for Border and Transportaton Security

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005......................... $9,617,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006....................... 10,617,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 10,617,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2005..................... +1,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006................... - - -

MISSION

The Office of the Under Secretary for Border and
Transportation Security (BTS) administers the directorate
responsible for securing our nation's borders, including 350
official ports of entry, 7,500 miles of land border with Canada
and Mexico, 95,000 miles of shoreline, and a 3.4 million square
mile exclusive economic zone. BTS oversees the security of the
nation's transportation systems and enforcement of immigration
and customs laws, and manages and coordinates a variety of
automation modernization programs including US-VISIT as well as
the activities of four major components: U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE), the Transportation Security Administration
(TSA), and the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC).

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $10,617,000 for Salaries and
Expenses, the same as the budget request and $1,000,000 above
the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. This includes
$289,000 for two additional positions and contract services.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CBP AND ICE

The Committee has learned that there is a frequent lack of
communication between CBP and ICE, and is concerned that the
concept of operations between these two critical agencies is
inadequately defined. Based on their experiences within single
legacy agencies, there should be seamless coordination of
investigative, intelligence, and enforcement missions. Instead,
the agencies appear to have created relationships based on
fragmented policies at the local level rather than from
centralized guidance. The Committee is disappointed by BTS'
failure, after two years, to coordinate the relationships
between these agencies. Some examples include: confusion over
which agency can issue parole to an alien; disputes on exchange
of information between agencies; and the role of the legacy INS
Senior Inspector position in the prosecution of criminal
immigration cases at the border. The Committee is encouraged by
the Memorandum of Understanding signed in November 2004 between
Border Patrol and ICE, but a myriad of issues remain unresolved
between other components of CBP and ICE. The Committee directs
BTS to submit a report no later than January 16, 2006, that
describes the directives and guidelines that are in place to
govern the interrelationship between BTS agencies and to
clarify the operational roles and responsibilities of each
agency and component.

IDENT-IAFIS INTEROPERABILITY

In the fiscal year 2005 statement of managers, BTS was
directed to report on the status of efforts to achieve real
time interoperability between the two-fingerprint Automated
Biometrics Identification System (IDENT), which is used by the
Border Patrol and US-VISIT, and the FBI's 10-fingerprint
Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS).
The report was due to Congress by January 14, 2005. In the
meantime, in its Evaluation and Inspection report I-2005-001
dated December 2004, the Department of Justice Inspector
General observed that efforts to achieve interoperability have
stalled. This is in part due to disagreements about the
appropriate fingerprint methodology between Justice, Homeland
Security, and State Departments, but also because the databases
contain different types of information and involve both
criminal and non-criminal records. The report also notes that
there are significant delays in transferring data between
databases, estimating that it could take as long as six years
to add seven million foreign criminal records into the IDENT
database. The Committee is extremely frustrated that no report
has yet been forthcoming, and expects to see the directed
report as soon as possible, but in no case later than July 1,
2005. Given its delay, the Committee expects the report to
address the issues raised in the aforementioned Justice IG
report.

ROLE OF FIELD EMPLOYEE FEEDBACK IN BTS

The October 2004 Government Accountability Office (GAO)
report entitled ``Homeland Security: Management Challenges
Remain in Transforming Immigration Systems'' cites the lack of
a mechanism for obtaining field employee feedback as a weakness
in the BTS agencies. The GAO report concluded that the
influence of employee feedback could have identified and help
avert communication and coordination problems among BTS
agencies. The Committee directs BTS to submit a report no later
than January 16, 2006, on how BTS can utilize employee feedback
to identify and mitigate problems between the BTS component
agencies.

CARGO CONTAINER SECURITY

The Committee is frustrated by the Department's delay in
submitting a report on the Department's cargo security efforts,
which the fiscal year 2005 conferees directed be submitted by
February 8, 2005. The Committee wants to receive this report,
but is also aware that the Department has not released the
National Cargo Security Strategy it circulated in draft form in
December 2004. The Committee directs that the overdue report be
submitted as soon as possible, and that an update, reflecting
any changes resulting from the new Strategy, be delivered to
the Committee at the time the Strategy is released.

INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF ILLEGAL ALIENS

The Committee understands that significant numbers of
illegal aliens, shortly after illegally entering the United
States, are transported to their final destination within the
United States using various transportation modes. For example,
aliens who have illegally crossed the southwest Border or
entered Los Angeles are grouped together and then moved via
domestic transportation, such as commercial flights or cargo
vans, to destinations in the interior or East Coast. The
Committee understands that DHS lacks procedures to coordinate
the efforts of DHS agencies--for instance, CBP, Federal Air
Marshals (FAMs), and ICE agents--and other law enforcement
agencies to identify smuggling or trafficking, and to ensure
that appropriate enforcement or investigative action is taken.
The Committee therefore directs the Secretary to report not
later than January 16, 2006, on: estimates of the numbers of
such aliens transported in this fashion by fiscal year broken
out by transportation mode; the patterns of such movement;
statistics for apprehension and investigation of such activity;
and the processes and interagency agreements in development or
in place to ensure a seamless federal approach to this facet of
immigration enforcement.

STOLEN PASSPORTS

The Committee is concerned about the results of the
Department's Inspector General report (OIG-05-07, December
2004) on the use of stolen passports from visa waiver countries
to enter the United States. The IG found that aliens who seek
admission into the United States using such documents were
usually admitted, and that it made little difference whether
lookouts for the stolen passports existed, as aliens were often
admitted even after such lookouts were posted. Both CBP and ICE
responded that they intend to act on the eight IG
recommendations. The Committee directs the Under Secretary to
report semi-annually, beginning January 16, 2006, on the
progress that CBP and ICE are making with respect to the eight
recommendations contained in the IG report, and to continue
such reports until they are in full compliance with those
recommendations.

AIR AND MARINE OPERATIONS

The Committee continues to wait for detailed planning
information needed to assess the air and marine programs that
have been integrated within Customs and Border Protection
(CBP). The most recent information provided to the Committee
noted that phase two of the integration was underway, and that
further information about missions, strategy, recapitalization,
basing, staffing, and other investments would be forthcoming.
The details sought by the Committee were laid out in Committee
reports and conference reports for the past two years, and the
Committee expects to see those details--for the combined CBP
programs, to include Air and Marine Operations and the Border
Patrol air and marine operations--before October 1, 2005. As
also directed in previous years, the Committee expects to see
the results of the Departmental review of missions and
operations to gain full appreciation of the potential for
synergy that can operate between all DHS entities in the air
and marine field, to include the Coast Guard. Without such
detailed, multi-year information, the Committee will find it
very hard to support funding for improvements and investments
that may be necessary. The Committee makes $10,000,000
unavailable for obligation within CBP's salaries and expenses
account until all outstanding reports are submitted.

Automation Modernization

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 \1\..................... $(340,000,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 \2\................... (411,232,000)
Recommended in the bill................................. 411,232,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2005..................... +71,232,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006................... - - -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Appropriation only reflects US-VISIT and is shown for comparability
purposes only.
\2\ The budget requested funding under a new Screening Coordination and
Operations office. Funding for US-VISIT, FAST, NEXUS and SENTRI is shown
for comparability purposes only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

MISSION

Four programs are funded under the Automation Modernization
account: Free and Secure Trade (FAST), NEXUS, Secure Electronic
Network for Traveler's Rapid Inspection (SENTRI) and US-VISIT.
FAST aims to enhance secure trade by using advanced technology,
risk management principles to clear commercial traffic at
Points of Entry (POE) along the Mexican and Canadian Border.
NEXUS and SENTRI are tools to assist the legitimate flow of
people across the borders of Canada and Mexico. 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, request benefits
such as change of status or adjustment of status, or depart the
United States.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $411,232,000 for automation
modernization. The Committee denies the proposal to form a
Screening Coordination Operations office. The Committee
supports consolidating US-VISIT, Free and Secure Trade (FAST)
and NEXUS/SENTRI. Of the total funding provided, $390,232,000
is for US-VISIT, $7,000,000 is for FAST, and $14,000,000 is for
NEXUS/SENTRI.

US-VISIT IMPLEMENTATION

The Committee recognizes the significant accomplishment of
implementing US-VISIT entry procedures at 115 airports, 15
seaports, and in the secondary inspection areas of the 50
busiest land ports of entry. The balance of fiscal year 2005
and the beginning of fiscal year 2006 promise to be equally
challenging because entry procedures will be deployed at the
remaining land ports of entry by December 31, 2005. In
addition, US-VISIT will need to fully assess the latest
biometric technology as it becomes available, and potentially
address significant infrastructure requirements. The Committee
remains concerned about US-VISIT's staffing levels given the
size, complexity, and importance of this program.
In order to ensure that program management is not disrupted
by the requirement that no funds may be obligated prior to
submission and approval of expenditure plans that are approved
by DHS, OMB, and reviewed by GAO, the Committee has provided
that $97,500,000 for program management and operations,
including associated personnel costs and benefits for Program
Management Office (PMO) staff, will be made available upon
enactment of this Act. However, the Committee continues to
require a detailed expenditure plan. This plan must reflect a
clear benefit-cost analysis associated with the increments
being proposed for funding. In addition, the Committee directs
that US-VISIT adhere to the most stringent standards in
developing and testing its system plans prior to their being
deployed or made operational. The Committee also directs the
Under Secretary to ensure that the contractors it selects to
perform independent verification and validation tasks are
genuinely independent and neutral with regard to whatever prime
integrator or other vendors are participating in the project.

Office of Screening Coordination and Operations

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005......................... - - -
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006....................... $525,526,000
Recommended in the bill................................. - - -
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2005..................... - - -
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006................... -525,526,000

MISSION

The mission of the Office of Screening Coordination and
Operations (SCO) is to enhance the interdiction of terrorists
and the instruments of terrorism by streamlining terrorist
related screening. The SCO coordinates the procedures that
detect, identify, track and interdict people, cargo,
conveyances, and other objects that pose a threat to homeland
security, while safeguarding legal rights guaranteed by federal
law. The SCO consolidates the following Department of Homeland
Security programs; United States Visitor and Immigration Status
Indicator Technology (US-VISIT), Secure Flight, Free and Secure
Trade (FAST), NEXUS/SENTRI, credentialing administration and
operations, Transportation Worker Identification Credentialing
(TWIC), Registered Traveler, hazardous materials trucker
background checks, and Alien Flight School checks.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends no appropriation for the proposed
Office of Screening Coordination and Operations instead of
$525,526,000 as proposed by the President. Although the
President proposed to consolidate US-VISIT, Secure Flight, Free
and Secure Trade, NEXUS/SENTRI and other screening related
programs, the Committee has denied this consolidation. Within
the Transportation Security Administration, the Committee has
established a new office of Transportation Vetting and
Credentialing to oversee Secure Flight, Crew Vetting,
Registered Traveler, Transportation Worker Identification
Credential, Hazmat, and Alien Flight programs. While many of
these programs are funded by offsetting collections, the
Committee has provided a direct appropriation totaling
$84,294,000 for Secure Flight, Crew Vetting and administrative
activities. US-VISIT, FAST, and NEXUS/SENTRI are funded within
BTS Automation Modernization.

Customs and Border Protection

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 \1\..................... $4,534,119,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006....................... 4,730,544,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 4,885,544,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2005..................... +351,425,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006................... +155,000,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not include pending supplemental of $124,425,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

MISSION

The mission of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is
to protect the borders of the United States by preventing,
preempting and deterring threats against the 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 40,000, 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 $4,885,544,000, including
$3,000,000 for the collection of the Harbor Maintenance Fee,
$155,000,000 above the President's request and $351,425,000
above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. This fully
funds the President's request, and includes an additional
$150,000,000 to permit the hiring of 790 Border Patrol Agents,
and $5,000,000 to partially fund increases for staff, equipment
and operations for Air and Marine Operations. When combined
with the pending supplemental, a total of 1,500 new Border
Patrol agents will come on board during fiscal years 2005 and
2006. The Committee includes bill language, as requested,
making $174,800,000 available until September 30, 2007,
comprising $125,000,000 for radiation detection and inspection
technology; $20,000,000 for replacement Border Patrol aircraft;
$19,800,000 for the America's Shield Initiative; and
$10,000,000 for unmanned aerial vehicles.
A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Headquarters Management and $1,250,033,000 $1,250,033,000
Administration...................
Border Security Inspections and 1,738,024,000 1,738,024,000
Trade Facilitation...............
Inspections, trade and travel 1,274,994,000 1,274,994,000
facilitation at ports of entry...
Harbor Maintenance Fee 3,000,000 3,000,000
Collection (Trust Fund)......
Container Security Initiative. 138,790,000 138,790,000
Other International Programs.. 8,629,000 8,629,000
Customs-Trade Partnership 54,268,000 54,268,000
Against Terrorism............
Inspection and Detection 188,024,000 188,024,000
Technology Investments.......
Systems for Targeting......... 28,253,000 28,253,000
National Targeting Center..... 16,697,000 16,697,000
Other Technologies............ 1,018,000 1,018,000
Training...................... 24,351,000 24,351,000
Border Security and Control 1,606,427,000 1,756,427,000
Between Ports of Entry...........
Border Security and Control... 1,464,989,000 1,614,989,000
Air Program Operations and 57,971,000 57,971,000
Maintenance..................
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle....... 10,180,000 10,180,000
America's Shield Initiative... 51,084,000 51,084,000
Training...................... 22,203,000 22,203,000
Air and Marine Operations-- 136,060,000 141,060,000
Salaries and Benefits............
-------------------------------------
Total..................... 4,730,544,000 4,885,544,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONTAINER SECURITY

The Committee has consistently supported CBP initiatives to
improve security for international trade and commerce, and
protect the supply chain critical to a healthy U.S. and global
economy. To further support these promising efforts, the
Committee fully funds the request of $138,790,000 for the
Container Security Initiative (CSI), which currently operates
at 35 international seaports. The Committee has not yet
received the report that was due January 14, 2005, providing
detailed spending and planning projections for fiscal years
2005-2009, and directs CBP to submit it as soon as possible.
The Committee includes a provision withholding $70,000,000 from
obligation until this report is submitted. The Committee is
aware that, in a number of instances, the host nations
participating in the CSI program have been unable to deploy the
necessary Non-Intrusive Inspection (NII) technology required of
them as a CSI participant, and that CBP has provided
assistance. The Committee is concerned that such assistance may
draw resources from the program and reduce the incentive for
foreign ports and governments to bear their share of the costs
involved. On the other hand, a greater role for CBP in
acquiring, certifying or possibly supporting the costs of NII
in foreign ports could enhance the type of cooperation and the
effective use of such systems in screening foreign shipments.
The Committee therefore directs that the Commissioner submit a
report not later than 90 days after enactment of this Act on
how NII system selection and use could be improved, and the
pros and cons of CBP involvement in financing or otherwise
supporting NII systems at CSI ports.
The Committee also supports the investigation by CBP into
ways to improve security of domestic cargo containers that move
or transit the United States as ``in-bond'' shipments, and
includes $1,018,000 to continue this program, as requested. The
Committee awaits the interim report on that effort, and reminds
the Department that a report on the achievements of the program
in fiscal year 2005 is due to the Committee on January 1, 2006.

NON-INTRUSIVE INSPECTION AND DETECTION

The Committee continues to support the acquisition and
deployment of radiation portal monitors (RPMs), including next
generation monitors, and the deployment of other non-intrusive
inspection (NII) technology to improve the ability to screen
cargo thoroughly and efficiently. The CBP Project Execution
Plan calls for approximately 2,397 RPMs to be deployed; to date
the Committee understands that over 400 are in operation. The
Committee provides $125,000,000 in new funding for an
additional 279 RPMs, as requested. The Committee is also aware
that CBP had planned to deploy in August 2004 a pilot of
systems to screen for biological, chemical and explosive agents
or devices. In order to fully understand the current status of
CBP progress in this area, the Committee directs the
Commissioner to report not later than January 16, 2006, on (1)
the status of the RPM program, in terms of deployment, systems
in the pipeline, and the gap that remains to be filled; (2)
steps being taken by CBP to maximize the effectiveness of RPMs
to detect radioactive material; (3) the explicit tradeoffs made
to reduce false positives and negatives, but to also minimize
the risk that nuclear material will evade detection; (4) the
spending plan for RPM investment and operation for fiscal years
2006-2010; and (5) the results of pilot testing of systems to
detect biological, chemical or explosive materials or weapons.
The Committee understands that CBP has a total of 164
large-scale NII systems, including truck and mobile truck x-ray
systems, VACIS (gamma imaging) systems. The Committee further
understands that the fiscal year 2004 cost of maintaining these
systems was $56,000,000. CBP has indicated that, because these
systems are still within their useful operational lifespan,
there are no current plans to replace them. At the same time,
the Committee is aware that some systems, in particular the
large truck x-rays, are 7-9 years old and have had mechanical
and other systems problems that have affected their
availability to inspectors. The Committee therefore directs CBP
to report not later than January 16, 2006, on its projected
spending for maintenance and replacement of these systems for
fiscal years 2006-2010.

QUALITY ASSURANCE AT PORTS OF ENTRY

The Committee is concerned about reports that quality
assurance procedures being applied by CBP at its ports of entry
are not uniform. The Committee is aware that CBP currently uses
videotape systems at some inspection sites, and urges CBP to
expand the use of such quality assurance procedures nationwide.

BACK PAY FOR CBP OFFICERS FOR FLETC TRAINING

It has come to the attention of the Committee that legacy
Customs Inspectors and CBP Officers who received basic training
at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center during the
period January 1, 2002, through October 1, 2004, were not
compensated for the sixth day of training each week during that
time, and that some of these Inspectors and officers may have
been entitled to such compensation. The Committee directs the
Commissioner to report on the number of CBP Officers and legacy
Customs Inspectors who may be eligible under applicable
regulations to back compensation for their sixth training day,
the estimated total cost of any back compensation that may be
due, and steps CBP has taken and is taking to resolve this
issue.

EXPEDITED REMOVAL

The Committee recognizes the success of the expedited
removal program in the Laredo and Tucson Sectors in reducing
the overall cost of detention housing for other than Mexican
nationals and in reducing the number of aliens released on
their own recognizance. The Committee recommends that expedited
removal be implemented in all Border Patrol Sectors.

IMMIGRATION ADVISORY PROGRAM

Based upon a program originally developed by the former
Immigration and Naturalization Service, CBP has developed a
pilot effort called the Immigration Advisory Program (IAP),
previously known as the Immigration Security Initiative, for
which $2,000,000 was appropriated in fiscal year 2005. This
program has placed CBP inspectors at two foreign airports
(Warsaw and Amsterdam) to prevent people who lack required
travel documents or are identified as national security threats
from traveling to the United States. 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. To support
the request to expand the program to two additional cities, the
Committee includes an additional $2,000,000, as requested, for
a total program level of $4,000,000. The Committee makes
$2,000,000 of this unavailable for obligation until CBP submits
the report on the performance of the IAP, due since January 1,
2005, as directed in House Report 108-541.

AMERICA'S SHIELD INITIATIVE

The America's Shield Initiative (ASI) deploys a
sophisticated network of sensors, cameras, communication and
analytic technology along the nation's borders, to replace and
subsume the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) legacy
remote video surveillance (RVS) system of 269 cameras and other
sensors. When implemented, ASI will permit the Border Patrol to
detect and monitor illegal crossings in remote areas between
ports of entry, and help deter and interdict such intrusions.
The Committee provides $51,084,000 to continue this program.
The Committee is following closely the investment review
process for ASI, during which the Border Patrol has been
working closely with the Science and Technical Directorate to
assess the options for integrating new technology and
capability into this system. The Committee expects the
Department to keep it fully informed of the status of its
investment planning, and to brief the Committee prior to the
award of a contract to a prime integrator.
The Committee expects that ASI will permit the Border
Patrol and the Department not only to detect and respond to
intrusions, but also to share this information with the
Department, its intelligence components, and the larger
homeland security community. ASI should also record and
document the numbers and types of intrusions, include them in a
historical database for operational and management analysis,
and make such information available to DHS, including followup
action taken in response to such intrusions. The Committee
directs the Commissioner to report no later than January 16,
2006, on specific performance metrics that will be applied to
the ASI.
The Committee is concerned about the lack of information
and planning involved in the INS predecessor to the ASI, known
as the Integrated Surveillance Intelligence System (ISIS),
which included the 269 RVS camera program. The December 9,
2004, audit report by the General Services Administration (GSA)
Inspector General identified significant problems in the
administration and oversight of procurement for the RVS program
by the legacy INS and the GSA's Federal Technology Service. The
Committee believes that CBP and the Border Patrol are now
taking a more rigorous approach to planning for this major
investment, but remains concerned by the implications of the
problems highlighted in the IG report. The Committee therefore
directs the Commissioner to report not later than January 16,
2006, on the problems raised in the IG report, including
specific actions CBP has taken to ensure strong contract
management and oversight, and ensuring that it uses competition
to ensure the best price and performance of this critical
system.

BORDER PATROL CHECKPOINTS

Bill language is continued and modified prohibiting funds
for the site acquisition, design, or construction of any
permanent Border Patrol checkpoint in the Tucson sector. The
Bureau of 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.

ARIZONA BORDER CONTROL INITIATIVE

The Committee is aware that more than half of Border Patrol
arrests have occurred in Arizona since the advent of the
Arizona Border Control Initiative (ABCI), and that the ABCI can
be credited with 27 fewer deaths, a 26 percent reduction, in
fiscal year 2004 compared to fiscal year 2003, before the ABCI
began. The Committee supports this multi-agency approach to
protecting a vulnerable section of our border and saving lives,
and thus includes the additional $1,000,000 requested for
Border Patrol temporary duty costs.

TOHONO O'ODHAM NATION AND THE ABCI

The Committee understands that one consequence of the ABCI
has been an increase in illegal aliens who attempt to enter the
United States via the 75-mile stretch of border occupied by the
Tohono O'odham Nation. The Nation estimates that it spends over
$3,000,000 in tribal funds annually in response to border
related incidents. The Committee understands that a joint use
facility was opened on the Tohono O'odham Nation on October 26,
2004, in which the Nation's police department is co-located
with the Border Patrol and other BTS agencies to improve the
efficiency of border enforcement operations in the Nation, and
provide a convenient location where persons found in distress
in the West Desert may receive medical treatment. The Committee
directs CBP to work closely with the Nation, including making
appropriate use of cooperative operations and facilities such
as the joint use facility, to ensure that the Nation is kept
fully aware of CBP actions that have a direct impact on them.

INTERIOR REPATRIATION

The Committee understands that the Border Patrol has
repatriated over 14,000 aliens to Mexico since the inception of
the Interior Repatriation Program in July 2004, averaging about
145 repatriations a day. The Committee directs the Commissioner
to report not later than January 16, 2006, on the performance
of this program, including cost, associated full-time
equivalent, and statistics relating to the numbers repatriated
and any data on recidivism for individuals so repatriated.

TEXTILE TRANSSHIPMENT ENFORCEMENT

Section 352 of the Trade Act of 2002 authorized $9,500,000
for the Customs Service for Textile Transshipment Enforcement,
and specified how the authorized funds were to be spent.
Congress appropriated $4,750,000 for textile transshipment
enforcement by CBP in fiscal years 2004 and 2005, for a total
appropriation of $9,500,000. The Committee includes $4,750,000
for fiscal year 2006 to continue this effort, and directs that
CBP report not later than January 16, 2006 on how these funds,
as well as those appropriated in fiscal years 2004-2005, were
spent. The report should include staffing levels in fiscal
years 2003-2006, differentiated by position, as authorized in
Section 352 of the Trade Act of 2002. The report should also
describe how CBP has redeployed its workforce previously
assigned to enter and monitor quota information, now that
quotas have expired.

VEHICLE MANAGEMENT

The Committee is waiting for the detailed report due on
February 8, 2005, on the results of CBP's comprehensive review
of its vehicle management plan. The Committees urges the
Department to expedite release of this plan, which should
address the plans and milestones for the Border Patrol and its
requirements for off-road and severe terrain vehicles.

TOBACCO IMPORTS

The Committee is increasingly concerned that there is
insufficient coordination between those Federal agencies
responsible for tracking and permitting tobacco products to be
imported into the United States, and those Federal agencies
responsible for ensuring that Federal tax and other Federal
requirements applicable to such imports are met. The Committee
is also concerned that some tobacco product manufacturers (as
defined in the Master Settlement Agreement) importing such
tobacco products (as defined in the Master Settlement
Agreement) may not be meeting their payment obligations under
State tax laws, the Master Settlement Agreement, or State laws
requiring that certain tobacco importers or companies place
funds in escrow or make payments to States. The Committee
strongly urges the Department to work with the Department of
Treasury to ensure that information on tobacco imports is
shared between the two departments, and that information about
the validity of tobacco imports be included in screening used
to assess whether or not such shipments should be cleared for
entry. In addition, the Committee urges the Secretary to share
information about imported tobacco products, and whether they
are produced by manufacturers under the Master Settlement
Agreement, with the Commodity Credit Corporation and any State,
and the National Association of Attorneys General, as
appropriate.

STEEL TRAINING PROGRAM

The Committee includes continued funding for the Steel
Training Program, as included in the President's request. This
program ensures that CBP enforcement of U.S. trade laws
benefits from the expertise of the steel industry in
classifying steel goods.

2010 OLYMPIC WINTER GAMES

The Committee understands that the 2010 Olympic Winter
Games will be conducted in Vancouver, British Columbia from
February 12 through February 28, 2010, and the 2010 Paralympic
Winter Games from March 12 through March 21, 2010. The
Committee anticipates that these events of international
significance will greatly increase the amount 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 back to the
Committee within six months on all relevant Departmental issues
related to the Vancouver Olympic and Paralympic Games,
including, but not limited to, expected border flow, border
security, estimated border wait times, and the possible need
for increased border personnel.

Automation Modernization

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005......................... $449,909,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006....................... 458,009,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 458,009,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2005..................... +8,100,000
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2006................... - - -

MISSION

The Automation Modernization account includes funding for
major information technology projects for U.S. 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 $458,009,000, the same as the
budget request and $8,100,000 above the amounts provided in
fiscal year 2005. This includes $321,690,000 for the Automated
Commercial Environment (ACE) and International Trade Data
System (ITDS), equivalent to the amount provided for fiscal
year 2005.

AUTOMATED COMMERCIAL ENVIRONMENT (ACE)

The Committee commends CBP on its progress in deploying
releases 3 and 4 of ACE and in growing the ACE program to more
than 450 importer, broker, and carrier accounts. The Committee
also recognizes CBP's plan to roll out ACE to port locations
and geographic clusters and fully supports this initiative. The
Committee will continue to track the progress of this activity
so that best practices are followed and to ensure that the ACE
schedule reflects cost controls and that ACE aligns with the
DHS enterprise architecture. This is especially important as
ACE seeks to avoid delays in delivering its releases and to
manage the significant software development that remains to be
completed. The Committee believes that ACE and CBP
modernization should be integrated, if not form the core, of
DHS information system and border security technology,
including the Container Security Initiative and Automated
Targeting Systems. The Committee directs CBP to address such
issues in its quarterly reports on ACE implementation progress.

Air and Marine Interdiction, Operations, Maintenance and Procurement

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005......................... $257,535,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006....................... 292,780,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 347,780,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2005..................... +90,245,000
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2006................... +55,000,000

MISSION

The Office of Air and Marine Operations (AMO) 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; and combats the illegal entry of narcotics and
other items into the United States. AMO also provides aviation
and marine support for the counter-terrorism efforts of many
other law enforcement agencies.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $347,780,000 for Air and Marine
Operations, Interdiction, Maintenance and Procurement,
$55,000,000 above the President's request and $90,245,000 above
the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. Of this total,
$14,000,000 is for acquisition of manned covert surveillance
aircraft; $16,000,000 is for the P-3 surveillance aircraft
service life extension program; $15,000,000 is to acquire and
deploy palletized sensor packages for use with the P-3 Slick
aircraft; and $10,000,000 is to support procurement, operations
and facilities needs of the National Capital Region air branch
and the Air and Marine Operations Center.

AIR AND MARINE OPERATIONS CENTER

As DHS evaluates its plans toward defining a common command
and control (C2) architecture for the Department, the Committee
strongly encourages it to consider the Air and Marine
Operations Center as a leading C2 asset. AMOC is the only law
enforcement command, control, communications, intelligence,
surveillance and reconnaissance (C3ISR) center in the country
that performs detection, monitoring, identification and
interdiction coordination of general aviation aircraft at the
nation's borders. In addition, the Committee understands that
the AMOC systems and technology have been suggested as a model
for a possible maritime NORAD system.

HH-60 BLACK HAWK AND THE HH-60 JAYHAWK

The Committee is aware that AMO relies heavily on a
versatile and powerful asset, the HH-60 Black Hawk, as a key
interdiction and air security tool. However, the Black Hawks
are of the oldest vintage and seeing declining availability due
to breakdowns and maintenance needs. Given current budget
constraints, it is unlikely that the Black Hawk can be replaced
in the near term. As the Committee has determined that
extending the life and capability of the HH-60 Jayhawk platform
is integral to the Coast Guard's Deepwater program, it also
sees great potential for efficiency in that AMO uses a similar
asset, the HH-60 Black Hawk. Given the Coast Guard's extensive
modernization plan for the HH-60 Jayhawk, the Committee
strongly urges the Department, the BTS Directorate, CBP, and
the Coast Guard to collaborate in the operations, maintenance,
and outfitting of the HH-60 platform.

CUSTOMS NATIONAL AVIATION CENTER

Over the last several years, the Committee understands that
the Customs National Aviation Center (CNAC) has augmented its
pilot training with computer based instruction and simulation,
which has increased training efficiency while decreasing costs.
The Committee encourages the Department to continue this
approach.

Construction

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005......................... $ 91,718,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006....................... 93,418,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 93,418,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2005..................... +1,700,000
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2006................... - - -

MISSION

The construction account funds the planning, design, and
assembly of U.S. 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 $93,418,000 for Construction, as
requested by the President, and $1,700,000 above the amounts
provided in fiscal year 2005.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005\1\...................... $ 2,438,494,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006....................... 2,892,281,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 3,064,081,000

Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2005..................... +625,587,000
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2006................... +171,800,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not include pending supplemental $454,250,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

MISSION

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is the lead
agency responsible for enforcement of immigration laws, customs
laws, air security laws, and 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 five major program areas: Office of
Investigations, Federal Air Marshals Service, Federal
Protective Service, Office of Intelligence, and Detention and
Removal Operations.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $3,064,081,000 for Salaries and
Expenses, $171,800,000 above the President's request and
$625,587,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005.
This fully funds the President's request and adds $90,000,000
for an additional 1,920 bed spaces, $16,000,000 for an
additional 60 fugitive operations team members, $18,000,000 for
an additional 100 Institutional Removal Program agents,
$10,000,000 for an additional 49 Alternatives to Detention
positions, $19,000,000 for an additional 150 Criminal
Investigators, $18,000,000 for an additional 200 Immigration
Enforcement Agents, and $800,000 in additional funding for the
Cyber Crimes Center. When combined with the pending
Supplemental, a total of 200 Criminal Investigators and 368
Immigration Enforcement Agents will come on board during fiscal
years 2005 and 2006.
A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:

Intelligence........................................................ 61,822,000 61,822,000
Headquarters Reporting Center................................... 4,988,000 4,988,000
Operations/Operations Center.................................... 56,834,000 56,834,000

Detention and Removal Operations.................................... 1,184,468,000 1,318,468,000
Custody Management.............................................. 600,160,000 690,160,000
Case Management................................................. 166,277,000 166,277,000
Fugitive Operations............................................. 103,255,000 119,255,000
Institutional Removal Program................................... 70,104,000 88,104,000
Alternatives to Detention....................................... 33,406,000 43,406,000
Transportation and Removal Program.............................. 211,266,000 211,266,000
-------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 2,892,281,000 3,064,081,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ICE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

The Committee is extremely concerned and disappointed by
the persistent financial troubles of ICE that are a direct and
total failure of DHS to deal with major costs and financial
management issues that lingered from legacy agencies and were
carried into the newly formed Department. The litany of
problems--failure to fully disclose financial information, poor
execution of budgets, the lack of strong management and
adequate numbers of critical staff to ensure an effective
transition--have caused what should have been a predictable
cost of transition, to virtually undermine the financial
solvency of the entire agency. In the meantime, ICE has been
forced to employ drastic cost-cutting measures, including a
hiring freeze, halting critical training and, the Committee
believes, adversely limiting the operations of the second
largest investigative and enforcement agency in the federal
government. The Committee recognizes that the Department and
its Office of the Chief Financial Officer have become heavily
engaged in solving these problems, working to ensure that
critical staff positions are filled, and that the financial
situation at ICE is turned around. The Committee wants to
encourage the progress being made and is therefore providing
substantial resources to address this issue. The Committee
expects to be kept fully informed on a monthly basis on the
financial health of ICE and progress towards the management
reforms that have been initiated. When combined with the
pending Supplemental, the Committee has provided sufficient
funds to make ICE whole in terms of its basic costs and its
staffing needs, and will continue a high level of scrutiny into
how ICE manages its funding and communicates its budgetary and
financial condition to the Congress. The intent of the
Committee is not to fix the problem by filling a bottomless
pit, but to ensure that pitfalls will henceforth be flagged and
avoided. The Committee therefore directs the Secretary to
report monthly on ICE's financial condition, with the initial
report, due no later than November 1, 2005, to cover the
actions taken in fiscal year 2005.

DETENTION CAPACITY

There will always be a limit on the number of beds
available to hold detainees, but ICE has suffered from an acute
shortage of detention space, exacerbated by its current
financial straits. Since 2004, ICE has reduced the available
number of beds from 23,000 to 18,000. As a result, ICE and
Border Patrol Agents (who are responsible for most
apprehensions of illegal aliens) have been forced to allow many
aliens who are not ``mandatory'' to be released on their own
recognizance (ROR). For example, the Committee understands that
in fiscal year 2003, only 9,500 of the 49,500 non-Mexicans
apprehended by the Border Patrol were ROR; but in fiscal 2004,
the number shot up to 75,000 apprehended and 34,800 ROR. The
Committee believes there is a need for both additional
detention capacity and alternatives to detention. The Committee
adds $90,000,000 for additional detention capacity and adds an
additional $10,000,000 for alternatives to detention. When
combined with the pending Supplemental, a total of 3,870 beds
will be added to current detention capacity during fiscal years
2005 and 2006.
The Committee directs ICE to place emphasis on using funds
for alternatives to detention to reduce the need for detention
for those individuals who are low risk but who should not be
released. The Committee also directs ICE to work with the
Science and Technology Directorate to develop next generation
electronic enforcement devices, such as GPS enabled ankle
bracelets, to be used in this area. The Committee also
recommends that ICE review options to gain efficiencies through
the use of regional detention contracts. The Committee has
included bill language making $50,000,000 unavailable for
obligation until a plan has been provided to the Committee that
sets forth, in detail, a comprehensive national detention
management plan, with particular attention to the use of
regional detention contracts and alternatives to detention.

ENFORCEMENT PRIORITIES

The Committee believes that ICE's enforcement mission is
torn between criminal investigations and enforcing
administrative violations, leaving a culture that will do
neither activity well and is set up for failure. ICE, and the
INS before it, incorrectly relied upon criminal investigators
(special agents) to enforce administrative immigration
violations, such as apprehending non-criminal illegal aliens.
Special agents, who are trained and responsible for handling
long term, intensive criminal investigations, in practice treat
administrative violations as a lower priority compared to
criminal cases. As a result, a vast element of immigration law
is under-enforced. The Committee believes that administrative
violations should be enforced by officers specifically
designated for administrative enforcement, such as Immigration
Enforcement Agents (IEAs). The administrative enforcement
mission has never been given a chance to be a distinct
organizational component, apart from criminal investigations.
ICE has indicated in its budget justifications that it plans to
use IEAs to manage the Institutional Removal Program (IRP),
freeing up special agents to pursue criminal or national
security investigations. The Committee supports ICE's plan for
the IRP and sees great potential in the IEA position for
expanded attention to administrative enforcement including,
worksite enforcement and apprehending illegal aliens.
The Committee supports an expansion of IEA's role to
enforce administrative immigration violations and provides
$18,000,000 for an additional 200 positions in fiscal year
2006. An additional 168 positions are funded in the pending
emergency supplemental appropriations bill. The Committee has
included bill language directing ICE to submit, with
concurrence of Secretary of Homeland Security, a plan for the
expanded use of Immigration Enforcement Agents to enforce
administrative immigration violations by December 1, 2005.
The Committee directs ICE to identify in their plan how
their additional personnel will satisfy the immigration
enforcement requirements of underserved States.

STATE AND LOCAL SUPPORT FOR IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT

The Committee supports the ``287(g) Program'' to cross-
designate state and local law enforcement officers to perform
limited immigration enforcement functions and provides $5
million in support of this program, including the training of
participants. Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to enter into
written agreements to delegate authority to enforce federal
immigration laws to state and local law enforcement officers.
This program is completely voluntary for the state and local
governments. The Committee understands that delegation is
granted only after extensive training from ICE and that the
delegated officers perform immigration enforcement functions
under direct ICE supervision. Beginning in 2002, there are
currently three jurisdictions enrolled in various stages of the
program.
The Committee directs DHS to be more proactive in
encouraging state and local governments to participate in this
program. The Committee fully supports the 287(g) program and
views the program as a powerful force multiplier to better
enforce immigration laws and, consequently, to better secure
the homeland.

FUGITIVE OPERATIONS

The Committee supports the expansion of the fugitive
operations program, within Detention and Removal Operations.
The Committee includes an additional $16,000,000 to expand the
program in order to reduce the current fugitive alien
population estimated to be 465,000. In order to mitigate the
fugitive problem, the Committee strongly urges Detention and
Removal Operations to explore ways to coordinate efforts with
the immigration courts to apprehend those non-detained aliens
immediately after a final order of removal is issued. When
possible, ICE should be aware of the order of removal before
the alien is notified. The current situation, in which an
estimated 90 percent of non-detained aliens abscond after
receiving an order of removal, is entirely unacceptable.

VISA SECURITY PROGRAM

The Committee continues to support the role that the Visa
Security Program has in ensuring that terrorists and criminals
are not given the opportunity to exploit the State Department's
visa issuance process to gain entry into the United States. The
highly skilled officers that staff the Visa Security Program
provide their expertise and guidance to State Department
consular officers before a visa is issued. The first phase of
the program was to deploy Visa Security Officers to Saudi
Arabia to screen all visa applications in that country as
directed in the Homeland Security Act of 2002. ICE is now
expanding the program to countries beyond Saudi Arabia, having
used the lessons learned in Saudi Arabia to guide future
deployments. The Committee supports the continued development
of the program and recommends $19,000,000 for fiscal year 2006
to expand the program to additional countries based on ICE's
site assessments.

INTEGRATION OF LEGACY AGENCY INVESTIGATORS

The Committee is pleased to learn that all ICE special
agents have been cross-trained in the legacy disciplines of
immigration and customs related laws and investigative
techniques. Additionally, ICE has resolved the pay parity issue
that divided its special agents. The Committee recognizes that
there are tangible benefits of having ICE investigators
integrated to maximize the diverse experience and knowledge
that ICE inherited upon its creation. However, there are areas
of great concern to the Committee in regards to the integration
of the ICE workforce. ICE is over two years old and the
overwhelming majority of ICE's law enforcement officers still
carry legacy agency credentials and badges. The Committee views
this as a divisive influence as well as a safety concern of
having incorrectly identified officers. Another area of concern
is ICE's need to co-locate all of ICE's legacy personnel,
particularly within the Office of Investigations. Physical co-
location is needed to unify personnel and manage a cohensive
workforce. Estimates from ICE on the cost of co-location are
approximately $150,000,000, with a goal of completion within
five to seven years. The Committee directs ICE to submit, in
conjunction with its 2007 budget request, a report on the cost
and schedule for co-locating personnel, broken out by each
field office location. Included should be an estimate for co-
locating offices within a significantly shorter period than
five to seven years.

EMPLOYEE TRAINING

The Committee is concerned that, since March 2004, ICE has
not provided any advanced training to its employees due to its
strained financial condition in fiscal years 2004 and 2005. To
address this critical issue, the Committee is providing
$17,932,000 to ICE for training, which includes resources for
advanced training for its Special Agents, Deportation Officers,
Immigration Enforcement Agents and other personnel. The
Committee directs ICE to resume this training with minimal
delay in order to sustain a competent, effective workforce. The
Committee requests that ICE submit a report in conjunction with
its fiscal year 2007 budget request that provides statistical
detail on basic, advanced, and specialized training from fiscal
year 2003 through fiscal year 2006, to include: number and
position of personnel trained, title and purpose of training,
and location of training.

FINANCIAL INVESTIGATIONS

The Committee recognizes and is encouraged by ICE's efforts
to combat money laundering and financial crimes, mainly through
its Operation Cornerstone program. Illicit monetary proceeds
and unlawful transfers of money are what motivate and sustain
criminal organizations and provide a source of funding for
terrorist groups. Cutting off funding to criminals and
terrorists is essential to the broader mission of homeland
security. ICE's performance in this arena is worthy of
recognition and is a testament to the dedicated personnel that
enforce the agency's diverse authority. The Committee supports
and encourages the increased use of partnerships with the
private sector and foreign governments in combating money
laundering and other financial crimes. With the additional law
enforcement resources provided in this bill, the Committee
encourages ICE to build on its many successes in this area.

LEGAL ORIENTATION PROGRAM

The Committee is aware that the Legal Orientation Program
(LOP), which is run by the Justice Department's Executive
Office of Immigration Review (EOIR), has helped reduce the time
some immigrants spend in detention and helped make EOIR
proceedings more efficient. The Committee urges ICE to explore
with EOIR possibly expanding LOP to more ICE detention
facilities.

FAMILY DETENTION

The Committee is concerned about reports that children
apprehended by DHS, even as young as nursing infants, are being
separated from their parents and placed in shelters operated by
the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) while their parents
are in separate adult facilities. Children who are apprehended
by DHS while in the company of their parents are not in fact
``unaccompanied;'' and if their welfare is not at issue, they
should not be placed in ORR custody. The Committee expects DHS
to release families or use alternatives to detention such as
the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program whenever possible.
When detention of family units is necessary, the Committee
directs DHS to use appropriate detention space to house them
together.

EXPEDITED REMOVAL

In response to the increase in other than Mexican nationals
apprehended by the Border Patrol and subsequently released on
their own recognizance, the Committee strongly urges that ICE
provide adequate bed space to ensure the detention and removal
of approximately 91,000 aliens along the US-Mexico Border. The
Committee urges ICE to support more widespread implementation
of the expedited removal program.

IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT STATISTICS

The Committee is concerned that information about
immigration enforcement and the impact that ICE makes on the
problem nationally is difficult to find, and statistics are
easily distorted. To assist the Committee in understanding
better the enforcement actions of ICE, the Assistant Secretary
of Immigration and Customs Enforcement is directed to provide
on a quarterly basis, with the first report due January 1,
2006, a report on the (1) current estimate of illegal aliens in
the U.S. including absconders (those who have not appeared for
immigration hearings or fled after receiving orders for
deportation) and criminal aliens; (2) current estimate of
foreign born aliens in the U.S. prison system, and of those,
how many ICE estimates are deportable; (3) the number of aliens
who are apprehended by ICE, broken down by ICE office location
and specific ICE program such as the Fugitive Operations teams
or Compliance Enforcement; (4) the number of aliens who are
apprehended by other law enforcement agencies and delivered to
ICE; (5) the number of aliens who are released on their own
recognizance; (6) the number of aliens so released who fail to
appear for their immigration hearings; (7) the number of bed
spaces available and the number of bed spaces actually
occupied; (8) the number of aliens removed; (9) number of
individuals placed in alternatives to detention; (10) types of
alternatives to detention used; (11) number of worksite
enforcement operations and inspections conducted; (12) the
number of positions and FTE dedicated to administrative
enforcement; and (13) staffing, to include on-board staffing,
new hires and attrition broken down by function, such as
Special Agents, IEAs, and Deportation Officers.

TEXTILE TRANSSHIPMENT ENFORCEMENT

Section 352 of the Trade Act of 2002 authorized $9,500,000
for the Customs Service for Textile Transshipment Enforcement,
and specified how the authorized funds were to be spent.
Congress appropriated $4,750,000 for textile transshipment
enforcement by ICE in fiscal years 2004 and 2005, for a total
appropriation of $9,500,000. The Committee includes $4,750,000
for fiscal year 2006 to continue this effort, and directs that
ICE report not later than January 1, 2006, on how these funds,
as well as those appropriated in fiscal years 2004-2005, were
spent. The report should include staffing levels in fiscal
years 2003-2006, differentiated by position, as authorized in
Section 352 of the Trade Act of 2002. The report should also
describe how ICE has redeployed its workforce previously
assigned to investigate quota violations, now that quotas have
expired.

CYBER CRIMES CENTER

The Committee is aware that the ICE Cyber Crimes Center
(C3) is a lead investigative asset in combating international
criminal activities conducted on or facilitated by the
Internet. As the core of ICE Internet-related investigations,
the C3 provides technological assistance in forensic
investigations, operates three units addressing child
exploitation, computer forensics, and cyber crimes, and has
been used extensively by ICE offices nationwide to develop
leads and support the field offices in pursuing investigations.
The Committee provided $4,200,000 in fiscal year 2005 to help
improve data storage capacity for the C3 and to help begin the
process of establishing six regional Cyber Crime Support
Centers to provide computer forensic laboratories at major ICE
field offices around the country. The Committee strongly
supports the C3 as a key asset in law enforcement and national
security, and provides $5,000,000 in fiscal year 2006, an
increase of $800,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year
2005.

Federal Air Marshals

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005......................... $662,900,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006....................... 688,860,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 698,860,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2005..................... +35,960,000
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2006................... +10,000,000

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 $698,860,000 for FAMs, $10,000,000
above the President's request and $35,960,000 above the amounts
provided in fiscal year 2005. Of this total, $616,927,000 is
for management and administration, $71,933,000 is for travel
and training, and $10,000,000 is to implement the air-to-ground
communications program. The Committee anticipates that this
funding level will maintain, or perhaps increase, mission
coverage on both domestic and international flights.

AIR-TO-GROUND COMMUNICATIONS

For the past few years, Congress has been funding an air-
to-ground communications program. As part of this program, FAMs
has been working with other government agencies to integrate
their airborne communication system into other communications
systems. At a minimum, this system must be reliable, WiFi
compatible, in compliance with government standards on wireless
security, provide guaranteed timely transmission and/or
receipt, and receive signal at any point (airborne or ground)
within the continental United States or abroad. This program is
reaching maturity. The Committee recommends $10,000,000 to
continue this work, begin prototype testing, and possible
implementation of this system in fiscal year 2006. Beginning on
January 1, 2006, and quarterly thereafter, FAMs shall brief the
House Committee on Appropriations on the status of the air-to-
ground communications program.

AIRPORT SURVEILLANCE

The Committee has learned that FAMs is exploring the idea
of expanding its mission to go beyond the aircraft and enter
the airport security arena. The proposed activities would
include surveillance in the airport environment and airport
related investigations. The Committee is not clear on the scope
and detail of this proposed expansion and is concerned with
potential mission creep and conflicting jurisdictions with
other law enforcement agencies. The Committee directs FAMs to
submit a report in conjunction with the fiscal year 2007 budget
request that provides detail to these expanded responsibilities
and the potential impact to the FAMs mission, to include: the
types of investigations that would be conducted in airports,
the potential tangible benefits of FAMs conducting surveillance
in an airport, whether this expansion would merit and require
the conversion of FAMs to 1811 status, a timeframe for
implementation, statistical distribution of workload hours
between airport and aircraft missions, additional FTEs
required, additional costs associated with an enhanced airport
mission, additional training requirements, and how an expanded
FAMs mission would interrelate with the numerous law
enforcement agencies that are currently conducting airport
security operations.

CROSS TRAINING OF ICE AGENTS

The Committee has learned that FAMs and ICE have begun
planning again to cross train ICE agents to serve as air
marshals. Although the Committee does not oppose conducting
such training, the Committee continues to be concerned that
this cross training will not be particularly effective unless
ICE agents serve as air marshals on a periodic basis, not just
during times of heightened threats. As such, the Committee
directs FAMs and ICE to report on their cross training plans,
including the tentative number of ICE agents to be trained
yearly, and how they plan to maintain these perishable skills.
This report shall be submitted no later than July 15, 2005, so
that the Committee can fully evaluate this proposal before ICE
begins its cross-training. Absent receipt of this plan, the
Committee will be unable to support this initiative in fiscal
year 2006.

Federal Protective Service

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005......................... $ 478,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006....................... 487,000,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 487,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2005..................... +9,000,000
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2006................... - - -

MISSION

The Federal Protective Service (FPS) is responsible for the
protection of public buildings and other areas under the charge
and control of the General Services Administration. 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
by the GSA Administrator. This authority can also be extended,
by agreement, to any area with a significant federal interest.
Funding for the FPS is provided through a transfer of funds
from the Federal Buildings Fund. FPS has three major law
enforcement initiatives, including: Protection Services to all
Federal facilities throughout the United States and its
territories; New Initiatives including expanded intelligence
and anti-terrorism capabilities; and Special Programs,
including Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) detection,
hazardous material detection and response, and canine programs.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $487,000,000, the same as the
budget request and $9,000,000 above the amounts provided in
fiscal year 2005.

MANAGEMENT ISSUES

The Committee is aware of a national problem in contract
management and very late vendor payments by FPS relating to its
contracts for security guard services. While this is due in
part to transition in switching from GSA to the ICE billing
system, delays are excessive, and the problem must be fixed
before it adversely affects security operations at FPS
facilities. The Committee is also extremely troubled by reports
of security lapses in the control of contract guard
credentials. The Committee directs the Assistant Secretary, in
consultation with the Director of the FPS, to immediately
correct these problems and to submit to the Committee, not
later than December 1, 2005, a report on actions taken.

Automation Modernization

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005......................... $ 39,605,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006....................... 40,150,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 40,150,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2005..................... +545,000
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2006................... - - -

MISSION

The Automation Infrastructure Modernization Account funds
major information technology (IT) projects for U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement and for the U.S. Visitor and Immigrant
Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) program.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $40,150,000, the same as the
budget request and $545,000 above the amounts provided in
fiscal year 2005. This is for continued funding of the ATLAS
information technology system.

COST CONTROLS AND ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE

As noted throughout the report under other information
technology accounts, the Committee will continue to track
progress of this activity so that best practices are followed
and to ensure that the ATLAS system reflects cost controls and
aligns with the DHS enterprise architecture.

CONSTRUCTION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005......................... $ 26,179,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006....................... 26,546,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 26,546,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2005..................... +367,000
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2006................... - - -

MISSION

The Construction account funds the planning, design, and
assembly of ICE infrastructure, including detention facilities,
mission support facilities, immigration field offices, and
interior enforcement facilities.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $26,546,000, the same as the
budget request and $367,000 above the amounts provided in
fiscal year 2005.

Transportation Security Administration

AVIATION SECURITY

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005......................... $ 4,323,523,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006....................... 4,734,784,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 4,591,612,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2005..................... +268,089,000
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2006................... -143,172,000

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 a total of $4,591,612,000 for
aviation security activities, $143,172,000 below the
President's request and $268,089,000 above the amounts provided
in fiscal year 2005. In addition to the amounts appropriated, a
mandatory appropriation of $250,000,000 is included 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.............. $3,661,929,000 $3,608,599,000
Airport security direction and 1,072,855,000 983,013,000
enforcement......................
Aviation security capital fund \1\ (250,000,000) (250,000,000)
-------------------------------------
Total......................... 4,734,784,000 4,591,612,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Aviation Security Capital Fund is a non-add because it is not
directly appropriated and is paid for entirely from user fees.

SCREENING OPERATIONS

The Committee recommends $3,608,599,000 for passenger and
baggage screening operations, $53,330,000 below the President's
request and $106,966,000 above amounts provided in fiscal year
2005. The following table highlights funding levels by program,
project, and activity:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Screener Workforce:
Privatized screening.......... $146,151,000 $139,654,000
Passenger screeners, personnel 1,590,969,000 1,520,000,000
compensation and benefits....
Baggage screeners, personnel 931,864,000 884,000,000
compensation and benefits....
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, screener 2,668,984,000 2,543,654,000
workforce................

Screener Training and Other:
Screener training............. 91,004,000 85,004,000
Passenger screener, other..... 26,952,000 20,952,000
Checked baggage screeners, 127,091,000 110,091,000
other........................
Tort claims................... 4,000,000 4,000,000
Representation................ 3,000 3,000
Model workplace............... 2,400,000 2,400,000
Hazardous materials disposal.. 9,800,000 9,800,000
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, screener 261,250,000 232,250,000
training and other.......

Human resource services........... 207,234,000 207,234,000

Checkpoint support................ 157,461,000 157,461,000

EDS/ETD systems:
EDS/ETD purchase.............. 130,000,000 170,000,000
EDS/ETD installation.......... 14,000,000 75,000,000
EDS/ETD maintenance and 200,000,000 200,000,000
utilities....................
Operational integration....... 23,000,000 23,000,000
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, EDS/ETD systems. 367,000,000 468,000,000
=====================================
Total, screening $3,661,929,000 $3,608,599,000
operations...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PRIVATIZED SCREENING

The Committee recommends $139,654,000 for privatized
screening, $6,497,000 below the President's request and
$10,000,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. As
of November 19, 2004, airports could seek permission from the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to ``opt-out'' of
using Federal screeners. To date, only one airport has
submitted paperwork to opt-out--Elko, Nevada--and this airport
has less than 20 screeners. Numerous concerns have been
expressed about the opt-out program, including that TSA has not
made it clear that companies providing screening services shall
not be liable in the case of a terrorist incident. The
Committee is aware that TSA plans to review the opt-out
program. Until it is clear that airports, other than the five
original pilots and Elko, may participate in this program, a
large increase in the privatized screening program is not
justified for fiscal year 2006.

PASSENGER AND CHECKED BAGGAGE SCREENERS

The Committee recommends a total of $2,404,000,000 for
personnel, compensation, and benefits for the federal passenger
and checked baggage screeners, $118,833,000 below the
President's request and $109,654,000 above the amounts provided
in fiscal year 2005. Within the amounts provided,
$1,520,000,000 is for passenger screeners and $884,000,000 is
for baggage screeners. This funding level is consistent with
reprogramming actions taken in fiscal year 2005.
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 2006; the
same provision included in the fiscal years 2004 and 2005
appropriations bills. The Committee continues to believe that,
as TSA deploys more advanced technologies that can better
screen for weapons and explosive devices, there will be a need
for a smaller screener workforce. For example, GAO recently
reported that the majority of U.S. airports have stand-alone
explosive detection systems (EDS) or explosive trace detection
(ETD) systems deployed in their lobbies. These machines are
very labor and time intensive to operate since each checked bag
must be physically carried to an EDS or ETD machine for
screening and then back to the baggage conveyor system prior to
being loaded on an aircraft. GAO found that two or three times
more bags can be screened per hour by an EDS in-line system
compared to a stand alone system and 10 times more bags can be
screened with an EDS in-line system as compared to a trace
machine. Trace machines are much more labor intensive than EDS
machines, yet TSA's budget continues to support their use. GAO
also noted that ``a typical lobby-based screening unit
consisting of a stand alone EDS machine with three ETD machines
had a baggage throughput of 376 bags per hour with a staffing
requirement of 19 screeners. In contrast, TSA estimated that
approximately 425 bags per hour could be screened by one in-
line EDS machine with a staffing requirement of 4.25
screeners''. The Committee has retained the screening cap, in
part, to expedite TSA's progress in installing more EDS systems
in-line or at the ticket check-in counters so that the number
of checked baggage screeners can be reduced, including the
amount of funding necessary for their salaries. Funding for EDS
procurement and installation has been increased.

SCREENER TRAINING

The Committee recommends $85,004,000 for screener training,
$6,000,000 below the budget request. This reduction was made
because the Committee believes that more training can be
provided locally instead of through large training contracts
nationwide.

SCREENER OTHER

The Committee recommends a total of $131,043,000 for other
screener activities, $23,000,000 below the budget request. This
level is consistent with reprogramming actions TSA has made to
this account in the past fiscal year.

CHECKPOINT SUPPORT

The Committee recommends $157,461,000 for checkpoint
support, the same level as the budget request and $33,961,000
above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. It is critical
that TSA aggressively pursue the development and deployment of
innovative aviation security technologies, particularly at
screening checkpoints. These technologies should include
backscatter x-ray, diffraction, portals, and document scanners.
As a recent Inspector General report noted, even though the
majority of screeners are diligent in the performance of their
duties, they repeatedly failed to find weapons and improvised
explosive devices both in checked and carry on baggage, as well
as on a person. The Committee is disappointed that screener
performance has not improved. The Inspector General recommended
that TSA expedite its testing program and give priority to
technologies that will enable the screener workforce to better
detect both weapons and explosives. This funding increase will
help TSA meet this recommendation.

EDS/ETD PURCHASE

The Committee recommends $170,000,000 for EDS and ETD
purchases, $40,000,000 above the President's request and
$10,000,000 below the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. The
Committee is aware that TSA has recently certified and piloted
next-generation EDS technology that is far smaller and less
expensive than the current generation of screening units. In
addition, there are other next generation systems that have
certification pending that may reduce false alarm rates and
screener workforces. TSA is encouraged to continue competition
among vendors so that multiple EDS technologies are available
to the airports. Within the funds provided, the Committee
directs that not less than $40,000,000 be used to procure these
next-generation in-line EDS systems to replace ETDs. In-line
EDS is not only more effective than ETDs and stand-alone
systems, it is considerably less costly to operate.
Furthermore, the Committee believes that the deployment of
these systems is essential to developing in-line solutions that
do not require the costly redesign of baggage conveyor systems.

EDS/ETD INSTALLATION

In addition to the statutory allocation of $250,000,000 for
the Aviation Security Capital Fund, the Committee recommends
$75,000,000 for EDS/ETD installation, $61,000,000 above the
President's request and $30,000,000 above the amounts provided
in fiscal year 2005. This funding level will fully support the
eight airports that have entered into Letters of Intent (LOIs)
with TSA ($264,000,000) and provide funding to install next-
generation EDS systems at other airports throughout the United
States.
The Committee has included bill language requested by the
President that permits the Aviation Security Capital Fund to be
used exclusively to fund these eight LOIs in fiscal year 2006
with a 75-percent federal share. Under tight budgetary
restraints, the Committee does not have sufficient funding to
raise these projects to a 90-percent federal share at a cost of
$417,400,000, particularly at the expense of at least 45 other
airports that need either an LOI to install EDS machines in-
line or make other modifications to screen 100 percent of all
checked bags through electronic means. For that reason, the
Committee waives language contained in section 605 of the
Vision 100 Act that distributes the Aviation Security Capital
Fund by formula.
The Committee has also included a new general provision
(Section 530) that directs TSA to spend any recovered or
deobligated funds appropriated to Aviation Security or
Administration only on procurement and installation of
explosive detection systems. This provision does not conflict
with Section 515 of Public Law 108-334 regarding the
disposition of unclaimed money that airports may use for
security needs. The Committee notes that, in the past, TSA has
recovered over $133,000,000.
The Committee remains frustrated with the Department's
inability and unwillingness to request funds above those
provided by the Aviation Security Capital Fund that would
permit more airports to install EDS technologies and increase
the number of bags screened, reduce false alarm rates, reduce
federal dependency on airport screeners, and improve foot
traffic in airport lobbies. For the past year, Congress has
been exploring other, non-LOI, options to finance these
improvements. The Committee urges TSA to enter into a small
number of pilots with airports to improve their baggage
screening process through creative financing options, which
would result in operational and maintenance cost savings to TSA
at each pilot airport. TSA would be required, upon system
activation and subject to appropriations availability, to remit
the identified annual cost savings to the airport every year
for a term necessary to reimburse the initial capital cost.

REMOTE BAGGAGE SCREENING

The Committee is aware that TSA is participating with
airports and airlines in pilots at various airports around the
country to evaluate off-site baggage check-in models. The
Committee shares TSA's interest in encouraging off-site check-
in pilots. However, the Committee is concerned that these
pilots are not moving forward expeditiously and may not be
testing all options. The Committee is interested in seeing
models widely tested that couple off-site check-in with off-
site screening within the airport grounds at secure sort
facilities before the baggage is introduced into the terminal
or other critical airport infrastructure including all
passenger areas.

PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENTS

TSA is encouraged to work with airports to provide updated
Public Service Announcements that remind airline passengers and
crew of enhanced security requirements enacted after September
11th, particularly when new security directions or requirements
are enacted.

FLIGHT ATTENDANT SECURITY TRAINING

In fiscal year 2005, the House directed TSA to
expeditiously promulgate requirements for flight attendant
security training. TSA shall report back to the House Committee
on Appropriations no later than January 16, 2006, on the status
of these performance-based training requirements.

PASSENGER PROCESSING TIMES

The Committee notes that several airports experience
unusually large peak volumes associated with international,
charter and scheduled service. The Committee understands that
many domestic travelers arriving in the same airport concourse
as international flyers are often held up from proceeding to
their final destinations because of slow processing times for
these international visitors. The Committee directs TSA, in
cooperation with CBP, to examine these unique situations, find
appropriate solutions, and report back to the Committee on the
status no later than January 16, 2006.

AIRPORT SECURITY DIRECTION AND ENFORCEMENT

The Committee recommends $983,013,000 for airport security
direction and enforcement, $89,842,000 below the President's
request and $161,123,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal
year 2005. The following table highlights funding levels by
program, project and activity:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aviation regulation and other $232,196,000 $222,416,000
enforcement......................
Airport management, information 758,370,000 655,597,000
technology, and support..........
Federal flight deck officer and 36,289,000 29,000,000
flight crew training.............
Air cargo......................... 40,000,000 60,000,000
Foreign and domestic repair 6,000,000 6,000,000
stations.........................
Airport perimeter security........ ................. 10,000,000
-------------------------------------
Total......................... $1,072,855,000 $983,013,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

AVIATION REGULATION AND ENFORCEMENT

The Committee recommends $222,416,000 for aviation
regulation and enforcement, $9,780,000 below the President's
request and $7,584,000 below the amounts provided in fiscal
year 2005. The Committee is concerned about the rapidly growing
staffing levels in this area, which have increased by almost 43
percent over the past two years. The Committee notes that this
office is not fully staffed and the funding reduction shall be
applied to vacant FTEs, with the exception of new FTEs provided
for security oversight of foreign and domestic repair stations.

AIRPORT MANAGEMENT, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND SUPPORT

The Committee recommends $655,597,000 for airport
management, information technology, and support, $102,773,000
below the President's request and $128,707,000 above the
amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. Reductions were made to
two areas. First, a reduction of $66,773,000 was made to the
budget request for high-speed connectivity. The Committee has
provided $107,227,000 for high-speed connectivity. This funding
level will complete all planned airport work in fiscal year
2006. No funding was provided for fiscal year 2007, as
originally requested. Second, the Committee is concerned about
the growing number of staff in this area. Over the past two
years, TSA has hired almost 1,000 new staff, a 43 percent
growth. In many cases, federal security directors at airports
have more staff than are employed by the airports. The
Committee has reduced funding for staff at these airports by
$36,000,000.

FEDERAL FLIGHT DECK OFFICERS AND FLIGHT CREW TRAINING

The Committee recommends $29,000,000 for the federal flight
deck officer and flight crew training programs, $6,289,000
below the President's request and $4,000,000 above the amounts
provided in fiscal year 2005. Of this total, $4,000,000 is for
flight crew training and $25,000,000 for the Federal Flight
Deck Officer (FFDO) program. Funding for the FFDO is consistent
with amounts provided in fiscal years 2004 and 2005. Additional
funding was not warranted due to high unobligated balances.

AIR CARGO

The Committee recommends $60,000,000 for air cargo,
$20,000,000 above the President's request and $20,000,000 above
the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. The Committee
continues to be concerned that TSA is not focusing enough staff
or resources on the security issues surrounding air cargo. For
example, Section 513 of the fiscal year 2005 appropriations
bill required the Department to immediately amend security
directives to triple the screening of air cargo on passenger
aircraft. The Committee is deeply disappointed that TSA has yet
to fully implement this section. Similarly, late last year, the
Intelligence Reform Act required TSA to issue a final notice of
proposed rulemaking that would strengthen the air cargo
security program. This has been slow to occur. At this time,
TSA plans to finalize a rule to strengthen this program on
August 19, 2005. The Committee is extremely disappointed that
the fiscal year 2006 budget request does not include any
funding to support these additional security enhancements. As a
result, the Committee has: (1) included $10,000,000 to hire 100
new air cargo inspectors, which would increase the number of
air cargo inspectors to 300; (2) increased travel funds for air
cargo inspectors by $3,000,000; (3) increased funding by
$5,000,000 to enhance the automated indirect air carrier
maintenance system and known shipper database; and (4) included
$2,000,000 to conduct security threat assessments of regulated
parties and fast track certain provisions in the pending air
cargo notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Committee is concerned that, while $130,000,000 has
been appropriated in the past two years for air cargo research
and development, a substantial amount remains unobligated.
Specifically, as of January 31, 2005, TSA has obligated less
than 4 percent of air cargo security funding appropriated in
2005 and did not obligate almost $7,000,000 appropriated in
fiscal year 2004. While the Committee recognizes that it takes
a significant amount of time to develop and test existing and
new pilot technologies to screen air cargo, high unobligated
balances give the impression that TSA does not view air cargo
as a serious aviation security vulnerability.
Because of the slowness to implement Congressional
direction and to obligate funds, the Committee sees it
necessary to provide further direction to TSA on air cargo
issues. As a result, the Committee has included three new
legislative provisions relating to air cargo screening and
standards development (Sections 512, 522 and 523):
(1) A legislative provision relating to section 513 of
Public Law 108-334 and the failure of TSA to modify security
directives.
(2) A legislative provision requiring TSA to develop
standards and protocols, in conjunction with airline
stakeholders, to better screen air cargo. Over the past two
years, TSA tested current explosive detection systems,
including both EDS and ETD, in the cargo screening environment
and ultimately issued screening protocols using ETD systems.
The Committee directs TSA to expeditiously develop similar
screening standards and protocols for EDS so that the airlines
have more options available to them to screen air cargo,
particularly break bulk packages that could easily fit through
an EDS machine. The Committee also directs TSA to develop
protocols and standards in conjunction with promising new
technologies to screen air cargo. In the past, delays have
occurred in deploying technologies to screen air cargo while
waiting for TSA to finalize usage protocols and standards.
(3) A legislative provision requiring TSA to screen cargo
at existing checked baggage screening locations to the greatest
extent practicable. The Committee understands that the cargo
screening peak times come prior to the passenger screening peak
times and that under the last Code Orange alert, TSA screened
some cargo at its checked baggage screening locations. TSA is
directed to provide monthly reports, beginning with November
2005, to the House Appropriations Committee on the amount of
cargo screened at checked baggage locations by TSA at each
airport.

AIR CARGO PILOTS

The Committee has provided $40,000,000 to the Science and
Technology Directorate (S&T;) within the explosive
countermeasures appropriation to continue air cargo activities,
previously funded under TSA's research and development program.
Of this funding, $30,000,000 shall be used to conduct three
cargo screening pilot programs--one at an all cargo airport and
two at top ten passenger cargo airports. These pilots shall
test different concepts of operation that TSA designs in
coordination with the S&T.; Testing shall consist of the
following: (1) physically screening a significant percentage
(e.g. six times more than today) of cargo at a passenger
airport using TSA screeners during slack passenger and checked
baggage screening periods; (2) physically screening a
significant percentage (e.g. six times more than today) of
cargo at a passenger airport using TSA or private screeners
solely dedicated to cargo screening; and (3) using canine
teams, supplemented as needed by technology, screening a
similar percentage of cargo at an all cargo airport,
specifically to detect explosives and hidden passengers. Based
on results of each pilot, TSA will provide cost estimates (both
non-recurring and recurring) of these different operational
concepts if deployed to the top five air cargo only airports
and top 10 passenger airports. The Committee expects each of
these pilots to be no shorter than nine months in duration and
all pilots to be completed by January 31, 2007. The Committee
directs S&T; to provide a comprehensive report on each pilot,
two months after each is completed, and interim reports of
progress and results no later than August 31, 2006.

GENERAL AVIATION

The Committee continues to support the Airport Watch
program and expects TSA to continue funding the toll free
number (866-GA Secure) to reinforce security at the nation's
5,400 public use general aviation airports. The Committee
recommends $275,000 for additional promotion of the Airport
Watch program.

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION'S ACCESS CERTIFICATE

The Committee is pleased with the progress and initial
success of the Transportation Security Administration's Access
Certificate (TSAAC) program. This voluntary general aviation
security program is being tested with 24 business aviation
operators at three New York area general aviation airports.
TSAAC participants have implemented specific security
procedures including corporate background checks on flight and
ground crew personnel, screening/inspection of passengers and
baggage, integration of pre-flight, in-flight and ground
security programs, and utilization of threat intelligence. TSA
audits of the current TSAAC participants found full compliance
with the requirements. The Committee encourages TSA to continue
moving forward with this program and report back to the
Committee no later than January 16, 2006, on any plans to
further enhance and fully implement this initiative.

AIRPORT PERIMETER SECURITY

The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for airport perimeter
security pilots. While funding has been provided for this work
in the past, none was provided in fiscal year 2005 or requested
in fiscal year 2006. The Committee is aware of a variety of
innovative technologies that may reduce security weaknesses and
vulnerabilities in airports throughout the United States.

AVIATION SECURITY FEES

In total, the Committee has assumed the collection of
$1,990,000,000 in aviation security user fees in addition to
the $250,000,000 in aviation security user fees that must
automatically be deposited in the Aviation Security Capital
Fund. The Committee assumes that, of this total, $1,640,000,000
shall be collected from aviation passengers and $350,000,000
shall be collected from the airlines. The Committee cannot
support the budget request to increase passenger security fees
by $3.00, raising the fee from $2.50 to $5.50 on the first leg
of each flight and retain the $2.50 charge for a second leg if
the passenger is connecting.
While the fee increase was proposed as a General Provision
in the President's fiscal year 2006 appropriations request,
amending existing aviation security law falls under the
jurisdiction of the Homeland Security Committee. Until the
authorizing Committee passes legislation to enact this fee
increase, this Committee is unwilling to adopt this budget
proposal.

Surface Transportation Security

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005......................... $ 48,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006....................... 32,000,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 36,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2005..................... -12,000,000
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2006................... +4,000,000

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 these regulations to
ensure the protection of the transportation system.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $36,000,000 for surface
transportation security, $4,000,000 above the President's
request and $12,000,000 below the amounts provided in fiscal
year 2005. Funding for the majority of transportation security
programs, including port, rail, bus, and trucking security is
provided in the Office of State and Local Government
Coordination and Preparedness (SLGCP). Funding for the
transportation worker identification credential and hazardous
materials safety are contained within a separate appropriation
for transportation vetting and credentialing. Amounts
appropriated to TSA largely fund surface transportation
security staff that work in conjunction with SLGCP to make
grant determinations and to coordinate security regulations and
directives within DHS and with other federal entities, such as
the Department of Transportation. A comparison of the budget
estimate to the Committee recommended level by budget activity
is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface transportation security $24,000,000 $24,000,000
staffing.........................
Rail security inspectors.......... 8,000,000 8,000,000
Hazardous materials truck tracking ................. 4,000,000
program..........................
-------------------------------------
Total......................... $32,000,000 $36,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TRUCK TRACKING PROGRAM

The Committee continues to be supportive of the hazardous
materials truck tracking program that has been ongoing for the
past several years. This program is a public/private
partnership that addresses the terrorist threat posed by the
800,000 truck shipments of hazardous materials each day. This
program notifies the appropriate national, state, or local
authorities of spills or terrorist incidents and provides them
with critical information regarding the exact incident
location, load content on the vehicle, volume of material
involved, and handling instructions. A total of $4,000,000 has
been appropriated to fund security requirements of the program,
complete the system's open architecture, and to connect with
other related systems and services.

NUCLEAR DETECTION AND MONITORING

The Committee continues to be frustrated by the slowness of
TSA to obligate $4,000,000 provided in fiscal year 2004 for
nuclear detection and monitoring capabilities. Because TSA
appears to be unwilling or unable to identify the best use for
this funding, the Committee directs TSA to transfer these funds
to the newly established Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
within DHS. These funds shall be used to initiate pilot
programs for detecting nuclear materials at truck weigh
stations in the United States.

RAIL SECURITY

As discussed in fiscal year 2005, the Committee is aware of
promising advances in train control technology that would allow
a central operator the ability to remotely control the
operation of a freight or passenger train in times of distress.
The Committee believes development of such a system could
enhance the safety, security, and efficiency of the rail system
and strongly encourages TSA to continue its investigation of
this promising technology.

Transportation Vetting and Credentialing

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 \1\..................... $ (69,919,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 \2\................... (94,294,000)
Recommended in the bill................................. 84,294,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2005..................... +14,375,000
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2006................... -10,000,000

\1\ In fiscal year 2005, funding was provided for programs within this
office under the offices of Aviation Security and Maritime and Land.
Funding is shown here for comparability purposes only.
\2\ Funding for these activities was requested under a new screening
coordination and operations office. Funding is shown here for
comparability purposes only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

MISSION

The Transportation Vetting and Credentialing account merges
a variety of TSA credentialing programs into one new
appropriations line, including: Secure Flight, crew vetting,
transportation worker identification credential, registered
traveler, hazmat, and alien flight school.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a direct appropriation of
$84,294,000 for transportation vetting and credentialing
activities, $14,375,000 above amounts provided in fiscal year
2005. No funding was requested within TSA for these activities
in fiscal year 2006. Instead the budget proposed a new
Screening Coordination and Operations office (SCO) as part of
the BTS Directorate. The Committee has denied funding for this
new screening office and instead continues to fund critical
credentialing programs within TSA. While the SCO office may
have merit, the Committee would like to see a broader
justification for this office pending the results of the
Secretary's ``2nd Stage Review''. Furthermore, the Committee is
concerned that moving key transportation credentialing
activities out of TSA and into this new office would greatly
disrupt the work of these programs, many of which are in
crucial stages of development. A comparison of the budget
estimate to the Committee recommended level by budget activity
is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Appropriations:
Secure flight................. $80,994,000 $65,994,000
Crew vetting.................. 13,300,000 13,300,000
Screening administration and 0 5,000,000
operations...................
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, direct 94,294,000 84,294,000
appropriations...........

Fee Collections:
Transportation worker 100,000,000 100,000,000
identification credential....
Registered traveler........... 20,000,000 20,000,000
Hazmat........................ 50,000,000 50,000,000
Alien flight school (by 10,000,000 10,000,000
transfer from DOJ)...........
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, fee collections. $180,000,000 $180,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURE FLIGHT

The Committee recommends $65,994,000 for Secure Flight,
$15,000,000 below the President's request under the SCO office
and $31,075,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005.
TSA has a very aggressive program to implement Secure Flight;
however, a number of uncertainties remain. First, Secure Flight
is still under development. TSA is in the process of testing
commercial data to see if it will be utilized in the system.
Many outstanding items, including schedule, cost, and work that
the airlines must do to incorporate Secure Flight into their
reservation system, are still unclear. TSA hopes to have these
issues resolved in the summer; however, past experience has
shown TSA unable to meet aggressive schedules the agency set
internally for Secure Flight and its predecessor (CAPPS II).
Second, TSA or any other DHS entity is statutorily prohibited
from obligating appropriated funds to deploy or implement a
passenger prescreening system, other than on a test basis,
until TSA has satisfied each of the ten elements identified in
section 522 of Public Law 108-334. As part of fulfilling this
requirement, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) must
verify that these elements have been met. On March 28, 2005,
GAO reported that only one of the ten elements had been
satisfied. DHS cannot implement Secure Flight until all ten
elements have been met. Third, TSA assumed that the Secure
Flight program would be fully operational by October 1, 2006,
and that all 66 airlines would be fully participating in the
program. However, at this time, the first two airlines will not
begin testing this program until August 19, 2005. Assuming all
goes well with the first two airlines and no major problems are
identified that could set back this program, the next group of
airlines are not scheduled to begin utilizing Secure Flight
until late 2005. TSA's current schedule of having all 66
airlines onboard by October 1, 2006, appears overly optimistic.
In fact, in a recent briefing, TSA indicated that it is now
more likely that full roll out of all 66 airlines will be
completed in fiscal year 2007. For these reasons, the Committee
has reduced funding for Secure Flight by $15,000,000.
The Committee directs GAO to continue to evaluate DHS and
TSA actions to meet the ten elements listed in the section 522
of Public Law 108-334 and to report to the House Committee on
Appropriations, either incrementally as DHS meets additional
elements, or when all elements have been satisfied by DHS. The
Committee has included bill language (Section 518) similar to
last year on Secure Flight.

CREW VETTING

The Committee recommends $13,300,000 for crew vetting, the
same as requested under the SCO and $3,300,000 above the
amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. As explained in fiscal
year 2005, the Committee believes that there is a clear
distinction between the crew vetting, Secure Flight, and other
credentialing programs. Funding for these activities should not
be merged.

SCREENING ADMINISTRATION AND OPERATIONS

The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for screening
administration and operations. This funding can be used to
support staff efforts and other administrative actions that may
not be fully covered by offsetting collections. For example,
under the alien flight school program, the Committee is aware
that Vision 100 excluded certain types of alien pilot training
from this program, which reduced the population that pays the
fee from the agency's initial forecast by approximately 55,000.
At the same time, TSA is still required to check these pilots'
backgrounds; a direct appropriation will offset some of these
costs. The Committee directs that none of these funds may be
used for Secure Flight.

FEE COLLECTIONS

The President's budget request estimated a total of
$321,387,000 in fee collections from various TSA programs. This
estimate was revised by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
to reflect several recent changes to these programs, including
that a number of policy decisions must still be made, these
programs encompass populations whose size and ability to pay
fees is largely unknown, and that there is uncertainty in the
operational costs associated with these new programs. Because
of these issues, CBO decreased the amount of estimated fees to
be collected by $141,387,000. The Committee assumes collection
of fees based on CBO's estimates.

TRANSPORTATION WORKER IDENTIFICATION CREDENTIAL

The Committee continues to be deeply disappointed with the
direction and scope of the transportation worker identification
credential (TWIC), which TSA is currently prototyping for use
at various locations in the United States. The goals of the
TWIC program are ambitious, but necessary: to create one
standardized identification card, universally recognized and
accepted across the transportation system. Given the complexity
and importance of the initiative, the Committee is extremely
frustrated with the lack of progress. Missed deadlines, high
turnover, lack of budget justification, and subversion of
Congressional direction have plagued this program from the very
beginning.
As in years past, 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 program as they relate to
operational and physical security of the product. TSA shall not
continue the program until these fundamental requirements are
implemented. In addition, TSA may not move into the next phase
of production until the House Appropriations Committee has been
fully briefed on the results of the prototype phase and agrees
that the program should move forward.

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY CLEARINGHOUSE

The Committee includes a new general provision (Section
527) that directs the Secretary to utilize the Transportation
Security Clearinghouse (TSC) as a central identity management
system for a variety of transportation credentialing and
vetting programs currently under development or in operation.
This language was included because, despite TSC's proven track
record, DHS appears to be taking a typical government
contracting approach where it awards large programs to
individual vendors as a means of maintaining some programmatic
control and then relies on those contractors to build a program
from scratch. The case of hazardous materials truckers is a
perfect example. Rather than integrating the existing TSC model
to process and reconcile fingerprints from hazardous materials
truckers across the country, TSA awarded the contract in its
entirety to a separate vendor that is now trying to reinvent
key parts of the TSC. Doing so increases both the cost to the
Federal government and the time it takes to begin conducting
background checks on hazardous materials truckers.

Transportation Security Support

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005......................... $519,852,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006....................... 545,008,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 541,008,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2005..................... +21,156,000
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2006................... -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 $541,008,000 for transportation
security support, $4,000,000 below the President's request and
$21,156,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. A
comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee recommended
level by budget activity is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Headquarters administration....... $313,916,000 $309,916,000
Intelligence...................... 21,000,000 21,000,000
Information technology core 210,092,000 210,092,000
support..........................
-------------------------------------
Total......................... $545,008,000 $541,008,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

HEADQUARTERS ADMINISTRATION

The Committee is extremely frustrated in TSA's apparent
disregard for Congressional direction and has reduced funding
for headquarters administration staff by $4,000,000
accordingly. Reductions should be applied to the office of the
Administrator, the Chief Technology Officer, Legislative
Affairs, Operations Policy, and the Chief Financial Officer.
While numerous examples can be cited, a few notable ones will
suffice.
First, Congress has repeatedly tasked TSA and other DHS
agencies to develop a plan to open Ronald Reagan Washington
National Airport to general aviation aircraft, including
section 823 of Vision 100 and in the statement of managers
accompanying the fiscal year 2005 appropriations bill. TSA and
others have ignored this direction and have failed to provide a
plan. As a result, the Committee has included bill language
(Sec. 524) requiring DHS to implement a security plan that will
permit general aviation aircraft to takeoff and land at Ronald
Reagan Washington National Airport 90 days after enactment of
this Act.
Second, for the past two years, the Committee has requested
TSA to submit quarterly reports on plans for installing EDS
machines inline as well as plans for other necessary physical
modifications to airports so that they can perform 100-percent
screening of checked baggage. TSA has failed to produce even
one quarterly report.
Third, until six months into fiscal year 2005, TSA was
unable to inform the Committee how it planned to award the
$295,000,000 appropriated for EDS installation. Additionally,
TSA has not yet been able to inform this Committee of how it
plans to obligate all of the $180,000,000 appropriated for EDS
procurement. The Committee cannot adequately oversee the EDS/
ETD program if TSA repeatedly fails to answer basic questions.
As a result, the Committee has included bill language that
requires TSA to provide a detailed plan for optimally deploying
EDS machines at the nation's airports on a priority basis to
enhance security, reduce staffing, and save long-term costs;
and a detailed spend plan for EDS procurement and installation
on an airport-by-airport basis no later than 60 days after
enactment of this Act. The Committee includes bill language
fencing $50,000,000 until these plans are submitted.
Fourth, TSA has failed to provide any of the quarterly
reports on air cargo activities, as directed by the statement
of managers accompanying the fiscal year 2005 Appropriations
Act. Failure to provide this information limits the Committee's
ability to fully understand how the agency is working to
improve air cargo security. As a result, the Committee has
included three new general provisions, as discussed earlier,
specifically related to air cargo activities.

United States Coast Guard

OPERATING EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005......................... $5,190,587,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006....................... 5,547,400,000
Recommended in this bill................................ 5,500,000,000
Total appropriation compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2005..................... +309,413,000
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2006................... -47,400,000

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 $1,200,000,000 for national security activities,
the Committee recommends a total appropriation of
$5,500,000,000 for operating expenses. The recommended funding
level is $47,400,000 below the President's request and
$309,413,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005.
The following table highlights the recommended level by
program, project, and activity:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military Pay and Allowance:
Military pay and allowances... $2,318,733,000 $2,318,733,000
Military health care.......... 581,122,000 581,122,000
Permanent change of station... 111,275,000 109,695,000
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, military pay and 3,011,130,000 3,009,550,000
allowances...............

Civilian pay and benefits......... 535,836,000 531,811,000

Training and Recruiting:..........
Training and education........ 84,636,000 84,636,000
Recruitment................... 93,576,000 93,576,000
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, training and 178,212,000 178,212,000
recruiting...............

Operating Funds and Level
Maintenance:
Atlantic Command.............. 169,347,000 169,347,000
Pacific Command............... 177,967,000 177,967,000
1st District.................. 47,166,000 47,166,000
7th District.................. 58,076,000 58,076,000
8th District.................. 39,134,000 39,134,000
9th District.................. 28,431,000 28,431,000
13th District................. 20,238,000 20,238,000
14th District................. 14,575,000 14,575,000
17th District................. 23,950,000 23,950,000
Headquarters directorates..... 294,250,000 257,550,000
Headquarters managed units.... 111,128,000 129,933,000
Other activities.............. 1,047,000 1,047,000
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, operating funds 985,309,000 967,414,000
and level maintenance....

Centrally Managed Accounts........ 193,936,000 193,936,000

Immediate and Depot Level
Maintenance:
Aeronautical maintenance...... 234,661,000 234,661,000
Electronic maintenance........ 103,327,000 103,327,000
Civil/Ocean engineering and 160,126,000 160,126,000
shore facilities maintenance.
Vessel maintenance............ 144,863,000 144,863,000
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, immediate and 642,977,000 642,977,000
depot level maintenance..
Unspecified reduction............. ................. -23,900,000
=====================================
Total..................... $5,547,400,000 $5,500,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

RESPONSIVENESS TO CONGRESS

The Committee is extremely frustrated in the Coast Guard's
apparent disregard for Congressional direction and has reduced
funding for headquarters directorates by $5,000,000
accordingly. Reductions should be applied to the offices of the
Commandant (G-C), Planning, Resources, and Procurement (CG-82),
and Resource Management (CG-83). Some notable examples include:
(1) the Coast Guard's failure to submit a Deepwater re-baseline
that meets the statutory requirements of Public Law 108-334,
including a comprehensive timeline spanning the entire 20-25
year program that clearly shows the acquisition schedule of new
assets and the phase-out and transition of legacy assets,
funding projections for each year of the program, and that
includes and fully incorporates detailed descriptions of the
revised mission needs requirements; and (2) repeated problems
with reprogramming submissions that fail to recognize
Congressional actions in prior years or requests for funding
for longstanding actions that the Coast Guard failed to include
in their original budget submissions. The Committee cannot
adequately oversee Coast Guard programs when the agency fails
to answer basic questions or fails to provide timely and
complete information.

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

The Committee is very concerned about the results of the
2004 DHS financial audit that identified a number of weaknesses
with the Coast Guard's financial reporting capabilities and the
accuracy of their records. The auditors noted, among other
things, that: (1) the accuracy of financial information at the
Coast Guard was highly dependent on the knowledge and
experience of a limited number of financial personnel; (2) the
Coast Guard lacks policies and procedures to oversee key
financial data; (3) the Coast Guard has problems recording
financial data, including financial commitments and lapsed or
unspent funds; and (4) the Coast Guard did not have controls to
ensure that obligations were recorded in a timely manner or to
verify that recorded obligations remained valid. The Committee
is aware that the Coast Guard has made some efforts to address
these issues, including the hiring of highly skilled, civilian
personnel and the formulation of a new, financial management
plan. However, the Committee is disappointed that the
implementation of this plan is scheduled to be phased-in over
four years and directs the Coast Guard to take more expedient
action.

ICEBREAKING

As requested in the President's budget, the Committee
approves the transfer of $47,500,000 in polar icebreaking
funding from the Coast Guard to the National Science Foundation
(NSF). Currently the Coast Guard operates three polar
icebreakers, two of which are approaching the end of their
service life. Much of the icebreaking work is done so that NSF
can conduct research in the Artic and Antarctica. At this
point, it makes sense that the primary user of the icebreakers
decides how these aging vessels are used. The Committee
encourages the Coast Guard, NSF, and the White House to
finalize a long-term strategy for polar icebreaking.

C4ISR UPGRADE FOLLOW-ON

The Committee recommends $12,450,000 for the C4ISR
(command, control, communications, computers, intelligence,
surveillance and reconnaissance) upgrade follow-on, $20,000,000
below the President's request. The budget justification for
this activity is entirely unsatisfactory. While the bulk of
this request falls under headquarters directorates, the
justification fails to explain what the funds will actually
accomplish. The C4ISR upgrades were an acquisition,
construction and improvements (AC&I;) function under the
Deepwater program. The linkage between this capital improvement
program and its associated operating expenses, which are
presumably centrally managed maintenance contracts, is simply
not established in the fiscal year 2006 budget justification.
The Committee is entrusted to make funding recommendations that
are predicated on clear, transparent information that
sufficiently demonstrates the purpose and value of the amounts
requested. The Coast Guard is directed to this section of its
budget justification as an example of what not to do when
requesting funds from the Committee.
The Committee is aware that the C4ISR upgrades that have
been installed are making a substantial impact in the
operational effectiveness of the Coast Guard's legacy assets,
and recognizes the service's efforts to leverage technology in
the execution of its missions. This modernization effort has
the full support of the Committee, provided that detailed
justifications are provided along with the request for
additional funds. The Coast Guard is directed to submit to the
Committee no later than January 16, 2006, a report on the
efficiencies and effectiveness realized through the
installation of C4ISR upgrades. This report should include a
detailed breakout of the associated operating costs of such
upgrades and a comprehensive explanation of ``follow-on''
costs. This report should compare and contrast operations of
legacy assets prior to the installation of modernized C4ISR
equipment to that of the present state of operations, including
the impact upon operating expenses both before and after
installation of the C4ISR upgrades.

AREA SECURITY MARITIME EXERCISE PROGRAM

The Committee recommends $20,000,000 to continue the area
security maritime exercise program under the headquarter
managed units as required by the Maritime Transportation
Security Act. The Coast Guard did not request any funding for
this program in fiscal year 2006. Previous funding for this
exercise program was provided from previously appropriated port
security grants. Funding shall be used to conduct tabletop and
field exercises to identify maritime vulnerabilities and
weaknesses, to write after action reports on each exercise, and
to follow through on any problems identified. The Committee
believes that continuing these exercises is important because
ports, facilities, vessels, and relevant government officials
will be better trained if an incident occurs.
The Coast Guard plays a primary and significant role in
port security. The 85 port security terrorism exercises
conducted last year identified a number of port security
problems. GAO reports that 59 percent of the exercises had
communication problems, 54 percent had resource issues, such as
a lack of training, 41 percent had command and control
problems, and 28 percent had questions about who had decision-
making authority. These are critical problems. GAO also
reported that, of the 85 port security terrorism exercises
conducted, after-action reports were not submitted by the Coast
Guard on time for 61 percent of the exercises. In addition, 18
percent of the after-action reports did not provide an
assessment of how well the objective of the exercise was met.
The Committee expects the Coast Guard to use the port security
terrorism exercises as a management tool to identify problems,
fix them, and refine port security protocols. Therefore, the
Committee directs Coast Guard to submit reports on the results
of these exercises to the Committee every six months, beginning
on October 1, 2005. The reports should include a description of
the exercise, a summary of what was learned and how well the
objective of the exercise was met, and corrective actions that
were identified (including but not limited to Maritime Security
Plan revisions, changes to procedures or policies, new
equipment or equipment enhancements needed).

ONE-TIME REINVESTMENT COSTS

The Committee has denied funding of $16,500,000 for one-
time reinvestment costs due to a poor budget justification.

RADIOLOGICAL/NUCLEAR (RAD/NUC) DETECTION

The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for enhanced rad/nuc
detection, $2,000,000 below the President's request. While the
Committee is supportive of this mission, a lower level of
funding is recommended until the Domestic Nuclear Detection
Office develops the Department's framework for rad/nuc
operations. Without this framework, it is premature to fully
fund this budget request. Funding was specifically reduced from
the headquarters directorate line.

MERCHANT MARINERS DOCUMENTS

The Committee is concerned that the Coast Guard has yet to
develop measures to improve merchant mariner credentialing as
required by the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002
(P.L. 107-295). The Committee directs the Commandant to
establish the pilot program outlined in section 611 of that Act
to develop and evaluate technologies and procedures that
improve the issuance of merchant mariner documents.

SECTORS

The Committee directs the Coast Guard to continue reporting
to the House Committee on Appropriations on each new sector
command, as begun last year. This report shall lay out the
before and after staffing levels (by rank and numbers), the
organizational structure of each sector, the chain of command
by sector, and information on infrastructure and other issues
by sector that may require additional resources due to the move
to sector commands. The Committee is frustrated that, with
recent sector reports, the Coast Guard has either not provided
the Committee the full 30 days to review the proposal or has
provided just 30 days, no more, not permitting an adequate time
for questions and answers before the Coast Guard makes these
changes. The Committee directs the Coast Guard to be more
conscientious in meeting these deadlines and factor in adequate
time for questions to be addressed before moving to the new
sectors.

LORAN C

In recent years, the Committee has provided more than
$140,000,000 to the Coast Guard and the Federal Aviation
Administration to modernize the Loran navigation
infrastructure. The Committee continues to support that
collaborative work being accomplished under the existing
interagency agreement between the two agencies and remains
convinced that this joint initiative offers potential for
important marine security and safety benefits, along with
substantially reduced future system operations and maintenance
costs. The Committee believes heightened attention is warranted
by the Coast Guard in supporting and completing the Loran
recapitalization.

Environmental Compliance and Restoration

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005......................... $17,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006....................... 12,000,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 12,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2005..................... -5,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006................... - - -

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 $12,000,000 for environmental
compliance and restoration, the same as the budget request and
$5,000,000 below the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005.

Reserve Training

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005......................... $113,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006....................... 119,000,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 119,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2005..................... +6,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006................... - - -

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 $119,000,000 for reserve training,
the same as the budget request and $6,000,000 above the amounts
provided in fiscal year 2005.

Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005......................... $966,200,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006....................... 1,269,152,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 798,152,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2005..................... -168,048,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006................... -471,000,000

MISSION

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

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $798,152,000 for acquisition,
construction, and improvements, $471,000,000 below the
President's request and $168,048,000 below the amounts provided
in fiscal year 2005. The following table highlights the
recommended level by program, project, and activity:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vessels and critical
infrastructure:
Response boat medium.......... $22,000,000 $22,000,000
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, Vessels and 22,000,000 22,000,000
critical infrastructure..

Deepwater......................... 966,000,000 500,000,000

Aircraft:
Covert surveillance aircraft.. ................. 10,000,000
Armed helicopters............. 19,902,000 19,902,000
C-130J missionization......... 5,000,000 .................
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, aircraft........ 24,902,000 29,902,000

Other Equipment:
Rescue 21..................... 101,000,000 91,000,000
Automatic identification 29,100,000 29,100,000
system.......................
High frequency recap.......... 10,000,000 10,000,000
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, other equipment. 140,100,000 130,100,000

Shore Facilities and Aids to
Navigation:
Survey and design, shore 5,000,000 5,000,000
operational and support
projects.....................
Minor AC&I; shore construction 3,000,000 3,000,000
projects.....................
Renovate USCGA Chase Hall 15,000,000 15,000,000
barracks, phase I............
Replace multi-purpose building- 10,000,000 10,000,000
Group Long Island Sound......
Construct breakwater-Station 2,800,000 2,800,000
Neah Bay.....................
Waterways aids to navigation.. 3,900,000 3,900,000
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, shore facilities 39,700,000 39,700,000
and aids to navigation...

Personnel and Related Support:
Direct personnel costs........ 75,950,000 75,950,000
AC&I; core.....................
-----------500,000------------500,000
Subtotal, personnel and 76,450,000 76,450,000
related support..........
=====================================

Total................. $1,269,152,000 $798,152,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

DEEPWATER

The Committee recommends $500,000,000 for Deepwater,
$466,000,000 below the President's request and $223,950,000
below amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. The Committee is
wholly disappointed in the Coast Guard's management of this
program and its utter disregard for the legislative direction
included in P.L. 108-334, intended to clarify the program's
total cost, acquisition timeline, and implementation schedule.
Since the Coast Guard has failed to submit an updated plan that
sufficiently justifies the entire Deepwater program, the
Committee is providing an appropriation consistent with the
original and previously approved, 20-year plan. While the
Committee remains supportive of the replacement of the Coast
Guard's aging cutters and aircraft, it is not confident in the
Deepwater programmatic model as means to achieve this goal at
this point in time.
The Deepwater program was intended to be a departure from
``traditional'' capital acquisition and a move towards a more
holistic, more integrated, and more efficient process of
recapitalization. In theory, the Deepwater concept is a very
logical approach for the Coast Guard--an operational, armed
service whose current cutters and aircraft are collectively
reaching the end of their service lives at approximately the
same time. However, two events have stressed this program and
moved it away from its theoretical, network-based approach: (1)
the events of September 11, 2001, and the resulting mission
focus upon homeland security and counter terrorism, and (2) the
increasingly rapid failure of legacy assets such as the HH-65
helicopters and 110-foot patrol boats. The impact of these
events has forced a complete shift in the original Deepwater
acquisition timeline and implementation schedule. As of the end
of fiscal year 2004, the initial system concept was no longer
valid and it was apparent that a re-evaluation of the Coast
Guard's operational needs was necessary. Recognizing that
Deepwater was at a crossroads and despite ostensible reluctance
by the Coast Guard, the Committee required the service to re-
baseline the entire program in the fiscal year 2005
appropriations bill (P.L. 108-334).
The intent of the re-baselining requirement was not only to
gather a more firm understanding of the total cost and
implementation plan of the Deepwater program, but also to align
the program's modifications with the new and enhanced mission
capabilities required of the Coast Guard in the post-9/11
environment. The Coast Guard's failure to comply with this
legislative directive suggests not only a fundamental disregard
for the Committee and Congress, but also brings into question
how the Coast Guard itself is able to manage its own future.
The Committee believes this re-baselining to be both crucial in
terms of Congressional oversight and essential in terms of the
Coast Guard's acquisition management and operational planning.
The fact that the Coast Guard was over two months late in
submitting a re-baselining and that its content was totally
insufficient and not in compliance with the specified
Congressional requirements, prohibits the Committee from
considering such an expansive request for this program for
fiscal year 2006. In fact, the lack of responsiveness by the
Coast Guard prohibits the Committee from considering a major
departure from the previously approved plan and associated
funding structure and compels the Committee to take aggressive
action to properly oversight this costly and sprawling program.
To date, the Committee has yet to receive a report that fully
satisfies the re-baselining requirements of P.L. 108-334. The
Coast Guard has spent considerable time and effort attempting
to rationalize a flawed and incomplete re-baseline plan, rather
than adhering to the Congressional mandate and updating the
previously submitted and approved 20-year plan or providing any
justification for why such a re-baseline cannot be done.
The current state of the Deepwater program includes a
myriad of questions ranging from an absence of a cogent policy
on the future of the Coast Guard's patrol boats to a lack of a
definitive maritime patrol aircraft solution to an alarmingly
high increase in legacy asset sustainment. In the case of the
latter issue, 25 percent of the fiscal year 2006 Deepwater
request (or $239,500,000) is for the sustainment of legacy
assets--an enormous and unexpectedly high increase above the
initially conceived $20,000,000 that would be devoted to legacy
assets per fiscal year. In the case of the 110-foot Island
Class patrol boats, the Coast Guard appears to be approaching a
severe capability gap as the 110s experience significant hull
failures and require mid-life maintenance overhauls while the
replacement cutter, the Fast Response Cutter (FRC), is years
away from full-scale production and deployment. In the case of
the HH-65 helicopter engine replacements, despite significant
fiscal support from the Committee, the Coast Guard and its
prime integrator have allowed this program to steadily rise in
cost and slip in its projected delivery schedule. The
uncertainty surrounding these two assets--arguably the most
heavily used operational assets in the Coast Guard's fleet--
typifies why a functional Deepwater solution is needed now.
Overcoming these legacy asset challenges and formulating a
modernized solution that incorporates the homeland security
mission focus is the purpose of the Deepwater program.
The Coast Guard has expressed reservations about submitting
a revised baseline for the Deepwater program. The report that
was submitted amounts to only a five-year plan along with
estimated ranges of total program cost and the total number of
assets. The Coast Guard has stated within this plan that it is
uncertain as to the total number of assets that will be needed
because of the untested potential of C4ISR systems as well as
uncertainty of future funding. The Committee fails to
understand how the Coast Guard can so directly state that it
will meet all required performance requirements while, at the
same time, providing only ranges of cost and asset totals. The
Committee also fails to understand why there is such a degree
of uncertainty about how new C4ISR systems will translate into
performance capability, given the Coast Guard's operational
experience and partnership with the Deepwater prime integrator.
In fact, the Committee believes that one of the primary tenets
of the Deepwater contract was to leverage the knowledge base of
industry's best and brightest to formulate a robust,
technically sophisticated 20-year plan. Given the significant
role and payment structure of the prime integrator within the
Deepwater program, the Committee believes the Coast Guard has a
technically proficient resource from which to project firm
estimates for the entire span of the Deepwater program. Since
the Coast Guard had previously submitted a full, 20-year plan
with the original Deepwater proposal, the Committee believes it
is more than reasonable to require a revised and comprehensive
plan that is predicated upon the new, post-9/11 environment.
The confluence of issues surrounding Deepwater has made
fiscal year 2006 the tipping point for this program. Therefore,
the Committee requires a completely revised Deepwater
implementation plan that includes: a comprehensive acquisition
timeline for the entire Deepwater program based upon the
revised mission needs statement that is compared against the
original Deepwater timeline; an exhaustive asset-by-asset
breakdown of the entire program, aligned with the comprehensive
acquisition timeline and revised mission statement that clearly
shows the details of the phase-out of legacy assets and the
phase-in of new, replacement assets; an aggregate total cost
and timeline of the entire program that aligns with the
acquisition timeline and asset-by-asset breakdown; the revised,
post-9/11 mission needs statement (MNS); a detailed progress
report of the C4ISR equipment upgrades that have been installed
on currently operational Deepwater assets and a complete,
aggregate timeline for when such equipment will be installed on
all legacy Deepwater assets; and a detailed projection of the
remaining operational lifespan of every type of legacy cutter
and aircraft. The Committee believes this report to be
essential to the fiscal year 2007 appropriations process, just
as the previously requested re-baselining request was
inextricably linked to the fiscal year 2006 appropriation. The
Committee restricts $50,000,000 of funds available for
obligation until a revised Deepwater implementation plan, which
fully complies with the outlined statutory requirements, has
been received.

MANNED COVERT SURVEILLANCE AIRCRAFT

The aerial surveillance of our harbors, ports, and
contiguous waterways represents an urgent homeland security
responsibility of the Coast Guard. Additionally, the Coast
Guard relies heavily upon aerial surveillance in the southern
transit zones in order to intercept possible incoming threats.
The Committee has noted a void in the Coast Guard's medium to
short-range surveillance assets and provided $14,000,000 in
fiscal year 2005 to procure and test three manned covert
surveillance aircraft. The Committee recommends $10,000,000 in
fiscal year 2006 to procure the appropriate sensor packages and
to install them on the aircraft.

C-130J MISSIONIZATION

The Committee has denied the $5,000,000 requested for C-
130J missionization. Costs for this work have grown
dramatically, causing the Coast Guard to re-evaluate the use of
the C-130J. Until final decisions have been made on how this
work is to be done and whether the Coast Guard still plans to
operate these aircraft in the future, it is premature to
provide funding.

NATIONAL DISTRESS AND RESPONSE SYSTEM MODERNIZATION (RESCUE 21)

The Committee recommends $91,000,000 for the National
Distress and Response System Modernization, commonly referred
to as Rescue 21, $10,000,000 below the President's request and
$15,000,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005,
after recent reprogrammings and rescissions. While it appears
that the contractor and the Coast Guard have resolved many of
the software issues that have repeatedly delayed this program,
the Committee believes that the current Rescue 21 schedule is
overly optimistic and recognizes that the Service plans to
carry over prior year appropriations into fiscal year 2007. As
a result, a slight reduction to the budget request has been
made to this program.

ENHANCED MARITIME SAFETY AND SECURITY TEAM (E-MSST)

The Committee recognizes and supports the Coast Guard's
expansion of its counter-terrorism capabilities. At the
forefront of this effort is the Enhanced Maritime Safety and
Security Team (E-MSST). This tactical and highly specialized
unit provided an essential and otherwise missing capability to
many high-profile National Special Security Events (NSSEs) over
the last year, including the G8 Summit in Sea Island Georgia
and both national political conventions. Just as the creation
of the original Maritime Safety and Security Teams (MSSTs) was
a prudent course of action in the post-9/11 environment, the
Committee believes the creation and sustainment of the E-MSST
and its counter-terrorism capability is a worthy investment.
However, the full operating capability and requirements of the
MSSTs, located at strategic ports around the nation, has yet to
be officially defined and it is unclear whether the Coast Guard
wants to transition additional MSSTs into the E-MSST model. The
Committee directs the Coast Guard to submit a MSST policy
report, along with the fiscal year 2007 budget request, that
articulates the Coast Guard's policy on the use and full
operating capabilities of both MSSTs and E-MSSTs throughout the
Coast Guard. This report should specifically address and define
the full operating capabilities of both an MSST and E-MSST;
whether the Coast Guard intends to transition additional MSSTs
to the enhanced model; and whether or not the Coast Guard
intends to expand the mission profile or logistics base for its
E-MSST program. The projected, associated costs of
transitioning the MSST units into E-MSSTs should also be
included.

DEEPWATER LEGACY ASSETS

The Committee is extremely concerned about the operational
status and rapidly increasing maintenance costs of Deepwater
legacy assets. This concern is punctuated by recent events,
including the engine power loss issues with the HH-65
helicopter and the hull degradation of the 110-foot patrol
boats; but it also includes the aging medium and high endurance
cutters. The Committee requires the Coast Guard to submit a
legacy asset report not later than January 16, 2006, that
describes the remaining operational life span of each and every
one of its legacy cutters and aircraft that are part of the
Deepwater program. This report should be broken down by asset
and should explain the projected, remaining lifespan for
effective operations. The report should also include specific
details regarding specialized maintenance or mid-life overhaul
programs, apart from routine or preventative maintenance, that
are either required or planned to prolong the service life of a
given legacy asset.

110-FOOT PATROL BOATS

The 110-foot Island Class patrol boats serve as a major
operational component for the Coast Guard and are often
referred to as the ``workhorse'' of the cutter fleet. However,
the service life of these assets is rapidly diminishing due to
significant hull erosion and C4ISR obsolescence. To address
this issue, the Coast Guard and its Deepwater program
integrator designed a 110-to-123 conversion program that would
not only lengthen the patrol boat, address hull degradation,
and install a stern boat ramp, but also upgrade the vessel's
C4ISR equipment and align it with the network-centric future of
the Coast Guard. This conversion process was intended to be the
bridge between the currently operating Island Class patrol
boats and the Fast Response Cutter (FRC) component of the
Deepwater program. Through the course of the first hull
conversion on the USCGC MATAGORDA, it was revealed that there
was far greater hull damage than originally estimated. Since
the completion of the MATAGORDA conversion, the Coast Guard and
its patrol boat contractor have experienced repeated delays in
this program and encountered significant hull degradation on
subsequent cutters.
The Coast Guard has effectively halted the conversion
program by not obligating $83,999,942 in funds appropriated for
this purpose. While the Coast Guard has sped up the development
and long-lead items associated with the FRC and the conversion
program idles, there appears to be a significant capability gap
emerging due to the absence of a definitive patrol boat
solution. This is further complicated by the fact that six 110-
foot patrol boats are operating overseas in support of the
Global War on Terrorism with no clear expectation of when they
might return to domestic operations.
To bridge this capability gap, the Coast Guard has pointed
to the recent acquisition of five, 179-foot Cyclone Class
patrol boats from the Navy and further emphasized the rapid
development of the FRC. The Committee is completely
dissatisfied by this course of action and is extremely
concerned about the Coast Guard's ability to execute its
missions without an effective patrol boat fleet. The 110s have
proven to be an essential asset to drug and migrant
interdiction, search and rescue, and fisheries law enforcement
as well as more recently becoming a principle contributor to
maritime security operations. Under ideal circumstances
regarding the integration of the 179-foot Cyclone class cutters
with the fleet and the development and eventual deployment of
the FRC, the Coast Guard is approaching a prolonged period
where aging 110s will either not be refurbished to the extent
required or not be replaced by a newer, more capable asset. The
Committee finds this situation unacceptable and believes
immediate action is necessary to avoid any loss in the Coast
Guard's operational capability or in our nation's maritime
security.
To provide immediate action, the Committee includes a
provision (Section 526) rescinding unobligated funds in the
amount of $83,999,942 that were appropriated for the 110-to-123
conversions in fiscal years 2004 and 2005, and re-appropriating
the funds towards the purchase of new Island Class patrol boats
or the major maintenance availability of currently operating
110s. Although this is not an ideal solution, it provides
immediate action on a proven asset. The Committee is aware that
the original manufacturer of the 110-foot Island Class patrol
boat has an operating production line that could rapidly
construct new 110s or provide significant support on a service
life extension of current vessels, including the installation
of modernized C4ISR equipment and major hull repairs. This
direction is consistent with the Coast Guard's Acquisition,
Construction, and Improvements submittal contained within the
fiscal year 2005 supplemental budget request.

AIRSPACE SECURITY

The Coast Guard has filled a critical mission by providing
airspace security for the Department of Homeland Security
during the five National Special Security Events (NSSEs) that
occurred last year and in support of other DHS protective
operations. The Committee is aware of the increased workload
and resource hours that are necessary to support airspace
security operations and is providing appropriations support
that will expand the capabilities of the Coast Guard's aircraft
in that regard. Specifically, the Committee is actively
supporting the HH-65 re-engining, the airborne use of force
outfitting of the HH-60, avionics modernizations, and several
other aviation projects that will contribute to the Coast
Guard's performance in this mission area.

HH-60 JAYHAWK

The Committee sees value in extending the life and
capability of the HH-60 platform as an integral part of the
Deepwater program. The Committee sees tremendous potential for
efficiency in that the Bureau of Customs and Border
Protection's (CBP) Air and Marine Operations Directorate uses a
similar asset, the HH-60 Black Hawk. Given the Coast Guard's
extensive modernization plan for the HH-60 Jayhawk, the
Committee strongly encourages the Department, the BTS
Directorate, CBP, and the Coast Guard to collaborate in the
operations, maintenance, and outfitting of the HH-60 platform.

Alteration of Bridges

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005......................... $15,900,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006....................... - - -
Recommended in the bill................................. 15,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2005..................... -900,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006................... +15,000,000

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 $15,000,000 for alteration of
bridges, $15,000,000 above the President's request and $900,000
below the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. The Committee
directs that, of the funds provided, $4,000,000 shall be
allocated to the Canadian Pacific Railroad Bridge in LaCrosse,
Wisconsin; $2,000,000 shall be allocated to the Chelsea Street
Bridge in Chelsea, Massachusetts; $7,000,000 shall be allocated
to the Fourteen Mile Bridge in Mobile, Alabama; and $2,000,000
shall be allocated to the Galveston Causeway Railroad Bridge in
Galveston, Texas.

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION

The Committee agrees to the President's proposal that
$17,000,000 and associated personnel of the Coast Guard's
research, development, test, and evaluation program are funded
in the Science and Technology Directorate.

Retired Pay

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005......................... $1,085,460,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006....................... 1,014,080,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 1,014,080,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2005..................... -71,380,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006................... - - -

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 $1,014,080,000, the same as the budget
request and $71,380,000 below the amounts provided in fiscal
year 2005. This is scored as a mandatory appropriation in the
Congressional budget process.

United States Secret Service

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005......................... $1,172,125,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006....................... 1,200,083,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 1,228,981,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2005..................... +56,856,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006................... +28,898,000

MISSION

The United States Secret Service is directed by statute to
carry out two significant missions: protection and criminal
investigations. The Secret Service protects the President and
Vice President, their families, heads of state, and other
designated individuals; investigates threats against these
protectees; protects the White House, Vice President's
Residence, Foreign Missions, and other buildings within
Washington, D.C.; and plans and implements security designs for
National Special Security Events. The Secret Service also
investigates violations of laws relating to counterfeiting of
obligations and securities of the United States; financial
crimes that include, but are not limited to, access device
fraud, financial institution fraud, identity theft, computer
fraud; computer-based attacks on our nation's financial,
banking, and telecommunications infrastructure; and provides
investigative support for missing and exploited children.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,228,981,000 for Secret Service
Salaries and Expenses, an increase of $28,898,000 above the
President's request and $56,856,000 above the amounts provided
in fiscal year 2005. The Committee recommends an additional
$5,000,000 for National Special Security Events and an
additional $23,320,000 above the President's request to support
staffing for protective operations, investigations, foreign
field offices, and technical support functions. The Committee
also recommends an additional $578,000 towards the support of
the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC).
The recommended funding levels are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salaries and Expenses Budget Estimate Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Protection:
Protection of persons and $572,232,000 $583,652,000
facilities...................
National Special Security 5,000,000 10,000,000
Event Fund...................
Protective intelligence 55,561,000 57,061,000
activities...................
White House mail screening.... 16,365,000 16,365,000
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, Protection...... 649,158,000 667,078,000
Field operations:
Domestic field operations..... 238,888,000 238,888,000
International field office 19,768,000 22,168,000
administration, operations
and training.................
Electronic crimes special 35,600,000 43,600,000
agent program and electronic
crimes task forces...........
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, Field operations 294,256,000 304,656,000
Administration:
Headquarters, management and 203,232,000 203,232,000
administration...............
National Center for Missing 7,100,000 7,678,000
and Exploited Children.......
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, Administration.. 210,332,000 210,910,000
Training:
Rowley training center........ 46,337,000 46,337,000
=====================================
Total, Salaries and $1,200,083,000 $1,228,981,000
expenses.................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

WORKLOAD RE-BALANCING

From fiscal year 2000 through fiscal year 2002, the
Committee fully funded the Secret Service initiative,
``Workload Re-balancing,'' to address unacceptably high levels
of overtime and to achieve an appropriate balance between
protective operations and criminal investigations. The
Committee is extremely disappointed to learn that overtime has
reached an average of over 80 hours per month for special
agents, that a severely disproportionate amount of time is
being devoted to protective operations over investigations, and
that there has been a significant reduction in training
opportunities due to the pace of operations. These issues are
largely a result of the Secret Service operating under the
intensity of a post-9/11 mission environment while staffing and
resources have remained relatively static. For instance, while
staffing has remained relatively constant at approximately
3,200 special agents since 9/11, there has been a 275-percent
increase in classified message traffic, a 280-percent increase
in Internet threat investigation reviews, and a 650-percent
increase in manhours needed to support protection. Similarly,
identity theft cases and electronic criminal activity have
proliferated through the expansion of the Internet and are now
the fastest growing forms of financial crime. The Secret
Service is currently responsible for three times as many
protectees than it was pre-9/11; is responsible for
establishing, implementing, and executing the operational plans
for the increasingly frequent, expensive, and complex National
Special Security Events (NSSEs); is the lead federal
investigative agency for electronic and financial crime; and is
now supporting critical infrastructure protection, threat
assessment, and cyber security expertise of the Service's
investigators and analysts throughout the entire Department.
The significant increase in the scope of the Secret Service's
dual mission has required the agency to pile a heavy workload
upon its personnel, resulting in unsustainably high levels of
overtime.
The Committee directs the Secret Service to submit a
workload re-balancing report along with the fiscal year 2007
budget request that provides a detailed summary of the steps
the agency will take to achieve a target overtime of no more
than 60 hours per special agent per month. The Committee
believes that workload re-balancing should reflect an equitable
split of special agent time devoted to investigations and
protection of 50 percent to each as well as increased
availability for training.

PROTECTIVE OPERATIONS

Due to the unpredictable nature of the current threat
environment, the Secret Service has developed protective
intelligence and counter surveillance expertise that has worked
as a force multiplier for its protective personnel. These
components complement the service's traditional cadres of
physical security specialists, tactical units, and special
agents, and have become an increasingly important asset in
meeting the growing protective operations workload. In support
of these efforts, the Committee recommends an additional
$12,920,000 to support the costs associated with an increase in
special agents for protective intelligence, the Counter Assault
Team, the Counter Surveillance Unit, and the Presidential and
Vice Presidential Protective Divisions by 60 FTEs; for the
costs associated with an increase in protective intelligence
research specialists by 20 FTEs and for the costs associated
with an increase in physical security specialists by 20 FTEs.

INVESTIGATIONS

Identity theft is now the fastest growing form of financial
crime. Major database intrusions are now occurring at a pace of
almost one per week, resulting in the loss of hundreds of
thousands of personal data profiles and millions of dollars in
financial fraud. As the lead federal agency for financial
crime, the Secret Service has developed a robust set of
technical, legal, and investigative skills to combat this
activity, as demonstrated in the landmark Operation Firewall
that was completed last year. Developed in 2001 pursuant to
Congressional mandate in the USA PATRIOT Act, the Electronic
Crimes Special Agent Program (ECSAP) is the cornerstone of the
Secret Service's electronic crime investigative efforts. There
are currently 13 Electronic Crimes Task Forces (ECTFs) that
receive their primary support through the ECSAP. The Committee
views the ECTFs and the ECSAP as invaluable resources in
support of the financial and electronic crimes investigative
mission of the Secret Service and the Department-wide mission
of providing for the security of critical infrastructure. The
combination of the ECSAP with highly experienced anti-
counterfeiting personnel has made the Secret Service's
investigative directorate one the most technically advanced
entities in the global law enforcement community. In support of
these efforts, the Committee recommends an additional
$8,000,000 for the costs associated with increasing the
staffing of the ECSAP by 50 FTEs.

FOREIGN FIELD OFFICES

Given the rise in cyber security breaches by both foreign
and domestic criminals and the persistent level of
international counterfeiting, the Secret Service has needed to
develop and sustain an overseas presence. Foreign field offices
provide a conduit for joint investigative operations with
foreign law enforcement as well as logistical base of
operations for protectee travel. Currently, the Secret Service
has 42 Special agents assigned to foreign field offices. This
staff faces dramatic increases in the volume of cyber crime and
counterfeit manufacturing originating in foreign countries. The
Committee recognizes the value in the Secret Service's
international operations and recommends $2,400,000 for an
additional 15 FTEs in foreign field office staffing. The Secret
Service is directed to provide, no later than November 1, 2005,
a report detailing where these additional FTEs will be located.
This report should include a comprehensive summary of foreign
field office salaries and expenses and should identify any
impediments to locating agents in desired locations, whether it
is additional staff in a currently operating foreign field
office or staff for a proposed foreign field office.

TRAINING

The Committee is concerned about the training productivity
of the Secret Service given the recent increase in workload.
The Committee is aware of the emphasis that has always been
placed upon training within the culture of the Secret Service
and encourages its continuation. The Committee requests that
the Secret Service submit a report in conjunction with the
fiscal year 2007 budget request that provides statistical
details of training productivity for the period of fiscal year
2000 through fiscal year 2005, including: a complete breakout
of the number of agents trained at the James J. Rowley Training
Center and the purpose for which they received training; the
number, type, and purpose of tactical and specialized training
courses that have been administered; the number and type of
state and local law enforcement officials that have been
trained; and a detailed summary of changes in the training
curriculum for both special agents and state and local
officials. This report should also include an explanation of
the metrics used by the Secret Service to measure training
performance and productivity.

NATIONAL SPECIAL SECURITY EVENTS

The Secret Service has been assigned the responsibility to
lead security planning for National Special Security Events
(NSSEs) such as the Presidential inaugurations, national
political conventions, and other major events designated by the
President or the Secretary. Examples of significant events in
recent years that have been designated as NSSEs include the
2002 Winter Olympics, former President Ronald Reagan's funeral,
and international summits such as the G-8 conference, which
took place in Sea Island, Georgia last June. Unfortunately,
despite the fact that the size, complexity, and expense of
these events has dramatically risen since the inception of the
NSSE designation in the late 1990s, a separate line item to
fund this activity had never been included in a budget request.
As a result, the Secret Service was forced to absorb these
costs within appropriated funds. In fiscal year 2004, four
NSSEs were designated at a cost of over $23,500,000. To date,
fiscal year 2005 NSSE related expenses are $6,755,000--costs
associated with the Presidential inauguration. In order to
address funding uncertainty, the Committee established a
separate appropriation of $5,000,000 in fiscal year 2005. For
fiscal year 2006, the Committee recommends an additional
$5,000,000 for the expenses of planning, preparation, and
execution of security operations for NSSEs. These funds are
made available for two fiscal years. The Secret Service, as
with other protective activity, may use such funds to reimburse
the costs of other federal agencies in support of this mission.
Given that the Secret Service now has years of experience
with NSSEs and should be able to predict their occurrence and
estimated cost, there is little justification for taking money
from other, essential operations and not adequately budgeting
for these types of events. The Committee directs the Secret
Service to submit a NSSE Budgeting Model with the fiscal year
2007 budget request that includes a detailed accounting of the
costs associated with NSSEs, including manpower projections,
resources, technical support, travel, and other related
expenses. This model should not only incorporate the historical
cost data from previous NSSEs, it should also categorize these
events in such a way that the primary variables associated with
NSSEs--including geography, duration, protectees, and the
nature of the given venue or event--are all considered and
weighted accordingly.

ARMORED VEHICLES

The Committee is concerned that the costs associated with
the Primary Limousine Program are not included within the
Secret Service's base budget and that funds from the separate
and distinct Armored Vehicle Program are taken to fund primary
limousines, as needed. Maintenance and repair costs of armored
vehicles are not sustained through the Armored Vehicle Program,
but rather, funded within the Special Services Division (SSD)
and spread across three object classes: supplies, equipment,
and other contractual services. The Committee believes that the
Secret Service needs to develop more comprehensive and
transparent budgeting for both its Primary Limousine Program
and Armored Vehicle Program to facilitate the planning,
procurement, maintenance, and operations of all protective
vehicles. Given the increasing costs and complexity of
protective vehicles, brought upon by the rapid changes in the
threat environment and technical advances in the associated
countermeasures, the Committee believes this to be a core
operating expense and one that demands a greater level of
budgetary planning.

NATIONAL CENTER FOR MISSING AND EXPLOITED CHILDREN (NCMEC)

The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
(NCMEC) was established in 1984 as a private, nonprofit
organization to provide services nationwide for families and
professionals in the prevention of abducted, endangered, and
sexually exploited children. NCMEC involves a partnership among
federal law enforcement, corporate sponsors, commercial media,
and private donors. The Secret Service's assistance to this
cause has been substantial. In fiscal year 2004, the Secret
Service opened 273 criminal cases, conducted 55 polygraph
examinations, and completed 31 forensic examinations.
Additionally in fiscal year 2004, under the Operation Safe Kids
initiative, Secret Service personnel attended 17 events and
fingerprinted 3,965 children. Since 1997, over 40,000 children
have been fingerprinted through Operation Safe Kids. The
Committee believes the contributions made to NCMEC have made a
tremendously positive impact in the lives and well-being of
countless children and encourages the Secret Service to build
upon these noteworthy efforts. The Committee recommends
$7,678,000 in support of this effort, $2,678,000 for support of
investigations and $5,000,000 for grants.

Acquisition, Construction, Improvements, and Related Expenses

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005......................... $3,633,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006....................... 3,699,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 3,699,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2005..................... +66,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006................... - - -

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.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $3,699,000, the same as the budget
request and $66,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year
2005.

JAMES J. ROWLEY TRAINING CENTER MASTER PLAN

In the fiscal year 2004 Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations Bill, the Committee directed the Secret Service
to submit a five-year master plan for the James J. Rowley
Training Center (JJRTC) in Beltsville, Maryland. As submitted,
the master plan did not adequately provide a detailed
assessment of current needs and challenges, or specific
proposals for enhancing the curriculum and facilities to meet
future training requirements. The Committee directs the Secret
Service to re-submit the JJRTC Master Plan along with the
fiscal year 2007 budget. This revised, 5-year plan should
include a detailed breakout of the costs associated with
current needs and challenges; a detailed breakout of the costs
associated with specific proposals for enhancing the curriculum
and facilities; a cost-benefit analysis of a student/trainee
dormitory; the costs associated with the modernization and
refurbishment of the canine training facility; and a detailed
summary of how the JJRTC is supporting other federal agencies,
particularly other DHS agencies. This report should include, at
a minimum, historical data from fiscal year 2004, current year
data from fiscal year 2005, and the five-year master plan for
fiscal years 2006 through 2010.

TITLE III--PREPAREDNESS AND RECOVERY

Office of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness

MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005......................... $3,546,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 \1\................... (47,846,000)
Recommended in the bill................................. 3,546,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2005..................... - - -
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006................... -44,300,000

\1\ Funding for Management and Administration was requested under the
State and Local Programs in fiscal year 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

MISSION

The Office of State and Local Government Coordination and
Preparedness (SLGCP) is responsible for coordinating the
programs and policies of the Department as they relate to State
and local governments, including funding issues and information
sharing.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $3,546,000 for Management and
Administration expenses for the Office of State and Local
Government Coordination (SLGC). Management and Administration
expenses for the Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP) are
provided as a percentage of the State and Local grant programs,
as authorized by Section 1014 of the USA PATRIOT Act. The
President's request included $47,846,000 under the State and
Local Programs. Of the amount requested, $44,300,000 was for
ODP and $3,546,000 was for SLGC. Funding of not to exceed
$2,000 is provided for official reception and representation
expenses.
The Committee understands that the requested level of
funding would allow ODP to hire an additional 36 full time
equivalents (FTEs), for a total of 256 FTEs for fiscal year
2006, including those authorized in the Firefighter Assistance
Grants appropriation. The Committee encourages ODP to hire up
to their authorized level as quickly as possible.

State and Local Programs

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005......................... $3,086,300,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 \1\................... 3,064,756,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 2,781,300,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2005..................... -305,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006................... -283,456,000

\1\ The budget estimate for State and Local Programs includes funding
for Management and Administration and Emergency Management Performance
Grants, which the Committee recommends funding as separate
appropriations in fiscal year 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

MISSION

State and Local Programs provides for building and
sustaining the terrorism 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, high-threat high-density urban
area grants, transit 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 $2,781,300,000 for State and Local
Programs. With these amounts, total funding for ODP is
$3,564,846,000, including $600,000,000 for Firefighter
Assistance Grants, $180,000,000 for Emergency Management
Performance Grants, and $3,546,000 for Management and
Administration. In total, this is $90,000 above the President's
request. With this funding, since fiscal year 2002,
$32,410,000,000 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 public health
preparedness. Of that amount, $13,377,000,000 has been provided
to first responders through ODP, and $3,166,000,000 has been
provided directly to firefighters.
The Committee believes that ODP must continue its vital
program for assisting State and local response agencies to
ensure first responders are prepared to respond in the event of
a terrorist attack. However, the Committee notes that we are at
a turning point in the methodology for administering the first
responder grant program. Historically, funds have been
distributed based on minimum percentages and population. The
Department has also exercised a lack of supervision, while
leaving the States and localities responsible for identifying
terrorist threats and critical infrastructure, creating
strategies to contend with terrorism, determining the types of
equipment to buy and training methods, and assessing
performance and preparedness levels. During this period, ODP
has failed to provide adequate goals, standards, and guidance
for the States and localities to undertake these tasks. With
the implementation of Homeland Security Presidential Directive
8 (HSPD-8), ODP will begin a new methodology for administering
the first responder grant program. Funding will be targeted
based on threat and risk, while targeting gaps in levels of
preparedness. Critical program goals, standards, and criteria
will also be established. A National Preparedness Goal, which
is formally established by HSPD-8, is the means by which all
this will happen. However, the implementation plan for the
National Preparedness Goal is a phased approach, with full
implementation in fiscal year 2007. Because the Department is
at these crossroads, the Committee does not believe it is in
the best interest to continue to increase funding for first
responder grants above the President's request as the Committee
has historically done. Therefore, the Committee recommends the
following amounts for fiscal year 2006 for State and Local
Programs:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
State and Local Programs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Formula Grants:
State Homeland Security Grant Program............ $750,000,000
Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention............. 400,000,000
------------------
Subtotal State Grants:....................... 1,150,000,000

Discretionary Grants:
High-Threat, High-Density Urban Area Grants...... 850,000,000
Port Security.................................... 150,000,000
Rail and Transit Security........................ 150,000,000
Buffer Zone Protection Program................... 50,000,000
Intercity Bus Security........................... 10,000,000
Trucking Security................................ 5,000,000
------------------
Subtotal, Discretionary Grants............... 1,215,000,000

Commercial Equipment Direct Assistance Program....... 50,000,000

National Programs
National Domestic Preparedness Consortium........ 125,000,000
National Exercise Program........................ 52,000,000
Metropolitan Medical Response System............. 40,000,000
Citizen Corps.................................... 40,000,000
Demonstration Training Grants.................... 35,000,000
Continuing Training Grants....................... 30,000,000
Technical Assistance............................. 20,000,000
Evaluations and Assessments...................... 14,300,000
Rural Domestic Preparedness Consortium........... 10,000,000

Subtotal, National Programs.................. 366,300,000
==================
Total, State and Local Programs.............. $2,781,300,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

STATE HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM

The Committee recommends $750,000,000 for State Homeland
Security grants. 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. Any subsequent grant made by a
State shall also be based on that State's approved updated
homeland security strategy. The Committee makes these funds
available to all States on a formula basis, as authorized by
section 1014 of the USA PATRIOT Act, (Public Law 107-56). The
Committee recognizes pending legislation to modify State
formula grants and presumes ODP would distribute funds based on
any successor legislation. Provided no succeeding legislation
to the USA PATRIOT Act is signed into law, ODP shall assess
each State's threat, risk, and need to determine their minimum
essential preparedness capability levels and allocate remaining
funds to address those identified gaps in preparedness. The
Committee directs ODP 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 ODP will act within 90 days of its receipt. The
increased time allowed for State application and ODP review
above previous fiscal years is based on the new methodology by
which these grants will be requested and awarded. States must
identify gaps in levels of preparedness when applying and ODP
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 ODP certified training classes. 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. Not to exceed 3 percent may be used
for administrative expenses.
This level of funding will allow ODP to work with State and
local agencies to address the concerns previously noted and to
begin the process of allocating State funding based on risk,
threat, and need, specifically targeting gaps in preparedness
levels, as directed in HSPD-8. The Committee also notes that
including fiscal year 2005 grants, more than $7,000,000,000 in
first responder funding remains unspent. While this does not
mean that States or localities have not designated funding for
a specific purpose, it does mean that billions of dollars
remains in the pipeline.

LAW ENFORCEMENT TERRORISM PREVENTION GRANTS

The Committee recommends $400,000,000 for State and local
Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention grants and makes these
funds available to all States on a formula basis, as authorized
by section 1014 of the USA PATRIOT Act, (Public Law 107-56).
The Committee recognizes pending legislation to modify State
formula grants and presumes ODP would distribute funds based on
any successor legislation. Provided no succeeding legislation
to the USA PATRIOT Act is signed into law, ODP shall assess
each State's threat, risk, and need to determine their minimum
essential preparedness capability levels and allocate 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 ODP
will act within 90 days of its receipt. The increased time
allowed for State application and ODP review above previous
fiscal years is based on the new methodology by which these
grants will be requested and awarded. States must identify gaps
in levels of preparedness when applying and ODP 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 3 percent
may be used for administrative expenses.
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 it as a separate
grant program. The Committee believes that prevention is a key
component in the fight against terror and is concerned the
grant program would lose its focus if combined with other
preparedness grants. The Committee encourages ODP to continue
to establish a strong terrorism prevention program to serve as
a frontline defense against future terrorist attacks.

DISCRETIONARY GRANTS

The Committee recommends $1,215,000,000 for discretionary
grants under the Urban Area Security Initiative. Not to exceed
3 percent may be used for administrative expenses.

HIGH-THREAT, HIGH-DENSITY URBAN AREA GRANTS

Of the funds recommended for Discretionary Grants, the
Committee provides $850,000,000 for grants to high-threat,
high-density urban areas. 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 ODP will act within 90 days of its
receipt. The increased time allowed for State application and
ODP review above previous fiscal years is based on the new
methodology by which these grants will be requested and
awarded. States must identify gaps in levels of preparedness
when applying and ODP 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. 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 ODP to
continue the practice of reimbursing eligible overtime expenses
as designated in ODP Information Bulletin No. 127, dated August
3, 2004.

PORT SECURITY

Of the funds recommended for Discretionary Grants, the
Committee provides $150,000,000 for Port Security grants. The
President's request combined all infrastructure protection
grants into a single Targeted Infrastructure Protection
Program. The Committee denies this request. The Committee
directs ODP 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 aware and that the
limited resources are maximized.
The Committee is concerned about the effectiveness of the
port security grant program. A recent DHS Inspector General
report (OIG-05-10) criticized the Department for providing
funding to low priority ports and for low priority projects.
The Committee, therefore, has included bill language directing
ODP to work with the Information Analysis and Infrastructure
Protection (IAIP) Directorate to determine the threat
environment at individual ports and with the U.S. Coast Guard
to evaluate each port's vulnerability. The Committee includes
bill language that funds will be directed at those ports with
the highest risk and largest vulnerabilities. In addition,
funding may only be made available for those projects
recommended by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port.
The Committee is aware of the unique training challenges
created by ports. Given the cost and logistics associated with
live exercise disaster training, the Committee encourages ODP,
in conjunction with the Science and Technology Directorate, to
explore the use of high-fidelity reality-based synthetic
environment technology for disaster management and training in
the port environment.

RAIL AND TRANSIT SECURITY

Of the funds recommended for Discretionary Grants, the
Committee provides $150,000,000 for Rail and Transit Security
grants. The President's request combined all infrastructure
protection grants into a single Targeted Infrastructure
Protection Program. The Committee denies this request. The
Committee directs ODP 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.
The Committee is concerned by a recent ODP risk assessment
that highlights the need for redundant transit operations
control abilities in the national capital region to maintain
federal government continuity of operations. The Committee
directs ODP to submit a report no later than January 16, 2006,
on the steps they may take to ensure that this deficiency is
addressed.

BUFFER ZONE PROTECTION PROGAM

Of the funds recommended for Discretionary Grants, the
Committee provides $50,000,000 for the Buffer Zone Protection
Program. The President's request combined all infrastructure
protection grants into a single Targeted Infrastructure
Protection Program. The Committee denies this request. The
Committee directs ODP to continue to work with IAIP to identify
critical infrastructure, assess vulnerabilities at those sites,
and direct funding to gaps in those vulnerabilities.

INTERCITY BUS SECURITY

Of the funds recommended for Discretionary Grants, the
Committee provides $10,000,000 for Intercity Bus Security
grants. The President's request combined all infrastructure
protection grants into a single Targeted Infrastructure
Protection Program. The Committee denies this request.

TRUCKING SECURITY

Of the funds recommended for Discretionary Grants, the
Committee provides $5,000,000 for Trucking Security grants. The
President's request combined all infrastructure protection
grants into a single Targeted Infrastructure Protection
Program. The Committee denies this request.

COMMERCIAL EQUIPMENT DIRECT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

The Committee recommends $50,000,000 for the Commercial
Equipment Direct Assistance Program (CEDAP), $50,000,000 above
the President's request and the same as amounts provided in
fiscal year 2005. This program, formerly known as the
Technology Transfer Program, provides basic technologies, which
are immediately deployable, directly 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. The Committee commends ODP on
its successful implementation of this program, and directs a
report, no later than January 16, 2006, on any proposed changes
to the program. The report shall also include a summary of
current and proposed technologies, feedback received from
recipients, and how ODP coordinates these awards with State and
local governments and their homeland security strategies.

NATIONAL PROGRAMS

The Committee recommends $366,300,000 for National
Programs, $30,000,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year
2005. The President requested $206,910,000 for these programs
under separate accounts.

NATIONAL DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS CONSORTIUM

Of the funds recommended for National Programs, the
Committee provides $125,000,000 for the National Domestic
Preparedness Consortium, $45,000,000 above the President's
request and $10,000,000 below the amounts provided in fiscal
year 2005. Of this amount, the Committee provides $45,000,000
for the Center for Domestic Preparedness, $5,000,000 below the
amounts provided in fiscal year 2005.
The Committee continues to be concerned at the level of
funding requested for first responder training. The
Department's fiscal year 2006 request for all first responder
training programs is $112,000,000 less than last year's enacted
levels. This is the second consecutive year the Department has
proposed to cut first responder training by 57 percent. These
programs ensure the training of hundreds of thousands of first
responders annually. Reducing these funds by the amount in the
President's request would seriously degrade ODP's ability to
train first responders across the Nation. The Committee
strongly encourages the Department to fully fund all first
responder training programs in the future.

NATIONAL EXERCISE PROGRAM

Of the funds recommended for National Programs, the
Committee provides $52,000,000 for the National Exercise
Program, the same as the President's request and the amounts
provided in fiscal year 2005.

METROPOLITAN MEDICAL RESPONSE SYSTEM

Of the funds recommended for National Programs, the
Committee provides $40,000,000 for the Metropolitan Medical
Response System (MMRS), $40,000,000 above the President's
request and $10,000,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal
year 2005. The Committee is concerned that the Department again
did not request funding for this program in fiscal year 2006.
MMRS is a vital system that provides minimal funds directly to
the 124 jurisdictions to bring together local first responders,
medical, public health and emergency managers to respond to and
manage a weapon of mass destruction mass casualty event.

CITIZEN CORPS

Of the funds recommended for National Programs, the
Committee provides $40,000,000 for Citizen Corps, $10,000,000
below the President's request and $25,000,000 above the amounts
provided in fiscal year 2005.

DEMONSTRATION TRAINING GRANTS

Of the funds recommended for National Programs, the
Committee provides $35,000,000 for Demonstration Training
Grants, $35,000,000 above the President's request and
$5,000,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. 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.

COORDINATED PHYSICIAN TRAINING PROGRAM

The Committee believes that the nation's physicians are an
important component in the defense against biological,
chemical, and nuclear attack. Not only are they on the front
line in treating those impacted by such an attack, they may
also prove to be critical in identifying and reporting an
attack through their regular treatment of patients. The
Committee encourages the Department to work with the Department
of Health and Human Services in developing a uniform
educational approach for physicians focusing on standardized
recognition, treatment, and reporting information for possible
biological, chemical, and nuclear attack.

CONTINUING TRAINING GRANTS

Of the funds recommended for National Programs, the
Committee provides $30,000,000 for Continuing Training Grants,
$26,990,000 above the President's request and $5,000,000 above
the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. The Committee agrees
that these grants shall be used to fund current first responder
training programs deemed of national importance by ODP.

REGIONAL FIRST RESPONDER TRAINING

The Committee is aware of the vital role regional training
centers play in equipping first responders to overcome the
myriad of challenges they are called to face. The Committee has
heard numerous times of training backlogs and is concerned that
training needs are not being met expeditiously. Therefore, the
Committee directs ODP to comprehensively assess this training
backlog and whether providing states and localities with
funding targeted to establishing regional first responder
training centers will help meet these needs and provide a
report on their findings no later than January 16, 2006.

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

Of the funds recommended for National Programs, the
Committee provides $20,000,000 for Technical Assistance,
$12,400,000 above the President's request and $10,000,000 below
the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. The Committee
recognizes the importance of interoperable communications
standards, which are critical to the Department's efforts to
improve communications nationally. Therefore the Science and
Technology (S&T;) Directorate shall expedite the development of
these standards, and coordinate with ODP to ensure that ODP's
technical assistance program incorporates these standards, as
appropriate, and as spelled out in the Memorandum of Agreement
between S&T; and SLGCP, signed May 24, 2004, by the Executive
Director of SLGCP and August 9, 2004, by the Under Secretary of
S&T.;
The Committee notes that there is currently no existing
capability for real-time exchange of information at the
regional or interstate levels regarding equipment and supplies
inventory, readiness or the compatibility of equipment.
Therefore, the Committee encourages ODP to review the use of
logistic 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.

EVALUATIONS AND ASSESSMENTS

Of the funds recommended for National Programs, the
Committee provides $14,300,000 for Evaluations and Assessments,
the same as the budget request and the amounts provided in
fiscal year 2005.

RURAL DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS CONSORTIUM

Of the funds recommended for National Programs, the
Committee provides $10,000,000 for the Rural Domestic
Preparedness Consortium (RDPC), $10,000,000 above the
President's request and $5,000,000 above the amounts provided
in fiscal year 2005. The RDPC provides technical assistance and
training relating to weapons of mass destruction 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 ODP to continue the development of specialized and
innovative training curricula for rural first responders and
ensure the coordination of such efforts with existing ODP
training partners.

HOMELAND SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE 8

The Committee commends ODP for its work in implementing
Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8 (HSPD-8). HSPD-8
calls for the creation of a National Preparedness Goal, which
together with the National Incident Management System and the
National Response Plan, define what needs to be done to manage
a major event, how it needs to be done, and how well it needs
to be done. Specifically, under HSPD-8, ODP has developed the
Universal Task List, the Target Capabilities List and the
Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program, which
together will integrate performance and equipment standards
into a capabilities-based planning framework. To help continue
this effort, the Committee directs that ODP complete the
National Preparedness Assessment and Reporting System no later
than April 1, 2006. This system will allow ODP and States to
assess the differing vulnerabilities of a jurisdiction, and
identify what preparedness standard should be reached. The
Committee further directs ODP to issue the final National
Preparedness Goal, including the final Universal Task List and
Target Capabilities List, no later than October 1, 2005.
Consequently, the Committee has included bill language that no
funds can be awarded to States that have not provided an
updated State homeland security strategy based on the interim
National Preparedness Goal, which was issued March 31, 2005.

STATE HOMELAND SECURITY STRATEGIES

Based on the findings of a recent Committee review of first
responder grants, the Committee is aware that many States were
disappointed by the lack of guidance offered by ODP for the
2004 update of State homeland security strategies. The
Committee is also aware of numerous problems associated with
the online data collection tool used by ODP and States to
develop these strategies. In fact, ODP officials have conceded
that less than 50 percent of State security strategies are well
thought out or provide a rational basis for procurements. In
general, States and localities have been allowed to request any
approved equipment item, regardless of the objective behind the
procurement or their ability to operate and sustain it. Because
updated strategies will be required before the award of fiscal
year 2006 funds, the Committee directs ODP to provide proper
guidance to the States, ensure software problems are resolved,
and perform proper review of the updated strategies.

COORDINATION OF FEDERAL GRANTS

Based on the findings of a recent Committee review of first
responder grants, the Committee is concerned that there is a
lack of coordination of all Federal grant programs at the State
level. The Department, in its first annual report on Federal
homeland security preparedness funding, identified 25 programs
providing homeland security funding. Many of these programs
provide funds for similar purposes, which increases the
probability of duplication and inefficiency in procurements. At
the same time, not all States are actively coordinating the use
of the funding. The Committee believes all Federal funding for
homeland security should be coordinated and directs ODP to
include a requirement that States establish an executive level
committee or process to coordinate Federal funding and
eliminate redundant and duplicative Federal funding.

REGIONALIZATION

Based on the findings of a recent Committee review of first
responder grants, the Committee is encouraged that 23 States
have instituted, or are in the process of instituting, some
form of a regional intrastate structure. Such regionalization
allows for greater coordination, streamlined procurement, and
better leveraging of Federal grant dollars. The Committee,
however, is concerned that ODP is not doing enough to encourage
regionalization, both intra and interstate. The Committee
believes regionalization should be a condition of all grants,
not just the urban area grants as ODP currently does.
Therefore, the Committee directs ODP to encourage States to
establish both intra and interstate regionalization efforts in
their fiscal year 2006 grant guidance.

GRANTS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Based on the findings of a recent Committee review of first
responder grants, the Committee is concerned at the lack of
national standards guiding the distribution, tracking, and
oversight of first responder grant funding. In large part, this
stems from the lack of an automated system that would allow for
real time tracking of the distribution and use of first
responder funds. Therefore, the Commitee directs ODP to provide
a report, no later than January 16, 2006, on the requirements,
feasibility, and costs of an automated grants management system
for the States.

AUTHORIZED EQUIPMENT LIST

Based on the findings of a recent Committee review of first
responder grants, the Committee is concerned that, as
authorized equipment lists are updated, prior year grants
cannot be used for the new items. The Committee believes this
may preclude State and local first responders from obtaining
the most recent and advanced equipment available. Therefore,
the Committee directs ODP to review this procedure and provide
a report, no later than January 16, 2006, on the benefits and
detriments to allowing previous year grant funds to be used for
current authorized equipment purchases.

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. In response to a report requested
last fiscal year by this Committee, ODP reported that only 4
percent of first responder grants were awarded to EMS providers
in fiscal year 2004. This is extremely disproportionate as EMS
providers, in conjunction with police and firefighters, are the
primary first responders for medical assistance in the event of
a terrorist attack. Therefore, the Committee directs ODP to
require State and local governments to include EMS
representatives in planning committees as equal partners and to
facilitate a nationwide EMS needs assessment. Further, the
Committee directs that no less than 10 percent of State
Homeland Security Grants and 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 in
the event of a chemical, biological, radiological, or explosive
event.

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 is concerned
that the Department has done little to ensure the inclusion of
all proper participants in State planning and therefore directs
ODP to pay special attention to the inclusion of local
participants in the State planning process while reviewing a
State's updated homeland security strategy prior to fiscal year
2006 grant award.

EQUIPMENT REUSE PROGRAM

The Committee is encouraged by the Department's Homeland
Defense Equipment Reuse (HDER) program, which provides surplus
equipment, as well as training and technical support, to
emergency responder agencies nationwide to enhance their
domestic preparedness capabilities. The Committee is also aware
of non-profit organizations that refurbish old or used
equipment for redeployment to other agencies that may not have
the resources to obtain equipment on their own. Therefore, the
Committee encourages the Department to work with outside
organizations that provide these services to maximize the use
of all serviceable equipment available to our nation's first
responders.

Firefighter Assistance Grants

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005......................... $715,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006....................... 500,000,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 600,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2005..................... -115,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006................... +100,000,000

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 $600,000,000 for Firefighter
Assistance Grants, $100,000,000 above the President's request
and $115,000,000 below the amounts provided in fiscal year
2005. Of this amount, $50,000,000 shall be for firefighter
staffing, as authorized by section 34 of the Federal Fire
Prevention and Control Act of 1974. The Committee directs ODP
to continue current 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 ODP to
maintain an all-hazards focus. The Committee also does not
agree to limit the list of eligible activities, which are
provided in section 2229 of title 15, United States Code. Not
to exceed 5 percent may be used for administrative expenses.
Funds are available until September 30, 2007.

Emergency Management Performance Grants

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005......................... $180,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 \1\................... (170,000,000)
Recommended in the bill................................. 180,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2005..................... - - -
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006................... +10,000,000

\1\ Funding for Emergency Management Performance Grants was requested
under the State and Local Programs in fiscal year 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 $180,000,000 for Emergency
Management Performance Grants, $10,000,000 above the
President's request and the same as amounts provided in fiscal
year 2005. 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
ODP to continue current 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 3 percent may be used for
administrative expenses.
The Committee is concerned about the possible impact of
awarding EMPGs through the State Administrating Agency (SAA) to
the State's emergency management agency and the delay this
process can cause. The Committee directs ODP to work with all
SAAs to ensure these funds reach the emergency management
communities as quickly as possible.

Counterterrorism Fund

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005......................... $8,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006....................... 10,000,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 10,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2005..................... +2,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006................... - - -

MISSION

This appropriation provides funding for unbudgeted and
unanticipated costs associated with support to counter,
investigate or pursue domestic or international terrorism, and
to re-establish the operational capability of an office,
facility, or other property damaged or destroyed as a
consequence of any domestic or international terrorist act.
Funds may be used for reward payments for information to assist
in the pursuit of suspects or networks that support and foster
terrorist activity. Funding may also be used to pay the costs
for officially designated National Special Security Events.
These funds are available to the extent that prior notification
is given to the Committees on Appropriations in accordance with
guidelines on reprogramming and transfer of funds.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for the
Counterterrorism Fund, the same as the budget request and
$2,000,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005.

Office of the Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005......................... $4,211,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006....................... 4,306,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 2,306,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2005..................... -1,905,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006................... -2,000,000

MISSION

The Office of the Under Secretary for Emergency
Preparedness and Response (EP&R;) is responsible for
coordinating Federal disaster relief activities, including
implementation of the National Response Plan, which authorizes
the response and recovery operations of 26 federal agencies and
departments as well as the American Red Cross. This office also
oversees the National Flood Insurance Program and the U.S. Fire
Administration as well as initiates proactive mitigation
activities. Additionally, this office supports response
capabilities of emergency responders and the direction of the
National Disaster Medical System, the Mobile Emergency Response
System, and the Nuclear Incident Response Team. In addition to
its headquarters office, EP&R; has ten regional offices and two
area offices.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $2,306,000 for the Office of the
Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response,
$2,000,000 below the President's request and $1,905,000 below
the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005.

CONGRESSIONAL INTERACTION

The Committee is concerned with the lack of cooperation
received from EP&R;, specifically regional and field offices,
while working with this Committee and other Members of Congress
to execute Congressional direction. Regional offices have
continually adjusted their interpretation of Committee report
language in several instances in an apparent attempt to avoid
execution. On one specific occasion, this process stretched
over several months as the Committee tried to address the
regional office's continually changing responses. It appears
that interpretations of report language, codes, and regulations
are being routinely changed to avoid following Congressional
direction. To demonstrate the seriousness of this Committee
with regards to the importance of following Congressional
direction contained in report language, the Committee
recommends a $2,000,000 reduction to the Office of the Under
Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response.

Preparedness, Mitigation, Response and Recovery

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005......................... $239,499,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006....................... 235,499,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 249,499,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2005..................... +10,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006................... +14,000,000

MISSION

The Preparedness, 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 $249,499,000 for Preparedness,
Mitigation, Response, and Recovery activities, $14,000,000
above the President's request and $10,000,000 above the amounts
provided in fiscal year 2005.

NATIONAL INCIDENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Of the amounts recommended for Preparedness, Mitigation,
Response, and Recovery, $25,000,000 is provided for the
implementation of the National Incident Management System
(NIMS), $10,000,000 above the President's request and
$10,000,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. The
Committee is encouraged by EP&R;'s implementation efforts to
date. NIMS, in conjunction with the National Preparedness Goal
and the National Response Plan, defines what needs to be done
to manage a major event, how it needs to be done, and how well
it should be done. Specifically, it will provide standardized
training, organization, and communication procedures for multi-
jurisdictional interaction. The Committee commends EP&R; for its
work, and directs them to use the recommended $10,000,000
increase to continue to implement NIMS nationwide, with a focus
specifically on standards identification, testing and
evaluation of equipment, and gap and lessons learned
identification.

EMERGENCY STRUCTURES

The Committee recommends $4,000,000 for rapidly deployable
expandable structures for primary use as temporary
infrastructure in response to a disaster. The Department is
strongly encouraged to begin to utilize these new structures to
address infrastructure needs, such as offices, schools, medical
centers, and other public buildings. The Committee believes
that innovative and higher quality structures could provide
substantial cost-savings over time to the Federal government
through effective multiple reuse, and will enhance current
response and recovery activities well beyond the semi-
disposable products currently being used. The Committee directs
EP&R; to begin using these structures at the earliest possible
date and to ensure that emergency housing and infrastructure
requirements are submitted with their fiscal year 2007 budget
request.

NATIONAL EMERGENCY COMMUNICATION SYSTEM

The Committee is aware of several ongoing demonstration
programs studying emergency communications. EP&R; is currently
studying the use of public television digital broadcasting
technology to provide secure, time-sensitive communications for
Federal, State and local governments. EP&R; was also directed in
the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 to
conduct a pilot study for issuing public warnings using a
system that is similar to the AMBER Alert communications
network. The Committee directs EP&R; to provide a report on the
status of these pilot programs and the overall status of
upgrading the Nation's emergency communication system,
including milestones and timelines, no later than January 16,
2006.

INTEROPERABILITY

The Committee is concerned about the interoperability of
Federal assets responding to a major event. For example,
multiple Urban Search and Rescue (US&R;) teams from across the
Nation may respond to an event. It is imperative that these
Federal assets be able to seamlessly communicate with each
other. Likewise, any Federal asset responding to an incident
must have the ability to communicate with State and local
officials and first responders. Therefore, the Committee
directs EP&R; to report, no later than January 16, 2006, on the
interoperability of the national US&R; teams and Federal
communications with States and locals during an incident.

CATASTROPHIC PLANNING

The Committee is aware that EP&R; is developing major
hurricane, and other natural and manmade disaster emergency
response and shelter plans for major urban areas along the Gulf
of Mexico and the Atlantic Coasts and encourages EP&R; to
finalize this initiative prior to hurricane season.

SCHOOL EMERGENCY KITS

In the aftermath of the attack on the school in Beslan,
Chechnya the Committee is concerned with the level of
preparedness for a terrorist attack in our Nation's schools and
encourages the Department to develop standards for school
emergency kits which would prepare students, teachers and
administrators for a possible biological, chemical and nuclear
attack and other weather related emergencies. These kits should
also contain appropriate materials and resources for parents
and local first responders to assist in the education of
students in how to properly respond to an attack or natural
disaster.

Administrative and Regional Operations

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005......................... $202,939,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006....................... 218,441,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 225,441,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2005..................... +22,502,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006................... +7,000,000

MISSION

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 $225,441,000 for Administrative
and Regional Operations, $7,000,000 above the President's
request and $22,502,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal
year 2005. Of these amounts, the Committee directs EP&R; to
provide $7,000,000 to continue its Document Management Support
Program, an effort to archive key agency documents by
digitization to optical disks. Funding of not to exceed $2,000
is provided for official reception and representation expenses.

HIRING FREEZE

The Committee understands that, despite being funded for
945 FTEs, EP&R; can only fill 858 positions due to unbudgeted
Department-wide obligations for fiscal year 2005. This hiring
freeze is a direct result of an $18,501,425 bill for
Department-wide services and Working Capital Fund payments,
both of which were unknown during the fiscal year 2005 budget
formulation. The Committee understands that a similar payment
will be due in fiscal year 2006, but is again unbudgeted due to
the Department's inability to provide timely estimates, and
will likely result in another hiring freeze. The Committee is
disappointed that the Department cannot provide timely
estimates for payments of such services and directs EP&R; to
provide a report on the impact of a second consecutive year
under a hiring freeze on emergency preparedness, mitigation,
response, and recovery efforts. This report shall include what
steps EP&R; has taken to ensure the costs are budgeted for in
fiscal year 2007 and is due no later than January 16, 2006.

Public Health Programs

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005......................... $34,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006....................... 34,000,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 34,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2005..................... - - -
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006................... - - -

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 $34,000,000 for Public Health
Programs, the same as the budget request and the amounts
provided in fiscal year 2005.

Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005......................... $-1,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006....................... -1,266,000
Recommended in the bill................................. -1,266,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2005..................... -266,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006................... - - -

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 $1,266,000
in fiscal year 2006.

Disaster Relief

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 \1\..................... $8,542,380,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006....................... 2,140,000,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 2,023,900,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2005..................... -6,518,480,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006................... -116,100,000

\1\ Funding includes PL 108-324 emergency appropriations of
$6,500,000,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

MISSION

The Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate 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 provide 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 which sponsors projects to diminish effects of
future disasters; and disaster management, such as disaster
field office staff and automated data processing support.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $2,023,900,000 for the Disaster
Relief fund, $116,100,000 below the President's request and
$6,518,480,000 below the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005.
The Committee does not agree to include bill language amending
the Stafford Act for States that implement an Enhanced
Mitigation Plan. Such a change is an authorizing issue and is
properly addressed by the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.

DISASTER RELIEF OVERPAYMENTS

The Committee has received numerous reports on the misuse
of funds in disasters over the past year and is concerned that
EP&R; may not employ appropriate controls over disaster relief
funding. For example, it was recently reported that EP&R; is
asking 7,300 people in Florida to return Federal disaster
assistance funds that should never have been provided in the
first place. Therefore, the Committee directs EP&R; to provide a
comprehensive report, no later than March 15, 2006, on the
overpayments made and recovered for the major disaster
declarations of the past four years. This report should include
analysis of additional safeguards that may be employed to
prevent overpayments.

Disaster Assistance Direct Loan Program Account

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005......................... $567,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006....................... 567,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 567,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2005..................... - - -
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006................... - - -

LIMITATION ON DIRECT LOANS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005......................... $25,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006....................... 25,000,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 25,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2005..................... - - -
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006................... - - -

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.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $25,000,000 for the limitation on
direct loans from the Disaster Assistance Direct Loan Program
pursuant to section 319 of the Stafford Act, and $567,000 for
administrative expenses of the program, the same as the budget
request.

Flood Map Modernization Fund

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005......................... $200,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006....................... 200,068,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 200,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2005..................... - - -
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006................... -68,000

MISSION

The mission of the Flood Map Modernization Program is to
modernize and digitize the Emergency Preparedness and Response
Directorate's 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 $200,000,000 for the Flood Map
Modernization Fund, $68,000 below the President's request and
the same as amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. The Committee
directs EP&R; 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 EP&R; to
provide funding to update the flood maps of the following:
Craighead, Arkansas, and Lonoke counties in Arkansas; Abilene,
Texas; Union, Randolph, and Forsyth counties in North Carolina;
and Floyd, Pulaski, and Martin counties in Kentucky. Not to
exceed 3 percent may be used for administrative expenses. Funds
are available until expended.
The Committee understands that this 5-year, $1,000,000,000
program will not update all flood maps; some maps will merely
be converted to a digital format. The Committee is concerned
that this program was originally portrayed as a means to update
all of the Nation's flood maps. Because this is not the case,
the Committee directs EP&R; to provide a report, no later than
January 16, 2006, on the percentage of maps that will be
updated, not merely transferred to a digital format, and the
percentage of population that the updated maps cover.

National Flood Insurance Fund

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 \1\..................... ($112,593,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 \1\................... (123,854,000)
Recommended in the bill \1\............................. (185,854,000)
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2005..................... +73,261,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006................... +62,000,000

\1\ Fully offset by fee collections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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
Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate. 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 $36,496,000, the same as the budget request; not to
exceed $40,000,000 for severe repetitive loss property
mitigation expenses under section 1361A of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968, $40,000,000 above the budget request;
not to exceed $10,000,000 for a repetitive loss property
mitigation pilot program under section 1323 of the Act,
$10,000,000 above the budget request; and not to exceed
$99,358,000 for flood mitigation activities, $12,000,000 above
the President's request. Total funding of $185,854,000 is
offset by premium collections. The Committee also includes a
limitation of $40,000,000 for expenses under section 1366 of
the Act, $12,000,000 above the President's request, which shall
be available for transfer to the National Flood Mitigation
Fund. Flood mitigation funds are available until September 30,
2007, and funds for mitigation activities associated with
section 1361A are available until expended.

National Flood Mitigation Fund

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005......................... $20,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006....................... 28,000,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 40,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2005..................... +20,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006................... +12,000,000

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 $40,000,000 for the National Flood
Mitigation Fund, $12,000,000 above the President's request and
$20,000,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005, to
be derived by transfer from the National Flood Insurance
Program. The increase is provided as authorized by section 1367
of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended by
section 102 of the Bunning-Bereuter-Blumenauer Flood Insurance
Reform Act of 2004. Funds are available until September 30,
2007.

National Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005......................... $100,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006....................... 150,062,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 150,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2005..................... +50,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006................... -62,000

MISSION

The National Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund assists States
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 $150,000,000 for the National Pre-
Disaster Mitigation Fund, $62,000 below the President's request
and $50,000,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005.
Not to exceed 3 percent may be used for administrative
expenses. Funds are available until expended.

PRE-DISASTER HURRICANE MITIGATION INITIATIVE

Considering the loss of property and life due to the severe
hurricane conditions experienced in the Southeastern United
States last year, the Committee supports EP&R;'s coordination
with State and local governments to develop pre-disaster
hurricane plans. The Committee is aware of a number of existing
technologies that provide increased protection to physical
structures and encourages EP&R; to work closely with the private
sector to determine various technologies, which will provide
either passive or active protection to physical structures.
Specific attention should be given to windows or other aspects
of a structure that may be particularly lethal or destructive
in hurricane conditions.

Emergency Food and Shelter

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005......................... $153,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006....................... 153,000,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 153,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2005..................... - - -
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006................... - - -

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 22-year history.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $153,000,000 for the Emergency
Food and Shelter program, the same as the budget request and as
the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. Not to exceed 3.5
percent may be used for administrative expenses. Funds are
available until expended.

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

Citizenship and Immigration Services

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005......................... $160,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006....................... 80,000,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 120,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2005..................... -40,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006................... +40,000,000

MISSION

The mission of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
(CIS) is to process all immigrant and non-immigrant benefits
provided to visitors of the United States, promote national
security as it relates to immigration issues, eliminate
immigration adjudication backlogs, and implement solutions to
improve immigration customer services. While essentially a
service organization, CIS maintains substantial records and
data that are relevant to both the individuals who seek
immigration benefits, as well as for law enforcement and other
homeland security purposes.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $120,000,000 for Citizenship and
Immigration Services, an increase of $40,000,000 above the
President's request and $40,000,000 below the amounts provided
in fiscal year 2005. This increase supports the information
technology transformation requirements for CIS, including
efforts to digitize the active alien files that are currently
handled in paper form, and continuation of digitizing old
records as part of the Historical Records project.

CIS REGIONAL SERVICE CENTERS

The Committee is pleased to see that there has been some
reduction in backlogs for immigration services applications,
but is concerned that this not be lost when the backlog
initiative ends after fiscal year 2006. The Committee
understands that CIS will streamline some of its processing
among the four processing centers so as to gain some
efficiencies and yet retain capacity for different benefit
processing at a minimum of two sites. Because the Committee
wants to ensure that CIS has the capacity to keep up with
incoming workload, and in light of the potential impact of such
initiatives as a temporary worker program, the Committee
directs CIS to report not later than January 16, 2006, on the
costs and benefits of adding a fifth regional service center.
The report should take into account the impact of automation on
its workload and system operation, its ability to use term
employees and temporary capacity to respond to surges in
workload, and physical constraints or features (such as
location) of existing and potential sites.

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY TRANSFORMATION

The Committee has provided $40,000,000 for CIS' information
technology (IT) transformation efforts. The Committee believes
that all work in this area must align with the Department's
enterprise architecture. The intensive administrative workload
and documentation associated with the mission of CIS makes the
agency ideally suited to apply technology and considerably
improve its efficiency and productivity. However, the Committee
is determined to prevent a haphazard approach to IT
investments. As stated under the heading of the Chief
Information Officer, the intent of the Committee is to fully
leverage and optimize the potential contribution of IT
investments in meeting the homeland security mission, while
controlling IT investment costs, maintaining schedules, and
delivering capabilities. Therefore, the Committee directs the
Director of CIS to submit a report to the Committee on the
agency's information technology efforts and how these
activities align with DHS' enterprise architecture standards
within 90 days of enactment of this Act.

BORDER CROSSING CARDS

The Border Crossing Card (BCC), also known as the laser
visa, used by Mexican citizens and residents to commute across
the U.S. border, continues to be in great demand. With the
deployment of biometric verification system (BVS) readers at
U.S. ports of entry, and implementation of capacity through US-
VISIT to read the information on such documents, the Committee
believes it is important that there be an adequate supply of
new and replacement cards to permit full use of the
capabilities of the BCC as a border security technology.

LEGAL PERMANENT RESIDENT CARDS

The Committee understands that the future use of legal
permanent resident (LPR) cards will involve maintaining a link
to biometric information contained in databases of the
Department, including US-VISIT. The Committee directs the
Department to submit a report not later than January 16, 2006,
on the technical and financial issues involved in adding
biometric verification as a feature of the LPR card.

USER FEE FUNDED PROGRAMS

Current estimates of examination fee collections, which
constitute the majority of CIS offsetting resources, are
$1,774,000,000. These would support adjudication of
applications for immigration benefits and be derived from fees
collected from persons applying for immigration benefits.
Within the fees collected, the Committee directs CIS to provide
not less than $47,000,000 to support the National Customer
Service Center operations, and not to exceed $5,000 shall be
available for official reception and representation expenses.

EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZATION DOCUMENTS (EADS)

The Committee understands that CIS issued an interim rule
in July 2004 to permit applicants for immigration some relief
from the prior requirement that they have their EADs renewed
annually. In order to see the impact of this rule, the
Committee directs CIS to report not later than January 16,
2006, on its analysis of the impact of this rule, to include
the size of the affected applicant population, any impact on
CIS backlogs, costs or staff workload; and, if known, the
impact on applicants who previously were forced to change jobs
due to the uncertainty of their work authorization status.

BASIC PILOT PROGRAM

The Committee is aware that the Basic Pilot program, a
voluntary program authorized under the Immigration and
Nationality Act, permits employers to check with CIS to
determine if new employees are legally allowed to work in the
United States. This is voluntary for most employers, and free
of charge. In practice, however, most employers do not
participate in the program and CIS could not now accommodate
verification requests from all US employers. The Committee is
interested in knowing the implications of making such
verification of the status of new employees mandatory for
employers, and requests that CIS submit a comprehensive report
not later than January 16, 2006, that outlines the issues
involved in requiring all United States employers to
electronically check the legal work status of all new
employees. The report should include the costs of such a
requirement, options and impediments to charging a user fee for
such service, and any plans for instituting such a requirement.

ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION

CIS and the Department of State share information in the
course of conducting background checks and verifying lawful
permanent residency and citizenship status. To better
understand their ability to share such information
electronically, the Committee directs CIS to report not later
than January 16, 2006, on the nature of the connections that
CIS and the State Department use to communicate inquiries. To
the extent there are any issues in technical compatibility that
limit the ability of CIS and the Department of State to
exchange information, the report should identify them and the
cost to correct them.

SPANISH LANGUAGE PROGRAMS

The Committee is aware that CIS programs such as the
National Customer Service Center provide nationwide telephone
assistance to customers calling from within the United States
about immigration services and benefits; information is
available in English and Spanish. The Committee encourages CIS
to continue to support programs that provide Spanish-speaking
residents with information and assistance related to
naturalization and citizenship.

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. The following table displays how
the Committee expects these fees will be applied:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjudication Services (Fee Account):
Pay and benefits................................. $607,000,000
District Operations.............................. 389,000,000
Service Center Operations........................ 260,000,000
Asylum, Refugee and International Operations..... 74,000,000
Records Operations............................... 66,000,000
------------------
Subtotal, Adjudication Services.............. 1,396,000,000
Information and Customer Services:
Pay and benefits................................. 80,000,000
National Customer Service Center................. 47,000,000
Information Services............................. 14,000,000
------------------
Subtotal, Information and Customer Service... 141,000,000
Administration:
Pay and benefits................................. 44,000,000
Operating Expenses............................... 193,000,000
------------------
Subtotal, Administration..................... 237,000,000
==================
Total, Citizenship and Immigration Services.. 1,774,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005......................... $177,440,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006....................... 183,362,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 194,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2005..................... +16,560,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006................... +10,638,000

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 81 federal agencies with personnel located
throughout the United States and its territories. The Center
also provides services to state, local, and international law
enforcement agencies, and on a space available basis, other
federal agencies with missions related to law enforcement.
FLETC is headquartered in Glynco, GA with sister facilities
in Artesia, NM and Charleston, SC. A training facility in
Cheltenham, MD, is intended to provide in-service and re-
qualification training for officers and agents in the
Washington, D.C. area.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $194,000,000 for FLETC, an
increase of $10,638,000 above the President's request and
$16,560,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005.
This increase supports the increased training needs of the
Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Acquisition, Construction, Improvements, and Related Expenses

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005......................... $44,917,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006....................... 40,636,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 64,743,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2005..................... +19,826,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006................... +24,107,000

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 $64,743,000 for FLETC Acquisition,
Construction, Improvements, and Related Expenses, $24,107,000
above the budget request and $19,826,000 above the amounts
provided in fiscal year 2005. This increase is to support
increased facility needs for the Border Patrol and Immigration
and Customs Enforcement expansion.

Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection

MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005......................... $132,064,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006....................... 204,005,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 198,200,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2005..................... +66,136,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006................... -5,805,000

MISSION

This account provides funding for the salaries and expenses
of the Federal employees in the Information Analysis and
Infrastructure Protection (IAIP) Directorate.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $198,200,000 for Management and
Administration, $5,805,000 below the President's request and
$66,136,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005.
This includes $6,878,000 for the Office of the Under Secretary
and $191,322,000 for other salaries and expenses. Of these
amounts, the Committee recommends no more than $5,000 may be
used for official reception and representation expenses.

STAFFING LEVELS

The Committee's recommendation includes a $5,805,000
reduction to $11,700,000 requested for half-year funding of 146
new fulltime equivalents (FTEs) proposed by the President.
Based on the current hiring schedule, IAIP will already fall 60
FTEs short of their fiscal year 2005 authorized FTE level. The
reduction also considers the possible shift in the focus of the
mission of IAIP. Following the passage of the Intelligence
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, the creation of
the National Counter Terrorism Center (NCTC) and the Terrorist
Screening Center (TSC), IAIP has seen the scope of its national
intelligence mission reduced. For example, the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 and Executive Order 13311 of July 29,
2003, placed the Secretary of Homeland Security in charge of
information sharing systems for homeland security information,
specifically authorizing the Secretary to implement procedures
under which relevant Federal agencies share homeland security
information with appropriate Federal, State, and local
personnel. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act
of 2004, however, created an Information Sharing Environment,
whose Program Manager's responsibility it is to provide the
means for sharing terrorism information among all appropriate
Federal, State, local, and tribal entities, and the private
sector.
The Committee feels it would be imprudent to continue to
add personnel until a review of the future mission for IAIP and
reconciliation of these contradictory authorizations is
completed. The Committee therefore directs the Department to
review the mission and functions of IAIP in light of the
passage of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act
of 2004, the creation of the NCTC and TSC, and provide a report
no later than January 16, 2006, on the future role IAIP will
have in the intelligence community. The Department should
include in this review how they reconcile the requirements of
the Homeland Security Act of 2002 with those in the
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 and
any recommended changes in IAIP's focus or mission, staffing,
and organizational structure.

Assessments and Evaluations

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005......................... $761,644,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006....................... 669,240,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 663,240,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2005..................... -98,404,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006................... -6,000,000

MISSION

The Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection
(IAIP) Directorate is the focal point of intelligence and
infrastructure protection operations within the Department of
Homeland Security. Specifically, this activity includes the
identification and assessment of current and future threats to
the homeland, mapping of those threats against our
vulnerabilities, issuance of timely warnings, and preventative
and protective action. In addition to the Information Analysis
and Infrastructure Protection branches, IAIP also includes the
Homeland Security Operations Center (HSOC) and divisions
devoted to cyber security and the National Communications
System. IAIP serves as the Department's conduit to the
Intelligence Community and is a full partner and consumer of
all intelligence-generating agencies, such as the National
Security Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency and the
Federal Bureau of Investigations. IAIP also works with
localities by administering the Homeland Security Advisory
System.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $663,240,000 for Assessments and
Evaluations, $6,000,000 below the President's request and
$98,404,000 below the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005.
Funds are available until September 30, 2007. A comparison of
the budget estimate to the Committee recommendation by budget
activity level is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessments and Evaluations Budget Estimate Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Critical Infrastructure Outreach $67,177,000 $62,177,000
and Partnerships.................
Critical Infrastructure 72,173,000 77,173,000
Identification and Evaluation....
National Infrastructure Simulation 16,000,000 16,000,000
and Analysis Center..............
Protective Actions................ 91,399,000 91,399,000
Biosurveillance................... 11,147,000 10,147,000
Cyber Security.................... 73,349,000 73,349,000
National Security/Emergency 142,632,000 142,632,000
Preparedness Telecommunications..
Threat Determination and 19,900,000 19,900,000
Assessments......................
Infrastructure Vulnerabilities and 74,347,000 74,347,000
Risk Assessments.................
Evaluations and Studies........... 34,526,000 34,526,000
Homeland Security Operations 61,108,000 56,108,000
Center (HSOC)....................
Information Sharing and 5,482,000 5,482,000
Collaboration....................
-------------------------------------
Total, Assessments and $669,240,000 $663,240,000
Evaluations..................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE OUTREACH AND PARTNERSHIPS

Of the funds recommended for Assessments and Evaluations,
the Committee provides $62,177,000 for Critical Infrastructure
Outreach and Partnerships, $5,000,000 below the President's
request and $44,415,000 below the amounts provided in fiscal
year 2005. The private sector owns and operates more than 85
percent of the Nation's critical infrastructure and key
resources. Consequently, public-private cooperation is
paramount. The goals of these partnerships include improving
national planning, sharing protective actions, and enhancing
outreach, education, training, and awareness. IAIP accomplishes
these efforts through programs such as the National
Infrastructure Coordinating Center, which maintains operational
awareness of the National's critical infrastructures and key
resources and provides a mechanism and process for information
sharing and coordination; the Protected Critical Infrastructure
Information program, which provides assurance to private sector
companies that information voluntarily submitted to the
Department will be protected from release to the general
public; the National Infrastructure Protection Plan, which
provides the framework for implementing a coordinated, national
infrastructure protection effort; and the Homeland Security
Information Network-Critical Sector, which provides a secure
national communication platform for all 13 critical
infrastructure and 4 key resource sectors. The Committee notes
that IAIP has failed to provide the report requested in House
Report 108-541, on the Information Sharing and Analysis Centers
(ISACs). Fully functional ISACs are critical to enhance IAIP's
efforts to protect critical infrastructure. However, the
Committee is unable to determine the level of ISAC support
provided without this report. Therefore, the Committee
recommends a $5,000,000 reduction to the Critical
Infrastructure Outreach and Partnerships program for lack of
responsiveness to Congressional direction.

CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION

Of the funds recommended for Assessments and Evaluations,
the Committee provides $77,173,000 for Critical Infrastructure
Identification and Evaluation (CIIE), $5,000,000 above the
President's request and $688,000 below the amounts provided in
fiscal year 2005. The mission of CIIE is to carry out
comprehensive vulnerability assessments of critical
infrastructure and key assets by identifying and analyzing
assets and their vulnerabilities, developing protective
methodologies and guidelines, and supporting special events. To
accomplish these objectives, CIIE provides Protective Security
Advisors to 60 urban areas to act as a local community liaison,
verify assets submitted for inclusion to the National Asset
Database (NADB), validate implementation of protective
measures, convey threat advisories and specific warning
information, and provide and coordinate critical infrastructure
training; deploys Field Security Detachments to conduct site
assistance visits and assist local law enforcement agencies in
developing and implementing Buffer Zone Protection Plans;
collates and catalogs common vulnerabilities and potential
indicators of terrorist activities collected from site
assistance visits; deploys Protective Security Task Forces
during times of heightened alert to provide specialized
security augmentation to designated high value, critical
infrastructure targets and events; and maintains the NADB,
which catalogues critical infrastructure nationwide.

COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW

The Committee commends IAIP for its initial work on the
Comprehensive Review of commercial nuclear reactors and
associated spent fuel storage facilities. This review process
is designed to take a holistic approach to looking at
individual commercial nuclear power plant security, general
vulnerabilities, consequences of an attack, and associated
local, State, and Federal preparedness and security plans. The
review will include representatives from the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, U.S. Coast Guard, Federal Aviation Administration,
the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, and local first responders and
key officials. Comprehensive reviews will eventually be
conducted across the Nation's 17 critical infrastructure and
key resource sectors, with the goal of reducing the Nation's
vulnerability to terrorism. The Committee recommends an
additional $5,000,000 for IAIP to begin the expansion of the
Comprehensive Review process beyond commercial nuclear power
plants to other high value sectors, such as chemical and
liquefied natural gas. The Committee directs IAIP to provide a
report (classified if necessary) on the progress of the
Comprehensive Review no later than January 16, 2006, including
progress to date, a summary of the findings, action plans for
addressing vulnerabilities (especially spent nuclear fuel
storage), and a plan for expansion to other high value sectors.

PROTECTIVE SECURITY FIELD OPERATIONS

The Committee is encouraged by the 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 therefore
directs the continuation of the 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 understands that IAIP has identified almost
300 chemical manufacturing facilities that could impact over
50,000 people if attacked, and over 3,000 manufacturing
facilities that could impact over 1,000 people. The Committee
believes that, as the lead Federal agency responsible for
chemical security, the Department must renew its focus to
develop a comprehensive national chemical security strategy and
complete vulnerability assessments at all chemical facilities
of highest concern. Therefore, the Committee directs IAIP to
complete such vulnerability assessments by December 2006 either
by conducting such assessments themselves or reviewing
assessments already completed; to establish a national chemical
security strategy; and to work with chemical facilities to
ensure best practices, common characteristics and
vulnerabilities, and lessons learned are shared throughout the
sector.

INFRASTRUCTURE MAPPING

The Committee is aware of local and regional efforts to map
specific sectors of critical infrastructure, such as gas and
oil pipelines. Such products will assist first responders and
repair workers in identifying vulnerabilities and associated
risks and will aide their ability to quickly respond to
incidents. The Committee is aware that the Department of
Transportation is responsible for the safety and mapping of all
interstate transmission lines and encourages IAIP to
collaborate and assist as appropriate.

PROTECTIVE ACTIONS

Of the funds recommended for Assessments and Evaluations,
the Committee provides $91,399,000 for Protective Actions, the
same as the President's request and $100,248,000 below the
amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. The Protective Actions
program works with Federal, State, local, and private sector
organizations to implement protection strategies, such as the
buffer zone protection plans to protect infrastructure and
assets from attack. This program provides training to State
Homeland Security Advisors and their State and local law
enforcement personnel on how to protect their own critical
infrastructure sites in a more effective and consistent manner.
The Committee supports the work of IAIP with the Protective
Security Analysis Center to provide a more accurate,
comprehensive, and real-time common operating picture. The
Committee encourages IAIP to continue this effort to enable the
targeted deployment of improved protective actions.

BUFFER ZONE PROTECTION PLAN

The Committee recommends that grant funding for the Buffer
Zone Protection Program be transferred to the Office for
Domestic Preparedness, as proposed in the President's request.
The Committee directs IAIP to continue to work with ODP to
identify critical infrastructure, assess vulnerabilities at
those sites, and direct funding to gaps in those
vulnerabilities.

AGRICULTURE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENTS

The Committee encourages the Department to coordinate with
the Department of Agriculture and private industry in expanding
agriculture producer vulnerability assessments, and to support
development of certified and on-farm security assessment
protocols tailored to the various livestock sectors and
production systems.

BIOSURVEILLANCE

Of the funds recommended for Assessments and Evaluations,
the Committee provides $10,147,000 for Biosurveillance,
$1,000,000 below the President's request and $853,000 below the
amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. Biosurveillance is an
interdepartmental program designed to improve the Federal
government's capability to rapidly identify and characterize a
potential bioterrorist attack. The IAIP mission in this program
is to integrate real-time biosurveillance data with relevant
threat information into a comprehensive system that provides a
real-time operating picture. The Committee is concerned that
IAIP has not provided the classified report requested in House
Report 108-541. This report would have provided the scope,
cost, schedule and key milestones for IAIP's portion of the
Biosurveillance initiative. The Committee recommends a
$1,000,000 reduction to the Biosurveillance program for lack of
responsiveness to Congressional direction.

CYBER SECURITY

Of the funds recommended for Assessments and Evaluations,
the Committee provides $73,349,000 for Cyber Security, the same
as the budget request and $5,969,000 above the amounts provided
in fiscal year 2005. 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 Computer
Emergency Readiness Team. 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 supports cyber
programs that enhance the Department's Cyber Security program's
ability to build capacity for Federal, State, and local
operational end-users.

NATIONAL SECURITY/EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS

Of the funds recommended for Assessments and Evaluations,
the Committee provides $142,632,000 for the National Security/
Emergency Preparedness Telecommunications program, the same as
the budget request and $1,877,000 below the amounts provided in
fiscal year 2005. This program supports mission-critical
national security and emergency preparedness communications for
the Federal, State, local, and tribal governments, and private
industry.

WIRELESS PRIORITY SERVICE

The Committee recognizes that Wireless Priority Service
(WPS) provides a critical communications link between National
Security/Emergency Preparedness personnel and key government
officials in the event of a national crisis. The Committee,
therefore, encourages the Department to take into consideration
whether an entity is a WPS provider in the awarding of federal
wireless telecommunications contracts.

HOMELAND SECURITY OPERATIONS CENTER

Of the funds recommended for Assessments and Evaluations,
the Committee provides $56,108,000 for the Homeland Security
Operations Center (HSOC), $5,000,000 below the President's
request and $21,108,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal
year 2005. The HSOC serves as the primary national level hub
for operational communications, information sharing and
situational awareness for all information pertaining to
domestic incident management. It accomplishes this mission by
receiving and integrating threat information with a detailed
mapping of the Nation's critical infrastructure to provide an
accurate and timely common operating picture, and enabling
information sharing and collaboration among Federal, State,
tribal, local, and private sector entities through the Homeland
Security Information Network. The Committee is concerned that
IAIP has not provided the 5-year HSOC implementation plan
requested in House Report 108-541, yet is being asked to
provide more than $26,000,000 above fiscal year 2005. Without
the implementation plan, the Committee cannot determine if the
requested increase in funding is the most efficient use of the
limited resources available. Therefore, the Committee
recommends a $5,000,000 reduction to the HSOC for lack of
responsiveness to Congressional direction.

HOMELAND SECURITY INFORMATION NETWORK

The Committee is encouraged with IAIP's implementation of
the Homeland Security Information Network (HSIN), which is the
primary information sharing and collaboration tool for all
levels of government and private sector that provides a
reliable, uniform platform to encourage information sharing and
collaboration between all parties engaged in the security of
the homeland. The Committee understands that the increase in
funding requested would allow IAIP to connect all county level
governments to HSIN; States and major urban areas were
connected in previous years. The Committee directs IAIP to
provide a report on the implementation of HSIN, no later than
January 16, 2006, including who is connected, what training and
outreach is provided, and what types of information is shared.

Science and Technology

MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005......................... $68,586,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006....................... 81,399,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 81,399,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2005..................... +12,813,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006................... - - -

MISSION

The Management and Administration appropriation provides
for the salaries and expenses of federal employees of the
Science and Technology Directorate.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $81,399,000, the same as the
President's request and $12,813,000 above the amounts provided
in fiscal year 2005. The President's request includes salaries
and expenses for several different program areas and also
reflects the continued consolidation of research and
development activities formerly funded from other accounts
being transferred to Science and Technology.

Research, Development, Acquisition, and Operations

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005......................... $1,046,864,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006....................... 1,287,047,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 1,258,597,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2005..................... +211,733,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006................... -28,450,000

MISSION

The mission of the Science and Technology (S&T;) 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
current terrorist threats; and development of new capabilities
to thwart future and emerging threats.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,258,597,000, for Research,
Development, Acquisition and Operations, $28,450,000 below the
President's request and $211,733,000 above the amounts provided
in fiscal year 2005. Decreases in the President's budget
include $100,000,000 from the newly created Domestic Nuclear
Detection Office, $12,000,000 from Chemical Countermeasures,
and $13,650,000 from Conventional Missions. Increases include
$40,000,000 for Explosives Countermeasures for air cargo
activities, $21,000,000 for Interoperable Communications,
$15,000,000 for Critical Infrastructure Protection research,
and $4,400,000 for Safety Act implementation. The Committee
also provides $10,000,000 for implementation of Section 313 of
the Homeland Security Act and technology development and
transfer.

TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSFER

The Committee recognizes that S&T; has made good progress in
developing, standardizing, and certifying new homeland related
technologies in its two years of existence, and that quicker
progress may be expected in the near-term as certain activities
funded in prior years come on line. However, as the public has
been waiting since 9/11 for improved flow through airport
screening, assurance of secure cargo containers, and standards
for interoperable communications to name a few, patience is
growing thin.
Some vendors complain that goods and services that they
have to offer can solve many of these problems, but that S&T;
has not evaluated, certified, purchased or otherwise worked to
assure their use. Further, once goods and services are
identified, S&T; appears slow to disseminate them through the
Department or to make available to state and local entities.
While this does not seem to be a problem solely for Science and
Technology to address, it would play a central role in solving
it.
The Department is directed to develop and report to the
Committee 180 days after enactment of this Act on its business
model to address: (1) the process that determines goods and
services needed; (2) how information about needs will be spread
to the market place; (3) where individuals with ideas and
products can be heard; (4) the development of needed technology
transfer programs; (5) the certification process for
appropriate products; (6) how the Department can build future
funding into its budgetary process so that the Department can
begin procurement immediately upon certification; (7) how the
rate of deployment can be enhanced; and (8) how to integrate an
ombudsman function to direct inquiries and correct problems.
The report should outline how S&T; is addressing the above and
any other issues the Department believes are relevant, how far
along the Department is in implementing the business plan, and
indicate what challenges it faces toward full implementation.
The report shall also include recommendations to help the
process of assessment, certification, transparency of review
and deployment of goods and services.
A comparison to the President's budget request, by budget
activity, is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Estimate Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology Development and 0 $10,000,000
Transfer.........................
Biological Countermeasures........ $362,300,000 360,000,000
Chemical Countermeasures.......... 102,000,000 90,000,000
Explosives Countermeasures........ 14,700,000 54,700,000
Radiological and Nuclear 19,086,000 19,086,000
countermeasures..................
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office. 227,314,000 127,314,000
Conventional Missions in Support 93,650,000 80,000,000
of DHS...........................
Threat and Vulnerability, Testing 47,000,000 47,000,000
and Assessment...................
Emerging Threats.................. 10,500,000 10,500,000
Standards......................... 35,500,000 35,500,000
University Programs/Homeland 63,600,000 63,600,000
Security Fellowship Programs.....
Cyber Security.................... 16,700,000 16,700,000
Critical Infrastructure Protection 20,800,000 35,800,000
Rapid Prototyping program......... 20,900,000 30,000,000
Counter MANPADS................... 110,000,000 110,000,000
Interoperability and Compatibility 20,500,000 41,500,000
SAFETY Act........................ 5,600,000 10,000,000
Research and Development 116,897,000 116,897,000
Consolidation....................
-------------------------------------
Total, Research, Development, 1,287,047,000 1,258,597,000
Acquisition, and Operations..
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 $360,000,000, a
decrease of $2,300,000 from the budget request. This reduction
reflects the movement of some of the program's rapid
prototyping funds back to the core rapid prototyping program.

PLUM ISLAND

The Committee recognizes that the Department of Homeland
Security's Plum Island facility will need to be replaced in the
near future and that other potential locations need to be
explored. The bill provides $23,000,000 for such an effort and
authorizes the Department to explore alternative locations. It
is the expectation of the Committee that the Department will
assess a number of locations for suitability for handling
animal pathogens and perform all environmental and health
analysis necessary to make a determination that the site can be
made suitable for safe handling of these pathogens. Money is
provided for planning, design and other pre-construction
activities.

VETERINARY VACCINES

The Committee continues to be aware of various federal task
force recommendations related to the need for development and
stockpiling of improved veterinary vaccines. Specifically,
there is a pronounced and recognized need for vaccines to
mitigate the threats posed by high priority disease agents to
public health, U.S. livestock, and the economy. The Committee
is disappointed with the progress the Department has made on
this important initiative and continues to encourage it to
develop a vaccine defense regimen that incorporates advanced
research done in the field. The Committee encourages S&T; to
review existing and innovative technologies that prove safe and
effective, such as pharmaceutical proteins in plants.

CHEMICAL COUNTERMEASURES

This portfolio 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 $90,000,000 for Chemical Countermeasures,
$12,000,000 less than the budget request and $37,000,000 above
the amounts provided fiscal year 2005. Much of this reduction
reflects the movement of some of the program's rapid
prototyping funds back to the core rapid prototyping program.

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 $54,700,000 for Explosive Countermeasures,
$40,000,000 above the budget request and $35,000,000 above the
amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. Of the amount provided,
the Committee recommends $40,000,000 for air cargo, of which
$30,000,000 is for air cargo pilots and $10,000,000 is to
continue air cargo research and development activities
previously initiated by TSA.

AIR CARGO

Based on recommendations in S&T;'s system engineering study
of civil aviation security, the Committee directs that
$30,000,000 shall be used to conduct three cargo screening
pilot programs--one at an all cargo airport and two at top ten
passenger cargo airports. These pilots shall test different
concepts of operation that S&T; designs in coordination with
TSA. Testing shall consist of the following: (1) physically
screening a significant percentage (e.g., six times more than
today) of cargo at a passenger airport using TSA screeners
during slack passenger and checked baggage screening periods;
(2) physically screening a significant percentage (e.g., six
times more than today) of cargo at a passenger airport using
TSA or private screeners solely dedicated to cargo screening;
and (3) using canine teams supplemented as needed by
technology, screening a similar percentage of cargo at an all
cargo airport, specifically to detect explosives and hidden
passengers. Based on results of each pilot, cost estimates
(both non-recurring and recurring) shall be developed for these
different operational concepts if deployed to the top five air
cargo only airports and top 10 passenger airports. The
Committee expects each of these pilots to be no shorter than
nine months in duration and all pilots to be completed by
January 31, 2007. The Committee directs S&T; to provide a
comprehensive report on each pilot, two months after each is
completed, and interim reports of progress and results no later
than August 31, 2006.
The remaining $10,000,000 shall be used to continue
research and development efforts for new technologies that can
be utilized to screen larger pieces of air cargo, including
those that are odd sized, in pallets, banded, or shielded, for
explosives, weapons or other security concerns. The Committee
is deeply disappointed that, although Congress directed TSA to
aggressively research and develop technologies that could
screen air cargo carried on passenger aircraft at the earliest
date possible, TSA was slow to begin these efforts. While the
Administration awarded grants in 2004 to screen consolidated
air cargo, the results were not anticipated for two years, or
until 2006. In early 2005, TSA began researching and evaluating
commercial off-the-shelf security systems in the three primary
air cargo areas: break bulk (initiated January 2005),
palletized and/or containerized (to be initiated in May 2005)
and mail (to be initiated in August 2005). Results from this
work are not anticipated until late 2006 or 2007. Realizing
that no single technology will provide the ultimate solution
for inspection of air cargo, the Committee directs S&T; to
aggressively pursue processes and continue research to identify
technologies, such as dual energy transmission x-ray, passive
millimeter wave, computed tomography, quadrupole resonance, and
amplifying fluorescent polymer that may provide tailored
security ``solutions'' at aviation facilities (depending on,
for instance, site requirements, cargo commodity ``mix'', cargo
volume). The Committee directs S&T; to move more expeditiously
than TSA has done in the past.

NUCLEAR AND RADIOLOGICAL COUNTERMEASURES

The Nuclear and Radiological Countermeasures program has
focused on providing appropriate and effective detection and
interdiction technologies to prohibit the importation or
transportation and subsequent detonation of nuclear or
radiological device in the United States; however, its function
is now less clear as the same role has been taken by the
Administration's creation of the Domestic Nuclear Detection
Office that will report directly to the Secretary. The
Committee recommends $19,086,000 for Nuclear and Radiological
Countermeasures, the same as the budget request and
$103,528,000 below the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005.

DOMESTIC NUCLEAR DETECTION OFFICE

While requested under this heading, the Domestic Nuclear
Detection Office has been made a freestanding office reporting
directly to the Secretary. The Committee recognizes the gravity
of terrorists acquiring and using a nuclear device and commends
the Department on its efforts to work with other Departments to
prevent such an event. The Committee believes that DHS still
needs to clarify its role in regard to other federal agencies,
such as the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy,
that have similar and more mature programs. The Committee looks
forward to working with DHS as it moves forward to establishing
this new office. The Committee recommends $127,314,000 for this
new office, $100,000,000 less than the budget request and
$127,314,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. In
addition, because of the delay in obligating $4,000,000
provided in fiscal year 2004 for nuclear detection and
monitoring capabilities through TSA, the Committee has directed
TSA to transfer these funds to the newly established Domestic
Nuclear Detection Office within DHS. These funds shall be used
to initiate pilot programs for detecting nuclear materials at
truck weigh stations in the United States.

CONVENTIONAL MISSIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE DEPARTMENT

The Committee recommends $80,000,000 for Conventional
Missions in support of the Department, $13,650,000 below the
budget request and $25,350,000 above the amounts provided in
fiscal year 2005. Of this reduction, $5,000,000 reflects the
movement of some of the program's rapid prototyping funds back
to the core rapid prototyping program.

CONTAINER SECURITY

The Committee is aware that Science and Technology, in
cooperation with Transportation Security Administration and
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, 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. S&T; is looking to assure
the integrity of conveyance loading and documentation;
significantly reduce the risk of undetected tampering in
transit; and provide accurate, complete, timely and protected
shipment information while enhancing supply chain efficiency.
These initiatives are underway through the solicitation of
technologies through a small business innovative research
effort and a broad agency announcement. The Committee continues
to support this important effort and urges S&T; to accelerate
its efforts where possible and to report to the Committee by
January 16, 2006 on its progress to date.

TUNNELS

The Committee notes with concern the recent discoveries of
large tunnels under the U.S. border and encourages S&T; to work
with BTS to assess, and if needed, develop new technologies to
locate tunnels.

THREAT AND VULNERABILITY, TESTING AND ASSESSMENT

The Threat and Vulnerability, Testing and Assessment
program creates advanced modeling, information and analysis
capabilities that are used to enhance the Science and
Technology's ability to evaluate extensive amounts of data and
information from diverse sources. The Committee recommends
$47,000,000 for Threat and Vulnerability, Testing and
Assessment, the same as the budget request and $25,350,000
below the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005.

EMERGING THREATS

The Emerging Threats portfolio aims to anticipate, detect
and deter new threats that terrorists may pose using novel
tactics. The Committee recommends $10,500,000, for Emerging
Threats, the same as the budget estimate and $250,000 below the
amounts provided in fiscal year 2005.

STANDARDS PROGRAM

The Standards Program develops standards for homeland
security related equipment and systems in collaboration with
operational end-users. The Committee recommends $35,500,000 for
the Standards program, the same as the budget request and
$4,200,000 below the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005.

BLAST-RESISTANT RECEPTACLES

The Committee notes with concern that no standards for
blast-resistant receptacles have been established and strongly
believes standards, which reflect the best available technology
for explosion containment, should be established expeditiously
to protect the traveling public. The Committee directs Science
and Technology to develop standards and testing protocols for
measuring performance of blast-resistant products, and initiate
testing of both installed and new products. The Committee
further directs Science and Technology to report back on the
status of this effort no later than January 16, 2006.

UNIVERSITY PROGRAMS/FELLOWSHIP PROGRAMS

The Committee notes that the University and Fellowship
Programs will have at least $45,000,000 in unobligated
resources at the end of fiscal year 2005. The Committee
recommends $63,600,000 in new budgetary authority, the same as
the budget request, for a total of $108,600,000 available for
these programs in fiscal year 2006. The Committee urges S&T; to
continue to expand its Centers of Excellence. Through the
Homeland Security Centers of Excellence (HS-Centers) Science
and Technology is encouraging universities to become centers of
multi-disciplinary research. The future of homeland security
science is being advanced through both its Centers of
Excellence and by the development of the next generation of
scientists through its Scholars and Fellows Program. There
continues to be intense interest from universities with
proposals to perform homeland security activities. This
additional funding will allow Science and Technology to
evaluate and support additional university proposals in fiscal
year 2006.

CYBER SECURITY

The Cyber Security program focuses on several areas:
improving the security of process control systems, next
generation cyber security technology; and economic assessment
and modeling to recommend cyber security investments. The
Committee recommends $16,700,000 for the Cyber Security
program, the same as the budget request and $1,300,000 below
the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005.

CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION

The Critical Infrastructure Protection program conducts
vulnerability, consequence and risk analysis 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
$35,800,000 for Critical Infrastructure Protection, $15,000,000
above the budget request, and $8,800,000 above the amounts
provided in fiscal year 2005.
The Committee recommends $15,000,000 to support existing
work in research and development and application of technology
for community based critical infrastructure protection efforts.
The Committee is concerned that the Department lacks
appropriate assessment tools to help prioritize security risks
for critical infrastructure and urges S&T; to examine well-
established scientific analysis tools commonly used in
engineering and design, including six sigma analysis.

RAPID PROTOTYPING PROGRAM

The Committee recommends $30,000,000 for Rapid Prototyping,
$9,100,000 above the budget request and $46,000,000 below the
amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. The Rapid Prototyping
Program accesses the capabilities of private sector industry
for rapid development and prototyping of technologies in
support of the Department of Homeland Security's missions. The
Committee has partially restored the Rapid Prototyping program
and expects that prototyping activities will continue in other
segments of the Directorate. The Committee believes that poor
utilization of Rapid Prototyping is a factor in the growing
frustration at the slow deployment of new technologies to the
field. The Committee supports the President's budget request,
at a minimum, for the newly formed Public Safety and Security
Institute for Technology (PSITEC) that acts as a centralized
technology clearinghouse for federal, state and local
governments, and perhaps a critical component of implementing
Section 313 of the Homeland Security Act.

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 $110,000,000 for
the Counter-MANPADS program the same as the budget request, and
$49,000,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005.
In prior fiscal years, Science and Technology has,
appropriately, worked toward transitioning relatively mature,
military counter-MANPADS technologies to civilian use. It has
been the expectation that fielding an existing technology would
require less time, would be more reliable, and would cost less
than a wholly new system. While the Directorate's evaluation of
the current systems is not complete, preliminary results are
not entirely encouraging. The Committee is concerned that the
resulting technologies will not be sufficiently able to meet
the challenges of commercial application at a cost that is
economically feasible. The Committee is also aware of emerging
technologies that may be simpler and more cost effective, but
are far from fully developed.
The Counter-MANDPADS program is fully funded at the
President's request and the Directorate should continue its
efforts to mature existing technologies to reduce their cost
and maintenance needs. However, given the seriousness of the
threat and the distinct possibility that the current
technologies will not be made reliable enough for use, the
Committee directs that not less than $10,000,000 be used to
evaluate emerging technologies that could work better, could be
more cost effective, and easier to deploy and maintain.

INTEROPERABILITY AND COMPATIBILITY

The Committee recommends $41,500,000 for the
Interoperability and Compatibility program, $21,000,000 above
the budget request and $20,500,000 above the amounts provided
in fiscal year 2005. Of the increase, $10,000,000 is for
expansion of the RapidCom program.
The ability of the country's first responders to
communicate with one another across jurisdictions and
disciplines is a long-standing, complex and critical issue
facing our nation. The SAFECOM (Wireless Public SAFEty
Interoperable COMmunications) program was placed in the
Department of Homeland Security's Science and Technology
Directorate for full access to the scientific expertise and
resources needed to help our nation achieve true public safety
wireless communications interoperability. The Committee
commends Science and Technology for the work done thus far
under SAFECOM, and for standing-up the Interoperability and
Communications program in order to comprehensively address the
interoperability of public safety communications.
The Office of Interoperability and Compatibility (OIC) has
made good progress in recently releasing a Statewide
Communications Interoperability Planning (SCIP) Methodology, a
Statement of Requirements and other documents. The Committee
recognizes difficulties and the importance of interoperable
communications standards, which are critical to the
Department's efforts to improve communications nationally.
Therefore the Science and Technology Directorate (S&T;) shall
expedite the development of these standards, and coordinate
with ODP to ensure that ODP's technical assistance program
incorporates these standards, as appropriate, and as spelled
out in the Memorandum of Agreement between S&T; and SLGCP,
signed May 24, 2004, by the Executive Director of SLGCP and
August 9, 2004, by the Under Secretary of S&T.;
The Committee recognizes that merging multiple agencies in
the formation of the Department created overlapping activities,
such as addressing interoperability and assessment of
technology and equipment. The Committee strongly supports OIC
efforts to align these programs to ensure conformance,
compatibility and interoperability as well as steps to enhance
training and communications. The Committee specifically notes
the critical work done by the Risk Assessment Policy working
group to align risk assessment policies and methodologies and
directs OIC to report to the Committee on the status of its
efforts no later than January 16, 2006.

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 $10,000,000 for the SAFETY Act program, $4,400,000
above the President's request and the same as amounts provided
in fiscal year 2005. These funds are for the continued
establishment of a SAFETY Act Program Implementation Office.
The Committee has increased resources to enhance the program's
slow progress to date in making only 17 decisions on 83
applications. Many companies still voice concerns that the
process requirements are so complicated that they discourage
applications. The Committee directs the Office to report to the
Committee on the status of applications, certification
decisions, its actions to speed up this process, and efforts to
streamline the application process by January 16, 2006.

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CONSOLIDATION

The Committee approves the President's request to transfer
research and development funding for other agencies within the
Department of Homeland Security to the Science and Technology
Directorate. As noted in the statement of managers'
accompanying the fiscal year 2004 appropriations bill, the
Committee was concerned that some of the research and
development activities being independently conducted by each of
the Department's legacy agencies may be duplicative. The
consolidation of these activities into the Science and
Technology Directorate should assure better management
oversight of these activities and enhance research synergies.
The Committee recommends a total of $127,497,000 be
transferred from DHS component agencies to S&T;, as requested in
the President's budget. Of this total, the Committee recommends
$10,599,000 come from S&T;'s management and administration's
account and the remainder from S&T;'s research and development
account. Funding is distributed as follows: $17,000,000 for the
U.S. Coast Guard's research, development, test, and evaluation
activities, $109,040,000 for Transportation Security
Administration's research and development activities,
$1,456,000 for the U.S. Customs and Border Protection research
and development activities, and $1,000 from Infrastructure
Analysis and Infrastructure Protection research and development
activities.

MANHATTAN II

For the past several years, TSA has been funding the
Manhattan II program. This program focused on activities to
develop next-generation explosive detection systems, which may
be tested in the airport environment within the next three to
five years. Because of the longer-term nature of this program,
the program has been transferred to S&T.;
Of the total funding S&T; will provide to aviation security
research activities in fiscal year 2006, the Committee
recommends $15,000,000 to continue the Manhattan II program.
The Committee understands that work is underway and advancing
towards achieving the program's objectives to reduce false
alarm rates, increase throughput, reduce manpower costs,
enhance resolution and vastly improve efficiencies. Existing
Manhattan II program awardees represent a wide range of
technologies and capabilities. The Committee directs DHS to
give priority to those awardees with projects that develop a
comprehensive system with a high probability of success in
achieving the goals of the program. Further, the Committee
urges the Department to encourage awardees to team with each
other to add viable technology components, to create synergies
and to accelerate the delivery of a comprehensive, next-
generation explosive detection system.

PORTS

The Committee is aware of the unique training challenges
created by ports. Given the costs and logistics associated with
live exercise disaster training, the Committee encourages
Science and Technology, in conjunction with the Office of
Domestic Preparednesss, to explore the use of high-fidelity
reality-based synthetic environment technology for disaster
management and training in the port environment.

CONVERGING TECHNOLOGIES

The Committee recognizes that DHS has made efforts to
automate detection, identification, and warning of Chemical,
Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosive (CBRNE)
incidents. As these systems mature, they will likely be
integrated with other tools in development, such as geospatial
technologies that will indicate where an event is relative to
response resources, how that event will be affected by the
current weather, and other real time parameters that could
affect response to a terrorist threat. As with other technology
development activities, the Committee encourages S&T; to work
with other departments (e.g. DOD or DOE) that may have existing
systems or relatively mature prototype systems that detect,
integrate, and disseminate such information.

DOCUMENT SECURITY

The S&T; Directorate is encouraged to work with the United
States Secret Service's Forensic Services Division (FSD) in the
research and development of standardized security features that
can be embedded in paper documents such as birth certificates.
Given FSD's contributions to the implementation of security
features to prevent counterfeiting and the Secret Service's
expertise in credentialing, the Committee believes the agency
can lend considerable support to S&T;'s efforts in the
improvement of applied paper document security research.

NANOTECHNOLOGY

The Committee believes that nanotechnology is a promising
technology that could contribute significantly in the defense
against terrorism. The Committee encourages S&T; to pursue
research in nanotechnologies that may aid in the detection of
biological, chemical, radiological, and explosive agents.

TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS ACT

(INCLUDING RESCISSION OF FUNDS)

Section 501. The Committee continues a provision providing
that no part of any appropriation shall remain available for
obligation beyond the current year unless expressly provided.
Section 502. The Committee continues a provision providing
that unexpended balances of prior appropriations may be merged
with new appropriation accounts and used for the same purpose,
subject to reprogramming guidelines.
Section 503. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision providing reprogramming authority for funds within an
account and not to exceed 5% 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. All
notifications shall be submitted no later than June 30, except
in extraordinary circumstances. These reprogramming guidelines
shall be complied with by all agencies funded by the Department
of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2006.
Section 504. The Committee continues a provision providing
that not to exceed 50 percent of unobligated balances remaining
at the end of fiscal year 2006 from appropriations made for
salaries and expenses shall remain available through fiscal
year 2007 subject to reprogramming guidelines.
Section 505. The Committee continues a provision providing
that funds for intelligence activities are deemed to be
specifically authorized during fiscal year 2006 until the
enactment of an Act authorizing intelligence activities for
fiscal year 2006.
Section 506. The Committee continues a provision directing
the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center to establish an
accrediting body to establish standards for assessing federal
law enforcement training programs, facilities, and instructors.
Section 507. The Committee continues and modifies 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 announced by
the Department.
Section 508. The Committee continues a provision providing
that no agency shall purchase, construct, or lease additional
facilities for federal law enforcement training without advance
approval of the Committees on Appropriations.
Section 509. The Committee continues a provision 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 providing
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 includes a new provision that
reduces funding for the Transportation Security
Administration's Office of Transportation Security Support by
$100,000 per day for each day after enactment of this Act that
the second proviso of section 513 of Public Law 108-334 is not
implemented.
Section 513. The Committee continues a provision requiring
the Coast Guard to submit, at the time of the President's
budget submission, a list of approved but unfunded priorities
and the funds needed for each priority.
Section 514. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision that allows TSA to impose a reasonable charge for the
lease of real and personal property to TSA employees.
Section 515. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision regarding the acquisition of equipment and supplies
by the Transportation Security Administration.
Section 516. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision authorizing the Department of Homeland Security to
conduct background investigations for certain employees.
Section 517. The Committee continues a provision exempting
the formula-based grants and high-threat, high-density urban
area grants from the requirements of the Cash Management
Improvement Act of 1990.
Section 518. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision prohibiting the obligation of funds for the Secure
Flight program, except on a test basis, until that the
requirements of Section 522 of Public Law 108-334 have been met
and the Government Accountability Office has reviewed such
certification.
Section 519. The Committee continues a provision that
directs that none of the funds may be used to amend the oath of
allegiance required by section 337 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1448).
Section 520. The Committee continues a provision regarding
competitive sourcing.
Section 521. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision that none of the funds may be used to alter the
Secret Service from being anything but a district entity within
the Department, to merge the Secret Service with any other
agency or department function, or to alter the current
reporting structure of the Secret Service.
Section 522. The Committee includes a new provision that
requires the Secretary of Homeland Security, in conjunction
with airline stakeholders, to develop screening standards and
protocols to more thoroughly screen all types of air cargo on
passenger and cargo aircraft. The language specifies that these
screening standards and protocols shall be developed in
conjunction with the research and development of technologies
that will permit screening of all high-risk air cargo. The
Committee withholds funding appropriated to the Office of the
Secretary and Executive Management until new air cargo
screening standards and protocols are implemented.
Section 523. The Committee includes a new provision that
requires 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 and report back
monthly on these efforts.
Section 524. The Committee includes a new provision that
requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to implement a
security plan that permits general aviation aircraft to land
and take off at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport 90
days after enactment of this Act.
Section 525. The Committee includes a new provision that
restricts funds available for obligation for the transportation
worker identification credential until the Department develops
a personalization system that is centralized and a card
production capability that utilizes an existing government card
production facility. Language is also included limiting funds
for the production phase until the House Appropriations
Committee has been fully briefed on the results of the
prototype phase and agrees that the program should move
forward.
Section 526. The Committee includes a new provision
rescinding $83,999,942 from the unexpended balances of the
Coast Guard ``Acquisition, Construction and Improvements''
account specifically identified in report language for
Integrated Deepwater System patrol boats 110 to 123-conversion
in fiscal years 2004 and 2005 and reappropriates these funds to
procure new 110-patrol boats or for major maintenance
availability for the current 110-patrol boat fleet.
Section 527. The Committee includes a new provision
directing the Secretary of Homeland Security to utilize the
Transportation Security Clearinghouse as the central identity
management system for the deployment and operation of the
registered traveler program, the transportation worker identity
credential program and other applicable programs for the
purposes of collecting and aggregating biometric data necessary
for background vetting; provide all associated record-keeping,
customer service and related functions; ensuring
interoperability between different airports and vendors; and
act as a central aviation, revocation, and transaction hub for
participating airports, ports, and other points of presence.
Section 528. The Committee includes a new provision
relating to section 222 of the Homeland Security Act and
reporting requirements of the privacy officer.
Section 529. The Committee includes a new provision
prohibiting 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 530. The Committee includes a new provision that
recovered or deobligated TSA funds from fiscal years 2002-2005
shall be available only for procurement and installation of
explosive detective systems.
Section 531. The Committee includes a new provision
rescinding funds from the unobligated balances available in the
Department of Homeland Security Working Capital Fund.
Section 532. The Committee includes a new provision
withholding funds for obligation until the direction in the
statement of managers accompanying Public Law 108-324 and House
Report 108-541 is completed.
Section 533. The Committee includes a new provision
clarifying H1B visa processing.
Section 534. The Committee includes a new provision
regarding the Sensitive Security Information designation
process.
Section 535. The Committee includes a new provision
regarding Coast Guard Station ``Group St. Petersburg''.

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
Account to which transfer is to be made Amount is to be made Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title III:
National Flood Mitigation Fund......... $40,000,000 National Flood Insurance Fund $40,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 a rescission of $83,999,942 from the Coast Guard's
Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements account, and a
rescission of $7,000,000 from the Department of Homeland
Security Working Capital Fund.

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, the Committee reports there are
no changes to existing law made by the bill.

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 2006 new budget authority.......................... $5,439
FY 2006 outlays resulting therefrom................... $7,795

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 Budget
authority Outlays authority Outlays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Purpose Discretionary............................... $30,846 $33,233 $30,846 *$33,213
Mandatory................................................... 931 924 931 924
---------------------------------------------------
Total................................................. 31,777 34,157 31,777 34,137
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Includes Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief,
2005 (HR 1268).

Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives

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

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:

[In millions of dollars]

Outlays:
2006.............................................. $19,335
2007.............................................. 6,453
2008.............................................. 3,722
2009.............................................. 1,414
2010 and beyond................................... 583

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 reception
and representation expenses. The Committee also restricts funds
available for obligation until certain reporting requirements
and general provisions 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.

Chief Information Officer

The Committee includes language providing funds for the
Chief Information Officer (CIO) and for the development and
acquisition of information technology equipment, software,
services, and related activities and prohibits the use of funds
to augment other automated systems. The Committee also includes
language that requires the CIO to submit a report on its
enterprise architecture and other strategic activities.

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

Office of the Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security

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

AUTOMATION MODERNIZATION

The Committee includes language making funds available
until expended for the US-VISIT, FAST, NEXUS, and SENTRI
programs. It also includes language requiring the submission of
an expenditure plan prior to the obligation of funds for US-
VISIT.

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, unmanned aerial vehicles, and equipment for the
Container Security Initiative; Customs User Fee collections;
payment of rental space in connection with pre-clearance
operations; compensation of informants; contractual or
reimbursable agreements with State and local law enforcement
agencies; and Border Patrol checkpoints in the Tucson sector.
The Committee includes a provision regarding average overtime
limitations, requiring the submission of a report on the
Immigration Advisory Program, the Container Security Initiative
and Air and Marine Operations prior to the obligation of funds,
and language making certain funds available until September 30,
2007.

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.

AIR AND MARINE INTERDICTION, OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE, AND PROCUREMENT

The Committee includes language making funds available for
the operation, maintenance and procurement of 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 Bureau of Customs and Border Protection unless certain
conditions are met.

CONSTRUCTION

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

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,
forced child labor laws, requiring the submission of a national
detention management plan prior to the obligation of funds, and
requiring the submission of a plan to enforce administrative
violations of a immigration laws. The Committee makes funds
available for the implementation of section 287(g) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended.

FEDERAL AIR MARSHALS

The Committee includes language making $5,000,000 available
until expended for the Federal Air Marshals.

FEDERAL PROTECTIVE SERVICE

The Committee includes language making funds available
until expended for the operations of the Federal Protective
Service.

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.

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 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 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 VETTING 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 long-term explosive detection
plan and a detailed spend plan for explosive detection systems
procurement and installation prior to obligation of funds.

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 a new baseline for the
acquisition schedule of the Deepwater program 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.

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

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Committee includes language that provides funds for the
purchase and replacement of vehicles; the hire of aircraft;
purchase of motorcycles; services of expert witnesses; 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 includes language
making funds available for investigations of missing and
exploited children, including grants; 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 and
authorizes short-term medical services for students undergoing
training. The Committee includes bill language providing for
costs associated with National Special Security Events and
makes these funds available for two years.

ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENTS, AND RELATED EXPENSES

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

TITLE III--PREPAREDNESS AND RECOVERY

Office of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

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

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, national 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 and rail and transit
security 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; directs grantees to report on use of funds
as deemed necessary by the Secretary; and establishes a
deadline for the final National Preparedness Goal, and a
requirement for the submission of updated State homeland
security strategies.

FIREFIGHTER ASSISTANCE GRANTS

The Committee includes a provision providing funding for
section 34 of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act and
authorizing the transfer of funds for program administration
and language making funds available until September 30, 2007.

COUNTERTERRORISM FUND

The Committee includes language authorizing the Secretary
of Homeland Security to reimburse Federal agencies for the
costs of providing support to counter, investigate, or
prosecute unexpected threats or acts of terrorism, including
payment of rewards in connection with these activities.

Emergency Preparedness and Response

office of the under secretary for emergency preparedness and response

The Committee includes language providing funds for the
Office of the Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and
Response.

PREPAREDNESS, MITIGATION, RESPONSE, AND RECOVERY

The Committee includes language that provides funds for
preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery activities.

ADMINISTRATIVE 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.

PUBLIC HEALTH PROGRAMS

The Committee includes language that provides funds for
countering potential biological, disease, and chemical threats.

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.

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 a provision authorizing the transfer
of funds for flood mitigation; a provision regarding the cost
of modifying loans; and a limitation on operating expenses,
mitigation activities associated with sections 1361A and 1323
of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, agents'
commissions and taxes, and for interest on Treasury borrowings.
The Committee also includes language making funds flood hazard
mitigation available until September 30, 2007, making funds for
mitigation activities associated with section 1361A available
until expended, and authorizing the transfer of funds to the
National Flood Mitigation Fund.

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, 2007.

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 September 30, 2006.

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, ASSESSMENTS, AND SERVICES

CITIZEN AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES

The Committee includes language making funds available for
citizenship and immigration services.

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; 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 that
authorizes pecuniary actions for losses or destruction of
government property; and makes material and support funds
available until September 30, 2007.

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.

Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection

MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

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

ASSESSMENTS AND EVALUATIONS

The Committee includes language making funds available
until September 30, 2007 for information and analysis and
infrastructure protection.

Science and Technology

MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

The Committee includes language providing funds for
managment and administration of programs and official reception
and representation expenses.

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, ACQUISITION AND OPERATIONS

The Committee includes language making funds available
until expended, as authorized. The Committee also includes
language making funds available for the National Bio and
Agrodefense Laboratory, and implementation of Section 313 of
the Homeland Security Act of 2002.

TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

(INCLUDING RECISSION OF FUNDS)

Section 501. The Committee continues a provision providing
that no part of any appropriation shall remain available for
obligation beyond the current year unless expressly provided.
Section 502. The Committee continues a provision providing
that unexpended balances of prior appropriations may be merged
with new appropriation accounts and used for the same purpose,
subject to reprogramming guidelines.
Section 503. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision providing reprogramming authority for funds within an
account and not to exceed 5% 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. All
notifications shall be submitted no later than June 30, except
in extraordinary circumstances. These reprogramming guidelines
shall be complied with by all agencies funded by the Department
of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2006.
Section 504. The Committee continues a provision providing
that not to exceed 50 percent of unobligated balances remaining
at the end of fiscal year 2005 from appropriations made for
salaries and expenses shall remain available through fiscal
year 2006 subject to reprogramming guidelines.
Section 505. The Committee continues a provision providing
that funds for intelligence activities are deemed to be
specifically authorized during fiscal year 2006 until the
enactment of an Act authorizing intelligence activities for
fiscal year 2006.
Section 506. The Committee continues a provision directing
the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center to establish an
accrediting body to establish standards for assessing federal
law enforcement training programs, facilities, and instructors.
Section 507. The Committee continues and modifies 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 announced by
the Department.
Section 508. The Committee continues a provision providing
that no agency shall purchase, construct, or lease additional
facilities for federal law enforcement training without advance
approval of the Committees on Appropriations.
Section 509. The Committee continues a provision 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 providing
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 includes a provision reducing
funding for the Transportation Security Administration's
Transportation Security Support for each day that the second
proviso of Section 513 is not implemented.
Section 513. The Committee continues a provision requiring
the Coast Guard to submit, at the time of the President's
budget submission, a list of approved but unfunded priorities
and the funds needed for each priority.
Section 514. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision that allows TSA to impose a reasonable charge for the
lease of real and personal property to TSA employees.
Section 515. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision regarding the acquisition of equipment and supplies
by the Transportation Security Administration.
Section 516. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision authorizing the Department of Homeland Security to
conduct background investigations for certain employees.
Section 517. The Committee continues a provision exempting
the formula-based grants and high-threat, high-density urban
area grants from the requirements of the Cash Management
Improvement Act of 1990.
Section 518. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision prohibiting the obligation of funds for Secure
Flight, except on a test basis, until that the requirements of
Section 522 of Public Law 108-334 have been met and the
Government Accountability Office has reviewed such
certification.
Section 519. The Committee continues a provision that
directs that none of the funds may be used to amend the oath of
allegiance required by section 337 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1448).
Section 520. The Committee continues a provision regarding
competitive sourcing.
Section 521. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision that none of the funds may be used to alter the
Secret Service from being anything but a distinct entity within
the Department, to merge the Secret Service with any other
agency or department function, or to alter the current
reporting structure of the Secret Service.
Section 522. The Committee includes a new provision that
requires the Secretary of Homeland Security, in conjunction
with airline stakeholders, to develop screening standards and
protocols to more thoroughly screen all types of air cargo on
passenger and cargo aircraft. The language specifies that these
screening standards and protocols shall be developed in
conjunction with the research and development of technologies
that will permit screening of all high-risk air cargo. The
Committee withholds funding appropriated to the Office of the
Secretary and Executive Management until new air cargo
screening standards and protocols are implemented.
Section 523. The Committee includes a new provision that
requires 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 and report back
monthly on these efforts.
Section 524. The Committee includes a new provision that
requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to implement a
security plan that permits general aviation aircraft to land
and take off at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport 90
days after enactment of this Act.
Section 525. The Committee includes a new provision that
restricts funds available for obligation for the transportation
worker identification credential until the Department develops
a personalization system that is centralized and a card
production capability that utilizes an existing government card
production facility. Language is also included limiting funds
for the production phase until the House Appropriations
Committee has been fully briefed on the results of the
prototype phase and agrees that the program should move
forward.
Section 526. The Committee includes a new provision
rescinding $83,999,942 from the unexpended balances of the
Coast Guard ``Acquisition, Construction and Improvements''
account specifically identified in report language for
Integrated Deepwater System patrol boats 110 to 123 conversion
in fiscal years 2004 and 2005 and reappropriates these funds to
procure new 110 patrol boats or for major maintenance
availability for the current 110 patrol boat fleet.
Section 527. The Committee includes a new provision
directing the Secretary of Homeland Security to utilize the
Transportation Security Clearinghouse as the central identity
management system for the deployment and operation of the
registered traveler program, the transportation worker identity
credential program and other applicable programs for the
purposes of collecting and aggregating biometric data necessary
for background vetting; provide all associated record-keeping,
customer service and related functions; ensuring
interoperability between different airports and vendors; and
act as a central aviation, revocation, and transaction hub for
participating airports, ports, and other points of presence.
Section 528. The Committee includes a new provision
relating to section 222 of the Homeland Security Act and
reporting requirements of the privacy officer.
Section 529. The Committee includes a new provision
prohibiting 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 530. The Committee includes a new provision that
recovered or deobligated TSA funds from fiscal years 2002-2005
shall be available only for procurement and installation of
explosive detection systems.
Section 531. The Committee includes a new provision
rescinding funds from the unobligated balances available in the
Department of Homeland Security Working Capital Fund.
Section 532. The Committee includes a new provision
withholding funds for obligation until the direction in the
statement of managers accompanying Public Law 108-324 and House
Report 108-541 is completed.
Section 533. The Committee includes a new provision
clarifying H1B visa processing.
Section 534. The Committee includes a new provision
regarding the Sensitive Security Information designation
process.

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:

APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations
Agency/program Last year of Authorization in last year of Appropriations
authorization level authorization in this bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Secretary and Executive \1\ NA NA NA $133,329
Management.............................
Office of the Under Secretary for NA NA NA 146,084
Management.............................
Office of the Chief Financial Officer... NA NA NA 18,505
Office of the Chief Information Officer. NA NA NA 303,700
Office of the Inspector General......... NA NA NA 83,017
Counterterrorism Fund................... NA NA NA 10,000
Automation Modernization \2\............ NA NA NA 21,000
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, \3\ 2003 $2,739,695 \4\ $3,195,094 4,885,544
Salaries and Expenses..................
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, \5\ 2002 Such sums 730,710 4,885,544
Salaries and Expenses..................
Bureau of Immigration and Customs \6\ 2003 2,739,695 \7\ 3,032,094 3,064,081
Enforcement, Salaries and Expenses.....
Bureau of Immigration and Customs \8\ 2003 2,739,695 \9\ 380,000 40,150
Enforcement, Automation and
Modernization..........................
Transportation Security Administration, NA NA NA 36,000
Surface Transportation Security........
Transportation Security Administration, NA NA NA 84,294
Transportation Vetting and
Credentialing..........................
Office of State and Local Governments NA NA NA 3,564,846
Coordination and Preparedness..........
National Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund... \10\ 2005 NA 200,000 150,000
Flood Map Modernization Fund............ \8\ 2004 NA 200,000 200,000
National Flood Insurance Program \8\ 2004 NA 110,570 185,854
(limitation on expenses)...............
Preparedness, Migitation, Response and \11\ 2003 \9\ 50,000 \9\ 39,984 249,499
Recovery...............................
Prepardeness, Migitation, Response and \12\ 2003 \10\ 21,585 \10\ 16,778 249,499
Recovery...............................
US Citizenship and Immigration Services. \13\ 2002 631,745 \14\ 707,392 120,000
US Coast Guard, Operating Expenses...... 005 5,404,300 \15\ 5,157,220 5,500,000
US Coast Guard, Environmental Compliance 2005 17,000 17,000 12,000
and Restoration........................
US Coast Guard, Reserve Training........ 2005 \16\ 117,000 113,000 119,000
US Coast Guard, Acquisitions, 2005 1,500,000 \17\ 982,200 798,152
Construction and Improvements..........
US Coast Guard, Alteration of Bridges... 2005 19,650 15,900 15,000
US Coast Guard, Retired Pay............. 2005 1,085,460 1,085,460 1,014,080
Information Analysis and Infrastructure NA NA NA 861,440
Protection, Assessments and Evaluations
and Operating Expenses.................
Operations.............................. 2003 Such sums NA 1,339,996
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NA indicates that no specific funding level has been authorized.
\2\ Includes FAST and NEXUS/SENTRI only.
\3\ Immigration and Naturalization Service--inspection, investigations, Border Patrol, detention and deportation
only.
\4\ Includes $2,862,094,000 from the FY 2003 INS Salaries and Expenses appropriations, and $333,000,000 included
in the FY 2003 Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, PL 108-11.
\5\ Agriculture Plant and Health Inspection Service only.
\6\ Immigration and Naturalization Service--inspection, investigations, Border Patrol, detention and deportation
only.
\7\ Includes $2,862,094,000 from the FY 2003 INS Salaries and Expenses appropriations, and $170,000,000 included
in the FY 2003 Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, PL 108-11.
\8\ Immigration and Naturalization Service--inspection, investigations, Border Patrol, detention and deportation
only.
\9\ For Entry-Exit system.
\10\ Authorized through December 31, 2005.
\11\ Fire preparedness only.
\12\ Earthquake mitigation only.
\13\ INS Citizenship Services.
\14\ Includes $704,392,000 from FY 2003 INS Citizenship Service appropriations, and $3,000,000 in the FY 2003
Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, PL 108-11.
\15\ There is additional funding ($33,367) from the Emergency Supplemental for the Hurricane; also $100,000,000
authorized in DoD appropriations act for transfer to USCG from Iraqi Freedom Fund.
\16\ Reserve level is authorized under the National Defense Authorization Act; however, no appropriations level
has been specified for reserve training.
\17\ Does not include funding of $34,000,000 in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2004. Does not
include $16,000,000 rescission pursuant to P.L. 108-334.

FULL COMMITTEE VOTES

Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of
the House of Representatives, the results of each rollcall vote
on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with the
names of those voting for and those voting against, are printed
below:

ROLLCALL NUMBER: 1

Date: May 10, 2005
Measures: Department of Homeland Security Appropriations
Bill, FY 2006
Motion by: Mr. Obey
Description of Motion: To provide $100,000,000 for the REAL
ID Act of 2005; funding is offset through a rescission of
unobligated prior year balances.
Results: Rejected 26 yeas to 35 nays.
Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay
Mr. Berry Mr. Aderholt
Mr. Bishop Mr. Alexander
Mr. Boyd Mr. Bonilla
Mr. Cramer Mr. Carter
Mr. Dicks Mr. Crenshaw
Mr. Edwards Mr. Culberson
Mr. Farr Mr. Cunningham
Mr. Fattah Mr. Doolittle
Mr. Hinchey Mrs. Emerson
Mr. Hoyer Mr. Frelinghuysen
Ms. Kaptur Mr. Goode
Mr. Kennedy Ms. Granger
Ms. Kilpatrick Mr. Hobson
Mrs. Lowey Mr. Istook
Mr. Mollohan Mr. Kirk
Mr. Moran Mr. Knollenberg
Mr. Murtha Mr. Kolbe
Mr. Obey Mr. LaHood
Mr. Olver Mr. Latham
Mr. Pastor Mr. Lewis
Mr. Price Mr. Peterson
Mr. Rothman Mr. Regula
Ms. Roybal-Allard Mr. Rehberg
Mr. Sabo Mr. Rogers
Mr. Serrano Mr. Sherwood
Mr. Visclosky Mr. Simpson
Mr. Sweeney
Mr. Taylor
Mr. Tiahrt
Mr. Walsh
Mr. Wamp
Dr. Weldon
Mr. Wicker
Mr. Wolf
Mr. Young

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF DAVID OBEY AND MARTIN OLAV SABO

Four and a half years after September 11th, Americans
should have tangible proof that our nation is safer; that for
the billions of dollars spent, we are well prepared against
terrorist attack. We must honestly ask ourselves: What progress
have we made? What critical gaps still exist? What actions
should we be taking to close those gaps?
Public concern over a lack of progress on these critical
questions led to the creation of the Department of Homeland
Security more than two years ago. Yet, since then, the
Department has been fractured and bureaucratic--far more
focused on internal organization than in achieving results in
some of our greatest security vulnerabilities. We can afford
that no longer.
The difficult task of our nation's homeland defense
requires vision and leadership and planning and pragmatism. We
believe these qualities are more lacking today than money, but
responsibility does not rest at the feet of the Administration
alone. Time and again, the Congress has enacted new
requirements without providing the appropriate funding or
oversight to ensure that their implementation is a success.
In these views we will lay out some of the homeland
security gaps that continue to exist and some of the actions
that our nation has taken since September 11th. The 2006
appropriations bill incrementally addresses some of these gaps.
It does not, however, provide for the full-scale solution that
is needed. Nor does it provide the resources required for the
Department of Homeland Security to meet specific goals
contained in numerous pieces of legislation passed by the
Congress and signed into law by the President.

Border Security

It should be obvious to every American that to improve
border security, we need more border agents and surveillance
equipment. In legislation enacted by wide voting margins,
Congress has repeatedly called for border security to be
improved. 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.
The fact is that since September 11th, only 965 new border
patrol agents have been hired. In four years, this is less than
a 10% increase. Nine out of ten border patrol agents are
assigned to guard the southern border.
To help meet the northern border hiring and equipment goals
in the Patriot Act, Congress provided $308 million to beef up
security on our northern border with more agents, inspectors
and equipment. The Bush Administration requested only one-third
of this funding, and had to be reminded by the Appropriations
Committee to use the remaining $36 million in northern border
funds in the most recently enacted supplemental.
This legislation, when combined with the recent
supplemental, is the first opportunity the Congress has had to
address the mandates of the Intelligence Reform Act.
Unfortunately, only five months since enactment of that
legislation, this bill falls far short of its border
enforcement directives--by 500 border patrol agents (25%
short), by 600 immigration investigators (75% short), and by
4,000 detention beds (50% short).
We note that the border increases included in this bill are
substantially more than those requested by the President. The
President requested only 362 new personnel and few additional
detention beds. The President's budget did not request the
resources necessary to back up his statement that Congress
``took an important step in strengthening our immigration laws,
by, among other items, increasing the number of border patrol
agents and detention beds'' in the Intelligence Reform Act.
However, when Congress passes legislation dictating new
homeland security mandates, and then does not follow up to
provide the resources to fully meet them, we should expect
questions about our credibility. Some might call this
hypocrisy.
We would also like to point out that there are some
important border and port programs that are not funded
adequately in the President's budget or in this legislation.
One is the radiation portal monitor program. The Department's
plan would result in these monitors, which screen for nuclear
material and weapons of mass destruction, to be installed in
all ports by 2009. Their sole reason for taking so long to
implement this critical equipment is a lack of resources. We
believe it is a misguided decision.

Local Police, Fire and Emergency Responder Preparedness

Increased funding to improve the ability of our local
police, firefighters and emergency personnel to respond to
terrorist acts or disasters has been called for numerous times.
A 2003 Council of Foreign Relations 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.''
In 2003, funding for state homeland security grants (not
including fire grants or port grants which were funded
elsewhere in 2003) and emergency management performance grants
totaled $3.3 billion. This legislation includes only $2.4
billion for these same programs in 2006, a reduction of 27%.
A recent 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.''
The Administration and those in charge of the Congress are
willing to wait too long for these preparedness vulnerabilities
to be addressed. They argue that less than 30 percent of the
funding provided to date to states and localities to improve
preparedness has been spent and that additional funding cannot
be absorbed. It is true that due to Department of Homeland
Security staff shortfalls and equipment backlogs, funding is
not being spent quickly. However, we believe that the
Department should address these issues, rather than use them as
an excuse to cut funding. In addition, funding can only be
spent when it is made available.
Fire grants are probably the most successful grant program
in the Department of Homeland Security. Local fire departments
submit grants requests, which are independently evaluated. The
needs of our fire departments are great. The number of
firefighters has dropped by 32,000 during the past two decades.
Only 13% of fire departments are prepared to respond to a
hazardous material incident. An estimated 57,000 firefighters
lack personal protective clothing for a chemical or biological
attack. One-third of all firefighters per shift are not
equipped with self-contained breathing apparatus. The fire
grant program helps local fire departments deal with these and
other problems.
Yet, the Administration's response to these firefighting
needs is to cut funding more deeply. The Bush budget would
reduce funding for this program by $215 million, or 30%. This
bill makes up roughly half of the President's proposed
reductions. We believe that this program should be fully funded
at last year's level of $715 million.

Critical Infrastructure Protection

The Administration's approach to protecting critical
infrastructure, such as ports, transit and railroad facilities,
and chemical plants continues to frustrate us. Critical
infrastructure is not evaluated objectively or with consistent
expertise. A cynical person might wonder whether federal
support for infrastructure protection is directly related to
the amount of influence the particular industry or entity has
with the White House.
With great fanfare, the President signed legislation
requiring ports to assess their vulnerabilities and develop
security plans. The requirements in this legislation were good
first steps to minimize port vulnerabilities. The Coast Guard
estimated in 2002 that $7 billion in infrastructure
improvements and operating costs would be needed to improve
port security. Congress has provided $737 million to improve
port security since 2001. In that time, the Administration
requested only $46 million, or six percent of this funding. No
separate funding for port security was requested in the
President's 2006 budget. We are pleased that $150 million for
port security is contained in this legislation.
Despite terrorist attacks on transit systems in Japan and
Spain, less than $550 million has been provided to improve rail
and transit security since September 11th. 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.
Last year the Department said that more transit security
funds were not needed until the problem is better defined. How
long must the American public wait for the Department to define
the problem? The Department's main accomplishment in rail and
transit security is a directive to transit operators and
railroads to continue their current security practices.
The Department of Homeland Security is the lead federal
agency on chemical facility security. Yet, to our great
frustration, the Department has set no deadlines to assess
security vulnerabilities and implement security measures in
these facilities.
The Government Accountability Office recommended in 2003
that the Administration develop a comprehensive national
chemical security strategy. We still do not have one. The
American taxpayer is paying for DHS staff and contractors to
assess the vulnerabilities of the highest risk chemical
facilities. We question why these private, profit-making
companies cannot do their own assessments. In fact, many of
them do have risk and vulnerability assessments because it
makes good business sense, but they have not shared this
information with the Department. While this legislation directs
the Department to establish a national chemical security
strategy, we remain concerned that the chemical sector is not
getting the attention it deserves from this Administration and
therefore, the American public remains subject to unnecessary
risk.

Aviation Security

We are disappointed that the Administration continues to
leave aviation security vulnerabilities unaddressed. The recent
evacuation of the Capitol and the White House indicates that
gaps remain in our aviation security system, despite having
spent over $22 billion since September 11th on aviation
security. 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. Last October,
Congress directed TSA to increase threefold the percentage of
cargo carried on passenger aircraft that is screened. It is now
seven months after this legislative requirement and TSA still
has not acted to implement the law. We fully support provisions
of this legislation that impose penalties to the TSA
Administrator if this requirement is not implemented before the
end of this fiscal year. We are also pleased that this
legislation requires TSA to utilize downtime in their checked
baggage screening operations to screen air cargo. Last, we are
encouraged by the $30 million included for three air cargo-
screening pilot projects, two at passenger airports and one at
an all cargo airport.
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
2006 budget does not fund any additional in-line screening
systems beyond the current eight approved airports. This
legislation includes $101 million more for explosive detection
system purchase and installation. This legislation also
includes a provision mandating that recovered or deobligated
TSA funds be used solely for additional explosive detection
improvements.
Finally, we continue to be concerned that the air marshal
program is not given a high enough funding priority by this
Administration. The number of air marshals has decreased, and
they still cannot communicate independently while they are in
the air.

REAL ID

In the most recent supplemental legislation to fund the war
in Iraq, which was signed into law by the President on May
11th, the majority saw fit to include the REAL ID Act, which
among other things requires states, if their driver's licenses
are to be accepted as identification to board aircraft, to:
retain paper or digital copies of source documents (such as
birth certificates); verify source documents; capture digital
images; subject their personnel to security clearances; and
develop electronic access to all states motor vehicle
databases. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the costs
of these requirements to be $100 million.
A Democratic amendment was offered in Committee to provide
$100 million to pay for the requirements of the newly created
REAL ID grant program, which was defeated on a party line vote.
We lament that this vote is further proof of the uncanny
ability of the majority party to say one thing and do another.

Conclusion

Despite its rhetoric, the White House has not given
homeland security the top priority it deserves. This failure is
reflected in the Department of Homeland Security budget
request. It is also reflected in the fact that in its two short
years, the Department has had two Secretaries and three Deputy
Secretaries. Today, six high level political positions, 42% of
the total, are vacant or staffed by people who have already
announced their departures. Homeland security leadership is
woefully lacking today, and critical decisions have been pushed
off until the new political appointees are in place.
This legislation is much improved over the budget request
of the Bush Administration in many respects, including border
enforcement, port security, transit security, and aviation
security. But, due to the nation's fiscal mess exacerbated by
the costs of war and tax cuts to millionaires, critical
homeland security vulnerabilities will continue to go
unaddressed. We sincerely hope that the people of our great
country will not suffer for it.
David Obey.
Martin Olav Sabo.

All Congresses 93-117 (1973-2022)
117 (2021-2022)
116 (2019-2020)
115 (2017-2018)
114 (2015-2016)
113 (2013-2014)
112 (2011-2012)
111 (2009-2010)
110 (2007-2008)
109 (2005-2006)
108 (2003-2004)
107 (2001-2002)
106 (1999-2000)
105 (1997-1998)
104 (1995-1996)
103 (1993-1994)
102 (1991-1992)
101 (1989-1990)
100 (1987-1988)
99 (1985-1986)
98 (1983-1984)
97 (1981-1982)
96 (1979-1980)
95 (1977-1978)
94 (1975-1976)
93 (1973-1974)

Any Version of Legislation
AS - Amendment Ordered to be Printed
ASH - Additional Sponsors House
ATH - Agreed to House
ATS - Agreed to Senate
CDH - Committee Discharged House
CDS - Committee Discharged Senate
CPH - Considered and Passed House
CPS - Considered and Passed Senate
EAH - Engrossed Amendment House
EAS - Engrossed Amendment Senate
EH - Engrossed in House
ENR - Enrolled
ES - Engrossed in Senate
FPH - Failed Passage House
HDS - Held at Desk Senate
IH - Introduced in House
IPS - Indefinitely Postponed Senate
IS - Introduced in Senate
LTH - Laid on Table in House
LTS - Laid on Table in Senate
PAP - Printed as Passed
PCS - Placed on Calendar Senate
PP - Public Print
Private Law
Public Law
RCH - Reference Change House
RCS - Reference Change Senate
RDS - Received in Senate
RFH - Referred in House
RFS - Referred in Senate
RH - Reported in House
RIH - Referral Instructions House
RS - Reported to Senate
RTH - Referred to Committee House
RTS - Referred to Committee Senate
SC - Sponsor Change

All Congresses 97-117 (1981-2022)
117 (2021-2022)
116 (2019-2020)
115 (2017-2018)
114 (2015-2016)
113 (2013-2014)
112 (2011-2012)
111 (2009-2010)
110 (2007-2008)
109 (2005-2006)
108 (2003-2004)
107 (2001-2002)
106 (1999-2000)
105 (1997-1998)
104 (1995-1996)
103 (1993-1994)
102 (1991-1992)
101 (1989-1990)
100 (1987-1988)
99 (1985-1986)
98 (1983-1984)
97 (1981-1982)

Any State or Territory
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Northern Mariana Islands
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Panama Canal Zone
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virgin Islands
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Any State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Northern Mariana Islands
Northern Mariana Islands
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Panama Canal Zone
Panama Canal Zone
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virgin Islands
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

All Congresses 96-117 (1979-2022)
117 (2021-2022)
116 (2019-2020)
115 (2017-2018)
114 (2015-2016)
113 (2013-2014)
112 (2011-2012)
111 (2009-2010)
110 (2007-2008)
109 (2005-2006)
108 (2003-2004)
107 (2001-2002)
106 (1999-2000)
105 (1997-1998)
104 (1995-1996)
103 (1993-1994)
102 (1991-1992)
101 (1989-1990)
100 (1987-1988)
99 (1985-1986)
98 (1983-1984)
97 (1981-1982)
96 (1979-1980)

All Congresses 81-117 (1949-2022)
117 (2021-2022)
116 (2019-2020)
115 (2017-2018)
114 (2015-2016)
113 (2013-2014)
112 (2011-2012)
111 (2009-2010)
110 (2007-2008)
109 (2005-2006)
108 (2003-2004)
107 (2001-2002)
106 (1999-2000)
105 (1997-1998)
104 (1995-1996)
103 (1993-1994)
102 (1991-1992)
101 (1989-1990)
100 (1987-1988)
99 (1985-1986)
98 (1983-1984)
97 (1981-1982)
96 (1979-1980)
95 (1977-1978)
94 (1975-1976)
93 (1973-1974)
92 (1971-1972)
91 (1969-1970)
90 (1967-1968)
89 (1965-1966)
88 (1963-1964)
87 (1961-1962)
86 (1959-1960)
85 (1957-1958)
84 (1955-1956)
83 (1953-1954)
82 (1951-1952)
81 (1949-1950)

Any Topic
Agriculture
Arms Control
Aviation
Commercial
Consular
Dispute Settlement and Arbitration
Drugs/Illegal Substances
Environment
Extradition
Extradition and Criminal Assistance
Fisheries and Wildlife
Human Rights
Intellectual Property/Copyrights
International Law
International Law and Organization
Investment
Labor
Maritime Boundaries and Claims
Mutual Legal Assistance
Shipping and Marine Pollution
Taxation
Telecommunications
Terrorism
Trademarks/Patents
United Nations