    [House Report 109-79]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

    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:

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Budget estimate      Recommended
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Under Secretary for Management............................................         $1,867,000         $1,822,000
    Business Transformation Office............................................            948,000            948,000
    Immigration Statistics....................................................          5,987,000          5,987,000
    Office of the Chief Procurement Officer...................................          9,020,000          9,020,000
    Office of Chief Human Capital Officer.....................................         61,996,000         61,951,000
    Office of Chief Administrative Officer....................................         66,801,000         66,356,000
                                                                               -------------------------------------
        Total.................................................................       $146,619,000       $146,084,000
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              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:

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Budget estimate         Recommended
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Headquarters Management and Administration..........................          $412,143,000          $412,143,000
    Investigations......................................................         1,233,848,000         1,271,648,000
        Operations......................................................         1,215,916,000         1,253,716,000
        Training........................................................            17,932,000            17,932,000

    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.