[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.

                                  
