[House Report 110-181]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
110th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 110-181
======================================================================
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2008
_______
June 8, 2007.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Price of North Carolina, from the Committee on Appropriations,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 2638]
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, 2008.
INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT
Page number
Bill Report
TITLE I--DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS
Office of the Secretary and Executive Management... 2
13
Office of the Under Secretary for Management....... 2
17
Office of the Chief Financial Officer.............. 3
19
Office of the Chief Information Officer............ 3
20
Analysis and Operations............................ 4
23
Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast
Rebuilding..................................... 5
24
Office of Inspector General........................ 5
25
TITLE II--SECURITY, ENFORCEMENT, AND INVESTIGATIONS
United States Customs and Border Protection........ 5
27
Salaries and Expenses...................... 5
27
Automation Modernization................... 8
33
Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure,
and Technology......................... 11
34
Air and Marine Interdiction, Operations,
Maintenance, and Procurement........... 16
38
Construction............................... 17
39
United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement.. 17
40
Salaries and Expenses...................... 17
40
Federal Protective Service................. 19
47
Automation Modernization................... 20
47
Construction............................... 21
48
Transportation Security Administration............. 22
48
Aviation Security.......................... 22
48
Surface Transportation Security............ 23
58
Transportation Threat Assessment and
Credentialing.......................... 23
59
Transportation Security Support............ 24
62
Federal Air Marshals....................... 24
63
United States Coast Guard.......................... 24
64
Operating Expenses......................... 24
64
Environmental Compliance and Restoration... 25
68
Reserve Training........................... 25
69
Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements 26
69
Alteration of Bridges...................... 31
75
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation. 31
75
Medical Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund
Contribution...........................
76
Retired Pay................................ 32
76
United States Secret Service....................... 32
77
Salaries and Expenses...................... 32
77
Acquisition, Construction, Improvements,
and Related Expenses................... 35
81
TITLE III--PROTECTION, PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE AND RECOVERY
National Protection and Programs Directorate....... 35
81
Management and Administration.............. 35
81
Infrastructure Protection and Information
Security............................... 35
82
United States Visitor and Immigrant Status
Indicator Technology................... 36
87
Office of Health Affairs........................... 38
90
Federal Emergency Management Agency................ 38
93
Management and Administration.............. 38
93
State and Local Programs................... 39
97
Firefighter Assistance Grants.............. 42
106
Emergency Management Performance Grants.... 43
106
Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program 43
107
United States Fire Administration.......... 44
108
Disaster Relief............................ 44
108
Disaster Assistance Direct Loan Program
Account................................ 44
109
Flood Map Modernization Fund............... 45
109
National Flood Insurance Fund.............. 45
110
National Flood Mitigation Fund............. 47
111
National Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund...... 47
112
Emergency Food and Shelter................. 47
113
TITLE IV--RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, TRAINING, AND SERVICES
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. 48
113
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center............ 48
117
Salaries and Expenses...................... 48
117
Acquisition, Construction, Improvements,
and Related Expenses................... 49
117
Science and Technology............................. 50
118
Management and Administration.............. 50
118
Research, Development, Acquisition, and
Operations............................. 50
119
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office.................. 51
124
Management and Administration.............. 51
124
Research, Development, and Operations...... 51
125
Systems Acquisition........................ 51
127
TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS
This Act........................................... 52
129
Compliance with House Rules........................
138
Tables.............................................
158
Summary of the Total Bill..........................
194
Summary of Major Recommendations in the Bill
The Committee recommends $36,254,000,000 in discretionary
resources for the Department of Homeland Security,
$2,065,387,000 above the amount requested and $2,520,000,000
above fiscal year 2007 enacted levels (including border
security and immigration enforcement emergency funding and
excluding recently-enacted 2007 supplemental appropriations).
Priorities in the Bill
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was established
in March 2003 to prevent terrorist attacks in the United
States, reduce America's vulnerabilities to catastrophic
events, and minimize damage and enhance recovery from attacks
and disasters. While the security of our nation has improved
since 9/11, many wonder why, six years after that terrible day,
we are not further along in reducing known vulnerabilities. The
Department has been slow to integrate traditional legacy agency
missions with new homeland security missions, and the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the primary emergency
response agency, was left to disintegrate.
This year, the Committee conducted 20 hearings over two
months, beginning with hearings involving outside experts--both
practitioners and academics--on the steps the Department and
the nation must take to improve homeland security. These early
hearings covered overarching topics such as five and ten year
goals; risk assessment; management challenges; privacy
protections; and investment trade-offs. Many witnesses
testified that homeland security investments should serve dual
purposes, instead of being focused on terrorism alone, and that
risk analysis must be significantly improved and should address
all hazards.
The Committee's hearings covered every component and agency
of the Department and involved testimony from every high-level
Departmental administrator, beginning with the Secretary. The
hearings frequently paired Departmental officials on the same
panel with experts from the Government Accountability Office
and the Inspector General to ensure that the Committee received
full information and analysis about Departmental activities.
The Committee's intention has been to reassess the Department's
performance since its inception and to reevaluate and
substantiate its goals for the future. The Committee's goal is
to require of the Department the highest level of
accountability for carrying out its planning, procuring,
managing, and overseeing responsibilities.
Given the critical and demanding nature of the Department's
mission, there may well be expectations that it simply cannot
meet given resource limitations and the current state of
technology: the statutory requirement for the implementation of
a comprehensive biometric-exit capability at land ports of
entry may prove to be such a case, at least in the short-term.
Neither Congress nor the American people expect miracles; when
the Department is unable to meet a requirement, the Committee
expects Departmental leadership to be frank and clear about its
limitations.
The Committee has identified a number of programs and
activities that would benefit, in particular, from expert
review by an outside entity. The Committee has therefore
directed the implementation of 16 studies or reviews by the
Government Accountability Office (GAO), the National Academy of
Sciences, or the National Academy of Public Administration.
Among the issues for study are the coordination of the
government-wide homeland security research portfolio and the
opportunity costs in other research areas as homeland security
activities absorb a larger share of limited resources; the
current direction of the BioWatch program; and the integration
of FEMA's preparedness and response programs.
With the testimony from the Committee hearings in mind, the
Committee focuses its recommendations for funding in this bill
on the following: improving the operation of the Department;
improving the Department's stewardship of taxpayer resources by
increasing competition in the awarding of grants and contracts,
and promoting investments in programs with dual benefits;
developing more rigorous and comprehensive risk analysis tools;
putting the Department on a path toward meeting well known and
established security needs and correcting recent failures; and
ensuring that privacy and civil rights are protected as
homeland security is enhanced.
Projects
Congress has made significant reforms in the way it reviews
funding for the Federal government, reforms which the Committee
takes very seriously as it executes its constitutional
authority. Earmarking or directed spending of Federal dollars
does not begin with Congress. It begins with the Executive
Branch. The following is an illustrative list of border patrol
and other construction projects submitted by the
Administration: Sierra Vista, AZ hangar and flight center;
Yuma, AZ hangar; Uvalde, TX hangar; Laredo, TX hangar; Marfa,
TX hangar; Three Points, AZ, border patrol station; Sasabe, AZ,
border patrol station; Boulevard, CA, border patrol station;
and Blythe, CA, border patrol station.
The Administration, in selecting these projects, goes
through a process that is the functional equivalent of
earmarking. When the Committee reviews the budget request, it
goes through a process of rigorous review and may alter or
modify this list to reflect additional priorities.
The Executive Branch also determines which entities and
areas should receive grant funds. In homeland security, over
$4.3 billion in grant funding is allocated per year solely at
the discretion of the Executive Branch. Hard and fast rules on
how homeland security grant proposals are evaluated and rank
ordered are not in place. In fact, even the Government
Accountability Office has been unable to ascertain how
decisions are made on some of the grant awards. As light is
shone on the Congressional process in directing grant funding,
so should it be shone on the Executive Branch process.
Finally, the Executive Branch steers or directs money to
specific entities or purposes through a process of contracting-
out various activities and services. In many important work
locations, the number of people working for contractors exceeds
the number of Federal employees in the same building or
location. In the Transportation Security Administration, for
example, 80 percent of the employees who work on air cargo
security are not federal employees, but contractors. When added
together, the Executive Branch steers or directs far greater
spending to specific projects or corporations than is directed
or earmarked by Congress. Many of these, in fact, are
noncompetitive or sole-sourced. And the practice of non-
competitive contracting has exploded in the past five years.
For example, the Federal Emergency Management Agency recently
submitted to the Committee a list of 3,982 contracts that were
never competitively bid. In this bill, the Committee includes
language mandating that all grants and contracts be
competitively awarded
The Committee provides no recommendation at this time for
specific projects contained in either the Administration's
budget or proposed by Members of Congress.
Individual project allocations will be considered
comprehensively after the Committee has properly analyzed all
relevant information.
Departmental Leadership
This year's hearings made clear DHS's significant and
continuing challenges in transforming its huge workforce and
diverse collection of offices and agencies into a coherent,
effective Department. Since the Department was created, the
organizational integrity of its constituent agencies has been
insufficiently protected and valued. The result has been time
and energy wasted on interagency turf battles and a DHS
workforce that is among the most demoralized in Federal
government. According to a recent government-wide survey of
Federal employees, the Department ranks last in job
satisfaction, last on results-oriented performance culture,
next to last on leadership and knowledge management, and third
from last on talented management. No organization can thrive
unless it recruits, retains and inspires competent personnel.
The Committee is concerned that the Department continues to
launch initiatives, including for Administration ``top
priorities'' such as border security and immigration, with an
insufficient level of planning. The Secure Border Initiative
(SBI) and the Immigration Guest Worker program are prime
examples. While the Committee recognizes the need for the
Administration to respond quickly to security vulnerabilities,
it expects the Department to submit thoughtful, organized and
comprehensive program and policy proposals to the Congress.
The Department leaves itself vulnerable to cost increases
if its programs are defined at the same time they are being
implemented. In general, the Committee has not funded
initiatives for which the Department can provide no detailed
plan, and has withheld from obligation a total of $1.9 billion
in partial funding for nine programs until detailed plans are
provided to the Congress. For example, $400,000,000 is withheld
from obligation until the Coast Guard submits a Deepwater
expenditure plan that lays out key management items;
$700,000,000 is withheld from obligation until U.S. Customs and
Border Protection submits an SBI expenditure plan that
describes how funding is allocated to the highest priority
border security needs and how Northern Border vulnerabilities
will be addressed; and $100,000,000 is withheld from obligation
pending the results of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative
pilot projects.
Many outside experts have identified the need for greater
vertical and horizontal integration of DHS's efforts and
programs, to include coordination among the Department, State
and local officials and first responders; coordination and
partnerships with other Federal agencies; and information
exchange and consultation with the private sector. The private
sector owns 85 percent of the assets identified as critical by
DHS. A prime example of continuing integration problems was
revealed at a hearing on the Justice Department's budget, when
the Justice official responsible for distributing grant funding
to local police neither knew what the DHS law enforcement grant
funding budget was, nor had spoken with DHS grant officials. To
spur progress, the Committee has provided funding for
intelligence fusion centers, where information is shared with
State and local officials, and national infrastructure
protection efforts that involve structured public-private
partnerships to identify and mitigate critical vulnerabilities.
Improving Stewardship of Taxpayer Dollars by Investing in Programs With
Multiple Benefits
Nearly every leading expert on homeland security suggests
that investments in programs that support first responders pay
off during a terrorist attack, natural disaster, chemical
spill, or other anticipated or unanticipated crises. When law
enforcement agencies at all levels of government have better
communication technology and develop common protocols, the
benefit is not just to the fight against terrorism. When our
borders are better controlled, tools that help detect and stop
terrorists from entering will also help catch more criminals
and smugglers. Many DHS programs provide such dual benefits.
The Committee has provided increased funding to several DHS
programs that ``pay off'' in more than one way. Specifically,
the Committee recommends $4.12 billion for first responder
grant, training and preparedness programs, $1.8 billion above
the amount requested, and $673,000,000 above the amount
appropriated to DHS for 2007. Funding at this level will help
the Department begin to meet the investment goals set out in
the 2003 Hart-Rudman report, ``Drastically Underfunded,
Dangerously Unprepared,'' which found that ``America will fall
approximately $98 billion short of meeting critical emergency
responder needs over the next five years if current funding
levels are maintained.'' A report by the ``Task Force on A
Unified Security Budget for the United States, 2006'' similarly
found that funding reductions for preparedness and response
programs ``translate into dangerous vulnerabilities, given the
scope and character of the terrorist threat.'' We must invest
in the capabilities of our police and firefighters because the
very first layer of our nation's security is ``hometown''
security. The Committee has also provided funding for a
National Academy of Sciences study on the Department's risk
analysis capabilities and the improvements needed to ensure
that investments are well targeted.
The Administration has repeatedly stated that port security
lies in the hands of Federal border agents, the Coast Guard,
port authorities and police agencies. Improvements to port
security programs benefit trade, as well as terrorism
prevention. In 2002, the Coast Guard estimated that $7 billion
was needed in infrastructure improvements and operating costs
to implement the sea port security improvements mandated in the
Maritime Transportation Security Act. To date, only $1.2
billion has been provided, including funding in the recently-
enacted 2007 supplemental appropriations. This bill contains
$400 million for port security improvements. Unfortunately, no
additional funding was requested in the Administration's budget
to implement the additional port security requirements defined
in the 2006 Security and Accountability For Every Port Act. The
Committee provides an additional $40,000,000 for the Coast
Guard to meet these mandates.
Achieving Meaningful Border Security
DHS spends more than $12 billion annually, about a third of
its discretionary budget, on programs and operations designed
to ensure the integrity of the nation's borders, including
activities to prevent terrorism, smuggling, crime, and illegal
immigration. Yet, today our border security is uneven. Funding
increases have swollen the ranks of the Border Patrol, which
(with this bill) will exceed the staffing increases of 2,000
agents per year required under the Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA). By the end of fiscal
year 2008, the Border Patrol will employ a record 17,819
agents. Border Patrol agent staffing on the Northern Border,
however, has not kept pace with statutory IRTPA targets.
Similarly, Congress appropriated $1.5 billion in fiscal
years 2006 and 2007 to establish the SBI; yet SBI has focused
exclusively on the Southwest Border, to the detriment of the
Northern Border and coastlines, which are no less vulnerable.
In addition, the program is concentrating on infrastructure
between ports of entry, but is not addressing the logical shift
of illegal activity to poorly equipped, staffed and designed
ports of entry. The US-VISIT program, with $1,750,000,000 in
appropriations to date, has only addressed the entry aspect of
the entry-exit problem; and new initiatives, such as the
Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI), are being
developed without data from pilot tests or a comprehensive
vision for their implementation that is fully transparent to
the public and Congress. In hearings, the Committee was struck
by testimony from GAO that questioned the adequacy of
justifications for spending actions by the Department, and by
the inability of DHS witnesses to justify fully investments.
The Committee includes language and funding in the bill and
report requiring the Department to comprehensively plan and
budget for border security activities; adequately address the
problems of the Northern Border; reduce pressure on ports of
entry; complete planning for WHTI; develop an exit strategy
under US-VISIT (or explain why no near term solution is
possible); and strengthen validation of Customs-Trade
Partnership Against Terrorism participants. In addition, the
bill provides $50,000,000 to help recruit and retain CBP
Officers by providing them the same retirement benefits as
other law enforcement officers. The Committee includes $1
billion for Border Security, Fencing, Infrastructure and
Technology, but has strengthened statutory requirements for the
release of funding to ensure that the Department clearly
explains how it will plan for and finance a more comprehensive
approach to border security. The Committee expects full
consultation with affected communities and intends to link
future funding to the Department's success in planning,
developing, and implementing systems that meet the security
needs of the nation without penalizing legitimate travel and
commerce.
Improving Stewardship of Taxpayer Dollars by Increasing Contracting
Oversight and Competition
DHS spends more than $15 billion annually, more than 40
percent of its discretionary budget, on contracts and
acquisitions. In a review performed for the Committee, the GAO
found that DHS agencies have experienced ongoing cost,
schedule, and performance problems with major acquisitions,
including the Coast Guard's Deepwater program, and the
procurement of services. DHS is in need of major improvements
to its acquisition oversight and managerial process. For
instance, most DHS component agencies were found to be unaware
of the DHS requirement that they conduct yearly annual
acquisition reviews.
The Committee is committed to ensuring that DHS invests
acquisition dollars only in projects that are well-planned,
competitively awarded, well managed, and closely overseen. To
address this concern, the Committee has increased funding for
the Department's procurement office by over $10,000,000, or 60
percent above fiscal year 2007, so that more oversight staff
can be hired and all staff can be well trained. The bill also
requires specific contracting and acquisition management
reforms by the Coast Guard.
The Committee is particularly concerned that some DHS
funding, including grants and contracts, is being awarded with
limited or no competition for those dollars. Competition not
only helps ensure that the Government gets the biggest benefit
from its investments, but also exposes the Government to new
ideas and new directions that it may not have considered.
Competition begets innovation; and innovative solutions are
sorely needed at DHS. Therefore, the Committee has included
bill language mandating that grant and contract funding
provided in this Act be awarded through competitive procedures,
while giving the Secretary the ability to waive this
requirement in time of emergency.
Putting the Department on a Path Toward Meeting Well Known and
Established Security Needs
Many specific homeland security vulnerabilities have not
been sufficiently addressed by the Department, including those
at our transit systems and ports, in aviation, on the Northern
Border, and related to identifying criminal aliens who are
deportable. The Committee recommends placing DHS on a path
toward significantly improving security in these five specific
areas over the next five years.
Since 9/11, technological strides have permitted better
detection of explosives and other threats in checked and carry-
on baggage, on people, and in containers and cargo. However,
the Department has been slow to test, procure and install these
technologies. The Committee has provided resources in this bill
to decrease vulnerabilities in transportation security and to
correct this under investment. These resources will accelerate
the deployment of the best possible screening solutions to
protect our citizens and allow us to readily adapt to potential
threats. When combined with funding provided for 2007,
including funding in the recently-enacted 2007 supplemental
appropriations, the $560,000,000 provided in this bill will
meet one-sixth of the total need identified in the most recent
aviation baggage screening study.
While passengers and checked baggage are routinely
inspected, cargo carried on passenger aircraft today is not. In
fact, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) only
recently set up a system to help determine how much air cargo
is actually screened for explosives; its prior security system
was the compilation of written reviews by air cargo inspectors.
The bill addresses this glaring vulnerability by mandating that
TSA double the amount of air cargo carried on passenger
aircraft that is screened for explosives. This requirement puts
TSA on a path toward screening all such cargo within three
years. The bill also begins the effort to address a third
aviation security vulnerability: the current lack of routine
screening of airport workers as they enter and re-enter secure
airport space. Funding is included to pilot full screening of
airport workers at seven airports.
As demonstrated by recent attacks in London and Madrid,
transit systems are vulnerable terrorist targets. Yet, only
$724,200,000 has been provided since 9/11 to secure them,
including funding in the recently-enacted 2007 supplemental
appropriations. The transit industry estimates that $6 billion
is needed for security training, radio communications systems,
security cameras, and access controls. The $400,000,000
provided in this bill for transit and rail security puts the
nation on a path toward meeting the majority of these
identified security needs within six years.
The Committee has heard repeatedly that the Northern Border
is more vulnerable to terrorism than the Southwest Border. Yet
the Administration has transferred resources and personnel from
the Northern to the Southwest Border. The Committee has funded
the U.S. Customs and Border Protection plan to better secure
the Northern Border by establishing and equipping Northern
Border airwings and by piloting a possible solution to meeting
the mandates of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. The
Committee is concerned, however, that the Secure Border
Initiative (SBI) Program contains no specific funding for
further Northern Border security enhancements. The Committee
has directed the Administration to provide a SBI plan that
includes a plan for addressing the security of the Northern
Border.
If the Committee followed the budget requested by the
Administration, many illegal aliens who have been convicted of
crimes and are currently incarcerated would be released from
prison before DHS even became aware of them. The Committee
addresses this problem by requiring the Department to obtain
information from every jail, prison, and detention facility in
the U.S. on a monthly basis to identify every incarcerated
alien who may be subject to deportation and to ensure that each
such person judged deportable is removed from the United States
upon release from the corrections system. According to DHS
estimates, prisons and jails of this country currently hold
630,000 foreign nationals who have been convicted of crimes.
Building On Successes and Correcting Failures
Terrorists and others wishing to do harm are constantly
looking for vulnerabilities and weaknesses that can be
exploited to cause physical and psychological damage to our
homeland. To counter this, DHS must become a well functioning
organization that seeks to learn from its mistakes, identify
and correct potential errors and, when necessary, admit when a
solution is beyond the reach of current capabilities.
The Department should constantly test its current systems
to identify weaknesses and find ways to adapt to the next
threat. To address this need, the Committee has encouraged the
Department to be more proactive in red teaming and undertaking
critical program evaluations. Red teaming involves the use of
``what if'' experts who devise possible ways to attack or harm
us and then test the system to see if it can defend against
such tactics. For example, GAO investigators printed a fake
Nuclear Regulatory Commission certificate on a computer and
used it to carry radiological material into the U.S. from
Canada. In that case, CBP officers accurately detected the
presence of radiological material, but were unable to identify
the documents as forged. While this vulnerability has been
corrected, the routine use of red teams is necessary to
identify others that almost certainly exist. The Committee has
provided $16,000,000, 13 percent above the current level, to
expand the use of red teaming activities throughout DHS.
There is a consensus that FEMA must be restored to the
strong role it had in the 1990s to avoid a repeat of its inept
response to Hurricane Katrina. The Nation must properly prepare
for and respond to disasters of every kind because they are
going to occur. While a hurricane or tornado cannot be
prevented, this country can ensure that strict building codes
are enforced, that strong mitigation programs are utilized
around the country to prevent repetitive loss, and that our
first responders are well-equipped and well trained. Among
FEMA's biggest continuing challenges are inadequate staffing
and poorly functioning information technology, grants and
financial management systems. The Committee provides
$100,000,000 in the bill to address these deficiencies.
Protecting Privacy and Civil Liberties While Increasing Security
The Department is faced with numerous challenges in the
privacy and civil rights area, including a lack of stability at
the leadership level. In the four short years the Department
has existed, three different individuals have led the
Department of Homeland Security's Privacy Office, either
officially or in an extended acting capacity. The Privacy
Office was created so that privacy issues would receive
prominent attention by DHS as it formulated policy--yet this
has not always happened. In fact, weak DHS compliance with the
Privacy Act has been found at least three times in the past
three years: with the ADVISE program, the Secure Flight
Program, and with the Automated Targeting System for Airline
Passengers. Looking ahead, other critical privacy issues must
be addressed through assessments related to State actions under
the REAL ID Act; the Transportation Worker Identification Card;
the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative PASS Card; and
Aviation Registered Traveler information. Citizens and
residents should know what the government and its agents do
with personally identifiable information, and how such
information will be protected.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recommended that
early attention to privacy in developing key DHS programs be
used to reduce cost risks. The Committee has provided direction
throughout this bill and report requiring the Department to
implement this recommendation.
The civil rights component of the Department is currently
investigating allegations concerning profiling, discrimination,
and the condition of detention facilities. With a total of 47
staff, it is the smallest civil rights office of any major
cabinet agency. The Committee provides additional resources to
expand the efforts of this office to address the full range of
civil rights concerns.
TITLE I--DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS
Office of the Secretary and Executive Management
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 \1\................... $94,170,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... 107,939,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 102,930,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +8,760,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. -5,009,000
\1\ Includes $300,000 transferred to TSA in section 21101 of P.L. 110-5.
Mission
The mission of the Office of the Secretary and Executive
Management is to provide efficient services to the Department
of Homeland Security and to support the Department in the
achievement of its strategic goals: preventing terrorist
attacks within the United States; reducing America's
vulnerabilities to terrorism and natural disaster; and
minimizing damage and expediting recovery from attacks or
disasters that may occur.
Recommendation
The Committee recommends $102,930,000 for the Office of the
Secretary and Executive Management, $5,009,000 below the amount
requested and $8,760,000 above the amount provided for fiscal
year 2007. 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. $2,650,000 $2,540,000
Immediate Office of the Deputy 1,222,000 1,185,000
Secretary........................
Chief of Staff.................... 2,639,000 2,639,000
Office of Counternarcotics 3,155,000 3,000,000
Enforcement......................
Executive Secretary............... 5,127,000 4,588,000
Office of Policy.................. 35,300,000 32,500,000
Secure Border Initiative Program 4,500,000 4,500,000
Executive Office.................
Office of Public Affairs.......... 7,686,000 6,300,000
Office of Legislative and 5,618,000 4,618,000
Intergovernmental Affairs........
Office of General Counsel......... 15,155,000 14,000,000
Office of Civil Rights and 13,722,000 15,000,000
Liberties........................
Citizenship and Immigration 6,054,000 6,060,000
Services Ombudsman...............
Privacy Officer................... 5,111,000 6,000,000
-------------------------------------
Total......................... $107,939,000 $102,930,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMMEDIATE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
The Committee recommends $2,540,000 for the Immediate
Office of the Secretary, $110,000 below the amount requested
and the same level as provided for fiscal year 2007. Funding
has been reduced due to the large number of vacancies in this
office that are estimated to continue through the remainder of
fiscal year 2007 and into fiscal year 2008.
The Committee directs the Secretary immediately to clearly
define, in a memorandum to all DHS employees, the roles and
responsibilities of the Inspector General (IG) and the roles
and responsibilities of all DHS employees in responding to
requests by the IG. The IG has requested such a memo to address
recent problems obtaining information from the Department.
Although the Secretary testified that he intended to meet the
IG's request, the Committee understands that has yet to be
accomplished. The Committee also notes its concern with the
lack of adequate representation of minorities within the ranks
of the Department's senior leadership.
IMMEDIATE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SECRETARY
The Committee recommends $1,185,000 for the Immediate
Office of the Deputy Secretary, $37,000 below the amount
requested and the same level as provided for fiscal year 2007.
Funding has been reduced due to the staff vacancy in this
office that is estimated to continue through the remainder of
fiscal year 2007 and into fiscal year 2008.
OFFICE OF COUNTERNARCOTICS ENFORCEMENT
The Committee recommends $3,000,000 for the Office of
Counter-narcotics Enforcement, $155,000 below the amount
requested and $640,000 above the amount provided for fiscal
year 2007. Funding has been reduced due to the large number of
vacancies in this office that are estimated to continue through
the remainder of fiscal year 2007 and into fiscal year 2008.
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
The Committee recommends $4,588,000 for the Executive
Secretary, $539,000 below the amount requested and $138,000
above the amount provided for fiscal year 2007. The Committee
recommends sufficient funding to support the current staffing
level of 37 and does not provide the additional funds requested
to increase staff beyond this number.
OFFICE OF POLICY
The Committee recommends $32,500,000 for the Office of
Policy, $2,800,000 below the amount requested and $3,195,000
above the amount provided for fiscal year 2007. Sufficient
funding is provided to support the 2007 planned staffing level
of 136, while taking into account the large number of vacancies
in this office that are estimated to continue through the
remainder of fiscal year 2007 and into fiscal year 2008. The
Committee recommendation includes funding to support the
requested Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States
(CFIUS) enhancements, the comprehensive homeland security
review, and an additional $400,000 for REAL ID support. No
funding has been provided to select REAL ID ``card stock'' or
common procurement items.
SECURE BORDER INITIATIVE PROGRAM EXECUTIVE OFFICE
The Committee recommends $4,500,000 for the Secure Border
Initiative Program Executive Office, the same as the amount
requested and the amount provided for fiscal year 2007. This
Office is directed to submit a plan covering the expected uses
of these funds within 30 days of the date of enactment of this
Act. This expenditure plan should specifically include
staffing, budget information, a description of all contracts
contemplated in 2008, the amount of funding that will be
utilized by the Secure Border Coordination Council, and a
description of the roles and responsibilities of this Council.
The Committee is pleased with the level of detail provided in
the bi-monthly Secure Border Initiative Status reports and
directs they be continued.
OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
The Committee recommends $6,300,000 for the Office of
Public Affairs, $1,386,000 below the amount requested and
$300,000 above the amount provided for fiscal year 2007. The
Committee recommends sufficient funding for a total of 30
staff, equal to the current on-board strength.
OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
The Committee recommends $4,618,000 for the Office of
Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, $1,000,000 below the
amount requested and $831,000 below the amount provided for
fiscal year 2007. The Committee recommends sufficient funding
for 43 staff, equal to the current on-board strength.
OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL
The Committee recommends $14,000,000 for the Office of
General Counsel, $1,155,000 below the amount requested and
$1,241,000 above the amount provided for fiscal year 2007. The
Committee recommends sufficient funding for 77 staff, equal to
the current on-board strength. As vacancies arise in this
office, the Committee directs the Department to fill the
vacancies with positions dedicated to CFIUS reviews and fiscal
law.
OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES
The Committee recommends $15,000,000 for the Office of
Civil Rights and Liberties, $1,278,000 above the amounts
requested and $2,000,000 above the amount provided for fiscal
year 2007. These additional funds are to be used to mitigate
the office's staffing shortfalls and expand the important work
of this office.
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN
The Committee recommends $6,060,000 for the Citizenship and
Immigration Services Ombudsman, $6,000 above the amounts
requested and $133,000 above the amounts provided for fiscal
year 2007.
PRIVACY OFFICER
The Committee recommends $6,000,000 for the Privacy
Officer, $889,000 above the amounts requested and $1,565,000
above the amounts provided for fiscal year 2007. These
additional funds are to be used to mitigate the office's
staffing shortfalls and expand the important work of this
office.
BUDGET JUSTIFICATIONS
The Committee directs that the fiscal year 2009
Congressional budget justifications for the Office of the
Secretary and Executive Management include the same level of
detail as the table contained at the end of the Committee
report. All funding and staffing changes for each individual
office must be highlighted and explained. The Committee expects
this level of detail to include separate discussions for
personnel, compensation, and benefits; travel; training; and
other services.
WORKING CAPITAL FUND
Consistent with prior years, the Committee directs the
Department to include a separate appropriation justification
for the Working Capital Fund (WCF) in the fiscal year 2009
Congressional budget justification. This WCF justification
should include a description of each activity funded by the
WCF; the basis for the pricing; the number of full-time Federal
employees funded in each activity; a list of each Departmental
organization providing funds to the activity; and the funding
the organization expects in fiscal years 2008 and 2009. If a
project contained in the WCF justification is a multi-year
activity with a defined cost, scope and schedule, the estimated
costs and schedule shall be clearly delineated.
The Committee expects all cross-cutting initiatives funded
by multiple DHS organizations to be financed through the WCF.
The Committee does not support taxing Departmental
organizations for cross-cutting initiatives outside of the WCF.
As such, the justification should identify any cross-cutting
initiatives or activities that benefit more than one
organization that are not financed through the WCF and explain
the omission.
The Committee expects to be notified promptly of any
additions, deletions, or changes to the WCF during the fiscal
year. Furthermore, the Department should not fund any
activities within the WCF that the Committees on Appropriations
have disapproved either in report language or in their response
to reprogramming requests.
Comparative Border Control Resources
The Committee recognizes that Departmental resources on the
Southwestern Border greatly exceed those on the Northern
Border. The Committee directs the Secretary to report not later
than January 31, 2008, on the number, type and location of DHS
facilities, personnel, major assets (for example, aircraft and
maritime vessels) and technology (for example, communication
towers) based or deployed within 100 miles of the United States
borders with Mexico and Canada.
Office of the Under Secretary for Management
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 \1\................... $148,640,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... 278,350,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 237,765,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +89,125,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. -40,585,000
\1\ Includes reduction of $5,000,000 transferred to TSA in section 21101
of P.L. 110-5.
MISSION
The Office of the Under Secretary for Management's primary
mission is to deliver quality administrative support services
for human resources and personnel; facilities, property,
equipment and other material resources management; safety,
health and environmental protection; and identification and
tracking of performance measurements relating to the
responsibilities of the Department. This office is also in
charge of implementing a mission support structure for the
Department of Homeland Security to deliver administrative
services while eliminating redundancies and reducing support
costs.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $237,765,000 for the Office of the
Under Secretary for Management, $40,585,000 below the amount
requested and $89,125,000 above the amount provided for fiscal
year 2007. In order to adequately oversee expenditures for each
office, the Committee has provided separate funding
recommendations as detailed in the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under Secretary for Management.... $2,012,000 $2,012,000
Office of Security................ 53,990,000 52,990,000
Office of the Chief Procurement 28,495,000 27,055,000
Officer..........................
Office of the Chief Human Capital 25,278,000 13,278,000
Officer..........................
Office of the Chief Administrative 168,575,000 142,430,000
Officer..........................
-------------------------------------
Total......................... $278,350,000 $237,765,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFICE OF SECURITY
The Committee recommends $52,990,000 for the Office of
Security, $1,000,000 below the amounts requested and $350,000
above the amount provided for fiscal year 2007. The Committee
recommends no funding for fusion center security services, as
this activity is funded within the Analysis and Operations
appropriation.
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF PROCUREMENT OFFICER
The Committee recommends $27,055,000 for the Office of the
Chief Procurement Officer, $1,440,000 below the amounts
requested and $10,160,000 above the amount provided for fiscal
year 2007. Funding has been reduced due to the large number of
vacancies in this office that are estimated to continue through
the remainder of fiscal year 2007 and into fiscal year 2008.
The Committee recommends $4,500,000, as requested, to improve
competencies of the Department's acquisition workforce, and
$5,100,000, as requested, for a new acquisition intern program.
The Committee includes bill language (Sec. 537) requiring all
contract and grant funding provided in this Act be awarded
through the use of full and open competition or any other
mechanism specified in statute.
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF HUMAN CAPITAL OFFICER
The Committee recommends $13,278,000 for the Office of the
Chief Human Capital Officer, $12,000,000 below the amount
requested and $15,533,000 below the amount provided for fiscal
year 2007. Of this total, $10,278,000 is recommended for the
salaries and expenses of the Office of the Chief Human Capital
Officer and $3,000,000 is recommended for human resource
activities, including a human capital survey. No funding is
recommended for MAX-HR, as the Committee has included a
statutory prohibition (Sec. 531) on the obligation of MAX-HR
funds until all pending litigation is resolved.
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
The Committee recommends $142,430,000 for the Office of the
Chief Administrative Officer, $26,145,000 below the amount
requested and $94,006,000 above the amounts provided for fiscal
year 2007. Of this total, $41,430,000 is recommended for the
salaries and expenses of the Office of the Chief Administrative
Officer, and $101,000,000 is for costs associated with DHS
headquarters needs at the Nebraska Avenue Complex and the
proposed consolidated DHS headquarters campus at the St.
Elizabeths Hospital site in Washington, D.C.
The Committee includes bill language withholding funds to
design, build or relocate any Departmental activity to St.
Elizabeths until the Department provides two critical items to
the Committee: (1) a published U-Visa rule, regarding victims
of domestic violence, which is more than six years behind
schedule; and (2) a detailed expenditure plan for aviation
checkpoint and checked baggage explosive detection system
procurement and installations. Since the Department is
currently working on both of these items, the Committee expects
them easily to be provided to the Committee quickly.
DHS HEADQUARTERS FACILITIES
The Committee includes $101,000,000 for headquarters-
related projects at DHS, $25,000,000 below the amount
requested. The Department must balance its current needs at the
Nebraska Avenue Complex with investment in facilities planned
for the St. Elizabeths campus facility. Since a significant
portion of departmental offices is scheduled to move to St.
Elizabeths in 2011 and 2012, the Committee directs the Chief
Administrative Officer to minimize investment in improvements
at the Nebraska Avenue Complex that will be replicated at the
new headquarters campus.
While the St. Elizabeths site offers a good opportunity for
DHS component and headquarters functions to be co-located in a
secure setting, the Committee is concerned that DHS has not
developed a fully-integrated plan for shared use space such as
auditoriums and large meeting areas, special storage
facilities, child care centers, and campus dining facilities.
In addition, the Committee questions the Department's facility
security strategy for the St. Elizabeths campus. Buildings on a
controlled-access campus in a quasi-suburban location may not
require the same level of structural hardening and blast
resistance as street-level buildings in an urban core.
The Committee is also concerned the Department's plan to
co-locate representatives of all DHS agencies at the St.
Elizabeths campus may result in the separation of top agency
leadership from day-to-day management and operational
coordination at organizations not entirely located at the new
facility. Since final allocation of space at the St. Elizabeths
facility is still under development, the Committee directs the
Department to ensure that no DHS agency head is relocated to
the new campus without sufficient staff and managerial support
to ensure operational control and continuity of the component
organization.
Finally, the Committee has reservations about the scope of
the lead project for the St. Elizabeths campus, the Coast Guard
headquarters facility. The prospectus for this construction
assumes a 40 percent growth in floor space and a 18 percent
growth in headquarters personnel. The Coast Guard program of
requirements for the new building includes a variety of
questionable elements, including a 23,000 square foot
conference center and auditorium, a 10,000 square foot band
rehearsal space, and an 8,000 square foot historian's office.
The Committee directs the Department and the Coast Guard to
plan a headquarters facility that balances growth with more
realistic cost assumptions. In keeping with this direction, the
Committee provides funding for no more than a five percent
increase in headquarters staffing and a 20 percent increase in
floor space.
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $26,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... 32,800,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 32,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +6,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. -800,000
MISSION
The primary responsibilities and functions of the Office of
the Chief Financial Officer include budget execution and
oversight; performance analysis and evaluation; oversight of
the Department's financial management system; oversight of the
Department's business and financial management systems across
all agencies and directorates; and oversight of credit card
programs and audit liaisons.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $32,000,000 for the Office of the
Chief Financial Officer (CFO), $800,000 below the amount
requested and $6,000,000 above the amounts provided for fiscal
year 2007. Funding has been reduced due to the large number of
vacancies in this office that are estimated to continue through
the remainder of fiscal year 2007 and into fiscal year 2008.
The Committee recommends no funding for the appropriations
liaison positions because the Committee has derived no benefit
from them over the past year.
The Department has frequently failed to provide information
to the Committee in a timely and accurate manner. The Committee
has at times learned of major announcements from Departmental
press releases rather than from the CFO, even in cases in which
the CFO has been well aware of the Committee's particular
interest in the subject. The Committee expects the Secretary
and the Under Secretary for Management to correct this
situation immediately.
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET JUSTIFICATIONS
The Committee directs the Department to submit all of its
fiscal year 2009 budget justifications on the first Monday in
February 2008, concurrent with the official submission of the
President's budget to Congress. This should include all
classified budgets as well as non-classified budgets. These
justifications should have the customary level of detailed data
and explanatory statements to support appropriations requests,
including tables that detail each agency's programs, projects,
and activities for fiscal years 2008 and 2009. The Committee
directs the CFO to ensure that adequate justification is given
for each increase, decrease, and staffing change proposed for
fiscal year 2009, particularly within the Office of Health
Affairs, National Protection and Programs Directorate, Science
and Technology Directorate, and the Domestic Nuclear Detection
Office. The Committee notes that there were many instances in
which the fiscal year 2008 budget justification provided
limited, and sometimes contradictory, information. For example,
individual programs within some appropriation requests failed
to clearly identify funding levels.
The CFO shall submit, as part of the justifications, a
detailed table identifying the last year authorizing
legislation was provided by Congress for each appropriation
account, the amount of the authorization; and the appropriation
in the last year of the authorization.
MONTHLY REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
The Committee is pleased that the Department has provided
more timely monthly budget execution reports. The Committee
relies on these reports to provide early warning of financial
problems. To ensure that these reports continue to be received
on time, the Committee continues bill language (Sec. 524)
requiring monthly budget and staffing reports within 45 days
after the close of each month.
Office of the Chief Information Officer
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $349,013,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... 261,100,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 258,621,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... -90,392,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. -2,479,000
MISSION
The Chief Information Officer (CIO) has oversight of all
information technology projects in the Department. The CIO
reviews and approves all DHS information technology (IT)
acquisitions estimated to cost over $2,500,000, and also
approves the hiring and oversees the performance of all DHS
component CIOs. The CIO has input into the development and
execution of each component's information technology budget.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $258,621,000 for the Office of the
Chief Information Officer, a decrease of $2,479,000 below the
amount requested and $90,392,000 below the amount provided in
fiscal year 2007. The majority of the adjustment to the 2007
funding levels results from a reorganization that transferred
the Integrated Wireless Network (IWN) program from the CIO to
the National Protection and Programs Directorate, as directed
by title VI of Public Law 109-295. The programmatic reduction
of $2,479,000 from the request reflects the denial of
additional funding for CIO salaries and expenses. The Committee
questions the need for these additional funds because the
office currently spends more than one-third of its budget on
contract support which could be reallocated to lower-cost
permanent staff positions, if necessary.
A comparison of the budget request to the Committee
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salaries and Expenses............. $82,400,000 $79,921,000
Information Technology Services... 56,200,000 56,200,000
Security Activities............... 89,400,000 89,400,000
Homeland Security Data Network.... 33,100,000 33,100,000
-------------------------------------
Total, Chief Information $261,100,000 $258,621,000
Officer....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITY ACTIVITIES
The Committee recommends $89,400,000 for security
activities, the same level as the budget request and $13,000
above the amount provided for fiscal year 2007. Annual funding
for security activities has more than quadrupled since 2006;
yet both the Office of Inspector General and the GAO continue
to report extensive information technology security
vulnerabilities at DHS. The Committee is determined to see the
resources dedicated to security activities spent wisely, and
therefore directs the CIO to provide a briefing no later than
November 1, 2007, on the plans for improving DHS IT security
and the projected milestones that will be achieved with the
2008 appropriations.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES
The Committee recognizes that DHS is making investments in
business support applications so that it performs its work and
manages its resources more efficiently. However, given recent
court decisions barring the Department from implementing the
MAX-HR ``pay for performance'' system, it is unwise to make
additional investments at this time in systems that will
support this program. Therefore, the Committee has included a
statutory prohibition (Sec. 531) on the obligation of funds for
any MAX-HR IT application development until all pending
litigation is resolved.
DATA CENTER CONSOLIDATION
DHS has made progress establishing two Departmental data
centers, which will allow for more effective management of DHS
IT infrastructure. Nevertheless, the Department's schedule for
transitioning its various components to the new data center
facilities and the target date for when those facilities will
be fully operational is unclear. As a result, the Committee
directs the CIO to report no later than October 1, 2007, and on
a quarterly basis thereafter, on the progress in establishing
the data centers, the schedule for moving legacy data center
components into the consolidated centers, and the expenditures
to date and for the quarter for each data center's operations.
In addition, the Committee recommends the CIO review the plan
for relocation of the U.S. Secret Service Joint Operations
Center to determine whether that component's displaced
enterprise IT systems should be relocated to one of the new
data centers.
HOMELAND SECURITY DATA NETWORK
The Committee provides $33,100,000 for the Homeland
Security Data Network (HSDN) project, which is building a
stand-alone, secure computer network for DHS and its State and
local partners. The Committee is aware that a significant
portion of the budget for HSDN comes from outside the CIO
budget, since DHS component agencies pay the CIO for connecting
their employees and partners. Prior to the obligation of any
funds for this reimbursable work, the Committee directs the CIO
to report on the level of collections it has budgeted for these
installations and the locations of the HSDN terminals that will
be built using these funds.
INTEGRATED WIRELESS NETWORK
The Committee is surprised the CIO remains involved in the
Integrated Wireless Network (IWN) project even though the 2007
FEMA reorganization specifically moved this function to the new
Office of Emergency Communications. As a result the Committee
has included a statutory prohibition on the obligation of any
funds for CIO personnel to manage or oversee the IWN project.
COORDINATION OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENTS
The Committee notes that on March 16, 2007, the Secretary
of Homeland Security issued management directive 0007.1, which
consolidated authorities for review of the Department's major
IT investments in the office of the CIO. It will be important
that this additional layer of review and bureaucracy does not
result in unnecessary delays in IT investments. Therefore, the
Committee includes bill language requiring the CIO to provide
an expenditure plan within 60 days of enactment of this Act for
all DHS IT investments with a total estimated cost of more than
$2,500,000. DHS shall also include within this report a
detailed discussion of the steps it is taking to implement the
key practices recommended in the GAO IT Investment Management
framework.
Analysis and Operations
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $299,663,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... 314,681,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 291,619,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... -8,044,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. -23,062,000
MISSION
Analysis and Operations includes the Office of Intelligence
and Analysis and the Directorate of Operations Coordination,
which together collect, evaluate, and disseminate intelligence
information, as well as provide incident management and
operational coordination.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $291,619,000 for Analysis and
Operations, $23,062,000 below the amount requested and
$8,044,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2007.
OFFICE OF OPERATIONS COORDINATION
The Committee has reduced the funding level for the Office
of Operations Coordination below the amount requested. The
Committee notes that the Office of Operations Coordination
carried over significant unobligated balances at the end of
fiscal year 2006, and has shown no signs of an increased pace
of obligations during the current fiscal year.
HOMELAND SECURITY OPERATIONS CENTER
The Committee has been informed that the Department is
planning to request a reprogramming of funds to move the
Homeland Security Operations Center (HSOC) from its current
location at the Nebraska Avenue Complex to a new location,
possibly at the Transportation Security Operations Center
(TSOC), only to subsequently relocate the HSOC and potentially
the TSOC as well to the St. Elizabeths campus once that
facility is constructed. The Committee notes that over
$137,000,000 has been appropriated for improvements at the
Nebraska Avenue Complex since 2004, and a large portion of
these funds have gone toward upgrades to the HSOC specifically
requested by the Department. The Committee is concerned by the
apparent DHS attitude that costly capital investments are
disposable, and will provide no further appropriations for HSOC
capital improvements or relocation away from the NAC until the
Department submits a coherent and cost-effective plan for
consolidating its operations centers.
OFFICE OF INTELLIGENCE AND ANALYSIS
The Committee has reduced the funding level for
Intelligence and Analysis below the amount requested. The
Committee notes that the Office of Intelligence and Analysis
carried over significant unobligated balances at the end of
fiscal year 2006, and has shown no signs of an increased pace
of obligations during the current fiscal year.
STATE AND LOCAL FUSION CENTERS
Intelligence fusion centers help to integrate Federal
homeland security intelligence officers with the State and
local officials who are best positioned to analyze and respond
to terrorist and other threats. The Committee recommends
doubling the requested funding level for establishing DHS
presence at these centers in 2008, and directs the Office of
Intelligence and Analysis to review all unobligated balances
available in the DHS intelligence budgets at the start of
fiscal year 2008 and submit a reprogramming request for those
amounts that could be reasonably reallocated to fusion center
implementation.
To ensure progress is made establishing DHS presence at
fusion centers, the Committee directs the Department to provide
on-going, quarterly updates to the Committees on
Appropriations, starting on October 1, 2007, that detail
progress in placing DHS homeland security intelligence
professionals in State and local fusion centers. These reports
shall include: the qualification criteria used by DHS to decide
where and how to place DHS intelligence analysts and related
technology; total Federal expenditures to support each center
to date and during the most recent quarter of the fiscal year,
in the same categorization as materials submitted to the
Committees on Appropriations on March 23, 2007; the location of
each fusion center, both operational and planned, including an
identification of those with DHS personnel; the schedule for
operational stand-up of planned fusion centers; the number of
DHS-funded employees located at each fusion center, including
details on whether the employees are contract or government
staff; the privacy protection policies of each center,
including the number of facility personnel trained in Federal
privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties laws and standards;
and the number of local law enforcement agents at each center
approved or pending approval to receive and review classified
intelligence information.
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
Recommended adjustments to classified programs are
addressed in a classified annex accompanying this report.
Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $3,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008..................... 3,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 3,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... ................
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008................. ................
MISSION
The Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast
Rebuilding coordinates the Gulf Coast Federal rebuilding
efforts and works with State and local officials to identify
the priority needs for long-term rebuilding.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee provides $3,000,000 for the Office of the
Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding, equal to the
amount requested and the amount provided in fiscal year 2007.
Within the funding provided, $1,000,000 is unavailable for
obligation until the Committees on Appropriations receive an
expenditure plan for fiscal year 2008.
The Committee understands the Office of the Federal
Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding is working on several
initiatives, including: (1) working with the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) to advance public assistance projects
in the education and criminal justice areas; (2) working with
the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) on a
public housing plan; (3) working with HUD and FEMA on a plan to
transition evacuees into permanent housing; and (4) working
with FEMA to transition the management of FEMA's housing
assistance to HUD.
The Committee expects the Office of the Federal Coordinator
for Gulf Coast Rebuilding to continue to work with HUD and FEMA
to ensure progress is made. The Office of the Federal
Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding should focus on all HUD
programs including Section 202, Section 811, and rental
assistance. The Committee directs the Office of the Federal
Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding to provide quarterly
reports to the Committees on Appropriations outlining monthly
progress on ongoing initiatives, factors delaying progress, and
the goals and expectations against which progress is being
measured.
In addition, the Committee notes that of the 14 positions
in the Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast
Rebuilding, only five are based in the Gulf Coast. The
Committee urges the Director and the Secretary to assess this
distribution of personnel in light of the Office's mission.
Office of Inspector General
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 \1\................... $85,185,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... 99,111,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 99,111,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +13,926,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. ................
\1\ Does not include $13,500,000 transferred from the Disaster Relief
fund in Public Law 109-295.
MISSION
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 established an Inspector
General's (IG) office 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; (4) ensuring the security of its
information technology pursuant to the Federal Information
Security Management Act; and (5) reviewing and making
recommendations regarding existing and proposed legislation and
regulations to the Department's programs and operational
components. According to the authorizing legislation, the
Inspector General is to report dually to the Secretary of
Homeland Security and to the Congress.
While oversight of DHS disaster response is included in the
IG's mission, Hurricane Katrina brought a renewed focus and a
major shift in the IG resources to that mission area. In
October 2005, in response to the need for oversight, the
Inspector General established the Gulf Coast Hurricane Recovery
Office to focus exclusively on preventing problems through a
proactive program of internal control reviews and contract
audits to ensure disaster assistance funds are spent wisely.
The Gulf Coast Recovery Office has initiated numerous
monitoring activities, reviews, investigations, and audits of
the Federal Emergency Management Agency's disaster response and
recovery activities as well as disaster-related activities of
other DHS components. In addition, this office is coordinating
the work of 23 other federal Inspectors General through the
President's Commission on Integrity and Efficiency to review
all federal spending on Gulf Coast relief.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $99,111,000 for the Inspector
General, the same as the amount requested and $13,926,000 above
the amounts provided in fiscal year 2007. Of this total,
$11,000,000 is to continue and expand audits and investigations
related to the Gulf Coast disaster and coordinate work with 23
other federal Inspectors General to review all federal spending
on Gulf Coast relief. Total funding recommended will permit the
IG to: hire five additional FTEs; investigate incoming
allegations of criminal or administrative misconduct on the
part of DHS employees, contractors, or grantees; provide
additional funding for audits of high priority procurement
efforts; and provide necessary pay and inflationary increases.
DETENTION CENTER POPULATION
The Committee directs the IG to undertake immediately a
review of Immigration and Customs Enforcement's detention
center population. In particular, for the past ten years, the
Committee would like to know the following: the total number of
deportations; the total number of instances in which one parent
of a U.S. citizen child was deported and the reasons for
deportation and length of time the parent lived in the U.S.
before being deported; the total number of instances in which
both parents of a U.S. citizen child were deported and the
reasons for deportation and length of time the parents lived in
the U.S. before being deported; whether the U.S. citizen child
remained in the U.S. after a parent or both parents were
deported; and the total number of days a U.S. citizen child was
held in detention. The IG should report its finding to the
Committee by November 1, 2007.
AUDIT REPORTS
The Committee directs the IG 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 IG is also directed to withhold from
public distribution for a period of 15 days any final audit or
investigation report which was requested by the House Committee
on Appropriations.
TITLE II--SECURITY, ENFORCEMENT, AND INVESTIGATIONS
United States Customs and Border Protection
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $5,562,186,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008..................... 6,579,733,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 6,629,733,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +1,067,547,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008................. +50,000,000
MISSION
The mission of United States Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) is to protect the borders of the U.S. by preventing,
preempting and deterring threats against the U.S. 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 goods and persons
cross the borders of the U.S. in accordance with applicable
laws and regulations, while posing no threat to the U.S.
Specifically, the priority of CBP is to prevent terrorists and
terrorist weapons from entering the U.S., and to support
related homeland security missions affecting border and
airspace security. CBP is also responsible for apprehending
individuals attempting to enter the U.S. illegally; stemming
the flow of illegal drugs and other contraband; protecting U.S.
agricultural and economic interests from harmful pests and
diseases; protecting American businesses from theft of
intellectual property; regulating and facilitating
international trade; collecting import duties; and enforcing
U.S. trade laws. CBP has a workforce of over 43,500, including
CBP Officers; Air Interdiction Agents and Marine Enforcement
Officers; canine enforcement officers; Border Patrol agents;
Agriculture Specialists; trade specialists; intelligence
analysts; and mission support staff.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $6,629,733,000 for Salaries and
Expenses, $50,000,000 above the amount requested and
$1,067,547,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2007.
This recommendation provides: 1,277,407,000 for Headquarters
Management and Administration; $2,107,354,000 for Border
Security Inspections and Trade Facilitation, including
$225,000,000 for the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, an
additional $5,450,000 to support hiring additional CBP Officers
as required under Sec. 202 of the Security and Accountability
For Every Port Act (P.L. 109-347), an additional $22,000,000 to
permit hiring additional CBP Officers for commercial operations
to meet requirements of Sec. 403 of P.L. 109-347 and an
additional $50,000,000 to enable CBP Officers to enter into
service as a law enforcement officer; $3,037,232,000 for Border
Security and Control between Ports of Entry including costs of
bringing the total number of Border Patrol agents to 17,819, an
increase of 3,000 over fiscal year 2007; and $207,740,000 for
Air and Marine Personnel Compensation and Benefits.
A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salaries and expenses Budget estimate Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Headquarters, Management, and
Administration:
Management and Administration, $673,981,000 $673,981,000
Border Security Inspections
and Trade Facilitation.......
Management and Administration, 603,426,000 603,426,000
Border Security and Control
between Ports of Entry.......
Subtotal, Headquarters 1,277,407,000 1,277,407,000
Management and
Administration...........
Border Security Inspections and
Trade Facilitation:
Inspections, Trade, and Travel 1,610,202,000 1,654,685,000
Facilitation at Ports of
Entry........................
Harbor Maintenance Fee 3,026,000 3,093,000
Collection (Trust Fund)......
Container Security Initiative. 156,130,000 156,130,000
Other international programs.. 8,871,000 8,871,000
Customs-Trade Partnership 55,560,000 61,010,000
Against Terrorism............
Free and Secure Trade (FAST)/ 11,243,000 11,243,000
NEXUS/SENTRI.................
Inspection and Detection 135,979,000 135,979,000
Technology Investments.......
Automated Targeting Systems... 27,580,000 27,580,000
National Targeting Center..... 23,950,000 23,950,000
Other Technology Investments, 24,813,000 24,813,000
including information
technology training..........
Subtotal, Border Security 2,057,354,000 2,107,354,000
Inspections and Trade
Facilitation.............
Border Security and Control
between Ports of Entry:
Border Security and Control... 2,984,443,000 2,984,443,000
Border Technology (formerly ................. .................
ASI and ISIS)................
Secure Border Initiative 52,789,000 52,789,000
Technology and Tactical
Infrastructure (SBInet)
Training.....................
Subtotal, Border Security 3,037,232,000 3,037,232,000
and Control between POEs.
Air and Marine Personnel 207,740,000 207,740,000
Compensation and Benefits
-------------------------------------
Total................. $6,579,733,000 $6,629,733,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WORKLOAD AND STAFFING
The Committee is concerned that CBP has not submitted its
staffing model, the Resource Allocation Model (RAM), as
required by Sec. 403 of P.L. 109-347 the Security and
Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006, and as directed in
the statement of managers accompanying the fiscal year 2007
conference report. This information is essential to
understanding how CBP prioritizes and meets its growing and
constantly evolving staffing needs.
The first quarterly CBP report on air passenger wait times,
received in April 2007, demonstrated some correlation between
staffing at inspection booths and length of waiting time. It
demonstrated that for eight of the 16 major airports studied,
five percent of their flights had wait times greater than 60
minutes, and that average wait times for the 16 airports ranged
from 26 to 39 minutes. The report also described how such
information will be collected and analyzed in the future to
permit more informed cooperation with airports and airlines to
meet workload and reduce wait times. The Committee directs that
this quarterly reporting continue in fiscal year 2008, and
expects to see progress in posting real-time information on the
CBP website and in reducing wait times.
In addition, this report should describe what CBP is doing
to address how its allocation of CBP Officers could be improved
to reduce the need to close or curtail service at small or
regional airports or specific terminals at large airports, or
conversely overload major hub airports. The Committee
encourages CBP to look for performance elements such as data on
the number of times, and for how long, passengers are held in
airplanes because airport inspection operations cannot
accommodate them.
However, the value of this information will only be fully
realized when combined with an analytical tool for staffing
resources. The report noted that CBP is finalizing its optimal
resource allocation model for CBP Officers and Agriculture
Specialists at Ports of Entry, with the first component, CBP
Officer--Air Passenger Staffing, completed on October 31, 2006.
The Committee directs CBP to use the results of its analysis to
assign additional CBP officers to those airports with the
greatest staffing shortages and wait times, to help alleviate
delays encountered by international travelers.
A recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report
(GAO-07-529) details how shortfalls in CBP Officer positions
have had a negative impact on the ability of CBP to fulfill its
statutory responsibilities for customs revenue collection. The
Committee directs CBP to submit its RAM by October 15, 2007,
including a plan for addressing the recommendations included in
the GAO report. If the RAM is not submitted by October 15,
2007, the Secretary shall provide the reasons for the delay in
writing to the Committee.
INTERNAL AFFAIRS
The Committee includes $10,000,000, as requested, to add 50
investigators and eight support staff to expand CBP's internal
affairs capability to cope with significant staff increases.
The Committee expects this expanded capacity to permit CBP to
address internal affairs issues related to administrative or
other non-criminal matters, which often receive lower priority
than criminal cases due to lack of resources. The failure to
promptly address such matters could degrade performance and
morale, leading to systemic management problems for CBP as it
deals with the challenge of absorbing and administering a
workforce slated to increase by almost 10 percent in fiscal
year 2008. The Committee directs CBP to present program
performance results from this initiative in its fiscal year
2009 budget submission.
WESTERN HEMISPHERE TRAVEL INITIATIVE
The Committee includes $225,000,000 for the implementation
of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI). Current law
requires WHTI implementation at all ports of entry by June
2009. The recommended amount is $27,450,000 less than the
$252,450,000 requested. The Committee understands that much of
the proposed investment is for lane modifications at the top 13
land ports of entry, as well as implementation of ``vicinity''
radio frequency identification (RFID) technology at the top 39
land ports of entry, accounting for about 95 percent of the
highway passenger border crossing volume.
The Committee recognizes that the current situation, in
which as many as 8,000 different types of identification may be
used and the capacity of our ports of entry is strained, cannot
be sustained. Over the past 30 years, the U.S. has failed to
modernize port of entry space and facilities, resulting in a
significant need for upgrades. The CBP Commissioner testified
that the San Ysidro Port of Entry alone would require at least
$520,000,000 for physical improvements to enable it to
adequately handle current and anticipated traffic. The
requested amount, however, is based on implementation
assumptions that have yet to be fully validated. For instance,
while CBP testimony proposes a January 2008 implementation
date, the results from pilot tests of enhanced drivers licenses
scheduled for the State of Washington and British Columbia in
2008 will not be known until later that year, and therefore
cannot inform such early investment decisions. In addition,
while the Committee is aware that the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) has certified that the card
architecture meets statutory requirements, CBP must still
demonstrate the effectiveness of the card in an operational
context. Beyond these concerns, the Committee notes that the
requested funding would only be used to implement the program
at the busiest crossings, despite the statutory requirement to
process passports and passport cards at all land and sea ports
of entry. In addition, the Committee urges the Department to
coordinate with the State Department to enable it to anticipate
and plan for increased passport demand resulting from
implementation of the Initiative.
The Committee makes funding available for two fiscal years,
as requested, but includes bill language making $100,000,000
unavailable for obligation until CBP reports on pilot program
results. The report should include: (1) infrastructure and
staffing required, with associated costs, by port of entry; (2)
updated milestones; (3) information on how requirements of
Section 7209(b)(1)(B) of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-458), as amended, have been
satisfied; (4) confirmation that a vicinity-read radio
frequency identification card has been adequately tested to
ensure operational success; and (5) a description of steps
taken to ensure the integrity of privacy safeguards.
NORTHERN BORDER DEPLOYMENT OF BORDER PATROL
The Committee expects CBP to increase the number of Border
Patrol agents on the Northern Border by 500 over the fiscal
year 2007 level, as indicated in CBP testimony. This increase,
which would bring the total number of agents on board to 1,658
by October 2008, is consistent with the requirement under the
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (P.L.
108-458) to increase Northern Border placement of agents by 20
percent per year for five years. The Committee notes that
threat information has consistently pointed to Northern Border
vulnerabilities.
COVERED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER STATUS
The Committee is aware that CBP Officers do not receive the
compensation and other benefits accorded law enforcement
officers, although they have arrest powers, 24-hour weapon
carrying responsibility, and engage in criminal investigation
activity. The Committee has heard on numerous occasions that
CBP is losing trained, valuable CBP Officers to other agencies
due to this disparity. Therefore, the Committee has included
bill language (Sec. 533) directing CBP to offer voluntary
conversion of all eligible CBP Officer positions, in
consultation with the Office of Personnel Management and
employee groups that represent CPBOs. Actual conversions should
begin no later than July 1, 2008. The Committee includes
$50,000,000 to cover the fiscal year 2008 costs incurred from
this change. The Committee expects the cost increase to be more
than offset by increases in officer productivity and a
reduction in the costs for retention and replacement.
IN-BOND CARGO AND CONTAINER SECURITY
According to CBP, there were 6,428,078 in-bond shipments to
the U.S. in the first half of fiscal year 2005. In fiscal years
2005-2007 CBP has conducted pilot studies of the use of
commercial off the shelf (COTS) technology to track such
shipments; ensure they are not susceptible to fraud or
vulnerabilities in security; enable them to be audited; and,
when appropriate, permit the collection of revenue at U.S.
ports of entry. Approximately $1,040,000 remains for this
program in base funding. The Committee directs CBP to report
not later than January 31, 2008, on the results of its fiscal
year 2007 tests of this technology to address all in-bond
shipments. The report should include a description of how CBP
has addressed the issues raised in GAO report GAO-04-345
relating to the use of in-bond diversion to conceal textile
transshipment.
AIRPORT PASSENGER WAITING TIME
The Committee understands that the rapid growth in air
travel and the increasing numbers of incoming international
passengers could result in significant bottlenecks at U.S.
airports without a concurrent increase in CBP Officers for
inspections and analysis. The Committee recognizes that CBP has
begun to collect data on its passenger waiting times at major
international airports and has included historical data for
major airports and terminals on its website. The Committee
encourages CBP to accelerate its work on testing and
implementing its Wait Times Estimating Tool. As noted above,
the Committee expects the forthcoming resource allocation
model, which addresses explicitly the allocation of CBP
Officers for air passenger processing, to be submitted as soon
as possible.
AUTOMATED TARGETING SYSTEM
The Automated Targeting System (ATS) is a tool for
prioritizing enforcement and interdiction resources by focusing
on potential threats and enabling the rapid flow of secure and
low-risk commerce or passengers. Because a robust targeting
methodology is critical to our trading system, the Committee
directs CBP to report not later than January 31, 2008, on how
efforts to improve the ATS for cargo and container screening
have progressed and in particular how CBP has complied with
section 203 of the 2006 Security and Accountability For Every
Port Act (P.L. 109-347).
The Committee is concerned by the lack of a comprehensive
approach to target intellectual property (IP) violations, as
described in Government Accountability Office report GAO-07-
735. The Committee directs CBP to improve analysis of IP
enforcement data, to enable more consistent targeting,
inspection, seizure and penalty practices.
CBP VEHICLE FLEET MANAGEMENT PLAN
The Committee acknowledges the receipt of a five-year
vehicle fleet recapitalization and management plan, in
compliance with the statement of managers accompanying the
fiscal year 2007 appropriations conference report. The
Committee expects CBP will follow this plan in managing its
fleet and budgeting for replacement and maintenance of its
significant vehicle investment, and will inform the Committee
if it needs to deviate from or alter the plan.
TEXTILE TRANSSHIPMENT ENFORCEMENT
The Committee includes $4,750,000, as requested, to
continue textile transshipment enforcement. The Committee
directs CBP to ensure that the activities of the textile
enforcement division and other textile enforcement activities,
specifically seizures, detention, and special operations, be
maintained at least at the level of those activities in prior
years, such as the fiscal year 2006 enforcement performance.
The Committee also directs CBP to submit an interim report with
the fiscal year 2009 budget on execution of its five-year
strategic plan, which should provide information on enforcement
activities, including textile production verification team
exercises and special operations; numbers of seizures;
penalties imposed; and the numbers and types of personnel
responsible for enforcing textile laws.
CUSTOMS INDUSTRY TRAINING PROGRAMS
The Committee directs CBP to ensure that CBP Officers,
Trade Specialists and other professional staff have the
appropriate training to administer customs laws that require
detailed knowledge of industry and technology, including
continuing active participation in cooperative efforts such as
the Steel Industry Training Program.
INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED TRAVELER PROGRAM
The Committee is aware that CBP and the Department have
been working to develop expedited traveler programs in
conjunction with foreign airports to facilitate international
air travel by registering frequent travelers. The Committee
understands that operations are planned at John F. Kennedy
International, Washington Dulles International and George Bush
Houston Intercontinental airports. The Committee also
understands that the Department may eventually integrate this
work with related efforts of US-VISIT and the Transportation
Security Administration. The Committee directs CBP and the
Department to continue such efforts, and report not later than
January 31, 2008, on plans, staffing and funding necessary to
establish such programs at the 20 U.S. international airports
with the highest volume of international passenger traffic.
PERMANENT BORDER PATROL CHECKPOINT
The Committee understands that CBP agrees that no permanent
checkpoint will be planned for Southern Arizona without
significant and direct community involvement. Any planned
permanent checkpoint must: (1) be part of an overall network of
border security technology and infrastructure, as well as an
increase in personnel; (2) be designed to significantly reduce
the number of illegal immigrants and the amount of contraband
entering the U.S. through Arizona, and increase the security of
our nation by employing technology and capabilities to detect
individuals or implements associated with terrorism; and (3)
contain attributes that reduce to a minimum the impact on the
commerce and quality of life of communities. Prior to the
operation of a possible permanent checkpoint in Southern
Arizona, CBP must ensure that any temporary checkpoint be
administered in a manner consistent with current case law, and
must address the checkpoint's impact on residents, legitimate
travelers, and public safety.
IMMIGRATION ADVISORY PROGRAM
The Committee is pleased with the performance to date of
the Immigration Advisory Program (IAP), which enhances national
security by preventing potential terrorists and other high-risk
passengers from boarding aircraft destined for the United
States, as well as helping avoid potential detention and
removal costs for the government. The Committee is aware that
CBP is proceeding with plans to establish the program in
international airports in London and Tokyo, and is assessing
the potential at the top 50 international airports for possible
future program expansion. The Committee expects CBP to continue
reporting on this program and its performance and include such
information in its fiscal year 2009 budget submission.
STOLEN AND LOST TRAVEL DOCUMENTS
The Committee understands that the Department has announced
plans to use an INTERPOL database of lost and stolen passports
to screen foreign travelers later this year, beginning with a
30-day pilot at one international airport, and is determining
whether it will establish a unit at INTERPOL headquarters to
investigate any lost or stolen documents that may be detected
by CBP Officers or others. The Committee strongly supports
efforts to collaborate with INTERPOL to help close a serious
vulnerability posed by lost travel documents, especially
passport blanks.
COORDINATION OF ALIEN SMUGGLING ENFORCEMENT
The Committee directs CBP and ICE jointly to brief the
Committees on Appropriations no later than 30 days after the
date of enactment of this Act on the role each agency plays in
enforcing laws against human smuggling, how those missions are
coordinated, and the timeline for placement of CBP detailees at
the Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center
Automation Modernization
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $451,440,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008..................... 476,609,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 476,609,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +25,169,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008................. ................
MISSION
The Automation Modernization Account includes funding for
major information technology projects for CBP. Projects include
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 as part of Current
Operations Protection and Processing Support (COPPS).
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $476,609,000 for Automation
Modernization, the same as the amount requested and $25,169,000
below the amounts provided for fiscal year 2007. This
recommendation includes $316,969,000 for ACE and $159,640,000
for COPPS, to include $134,640,000 for the legacy Automated
Commercial System and others. A notable change this year is a
request of $25,000,000 for COPPS to begin work on replacing
mainframe components for the Treasury Enforcement Communication
System (TECS). The Committee includes bill language making
$216,969,000 unavailable for obligation until thirty days after
the Committee on Appropriations receive a report on program
performance and plans.
ACE PROGRAM OVERSIGHT
The Committee is pleased with the progress of the ACE
program, which is partially the result of effective oversight.
The Committee has revised the expenditure plan requirements in
order to eliminate the need for GAO review of items that have
remained fairly constant and received favorable review in the
past.
TECS MODERNIZATION
The Committee expects the $25,000,000 for TECS in fiscal
year 2008 will be used only for system hardware replacement,
and directs CBP to notify the Committee before obligating any
of this funding for other TECS investment or transformation
activities.
Border Security, Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $1,187,565,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008..................... 1,000,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 1,000,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... -187,565,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008................. ................
MISSION
Border Security, Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology
(BSFIT) funds the technology and tactical infrastructure
solutions to achieve effective control of the U.S. borders and
coastlines. It is one of the three ``legs'' of the Secure
Border Initiative (SBI).
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $1,000,000,000 for Border
Security, Fencing, Infrastructure and Technology, the same as
the amount requested and $187,565,000 below amounts provided in
fiscal year 2007 of which $700,000,000 would not be available
for obligation until the Committees on Appropriations approve
an investment and expendature plan. The Committee
recommendation differs from the requested funding levels as
follows: $55,000,000 for environmental and regulatory
assessment; $5,000,000 for advanced technology development;
$552,100,000 for technology; and $2,000,000 for a study of
procurement practices.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND REGULATORY ASSESSMENTS
The Committee includes $55,000,000 for regulatory and
environmental assessments, $5,000,000 above the amount
requested. The Committee is encouraged that the Department
intends to conduct environmental and regulatory assessments,
and expects the Department to exercise the Secretary's
authority to waive environmental and similar requirements
sparingly. The Committee has included bill language requiring
the Secretary to provide a 15 day notice in the Federal
Register for each instance in which a decision is made to
invoke the waiver authority.
SECURE BORDER INVESTMENT AND EXPENDITURE PLAN
The Committee is closely watching progress on the SBInet
contract and related work. The Department has decided to focus
on relatively low technology investments--specifically, fencing
and barriers--during the first year until results have been
tallied from its pilot efforts, such as Project 28. While this
may result in more prudent investment in technology that has
been properly tested and matched to unique requirements of
specific border environments, it may also result in more miles
of expensive fencing than are needed. CBP has testified that,
by the end of fiscal year 2008, it will have completed work on
the following cumulative infrastructure on the Southwest
Border: 370 miles of pedestrian fencing; 200 miles of vehicle
barriers; and 642 miles of ``technology'' solutions.
At the same time, there has been very little effort to
implement solutions for the Northern Border, which is more than
twice the distance of the Southwest Border. In addition, there
is no indication that SBI planning has included an analysis of
the program's comprehensive impact on ports of entry, including
the capacity of existing bridges and ports of entry
infrastructure to handle the increased workload that could
result from enhanced enforcement or implementation of a
temporary worker program--both key elements of the SBI.
SBI investments must be effective and appropriate, with
accurate life-cycle costs, expenditures subject to a rigorous
audit process, and input from Federal agencies with
jurisdiction over border areas. Therefore, the Committee has
included bill language making $700,000,000 unavailable for
obligation until an expenditure plan has been submitted to the
Committee that:
1. Defines activities, milestones, and costs for
implementing the program, including an identification
of the maximum investment related to the SBInet
contract, an estimation of the associated life-cycle
costs, and a description of the methodology used to
obtain these cost figures;
2. Demonstrates how activities will further the goals
and objectives of the Secure Border Initiative (SBI),
as defined in the SBI strategic plan, and how the plan
allocates funding to the highest priority border
security needs;
3. Identifies funding and staffing requirements by
activity;
4. Describes how the plan addresses security needs at
the Northern Border and the ports of entry, including
infrastructure, technology, design and operational
requirements;
5. Reports on costs incurred, activities completed,
and progress made by the program in terms of obtaining
effective operational control of the border;
6. Includes an analysis by the Secretary, for each
segment of fencing or tactical infrastructure, of the
selected approach compared to other, alternative means
of achieving operational control; such analysis should
include cost, level of operational control, possible
unintended effects on communities, and other factors
critical to the decision-making process;
7. Includes a certification by the Chief Procurement
Officer of the Department of Homeland Security that
procedures to prevent conflicts of interest between the
prime integrator and major subcontractors are
established, and that the SBI Program Office has
adequate staff and resources to effectively manage the
SBI program, SBInet contract, and other related
contracts, including technical oversight; and a
certification by the Chief Information Officer of the
Department of Homeland Security that an independent
verification and validation agent is currently under
contract for the project;
8. Complies with all applicable Federal acquisition
rules and best practices, and reflects contracting
administration improvements, to include automatic
review of task orders by the Defense Contract Audit
Agency;
9. Complies with capital planning and investment
control review requirements established in Office of
Management and Budget Circular A-11;
10. Is reviewed and approved by the DHS Investment
Review Board, the Secretary, and the Office of
Management and Budget; and
11. Is reviewed by the Government Accountability
Office.
CONTRACT MAXIMUM COST AND QUANTITY
The Committee agrees with GAO that Federal procurement
rules call for identification of a meaningful maximum in the
cost of the contract or quantity of deliverables. While GAO in
testimony has credited CBP with generally following good
procurement practice and with conducting a competitive process
to award the SBInet contract, it noted that ``6,000 miles of
secure border'' does not qualify as a meaningful limitation on
the possible size and cost of the contract because it does not
relate to specific supplies or services.
A maximum constraint on overall contract spending seems
especially needed for a large indefinite delivery/indefinite
quantity contract such as SBInet. To compensate for the lack of
such a limitation, the Committee includes language requiring
that, at least 30 days prior to the award of any task order
requiring obligation of more than $100,000,000, the Secretary
shall provide a report to the Committees on Appropriations
detailing progress achieved to date, and specific objectives to
be achieved through the award of this and remaining task orders
planned for the balance of available appropriations. A similar
report is required prior to the award of a task order that
would cause the cumulative level of obligations to exceed 50
percent of the total amount appropriated.
PROCUREMENT PROCESS AND SYSTEM REVIEW
The Committee believes that a project of such complexity as
the SBI, with a large-scale integration contract such as
SBInet, merits very thorough oversight. The open-endedness of
the contract calls for special, disinterested, third-party
expertise to assess how and whether best procurement practices
are being put into effect. The Committee is aware that the
Defense Acquisition University has provided effective
consultative and analytic reviews of procurement operations and
contract management, including recent work done on behalf of
the Coast Guard for the Deepwater program. Such a review would
provide neutral insight and constructive program evaluation to
CBP, the Department, and the Congress. The Committee therefore
has included $2,000,000 for the SBI program office to reimburse
the Defense Acquisition University for the costs of conducting
such a review and making its findings available to the
Department and the Committees on Appropriations.
CONSULTATION WITH FEDERAL AGENCIES
The Committee has included bill language requiring the
Department to coordinate with the National Park Service, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Forest Service, the Bureau
of Indian Affairs, and the Bureau of Land Management on any
decisions related to construction of tactical infrastructure on
lands administered by those agencies and, to the extent
practicable, to minimize impacts on wildlife and natural
resources.
CONSULTATION WITH STATE AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES
The Committee has included language requiring the
Department to solicit input from State and local communities
regarding its fencing and tactical infrastructure plans. The
Committee is aware that the Department has recently begun to
consult with States and local governments in some affected
border communities, and directs the Secretary to continue such
consultation or initiate it immediately. The Committee directs
that border security fencing and tactical infrastructure
installations be implemented in ways that take full advantage
of natural terrain and barriers and minimize adverse impacts on
the environment and local communities.
NORTHERN BORDER INVESTMENT
The Committee is concerned with the lack of SBI investment
and planning on the Northern Border. To better understand what
direction the Department is taking with regard to such efforts,
the Committee directs the SBI Program Executive Office to brief
the Committee not later than July 1, 2007, on how the
Department expects to use the $20,000,000 the Committee
directed be applied to Northern Border investments, and to
provide a revised SBInet investment strategy that includes the
Northern Border.
PROJECT 28
The Committee is very interested in knowing the results of
Project 28 as soon as they are available, and directs CBP to
brief the Committee on those results and how they will affect
the SBInet investment strategy as soon as they are known.
Air and Marine Interdiction, Operations, Maintenances and Procurement
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $602,187,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008..................... 477,287,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 477,287,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... -124,900,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008.................
MISSION
CBP Air and Marine provides integrated and coordinated
border interdiction and law enforcement support for homeland
security missions; provides airspace security for high risk
areas or National Special Security Events upon request; and
combats efforts to smuggle narcotics and other contraband into
the United States. CBP Air and Marine also provides aviation
and marine support for the counter-terrorism efforts of many
other law enforcement agencies.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $477,287,000 for Air and Marine
Interdiction, Operations, Maintenance, and Procurement, the
same as the amount requested and $124,900,000 below the amount
provided in fiscal year 2007. The funding includes $353,254,000
for operations and maintenance including $36,700,000 to
increase the maintenance of assets to achieve an 80 percent
readiness rate; $123,333,000 for procurement to include
$47,000,000 for the P-3 service life extension program;
$52,400,000 for planned helicopter procurement or upgrades;
$10,600,000 for recurring costs to support the existing
unmanned aerial systems (UAS); $6.7 million for recurring
sensor system costs; and $4,600,000 to upgrade radar and
sensors. The Committee includes bill language making no funding
available for procurement of additional UAS until CBP certifies
that they are essential and are higher priority and more cost
effective than other items on the Air and Marine Strategic
Recapitalization and Modernization plan. The Committee also
directs CBP to submit the marine enforcement strategic plan not
later than September 1, 2007.
NORTHERN BORDER
The Northern Border, characterized by vast distances of
thinly populated territory, a history of easy movement across
borders, and remote or heavily wooded land not easily patrolled
by land, presents unique challenges for border security that
can be met only with additional Air and Marine assets. The
Committee expects continued progress in completing permanent
deployment of assets and staff to the five designated airwings.
The Committee understands that at least one UAS will be
deployed to the Northern Border in fiscal year 2007, and
directs CBP to report not later than January 31, 2008, on the
performance of the Northern Border airwings and the schedule
for their completion.
HELICOPTER PROCUREMENT
The Committee notes that CBP has yet to provide the report
on the comparative costs and benefits of helicopter procurement
and leasing required in House Report 109-476, and directs CBP
to submit it as soon as possible.
SMALL UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEM AIRSPACE TESTING PROGRAM
Currently, FAA regulations do not apply to ``model
airplanes'' under 55 pounds that are operated for
``recreational purposes'' and meet operational restrictions. In
contrast, UAS are regulated in the same way as manned aircraft,
even if they weigh less than 55 pounds and are operated
similarly to model airplanes. The Committee directs CBP to work
with the FAA to test the safety of UAS to determine the risk of
mid-air collisions with manned aircraft. Such tests should
generate safety data necessary for the FAA to determine whether
or not an exemption for small UAS is appropriate.
Construction
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $232,978,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008..................... 249,663,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 249,663,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +16,685,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008................. ................
MISSION
The construction account funds the planning, design, and
assembly of Border Patrol infrastructure, including Border
Patrol stations; checkpoints; temporary detention facilities;
mission support facilities; and lighting, and road improvements
at the border. The Border Security, Fencing, Infrastructure,
and Technology (BSFIT) account now funds most tactical
infrastructure, fencing and barriers previously funded through
this account.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $249,663,000 for Construction, the
same as the amount requested and $16,685,000 above the amounts
provided in fiscal year 2007.
PORT OF ENTRY CONSTRUCTION
The Committee is aware that the infrastructure at U.S. land
ports of entry (POE) is in dire need of upgrading and
modernization. In June 2000, the former U.S. Customs Service,
along with the General Services Administration and other
Federal Inspection Service agencies, assessed the condition and
infrastructure needs for U.S. POE on the Northern and Southwest
Borders, and reported the cost of improvements to be
$784,300,000. Seven years later, and after the 9/11 attacks,
significant new requirements have been added for border
security such as US-VISIT and the Western Hemisphere Travel
Initiative. The Committee understands that the combination of
new security requirements, outdated design and aging
infrastructure have pushed POE to the limits of effectiveness.
In testimony before the Committee, the Commissioner of CBP
noted that for the San Ysidro border crossing alone,
infrastructure requirements could exceed $520,000,000. Because
GSA owns most POE, and CBP has become its principal tenant
since the establishment of DHS, it is critical to ensure that
the best efforts are being made to prepare for the increased
demands of border security and trade and travel facilitation.
At the same time, CBP has its own construction program as a
result of years of design and building Border Patrol
facilities, and may be able to undertake some POE construction,
as appropriate. The Committee therefore directs CBP and the
General Services Administration to submit jointly a report not
later than October 1, 2007, on the comparative construction
contracting systems of the two agencies, and the most
appropriate agency jurisdiction to ensure the most effective
and expedient modernization of the POE.
United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $3,887,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008..................... 4,162,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 4,146,300,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +259,300,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008................. -15,700,000
MISSION
United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is
the lead agency responsible for enforcement of immigration
laws, customs laws, and the security of Federal facilities. ICE
protects the United States by investigating, deterring, and
detecting threats arising from the movement of people and goods
into and out of the country. ICE consists of nearly 17,000
employees within four major program areas: Office of
Investigations; Federal Protective Service; Office of
Intelligence; and Detention and Removal Operations.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $4,146,300,000 for Salaries and
Expenses, $15,700,000 below the amount requested and
$259,300,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2007. The
entirety of the reduction to the request reflects the
reallocation of requested funds to the on-going ATLAS systems
modernization program, funded through the ``Automation
Modernization'' account. While these funds were requested for
various ICE application development projects within Salaries
and Expenses, activity related to this program is most
transparent when the funds are provided through the project-
specific Automation Modernization account.
The fiscal year 2008 request proposed a budget structure
that would allocate headquarters and information technology
costs across other programs, projects and activities (PPAs).
The Committee prefers the existing PPA budget structure, which
provides transparency for the overhead costs of managing ICE
programs. A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Headquarters Management and $314,443,000 $298,743,000
Administration...................
Legal Proceedings................. 207,850,000 208,350,000
Investigations
Domestic...................... 1,372,328,000 1,360,828,000
International................. 108,074,000 108,074,000
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, Investigations.. 1,480,402,000 1,468,902,000
Intelligence...................... 52,146,000 52,146,000
Detention and Removal Operations
Custody Operations............ 1,459,712,000 1,450,977,000
Fugitive Operations........... 186,145,000 183,200,000
Criminal Alien Program........ 168,329,000 180,009,000
Alternatives to Detention..... 43,889,000 54,889,000
Transportation and Removal 249,084,000 249,084,000
Program......................
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, Detention and 2,107,159,000 2,118,159,000
Removal Operations.......
=====================================
Total, ICE Salaries $4,162,000,000 $4,146,300,000
and Expenses.........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRIORITIES ENFORCING IMMIGRATION LAWS
The Committee is concerned that, as ICE increases its
interior enforcement efforts as part of the Secure Border
Initiative, the agency is losing perspective on which aliens
represent the most significant threat to the nation's social
and economic fabric. The Committee questions why a significant
number of illegal aliens serving sentences in State and local
correctional facilities after conviction for various non-
immigration crimes are still released from custody without
efforts made to deport those who are deportable. According to
ICE estimates, approximately 630,000 foreign nationals are
currently serving criminal sentences in U.S. prisons and jails,
yet in 2005 ICE identified and deported only 79,000 of these
individuals, leaving approximately 551,000 criminal aliens who
have yet to be identified and processed for removal from the
country. While estimates vary, many who analyze this problem
believe a significant number of criminal aliens are released
back into society after completing their sentences, rather than
being processed for removal from the country.
CRIMINAL ALIEN PROGRAM
The Committee allocates $180,009,000 for the ICE Criminal
Alien Program (CAP), which is $14,000,000 more than the amount
requested and an increase of $42,515,000 above the 2007 enacted
level. The Committee strongly encourages ICE to ensure that all
incarcerated aliens eligible for deportation are removed from
the country upon their release. Toward that end, the Committee
includes statutory language requiring ICE to collect
information from every jail, prison and detention facility in
the United States on a monthly basis to determine the
population of incarcerated aliens, and to develop a plan to
remove every removable alien upon their release from the
corrections system. According to the Bureau of Prisons,
nationwide there are approximately 1,500 Federal and State
correctional institutions, and another 3,500 locally-
administered jails. While contacting all of these facilities on
a regular basis will require coordination and effort on the
part of the agency, ICE has more than 8,000 employees who work
on domestic investigations and who could help with this effort.
The Committee directs ICE to report no later than January 1,
2008, on how it will meet this goal, the need for additional
resources to do so, and its successes and challenges in working
with State and local corrections managers.
DETENTION BED SPACE
The Committee has made significant investments in detention
bed space over the past several years, and ICE is now able to
sustain an increased level of immigration enforcement as a
result. Funds provided in the 2007 Appropriations Act allowed
for 27,500 detention beds, and the fiscal year 2008 request
would add 950 more. In multiple written and oral statements
before the Committee, departmental officials have assured the
Congress this increase in bed space is sufficient to maintain
the ICE practice of repatriating all illegal crossers
apprehended at the borders. The Committee supports this
requested increase, and provides funding for a total of 28,450
detention beds in fiscal year 2008.
ALTERNATIVES TO DETENTION
Alternatives to Detention programs are an effective
approach for monitoring aliens who are not mandatory detainees,
but are deemed unlikely to appear at their immigration
hearings. Through the use of electronic monitoring, telephonic
reporting, and intensive supervision, these programs contribute
to more effective enforcement of immigration laws at far lower
cost than detention. In its most recent year, the Intensive
Supervision Appearance Program (ISAP) recorded an average 93
percent appearance rate at court proceedings for final orders
of deportation. The corresponding appearance rate for aliens
not participating in ISAP is 41 percent. The Committee
recommends $54,889,000 for the Alternatives to Detention
program, an increase of $11,000,000 above the request and
$11,289,000 above the 2007 enacted level. This level should
allow for coverage of 12 cities by the end of fiscal year 2008.
The Committee directs ICE to report no later than November 1,
2008, on the cities that will be included in this program as it
expands, and the schedule for establishing the program in these
new locations.
CHILD AND FAMILY DETENTION
The Committee remains concerned by public criticism of ICE
detention standards for families and unaccompanied children.
Families with children should not be housed in penal-like
settings, nor should children detained by ICE be denied access
to recreation or the opportunity to receive basic educational
instruction. The Committee has provided a substantial increase
in the budget for the Alternatives to Detention program, and
ICE should prioritize the enrollment of families in this
program. In situations where family detention is unavoidable,
the Committee directs ICE to house families together in non-
penal, home-like environments with appropriate access to
health, educational, and social services until the conclusion
of their immigration proceedings.
DETENTION STANDARDS COMPLIANCE
The Committee is concerned by reports that ICE detention
facilities, both those managed by the Federal government and
those acquired as a contracted service, do not comply with ICE-
published detention standards, including guidelines for the
separation of violent detainees from non-violent detainees, the
availability of health care, and the proper preparation of
food. Within the budget request, ICE proposes consolidating its
detention standards compliance review activities within the
Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) and increasing the
budget for this office by $7,000,000. The Committee supports
this plan and recommends an additional $3,000,000 for this
office, for a total OPR budget of $50,778,000 and a total
staffing level of 351. Of this total, the Committee directs ICE
to use $1,000,000 for a third-party compliance review pilot
program to ensure standards are met at detention facilities
managed by private contractors. In addition, the Committee
strongly encourages ICE to establish a full-time OPR presence
in each of the 24 Detention and Removal Operations field
offices to monitor detention standard compliance. ICE should be
prepared to report to the Committee, concurrent with the
submission of the fiscal year 2009 budget, on the results of
its detention standards compliance efforts.
INAPPROPRIATE TREATMENT OF UNACCOMPANIED ALIEN CHILDREN
The Committee remains concerned about reports that
vulnerable unaccompanied alien children are not being
transferred in a timely fashion to the Office of Refugee
Resettlement (ORR) and are being held by DHS in unacceptable
conditions either in Border Patrol stations or jail-like
facilities, often for many days. The 1996 Flores Settlement
agreement requires DHS to transfer custody of unaccompanied
alien minors to ORR within three to five days. The Committee
directs ICE to develop and publish minimum standards for the
temporary care of children, transfer responsibility for
transportation of unaccompanied children to ORR, and reimburse
ORR for the cost of performing this transportation function. In
addition, the Committee directs ICE to contact ORR immediately
upon apprehension of any unaccompanied alien child, and to
transfer custody of that child to ORR within 72 hours of
apprehension.
The Committee is also troubled by reports of insensitive
and inappropriate treatment of unaccompanied alien children and
directs the Department to cease its use of and reliance on
unreliable forensic testing of children's bones and teeth to
determine their age. Instead, the Committee strongly encourages
the Department to use holistic age-determination methodologies
recommended by medical and child welfare experts.
The Committee does not believe it is appropriate for ICE to
use unaccompanied alien children's personal records, such as
psychological evaluations, medical reports, and ORR files as
evidence against the children in removal proceedings. The
Committee directs ICE to cease its practice of using this
information, except when the child's legal guardian provides
written permission for release of these records.
Finally, the Committee is concerned about the lack of
repatriation services available for unaccompanied alien
children who are removed from the United States to face
uncertain fates in their countries of origin. The Committee
directs ICE, in close consultation with the Department of State
and ORR, to develop and implement policies and procedures to
ensure the safe and secure repatriation of unaccompanied alien
children to their home countries, including through the
arrangement of family reunification services and placement with
non-profit organizations that provide for orphan services.
ICE should brief the Committee within 90 days of enactment
of this Act on actions it has taken to implement these changes.
FUGITIVE OPERATIONS TEAMS
Within its fiscal year 2008 justification, ICE has set a
goal for every Fugitive Operations Team to deport 1,000 alien
absconders per year. According to a recent Office of Inspector
General report, however, ICE is unable to track progress toward
this goal because it does not maintain separate performance
measurements for the fugitive operations program. ICE must
develop a performance measurement approach that clearly
illustrates the effectiveness of the Fugitive Operations Teams,
by location, and a plan for enabling these teams to reach the
goal of deporting 1,000 individuals per year. Because of the
uncertain effectiveness of this program to date, the Committee
recommends $183,200,000, which is the same level appropriated
in 2007, providing for 70 teams. In addition, the Committee
directs ICE to reallocate agents from the Fugitive Operations
Teams to the Criminal Alien Program, as needed, in order to
meet the mandate of removing every removable alien convicted of
a crime and currently held in the corrections system.
BORDER ENFORCEMENT SECURITY TASK FORCES
As part of the Secure Border Initiative, ICE has proposed
the Border Enforcement Security Task Force (BEST) program,
which will focus on investigation and interdiction of
illegally-smuggled and entering persons, with a priority on
terrorist groups, gang members, and criminal aliens. The ICE-
led BEST will coordinate Federal, State, local, Tribal, and
foreign law enforcement and intelligence entities to disrupt
and dismantle cross-border criminal organizations. The
Committee recommends $10,700,000 and 63 positions for the BEST
program, as requested. The Committee directs ICE to integrate
the BEST program with the existing ICE-led Human Smuggling and
Trafficking Center, the Customs and Border Protection-led Alien
Smuggling Interdiction office, and the Intelligence and
Analysis-led Integrated Border Intelligence Program, and to
report to the Committee no later than January 1, 2008, on the
execution of BEST funds in conjunction with these other DHS
activities.
STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT SUPPORT
The Department works with State and local law enforcement
officers who agree to help enforce Federal immigration laws.
The request includes a $32,030,000 increase for the three ICE
programs that support State and local law enforcement
activities: the Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC), the
Forensics Document Laboratory (FDL), and the training and
support for the voluntary participation of local law
enforcement officers in immigration law enforcement as
authorized under section 287(g) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (287(g) program).
Over the past two fiscal years, the Committee has provided
more than $50,000,000 to support the 287(g) program, including
the training of participants. However, 287(g) participation
does not appear to be growing as quickly as the Department had
planned, and nearly half of the funds provided to date remain
unobligated. Therefore, the Committee recommends $64,411,000
for State and local law enforcement support, which is an
increase of $18,030,000 over the 2007 enacted level. Of the
amount recommended, $25,356,000 is for LESC, $21,789,000 is for
FDL, and $17,266,000 is for the 287(g) program. In implementing
the Committee's requirement for ICE to contact every prison,
jail, and correctional facility on a monthly basis to identify
removable criminal aliens, ICE should draw on the additional
287(g) funding recommended by the Committee to enroll
correctional facilities in the program and provide training and
technical support to participants so that they can provide
accurate and actionable data to ICE agents.
TRADE TRANSPARENCY INITIATIVE
ICE, in cooperation with CBP and the Departments of State
and Treasury, operates Trade Transparency Units (TTU)
consisting of specialized groups of agents investigating trade-
based money laundering activities. The TTU focuses on the
laundering of millions of dollars through seemingly legitimate
trade, employing analytic tools, intelligence, and reciprocal
information sharing with foreign governments to disrupt the
illegal flow of cash and goods. Because of the success of this
program, foreign governments have become more cooperative with
sharing the information needed to stop such fraud. The
Committee recommends $13,200,000 for the TTU to increase
program staff by 16 full time equivalents (FTEs) and provide
for associated equipment, materials and facilities. This level
is $2,000,000 more than the request.
GANG ENFORCEMENT FIELD OFFICERS
ICE investigators have developed an expertise identifying
and disrupting the criminal activities of organized
transnational gangs. The ICE-led Operation Community Shield
program has resulted in the arrest of over 4,200 gang members
and associates since it was established in 2005. ICE proposes
to establish a permanent counter-gang enforcement activity
focused on disrupting gang-related crime in cities with high
concentrations of gang activity. The Committee supports this
goal and recommends a total of $7,000,000 for the ICE Gang
Enforcement Field Officers program, an increase of $2,000,000
above the budget request, to support the addition of 50 agents
to focus on this issue.
TEXTILE TRANSSHIPMENT ENFORCEMENT
The Committee includes $4,750,000, as requested, to
continue textile transshipment enforcement. The Committee
directs ICE to ensure that the activities of the textile
enforcement division and other textile enforcement activities,
specifically seizures, detention, and special operations, be
maintained at least at the level of those activities in prior
years, such as the fiscal year 2006 enforcement performance.
The Committee also directs ICE to submit an interim report with
the fiscal year 2009 budget on execution of its five-year
strategic plan, which should provide information on enforcement
activities, including textile production verification team
exercises and special operations; numbers of seizures;
penalties imposed; and the numbers and types of personnel
responsible for enforcing textile laws.
HUMAN RIGHTS LAW DIVISION
The Committee congratulates the ICE Human Rights Law
Division (HRLD) on its recent successes prosecuting individuals
who have entered the country illegally to avoid accountability
for war crimes, genocide, and other crimes against humanity. In
2006, HRLD concluded the first successful U.S. prosecution of
an alien accused of genocide, leading to the deportation of the
individual to Rwanda to face charges for his crimes. In April
2007, ICE successfully apprehended three individuals accused of
war crimes during conflicts in South America. The Committee
recommends $208,305,000 for the Office of Legal Proceedings,
$500,000 more than requested. This additional funding should be
devoted exclusively to the HRLD, and should be used to hire new
staff members and expand the Division's travel and expense
budgets. With these funds, the Committee expects HRLD to
continue its vigorous pursuit of human rights violators.
ICE MUTUAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AND EMPLOYERS
The ICE budget proposes $5,000,000 to develop a public-
private partnership program between ICE and private sector
employers designed to increase awareness of immigration
document fraud. Because this program appears unnecessarily
duplicative of the ``Basic Pilot'' program within U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Committee provides no
funding for it.
ICE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
Since the creation of DHS, ICE has weathered several
instances of financial turbulence. While the Committee remains
hopeful that the financial managers at ICE have resolved any
lingering effects of these problems, the Committee remains
concerned about the maturation of ICE's managerial processes.
In particular, staffing and resource needs may not be being
fully met in critical areas such as personnel training and
development. The Committee directs ICE to examine its
allocation of resources across its headquarters functions, and
brief the Committee by June 30, 2007, on any shortcomings that
have the potential to impair the organization's financial
management.
ICE VEHICLE FLEET MANAGEMENT PLAN
The Committee directs ICE to submit a Vehicle Fleet
Management plan, including a detailed, five-year investment
strategy across all types of ICE vehicles, with its fiscal year
2009 budget submission. This plan should include the age and
mileage of vehicles in use by the Offices of Investigations,
Intelligence, and Detention and Removal Operations, and any
investment plans, requirements, and milestones for the ICE
vehicle fleet. The Committee notes the same report was
required, but not delivered, with the 2008 budget.
Federal Protective Service
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $516,011,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008..................... 613,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 613,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +96,989,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008................. ................
MISSION
The Federal Protective Service (FPS) is responsible for the
protection of federally owned and leased buildings and
properties, particularly those under the charge and control of
the General Services Administration. Funding for FPS is
provided through a security fee charged to all GSA building
tenants in FPS protected buildings. FPS has three major law
enforcement initiatives, including: Protection Services to all
Federal facilities throughout the United States and its
territories; expanded intelligence and anti-terrorism
capabilities; and Special Programs, including weapons of mass
destruction detection, hazardous material detection and
response, and canine programs.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $613,000,000, the same as the
amount requested and $96,989,000 above the amounts provided in
fiscal year 2007.
FEDERAL PROTECTIVE SERVICE POLICE
The budget includes a proposal to eliminate the FPS Police
in 2008. The Committee is aware that FPS has encouraged its
police officers to find other employment either elsewhere in
ICE or outside the Federal government. The Committee is
concerned that the diminution and eventual elimination of the
FPS Police force will impose a significant burden on State and
local law enforcement officers, who will be expected to cover
the work previously handled by the FPS Police. As a result, the
Committee has included a statutory requirement for FPS to
provide information on the number and types of cases handled by
FPS Police during the last two fiscal years to the relevant
lead State and local law enforcement agencies in areas with an
FPS Police presence as of the start of fiscal year 2007. In
addition, FPS is directed to negotiate a Memorandum of
Agreement with each relevant local law enforcement agency that
identifies how work historically carried out by FPS police will
be addressed in the future. The Committee also directs FPS to
submit quarterly reports, beginning on October 1, 2007,
detailing the staffing levels at all FPS police locations, both
vacant and filled.
Automation Modernization
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $15,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008..................... ................
Recommended in the bill............................... 30,700,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +15,700,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008................. +30,700,000
MISSION
The Automation Infrastructure Modernization Account funds
major information technology (IT) projects for U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $30,700,000 for Automation
Modernization, the success of which will be critical to
improving the efficiency and effectiveness of ICE programs.
This funding level is $30,700,000 more than the amount
requested and $15,700,000 more than provided in fiscal year
2007. Of the total amount recommended for Automation
Modernization, $15,700,000 has been moved from Salaries and
Expenses, since those funds were requested for development of
operational support computer applications. The ATLAS project is
a necessary investment for strengthening ICE operations, and
therefore recommends continued funding for it.
The Committee continues the requirement for ICE to produce,
and GAO to review, a detailed expenditure plan for the ATLAS
program. While the Committee notes that ATLAS managers have
improved the rigor of their oversight of the project, there is
nevertheless a need for a well-coordinated and on-going effort
to ensure ATLAS investments are made wisely and produce
measurable improvement in ICE programs.
Construction
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $56,281,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008..................... 6,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 6,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... -50,281,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008................. ................
MISSION
The Construction account funds the planning, design,
construction, equipment and maintenance for ICE-owned buildings
and facilities.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $6,000,000 for Construction, as
requested. The Committee restricts obligation of funds to carry
out privatization of ICE-owned detention facilities until ICE
provides, and the Committee approves, a privatization plan that
includes a 30-year cost comparison of government-owned versus
privatized detention operations.
Transportation Security Administration
AVIATION SECURITY
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007\1\.................... $4,739,114,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008..................... 4,953,159,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 5,198,535,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +466,721,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008................. +245,376,000
\1\ Reflects $7,300,000 transfer as required by Public Law 110-5,
Section 21101.
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 $5,198,535,000 for Aviation
Security, $245,376,000 above the amounts requested and
$466,721,000 above the amount provided for fiscal year 2007.
Funds are partially offset through the collection of security
user fees paid by aviation travelers and airlines, and
discretionary fees on general aviation using Ronald Reagan
Washington National Airport and indirect air cargo. A
comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee recommended
level by budget activity is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Screening operations\1\........... $3,992,489,000 $4,218,194,000
Aviation security direction and 960,445,000 980,116,000
enforcement......................
Discretionary fees................ 225,000 225,000
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, aviation security... $4,953,159,000 $5,198,535,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In the past, there was a mandatory appropriation of $250,000,000--
the Aviation Security Capital Fund--which was paid for entirely from
user fees. This fund has not been authorized for fiscal year 2008.
AVIATION SECURITY FEES
In total, the Committee has assumed the collection of
$2,710,000,000 in aviation security user fees. The Committee
assumes that, of this total, $2,214,000,000 will be collected
from aviation passengers and $496,000,000 will be collected
from airlines. These fees partially offset the Federal
appropriation for aviation security.
SCREENING OPERATIONS
The Committee recommends $4,218,194,000 for passenger and
baggage screening operations, $225,705,000 above the amount
requested and $449,928,000 above the amount provided for fiscal
year 2007. While TSA refers to the screener workforce as
``Transportation Security Officers,'' these personnel are
referred to as ``passenger and baggage screeners'' for the
purposes of this bill and report. A comparison of the budget
estimate to the Committee recommended level by budget activity
is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Screener Workforce:
Privatized screening.......... $143,385,000 $147,190,000
Passenger and baggage 2,601,404,000 2,589,304,000
screeners, personnel,
compensation and benefits....
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, screener 2,744,789,000 2,736,494,000
workforce................
Screening training and other:..... 200,466,000 200,466,000
Human resource services:.......... 182,234,000 182,234,000
Checkpoint support:............... 136,000,000 250,000,000
EDS/ETD Systems:
EDS procurement and 440,000,000 560,000,000
installation.................
EDS/ETD maintenance........... 264,000,000 264,000,000
Operation integration......... 25,000,000 25,000,000
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, EDS/ETD systems. 729,000,000 849,000,000
=====================================
Total, screening $3,992,489,000 $4,218,194,000
operations...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRIVATIZED SCREENING
The Committee recommends $147,190,000 for privatized
screening, $3,805,000 above the amount requested and $1,410,000
below the amount provided for fiscal year 2007. Funding above
the budget request has been provided to support two activities.
First, the Committee has included $2,800,000 to support
travel document checkers at the largest airports (Category X
and I) that use private screeners. This is consistent with
funding recommendations made for those airports that use
Federal screeners.
Second, because Federal law requires that all aviation
travelers be screened, additional funding is necessary to
support two commercial air passenger airports that were
federalized after the President's fiscal year 2008 budget
request was submitted and that use private screeners. In
addition, the Committee is aware of at least a handful of other
airports that are in the process of federalizing and acquiring
commercial air service that will require funding to support
screening activities.
TSA has proposed not screening aviation travelers at newly
federalized airports or requiring the airports and heliports to
bear those costs. This would contravene section 44901 of the
Aviation and Transportation Security Act, which requires all
passengers to be screened by either TSA or private screeners
before they board commercial aircraft. Vision 100--the Century
of Aviation Reauthorization Act (P.L. 108-176) further
clarified TSA's screening requirements for charter air carriers
with a maximum take-off weight of more than 12,500 pounds and
its obligation to deploy screeners to certain airports. The
Committee directs TSA to provide screening at those airports
and heliports that have requested screening.
TSA is directed to notify the Committees on Appropriations
if it expects to spend less than the appropriated amount for
privatized screening due to instances in which no additional
privatized screening airports are added or airports currently
using privatized screening convert to Federal screeners. TSA
shall adjust its program, project, and activity (PPA) line
items within ten days to reflect the award of contracts under
the screening partnership program; to indicate any changes to
private screening contracts, personnel levels, or compensation
and benefits; and to record the movement of privatized
screening into Federal screening.
PASSENGER AND BAGGAGE SCREENER PERSONNEL, COMPENSATION AND BENEFIT
The Committee recommends $2,589,304,000 for passenger and
baggage screener personnel, compensation, and benefits,
$12,100,000 below the amount requested and $119,104,000 above
the amount provided for fiscal year 2007. This level fully
funds the pay and cost of living adjustments for all passenger
and baggage screeners. Also, it partially funds the travel
document checker program and the behavior detection screeners
requested in the budget. Finally, the Committee has provided
funding for a pilot program to screen airport employees.
TRAVEL DOCUMENT CHECKERS
The Committee recommends $45,000,000 for the new travel
document checker program instead of $60,000,000 as requested.
Because this program will begin at the 40 largest airports in
fiscal year 2008, it is unlikely that all 1,329 travel document
checkers will be on the payroll as of October 1, 2007. While
the Committee recognizes that TSA will take the travel document
checkers from the current screener workforce, it will take time
to train these current employees to inspect and verify the
travel documents of airline passengers and to hire new
employees to fill vacated screener positions. Furthermore, TSA
has not developed a detailed expenditure plan to support the
proposed travel document checker program, which is a new
activity for the Federal government that will replace
activities currently being carried out by airline contract
employees. Without such an expenditure plan, it is unclear how
TSA will measure program successes, account for the use of
current and future year appropriations for these personnel, or
hold program managers accountable for the travel document
checking functions. As a result, the Committee provides nine
months of funding for these positions, a reduction of
$15,000,000 below the requested amount. TSA is directed to
brief the Committee on how the results of this new function
will be measured. In addition, TSA shall submit a report no
later than February 1, 2008, that details the function of each
different type of new employee category within this personnel,
compensation, and benefits (PC&B) appropriation, including
travel document checkers, bomb appraisal screeners, and
behavior detection screeners. As part of this report, TSA is
directed to clearly identify the FTE levels, PC&B expenditures,
equipment costs, and measures of success for all three
specialized personnel categories.
PILOT PROGRAM TO SCREEN AIRPORT EMPLOYEES
The Committee has provided $5,000,000 for the labor costs
to pilot the screening of all airport employees at seven
airports. Currently, airport employees do not regularly receive
physical screening when entering secure areas of airports.
Instead, TSA randomly screens individual employees, vendor
deliveries, delivery personnel and vehicles. TSA also conducts
background checks on all airport employees that apply for or
hold airport-issued identification that permits these employees
unescorted access to secure or sterile areas.
After a Delta Airlines plane was reverse screened upon
arrival in Puerto Rico on March 5, 2007, two Delta airline
employees were found to have placed 14 weapons and eight pounds
of marijuana on the flight. Because these airline employees
were not physically screened, the contraband did not go through
the security checkpoint and was easily placed on the aircraft.
TSA has informed the Committee that while it has no plans to
physically screen all airport employees at the airports, it has
launched a six-point plan to bolster employee screening and
airport-wide security surge programs in response to the
incident.
TSA currently has no data on the benefits, costs, or
impacts of a 100-percent airport employee screening policy. As
a result, the Committee provides funding for TSA to pilot the
screening of airport employees at up to seven airports for no
less than 180 days. TSA shall report to the Committees on
Appropriations on: (1) the results of these pilots, including
the average wait times at screening checkpoints for passengers
and employees; (2) the estimated cost of the infrastructure and
personnel necessary to implement a screening program for
airport workers at all U.S. commercial service airports in
order to meet a 10-minute standard for processing passengers
and workers through screening checkpoints; (3) the ways in
which the current methods for screening airport employees could
be strengthened; and (4) the impact of screening airport
workers on other security-related duties at airports. TSA is
directed to submit this report no later than August 1, 2008.
BEHAVIOR DETECTION SCREENERS
The Committee has reduced funding for behavior detection
screeners within the passenger and baggage screener
appropriation because of a high number of vacancies in this
program in 2007 that are expected to carry into fiscal year
2008. At this time, TSA has filled less than 20 percent of the
401 positions it planned to fill in 2007. Because of the high
level of vacancies, TSA does not require full year funding for
an additional 188 screeners it has requested for 2008.
Consistent with recommendations made throughout this section,
the Committee provides nine months of funding for these
positions, a reduction of $2,100,000 below the requested
amount.
Behavior detection is a new TSA program in 2007 that
requires screeners to receive specialized training to detect
threats through the recognition of suspicious behavioral
characteristics. The Committee directs TSA to report to the
Committee by December 2007 on the status of filling these
positions and how the agency will measure the performance of
these screeners.
STAFFING ALLOCATIONS
In February 2007, a Government Accountability Office review
of TSA's staffing allocation model (GAO-07-299) found that TSA
does not periodically reevaluate its assumptions to ensure that
they reflect the most current operating conditions. As a
result, TSA has not always made staffing decisions that are
informed by each airport's current part-time workforce and
reflect leave, absenteeism, injuries, training, and non-
screening duties. This Committee has heard repeatedly from
airports questioning revisions TSA has made to airport screener
allocations, noting that TSA's model does not take into account
new or additional service to an airport by air carriers,
assumes an unachievable level of part-time employees, or does
not reflect challenging airport layouts. GAO recommended that
TSA establish a formal, documented plan for reviewing all of
the assumptions of the staffing allocation model on a periodic
basis to ensure that screener staffing allocations accurately
reflect operating conditions that may change over time. The
Committee concurs with this recommendation and directs TSA to
provide periodic briefings to the Committee on such a plan
beginning on November 1, 2007.
SCREENING WAIT TIMES
The Committee continues to be concerned that screening wait
times vary disproportionately by airport. The Committee directs
TSA to submit wait time data on a quarterly basis for domestic
airports with above average times and for the top 40 busiest
airports in the United States. TSA shall annotate this report
to explain any dramatic shift in wait times at any airport. The
first report shall be submitted on January 1, 2008.
CHECKPOINT SUPPORT
The Committee recommends $250,000,000 for checkpoint
support, $114,000,000 above the amount requested and
$76,634,000 above the amount provided for fiscal year 2007.
Unfortunately, very little has changed at airport checkpoints
since September 11, 2001. Despite the 9/11 Commission
recommendation, very few passengers and carry-on baggage are
screened for explosives, even though promising new technologies
that dramatically improve security and decrease wait times have
been developed. Additional funding is provided for pilot
testing and deployment of advanced checkpoint explosive
detection equipment and screening techniques to determine
optimal deployment as well as preferred operational and
equipment protocols. Eligible systems may include, but are not
limited to: advanced technology screening systems, whole body
imagers, liquid explosives detectors, and automated explosive
detection systems. Funding may also be used to establish new
checkpoints to screen airport employees. No later than 60 days
after enactment of this Act, TSA shall provide the Committees
on Appropriations a checkpoint support plan that outlines how
these funds will be spent.
EXPLOSIVE DETECTION SYSTEMS
The Aviation and Transportation Security Act required the
Federal Government to be responsible for the electronic
screening of all checked baggage using explosive detection
machines. To satisfy this mandate, TSA deployed two types of
screening equipment: (1) explosive detection systems (EDS)
using computer aided tomography X-rays to scan objects and
automatically recognize the characteristic signature of
explosives; and (2) explosive trace detection machines (ETDs)
using chemical analysis to detect traces of explosive
materials' vapors or residues. Because of shortages of
equipment and insufficient time to modify airports to
accommodate large EDS machines, many EDS machines were placed
in congested airport lobbies, impeding traffic flows and
limiting the effectiveness of the screening equipment.
To correct these problems, as well as plan for future
aviation security needs, TSA completed a 20-year electronic
baggage screening plan in 2006 for deploying checked baggage
screening systems and refurbishing or replacing these first
generation systems. The plan analyzed the top 250 airports and
concluded that the preferred solution would cost a total of
$50.32 billion by 2025. A more recently completed baggage
screening investment study concluded that the capital funding
requirements to procure new optimal systems, install these
systems, modify facilities to expand existing checked baggage
screening systems, and acquire new systems to support new
airport terminals would cost $8.2 billion over the same time
period.
The Committee recognizes that additional investments are
necessary to: increase security at airports nationwide; more
readily adapt to growing airline traffic, potential threats,
and other industry changes over the next 20 years; deploy the
best possible screening solutions at each airport; and leverage
emerging screening technologies to the maximum extent
practicable.
The Committee recommends a total of $560,000,000 for
explosive detection systems procurement and installations,
$120,000,000 more than the amount requested. The mandatory
Aviation Security Capital Fund has not been authorized for
fiscal year 2008. The total amount provided, coupled with
funding appropriated in fiscal year 2007, including the
recently-enacted 2007 supplemental appropriations, represents
one sixth of the total need identified in the most recent
baggage screening study.
The Committee provides $560,000,000 to expedite the
procurement and installation of in-line systems at airports,
using current or next-generation EDS machines, as well as to
replace the existing ETD machines at medium and small airports
with EDS machines. The Committee directs that no funding should
be used for new ETD purchases or installations unless they are
necessary for secondary screening of checked baggage, to
replace an aging ETD system in those airports that are
primarily dependent on ETD technologies, or to procure new ETD
systems for new, small airports or heliports that are
federalized.
CONSOLIDATING CHECKPOINT AND CHECKED BAGGAGE SCREENING AT SMALLER
AIRPORTS
The Committee is aware that TSA is studying the
effectiveness of consolidating checkpoint and checked baggage
screening at smaller airports. The Committee believes this
approach has the potential to maximize the use of limited
resources and increase efficiency in airport screening.
Therefore, the Committee encourages TSA to continue to explore
the consolidation of checkpoint and checked baggage screening
at Category III and IV airports, and to report back no later
than February 15, 2008, on its findings on how this
consolidation may work.
AVIATION SECURITY DIRECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
The Committee recommends $980,116,000 for aviation security
direction and enforcement, $19,671,000 above the amount
requested and $16,558,000 more than the amount provided for
fiscal year 2007. The Committee also assumes the collection of
$225,000 in new discretionary fees related to general aviation
operations at Ronald Reagan Washington National airport and
indirect air cargo. The following table highlights funding
levels by program, project, and activity:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aviation Direction and
Enforcement:
Aviation regulation and other $223,653,000 $223,653,000
enforcement..................
Airport management, 655,933,000 651,933,000
information technology and
support......................
FFDO and flight crew training. 25,091,000 27,530,000
Air cargo..................... 55,768,000 73,000,000
Perimeter security............ 0 4,000,000
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, aviation $960,445,000 $980,116,000
security direction and
enforcement..............
Discretionary Fees:
General Aviation at DCA....... $200,000 $200,000
Indirect Air Cargo............ 25,000 25,000
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, discretionary $225,000 $225,000
fees.....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AVIATION SECURITY INSPECTORS
The Committee recommends $223,653,000 for aviation
regulation and other enforcement, the same amount as requested.
The Committee is concerned that, over the past four years, TSA
has allowed the aviation inspection workforce to decrease by
over 10 percent, from about 700 aviation security inspectors in
2004 to 618 inspectors currently, while inspection
responsibilities have increased. Therefore, the Committee
directs GAO to review the operation of the aviation security
inspector program since it has been located at TSA. The review
should include the historical FTE levels for this program, a
description of the roles and responsibilities of these
inspectors and how their work has changed since 2002, as well
as an analysis of what areas may not be receiving adequate
inspections due to the current workforce size. GAO should make
recommendations on ways to reorganize or enhance this program,
if appropriate.
AIRPORT MANAGEMENT, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND SUPPORT
The Committee recommends $651,933,000 for airport
management, information technology and support, $4,000,000
below the amount requested and $14,099,000 below the amount
provided for fiscal year 2007. A reduction was made to reflect
the completion of the high-speed connectivity project at all
airports and vacancies within this program.
FEDERAL FLIGHT DECK OFFICER AND FLIGHT CREW TRAINING
The Committee recommends $27,530,000 for the Federal flight
deck officer and flight crew training program, $2,439,000 above
the amount requested and $2,530,000 above the amount provided
for fiscal year 2007. Within this total, $24,621,000 is for the
Federal flight deck officer training program and $3,269,000 is
for flight crew training. The Committee has provided $2,439,000
above the budget request to maintain the current number of
Federal flight deck officers who receive basic firearm
training, including training on how to safely carry and use a
firearm while on an aircraft. Without this additional funding,
fewer pilots will be trained as flight deck officers than have
expressed interest in the program.
AIR CARGO
The Committee recommends $73,000,000 for air cargo,
$17,232,000 above the amount requested and $18,000,000 above
the amount provided in fiscal year 2007.
Unlike checked passenger baggage, air cargo carried in the
belly of passenger aircraft is not all screened for explosives.
While TSA has made limited progress in the past few years in
increasing the percentage of air cargo screened, it must more
aggressively pursue the goal of screening 100 percent of all
air cargo carried on passenger aircraft. The reliability of
TSA's current air cargo security system, the ``known shipper''
database, is questionable because it does not reflect the
complete universe of certified shippers and because it is
populated by information voluntarily provided by shippers that
has not all been validated by TSA.
In November 2006, TSA updated its air cargo security
directive to require more air cargo be screened. At the larger
airports, for example, all cargo that is high risk or presented
at airline ticket counters must now be screened. At the smaller
airports, 100 percent of all cargo must be screened. In
addition, TSA has taken measures to increase inspections of
previously exempted cargo.
The Committee has included $17,232,000 above the request
for: (1) continued training and deployment of additional canine
teams at high volume air cargo airports to increase
inspections; (2) additional air cargo inspectors to monitor the
compliance of air carrier and freight forwarders with security
directives; and (3) the transfer of promising techniques from
the three, ongoing air cargo pilot programs to additional
airports that may express an interest in using them.
The Committee notes an apparent growth in the number of
airports and air carriers that are not in compliance with
security screening percentages, as required by Public Law 108-
334. While TSA has penalized and/or shut down a few operations
that were not in compliance with the air cargo security
requirements, the agency could be more aggressive in acting to
reduce the rate of non-compliance, particularly for repeat
offenders. The Committee directs TSA to continue to report
quarterly on air cargo inspection statistics by airport and air
carrier, to note any reason for non-compliance, and to fully
explain the reasoning in all instances where TSA has not
imposed maximum penalties.
In addition, because there has been no statutory change in
passenger aircraft air cargo screening percentages since 2005,
the Committee has included bill language (Sec. 516) that
doubles the amount of air cargo to be screened in fiscal year
2008. Funding in this bill will make this substantial increase
in air cargo screening possible, positioning TSA closer to the
goal of screening 100 percent of air cargo in the near future.
Over the past few years, TSA has become increasingly
dependent on contractors to support its air cargo regulatory
efforts. At this time, 80 percent of work conducted by the air
cargo office is done by contractors. While it makes sense to
utilize contractors at times, the air cargo regulatory program
should not be reliant on contractors for day-to-day activities
of such critical government programs as the known shipper
management system, the indirect air carrier management system,
the freight assessment program, air cargo risk based programs
and new technology initiatives. TSA shall make every effort to
limit the use of contractors for air cargo regulatory
activities and hire dedicated Federal employees who are well
trained in this area. TSA shall report quarterly to the
Committee on the progress it has made to reduce its dependence
on contractors. The first report is due January 1, 2008.
AIRPORT PERIMETER SECURITY
The Committee recommends $4,000,000 for airport perimeter
security pilots. Many specific vulnerabilities have been
identified at airport perimeters, none of which have been
systematically addressed by TSA. Since 9/11, $22,000,000 has
been provided for airport perimeter and terminal security pilot
projects, but TSA has been slow to act in awarding competitive
projects and in determining solutions. The Committee expects
that these funds and all funds currently available for airport
perimeter pilot projects will be competitively awarded in 2008.
GENERAL AVIATION
The 9/11 Commission, GAO and the Congressional Research
Service have issued reports citing vulnerabilities in general
aviation security. For example, general aviation airports and
aircraft are viewed as comparatively soft targets that could be
exploited by terrorists. With more than 5,400 public use
general aviation airports in the United States, the Committee
supports a robust program to reinforce security at these
facilities and directs TSA to continue funding ongoing
activities in this area. Funding shall be awarded under a
competitive process.
FOREIGN REPAIR STATIONS
According to the Department of Transportation, U.S. air
carriers have outsourced over 50 percent of the repair and
maintenance of their aircraft. Numerous concerns have been
expressed about the lax security standards at the foreign
repair stations that perform work on U.S. registered aircraft
and the potential for terrorist sabotage of such an aircraft.
In 2006, Congress appropriated $3,000,000 to hire staff to
inspect the security of foreign and domestic repair stations.
The Committee notes that 13 staff have been hired for this
work. Yet, 18 months after this appropriation was provided,
about half of the appropriation remains unobligated and TSA has
failed to finalize a regulation to audit certified repair
stations in foreign countries. TSA has informed the Committee
that this regulation will not be completed until the second
quarter of 2008. This timeline is unacceptable. The Committee
directs TSA, in consultation with the Federal Aviation
Administration, to work aggressively to complete this rule in a
more timely fashion, and report monthly on its efforts to do
so.
DEPLOYABLE FLIGHT DATA AND COCKPIT VOICE RECORDERS
The Committee understands that TSA plans to evaluate the
safety and security benefits of deployable flight data and
cockpit voice recorders equipped with emergency locator
transmitters. The Committee encourages TSA to work with the
Federal Aviation Administration to test such technologies on
civilian passenger aircraft in order to identify those that
would improve the survivability of flight data and cockpit
voice recorders following civil aviation disasters.
Surface Transportation Security
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $37,200,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008..................... 41,413,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 41,413,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007..................... +4,213,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008................... ................
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 these modes, and enforcing regulations to ensure
the protection of the transportation system.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $41,413,000 for Surface
Transportation Security, the same as the amount requested and
$4,213,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2007.
Within this total, $24,485,000 is for surface transportation
staffing and operations and $16,928,000 is for rail security
inspectors and canines. The Committee recognizes the ability of
canine teams to detect explosives and supports TSA's plan to
expand the National Explosive Detection Canine Team program by
an additional 45 teams to include new locations as well as work
in the ferry system. Also, the Committee encourages TSA to use
explosive sniffing canines to screen intercity bus terminals
when those terminals are either part of an intermodel facility
that includes transit or are located near transit terminals.
In addition to the funds provided for surface
transportation security under this heading, the Committee has
provided $421,000,000 for rail, transit, bus, trucking, and
ferry security grants under the Federal Emergency Management
Agency's ``State and Local Programs'' appropriation.
RED TEAMING AND RANDOM PATROLS
TSA developed a program known as the Visible Intermodal
Protection and Response teams that consist of both uniformed
and covert air marshals, rail inspectors, and canine units
randomly patrolling transportation stations to deter terrorists
from surveiling facilities and planning related attacks. In
addition to this activity, the Committee directs the Office of
Internal Affairs to randomly conduct red teaming operations at
rail, transit, bus, and ferry facilities that receive Federal
grant funds to ensure that any vulnerabilities are identified
and corrected. Funding for these activities is included under
the recommendation for Transportation Security Support.
Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 \1\................... $37,700,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008..................... 77,490,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 49,490,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006................... +11,790,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007................. -28,000,000
\1\ Reflects the transfer of $2,000,000 from Secure Flight to Aviation
Security as required by Public Law 110-5, Section 21101.
MISSION
The Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing
mission is to reduce the probability of a successful terrorist
or other criminal attack to the transportation system through
the application of threat assessment methodologies that are
intended to identify known or suspected terrorist threats
working in or seeking access to the Nation's transportation
system. This appropriation consolidates the management of all
TSA vetting and credentialing programs into one office and
includes the following screening programs: Secure Flight; Crew
Vetting; Transportation Worker Identification Credential;
Registered Traveler; Hazardous Materials; and Alien Flight
School.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a direct appropriation of
$49,490,000 for Transportation Threat Assessment and
Credentialing, $28,000,000 below the amount requested and
$11,700,000 above the amount provided for fiscal year 2007. In
addition, the Committee anticipates TSA will collect
$82,601,000 in fees. A comparison of the budget estimate to the
Committee recommended level by budget activity is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Appropriation:
Secure flight................. $53,000,000 $25,000,000
Crew vetting.................. 14,990,000 14,990,000
Screening administration and 9,500,000 9,500,000
operations...................
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, direct 77,490,000 49,490,000
appropriations...........
Fee Collections:
Registered traveler........... 35,101,000 35,101,000
Transportation worker 26,500,000 26,500,000
identification credential....
Hazardous materials........... 19,000,000 19,000,000
Alien flight school (transfer 2,000,000 2,000,000
from DOJ)....................
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, fee collections. $82,601,000 $82,601,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURE FLIGHT
The Committee recommends $25,000,000 for Secure Flight,
$28,000,000 less than the amount requested and $12,000,000
above the amount provided for fiscal year 2007 after the
transfer required by Public Law 110-5, Section 21101. While TSA
recently completed a year long initiative to reassess Secure
Flights' capabilities and address privacy and other concerns,
the agency has not completed a cost estimate for completing
development and conducting operational testing of the program.
In addition, while TSA has stated that it plans to accelerate
the Secure Flight program, the latest data provided to the
Committee shows operational testing slipping from 2008 until
early 2009. As part of its initial review of this reassessment,
GAO noted that TSA needs to develop a management plan that
clearly outlines how TSA will measure the program's success,
holds program managers accountable, and accounts for the use of
current and future appropriations. Until TSA develops a
detailed expenditure and management plan, it is premature for
the Committee to fully fund the budget request.
The Committee continues a longstanding general provision
(Sec. 513) that directs the GAO to continue to evaluate DHS and
TSA actions to meet the ten requirements listed in Section 522
of Public Law 108-344, including Secretarial certification.
Bill language also prohibits the use of commercial data or the
development and testing of algorithms assigning risk to
passengers whose names are not on Government watch lists. The
Committee expects DHS and TSA to fully cooperate with GAO and
provide GAO with access to all required documents and officials
in a timely manner so that GAO can fulfill the congressional
mandate.
The Committee is concerned that, even with the Secure
Flight program, TSA plans to continue to screen passenger names
against only a subset of the full terrorist watch list.
Therefore, the Committee includes bill language that requires
the Assistant Secretary to certify that no security risks are
raised because the full watch list will not be checked. In
addition, the Committee directs GAO, to report by February 1,
2008, on the vulnerabilities that exist to our aviation system
if Secure Flight does not screen against the full terrorist
watch list.
SCREENING ADMINISTRATION AND OPERATIONS
The Committee provides $9,500,000 for screening
administration and operations, as requested. This funding shall
be used to support 15 FTEs working on a variety of vetting
activities, including the imposition of temporary flight
restrictions; reviews of non-scheduled commercial operators
(charters) to ensure a level of security equivalent to
regularly scheduled airlines; the vetting of general aviation,
charter, and business aircraft that fly into Ronald Reagan
Washington National Airport and the three Maryland airports
within 15 miles of Washington D.C. (Potomac Airpark, Washington
Executive, and College Park); and checks of alien flight school
pilots seeking recurring training in the United States. None of
this funding shall be used in support of the Secure Flight
program or the Transportation Worker Identification Credential
(TWIC). Secure Flight has a separate appropriation that shall
not be supplemented by this funding. TWIC is anticipated to be
solely funded by user fees in fiscal year 2008. If a direct
appropriation is required for TWIC, TSA shall submit a budget
addendum prior to enactment of this Act or a reprogramming
request in fiscal year 2008, subject to Section 503 of this
Act.
The Committee denies the budget request to combine the
screening administration and operations appropriation with the
crew vetting appropriation. Consistent with prior years, crew
vetting is funded as separate appropriation totaling
$14,990,000 in fiscal year 2008.
TRANSPORTATION WORKER IDENTIFICATION CREDENTIAL
While the Security and Accountability For Every Port Act of
2006 (Public Law 109-347) set a deadline for TSA to implement
TWIC at the 10 highest risk ports by July 1, 2007, the Agency
recently testified that it may not meet this deadline due to
vetting problems within the identity management system. Until
these problems can be resolved, TSA has no enrollment or
deployment schedule for TWIC.
Because of these delays, the Committee is concerned that
TSA's fee estimates are too high and its assumption that TWIC
will be solely user fee funded in fiscal year 2008 may be
unrealistic. Specifically, it appears unlikely TSA will collect
its revised estimate of $10,000,000 in user fees in fiscal year
2007, or $26,500,000 in user fees as estimated for fiscal year
2008. Furthermore, while TSA had informed the Committee that no
funding would be required in fiscal year 2007 for TWIC, the
agency recently submitted an expenditure plan showing that
$4,700,000 of the screening administration and operations
appropriation provided in fiscal year 2007 would support the
TWIC program. TSA shall provide a monthly briefing to the
Committee detailing efforts to resolve TWIC problems,
forecasting a date for enrollments to begin, updating a port-
by-port program implementation schedule, and estimating the
impact of delays on total program expenses. The first briefing
should be received no later than July 1, 2007. Furthermore, the
Committee urges TSA to ensure that the Coast Guard and terminal
operators work closely with local port police and other law
enforcement agencies to develop the operational procedures that
will ensure effective implementation of the TWIC program. If a
direct appropriation for TWIC is necessary in 2008, the
Committee directs TSA to submit a budget addendum to justify
this need or to submit a reprogramming request consistent with
Section 503 of this Act.
REGISTERED TRAVELER
The Committee anticipates the collection of $35,101,000 in
user fees to support the Registered Traveler (RT) program in
fiscal year 2008. TSA and private industry developed the RT
program to provide expedited security screening for passengers
who volunteer biometric and biographic information to a TSA-
approved RT vendor and successfully complete a security threat
assessment. Market-driven and offered by the private sector,
the RT program is intended to permit TSA to shift screening
resources away from individuals who have been prescreened and
are therefore less likely to be a threat. For its part, TSA
provides the security threat assessment and program oversight,
and conducts physical screening at airport checkpoints. While a
limited number of airports are currently participating in the
RT program, it is anticipated that this number will grow.
The success of the RT program depends on its ability to
deliver time saving benefits to participants that are
consistent with both airport security and individual privacy.
The RT program also has the potential benefit to TSA of serving
as a ready-made venue for the evaluation, approval, or
certification of new technologies. TSA is directed to work with
private RT providers to maximize time saving benefits while
maintaining and enhancing security.
The Committee urges TSA to permit RT members to use their
biometrically secure cards to fully satisfy the identity
verification requirement when entering an RT line at a
participating airport in lieu of the government issued photo
identification document required of individuals who are not
Registered Travelers.
The Committee also directs TSA to work with Science and
Technology to quickly review proposed technology and procedures
to streamline the generally-applied checkpoint process for
members of the Registered Traveler program, and to quickly
approve technologies or procedures that would provide equal or
better protection than the generally-applied checkpoint process
with respect to detecting unauthorized persons or items.
Transportation Security Support
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $525,283,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008..................... 524,515,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 526,615,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +1,332,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008................. +2,100,000
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 $526,615,000 for Transportation
Security Support, $2,100,000 above the amount requested and
$1,332,000 above the amount provided for fiscal year 2007. A
comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee recommended
level by budget activity is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Headquarters administration....... $294,191,000 $296,291,000
Information technology............ 209,324,000 209,324,000
Intelligence...................... 21,000,000 21,000,000
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, transportation $524,515,000 $526,615,000
security support...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RED TEAMING
The Committee is strongly supportive of red teaming
exercises which help identify vulnerabilities to our critical
transportation systems. The Committee directs TSA to be more
proactive in red teaming in fiscal year 2008. To do so, the
Committee recommends $6,360,000 for red teaming activities
within the appropriation for Headquarters Administration,
$2,100,000 or 50-percent above the amounts requested. This
funding level will enable 12 full-time teams to undertake red
teaming activities to identify potential vulnerabilities and
exploitable weaknesses in airports and air cargo facilities, as
well as in transit, rail and ferry systems. TSA should use
temporary detailees to test the systems to prevent airport
screeners and other employees from recognizing the red team
members. The Committee expects red teams to think ``outside the
box'' about ways to exploit transportation security
vulnerabilities.
The Committee directs TSA to report biannually on its red
teaming activities, to include specific discussions on the test
results at airport checkpoints, in the secure areas of the
airport, at air cargo facilities, and on other modes of
transportation. The first report should be submitted by January
1, 2008.
EXPENDITURE PLANS FOR THE PURCHASE AND DEPLOYMENT OF CHECKPOINT SUPPORT
AND EXPLOSIVE DETECTION EQUIPMENT
Similar to actions taken last year, the Committee has
included bill language requiring TSA to provide the Committee
with a detailed expenditure and deployment plan for checkpoint
support and explosive detection equipment. This plan shall be
submitted no later than 60 days after enactment of this Act and
shall detail expenditures for checkpoint support and explosive
detection procurement and installation on an airport-by-airport
basis for fiscal year 2008. In regards to explosive detection
equipment, the plan shall clearly delineate funding for next
generation systems and refurbishment.
SENIOR CAREER EMPLOYEES
TSA has had frequent and sustained turnover within its
senior workforce, resulting in a lack of historical knowledge
about the programs and policies of the agency. While this may
be expected for political appointees, it is disappointing that
turnover among senior career employees is so high and is
anticipated to grow dramatically over the next year. The
Committee encourages TSA to take appropriate measures to build
a stable, senior career workforce so that when a change in
political administration occurs, the agency can continue
operating without a diminution in transportation security
oversight. TSA shall report to the Committees on Appropriations
no later than January 15, 2008, on its plans and efforts to
retain senior career employees. In addition, the GAO is
directed to report on the history of SES-level career turnover
since the formation of TSA.
Federal Air Marshals
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $714,294,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008..................... 722,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 722,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +7,706,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008................. ................
MISSION
The Federal Air Marshals (FAMs) provide security for the
nation's civil aviation system through the effective deployment
of armed Federal agents to detect, deter, and defeat hostile
acts targeting U.S. air carriers, airports, passengers, and
crews.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $722,000,000 for the Federal Air
Marshals (FAMs), the same as the amount requested and
$7,706,000 above the amount provided for fiscal year 2007. Of
this total, $644,173,000 is for management and administration
and $77,827,000 is for travel and training. The Committee
anticipates that this funding level will maintain mission
coverage on both domestic and international flights, as well as
provide FAMs with the flexibility to conduct law enforcement
operations in some of the nation's larger airports. The
Committee continues to expect quarterly reports on mission
coverage, staffing levels, and hiring rates as directed in
previous Appropriations Acts.
United States Coast Guard
OPERATING EXPENSES
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 \1\................... $5,477,657,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008..................... 5,894,295,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 5,885,242,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +407,585,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008................. -9,053,000
\1\ Does not include $90,000,000 transfer from DoD, pursuant to P.L. 109-
289, for Iraqi war costs.
MISSION
The U.S. Coast Guard is the principal Federal agency
charged with maritime safety, security and stewardship. The
Operating Expenses appropriation provides funding for the
operation and maintenance of multipurpose vessels, aircraft,
and shore units strategically located along the coasts and
inland waterways of the United States and in selected areas
overseas. This is the primary appropriation financing
operational activities of the Coast Guard.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a total appropriation of
$5,885,242,000 for Operating Expenses, including $340,000,000
for national security activities. The recommended funding level
is $9,053,000 below the amount requested and $407,585,000 above
the amount provided for fiscal year 2007. A comparison of the
budget estimate to the Committee recommended level by budget
activity is as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate Recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military pay and allowance:
Military pay and allowance................................ $2,496,230,000 $2,472,564,000
Military health care...................................... 348,960,000 347,733,000
Permanent change of station............................... 113,432,000 112,339,000
-------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, military pay and allowance.................. 2,958,622,000 2,932,636,000
Civilian pay and benefits:.................................... 630,669,000 592,769,000
Training and recruiting:
Training and education.................................... 85,593,000 85,050,000
Recruitment............................................... 100,955,000 101,096,000
-------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, training and recruiting..................... 186,548,000 186,146,000
Operating funds and unit level maintenance:
Atlantic Command.......................................... 177,020,000 176,972,000
Pacific Command........................................... 198,488,000 198,740,000
1st District.............................................. 58,573,000 58,583,000
5th District.............................................. 22,222,000 22,227,000
7th District.............................................. 77,138,000 78,390,000
8th District.............................................. 46,129,000 46,156,000
9th District.............................................. 32,084,000 32,092,000
11th District............................................. 17,437,000 17,450,000
13th District............................................. 23,230,000 23,240,000
14th District............................................. 19,401,000 19,402,000
17th District............................................. 31,734,000 31,816,000
Headquarters directorates................................. 271,914,000 281,577,000
Headquarters managed units................................ 131,153,000 130,098,000
Other activities.......................................... 31,376,000 31,704,000
-------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, operating funds and unit level maintenance.. 1,138,199,000 1,148,447,000
Centrally managed accounts:................................... 226,215,000 226,494,000
Intermediate and depot level maintenance:
Aeronautical maintenance.................................. 295,950,000 295,950,000
Electronic maintenance.................................... 118,968,000 118,998,000
Civil/ocean engineering and shore facilities maintenance.. 171,317,000 170,729,000
Vessel maintenance........................................ 167,807,000 168,073,000
-------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Intermediate and depot level maintenance.... 754,042,000 753,750,000
Port security improvements:................................... 0 45,000,000
=================================================
Total, operating expense.......................... $5,894,295,000 $5,885,242,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IRAQ OPERATIONS
The fiscal year 2008 Homeland Security budget request does
not include any funding for Coast Guard port security
operations in Iraq. Rather, the fiscal year 2008 Operation
Iraqi Freedom supplemental request includes $222,600,000 to
support base Coast Guard operations in Iraq and two additional
six-month port security unit deployments.
PORT SECURITY
In fiscal year 2008, Coast Guard plans to obligate
$135,100,000 for port security, $3,300,000 above fiscal year
2007, to implement the Maritime Transportation Security Act
(MTSA). However, no additional funding was requested in the
fiscal year 2008 budget to meet the requirements of the
Security and Accountability For Every Port Act of 2006 (Public
Law 109-347). Approximately 3,000 facilities and 11,000 vessels
are required to have security plans under MTSA. P.L. 109-347
requires further maritime security improvements, including:
updates to area maritime security plans to contain salvage
response plans to identify equipment capable of restoring
operations and facility ownership changes; introduction of
unannounced inspections of maritime facilities; establishment
of interagency operational centers for port security;
enhancement of identification documents for foreign mariners
calling on U.S. ports; use of a maritime risk analysis model by
field units; establishment of a port security training program;
conducting of regular port security exercises, with additional
exercises for high risk facilities; and assessments of foreign
ports.
Coast Guard cannot successfully meet these increased
requirements without additional resources. Therefore, the
Committee recommends $40,000,000 for activities mandated by
P.L. 109-347, $40,000,000 above the amount requested. Included
within this amount is funding to establish interagency port
security operational centers and for Coast Guard to establish a
port security training program. Funding is not included for the
national research program authorized in section 808 of P.L.
108-293, as the Science and Technology Directorate is currently
soliciting proposals for a Center of Excellence for Maritime,
Island and Extreme/Remote Environment Security. In addition,
the Committee directs that any housing allowance or military
entitlement funding that Coast Guard does not expect to
obligate in fiscal year 2008 be transferred to the port
security program. Within 60 days of the date of enactment of
this Act, Coast Guard shall submit an expenditure plan for the
use of these funds to the Committees on Appropriations.
LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS (LNG)
Coast Guard is responsible for approving offshore LNG
terminal siting applications. In addition, Coast Guard
contributes to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's
review of onshore LNG facilities by reviewing and validating an
applicant's Waterway Suitability Assessment (WSA) and reaching
a preliminary conclusion about the suitability of the waterway
for LNG operations with regard to navigational safety and
security. LNG currently accounts for about three percent of
total U.S. natural gas supply, but is expected to increase to
about 17 percent by 2030. According to GAO, experts disagreed
with the heat impact and cascading tank failure conclusions
reached by the Sandia National Laboratories' study used by
Coast Guard to prepare its WSA. The Committee directs Coast
Guard to review the findings of GAO Report 07-316 and undertake
appropriate additional research or other action to ensure that
its WSA passes peer-reviewed, scientific scrutiny. The
Committee recommends $5,000,000 for these activities and for
additional in-house Coast Guard staff to address the projected
increase in LNG applications.
MINORITY RECRUITMENT AND DIVERSITY
In active duty ranks, the percentage of minorities who
enter Coast Guard, known as accessions, has increased in recent
years, from about 16 percent in 2001 for both enlisted and
officers to over 40 percent for enlisted ranks and 26 percent
for officers in 2006. A similar increase, although not as
dramatic, has occurred for female Coast Guard members. However,
Coast Guard is behind the Army, Navy and Air Force in terms of
the percentage of entering African American officers and is the
lowest of all services in terms of its percentage of entering
Asian and Hispanic officers. To increase minority enlistment,
Coast Guard is directed to raise the recruitment ceilings in
those recruiting offices with strong records of minority
enlistments.
In addition, a recent Coast Guard review of issues at the
Coast Guard Academy found that under-representation of minority
members within the faculty may contribute to an unhealthy
racial climate. Approximately seven percent of the Academy
staff and faculty are minority, compared with about 24 percent
of Coast Guard workforce and 14 percent of Coast Guard cadets.
Of the Academy's 113 permanent and temporary faculty members,
24 percent are women, seven percent are African-American and
three percent are Hispanic. A review of a 2006 survey of cadets
revealed that 33 percent of females reported being subjected to
gender discrimination or sexual harassment at the Academy. The
Committee is very concerned with these findings and understands
that Coast Guard is preparing a plan to address them. The
Committee directs Coast Guard to provide a briefing on its plan
within three months after the date of enactment of this Act.
EVALUATION OF MULTI-CREWING
Coast Guard plans to increase its use of multi-crewing with
some of the new cutters that will be fielded by the Deepwater
program. In addition, Coast Guard will begin multi-crewing
eight 110, patrol boats to help mitigate the reduction in
patrol boat hours created by the decommissioning of the 123,
cutters. The Committee expects Coast Guard to utilize lessons
learned from the 110, multi-crewing endeavor, and to report
quarterly to the Committee on the following multi-crewing
metrics: (1) actual support expense compared to the standard
support level; (2) percent availability, as defined by the time
each cutter is not in pier side maintenance status, compared
with the goal of more than 70 percent availability; (3) percent
of time the cutter is fully mission capable, or has no category
three or category four casualty reports compared with the goal
of 95 percent mission capable; and (4) average number of
casualty reports per operational day compared with the goal of
0.3 or less.
TRANSFER OF BRIDGES AUTHORITY
The Committee denies the request to transfer personnel
devoted to maintaining the safe and unhindered passage of
marine traffic on all navigable waterways from Coast Guard to
the Maritime Administration within the Department of
Transportation (DOT). The Committee notes that maintaining
navigable waterways, including the maintenance of bridges and
buoy tending, continues to be an appropriate Coast Guard
mission.
TRANSFER OF ACQUISITION PERSONNEL TO OPERATING EXPENSES
The Committee denies the request to transfer personnel
devoted to overseeing and supporting Coast Guard acquisitions
to the Operating Expenses (OE) appropriation from the
Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements (AC&I)
appropriation. Therefore, OE has been reduced by $82,215,000
from the requested amount and AC&I has been increased by a like
amount. Coast Guard requested consolidating all AC&I personnel
funding into the OE appropriation to allow it to maximize
efficiencies and leverage potential synergies in acquisition
oversight, as well as increase the ability to surge personnel
to AC&I-related positions as project funding levels fluctuate.
The Commandant recently recognized that Coast Guard needs to
build its organic acquisition staff and such staffing levels
can best be tracked in the AC&I appropriation. In addition, it
is imperative for Coast Guard operating personnel to be able to
focus on operations. Coast Guard should manage the staffing
levels in each of these areas so that it maximizes productivity
and oversight.
AIRBORNE USE OF FORCE
According to Coast Guard, all HH-60s will be armed by the
end of fiscal year 2008, but the armament of 63 of the 95 HH-
65s will still be pending. Until all helicopters are ``pre-
wired'' to support Airborne Use of Force, it may be premature
for Coast Guard to eliminate funding for leased armed
helicopters. Therefore, the Committee recommendation does not
include the $21,500,000 requested reduction. Coast Guard shall
submit a plan for use of this $21,500,000 to the Committee by
November 1, 2007.
MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY EFFICIENCIES
The Committee recommendation does not include the
$4,000,0000 reduction included in the request for management
and technology efficiencies, as such efficiencies have yet to
be identified.
The Committee is concerned with the amount of time it takes
Coast Guard to respond to questions about basic budgetary and
program information. The average time it takes Coast Guard to
respond to questions, not about policy but about detail
supporting Coast Guard's budgets and plans, is two weeks.
Virtually all other DHS agencies take days. The Committee
directs the Coast Guard Chief of Staff to identify the reason
for these delays in writing and rectify this inefficiency by
June 30, 2007.
LORAN C
Coast Guard has proposed terminating the Loran C program in
the budget because it believes this system is no longer
necessary for a secondary means of navigation. The Committee
understands that a decision to terminate Loran C is dependent
upon agreement by DOT, which has not occurred. The Committee
also understands that in late 2006, DOT convened an Independent
Assessment Team, in cooperation with DHS, to complete yet
another evaluation of Loran C. The Team concluded that Loran C
should be retained and modernized to serve as a long term back
up for GPS. The Committee assumes continuation of Loran C in
fiscal year 2008.
Environmental Compliance and Restoration
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $10,880,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008..................... 12,079,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 15,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +4,120,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008................. +2,921,000
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 furnishing necessary program
support. These funds permit the continuation of a service-wide
program to correct environmental problems, such as through
major improvements of storage tanks containing petroleum and
regulated substances. The program focuses mainly on Coast Guard
facilities, but also includes third party sites where Coast
Guard activities have contributed to environmental problems.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $15,000,000 for Environmental
Compliance and Restoration, an increase of $2,921,000 above the
amount requested and $4,120,000 above the amount provided in
fiscal year 2007. At this level, about one-third of the
estimated $43,700,000 of environmental compliance projects can
be funded.
Reserve Training
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $122,448,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008..................... 126,883,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 126,883,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +4,435,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008................. ................
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 $126,883,000 for Reserve Training,
the same as the amount requested and $4,435,000 above the
amount provided in fiscal year 2007.
Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements
(INCLUDING RESCISSIONS OF FUNDS)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $1,306,145,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008..................... 949,281,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 834,318,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... -471,827,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008................. -114,963,000
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 $834,318,000 for Acquisition,
Construction, and Improvements, $114,963,000 below the amount
requested and $471,827,000 below amounts provided for fiscal
year 2007. A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vessels and critical
infrastructure:
Response boat medium.......... $9,200,000 $9,200,000
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, vessels and 9,200,000 9,200,000
critical infrastructure..
Deepwater:
Aircraft:
Maritime patrol aircraft.. 170,016,000 100,000,000
HH-60 conversion projects. 57,300,000 57,300,000
HC-130H conversion/ 18,900,000 18,900,000
sustainment project......
HH-65 conversion project.. 50,800,000 50,800,000
Armed helicopter equipment 24,600,000 24,600,000
C-130J fleet introduction. 5,800,000 5,800,000
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, aircraft.... 327,416,000 257,400,000
Surface ships:
National security cutter.. 165,700,000 105,800,000
Replacement Patrol Boat 53,600,000 0
(FRC B)..................
IDS small boats........... 2,700,000 2,700,000
Patrol Boats sustainment.. 40,500,000 61,000,000
Medium endurance cutter 34,500,000 50,000,000
sustainment..............
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, surface 297,000,000 219,500,000
ships................
Technology obsolescence 700 700
prevention
C4ISR 89,630,000 89,630,000
Logistics 36,500,000 36,500,000
Systems engineering and 35,145,000 35,145,000
integration
Government program management 50,475,000 59,475,000
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, Deepwater....... 836,866,000 698,350,000
Other equipment:
Automatic identification 12,000,000 12,000,000
system.......................
Rescue 21..................... 80,800,000 80,800,000
HF recap...................... 2,500,000 2,500,000
Defense messaging system...... 5,000,000 5,000,000
National Capital region air 11,500,000 11,500,000
defense......................
Maritime security response 1,800,000 1,800,000
team shoot house.............
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, other equipment. 113,600,000 113,600,000
Shore facilities and aids to 37,897,000 37,897,000
navigation.......................
Personnel and related support:
Direct personnel costs........ 0 82,215,000
AC&I core..................... 505,000 505,000
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, personnel and 505,000 82,720,000
related support..........
Rescissions:
Prior year OPC funding........ -48,787,000 -68,841,000
Prior year UAV funding........ 0 -38,608,000
=====================================
Total................. $949,281,000 $834,318,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUARTERLY REPORT ON ACQUISITION PROJECTS
The Committee is concerned with the limited quality of
Coast Guard's quarterly acquisition reports and notes that the
Deepwater project was recently rated by Coast Guard as being
``moderate'' on cost risk, ``moderate'' on schedule risk, and
``low'' on technical risk. This is despite the fact that the
123, cutters procured by Deepwater have structural failures and
have been decommissioned, that Coast Guard currently lacks a
plan for the Offshore Patrol Cutter or the Vertical Unmanned
Aerial Vehicle, and that the National Security Cutter is 20
percent above post-9/11 cost estimates. In addition, no outyear
funding estimates are included in this report. The Committee
directs Coast Guard to develop robust metrics for cost,
schedule, and technical risk and to relay those to the
Committee. In addition, the Committee directs that outyear
funding estimates, by asset, be included in the quarterly
report.
DEEPWATER PROGRAM ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT
The Committee agrees that the Commandants' recent
announcement outlining six management changes to the Deepwater
acquisition program appears to help put Coast Guard on a more
successful acquisition path. Nevertheless, the proof will be
whether Coast Guard maintains a firm hand in steadying its
acquisition program. The Committee remains concerned about
Coast Guard's ability to manage complex, large-scale contracts.
Of particular concern are frequent changes to estimates of the
acquisition funding Coast Guard plans to obligate over the next
two years. For example, within approximately a one month time
period, the Committee received three different estimates of the
amount of Deepwater funding Coast Guard planned to carry
forward into fiscal year 2008: $248,120,000; $445,602,996; and
$740,710,000. These changing estimates reveal poor planning and
management.
Therefore, the Committee includes new bill language
requiring Coast Guard to submit a detailed expenditure plan,
which shall be reviewed by GAO and approved by the Committees
on Appropriations, prior to the obligation of $400,000,000 of
Deepwater funding. The expenditure plan must:
(1) define activities, milestones, yearly costs, and
lifecycle costs for each procurement of a major asset,
including an independent cost estimate for each;
(2) identify lifecycle staffing and training needs of
Coast Guard project managers and of procurement and
contract staff;
(3) identify competition to be conducted in each
procurement;
(4) describe procurement plans that do not rely on a
single industry entity or contract;
(5) contain very limited indefinite delivery/
indefinite quantity contracts and explain the need for
any indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contracts;
(6) comply with all applicable acquisition rules,
requirements, and guidelines, and incorporate the best
systems acquisition management practices of the Federal
Government;
(7) comply with the capital planning and investment
control requirements established by the Office of
Management and Budget, including circular A-11, part 7;
(8) include a certification by the head of
contracting activity for Coast Guard and the Chief
Procurement Officer of the Department of Homeland
Security that Coast Guard has established sufficient
controls and procedures and has sufficient staffing to
comply with all contracting requirements, and that any
apparent conflicts of interest have been sufficiently
addressed;
(9) include a description of the process used to act
upon deviations from the contractually specified
performance requirements and that clearly explains the
actions taken on such deviations;
(10) include a certification that the Assistant
Commandant of the Coast Guard for Engineering and
Logistics is designated as the technical authority for
all engineering, design, and logistics decisions
pertaining to the Integrated Deepwater System program;
and
(11) identify use of the Defense Contract Auditing
Agency.
The Committee also includes a provision (Sec. 530)
mandating specific Coast Guard contracting reforms. The
Committee recommends $59,475,000 for Deepwater government
program management, $9,000,000 above the amount requested.
Additional funding is provided to enable Coast Guard to
colocate all acquisition staff.
DEEPWATER
The Committee recommends $698,350,000 for Deepwater,
$138,516,000 below the amount requested and $367,522,000 below
the amount provided for fiscal year 2007. Specific changes to
the President's request are discussed below.
MARITIME PATROL AIRCRAFT (MPA)
The Committee recommends $100,000,000 for the MPA,
$70,016,000 below the amount requested. Funding is reduced
because the lead aircraft is at least one year behind schedule.
At this time, it has not yet entered the Development Test and
Evaluation phase.
In April 2003, Coast Guard informed the Committee that the
requirements for the MPA were as follows: (1) ability to arrive
on the scene of 90 percent of search and rescue emergencies
within two hours of initial notification; and (2) ability to
travel 300 nautical miles in 90 minutes (212 knot ground speed,
with time to climb factored in), stay on scene for
approximately four hours, and return over 300 nautical miles
with required fuel reserves.
The first MPA was conditionally accepted by Coast Guard,
with the exception that it did not have the mission pallet
integrated and tested. The aircraft is currently at the Coast
Guard Aircraft Repair and Supply Center undergoing integration
of the mission systems pallet. As the aircraft has not yet
entered Developmental Test and Evaluation or subsequent
Operational Test and Evaluation, Coast Guard currently is
unable to verify that the aircraft will meet listed
requirements.
NATIONAL SECURITY CUTTER (NSC)
The Committee recommends $105,800,000 for the NSC,
$59,900,000 below the amount requested. The request includes
$67,000,000 for long lead material for the fifth NSC as well as
$98,700,000 for engineering change proposals for the first four
NSCs. The additional funds requested for the first four NSCs
are a result of economic and customer changes. The customer
changes are the result of additional requirements added to the
NSC as part of the post-9/11 revised mission needs; costs due
to delay and disruption in production schedules that were
required to implement the changes; and structural enhancement
to increase the fatigue life of the NSC hull. The economic
changes are the result of cost overruns incurred due to long-
term Gulf Coast regional economic inflation resulting from
Hurricane Katrina. The first NSC is currently 77 percent
complete and is scheduled to be operational in fiscal year
2008. The second NSC is currently 26 percent complete, with all
units under construction. Due to a recent strike in the
shipyard, the schedule of both the first and second cutters
will likely be delayed, at least by one month. Because long
lead materials for NSC 3 were only recently put under contract,
that cutter is not expected to be under contract until the
summer of 2007.
The Committee has reduced funding for long lead material
because Coast Guard has informed the Committee that long lead
material items are put under contract three to six months
before the cutter is put under contract. Because the NSC 4 long
lead materials and contract will be negotiated before NSC 5,
the Committee would be surprised if NSC 5 long lead materials
need to be purchased in fiscal year 2008.
FAST RESPONSE CUTTER (FRC)/REPLACEMENT PATROL BOAT
The Committee does not provide the requested amount of
$53,600,000 for the FRC-B/Replacement Patrol Boat. No funding
is recommended the Coast Guard currently projects that
previously appropriated funds of $101,889,000 for the FRC-B and
$41,500,000 for the FRC-A, the original composite patrol boat,
will be carried forward into fiscal year 2008. Since previous
appropriation Acts allowed this $143,389,000 to be used for the
FRC-B and for sustainment of the 110, cutters, Coast Guard does
not require an additional appropriation in 2008. If funding
beyond this is needed, the Committee directs the Coast Guard to
submit a reprogramming of unobligated Offshore Patrol Boat
funding.
On March 14, 2007, the Commandant reassigned the FRC-B
project to the Coast Guard Office of Acquisition. Coast Guard's
goal, which the Committee supports, is to deliver an operating
patrol boat in the shortest time possible to help reduce Coast
Guard's patrol boat mission hour gap. Coast Guard is currently
operating 25,000 hours, or twenty-five percent, short of its
needed patrol boat mission hours. This ``gap'' means that
undocumented migrants, drugs, and other unlawful persons and
activities are less likely to be intercepted by Coast Guard.
Procuring new patrol boats and completing service life
extensions is even more critical now that the Navy has informed
Coast Guard that it plans to extend the current Memorandum of
Agreement for continued use of only three of the Navy's five
179-foot patrol boats beyond 2008. This decision to eliminate
the use of two 179-foot patrol boats after 2008 means that
Coast Guard will reduce patrol hours by an additional 5,000 per
year, further exacerbating the patrol boat mission hour
deficit.
Coast Guard does not expect to award a contract for the
lead FRC-B replacement patrol boat until the second quarter of
fiscal year 2008. The lead cutter is expected to be delivered
two years later, in the second quarter of fiscal year 2010. The
Committee understands Coast Guard is currently determining the
best structure for this contract and may decide to quickly
procure two cutters instead of one, a strategy that would have
procurement risks. Coast Guard is directed to continue to brief
the Committees on Appropriations monthly on the status of all
patrol boat operations and procurement plans.
PATROL BOAT SUSTAINMENT
The Committee recommends $61,000,000 for sustainment of
existing 110, patrol boats, $20,500,000 above the amount
requested. The Committee has been told repeatedly how the 110,
patrol boats operating in Iraq are able to operate at a
significantly higher mission tempo than those in the United
States because they are under a more aggressive maintenance
regime. In order to further mitigate the patrol boat mission
hour gap discussed above, the Committee has included additional
funding to institute an intensive maintenance and sustainment
regime for the 110, patrol boats operating stateside similar to
that used for 110, boats operating in Iraq. The Committee
directs Coast Guard to report within 30 days after enactment of
this Act on its plan to utilize this additional funding and
increase patrol boat operating hours.
OFFSHORE PATROL CUTTER (OPC)
The Committee rescinds $68,841,000 of OPC unobligated
funding, $20,054,000 more than the amount requested. Currently,
$104,000,000 in OPC funding is unobligated. The OPC is the
replacement cutter for the current 210, and 270, Medium
Endurance cutters. In March 2006, Coast Guard suspended OPC
design efforts due to cost concerns. While a revised schedule
indicated that Coast Guard would restart the OPC design process
in 2007, it now appears that OPC design will be postponed until
2009, at the earliest, with production to follow. The lead OPC
is tentatively planned for delivery in 2015.
MEDIUM ENDURANCE CUTTER SUSTAINMENT
With the delays discussed above related to the OPC, robust
sustainment of the Medium Endurance cutters is even more
critical. The Committee recommends $50,000,0000, $15,500,000
above the amount requested, to sustain the 25 year-old plus
Medium Endurance cutters. Recently the Committee saw first-hand
the increasing difficulty of maintaining old cutters and how a
lack of maintenance negatively impacts unit readiness, sanitary
conditions, and crew morale. Coast Guard has invested little in
sustaining these cutters because they were due to be replaced.
With replacement postponed, rigorous and robust sustainment has
become more important. The Committee directs Coast Guard to
report within 30 days after enactment of this Act on its plan
to utilize this additional funding.
UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES
The Committee rescinds $38,608,000 for the vertical takeoff
and landing unmanned aerial vehicle (VUAV). The VUAV was
originally conceived to be launched off of the NSC, enhancing
the NSC's operational effectiveness by extending its
surveillance range to approximately 100 nautical miles for up
to twelve hours per day. In fact, the number of planned NSCs
was reduced from 12 to 8 in part due to this anticipated
extension of operational effectiveness.
Unfortunately, the VUAV has not worked as planned. Coast
Guard recently chartered a research study to investigate the
viability of the VUAV and explore alternatives to fill the VUAV
``gap'' if the project is not continued. The study concluded
that additional research is needed and that the original
solutions contemplated by Coast Guard were not cost effective.
Based on the current plan, it is clear that the first, second,
and third NSCs will likely be launched without a VUAV, thereby
reducing their surveillance range. The Committee has included
funding within Coast Guard's Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation account to accelerate the further research needed in
this area.
Alteration of Bridges
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $16,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008..................... ................
Recommended in the bill............................... 16,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... ................
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008................. +16,000,000
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 that 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 $16,000,000 for Alteration of
Bridges, $16,000,000 above the amount requested and the same
level as provided in fiscal year 2007. The Committee directs
Coast Guard to fund bridges with the most critical needs,
giving priority to ongoing projects.
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $17,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008..................... 17,583,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 22,583,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +5,583,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008................. +5,000,000
MISSION
The purpose of Research, Development, Test and Evaluation
is to allow Coast Guard to maintain its non-homeland security
research and development capability, while also partnering with
DHS and the Department of Defense to leverage beneficial
initiatives.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $22,583,000 for Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation, $5,000,000 above the amount
requested and $5,583,000 above the amounts provided for fiscal
year 2007. The additional funding is for priority research to
determine the best unmanned aerial-type vehicle to operate off
of the NSC and for increased research on ways to best manage
ballast water to prevent the introduction and spread of aquatic
invasive species.
Medicare Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund Contribution
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 \1\................... $278,704,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008 \1\................. 272,111,000
Recommended in the bill \1\........................... 272,111,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... -6,593,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008................. ................
\1\ This expenditure requires no annual action by Congress, however, it
is counted towards the Coast Guard's discretionary spending.
MISSION
The Medicare-eligible retiree health care fund contribution
provides funding for military Medicare-eligible health benefit
contributions to the Department of Defense Medicare-eligible
health care fund. Contributions are for future Medicare-
eligible retirees currently serving active duty in the Coast
Guard, retiree dependents, and their potential survivors. The
authority for Coast Guard to make this payment on an annual
basis was provided in the Department of Defense Appropriations
Act for Fiscal Year 2005.
RECOMMENDATION
While this account requires no annual action by Congress,
the Committee provides the amount requested of $272,111,000 to
fund the Medicare-eligible retiree health care fund.
Retired Pay
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $1,063,323,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008..................... 1,184,720,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 1,184,720,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +121,397,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008................. ................
MISSION
This appropriation provides for the retired pay of military
personnel of 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 $1,184,720,000 for Retired Pay, the same
as the amount requested and $121,397,000 above the amounts
provided in fiscal year 2007. The Committee includes bill
language allowing funds to remain available until expended.
This is scored as a mandatory appropriation in the
Congressional budget process.
United States Secret Service
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 \1\................... $1,272,933,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008 \1\................. 1,395,271,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 1,392,171,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 \1\............... +119,238,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008 \1\............. -3,100,000
\1\ Figures are shown for comparative purposes only. Funds were
appropriated in 2007 and requested in 2008 in two separate accounts.
However, the 2008 appropriation recommends consolidating all Secret
Services expenses into one primary account with several discrete
Programs, Projects and Activities.
MISSION
The United States Secret Service has statutory authority to
carry out two primary missions: protection of the nation's
leaders and investigation of financial and electronic crimes
pursuant to various sections of title 18 of the U.S. Code. The
Secret Service protects the President and Vice President, their
families, visiting heads of state, and other designated
individuals; investigates threats against these protectees;
protects the White House, the 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, and computer fraud;
computer-based attacks on our nation's financial, banking, and
telecommunications infrastructure. The agency also provides
support for investigations on missing and exploited children.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $1,392,171,000 for the Secret
Service under a re-combined ``Salaries and Expenses'' account.
The 2007 appropriations bill separated Secret Service funds
into two accounts: ``Protection, Administration, and Training''
and ``Investigations and Field Operations.'' While the
intention of this action was to build accountability into the
Secret Service budget, it has created an administrative burden
for the Secret Service budget staff, distracting them from more
valuable financial management work.
Given the history of resource management problems at the
Secret Service, it is particularly critical that the Agency's
financial executives closely monitor compliance with fiscal
control laws and quickly inform the Congress of any resource
reallocations required to carry out the Secret Service's
missions. As a result, the Committee has included a five
percent reprogramming threshold for the Secret Service, and
expects the Agency to submit all reprogramming requests to the
Committees on Appropriations in a timely manner.
A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee
recommended levels, by budget activity, is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Headquarters Management and $175,934,000 $175,934,000
Administration...................
Protection:
Protection of Persons and 696,635,000 689,535,000
Facilities...................
Protective Intelligence 57,704,000 57,704,000
Activities...................
National Special Security 1,000,000 1,000,000
Events.......................
White House mail screening.... 26,601,000 16,201,000
Presidential candidate nominee 85,250,000 85,250,000
protection...................
-------------------------------------
Total, Protection......... 867,190,000 849,690,000
Investigations:
Domestic field operations..... 219,742,000 230,142,000
International field office 27,520,000 27,520,000
administration operations....
Electronic Crimes Special 44,565,000 48,565,000
Agent Program and Electronic
Crimes Task Forces...........
Support for missing and 8,366,000 8,366,000
exploited children...........
-------------------------------------
Total, Investigations..... 300,193,000 314,593,000
Training:
Rowley Training Center........ 51,954,000 51,954,000
-------------------------------------
Total, U.S. Secret Service $1,395,271,000 $1,392,171,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN AND POST-PRESIDENCY PROTECTIVE DETAIL
The Committee recognizes the unique protective challenges
associated with the 2008 Presidential campaign and the post-
Presidency protective detail, given that no incumbent office
holder will be a candidate in the race. As a result, the
Committee has funded the entire $85,250,000 request for this
activity. Any additional funds required for campaign protection
must be approved by the Committee in advance of obligation,
pursuant to the regular reprogramming guidelines.
WORKLOAD AND BUDGET
The Committee continues to have concerns about the ability
of the Secret Service to manage its agents' and officers'
overtime workload. The cost of the Secret Service payroll has
increased so dramatically in recent years that budgets for
replacing critical equipment, vehicles, and administrative
systems have been eroded. Given the rapid evolution of threats,
technologies and terrorist techniques, the Committee believes
that delaying reinvestment in Secret Service assets is a false
economy. While the Committee is aware that the Secret Service
has taken actions to address its workload balance, the demands
of protective operations seem to require more creative and
cost-effective solutions. As a result, the Committee recommends
that pay for Secret Service overtime be capped at the same
levels as for employees at Immigration and Customs Enforcement
and Customs and Border Protection, and allows for the Secretary
of Homeland Security to waive the provision for reasons of
national security.
PROTECTION OF INDIVIDUALS NOT SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED IN STATUTE
The budget proposes that $3,100,000 be added to the Secret
Service budget to pay for the cost of presidentially designated
Secret Service protection for executive branch personnel. The
list of individuals who have been so designated in the past
include a variety of senior-level political employees within
the White House and other Executive Office of the President
agencies. Since this protection is provided at the discretion
of the President, the costs for this activity should be
budgeted for and managed by the staff of the Executive Office
of the President who oversee administration of the executive's
responsibilities, much like the cost for protection of the
Secretary of the Treasury is borne by the Department of the
Treasury. As a result, the Committee does not fund these
activities in the Secret Service budget, and recommends that
the Executive Office of the President include a request for
these activities in a future budget. Since the Secret Service
has been able to provide this protection from within its base
resources, it should continue to do so in fiscal year 2008.
However, the Committee directs the Secret Service to seek
reimbursement from the Executive Office of the President if
these protective assignments create an undue burden on Secret
Service protective missions.
WHITE HOUSE MAIL FACILITY
The budget proposes $10,400,000 to purchase new equipment
to sort and screen mail sent to the White House complex. Since
the equipment at the current mail screening facility is less
than five years old, it is unclear to the Committee why it
needs to be replaced at this time. While the Committee
appreciates the security-related aspects of mail screening, it
is not clear why the Secret Service should do more than provide
consultative security expertise for White House mail screening
and oversee contracts for delivering the mail screening
service. The Committee is concerned about whether the current
budgetary approach for mail screening services reflects an
appropriate division of responsibilities between the Secret
Service and the Executive Office of the President. Since the
justification materials for acquiring this equipment reflect
that it will not be purchased unitl fiscal year 2009, the
Committee directs the Secret Service and the Executive Office
of the President to provide, as part of the fiscal year 2009
budget, a joint plan explaining the allocation of mail
screening responsibilities and budgetary resources betwen the
two agencies. The Secret Service should continue to use the
existing equipment until the Committee has an opportunity to
evaluate this information and the fiscal year 2009 budget
request for new equipment. In addition, there may be
significant efficiencies to be gained by combining White House
mail screening with other Executive branch mail operations,
such as the screening conducted on mail sent to the Federal
Bureau of Investigations or the Internal Revenue Service.
Given the Committee's on-going concerns about the
investigatory mission of the Secret Service, it recommends
reallocating funds requested for White House mail screening
equipment to the Secret Service investigative mission.
RELOCATION OF THE JOINT OPERATIONS CENTER
Due to the renovation of the Eisenhower Executive Office
Building, the General Services Administration requires that the
Secret Service move its Joint Operations Center (JOC) to a new
location. While the Committee understands this facility is
important to the secure operations of the White House compound,
it is concerned that the proposed center will be nearly three
times as large as the existing location. In addition, the
Committee is concerned that the current Secret Service data
center that will be moved to accommodate the relocated JOC has
apparently not been included within the DHS-wide data center
consolidation plan. As a result, the Committee has reduced the
budget request for the relocation of the JOC by $4,000,000 and
reallocated this funding to the Secret Service investigative
mission, specifically for the Electronic Crimes Special Agent
Program.
SUPPORT FOR MISSING AND EXPLOITED CHILDREN
The Committee has included the funding requested for both
forensic activities and grants for partner organizations to
help with the recovery and protection of children who are
missing or exploited. For 2008, the Committee directs the
Secret Service to develop a competitive application program for
these resources, which should include, at a minimum, specific
performance standards and administrative cost ceilings that
will be maintained by recipients. The Committee directs the
Secret Service to report within 60 days of enactment of this
Act on the process it will use to award these funds.
E STREET CLOSURE
The Committee understands that E Street between 15th and
17th Streets in northwest Washington, D.C. was closed on
September 16th, 2001 at the request of the Secret Service and
in response to the threat of terrorist attacks on the White
House and surrounding Federal office buildings. Since that
time, the area to the south of the White House, including E
Street and the Ellipse, has evolved into an ugly example of
security fortifications more appropriate to a demilitarized
zone than for a cultural icon and symbol of the country's
democratic institutions. In addition, the closure of E Street
has put a significant burden on the working and commuting
population of the metropolitan Washington area, specifically
complicating east-west traffic flow in an already congested
area of the city. The Committee directs the Secret Service to
develop a plan for addressing both security and aesthetic
conditions of this section of E Street, specifically re-
examining the rationale for keeping the thoroughfare closed to
the flow of traffic. The Secret Service shall develop the plan
in consultation with the Washington, D.C. Department of
Transportation, the Metropolitan Police Department, the
National Capital Planning Commission, the Department of the
Interior, the U.S. Department of Transportation, and any other
relevant agencies. This plan shall be submitted to the
Committee concurrent with the fiscal year 2009 Secret Service
budget request.
PARK POLICE HELICOPTER
The Committee understands that the Secret Service routinely
requests, receives, and pays for deployment of the Park Police
helicopters to patrol neighborhoods in Washington, D.C., when
the President and Vice President travel through the area or
make public appearances at various local sites. Within 90 days
of passage of this bill by the House of Representatives, the
Committee directs the Secret Service to report: (1) Federal
costs incurred by fiscal year since 1990 for all Secret
Service-requested deployments of the Park Police helicopter;
(2) the results of all deployments of the Park Police
helicopter over the past two fiscal years, including any
arrests and prosecutions resulting from the presence of the
helicopter at Secret Service-protected events; and (3) for the
past two fiscal years, the number of times helicopters have
been requested and deployed at appearances by the President or
other protectees outside of the capital city, and the number of
times helicopters have not been requested.
Acquisition, Construction, Improvements, and Related Expenses
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $3,725,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008..................... 3,725,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 3,725,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2006................... ................
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007................. ................
MISSION
This account supports the acquisition, construction,
improvement, equipment, furnishing and related cost for
maintenance and support of Secret Service facilities, including
the Secret Service Memorial Headquarters Building and the James
J. Rowley Training Center.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $3,725,000, the same as the
President's request and the same level provided for fiscal year
2007.
TITLE III--PROTECTION, PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE AND RECOVERY
National Protection and Programs Directorate
management and administration
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 \1\................... $37,812,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008..................... 46,290,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 40,346,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +2,534,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008................. -5,994,000
\1\ Committee estimate of comparable 2007 appropriations level.
MISSION
The National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) was
created by the dissolution of the DHS Preparedness directorate
and the separation of FEMA and the DHS grants programs from the
various DHS infrastructure protection and information security
activities. The Management and Administration account funds the
immediate office of the Undersecretary for National Protection
and Programs, provides for administrative overhead costs such
as IT support and shared services, and includes a national
planning office for development of standard doctrine and policy
for infrastructure protection and cyber security.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $40,346,000 for the Office of the
Under Secretary for National Protection and Programs,
$5,994,000 below the amount requested and $2,534,000 above the
estimated amount provided for fiscal year 2007. The entirety of
this reduction is to the proposed growth in contract services,
which the Committee does not believe is justified at this time.
RISK MANAGEMENT AND ANALYSIS
Within the Management and Administration account, the
Committee consolidates funding for the NPPD Risk Management and
Analysis Office, which will serve as the Department's source of
expertise in risk analysis and methods. This office will
provide assistance in risk analysis for other Departmental
offices. In total, the budget for this office is $9,412,000,
nearly all of which is derived from funding requests for other
NPPD program budgets for risk analysis activities.
The Committee recognizes the need for DHS to produce sound
risk analyses, but is concerned about the approach DHS takes to
quantify risk, particularly how the Department incorporates the
risk of natural disasters into the risk models it uses for
grant-making purposes. The Committee also questions whether it
is wise or even possible for the Department to develop a
``unified'' risk model that could meet the needs of every DHS
agency and component. To answer these questions, and enable the
new Risk Management and Analysis function to understand the
challenges it faces, the Committee recommends that up to
$1,000,000 be used by the National Academy of Sciences to: (1)
evaluate the quality of the current DHS approach to measuring
risk; (2) assess the significance accorded to the risk of
natural disasters by such methodologies; (3) review the
feasibility of combining terrorist threats and natural
disasters within a single risk analysis; and (4) recommend how
the risk models currently used by DHS can be improved and
validated using empirical scientific standards.
Infrastructure Protection and Information Security
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 \1\................... $533,995,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008..................... 538,277,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 532,881,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... -1,114,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008................. -5,396,000
\1\ Committee estimate of comparable 2007 appropriations level; includes
2007 transfer of $17,000,000.
MISSION
Infrastructure Protection and Information Security (IPIS)
works to reduce the vulnerability of the nation's critical
infrastructure, key resources, information technology networks,
and telecommunications systems. The program managers focus on
reducing vulnerabilities to terrorist attacks and natural
disasters, enabling timely protective responses to threats and
incidents, and promoting rapid recovery in the aftermath of
crises. IPIS is also responsible for maintaining effective
telecommunications for Federal users in times of national
emergencies.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $532,881,000 for IPIS, $5,396,000
below the amount requested, and $1,114,000 below the amount
provided for fiscal year 2007. A comparison of the budget
estimate to the Committee recommended level by budget activity
is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Infrastructure Protection:
Identification and Analysis... $68,970,000 $78,970,000
Coordination and Information 57,821,000 83,821,000
Sharing......................
Mitigation Programs........... 108,793,000 108,793,000
Risk Analysis................. 4,532,000 - - -
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, Infrastructure 240,116,000 271,584,000
Protection...............
Cyber Security.................... 97,688,000 87,073,000
Office of Emergency Communications 35,700,000 45,700,000
National Security and Emergency
Preparedness Telecommunications
(NS/EP):
Priority Telecommunications... 82,821,000 82,821,000
Next Generation Networks...... 52,064,000 18,065,000
Programs to Study and Enhance 16,733,000 16,733,000
Telecommunications...........
Critical Infrastructure 10,905,000 10,905,000
Protection...................
Risk Analysis................. 2,250,000 - - -
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, NS/EP........... 164,773,000 128,524,000
=====================================
Total, Infrastructure 538,277,000 532,881,000
Protection and
Information Security.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUALITY OF BUDGET JUSTIFICATION MATERIALS
As discussed in House Report 109-476, the quality of
official budgetary justification materials provided by IPIS has
been poor, making it extremely difficult for the Committee to
analyze or even understand the programs that are funded in this
account. While the program managers at IPIS may have a better
understanding of their missions and activities, it is
imperative that the Committee receive organized and consistent
justification materials. The Committee understands the tumult
of near constant reorganization at IPIS may have created
difficulties for its financial managers, but expects that
future budget submissions will be delivered on time and with
sufficient detail to illustrate the programs carried out by
IPIS and the comparable historic funding levels provided for
them. Absent a marked improvement in budgetary justifications
for fiscal year 2009, the Committee will have little choice but
to recommend that IPIS budgetary formulation and execution be
carried out on a reimbursable basis by another more competent
DHS component.
NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
Late in fiscal year 2006, DHS published the National
Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP) and announced its efforts
to draft 17 sector-specific plans for each of the most critical
infrastructure sectors in the economy. The NIPP provides a
coordinated approach to the protection of the nation's critical
infrastructure and key resources, and has been generally well-
received by the private sector participants who assisted in
development of the document. In 2007, DHS made progress
standing up the Sector Coordinating Councils and Government
Coordinating Councils that will be critical to implementing the
NIPP and improving the security of the country's
infrastructure. With such progress, it is therefore puzzling to
the Committee why DHS proposed only $23,702,000 for NIPP
management, a 25 percent reduction to the fiscal year 2007
enacted level. Instead of reducing the budget for this program,
and consequently the pace with which vulnerabilities in the
nation's infrastructure can be addressed, funding for NIPP
management should be increased. The Committee recommends a
total NIPP management budget of $40,702,000, or $17,000,000
above the amount requested. In addition, the Committee
recommends an increase of $3,000,000 to the associated Sector
Specific Agency Management budget, for a total funding level of
$21,519,000, to allow DHS to accelerate the pace at which it is
reaching infrastructure sectors for which it is not the lead
Federal agency. For both of these programs, the Committee
encourages DHS to follow the advice of the numerous experts who
recommend providing administrative and logistical support to
industry-led Sector Coordinating Councils. In addition, the
Committee directs the Assistant Secretary for Infrastructure
Protection, starting on October 1, 2007, to provide quarterly
updates on the status of NIPP implementation. Included in this
report, the Assistant Secretary shall also provide a summary of
the most current recovery plans for attacks on critical
infrastructure sectors.
CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE WARNING NETWORK
The Critical Infrastructure Warning Network (CWIN) is a
component of the Homeland Security Information Network that
connects DHS with its vital infrastructure sector partners,
including other Federal agencies, State and local governments,
private infrastructure owners, and foreign allies to ensure the
restoration of the nation's critical infrastructure during
major disasters. Enabling this kind of information-sharing is
one of the best ways to prepare for responding to disasters,
and the Committee therefore recommends $12,896,000 for the
program, or $6,000,000 above the amount requested.
NATIONAL ASSET DATABASE
The Committee is concerned about the contents of the
National Asset Database, and directs NPPD to remove any items
from that system it deems insignificant. In addition, the
Committee encourages NPPD to provide its State and local
partners the opportunity to review their list of assets in the
National Asset Database and recommend items for removal. NPPD
should also clarify its guidance for including information in
the National Asset Database in order to obtain more uniform and
accurate information from States in future data calls.
NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE SIMULATION AND ANALYSIS CENTER
The analytical and consequence models generated by the
National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center (NISAC)
allow for planners within DHS to better understand the
immediate and cascading effects that natural and man-made
disasters can have on the nation's critical infrastructure.
Without a clear understanding of the potential losses resulting
from damage to infrastructure sectors, the Department risks
making poorly informed decisions about addressing
vulnerabilities, and being caught unawares when broad-based
disasters affect large areas of the country. The Committee
recommends $24,348,000 for the NISAC, an increase of
$10,000,000 above the amount requested, and roughly equivalent
to the amount provided for fiscal year 2007.
Within 60 days of enactment, the Committee directs the
Assistant Secretary for Infrastructure Protection, in
conjunction with the Department of Energy, to provide a report
on the most critical, capacity-limited segments of the North
American electricity transmission and distribution network, the
disruption of which would generate a cascading effect on other
critical infrastructure sectors. Additionally, within one
calendar year thereafter, the Assistant Secretary shall provide
a companion report developed in conjunction with the Department
of Energy that identifies system-level approaches to mitigate
the highest risks of failure associated with the identified
segments.
CHEMICAL FACILITY SECURITY REGULATIONS
The Committee includes a provision (Sec. 532) requiring
that Federal regulations for chemical facility security not
preempt stronger State and local regulations. This provision is
needed because the final chemical facility security rule
published by DHS in April 2007 established that the Department
would seek to preempt State and local regulations. The
Committee remains unconvinced by Administration arguments that
Federal regulations should supplant more robust State or local
regulations. In addition, the provision clarifies information
security standards for chemical facility data by requiring that
information collected through the DHS inspections and security
planning process is categorized as Sensitive Security
Information, making chemical facility information protection
consistent with standards already established for critical
aviation and port infrastructure data. This revision protects
chemical facility security plans from public release during
judicial proceedings, and ensures the confidentiality of
facility security plans without watering down the
classification system for intelligence and other sensitive
government-collected information.
WIRELESS PRIORITY SERVICE/NEXT GENERATION NETWORK
The Committee recognizes that the Wireless Priority Service
(WPS) program has been largely successful at achieving a
sophisticated and nation-wide priority emergency communications
capability for government officials to use in times of national
crisis. The Congress has invested over $400,000,000 since
fiscal year 2002 in upgrading the nation's privately owned
telephonic networks; DHS will largely complete the project with
an additional $50,000,000 investment in fiscal year 2008, which
the Committee recommends. In addition to these resources, DHS
has proposed $52,064,000 for Next Generation Networks (NGN), an
increase of more than 350 percent over the fiscal year 2007
enacted level. Because this extreme level of program growth
does not appear justified at this time, the Committee
recommends funding NGN at $18,065,000, and directs the
Assistant Secretary for Cyber Security and Communications to
brief the Committee no later than December 1, 2007, on the
planned expenditure of these funds.
CYBER SECURITY COLLABORATION AND INFORMATION SHARING PROGRAM
The Committee does not fund the Cyber Security
Collaboration and Information Sharing program, $8,340,000 less
than the amount requested.
COMPUTER FORENSICS TRAINING FACILITY
The Committee is concerned with the process used by the
Office of Cyber Security to acquire access to a facility for a
Secret Service-led computer forensics training program. While
the Committee strongly supports the Department's efforts to
fight cyber-crime, the Department's first notification to
Congress of this program was via a press release announcing the
Secretary's ribbon cutting at the planned center. This approach
represents a violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of
section 503 of the Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations Act, 2007 (Public Law 109-295). Within 30 days
from the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary is
directed to submit to the Committees on Appropriations a report
providing a detailed description of the source and amount of
funds to be used in support of the new program, the original
purpose of each of the funding sources, a legal opinion
providing the legal basis for the actions taken in establishing
this activity, and the process that will be used in the future
to ensure that Congress is informed in advance of any activity
that could be construed as either creating new programs or
making awards that do not involve an appropriate competitive
solicitation of participants or service providers. In addition,
the report shall include a justification outlining why this
activity is properly undertaken by the Secret Service and DHS
rather than the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the
Department of Justice.
OFFICE OF EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS
The Committee is encouraged that the Department has largely
followed the direction of Congress in establishing the Office
of Emergency Communications (OEC), which was authorized in
Public Law 109-295. In particular, OEC should be a valuable
resource for State and local governments as they develop
communications interoperability plans. In addition, OEC should
work closely with the Office of Interoperability and
Compatibility (OIC) to ensure the implementation of national
standards and new technology for interoperable communications.
However, the Committee notes that it has provided no funding
for new product development or testing in the OEC budget, since
this activity is the responsibility of OIC.
As a result of the additional Federal support needed for
State and local interoperability grants, the Committee
recommends $45,700,000 for OEC in fiscal year 2008, $10,000,000
above the amount requested. Of this amount, $8,000,000 is for
integration and technical assistance, and $2,000,000 is for
regional governance, coordination, and outreach.
INTERNET PROTOCOL INTEROPERABILITY
The Committee encourages the Office of Emergency
Communications and the Office of Interoperability and
Compatibility to evaluate internet-protocol (IP) based
interoperability solutions and, if appropriate, amend SAFECOM
guidelines and technical assistance materials to include those
types of systems and technologies.
INTEGRATED WIRELESS NETWORK
The Committee notes that a recent report by the Department
of Justice Office of Inspector General found that the inter-
agency management of the Integrated Wireless Network (IWN)
project is in danger of collapse. Since the DHS component of
this program was moved from the control of the Chief
Information Officer to OEC pursuant to Title VI of Public Law
109-295, the Committee is optimistic that new project
management will renew opportunities for an effective Federal
interoperable investment strategy. To avoid a repeat of the
difficulties experienced with this program to date, the
Committee directs the Department to respect the independence of
OEC management of the IWN budget, and directs the Assistant
Secretary of Cyber Security and Communications to report no
later than October 1, 2007, on efforts to correct the
shortcomings identified in the Office of Inspector General
report.
United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $362,494,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008..................... 462,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 462,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +99,506,000
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2008................. ................
MISSION
The mission of the United States Visitor and Immigrant
Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) program is to enhance
the security of U.S. citizens and visitors, facilitate
legitimate travel and trade, ensure the integrity of the
immigration system, and improve and standardize the processes,
policies, and systems utilized to collect information on
foreign nationals who apply for visas at an embassy or
consulate overseas, attempt to enter the country at established
ports of entry (POE), request benefits such as change of status
or adjustment of status, or depart the United States.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $462,000,000 for US-VISIT, the
same as the amount requested and $99,506,000 above the amount
provided for fiscal year 2007. The Committee includes
$228,000,000 as requested for ten-print and interoperability
investments and $234,000,000 for base operations, including
program management, operations and maintenance, and contractor
support. This latter number includes $51,000,000 for continued
operation of the IDENT system.
The Committee continues to be concerned that US-VISIT
results have not met expectations. Of $1,750,000,000
appropriated to US-VISIT to date, the Department reports that
$357,000,000 was used to develop and deploy a biometric-based
entry system and $146,000,000 was used to develop and deploy
``prototype'' exit capabilities and pilots. The result has been
entry systems at most ports of entry (at secondary inspection
for land ports), but no exit solution, and thus no
comprehensive ``status indicator technology,'' despite the
program's name. If the program were to be assessed exclusively
in terms of its contribution to capturing or identifying
criminals and other high-threat individuals who seek to enter
the U.S., the data would not be compelling: for 80,000,000
travelers processed since the program's inception, only 1,800
criminals and immigration violators have been intercepted.
What is harder to assess is the deterrent impact of the
current entry-only program. US-VISIT has reported a slight
decline in watchlist hits from 2005 to 2006, from about 2,050
to 1,950, at ports of entry, and an increase from 900 to 3,200
adverse actions per year at Consular Offices. This negative
correlation between increased hits at Consular Offices, and
correspondingly fewer at ports of entry, might suggest a
deterrent effect.
US-VISIT's new initiative is to establish a virtual single
standard for biometric sharing and matching, consistent with
US-VISIT's declared mission to be the steward of ``identity
services for the entire Department.'' This initiative will
maintain the IDENT system while marrying it with consolidated
watchlist and Justice Department biometric information and
incorporating new 10-print information from US-VISIT
registrations, the Border Patrol, Coast Guard, ICE, and the
State Department. The Committee understands that managing this
data system will be a major responsibility for US-VISIT. The
Committee therefore includes in bill language a requirement for
a more detailed expenditure plan, including the cost of ongoing
operations and maintenance.
10-PRINT AND INTEROPERABILITY STANDARDS
The Committee is dissatisfied with the slow pace of action
by Departmental leadership in establishing a ten-print standard
to serve all DHS agencies. The resources to move forward with
this effort have not been lacking, but the benefits of full
interoperability in sharing biometric and biographic
information for law enforcement and homeland security purposes
will not be realized until decisions are made on how
information will be shared and access to it managed between
agencies. The Committee includes $228,000,000, as requested, to
support development and implementation of 10-print biometric
data collection for entry, exit and other law enforcement
collection purposes (for example, by the Coast Guard when
interdicting ships, CBP when encountering illegal border
crossers, or ICE when conducting enforcement operations). The
Committee directs the Department to report to the Committees on
Appropriations not later than 30 days after enactment of this
Act on its plans, with detailed milestones, for establishing
full capability for 10-print collection and data sharing to
align US-VISIT fully with and meet the needs of all DHS
agencies.
EXPENDITURE PLANS
The Committee denies the Administration request to remove
requirements for an expenditure plan that have been carried in
previous appropriations Acts. A statutory requirement for
expenditure plans is necessary to enable the Committee to
exercise rigorous program oversight. To ensure no disruption of
program management, and to enable continued progress on the 10-
point and interoperability program, the Committee recommends
that $230,000,000 be made available to the program immediately
upon enactment of this Act, with the remainder subject to
expenditure plan approval.
CONTRACT MANAGEMENT
GAO reported in 2006 (GAO 06-404) that while US-VISIT was
establishing tools and practices consistent with effective
management of non-financial contractor services, it was
deficient in two areas: overseeing US-VISIT contracts managed
by other agencies (CBP, TSA, ICE) and maintaining effective
financial controls over external agency contracting efforts. As
a result, the program office was unable to account fully for
tracking and completion of contract actions and their resultant
costs. As the bulk of US-VISIT funding goes for contract
services, the program office must exercise control over such
activity. The Committee therefore includes an expenditure plan
requirement on accounting for contractor services, and requests
that DHS certify how these weaknesses have been corrected.
EXIT SOLUTION
The Committee is concerned by the lack of a clear plan,
with timelines and milestone goals, for addressing an exit
strategy, and by the failure to include this in the fiscal year
2007 expenditure plan, as required by law. The Department has
testified that it is finalizing a report that will include
information on costs, benefits, and the feasibility of
deploying biometric and non-biometric exit capabilities at land
ports of entry. In the meantime, the Committee's only available
cost estimate is US-VISIT testimony indicating that a non-
interdiction solution (i.e., a ``mirror image'' of entry) at
land ports of entry would entail direct costs of over
$1,000,000,000 for new infrastructure, and tens of billions of
dollars in indirect costs imposed on the public and economy due
to exit delays and congestion. After four years of US-VISIT
operations and several years of pilot plan experience, it is
time for more cogent, specific steps. Failure to move forward
has real costs. While US-VISIT has increased the ability to
track exit records--after the fact--there is still an expansive
gap in knowledge about departures. As a result, we may not know
who, like some 9/11 attackers, has overstayed. In addition, we
may be wasting resources chasing aliens who have already
departed. The Department has testified that in fiscal year
2006, ICE expended 34,000 hours investigating aliens it later
found had left the country--something a working exit system
could have prevented. There is also a disturbing opportunity
cost from such efforts associated with forgone investigations
of true and high-risk visa overstays.
While it is frustrating to see so little progress, the
Committee understands the rationale behind the decision to
terminate the land exit pilots, which demonstrated that the
technology was not mature enough to be adopted. This decision
enabled remaining funds to be applied to more productive use.
Nevertheless, while a long-term comprehensive answer to the
land exit problem may not yet be available, there is no
explanation for the lack of a clear plan to pursue practical,
short-term, intermediate or local solutions, while working
toward a more permanent and global solution. For example, the
Committee understands that discussions have been underway with
the Canadian and Mexican governments to explore the possibility
of gaining information about U.S. exits from Canadian and
Mexican entry processes, which could change the model for an
exit system, involve lower costs than a unilateral approach,
and increase security in North America.
The failure to exploit the foundation for air exit
solutions is incomprehensible--as are current plans to
terminate the existing air pilots, rather than use them to fill
a gap until a permanent solution can be found. While deployment
of kiosks for voluntary exit registration may not work without
a mechanism to compel their use, they provide data on voluntary
compliance that will be lost if they are terminated before a
comprehensive solution, likely to require cooperation with the
airlines, is in place. The Committee is not persuaded by
assertions that the Secretary cannot mandate that travelers use
kiosks or risk a significant penalty if they fail to comply, or
that airlines cannot collect kiosk receipts and provide them to
the Department until such time as a biometric exit match is
made part of the check-in or departure gate process.
The Committee expects the Department to definitively assess
whether an exit solution for the land borders is feasible and,
if so, to detail the specific steps and schedule required to
achieve one. The Committee has inserted bill language requiring
an expenditure plan that includes a complete schedule for the
full implementation within five years of a biometric exit
solution at the land borders or a certification that a cost
effective, five-year solution is not technically feasible. In
the latter case, the Committee directs the Department to
explain its reasoning and describe the value of a US-VISIT
program that lacks an exit solution.
COORDINATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTAL INITIATIVES
The Committee has been troubled by apparent lack of
coordination between US-VISIT and other initiatives related to
entry and exit, such as the Western Hemisphere Travel
Initiative. While US-VISIT testified that policy coordination
on these initiatives occurs at the Departmental level, the
Committee wishes to see coordination become more routine and
integral. To help track progress to this end, the Committee
includes bill language requiring quarterly status reports on
US-VISIT specifically addressing coordination with Western
Hemisphere Travel Initiative planning and implementation, as
well as any other potential DHS agency efforts that could
overlap with US-VISIT goals and activities.
Office of Health Affairs
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 \1\................... $99,298,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008..................... 117,933,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 117,933,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +18,635,000
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2008................. ................
\1\ Reflects funding for programs transferred to the Office of Health
Affairs from the Preparedness Directorate and the Science and
Technology Directorate on March 31, 2007.
MISSION
The Office of Health Affairs (OHA) serves as the Department
of Homeland Security's principal agent for all medical and
public health matters. Working across local, State, Federal,
Tribal and territorial governments and with the private sector,
the Office has the lead DHS role in the establishment of a
scientifically rigorous, intelligence-based, medical and
biodefense architecture that ensures the health and medical
security of our nation.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $117,933,000 for the Office of
Health Affairs, the same as the amount requested and
$18,635,000 above the adjusted amount provided for fiscal year
2007. A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of Health Affairs Budget estimate Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BioWatch.......................... $79,108,000 $77,108,000
National Biosurveillence 8,000,000 8,000,000
Integration System...............
Rapidly Deployable Chemical 2,600,000 2,600,000
Detection System.................
Planning and Coordination......... 4,475,000 4,475,000
Salaries and Expenses............. 23,750,000 25,750,000
-------------------------------------
Total....................... $117,933,000 $117,933,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUDGET STRUCTURE
The fiscal year 2008 request consolidates biodefense
programs across the Department within the Office of Health
Affairs. Several programs from the former Preparedness
Directorate and the Science and Technology Directorate were
transferred to OHA.
PLANNING AND COORDINATION
Of the amounts available for OHA, $4,475,000 is for
Planning and Coordination, the same as the amount requested. In
a hearing before the Committee, the Assistant Secretary for
Health Affairs outlined an initiative to produce a plan that
Federal, State, local, and private health systems could use as
a guide to medical readiness. This plan could be used during an
avian flu pandemic or following natural disasters or domestic
terrorist attacks. While the Committee is pleased that OHA is
addressing this gap in planning, it notes that the Department
of Health and Human Services (HHS) is engaged in many similar
planning activities. OHA should closely coordinate with HHS to
avoid any duplication of effort.
Included in the amount recommended for Planning and
Coordination, $727,000 is to lead DHS' planning and
coordination efforts in AgroDefense, as called for in Homeland
Security Presidential Directive-9.
SURVEILLANCE AND DETECTION
Of the amounts available for the Office of Health Affairs,
$8,000,000 is for the National Biosurveillance Integration
System (NBIS), the same as the amount requested and the amount
provided for fiscal year 2007. Homeland Security Presidential
Directive 9 and 10 direct DHS to establish NBIS to provide
early detection and situational awareness of biological events
of potential national consequence by acquiring, integrating,
analyzing, and disseminating existing human, animal, plant, and
environmental biosurveillance system data.
The major detection program at DHS that informs NBIS is the
BioWatch monitoring system. The Committee recommends
$77,108,000 for BioWatch, $2,000,000 less than the amount
requested. Operating in approximately 30 cities nationwide
since early 2003, BioWatch is designed to provide early warning
of a pathogen release, alerting health authorities before
victims begin to show symptoms and providing the opportunity to
deliver early treatment. The Committee has also recommended
$28,170,000 for the Department's Science and Technology
Directorate to fully fund the ongoing BioWatch generation 3
research to begin validation and pilot testing of three
different prototypes and complete signatures to identify
pathogens of concern.
The Committee is concerned that the reliance of DHS and
other agencies on BioWatch and similar detection systems may
not be the most efficient and effective way to detect the
presence of pathogens. The number of biological threats
BioWatch can currently detect is limited and it is also not
clear current detection systems would provide earlier warning
of an attack than hospitals and public health system components
treating the earliest cases of infection. In addition a
fundamental question is whether an investment in rapid point of
care diagnostic tests in hospitals would be a more effective
use of resources than the continued investment in BioWatch
technologies. Therefore the Committee provides $2,000,000 above
the requested amount for Salaries and Expenses for OHA to enter
into a grant or contract with the National Academy of Sciences
(NAS) to evaluate the effectiveness of BioWatch, including the
reliability of monitoring data and the ability of hospitals and
public health officials to respond based on information
received from those systems. As part of the analysis, NAS
should compare the benefits and costs of generation 2 BioWatch
technology with generation 3 technology. NAS should also assess
the cost and benefits of an enhanced national surveillance
system that relies on U.S. hospitals and the U.S. public health
system and compare the effectiveness of such a system with the
current BioWatch approach. A final report should be completed
before the end of fiscal year 2008.
FORMALDEHYDE EMISSIONS
The Committee is concerned by reports that trailers FEMA
purchased to house disaster victims have high levels of
formaldehyde emissions, possibly leading to adverse health
effects, especially in children. The Office of Health Affairs
is directed to evaluate possible health effects associated with
the presence of formaldehyde gas in these trailers. The
evaluation should include statistical information on the types
of illness associated with formaldehyde exposure found in the
FEMA trailer residents, the prevalence of such health effects,
and suggested ways to mitigate these effects. The findings
shall be reported to the Committees on Appropriations within 6
months of the date of enactment of this Act.
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Management and Administration
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 \1\................... $535,200,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008..................... 667,600,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 685,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +149,800,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008................. +17,400,000
\1\ Reflects funding for the Office of the National Capitol Region and
the National Preparedness Integration Program, which were transferred
to FEMA from the Preparedness Directorate on March 31, 2007, pursuant
to the FEMA reform legislation (P.L. 109-295).
MISSION
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) manages and
coordinates the Federal response to major domestic disasters
and emergencies of all types in accordance with the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. It
supports the effectiveness of emergency response providers at
all levels of government in responding to terrorist attacks,
major disasters, and other emergencies. FEMA also administers
public assistance and hazard mitigation programs to prevent or
reduce the risk to life and property from floods and other
hazards. Finally, FEMA leads all Federal incident management
preparedness and response planning through a comprehensive
National Incident Management System (NIMS) that involves
Federal, State, Tribal, and local government personnel,
agencies, and regional authorities.
FEMA provides for the development and maintenance of an
integrated, nationwide capability to prepare for, mitigate
against, respond to, and recover from the consequences of major
disasters and emergencies of all types in partnership with
other Federal agencies, State, local and Tribal governments,
volunteer organizations, and the private sector. Management and
Administration supports all of FEMA's programs by coordinating
all policy, managerial, resource, and administrative actions
between headquarters and regional offices.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $685,000,000 for Management and
Administration, $17,400,000 above the amount requested and
$149,800,000 above the adjusted amount provided for fiscal year
2007. This account is a combination of the former
Administrative and Regional Operations account and the
Readiness, Mitigation, Response and Recovery account. The
amount provided will support an additional 275 staff as
requested.
STRENGTHENING CORE COMPETENCIES
FEMA has embarked on an initiative to strengthen what it
calls core competencies, including disaster operations,
logistics management, and mitigation programs. The Committee
agrees that FEMA should strengthen these capabilities and
recommends the requested increase of $100,000,000 for that
purpose. Included in the increase is $21,247,000 for Incident
Management; $5,794,000 for Operational Planning; $6,162,000 for
Disaster Logistics; $12,416,000 for Emergency Communications;
$1,265,000 for Integrated Preparedness; $4,427,000 for Service
to Disaster Victims; $25,632,000 for Continuity Programs;
$20,863,000 for improved business practices; and $2,194,000 in
mitigation and public disaster communications. These funds are
provided to equip FEMA to prepare for and respond more
effectively to disasters.
As FEMA attempts to enhance its core competencies, it must
first make major improvements in its hiring and staffing. While
FEMA has made some progress on staffing, including the
placement of experienced emergency managers in all 10 FEMA
regional office director positions, it did not achieve its
stated goal of filling 95 percent of open staff positions by
mid-May 2006 and has yet to meet that goal. GAO found that
FEMA's lack of a strategic workforce plan and coordinated
training effort have been major reasons FEMA's operations have
faltered in the past. The Committee notes that FEMA has still
not submitted the strategic workforce plan due on April 4, 2007
as required by Public Law 109-295.
URBAN SEARCH AND RESCUE
The Committee recommends $35,000,000 for Urban Search and
Rescue (US&R), $10,000,000 above the amount requested and the
amount provided for fiscal year 2007. The Committee is
concerned by the readiness level of US&R and provides this
increase to ensure the US&R response system is adequate during
future disasters. The US&R response system is comprised of 28
task forces that are deployed during emergencies to assist
State and local governments in responding to structural
collapses. The US&R task forces search structures to extricate
and medically treat victims. A 2006 DHS Inspector General
report found that DHS and FEMA did not provide proportionate
staffing increases to adequately manage US&R task forces. While
this level was inadequate, it reached a crisis point during the
four Florida hurricanes in 2004 and Hurricanes Katrina, Rita,
and Wilma in 2005.
OFFICE OF NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION COORDINATION (NCRC)
The Committee recommends $6,000,000 for the Office of
National Capital Region Coordination (NCRC), the same as the
amount requested and $3,259,000 above the amount provided for
fiscal 2007. The Committee notes that NCRC is updating the
National Capitol Region strategic plan and directs the office
to provide a briefing to the Committee within 30 days from the
date of enactment of this Act on progress made with respect to
this plan.
PREPAREDNESS
Preparedness functions were moved into FEMA on March 31,
2007. The Committee understands that it will take FEMA time to
fully integrate preparedness and response functions, and
believes FEMA will benefit from outside assistance and advice
as it undertakes this integration. Therefore, the Committee
provides up to $1,000,000 for FEMA to enter into a grant or
contract with the National Academy of Public Administration
(NAPA) to review the integration of preparedness and response
programs with a focus on organizational structure, hiring plans
and goals, coordination and integration mechanisms, and other
areas FEMA may identify. The work shall be completed by the end
of fiscal year 2008.
CONTRACTS
Following Hurricane Katrina, the DHS Inspector General (IG)
identified numerous problems with FEMA's contracting and
acquisition support practices. According to the IG, FEMA's
overall response efforts suffered from: (1) inadequate
acquisition planning and preparation; (2) a lack of clearly
communicated acquisition responsibilities between FEMA, other
Federal agencies, and State and local governments; and (3) an
insufficient number of acquisition personnel to manage and
oversee contracts. In February 2006, the IG reported that FEMA
purchased mobile housing units without having a plan for how
the housing would be used. As a result, these assets continue
to sit in storage areas while taxpayers pick up the bill for
storage fees.
When GAO reviewed FEMA's performance following Hurricane
Katrina, it found that processes for executing contracts were
hindered by poor communication and unclear responsibilities,
resulting in poor acquisition outcomes. While FEMA reportedly
now has some standby contracts in place that are ready to be
executed when disaster strikes, it is not clear that the Agency
has addressed the staffing and communication problems
identified by GAO and IG. The Committee remains concerned that
FEMA continues to rely on sole source contracts. FEMA recently
submitted to the Committee an alarming list of 3,982 contracts
that were never competitively bid.
NATIONAL RESPONSE PLAN
The National Response Plan (NRP) details the way in which
the Federal Government coordinates with State, local, and
Tribal governments and the private sector during and after
disasters and other domestic incidents. The Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on
Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006 (Public Law 109-234)
provided FEMA $3,000,000 to update the NRP. Unfortunately, FEMA
does not expect to meet the June 1, 2007, deadline set to
complete needed updates to the NRP and the National Incident
Management System (NIMS). The Committee finds this delay
unacceptable, and directs GAO to: (1) evaluate the process used
to update the NRP, (2) identify barriers to the timely
completion of the work, and (3) evaluate the process for
including key stakeholders and other Federal agencies in
updating the NRP. The report is due to the Committee within
nine months after the date of enactment of this Act. Because
the NRP and NIMS will need to be routinely updated in the
future, it is imperative that FEMA establish an efficient
updating process.
HURRICANE KATRINA AND TOXIC POLLUTANTS
The Committee is aware that the National Response Plan
directs the designation of a Federal On-Scene Coordinator (OCS)
following a disaster, to direct the response efforts to a
discharge or release of oil, hazardous substances, pollutants,
or contaminants. The Committee is also aware of the possible
toxic distribution among New Orleans neighborhoods as a result
of the great amount of debris caused by the flooding associated
with Hurricane Katrina, and the human health need to conduct a
risk assessment of these pollutants. Therefore, the Committee
directs FEMA to report, no later than January 31, 2008, on the
work of the OCS following Hurricane Katrina, including any
efforts to conduct such an assessment, and how the OCS is
assisting communities in identifying and responding to toxicant
vulnerabilities.
LOGISTICS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
The Committee recommends $61,553,000 for disaster
logistics, an increase of $6,162,000 above the amount provided
for fiscal year 2007. FEMA is directed to build partnerships
with the Defense Logistics Agency and other organizations to
avoid recreating systems that already exist. The Committee
notes the recent media scrutiny of FEMA's poorly functioning
logistics processes, which resulted in the loss of $70,000,000
in supplies for disaster victims. While GAO has noted that FEMA
is taking action to make its logistics program more proactive,
flexible, and responsive, it cautioned that these capabilities
are years away from being fully implemented and operational.
The Committee expects this investment in FEMA's logistics
program to result in a program that is capable of responding in
an efficient and timely manner, and directs the Agency to
provide quarterly briefings on its progress.
In addition, the Committee directs FEMA to continue
prepositioning critical supplies needed during disaster
response, including generators, blankets, water and portable
water purification systems near potential disaster areas.
DISASTER COMMUNICATIONS CHALLENGES
The Emergency Alert System (EAS) is a cooperative
arrangement among the Federal Communications Commission (FCC),
FEMA, the National Weather Service, and the states. FEMA
provides direction and assistance for State and local emergency
management officials to develop, implement, and maintain their
EAS structure. The Committee is concerned this important
communications tool in emergency response is not adequate. GAO
reported that the EAS faces a range of technical, cultural, and
other challenges, such as interfacing with newer communications
technologies and issuing alerts in multiple languages. FEMA is
directed to report to the Committee within six months after the
date of enactment of this Act its plans to address GAO's
recommendation that DHS and FCC develop a plan to address the
shortcomings of EAS.
In addition, the Committee is concerned that individuals
with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) may be underserved
during disaster response efforts. The Committee urges FEMA to
coordinate with members of LEP populations to provide
sufficient translators and interpreters to carry out section
689(e) of Public Law 109-295.
LEVEE CERTIFICATION
The Committee is aware of concerns about a recent decision
by FEMA to include a warning on some flood maps recommending
that property owners in areas behind provisionally certified
levees purchase flood insurance. FEMA reportedly intends to
continue to require such warnings even for levees that receive
full certification as providing protection in the event of a
``1-percent-annual-chance-flood.'' These concerns stem from a
perception that the FEMA warning may imply that FEMA is aware
of specific information that casts doubt on the structural
integrity or protection value of particular levees when no such
information exists. The Committee urges property owners to
carefully evaluate the flood risk associated with their
property and to purchase flood insurance accordingly, based on
full and accurate information. The Committee urges FEMA to
consult with stakeholder communities on the current wording of
the FEMA warning to ensure that it: (1) accurately reflects
FEMA's state of knowledge about the protection provided by the
particular levees to which the warning is applied; and (2)
clarifies whether or not property owners are legally required
to purchase flood insurance in areas protected by such levees.
FEMA TRAILERS AND HOMELESS VETERANS
On any given night, there are 200,000 homeless veterans in
the United States. The Committee is aware that there are unused
surplus FEMA trailers. The Committee directs FEMA to work with
the Department of Veterans Affairs and other relevant federal
agencies on a feasibility study to determine how these unused
surplus FEMA trailers can be used to house homeless veterans.
FEMA shall report its findings to Congress within six months
after the date of enactment of this Act.
State and Local Programs
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 \1\................... $2,524,500,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008..................... 1,696,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 3,101,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +576,500,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008................. +1,405,000,000
\1\ Reflects decrease of $12,000,000 due to transfer of Technical
Assistance funds and increase of $5,500,000 due to transfer of Noble
Training Center.
MISSION
State and Local Programs help build and sustain the
preparedness and response capabilities of the nation's first
responder community. These programs include support for various
grant programs; training programs; planning activities; and
technical assistance. The grant programs funded by this
appropriation include State homeland security grants; law
enforcement terrorism prevention grants; emergency management
performance grants; high-threat high-density urban area grants;
transit grants; port security grants; and critical
infrastructure grants. For purposes of eligibility for funds
under this heading, the term ``local unit of government''
refers to 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.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $3,101,000,000 for State and Local
Programs, $1,405,000,000 above the amount requested and
$575,500,000 above the amount provided for fiscal year 2007. Up
to three percent of State and Local programs may be used for
management and administrative costs. A comparison of the budget
estimate to the Committee recommended level by budget activity
is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State and Local Programs Budget estimate Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Formula Grants:
State Homeland Security Grant $250,000,000 $550,000,000
Program......................
Law Enforcement Terrorism -- 400,000,000
Prevention...................
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, Formula Grants...... 250,000,000 950,000,000
Discretionary Grants: \1\ \2\
Urban Area Security Initiative 800,000,000 800,000,000
Grant........................
Buffer Zone Protection Program 50,000,000 50,000,000
Port Security Grants.......... 210,000,000 400,000,000
Rail and Transit Security 175,000,000 400,000,000
Grants.......................
Trucking Security Grants...... 9,000,000 10,000,000
Intercity Bus Security Grants. 12,000,000 11,000,000
Metropolitan Medical Response -- 50,000,000
System.......................
Citizen Corps................. 15,000,000 17,000,000
Real ID....................... -- 50,000,000
Interoperable Communications.. -- 50,000,000
Commercial Equipment Direct -- 20,000,000
Assistance Program...........
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, Discretionary Grants 1,271,000,000 1,858,000,000
National Programs:
National Domestic Preparedness 38,000,000 88,000,000
Consortium...................
Center for Domestic 54,000,000 57,000,000
Preparedness.................
National Exercise Program..... 50,000,000 50,000,000
Technical Assistance.......... 6,000,000 18,000,000
Training Grants \3\........... 3,000,000 61,000,000
Evaluations and Assessments... 19,000,000 19,000,000
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, National Programs... 170,000,000 293,000,000
-------------------------------------
Management and Administration..... 5,000,000 - - -
Total....................... $1,696,000,000 $3,101,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes Metropolitan Medical Response System and Citizen Corp.
These two programs were funded under ``National Programs'' in fiscal
year 2007.
\2\ Includes the Commercial Equipment Direct Assistance Program. This
program was a separate program under ``State and Local Programs'' in
fiscal year 2007.
\3\ Includes the Competitive Training Grant Program and the Continuing
and Emerging Grant program funded in fiscal year 2007 separately.
ALL-HAZARDS
Homeland Security Presidential Directive-8 ``establishes
policies to strengthen the preparedness of the United States to
prevent and respond to threatened or actual domestic terrorist
attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies by requiring a
national domestic all-hazards preparedness goal, establishing
mechanisms for improved delivery of Federal preparedness
assistance to State and local governments, and outlining
actions to strengthen preparedness capabilities of Federal,
State, and local entities.'' Unfortunately, the Inspector
General review of FEMA's disaster management activities in
response to Hurricane Katrina noted that ``DHS' prevention and
preparedness for terrorism have overshadowed that for natural
hazards, both in perception and in application.'' FEMA is
directed to work with the National Protection and Programs
Directorate (NPPD) as it evaluates how to incorporate the risk
of natural disasters within the risk models used for grant-
making. The Committee recognizes this may require multiple risk
methodologies and has directed NPPD to commission a study by
the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to review the
feasibility of combining terrorist threats and natural
disasters within a single risk analysis. FEMA is directed to
utilize the results from the NAS study to work toward the goal
of ensuring that all hazards are appropriately addressed in
grant allocations.
STATE HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM
The Committee recommends $550,000,000 for State Homeland
Security grants, $300,000,000 above the amount requested and
$25,000,000 above the amount provided for fiscal year 2007.
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.
Under current law, States and territories are to be awarded
a base level of 0.75 percent (0.25 percent for territories) of
the total funding. The request proposes to reduce the amount
guaranteed to each State or territory to a minimum of 0.25
percent of the total. The Committee's recommendation does not
change current law. The remainder of the funds should continue
to be distributed based on risk. While the Department continues
to have discretion in awarding the remainder of the funds based
on the risk methodologies it develops, the Committee encourages
the Department to ensure that such funds are utilized for all-
hazards purposes. The Committee directs FEMA to brief the
Committee five days prior to any announcement of the awarding
of these funds. Such briefings shall include detailed
information on the risk analysis employed. The Committee
directs that application kits be made available to States
within 45 days after enactment of this Act, that States have 90
days to apply after a grant opportunity is announced, and that
FEMA make grant determinations within 90 days of the
application deadline. No less than 80 percent of these funds
shall be passed on by a State or the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico to local units of government within 60 days of the State
or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico receiving funds. None of the
funds may be used for construction, except for emergency
operations centers.
The Committee is concerned by the lack of coordination
between DHS and the Department of Justice (DOJ) in light of the
complementary nature of many of their grant programs and the
fact that grants from each department are frequently awarded to
the same jurisdictions. FEMA is directed to begin a dialogue
with DOJ to ensure the Federal government is speaking with a
coordinated voice on funding for first responders.
LAW ENFORCEMENT TERRORISM PREVENTION GRANTS
The Committee recommends $400,000,000 for State and local
Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention grants (LETPP),
$400,000,000 above the amount requested and $25,000,000 above
the amount provided for fiscal year 2007.
The Committee does not agree with the proposal to set aside
a percentage of the Urban Area Security Initiative and State
Homeland Security grant programs to fund LETPP activities and
continues to fund LETPP separately. The Committee continues to
make these funds available to all States based on current law.
Each State shall continue to be guaranteed a base of 0.75
percent of the total. The Department continues to have
discretion in awarding the remainder of the funds based on the
funding methodologies it develops. The Committee continues to
believe the remainder of the funds should be based on risk. Law
enforcement terrorism prevention activities that involve
compensation for overtime shall be limited to those
specifically related to homeland security, such as activities
supporting expanded investigation and intelligence efforts.
Funding may not be used to supplant ongoing, routine public
safety activities of State and local law enforcement personnel.
The Committee directs that FEMA make the application kits
available within 45 days after enactment of this Act, that
States have 90 days to apply after a grant opportunity is
announced, and that FEMA make grant determinations within 90
days of the application deadline. The Committee also agrees
that no less than 80 percent of these funds shall be passed on
by the State to local units of government within 60 days of the
State receiving funds.
Within the funds provided, the Committee recommends
$15,000,000 for Operation Stonegarden. All awards under
Operation Stonegarden shall be made on a competitive basis to
units of local government in counties along the southwest
border of the United States, including towns, cities, and
counties, to enhance the coordination between local and Federal
law enforcement agencies. Eligible law enforcement activities
shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, efforts
related to human trafficking..
URBAN AREA SECURITY INITIATIVE GRANTS
The Committee recommends $800,000,000 for Urban Area
Security Initiative grants (UASI), the same as the amount
requested and $30,000,000 above the amount provided for fiscal
year 2007. The Committee expects the application kits to be
made available to eligible urban areas within 45 days after
enactment of this Act, that eligible areas will have 90 days to
apply after the grant is announced, and that FEMA will make
grant determinations within 90 days of the application
deadline. These funds should be distributed based on terrorism
risk methodologies developed by the Department. The Committee
encourages the Department to ensure such funds are leveraged
for all-hazards purposes. The Committee expects FEMA to
continue the practice of reimbursing eligible overtime expenses
as designated in ODP Information Bulletin No. 127, dated August
3, 2004.
The Committee is aware that in accordance with fiscal year
2007 grant guidance, up to 25 percent of UASI and LETPP funds
may be used to hire new staff and/or contractor positions to
serve as intelligence analysts. These costs are allowable only
for two years, after which States and urban areas are
responsible for supporting the sustainment costs for those
intelligence analysts. The guidance, however, does not allow
funds to be used to pay for existing intelligence analysts. The
Committee is concerned that this policy may unfairly
disadvantage those States and urban areas who have already
acquired intelligence analysts on their own initiative.
Therefore, the Committee encourages FEMA to review this policy
so that no State or urban area is unfairly penalized.
The Committee understands that the Capital Wireless
Integrated Network project has received funding within the
National Capital Region UASI grant to develop an interoperable
first responder data communication and information sharing
network. The Committee expects that this effort will continue
to be supported with the increased funding provided to the UASI
program in this Act.
BUFFER ZONE PROTECTION PROGRAM
The Committee recommends $50,000,000 for the Buffer Zone
Protection Program, the same as the amount requested and the
amount provided for fiscal year 2007. The Committee directs
FEMA to continue to work with Infrastructure Protection and
Information Security to identify critical infrastructure,
assess vulnerabilities at those sites, and direct funding to
vulnerability gaps.
PORT SECURITY
The Committee recommends $400,000,000 for Port Security
grants, $190,000,000 above the amount requested and the amount
provided for fiscal year 2007. This is equal to the amounts
authorized in the Security and Accountability For Every Port
Act (Public Law 109-347).
Even before 9/11, in 2000, the Interagency Commission on
Crime and Security concluded that the vulnerability of American
ports to potential terrorist attacks was high. At that time,
the 14 deepwater seaports in Florida alone estimated they would
need $80,000,000 to fully implement identified critical
security measures. The Coast Guard estimated in 2003 that the
port facility improvements and operational costs required to
fully implement the Maritime Transportation Security Act
totaled over $7 billion. With the funding provided in this Act,
including funding in the recently-enacted 2007 supplemental
appropriations, 23 percent of these costs will have been
provided since 9/11.
A March 2007 GAO report recommended that ports develop
adequate plans for responding to natural disasters and that the
Secretary of Homeland Security encourage port stakeholders to
use existing forums for discussing all-hazards planning. The
Committee directs the Department to ensure that these plans are
developed.
RAIL AND TRANSIT SECURITY
The Committee recommends $400,000,000 for Rail and Transit
Security grants, $225,000,000 above the amount requested and
the amount provided for fiscal year 2007. Congress has
appropriated a total of $724,200,000 to date, including funding
in the recently-enacted 2007 supplemental appropriations, for
security related to rail transit systems, including commuter,
light and heavy rail; intercity passenger rail; intra-city
buses; and ferry systems. These grants are designed to improve
infrastructure at or near transit facilities, to enhance
communication and surveillance detection capabilities, and for
training. The transit industry estimates that funding needs for
transit security improvements total $6 billion. With this
funding, 19 percent of these costs will have been provided
since 9/11.
TRUCKING
The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for trucking grants,
$1,000,000 above the amount requested and $2,000,000 below the
amount provided for fiscal year 2007. Funds are used to train
highway professionals to identify and report security and
safety situations on the Nation's highways.
The Committee urges FEMA to maximize the use of effective
Internet-based training tools to meet the demand for the
program while lowering costs. The Committee directs FEMA to
submit an expenditure plan to the Committees on Appropriations
for the use of these funds within 90 days of enactment of this
Act.
INTERCITY BUS SECURITY
The Committee recommends $11,000,000 for Intercity Bus
Security grants, $1,000,000 below the amount requested and the
amount provided for fiscal year 2007. Funds are used to
improve: facility security in UASI jurisdictions; passenger and
baggage screening, driver and vehicle security; emergency
communication technology, and coordination with local first
responders.
METROPOLITAN MEDICAL RESPONSE SYSTEM
The Committee recommends $50,000,000 for the Metropolitan
Medical Response System, $50,000,000 above the amount requested
and $17,000,000 above the amount provided for fiscal year 2007.
The Committee directs FEMA to work with the Office of Health
Affairs to develop guidelines for the program and to
competitively award funding to applicants based on preparedness
needs.
CITIZEN CORPS
The Committee recommends $17,000,000 for the Citizen Corps
Program, $2,000,000 above the amount requested and $2,000,000
above the amount provided for fiscal year 2007. This funding
supports Citizen Corps Councils and programs in efforts to
engage citizens in preventing, preparing for, and responding to
all hazards. Eligible activities include planning and
evaluation; public education and communication; training; and
participation in exercises.
REAL ID
The Committee recommends $50,000,000 for grants to States
pursuant to section 204(a) of the REAL ID Act of 2005 (division
B of Public Law 109-13). Instead of a request to directly fund
a program to support State REAL ID implementation, DHS
requested setting aside 20 percent of the State Homeland
Security Grant Program for REAL ID activities. The Committee
does not agree with the proposal to set-aside State Homeland
Security Grant funds for REAL ID activities and instead
provides this separate funding to assist States in complying
with this Federal mandate. Funds are available until September
30, 2008.
Enacted in May 2005 as part of the fiscal year 2005
Emergency Supplemental Appropriation, the REAL ID Act was
established to secure, State-issued, identification documents
that could be used for Federal purposes. Twenty-four months
after the enactment of the REAL ID Act, the Department finally
proposed standards for States to meet the law's requirements.
The estimated compliance cost for States is $23.1 billion over
five years, much higher than originally anticipated.
The Committee is concerned that $40,000,000 appropriated in
fiscal year 2006 for REAL ID remains largely unobligated,
including some funding for pilot projects. The Department is
directed to utilize the remaining pilot project funding for
near-term REAL ID pilots that emphasize multi-state
coordination.
INTEROPERABLE COMMUNICATIONS
The Committee recommends $50,000,000 for interoperable
communications grants, which are available until September 30,
2008. No funds were requested for this program in fiscal year
2008.
With some estimates of the value of the current public
safety communications infrastructure totaling $60 billion,
needed improvements to ensure interoperability will take time.
According to DHS, $2.15 billion in grant funding was awarded to
States and localities from 2003 to 2005 for communications
interoperability enhancements. The Deficit Reduction Act of
2005 gave the Commerce Department, in consultation with DHS,
the authority to use $1 billion of spectrum auction receipts to
establish an interoperable grant program. The Call Home Act
(Public Law 109-459) further directed that this $1 billion be
awarded no later than September 30, 2007. To date DHS has
issued no guidance for this program.
DHS' inability to establish a coherent nationwide
interoperable planning effort remains a major hindrance to
effective interoperability investment. GAO found that DHS has
no process in place for ensuring that State grant requests are
consistent with their statewide communications plans and
recommended that DHS incorporate such consistency requirements
in its grant decision making process. The funds provided under
this heading should be prioritized for State and local efforts
to adopt SAFEty Interoperability COMmunications (SAFECOM)
standard operating procedures, technology standards, and best
practices for training, exercises, and usage. The DHS SAFECOM
program is charged with creating standards to improve public
safety communications interoperability, establish a national
architecture for interoperable systems, and coordinate Federal
interoperability investment. The Committee also adds
$10,000,000 to the Office of Emergency Communications for
interoperable communications integration; technical assistance;
and regional governance, coordination, and outreach.
The Committee encourages the Department to allow States
that do not use reallocated public safety spectrum to be
eligible for the Public Safety Interoperable grant funds as
long as their systems are compatible with those using
reallocated spectrum.
COMMERCIAL EQUIPMENT DIRECT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for the Commercial
Equipment Direct Assistance Program (CEDAP), $20,000,000 above
the amount requested and $30,000,000 below the amount provided
for fiscal year 2007. CEDAP eligibility is limited to law
enforcement, firefighter, and other emergency responder
organizations. The Committee has reduced funding for this
program, but expects increased funding in other grant programs
to benefit communities that receive CEDAP assistance. Eligible
jurisdictions are those that do not receive UASI funding. FEMA
is directed to issue grant funds directly to local
jurisdictions for equipment purchases, rather than purchasing
equipment on their behalf. FEMA shall develop a list of
equipment acceptable for purchase by grantees. For cases in
which multiple vendors offer equipment of similar quality, FEMA
shall not unnecessarily limit the list of acceptable equipment.
FEMA is directed to brief the Committee on its plan to award
funding under this program using the new guidelines within 90
days after the date of enactment of this Act. Funds are
available until September 30, 2008.
NATIONAL PROGRAMS
The Committee recommends $293,000,000 for National
Programs, $123,000,000 above the adjusted amount requested and
$4,500,000 below the adjusted amount provided for fiscal year
2007.
NATIONAL DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS CONSORTIUM
Of the funds recommended for National Programs, the
Committee provides $88,000,000 for the National Domestic
Preparedness Consortium, $50,000,000 above the amount requested
and the same as the amount provided for fiscal year 2007.
CENTER FOR DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS
Of the funds recommended for National Programs, the
Committee provides $57,000,000 for the Center for Domestic
Preparedness, $3,000,000 above the amount requested and
$5,500,000 below adjusted amount provided for fiscal year 2007.
Pursuant to the FEMA Reform legislation (P.L. 109-295) the
Noble Training Center is funded as part of the Center for
Domestic Preparedness.
NATIONAL EXERCISE PROGRAM
Of the funds recommended for National Programs, the
Committee provides $50,000,000 for the National Exercise
Program, the same as the amount requested and $1,000,000 above
the amount provided for fiscal year 2007. This program provides
the opportunity for key leaders at the Federal, State and
local, territory and Tribal levels, along with representatives
of nongovernmental organizations and private sector partners,
to gauge the level of effectiveness of plans, policies and
procedures for responding to natural disasters and terrorist
attacks.
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
Of the funds recommended for National Programs, the
Committee provides $18,000,000 for Technical Assistance,
$12,000,000 above the amount requested and amount provided for
fiscal year 2007. The Committee recognizes that State and local
first responders and emergency managers require technical
assistance to ensure that equipment is used properly and to
support effective planning.
TRAINING GRANTS
Of the funds recommended for National Programs, the
Committee provides $61,000,000 for Training Grants, $58,000,000
above the amount requested and the same as the amount provided
for fiscal year 2007. This program combines the competitive
training grants and the continuing and emerging training grants
that have been awarded separately in previous fiscal years.
FEMA shall give priority to training efforts that benefit
nation-wide initiatives including those that identify and
disseminate preparedness and response best practices to States
and local communities and are conducted at or in cooperation
with universities, colleges and community colleges. This shall
include efforts related to information integration,
communication, and interagency coordination.
EVALUATIONS AND ASSESSMENTS
Of the funds recommended for National Programs, the
Committee provides $19,000,000 for Evaluations and Assessments,
the same as the amount requested and the amount provided for
fiscal year 2007. The Committee understands that DHS is working
to implement a comprehensive system to measure the
effectiveness of DHS programs in implementing HSPD-8 and
enhancing national readiness. FEMA is directed to provide the
Committees on Appropriations the results of all evaluations
within 30 days of completion.
ANIMAL RESPONSE CAPABILITIES
The Department reports that many States do not have
adequate animal response capabilities. The Committee urges FEMA
to assist States, in consultation with the Office of Health
Affairs, in developing local capabilities to address small and
large animal response needs. FEMA should identify and draw upon
best practices that are already being implemented in some
states. FEMA shall brief the Committees on Appropriations
within 45 days after the date of enactment of this Act on its
plans to assist states in this critical area.
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
The Committee supports the Department's efforts to complete
capability assessments for emergency medical service (EMS)
providers, but remains concerned that current funding levels
for the EMS community for training and equipment for disaster
preparedness may be insufficient to meet capability
requirements. The Committee directs FEMA, in conjunction with
the Office of Health Affairs, to report to the Committee no
later than January 23, 2008, on the current state of disaster
preparedness capabilities of emergency medical services and the
capabilities required to meet future preparedness goals. This
report shall include an analysis of the gap between current and
target capabilities. The Committee further directs FEMA, in
conjunction with the Office of Health Affairs, to review the
amount of first responder grant funding emergency medical
service providers are currently receiving and evaluate whether
these funding levels are sufficient to meet capability
requirements for disaster preparedness.
The Committee previously directed the Grants and Training
office, whose functions are now in FEMA, to report no later
than January 23, 2007, to the Committees on Appropriations, the
House Committee on Homeland Security and the Senate Committee
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, on the use of
Homeland Security Grant Program funds and Firefighter
Assistance Grant funds for EMS. The Committee has yet to
receive this report.
Firefighter Assistance Grants
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $662,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008..................... 300,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 800,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +138,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008................. +500,000,000
MISSION
Firefighter Assistance Grants provide grants to local
firefighting departments for the purpose of protecting the
health and safety of the public and firefighting personnel,
including volunteers and emergency medical service personnel,
against fire and fire-related hazards.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $800,000,000 for Firefighter
Assistance Grants, $500,000,000 above the amount requested and
$138,000,000 above the amount provided for fiscal year 2007. Of
this amount, $230,000,000 is for firefighter staffing, as
authorized by section 34 of the Federal Fire Prevention and
Control Act of 1974 (Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency
Response--SAFER). FEMA is directed to continue granting funds
directly to local fire departments and including the United
States Fire Administration during the grant administration
process. FEMA is also directed to maintain an all-hazards focus
and not limit the list of eligible activities. Up to five
percent may be used for administrative expenses.
The Committee is concerned by the large number of
applications that never reach the peer review stage of grant
funding. According to FEMA a total of 20,972 FIRE grant
applications were received in 2005. Only 13 of those
applications were deemed ineligible, but nearly half of the
applications, 9,268, were never peer-reviewed. Of the 11,704
that were peer-reviewed only 5,966 were awarded. Therefore the
Committee directs that GAO review the application and award
process for the FIRE and SAFER grants. The Committee expects
GAO to analyze factors used to determine which grant
applications are reviewed, the factors by which reviewers score
grant applications, and the system used by FEMA and DHS to
incorporate scores from reviewers and make final determinations
on funding. To ensure the integrity of the program, the
Committee directs FEMA to peer review all grant applications
that meet basic eligibility requirements. Those basic
requirements necessary for peer-review must be included in the
grant application package. Grants applications not reviewed
must receive an official notification detailing why the
application did not meet the requirements for review. The
applications must then be rank-ordered, and funded following
the rank order.
Emergency Management Performance Grants
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $200,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008..................... 200,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 300,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +100,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008................. +100,000,000
MISSION
Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) funds are
used to support comprehensive emergency management at the State
and local levels and to encourage the improvement of
mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery capabilities
for all hazards.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $300,000,000 for Emergency
Management Performance Grants (EMPG), $100,000,000 above the
amount requested and $100,000,000 above the amount provided in
fiscal year 2007. The Committee does not agree to transfer EMPG
to State and Local Programs, and continues to fund the EMPG
program as a separate appropriation. EMPG is the one true all-
hazard source of funding for emergency managers. While EMPG is
a 50-50 matching program, the latest estimate is that State and
local governments are overmatching by $96,000,000 each year.
The Committee includes bill language directing FEMA to
continue EMPG grant practices used in fiscal year 2007,
including a continued emphasis on all-hazards activities and
permitting the use of funds for personnel expenses. Up to three
percent of funding awards may be used by recipients for
administrative expenses.
Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $-477,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008..................... -505,000
Recommended in the bill............................... -505,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +28,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008................. ................
MISSION
The Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program (REP)
ensures that the public health and safety of citizens living
near commercial nuclear power plants will be adequately
protected in the event of a nuclear power station incident. In
addition, the program informs and educates the public about
radiological emergency preparedness. The REP program provides
funding only for ``offsite'' emergency preparedness activities
of State and local governments that take place beyond nuclear
power plant boundaries.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee provides for the receipt and expenditure of
Radiological Emergency Preparedness (REP) program fees
collected as authorized by Public Law 105-276. The request
estimates that fee collections will exceed expenditures by
$505,000 in fiscal year 2008. Between 2007 and 2011 it is
estimated that twenty-five nuclear reactors will be built
across the country, significantly increasing the work load of
the REP program. In light of the need to prepare for this
increased workload, the Committee is disappointed in the slow
progress in hiring new personnel. There are currently 56 staff
vacancies, 43 percent of the authorized staffing level.
United States Fire Administration
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 \1\................... $41,349,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008..................... 43,300,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 43,300,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +1,951,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008................. ................
\1\ Reflects transfer of $5,500,000 for the Noble Training Center.
MISSION
The mission of the United States Fire Administration is to
reduce economic losses and loss of life due to fire and related
emergencies through leadership, coordination, and support. The
Administration trains the Nation's first responder and health
care leaders to evaluate and minimize community risk, enhance
the security of critical infrastructure, and better prepare
their communities to react to emergencies of all kinds.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $43,300,000 for U.S. Fire
Administration and Training, the same as the amount requested
and $1,951,000 above the amount provided for fiscal year 2007.
The reduction to the fiscal year 2007 level reflects the
transfer of the Noble Training Center to the Center for
Domestic Preparedness in accordance with the FEMA reform
legislation, Public Law 109-295.
Disaster Relief
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 \1\................... $1,486,500,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008 \2\................. 1,700,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 1,700,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +200,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008................. ................
\1\ Includes transfer of $13,500,000 to the Inspector General.
\2\ Does not reflect transfer of $48,000,000, to Management and
Administration.
MISSION
The Federal Emergency Management Agency is responsible for
administering disaster assistance programs and coordinating the
Federal response following Presidential disaster declarations.
Major activities under the Disaster Relief fund are: providing
aid to families and individuals; supporting the efforts of
State and local governments to take emergency protective
measures, clear debris and repair infrastructure damage;
mitigating the effects of future disasters; and helping States
and local communities manage disaster response, including the
assistance of disaster field office staff and automated data
processing support.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $1,700,000,000 for the Disaster
Relief fund, the same as the amount requested and $200,000,000
above the amount provided in the regular fiscal year 2007 bill.
The Committee does not approve the transfer of $48,000,000 to
convert temporary disaster employees into permanent positions
because there is currently a large backlog of such conversions.
FEMA is directed to provide a briefing to the Committees on
Appropriations on the status of the effort to convert temporary
disaster positions within 30 days after the date of enactment
of this Act.
The Committee continues and modifies a provision (Sec. 523)
requiring monthly reports detailing information related to
Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma, including amounts
allocated, obligated and undistributed.
Disaster Assistance Direct Loan Program Account
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $569,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008..................... 580,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 580,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +11,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008................. ................
SUBSIDY
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... ................
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008..................... $295,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 295,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +295,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008................. ................
LIMITATION ON DIRECT LOANS
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $25,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008..................... 25,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 25,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... ................
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008................. ................
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 the 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 $580,000 for
the administrative expenses of the program, the same as the
amount requested. The Committee also includes a subsidy of
$295,000 to cover the cost of loans.
Flood Map Modernization Fund
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $198,980,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008..................... 194,881,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 230,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +31,020,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008................. +35,119,000
MISSION
The mission of the Flood Map Modernization Program is to
modernize and digitize the inventory of over 100,000 flood
maps. These flood maps are used to determine appropriate risk-
based premium rates for the National Flood Insurance Program,
complete hazard determinations required for the nation's
lending institutions, and develop appropriate disaster response
plans for Federal, State, and local emergency management
personnel.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $230,000,000 for the Flood Map
Modernization Fund, $35,119,000 above the amount requested and
$31,020,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2007. The
Committee recognizes the importance of the Flood Map
Modernization program to State and local governments. The
Committee encourages FEMA to prioritize as criteria the number
of streams, rivers, and coastal miles within a State and the
participation of the State in leveraging non-federal
contributions. In addition FEMA is directed to dedicate at
least 15 percent of funds provided under this heading to
activities associated with maintaining flood maps that are at
least three years beyond their effective date. The goal should
be to complete maintenance of maps before they are more than
five years beyond their effective date. Map maintenance
includes: studying previously unstudied or under-studied areas;
restudying areas where watershed and/or floodplain conditions
have altered flood hazards; and re-evaluating flood hazards to
take into account new data or methodologies. Cooperating
technical partners that offer significant funding matches
should be given priority in allocating map maintenance funding.
Up to three percent of awarded funds may be used by recipients
for administrative expenses.
National Flood Insurance Fund
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $128,588,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008..................... 145,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 145,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +16,412,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008................. +16,412,000
MISSION
The Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 requires the
purchase of insurance in communities where it is available as a
condition for receiving various forms of Federal financial
assistance for acquisition and construction of buildings or
projects within special flood hazard areas identified by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency. The owners of existing
buildings and their contents in communities where flood
insurance is available are eligible, through either the
emergency or regular program, for a first layer of subsidized
insurance coverage.
Full risk actuarial rates are charged for insurance
covering 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. Actuarial rates for both layers apply to all new
construction or substantial improvements located in special
flood hazard areas. Program operations are financed with
premium income augmented by Treasury borrowings.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee has included bill language providing up to
$45,642,000 for salaries and expenses to administer the
National Flood Insurance Fund, the same as the budget request.
The Committee has included bill language providing up to
$90,000,000, available until expended, for severe repetitive
loss property mitigation expenses under section 1361A of the
National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and for a repetitive loss
property mitigation pilot program under section 1323 of the
Act. No less than $99,358,000 is available for flood mitigation
activities, of which $34,000,000 is available under section
1366 of the Act for transfer to the National Flood Mitigation
Fund. Flood mitigation funds are available until September 30,
2009. Total funding is offset by premium collections.
FEMA has reported that as of February 28, 2007, there were
over 180,000 closed paid claims for Hurricanes Katrina, Rita
and Wilma. As of that same date, the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP) has borrowed $17.3 billion from the U.S.
Treasury. In addition, since Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf
Coast in August, 2005 the NFIP had paid a total of $526,000,000
of interest on the borrowing. The borrowing limit is currently
$20.8 billion.
The National Flood Insurance Fund is the funding mechanism
for the NFIP.
National Flood Mitigation Fund
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $31,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008..................... 34,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 34,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +3,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008................. ................
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 $34,000,000 for the National Flood
Mitigation Fund, the same as the amount requested and
$3,000,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2007, to be
derived by transfer from the National Flood Insurance Program.
National Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $100,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008..................... 100,053,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 120,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +20,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008................. +19,947,000
MISSION
The National Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund provides
technical assistance and competitive grants to State, local,
and Tribal governments, and to universities to reduce the risks
associated with disasters. Resources support the development
and enhancement of hazard mitigation plans, as well as the
implementation of disaster mitigation projects.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $120,000,000 for the National Pre-
Disaster Mitigation Fund (PDM), $19,947,000 above the amount
requested, and $20,000,000 above the amount provided in fiscal
year 2007. Pre-Disaster mitigation grants are for plans and
projects that reduce overall risks to the population and
structures, while also reducing future costs to the Federal
Disaster Relief fund following disasters. PDM grants are to be
awarded on a competitive basis and without reference to State
allocations, quotas, or other formula-based allocations of
funds. The Committee is pleased that risk is a factor in award
selection, even though it is unclear if awards are based solely
on risk. FEMA is directed to brief the Committee on its PDM
risk methodology within 45 days of enactment of this Act.
POST-DISASTER MITIGATION
The Post-Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, authorized by the
Robert T. Stafford Act, is a key component of mitigation and
disaster recovery. Federal investments in post disaster
mitigation activities are leveraged by a unique ``window of
opportunity'' that exists following a disaster, when
perceptions of risk become clearer and prompt individuals and
communities to undertake risk reduction activities that they
may not have considered in a pre-disaster context.
The Committee notes that Public Law 109-295 amended the
Robert T. Stafford Act to address the amount communities
receive in Post-Hazard Mitigation following a disaster.
Communities receiving Federal disaster assistance are now
eligible to receive post disaster mitigation funding equal to
15 percent on their eligible Federal disaster costs under $2
billion; 10 percent for disasters with costs between $2 billion
and $10 billion; and 7.5 percent for disasters with costs
between $10 billion and $35.333 billion.
The Committee notes that the post-disaster mitigation
program has been greatly underutilized in the wake of Hurricane
Katrina. Of the $1.47 billion currently available for this
purpose in Louisiana, only $18,038,177 has been expended; in
Mississippi, $24,301,967 of a possible $433,895,495 has been
expended. Post-disaster mitigation facilitates state and
community planning as to what areas will or will not be rebuilt
and what construction specifications will apply to rebuilt
areas. It gives assurance to individuals thinking of buying,
renovating, or repairing homes that the surrounding
neighborhood will be restored. All of this is sorely needed on
the Gulf Coast, where neighborhood rehabilitation lags badly
some 21 months after the storm. The Committee directs FEMA to
report within 30 days of the enactment of this Act on its
analysis of this failure to employ post-disaster mitigation and
plans for getting the program seriously underway. The report
should also contain an analysis of any flaws in current law or
FEMA's administration that, in the agency's view, hinder the
effective implementation of the program.
Emergency Food and Shelter
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $151,470,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008..................... 140,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 153,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +1,530,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008................. +13,000,000
MISSION
The Emergency Food and Shelter National Board Program was
created in 1983 to supplement the work of local social service
organizations within the United States, both private and
governmental, to help people in need of emergency assistance.
The program provides funds to local communities for soup
kitchens, food banks, shelters, and homeless prevention
services.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $153,000,000 for the Emergency
Food and Shelter program, $13,000,000 above the amount
requested and $1,530,000 above the amount provided in fiscal
year 2007. The most recent estimate from the Department of
Housing and Urban Development indicates there are some 754,000
homeless people in the United States, including those living in
shelters, transitional housing and on the street. The Emergency
Food and Shelter program provides shelter, food and support
services for homeless and hungry individuals nationwide. Up to
three percent of grant awards may be used by recipients for
administrative expenses.
TITLE IV--RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, TRAINING, AND SERVICES
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $181,990,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008..................... 30,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 30,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... -151,990,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008................. ................
MISSION
The mission of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
(CIS) is to process all immigrant and non-immigrant benefits
provided to visitors to the United States, adjudicate
naturalization requests, promote national security as it
relates to immigration issues, eliminate immigration
adjudication backlogs, and implement solutions to improve
immigration customer services. CIS also maintains substantial
records and data related to the individuals who have applied
for immigration benefits.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $30,000,000 in discretionary
appropriations for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services,
at the requested level and $151,990,000 below the amount
provided for 2007. This funding is for expansion of the
Employment Eligibility Verification (EEV)/Basic Pilot program,
which provides employers the ability to determine the legal
status of prospective employees. The Committee supports the
goal of this program, but questions the appropriateness of
taxpayer support for a system that largely benefits the private
sector. As a result, the Committee directs CIS to submit,
concurrent with the fiscal year 2009 budget, a report on the
potential to charge fees for participation in the EEV/Basic
Pilot program. The report shall include: proposals for
recovering both the capitalization and on-going maintenance
costs for the system; a recommended fee structure based on the
usage level of various subscribers; an estimate of the
anticipated impact of fees on participation rates based on CIS
observations and experience to date; and any other issues of
relevance for Congress to consider.
USER FEE FUNDED PROGRAMS
Current estimates of fee collections, which constitute the
majority of CIS resources, are $2,538,872,000. These revenues
will support adjudication of applications for immigration
benefits and fraud prevention activities, and be derived from
fees collected from persons applying for immigration benefits.
Within the total amount of immigration examination fees
collected, the Committee directs CIS to provide not less than
$49,357,000 to support Customer Service Center operations, and
to dedicate the entirety of premium processing revenue,
currently estimated at $139,000,000, to business system and
information technology transformation, including converting
immigraton records to digital format. No more than $10,000 of
the collections shall be used for official reception and
representation expenses.
The Committee notes that under recent regulatory filings
published by CIS, the application fees proposed to be charged
in fiscal year 2008 will generate 42 percent more revenue for
CIS than in fiscal year 2007. The average individual
application fee will increase by 66 percent after factoring in
cancellation of charges for interim benefit applications. While
the Committee appreciates that CIS has used a much more
sophisticated workload model to develop its revised fee
schedules, it is nevertheless concerned that charges are
reaching levels that may put U.S. citizenship beyond the reach
of many individuals and families with limited incomes. Many of
the public comments made on the draft CIS fee rule highlighted
how the increased fees would place an even-greater financial
burden on families already making sacrifices to apply for
citizenship or legal residency. As a result, the Committee
strongly encourages CIS to continue regular reviews of its fee
rules, and to incorporate equitable processes for fee waivers
and other consideration for those who may not possess the
financial wherewithal to afford the new charges. In particular,
CIS should consider capping the total charges for large
families and charging lower fees for adjudications involving
children, given the generally straight-forward nature of
minors' background checks. Additionally, the Committee directs
CIS to carefully monitor the savings generated by its planned
business transformation efforts, and adjust fees downward if
processing costs fall.
CHANGES TO CASH FLOW PROJECTIONS
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.
performance metrics
While CIS has made progress in improving its business
processes and has significantly reduced the backlog of cases
that take longer than six months to adjudicate, the agency
should work to ensure that increased fees charged to customers
result in commensurate improvements in the service provided by
the agency. The Committee directs CIS to provide the Committee
with a comprehensive report, due with the submission of the
fiscal year 2009 budget, on its service level performance
measures and any improvements in service levels the agency has
achieved. The Committee is particularly concerned that, without
improvements in the Memorandum of Understanding with the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, the backlog of applicants
pending advanced background checks will continue to grow, and
directs CIS to report jointly with the Department of Justice on
how it will strengthen the background check process to ensure
that this backlog is eliminated.
IMMIGRATION SERVICES
The Committee encourages CIS to continue to expand its
immigration service programs throughout the country,
prioritizing areas that have large populations of underserved
immigrant populations. Such services should include
partnerships with immigrant rights and immigrant services
groups to provide technical and consultative support to these
organizations as they assist the immigrant community with their
benefit applications.
IMMIGRATION REFORM
Although the Administration has voiced an on-going
commitment to pursue comprehensive immigration reform that
includes a temporary worker program, the Committee is concerned
that CIS is not prepared to deal with the realities of the
adjudicatory process that would be necessary to support such a
benefit. The Committee therefore directs CIS to report no later
than September 1, 2007, on: the process it envisions for the
adjudication of a temporary worker program; the financial and
personnel resources that will be required to administer such a
program; the potential up-front investments that would be
required to make such a program operational; and the projected
timeline for establishing a fully-functional program.
U-VISA
The Committee continues to be disappointed with the lack of
progress in publishing regulations to allow for immigration
benefit applications under the U-Visa authorities enacted in
the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000. Given that this
program is designed to provide relief for immigrant victims of
domestic violence and other heinous crimes, it is unacceptable
that it has taken the Administration more than six years to
promulgate this regulation. The Committee encourages the
Administration in the strongest possible terms to use its
authority to immediately publish the pending U-Visa rule in an
interim final form. To encourage speedy progress on this issue,
the Committee has withheld from obligation any funds for the
Department's headquarters projects until the U-Visa rule is
published.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND BUSINESS SYSTEM TRANSFORMATION
The Committee welcomes the seriousness with which CIS
appears to be taking efforts to transform its business
processes and systems. Only with a technologically up-to-date
approach to its work can CIS be expected to avoid future
backlogs in adjudications, particularly if immigration reform
creates a temporary worker program or generates significant new
applications for naturalization. The Committee therefore
supports the request to allocate all of the premium processing
fee revenue to information technology and business system
transformation, as was Congress' intent when the fee was
originally authorized. In order to ensure this effort is
consistent with best practices, the Committee directs CIS to
provide a fiscal year expenditure plan for review by the
Committees on Appropriations and the Judiciary prior to
obligating any premium processing fee revenue. CIS should
include materials in the report that address the alignment of
the transformation process with Departmental enterprise
architecture, as well as details on expected project
performance and deliverables.
SECURITY AND INTERNAL AFFAIRS
The Committee is aware of reports that CIS may be open to
significant security vulnerabilities or to compromise by
outside forces seeking to manipulate the immigration system.
While the Committee is encouraged by recent public
announcements that CIS is expanding the internal security
functions at the agency, there is nevertheless a genuine
concern that the agency charged with welcoming newcomers to the
country not be vulnerable to those who would do the nation
harm. The Committee urges CIS to continue its investments in
internal security improvements, and to keep the Committee fully
informed of progress in this effort.
FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING CENTER
Salaries and Expenses
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $211,033,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008..................... 219,786,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 219,786,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +8,753,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008................. ................
MISSION
The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC)
provides the necessary facilities, equipment, and support
services to conduct advanced, specialized, and refresher
training for Federal law enforcement personnel. Specifically,
FLETC serves as an interagency law enforcement training
organization for 83 Federal agencies with personnel located
throughout the United States and its territories. FLETC also
provides services to State, local, and international law
enforcement agencies, and on a space available basis, other
Federal agencies with related law enforcement missions.
FLETC is headquartered in Glynco, GA with facilities in
Artesia, NM and Charleston, SC. Each of these facilities is
designed primarily for residential training operations. A
fourth training facility is located in Cheltenham, MD, and
provides in-service and re-qualification training for officers
and agents in the Washington D.C. area.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $219,786,000 for FLETC, the same
as the amount requested and $8,753,000 above the amount
provided for fiscal year 2007. This funding supports the
increased training needs of the Border Patrol and Immigration
and Customs Enforcement.
The Committee does not support the proposed Revolving Fund
that was included in the fiscal year 2008 budget request to
replace the Salaries and Expenses account within FLETC since
the current funding mechanisms utilized for FLETC appear to be
working well. The Committee approves the request to transfer
the Office of Federal Law Enforcement Training Accreditation
Board from FLETC to the Department of Homeland Security, Chief
Human Capital Officer.
Acquisition, Construction, Improvements, and Related Expenses
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $64,246,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008..................... 43,270,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 43,270,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... -20,976,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008................. ................
MISSION
This account provides for the acquisition, construction,
improvements, equipment, furnishings, and related costs for
expansion and maintenance of facilities of the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $43,270,000 for FLETC Acquisition,
Construction, Improvements, and Related Expenses, the same as
the amount requested and $20,976,000 below the amounts provided
for fiscal year 2007. The decrease is due to one time facility
construction costs.
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Management and Administration
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 \1\................... $134,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008..................... 142,632,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 130,787,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... -3,123,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008................. -11,845,000
\1\ Reflects funding for programs transferred to Office of Health
Affairs on March 31, 2007.
MISSION
The Management and Administration appropriation provides
for the salaries and expenses of Federal employees of the
Science and Technology Directorate (S&T).
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $130,787,000 for Management and
Administration, $11,845,000 below the amount requested and
$3,123,000 below amount provided for fiscal year 2007 after
reflecting the transfer of funds to the Office of Health
Affairs. Within this total, $7,602,000 is provided for the
Office of the Under Secretary and $123,185,000 is provided for
other salaries and expenses.
OTHER SALARIES AND EXPENSES
The Committee recommends $123,185,000 for other salaries
and expenses for employees of the Science and Technology
Directorate instead of $135,030,000 as requested. Within this
amount, the Committee fully funds the pay and cost of living
increases as requested. However, funding was reduced from the
budget request because S&T has struggled to hire employees on a
timely basis. Currently, S&T has a 32 percent staff vacancy
rate. While the Directorate has a hiring plan to fill many of
these vacancies, 39 positions will not be filled until late in
fiscal year 2007 and an additional 38 positions will remain
vacant at the beginning of fiscal year 2008. Because these
vacant positions were fully funded in 2007, the Committee
believes that the fiscal year 2008 request is overstated and
that half year funding for many of these positions in 2008 is
appropriate.
RECEPTION AND REPRESENTATION
The Committee recommends $10,000 for reception and
representation expenses instead of the requested $15,000. This
funding level is consistent with other large agencies within
DHS, such as the Transportation Security Administration. In
addition, the justification for a $12,000 increase from fiscal
year 2007 to fiscal year 2008 for such expenses is unclear
when, halfway through 2007, the Secretary has spent little of
the $3,000 permitted for that year.
Research, Development, Acquisition, and Operations
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 \1\ \2\............... $749,009,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008..................... 656,468,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 646,325,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... -102,684,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008................. -10,143,000
\1\ Does not include funding for programs transferred to Office of
Health Affairs and to the Office of Emergency Communications due to
Department reorganization on March 31, 2007.
\2\ Excludes rescission of $125,000,000 in prior year appropriations as
required by Sec. 529 of P.L. 109-295.
MISSION
The mission of the Science and Technology Directorate is to
develop and deploy technologies and capabilities to secure our
homeland. This Directorate conducts, stimulates, and enables
research, development, testing, evaluation, and the timely
transition of homeland security capabilities to Federal, State,
and local operational end-users. This activity includes
investments in both evolutionary and revolutionary capabilities
with high payoff potential; early deployment of off-the-shelf,
proven technologies to provide for initial defense capability;
near-term utilization of emerging technologies to counter
current terrorist threats; and development of new capabilities
to thwart future and emerging threats.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $646,325,000 for Research,
Development, Acquisition, and Operations, $10,143,000 below the
amount requested and $102,684,000 below the revised amount
provided for fiscal year 2007 after reflecting the transfer of
funds to the Office of Health Affairs and to the Office of
Emergency Communications. A comparison of the budget estimate
to the Committee recommended level by budget activity is as
follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Border and Maritime Security...... $25,936,000 $25,936,000
Chemical and Biological........... 228,949,000 215,131,000
Command, Control and 63,600,000 61,100,000
Interoperability.................
Explosives........................ 63,749,000 63,749,000
Human Factors..................... 12,600,000 12,600,000
Infrastructure and Geophysical.... 24,000,000 24,000,000
Innovation........................ 59,900,000 51,900,000
Laboratory Facilities............. 88,814,000 88,814,000
Test, Evaluations and Standards... 25,520,000 28,520,000
Transition........................ 24,700,000 26,000,000
University Programs............... 38,700,000 48,575,000
-------------------------------------
Total....................... $656,468,000 $646,325,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
REALIGNMENT OF THE 2007 BUDGET STRUCTURE
In February 2007, S&T submitted a revised fiscal year 2007
budget execution plan to realign programs within the Research,
Development, Acquisition, and Operations appropriation to make
them more responsive to customer needs, to reflect new
priorities since the 2007 budget was originally proposed, and
to eliminate projects that were not clearly defined. The
Committee approved this new structure in March 2007 and any
comparisons to fiscal year 2007 enacted levels reflect this
realignment.
CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL
The Committee recommends $215,131,000 for chemical and
biological programs, $13,818,000 below the amount requested and
$14,321,595 below the revised amount provided for fiscal year
2007. The fiscal year 2007 and 2008 funding levels reflect the
transfer of certain chemical and biological programs to the
Office of Health Affairs ($2,600,000 and $81,500,000
respectively) on March 31, 2007.
In total, the Committee recommends $28,170,000 for the
BioWatch generation 3 program. Within this total, the Committee
provides full funding for fiscal year 2008 to begin validation
and pilot testing of the three prototype BioWatch 3 systems
currently under development, as well as to complete the
signatures necessary to identify pathogens of concern. However,
$13,818,000 requested to procure approximately 125 low rate
initial production units has been denied. Before this
procurement can occur, S&T must review and respond to the
results from the National Academy of Sciences study recommended
and discussed under the Office of Health Affairs. The Committee
requires this study to ensure that BioWatch detection systems
are the most cost effective detection approach.
The Committee is aware that National Institutes of Health
(NIH) has established a network of Regional Biocontainment
Laboratories to conduct biodefense and pandemic preparedness
research, and encourages the Department to coordinate with NIH,
as appropriate, to leverage the federal investment in these
facilities.
COMMAND, CONTROL AND INTEROPERABILITY
The Committee recommends $61,100,000 for command, control
and interoperability programs, $2,500,000 less than the amount
requested and $3,487,592 above the revised amount provided for
fiscal year 2007. The fiscal year 2007 funding level reflects
the transfer of $5,000,000 to the Office of Emergency
Communications on March 31, 2007.
No funding has been provided for the Analysis,
Dissemination, Visualization, Insight, and Semantic Enhancement
(ADVISE) program. ADVISE, a data mining tool under development
by S&T, is designed to help detect threatening activities by
allowing an analyst to search large amounts of information for
patterns in the data and to provide visual representations of
these patterns. At this time, DHS has not assessed the privacy
risks associated with ADVISE. In a recently completed audit
(GAO-07-293), GAO concluded that ``until a privacy impact
assessment is conducted, little assurance exists that privacy
risks have been rigorously considered, and mitigating controls
established. If controls are not addressed now, DHS faces the
risk that ADVISE-based system implementations containing
personal information may require costly and potentially
duplicative retrofitting at a later date to add the needed
controls.'' Bill language is included that prohibits the
obligation of funds for ADVISE until the Department of Homeland
Security completes a Privacy Impact Assessment for this program
as recommended by the GAO.
FIRST RESPONDER COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT STANDARDS
Federal funding for first responder communications
equipment should be compliant with common system standards for
digital public safety radio communications (Project 25
standards), as appropriate, to ensure interoperability. The
Committee directs S&T, in conjunction with the Director of the
National Institute of Standards and Technology, to continue the
Project 25 conformity assessment program to assess the
compliance of first responder communications equipment with
Project 25 standards, pursuant to P.L. 109-295.
AIR CARGO PILOTS
In fiscal year 2006, Congress appropriated $30,000,000 for
S&T to conduct three air cargo screening pilots programs to
test different concepts of operations. Results to date from the
three airports participating in the pilots appear promising.
The Committee eagerly awaits the results of this work, which is
scheduled to be completed in December 2007, with a final report
due in the spring of 2008. In the interim, the Committee
encourages S&T, in conjunction with TSA, to share any promising
results with other airports seeking to improve their air cargo
screening procedures. For example, an air cargo screening
prioritization model was developed as part of one pilot that
may permit the pilot airport, as well as other airports, to
substantially increase the amount of air cargo it screens.
RESEARCH TO DETECT EXPLOSIVES IN AIR CARGO
S&T, in conjunction with TSA, has been focusing on
developing large screening systems to detect explosives in air
cargo pallets and containers. The Committee is dismayed,
however, with S&T's slowness in obligating previously
appropriated funding for air cargo research and development
activities. Because of almost a two year delay, S&T does not
plan on having next-generation air cargo screening devices
ready for deployment until 2011, a timetable that is
unacceptable. The Committee directs S&T to accelerate this
research and, in the interim, to work with TSA to pursue better
short term options.
MAN PORTABLE AIR DEFENSE SYSTEMS
The Committee remains supportive of development activities
that could protect commercial aircraft against portable,
shoulder-launched missiles. To date, $270,000,000 has been
appropriated for these activities. In fiscal year 2008, the
Committee recommends a total of $11,500,000 to continue these
efforts: $10,000,000 within the innovation appropriation and
$1,500,000 within the explosives appropriation.
INNOVATION
The Committee recommends $51,900,000 for innovation,
$8,000,000 below the amount requested and $13,900,000 above the
revised amount provided for fiscal year 2007. No funding has
been provided for the scalable composite hull. A recent Coast
Guard analysis found that a composite hull would need to last
at least 17 years longer than a steel hull to be cost
effective.
Within the innovation program, the Committee fully funds
the budget request of $5,900,000 for the safe container project
to conduct research on innovative sensor technologies that,
during normal crane operations, can scan cargo containers for
explosives, contraband, human cargo, chemical agents,
biological agents, and weapons of mass destruction. Because the
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) is responsible for
research, development, and acquisition for nuclear detection
technologies and is researching crane mounted technologies in
fiscal year 2008, S&T should work closely with DNDO on any
applications of such technologies for detecting radioactive
isotopes to achieve economies of scale through such
collaborative efforts.
New technologies may significantly help the Department as
it seeks to secure our homeland. The Committee encourages S&T
to assess technologies such as carbon nanotube coatings; dual
use mobile sensor technology that provides automatic
intelligence collection; sensor-driven analytics; regional
disease surveillance; computed tomography/neutron technologies;
ultra high efficiency power amplifier technologies; and
microsystems technologies for high threat problem-solving.
LABORATORY FACILITIES
The Committee recommends $88,814,000 for laboratory
facilities, the same level as requested and $16,835,002 below
the revised amount provided for fiscal year 2007. Within this
appropriation, $11,000,000 is for the National Bio and
Agrodefense Facility, as requested. This funding will be used
to continue environmental studies necessary to determine which
site will be selected for this next-generation biological and
agricultural defense facility. At this time, S&T plans to
commence a detailed architectural and engineering design for
the facility in 2009 and construction is anticipated to begin
in 2010.
AREA 300
The Committee is aware that S&T is working with the
Department of Energy (DOE) on replacement facilities at Area
300 of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratories, but no
reference to this activity was in the budget justification. The
Committee notes that funding has been requested by DOE for this
work in fiscal year 2008. The Committee expects S&T to fully
fund its total obligations as identified in the memorandum of
understanding between DHS, DOE, and the National Nuclear
Security Administration.
TEST, EVALUATIONS AND STANDARDS
The Committee recommends $28,520,000 for test, evaluations
and standards, $3,000,000 above the amount requested and
$3,088,134 above the revised amount provided for fiscal year
2007. Of this total, $3,000,000 shall be for S&T to initiate
independent, peer-reviewed program evaluations of the
Department's programs. The Committee is concerned that no
rigorous evaluations are conducted of DHS programs to determine
how and if they are working, identify unintended consequences,
and evaluate whether other program mechanisms may achieve the
same or better results. This type of rigorous evaluation cannot
be performed inside the Department due to lack of expertise,
but nevertheless should be part of the Department's overall
conduct of its operations. The Government Performance and
Results Act of 1993 defines program evaluation as ``an
assessment, through objective measurement and systematic
analysis, of the manner and extent to which Federal programs
achieve intended objectives.'' The Committee expects that only
one or two smaller-scale programs will be able to be evaluated
with the funding provided and directs the Department to consult
with the Committees on Appropriations on the programs to be
evaluated and scope of the evaluations before funding is
obligated.
TRANSITION
The Committee recommends $26,000,000 for transition
programs, $1,300,000 above the amount requested and $1,960,491
above the revised amount provided for fiscal year 2007. The
transition office is responsible for delivering near-term
product and technology enhancements to DHS components, for
international and interagency programs, and is a coordination
point for the private sector on technology development. The
additional funding has been provided to conduct an
intergovernmental research study, as discussed below.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RESEARCH
Congress mandated that the Department of Homeland Security
support U.S. leadership in science and technology. To do so,
S&T conducts and funds research in various areas to support the
Department's component agencies, to develop countermeasures to
potential threats, and to work on cross-cutting initiatives.
The Committee is concerned that DHS, and in particular S&T, may
be insufficiently aware of research efforts by other Federal
agencies in areas related to homeland security and, as a
result, may be duplicating those efforts or failing to draw
upon them. In addition, the Committee is concerned that the
research agendas of other Federal agencies may be influenced by
homeland security goals in a way that displaces important
research not directly connected to homeland security. The
Committee believes that an independent review is necessary to
determine whether Federal resources are being adequately and
efficiently used in DHS and other Federal agencies to address
homeland security needs, as well as to identify opportunity
costs that may result from the increasing prominence of
homeland security priorities in Federal research portfolios
outside of the Department. The Committee provides up to
$1,300,000 for S&T to contract with the National Academy of
Public Administration (NAPA) for such a review and expects the
contract to be awarded within two months of the enactment of
this Act. This funding has been provided within the transition
program.
UNIVERSITY PROGRAMS
The Committee recommends $48,575,000 for University
programs, $9,875,000 more than requested. This level would
restore funding to the fiscal year 2007 enacted level.
Additional funding is critical to the success of this program
because S&T will award four new University Centers of
Excellence programs late in fiscal year 2007. Without
additional funding, each current University Center of
Excellence program would be provided with less funding in
fiscal year 2008. The Committee directs S&T to report on how
these additional funds will be allocated 60 days after
enactment of this Act.
S&T shall report to the Committee, no later than February
1, 2008, on how the Directorate selects universities for a
Center of Excellence contract award, determines the type of
research in which each Center will specialize, and evaluates
the quality of work received from the Centers, including an
evaluation of the quality of the work received to date from
current Centers. As part of this report, S&T shall include an
analysis of the impact a time limit may have on the quality and
breadth of research conducted on behalf of the Directorate.
The Committee notes the importance of using behavioral and
social sciences to detect, analyze, and better understand and
prevent threats posed by terrorists and commends the Department
for elevating the status of behavioral science with the
establishment of a new Human Factors Division. To support this
initiative, the Committee urges continued support for the
University Program's scholars and fellows program, which is
critical to the development of the next generation of homeland
security scientists.
The Committee has not yet approved S&T's proposal to limit
the scholars and fellows program to these Centers of
Excellence. Prior to proceeding with this program change, the
Committee directs S&T to contract with an independent
educational organization with higher-education expertise to
review the goals, objectives, size and suggested implementation
of the scholars and fellows program. This review should be
completed and submitted to the Committee within nine months.
MULTI-FUNCTION PHASED ARRAY RADARS
During the next decade, many of the surveillance radars
used by a number of Federal agencies around the country will
near the end of their design life. The Committee urges the
Department to continue its involvement in the Office of Federal
Coordinator for Meteorology (OFCM) Working Group for
Multifunctional Phased Array Radar (MPAR), which is focused on
developing multi-function phased array radars to replace the
current generation of surveillance radar. The Department should
evaluate the mission requirements where MPAR has potential
departmental applications, such as providing information on
severe weather, non-cooperative aircraft, and potential
terrorist incidents involving chemical, biological,
radiological, or nuclear materials. The Department's continued
participation in the OFCM effort should attempt to ensure that
the appropriate applications are incorporated into the MPAR
design.
DOMESTIC NUCLEAR DETECTION OFFICE
Management and Administration
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $30,468,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008..................... 34,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 31,176,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +708,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008................. -2,824,000
MISSION
The Management and Administration appropriation provides
for the salaries and expenses of Domestic Nuclear Detection
Office (DNDO) employees. This is a jointly-staffed office that
consists of both Federal employees and interagency detailees.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $31,176,000 for Management and
Administration, $2,824,000 below the amount requested and
$708,000 above amount provided for fiscal year 2007. This
recommendation fully funds the pay and cost of living
adjustments requested in the budget, but does not provide
funding for any new staff.
FULL-TIME POSITIONS
The Committee has not funded the budget request for 18
additional full-time positions for fiscal year 2008. DNDO has
been unable to identify adequately specific positions needed in
the Chief of Staff's office or new engineering positions to be
filled. The Committee expects any budget justification that
requests new staff to include detailed data and explanatory
statements for each new position requested, including specific
titles, salary ranges, brief job descriptions, and potential
start dates. Without such documentation, the Committee cannot
support funding 18 new staff.
In addition, DNDO is 20 percent below its fiscal year 2007
authorized staffing level. While a hiring plan has been
developed, it is premature for the Committee to approve new
positions until DNDO can fill its current vacancies.
Research, Development, and Operations
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $272,500,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008..................... 319,900,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 316,900,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +44,400,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008................. -3,000,000
MISSION
The Research, Development and Operations appropriation
consolidates all DHS nuclear detection research, development,
test, evaluation and operational support into this single
appropriation. DNDO has developed a global nuclear detection
architecture that the Federal government will use to detect and
report attempts to import or transport a nuclear device or
fissile or radiological material intended for illicit use. DNDO
is continuing to improve the domestic portion of this
architecture through an integrated research, development, test,
and evaluation program, while providing support to current
operations.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $316,900,000 for Research,
Development, and Operations, $3,000,000 below the amount
requested and $44,400,000 above amount provided for fiscal year
2007. A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Systems Engineering and $25,100,000 $25,100,000
Architecture.....................
Systems Development............... 108,100,000 108,100,000
Transformational Research and 100,000,000 100,000,000
Development......................
Assessments....................... 32,000,000 32,000,000
Operational Support............... 37,800,000 34,800,000
National Technical Nuclear 16,900,000 16,900,000
Forensics Center.................
-------------------------------------
Total......................... $319,900,000 $316,900,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEXT THREATS
Since its formation in 2006, DNDO has been acquiring and
developing radiation portal monitors for use at ports of entry
by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Officers to scan cargo
and baggage entering the United States to interdict radioactive
and nuclear materials. In Committee hearings this year,
homeland security experts testified that they believe
terrorists will attack our key cities with some form of a dirty
or nuclear bomb because weapons of mass destruction are
becoming easier to acquire, build, hide, and transport. To
address this concern, DNDO plans to deploy radiation detection
technologies at all of our seaports and all of the land ports
of entry along our northern and southern borders by 2013 to
screen 100 percent of all cargo entering the United States.
Even with 100-percent screening at all seaports and the
ports of entry, vulnerabilities still exist. Malcontents
illicitly transporting a nuclear device or radioactive material
will most likely not enter the U.S. through traditional ports
of entry. As a result, DNDO is assessing radiation detection
technologies that could be used in rail yards, at non-port of
entry land border crossings, at general aviation airports, and
with small maritime craft. The Committee fully funds this
effort in 2008. The Committee directs DNDO to provide quarterly
briefings, beginning in January 2008, on its assessments of
these new technologies and its progress in deploying
technologies to other vulnerable sites. These briefings should
include information about the architecture necessary to deploy
detection equipment at nontraditional ports of entry or
seaports; the types of technologies being assessed; the
strengths and weaknesses of these technologies; and the
development timetable.
Beyond detecting dangerous materials at our ports of entry
and at our seaports, the Committee believes other means to
better protect the nation by ``pushing the borders out,''
should be a priority. This includes securing loose-nukes and
similar material overseas before they reach our borders and
shores. The Committee heard from numerous witnesses this year
expressing concern that if a weapon-bearing or contaminated
container or conveyance were to reach our border, the
contaminant would already be close enough to wreak the havoc
that our enemies desire. DNDO is working with CBP to find ways
to screen shipments and vessels coming to the United States for
radiation at the foreign ports from which they depart. The
Committee directs DNDO to report on the results of these
efforts in conjunction with the quarterly threat assessment
briefings, beginning with the next scheduled briefing.
RED TEAMING
DNDO funds red teaming actions within the assessments
budget. The goals of DNDO's red teaming activities are: (1) to
identify vulnerabilities in deployed technology, current
training levels and operational procedures to mitigate these
weaknesses; and (2) to identify sensitive but unclassified
information that exists in open sources that could be used to
defeat our nation's defenses. DNDO has been working with a
number of operational agencies within DHS, including CBP and
TSA, to test and assess weaknesses in the field. The Committee
directs DNDO to be more proactive in fiscal year 2008 with red
teaming exercises. To do so, the Committee fully funds the new
budget request of $9,800,000 for these activities and directs
DNDO to report quarterly on red team exercises it has
conducted, any vulnerabilities identified, and any changes that
are being made to the system to address these vulnerabilities.
The first report shall be submitted on January 1, 2008.
JOINT ANALYSIS CENTER
The Committee recommends $6,200,000 for the Joint Analysis
Center, $3,000,000 below the amount requested and $3,800,000
above the amount provided in fiscal year 2007. Within this
allocation, the Committee has fully funded $3,700,000 for the
scientists, senior computer specialists, and intelligence
analysts of the Joint Analysis Center. In addition, the
Committee has provided $2,500,000 for the development and
installation of information systems at this Center. Funding was
reduced due to an insufficient budget justification for this
Center, particularly in the information systems area.
SAFE CONTAINER PROJECT
The Science and Technology Directorate is researching the
development of an integrated sensor that, during normal crane
operations, can scan cargo containers for explosives,
contraband, human cargo, chemical agents, biological agents,
and weapons of mass destruction. DNDO should work closely with
S&T on this safe container project if the crane mounted
screening technology attempts to detect radioactive isotopes.
The Committee notes that there may be some possible leveraging
potential or economies of scale that could be derived through a
joint research effort.
Systems Acquisition
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $178,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008..................... 208,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 168,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... -10,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2008................. -40,000,000
MISSION
The Systems Acquisition appropriation provides for the
acquisition and deployment of radiation detection technologies
to the Nation's ports of entry and along our borders, as well
as to protect urban areas. To do so, DNDO will acquire a full
range of radiation detection technologies, including fixed,
mobile, and relocatable radiation portal monitors and backpack
and handheld detection systems.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $168,000,000 for Systems
Acquisition, $40,000,000 below the amount requested and
$10,000,000 below amount provided for fiscal year 2007. A
comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee recommended
level by budget activity is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radiation Portal Monitor program.. $171,500,000 $151,500,000
Securing the Cities Initiative.... 30,000,000 10,000,000
Human Portal Radiation Detection 6,500,000 6,500,000
Systems program..................
-------------------------------------
Total....................... $208,000,000 $168,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RADIATION PORTAL MONITOR PROGRAM
The Committee recommends $151,500,000 for the radiation
portal monitor program, $20,000,000 below the amount requested.
Funding has been reduced because DNDO has revised the number of
systems it plans to acquire in fiscal year 2008 downward from
149 systems in the submitted budget justification to 127
systems. The amount provided is sufficient to acquire this
number of systems based on the most recent acquisition and
installation cost data provided by DNDO.
The Committee directs that no funding shall be used to
procure advanced spectroscopic portal (ASP) systems until the
Secretary of DHS certifies that these systems are more
effective than the traditional radiation portal monitors. At
this time, DNDO does not anticipate Secretarial certification,
which is dependent upon the results of tests recently completed
at the Nevada Test Center and at the Port of New York, until at
least July 2007. If the Secretary is unable to certify that ASP
systems are more effective than current systems, DNDO should
use both its fiscal year 2007 and 2008 funding to acquire
traditional radiation portal monitors.
NORTHERN BORDER
DNDO plans to screen 100 percent of all containerized cargo
entering U.S. seaports for radiation by 2013. DNDO currently
estimates it will screen 98 percent of all containerized cargo
by the end of 2007. While this figure is an average, the
percentage of cargo screened at the Northern Border is
anticipated to be substantially lower than 98 percent and,
correspondingly, lower than comparable screening levels at the
Southwest Border. The Committee urges DNDO, in conjunction with
CBP, to deploy systems along the Northern Border to close these
gaps, particularly between ports of entry.
SECURING THE CITIES
The Committee recommends $10,000,000 to acquire systems for
the Securing the Cities Initiative, $20,000,000 below the
amount requested. This initiative is a pilot project that
assumes all levels of deterrence and detection have failed and
a radioactive device is heading to the heart of New York City.
To detect this device before it can be used, DNDO will set up
an elaborate network of radiation detection devices, both
stationary and mobile, at bridges, tunnels, roadways, and
waterways leading into New York City, creating a 50-mile ring
around the city. At this time, DNDO has not reached agreement
with New York and New Jersey officials on the architecture of
this initiative or developed a deployment plan acceptable to
all parties. DNDO does not expect to reach the necessary
agreements until at least the summer of 2007. While it is
premature to appropriate $30,000,000 to acquire systems until
agreements have been reached, the Committee is providing
$10,000,000 to be used as a down payment for system
acquisition. This funding, coupled with $9,700,000 in DNDO's
Research, Development, and Operations account, will provide a
total of $19,700,000 for the Securing the Cities Initiative in
2008.
HUMAN PORTAL RADIATION DETECTION SYSTEMS
The Committee fully funds the $6,500,000 requested to
acquire human portal radiation detection systems. This funding
level will permit DNDO to acquire 167 portal radiation
detection units (handheld and backpacks) to be used by CBP
officers and 25 next-generation systems to be used by the Coast
Guard.
COMPREHENSIVE INVENTORY ON RESULTS OF RADIATION PORTAL MONITOR TESTING
The GAO recently reported on DNDO's efforts to combat
nuclear smuggling (GAO-07-347R). In this report, GAO notes that
DNDO has conducted tests on radiation detection equipment,
including current portal monitors made of polyvinyl toluene
(PVT) and the next generation portal monitors known as advanced
spectroscopic portals, and that several U.S. national
laboratories have performed testing on numerous commercial
models of PVTs. The report also notes, however, that DNDO does
not collect test results from national laboratories on portal
monitors, and that ``such information, if collected and used,
could improve DNDO's understanding of how well portal monitors
detect different radiological and nuclear materials under
varying conditions. In turn, this understanding would assist
DNDO's future testing, development, deployment and purchases of
portal monitors.'' GAO recommends that DNDO (1) collect and
maintain reports concerning all of the testing performed by the
U.S. national laboratories; and (2) review the test reports in
order to develop an information database on how PVTs perform in
both laboratory and field tests on a variety of indicators,
such as their ability to detect specific radiological and
nuclear materials or how they are affected by different levels
of background environmental radiation. The Committee concurs
with GAO's recommendations and directs DNDO to report on its
plan to collect and maintain an information database in a
timely fashion. This report should be provided to the House
Appropriations Committee no later than November 1, 2007.
TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS ACT
Section 501. The Committee continues a provision providing
that no part of any appropriation shall remain available for
obligation beyond the current year unless expressly provided.
Section 502. The Committee continues a provision providing
that unexpended balances of prior appropriations may be merged
with new appropriation accounts and used for the same purpose,
subject to reprogramming guidelines.
Section 503. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision providing reprogramming authority for funds within an
account and not to exceed 5 percent transfer authority between
appropriations accounts with the requirement for a 15-day
advance Congressional notification. A detailed funding table
identifying each Congressional control level for reprogramming
purposes is included at the end of this Report. These
reprogramming guidelines shall be complied with by all agencies
funded by the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations
Act, 2008.
Section 504. The Committee continues a provision that
prohibits funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the
Department to make payment to the Department's Working Capital
Fund, except for activities and amounts allowed in the
President's fiscal year 2008 budget, excluding sedan service,
shuttle service, transit subsidy, mail operations, parking, and
competitive sourcing.
Section 505. The Committee continues a provision providing
that not to exceed 50 percent of unobligated balances remaining
at the end of fiscal year 2008 from appropriations made for
salaries and expenses shall remain available through fiscal
year 2009 subject to reprogramming guidelines.
Section 506. The Committee continues a provision providing
that funds for intelligence activities are deemed to be
specifically authorized during fiscal year 2008 until the
enactment of an Act authorizing intelligence activities for
fiscal year 2008.
Section 507. 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 508. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision requiring notification of the Committees on
Appropriations three days before grant allocations,
discretionary grant awards, discretionary contract awards, or a
letter of intent totaling $1,000,000 or more is announced by
the Department. The Department is required to brief the
Committees on Appropriations five full business days prior to
announcing the intention to make a formula based State Homeland
Security Program Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program;
or High-Threat, High-Density Urban Areas grant award.
Notification shall include a description of the project or
projects to be funded, including city, county and state.
Section 509. 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 510. 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 511. The Committee continues a provision providing
that none of the funds may be used for any construction,
repair, alteration, and acquisition project for which a
prospectus, if required under chapter 33 of title 40, United
States Code, has not been approved.
Section 512. The Committee continues a provision that none
of the funds may be used in contravention of the Buy American
Act.
Section 513. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision regarding Secure Flight.
Section 514. The Committee continues a provision mandating
that no funds can be used to contract out the services provided
by United States Citizenship and Immigration immigration
information officers, contract representatives, or
investigative assistants.
Section 515. The Committee continues a provision
prohibiting the use of funds in this or previous appropriations
Acts for the protection of the head of a Federal agency other
than the Secretary of Homeland Security unless the Secret
Service is fully reimbursed.
Section 516. The Committee includes a provision that
modifies Section 513 of Public Law 108-334 by requiring the
Secretary to modify air cargo Security Directives in effect as
of the date of enactment of this Act.
Section 517. The Committee continues a provision requiring
the Transportation Security Administration to utilize existing
checked baggage explosive detection equipment and screeners to
screen cargo carried on passenger aircraft to the greatest
extent practicable at each airport. The Committee also requires
quarterly submission of air cargo inspection statistics.
Section 518. The Committee continues a provision that
directs that only the privacy officer, appointed pursuant to
section 222 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, may alter,
direct that changes be made to, delay or prohibit the
transmission of a privacy officer report to Congress.
Section 519. The Committee continues a provision
prohibiting the use of funds made available in this or any
other Act to pay the salary of any employee serving as a
contracting officer's technical representative (COTR) who has
not received COTR training.
Section 520. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision that directs that any funds appropriated or
transferred to TSA ``Aviation Security'', ``Administration'',
and ``Transportation Security Support'' in fiscal years 2004,
2005, 2006, and 2007, which are recovered or deobligated, shall
be available only for procurement or installation of explosive
detection systems, for air cargo, baggage and checkpoint
screening systems, subject to section 503 of this Act.
Section 521. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision regarding Sensitive Security Information.
Section 522. The Committee continues a provision extending
the authorization of the Working Capital Fund.
Section 523. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision regarding weekly reporting requirements for the
Disaster Relief Fund, as required by Public Law 109-62.
Section 524. The Committee continues a provision requiring
the Chief Financial Officer to submit monthly budget execution
and staffing reports within 45 days after the close of each
month.
Section 525. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision relating to undercover investigative operations
authority of the Secret Service for fiscal year 2008.
Section 526. The Committee continues a provision
prohibiting the use of funds to contravene the federal
buildings performance and reporting requirements of Executive
Order 13123, part 3 of title V of the National Energy
Conservation Policy Act or subtitle A of title I of the Energy
Policy Act of 2005.
Section 527. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision classifying the functions of the instructor staff at
the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center as inherently
governmental for purposes of the of the Federal Activities
Inventory Reform Act.
Section 528. The Committee continues a provision
prohibiting the use of funds to contravene section 303 of the
Energy Policy Act of 1992.
Section 529. The Committee continues a provision
prohibiting the use of funds in contravention to Executive
Order 13149, relating to fleet and transportation efficiency.
Section 530. The Committee includes a new provision on
Coast Guard contracting and the Integrated Deepwater Systems
program.
Section 531. The Committee includes a new provision
prohibiting the use of funds provided in this or any previous
appropriations Act to be obligated for the development,
testing, deployment or operation of any system related to the
MAX-HR project, or any subsequent but related human resources
management project, until all pending litigation has been fully
resolved.
Section 532. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision on chemical site security.
Section 533. The Committee includes a new provision that
allows CBP to offer Customs and Border Patrol Officers the
ability to be classified as a law enforcement officers.
Section 534. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision on butane lighters.
Section 535. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision prohibiting the Secretary of Homeland Security from
altering or reducing the Coast Guard's civil engineering
program until Congress receives and approves any planned
changes.
Section 536. The Committee includes a new provision
prohibiting funds for grants or contracts that do not comply
with subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 40.
Section 537. The Committee includes a new provision that
limits obligation of funds for contracts and grants unless they
are competitively awarded or the distribution mechanism is
provided by statute. An exemption is provided during a national
emergency. For grants made based on risk, the Committee expects
DHS to limit the competition based on risk determinations. The
Committee directs the Secretary to set a goal of three percent
of all contracts to be awarded to small business entities. As
the Department transitions its grant and contract funding to
ensure that all awards are competitive, it should ensure that
there is no interruption in critical first responder training
programs.
Section 538. The Committee includes a new provision that
precludes the Department from using funds in this Act to carry
out reorganization authority.
Section 539. The Committee includes a new provision that
repeals the prohibition on judicial review of the Aviation
Security and Infrastructure Fee contained in the Aviation and
Transportation Security Act.
Section 540. The Committee includes a new provision that
rescinds $55,273,000 from unobligated balances transferred to
the Department when it was formed in 2003. The Secretary is
directed to advise the Committees on Appropriations on the
distribution of the rescission prior to its implementation.
Section 541. The Committee includes a new provision
prohibiting the use of funds for any position designated as a
Principal Federal Official during any declared disasters or
emergencies.
Section 542. The Committee includes a new provision on the
failure to collect airport security badges.
Section 543. The Committee includes a new provision
limiting appropriated funding for immigration benefit
processing.
APPROPRIATIONS CAN BE USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH MADE
Title 31 of the United States Code makes clear that
appropriations can be used only for the purposes for which they
were appropriated as follows:
Section 1301. Application.
(a) Appropriations shall be applied only to the objects for
which the appropriations were made except as otherwise provided
by law.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORT REQUIREMENTS
The following items are included in accordance with various
requirements of the Rules of the House of Representatives.
TRANSFER OF FUNDS
Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2), rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the following is submitted describing
the transfer of funds provided in the accompanying bill.
The table shows, by title, department and agency, the
appropriations affected by such transfers:
APPROPRIATION TRANSFERS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Account from which transfer is
Account to which transfer is to be made Amount to be made Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Flood Mitigation Fund................ 34,000,000 National Flood Insurance Fund... 34,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESCISSIONS OF FUNDS
Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the following table is submitted
describing the rescissions recommended in the accompanying
bill:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Account/Activity Rescissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acquisition, Construction and Improvements
Offshore Patrol Cutter........................... $68,841,000
Vertical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle................. 38,608,000
Unobligated balances transferred to DHS in 2003...... 55,273,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
COMPARISON WITH BUDGET RESOLUTION
Section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget Act
requires the report accompanying a bill providing new budget
authority to contain a statement comparing the levels in the
bill to the suballocations submitted under section 302(b) of
the Act for the most recently agreed to concurrent resolution
on the budget for the applicable fiscal year. That information
is provided in the following table.
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
302(b) Allocation This bill
Comparison with allocation ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget authority Outlays Budget authority Outlays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General purpose discretionary....... $36,254 $38,247 $36,254 \1\ $38,246
Mandatory........................... 1,072 1,066 1,072 1,066
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................... 37,326 39,313 37,326 39,312
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes outlays from prior year budget authority.
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:
2008.............................................. $22,090
2009.............................................. 7,616
2010.............................................. 4,914
2011.............................................. 1,706
2012 and future years............................. 753
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 2008 new budget authority.......................... $4,905
FY 2008 outlays resulting therefrom................... 444
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY
Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives states that:
Each report of a committee on a bill or joint
resolution of a public character, shall include a
statement citing the specific powers granted to the
Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed
by the bill or joint resolution.
The Committee on Appropriations bases its authority to
report this legislation from Clause 7 of Section 9 of Article I
of the Constitution of the United States of America that
states:
No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in
consequence of Appropriations made by law . . .
Appropriations contained in this Act are made pursuant to
this specific power granted by the Constitution.
STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of Rule XIII off the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the following is a statement of
general performance goals and objectives for which this measure
authorizes funding:
The Committee on Appropriations considers program
performance, including a program's success in developing and
attaining outcome-related goals and objectives, in developing
funding recommendations.
EARMARKS
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, this bill, as reported, contains no
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff
benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of rule XXI.
Compliance With Rule XIII, Cl. 3(e) (Ramseyer Rule)
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
SECTION 1202 OF THE 2002 SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR FURTHER
RECOVERY FROM AND RESPONSE TO TERRORIST ATTACKS ON THE UNITED STATES
(Public Law 107-206)
Sec. 1202. (a) The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
may, for a period ending not later than December 31, [2007]
2008, appoint and maintain a cadre of up to 350 Federal
annuitants: (1) without regard to any provision of title 5,
United States Code, which might otherwise require the
application of competitive hiring procedures; and (2) who shall
not be subject to any reduction in pay (for annuity allocable
to the period of actual employment) under the provisions of
section 8344 or 8468 of such title 5 or similar provision of
any other retirement system for employees. A reemployed Federal
annuitant as to whom a waiver of reduction under paragraph (2)
applies shall not, for any period during which such waiver is
in effect, be considered an employee for purposes of subchapter
III of chapter 83 or chapter 84 of title 5, United States Code,
or such other retirement system (referred to in paragraph (2))
as may apply.
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 513 OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2005
Sec. 513. The Secretary of Homeland Security is directed to
research, develop, and procure certified systems to inspect and
screen air cargo on passenger aircraft at the earliest date
possible: Provided, That until such technology is procured and
installed, the Secretary shall take all possible actions to
enhance the known shipper program to prohibit high-risk cargo
from being transported on passenger aircraft: Provided further,
That the Secretary shall amend Security Directives and programs
in effect on the date of enactment of this Act to, at a
minimum, [triple] double the percentage of cargo inspected on
passenger aircraft.
----------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007
(Public Law 109-295)
* * * * * * *
TITLE V
GENERAL PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 525. (a) Within 30 days after enactment of this Act,
the Secretary of Homeland Security shall revise Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) Management Directive (MD) 11056 to
provide for the following:
(1) * * *
(2) That sensitive security information that is three
years old and not incorporated in a current
transportation security directive, security plan,
contingency plan, or information circular; or does not
contain current information in one of the following SSI
categories: equipment or personnel performance
specifications, vulnerability assessments, security
inspection or investigative information, threat
information, security measures, security screening
information, security training materials, identifying
information of designated transportation security
personnel, critical aviation or maritime infrastructure
asset information, systems security information,
confidential business information, or research and
development information shall be subject to release
upon request unless:
(A) the Secretary or his designee makes a
written determination that identifies a
rational reason why the information identifies
and describes the specific risk to the national
transportation system and therefore must remain
SSI; or
* * * * * * *
(d) That in civil proceedings in the United States District
Courts, where a party seeking access to SSI demonstrates that
the party has substantial need of relevant SSI in the
preparation of the party's case and that the party is unable
without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of
the information by other means, the party or party's counsel
shall be designated as a covered person under 49 CFR Part
1520.7 in order to have access to the SSI at issue in the case,
provided that the overseeing judge enters an order that
protects the SSI from unauthorized or unnecessary disclosure
and specifies the terms and conditions of access, unless upon
completion of a criminal history check and terrorist assessment
[like that] identical to those done for aviation workers on the
persons seeking access to SSI, or based on the sensitivity of
the information, the Transportation Security Administration or
DHS demonstrates that such access to the information for the
proceeding presents a risk of harm to the nation: Provided,
That notwithstanding any other provision of law, an order
granting access to SSI under this section shall be immediately
appealable to the United States Courts of Appeals, which shall
have plenary review over both the evidentiary finding and the
sufficiency of the order specifying the terms and conditions of
access to the SSI in question: Provided further, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary may
assess a civil penalty of up to $50,000 for each violation of
49 CFR Part 1520 by persons provided access to SSI under this
provision.
(e) For the purposes of this section, the term ``party's
counsel'' includes any employee who assists counsel in legal
proceedings and who is so designated by counsel and approved by
the judge overseeing the legal proceedings.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 532. (a) United States Secret Service Use of Proceeds
Derived From Criminal Investigations.--During fiscal year
[2007] 2008, with respect to any undercover investigative
operation of the United States Secret Service (hereafter
referred to in this section as the ``Secret Service'') that is
necessary for the detection and prosecution of crimes against
the United States--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
Sec. 550. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law and
subsection (b), information developed under this section,
including vulnerability assessments, site security plans, and
other security related information, records, and documents
shall be given protections from public disclosure [consistent
with similar] identical to the protections given information
developed by chemical facilities subject to regulation under
section 70103 of title 46, United States Code: Provided, That
this subsection does not prohibit the sharing of such
information, as the Secretary deems appropriate, with State and
local government officials possessing the necessary security
clearances, including law enforcement officials and first
responders, for the purpose of carrying out this section,
provided that such information may not be disclosed pursuant to
any State or local law: Provided further, That in any
proceeding to enforce this section, vulnerability assessments[,
site security plans, and other information submitted to or
obtained by the Secretary under this section, and related
vulnerability or security information, shall be treated as if
the information were classified material] and site security
plans shall be treated as sensitive security information (as
that term is used in section 1520.5 of title 49, Code of
Federal Regulations, or any subsequent regulations relating to
the same matter).
* * * * * * *
(h) This section shall not preclude or deny any right of
any State or political subdivision thereof to adopt or enforce
any regulation, requirement, or standard of performance with
respect to chemical facility security that is more stringent
than a regulation, requirement, or standard of performance
issued under this section, or otherwise impair any right or
jurisdiction of any State with respect to chemical facilities
within that State.
* * * * * * *
----------
TITLE 49, UNITED STATES CODE
* * * * * * *
SUBTITLE VII--AVIATION PROGRAMS
* * * * * * *
PART A--AIR COMMERCE AND SAFETY
* * * * * * *
SUBPART III--SAFETY
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 449--SECURITY
* * * * * * *
Sec. 44940. Security service fees
(a) General Authority.--
(1) * * *
(2) Air carrier fees.--
(A) Authority.--In addition to the fee
imposed pursuant to paragraph (1), and only to
the extent that the Under Secretary estimates
that such fee will be insufficient to pay for
the costs of providing civil aviation security
services described in paragraph (1), the Under
Secretary may impose a fee on air carriers and
foreign air carriers engaged in air
transportation and intrastate air
transportation to pay for the difference
between any such costs and the amount collected
from such fee, as estimated by the Under
Secretary at the beginning of each fiscal year.
[The estimates of the Under Secretary under
this subparagraph are not subject to judicial
review.]
(B) Limitations.--
(i) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(iv) Finality of determinations.--
Determinations of the Under Secretary
under this subparagraph are not subject
to judicial review.]
* * * * * * *
SUBPART IV--ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTIES
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 463--PENALTIES
* * * * * * *
Sec. 46301. Civil penalties
(a) General Penalty.--(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(6) Failure to collect airport security badges.--
Notwithstanding paragraph (1), any employer (other than
a governmental entity or airport operator) who employs
an employee to whom an airport security badge or other
identifier used to obtain access to a secure area of an
airport is issued before, on, or after the date of
enactment of this paragraph and who does not collect or
make reasonable efforts to collect such badge from the
employee on the date that the employment of the
employee is terminated and does not notify the operator
of the airport of such termination within 24 hours of
the date of such termination shall be liable to the
Government for a civil penalty not to exceed $10,000.
* * * * * * *
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, funding of agencies
and activities where legislation has not yet been finalized. In
addition, the bill carries language, in some instances,
permitting activities not authorized by law. Additionally, the
Committee includes a number of general provisions.
TITLE I--DEPARTMENT MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS
Office of the Secretary and Executive Management
The Committee includes language providing funds for
reception and representation expenses.
Office of the Under Secretary for Management
The Committee includes language providing funds for
reception and representation expenses and for costs necessary
to consolidate headquarters operations, including tenant
improvements and relocation costs. The Committee also restricts
funds available for obligation until certain reporting
requirements are satisfied.
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
The Committee includes language providing funds for the
Chief Financial Officer.
Office of the Chief Information Officer
The Committee includes language providing funds for the
Chief Information Officer 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 restricts
funds available for obligation until certain reporting
requirements or conditions are met.
Analysis and Operations
The Committee includes language providing funds for
information analysis and operations coordination activities,
including funding for official representation expenses.
Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding
The Committee includes language providing funds for the
Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding.
The Committee includes a provision requiring the submission of
an expenditure plan prior to the obligation of $1,000,000.
Inspector General
The Committee includes language providing funds for certain
confidential operational expenses, including the payment of
informants.
TITLE II--SECURITY, ENFORCEMENT, AND INVESTIGATIONS
Customs and Border Protection
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
The Committee includes language making funds available for
border security, immigration, customs, and agricultural
inspections and regulatory activities; purchase or lease of
vehicles; contracting with individuals for personal services;
Harbor Maintenance Fee collections; official reception and
representation expenses; Customs User Fee collections; and
payment of rental space in connection with pre-clearance
operations; compensation of informants. The Committee includes
provisions regarding average overtime limitations, and a
restriction on the obligation of funds until the results of a
pilot program used to develop and implement a plan on the
Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative is submitted.
AUTOMATION MODERNIZATION
The Committee includes language making funds available
until expended for automated systems and includes language
requiring the submission of a report and program plan prior to
the obligation of funds.
BORDER SECURITY FENCING, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND TECHNOLOGY
The Committee includes language making funds available
until expended for Customs and Border Protection fencing,
infrastructure, and technology and includes language requiring
the submission of an expenditure plan prior to the obligation
of funds. In addition, the Committee prohibits funding for
fencing or tactical infrastructure on lands administered by the
National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
Forest Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Bureau of
Land Management unless the Department coordinates such
decisions and makes every effort to minimize impact on wildlife
and natural resources. The Committee prohibits funding for
fencing or tactical infrastructure unless the Department
formally consults with affected State and local communities to
solicit their advice and support for such projects.
Finally, the Committee prohibits funding for any project or
activity for which the Secretary has exercised authority to
waive environmental and other law until 15 days after public
notice is given.
AIR AND MARINE INTERDICTION, OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE, AND PROCUREMENT
The Committee includes language making funds available for
the operation, maintenance and procurement of marine vessels,
aircraft, unmanned aerial systems (UAS), 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 U.S. Customs and Border
Protection unless certain conditions are met. The Committee
prohibits obligation of funds for the procurement of additional
UAS until the Commissioner certifies that they are of higher
priority and more cost effective than other items in the Air
and Marine Strategic Recapitalization and Modernization plan.
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; and reimbursement of
other Federal agencies for certain costs. The Committee
includes language regarding overtime compensation and forced
child labor laws. The Committee also includes language that
requires the Secretary to contact every U.S. correctional
institution monthly to identify incarcerated aliens who are
judged removable and ensure their removal upon release from
custody.
FEDERAL PROTECTIVE SERVICE
The Committee includes language making funds available
until expended for the operations of the Federal Protective
Service. The Committee prohibits funds provided in this Act,
previous appropriations Act or any revenue or collections of
security fees credited to the Federal Protective Service to be
used to reduce the number of in-service Federal Protective
Service police officers unless certain conditions are met.
AUTOMATION MODERNIZATION
The Committee includes language making funds available
until expended for automated systems, and 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. The
Committee includes language on restricting privatization of
government owned detention 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 also includes language providing funds
for reception and representation expenses.
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION SECURITY
The Committee includes language providing funds for surface
transportation security programs of the Transportation Security
Administration.
TRANSPORTATION THREAT ASSESSMENT AND CREDENTIALING
The Committee includes language on the development and
implementation of screening programs. The Committee requires
the Assistant Secretary to notify the Committee that there are
no security risks if the Secure Flight program does not check
airline passenger names against the full terrorist watch list.
TRANSPORTATION SECURITY SUPPORT
The Committee includes language providing funds for
transportation security support and intelligence programs of
the Transportation Security Administration. The Committee
includes language requiring the submission of a detailed spend
plan for checkpoint support systems and explosive detection
systems refurbishment, procurement and installation. The
Committee includes language on the acquisition management
system.
FEDERAL AIR MARSHALS
The Committee includes language providing funds for the
Federal Air Marshals.
United States Coast Guard
OPERATING EXPENSES
The Committee includes a provision regarding passenger
motor vehicles and the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, and
prohibits the use of funds for yacht documentation except under
certain circumstances and for administrative expenses in
connection with shipping commissioners in the United States.
The Committee also includes language on reception and
representation expenses.
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE AND RESTORATION
The Committee includes language providing funds for
environmental compliance and restoration of the Coast Guard.
RESERVE TRAINING
The Committee includes language providing funds for the
Coast Guard reserve, including maintenance and operation of the
reserve program, personnel and training costs, equipment and
services.
ACQUISITIONS, CONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENTS
The Committee includes language providing for funds for the
Coast Guard acquisition, construction, renovation, and
improvement of aids to navigation, shore facilities, vessels,
and aircraft as well as for maintenance, rehabilitation, lease
and operations of facilities and equipment. The Committee
authorizes the disposal of surplus real property. The Committee
prohibits funding for the Integrated Deepwater Systems program
until an expenditure plan is provided to the Committee that
meets certain conditions. The Committee includes a provision
requiring a capital investment plan for future appropriations
years with certain conditions. The Committee includes language
requiring that the Commandant of the Coast Guard submit
revisions to the acquisition schedule of the Deepwater program
with the fiscal year 2009 budget request, as well as other
Deepwater related reporting requirements.
ALTERATION OF BRIDGES
The Committee provides funds for bridge alteration
projects.
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
The Committee includes language providing funds for applied
scientific research, development, test, and evaluation; and for
maintenance, rehabilitation, lease and operation of facilities
and equipment. The Committee includes language allowing funds
to remain available until expended; authorizing funds to be
derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund; and
authorizing funds received from State and local governments,
other public authorities, private sources, and foreign
countries to be credited to this account and used for certain
purposes.
RETIRED PAY
The Committee includes language providing funds for retired
pay and medical care for the Coast Guard's retired personnel
and their dependents and makes these funds available until
expended.
United States Secret Service
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
The Committee includes language that provides funds for the
purchase and replacement of vehicles; the hire of aircraft;
purchase of motorcycles; services of expert witnesses as may be
necessary; rental of certain buildings; improvements to
buildings as may be necessary for protective missions; per diem
and subsistence allowances; firearms matches; presentation of
awards; protective travel; research and development; grants for
behavioral research; official reception and representation
expenses; technical assistance and equipment to foreign law
enforcement organizations; advance payment for commercial
accommodations; and uniforms. The Committee provides for two
year availability of funds for protective travel. The Committee
authorizes the obligation of funds in anticipation of
reimbursements for training, under certain conditions. The
Committee also restricts the obligation of funds to compensate
employees for overtime in an annual amount in excess of $35,000
except under certain conditions and imposes new reprogramming
guidelines on the Secret Service.
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--PROTECTION, PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE AND RECOVERY
National Protection and Programs Directorate
MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION
The Committee includes language providing funds for the
Office of the Under Secretary for National Protection and
Programs and the National Planning Office as well as to support
business operations, information technology and risk
management. The Committee also includes language providing
funds for official reception and representation expenses.
INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION AND INFORMATION SECURITY
The Committee includes language making funds available
until September 30, 2009.
UNITED STATES VISITOR AND IMMIGRANT STATUS INDICATOR TECHNOLOGY
The Committee includes language making funds available
until expended for the US-VISIT program and includes language
requiring the submission of an expenditure plan prior to the
obligation of funds.
OFFICE OF HEALTH AFFAIRS
The Committee includes language making funds available for
the health affairs, biosurveillance, biowatch, and chemical
response. The Committee also includes language providing funds
for official reception and representation expenses.
Federal Emergency Management Agency
MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION
The Committee includes language that provides funds for
management and administration. The Committee also includes a
provision providing funds for reception and representation
expenses and a provision limiting administrative costs for
Urban Search and Rescue Teams.
STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS
The Committee includes language that provides funds for
grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, other activities,
including grants to State and local governments for terrorism
prevention. The Committee also includes a provision identifying
the amount of funds available for formula-based grants; law
enforcement terrorism prevention grants; high-threat, high-
density urban area grants; rail and transit security grants;
port security grants; trucking security grants; intercity bus
security grants; buffer zone protection grants; Commercial
Equipment Direct Assistance Program; Metropolitan Medical
Response System; Citizen Corp; interoperable communication
grants, REAL ID; training, exercises, technical assistance, and
other programs. The Committee includes language specifying the
conditions under which both applications and grants are made to
certain grants made in the Act. The Committee also includes
language specifying the conditions for distribution of certain
grants. The Committee also includes language that limits the
availability of funds for construction for certain grants; and
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.
FIREFIGHTER ASSISTANCE GRANTS
The Committee includes language providing that not to
exceed five percent of the total is available for program
administration.
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE GRANTS
The Committee includes language providing that not to
exceed three percent of the total appropriation is available
for administrative costs.
RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAM
The Committee includes a provision regarding charges
assessed for the radiological emergency preparedness program,
including conditions and methodology for the assessment and
collection of fees.
UNITED STATES FIRE ADMINISTRATION AND TRAINING
The Committee includes language that provides funds for
expenses of the U.S. Fire Administration.
DISASTER RELIEF
The Committee includes language making funds available
until expended.
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; provides for administrative
expenses of the direct loan program; and provides for the cost
of direct loans.
FLOOD MAP MODERNIZATION FUND
The Committee includes provisions regarding non-Federal
sums for cost-shared mapping activities and limiting total
administrative costs to three percent of the total
appropriation. The Committee also includes language making
funds available until expended.
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE FUND
The Committee includes language limiting funds available
for salaries and expenses; language making funds available for
flood hazard mitigation floodplain management available until
September 30, 2009; and language authorizing the transfer of
funds to the National Flood Mitigation Fund. The Committee
includes provisions limiting operating expenses; for interest
on Treasury borrowings; for agents' commissions and taxes; for
fees collected under section 1307 to be available for flood
mitigation activities; and for flood mitigation activities
associated with sections 1361A and 1323 of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968. The Committee includes language
permitting additional fees collected pursuant to section 1307
be credited as an offsetting collection and available for flood
mitigation activities. In addition, the Committee includes
language making funds for mitigation activities available until
expended. The Committee includes language providing that not to
exceed four percent of the total appropriation is available for
administrative costs.
NATIONAL 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, 2009.
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 three percent of the total
appropriation. The Committee also includes language making
funds available until expended.
EMERGENCY FOOD AND SHELTER
The Committee includes language making funds available
until expended and limiting total administrative costs to 3.5
percent of the total appropriation.
TITLE IV--RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, TRAINING, AND SERVICES
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
The Committee includes language making funds available for
citizenship and immigration services and limits the obligation
of funds until receipt and approval of a strategic
transformation plan.
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
The Committee includes language making funds available for
official representation expenses; purchase of police type
pursuit vehicles; student athletic and related recreational
activities; conducting and participating in firearms matches;
public awareness and community support; marketing; room and
board; services; services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; law
enforcement accreditation; reimbursements for certain mobile
phone expenses. The Committee includes language authorizing the
training of certain law enforcement personnel; authorizes the
use of appropriations and reimbursements for such training and
establishes a cap on total obligations. The Committee also
includes language authorizing funds for the compensation of
accreditation costs for participating agencies; and authorizing
the hiring of retired Federal employees until 2009.
ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENTS AND RELATED EXPENSES
The Committee includes language making funds available
until expended for real property and facilities and authorizes
reimbursement from government agencies requesting construction
of special use facilities.
Science and Technology
MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION
The Committee includes language providing funds for
reception and representation expenses.
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, ACQUISITION AND OPERATIONS
The Committee includes language making funds available
until expended and limits funds for a specific program until a
Privacy Impact Assessment is completed.
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION
The Committee includes language that provides funds for
management and administration. The Committee also includes a
provision providing funds for reception and representation
expenses.
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND OPERATIONS
The Committee includes language making funds for nuclear
detection research, development, testing and evaluation.
Language is included making funds available until expended.
SYSTEMS ACQUISITION
The Committee includes language providing funds for the
purchase and deployment of radiation detection equipment and
limits the full scale procurement of certain types of these
systems until the Secretary of Homeland Security certifies a
significant increase in operational effectiveness. Language is
included making funds available until September 2010.
TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 501. The Committee continues a provision providing
that no part of any appropriation shall remain available for
obligation beyond the current year unless expressly provided.
Section 502. The Committee continues a provision providing
that unexpended balances of prior appropriations may be merged
with new appropriation accounts and used for the same purpose,
subject to reprogramming guidelines.
Section 503. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision providing reprogramming authority for funds within an
account and not to exceed 5 percent transfer authority between
appropriations accounts with the requirement for a 15-day
advance Congressional notification. A detailed funding table
identifying each Congressional control level for reprogramming
purposes is included at the end of this Report. These
reprogramming guidelines shall be complied with by all agencies
funded by the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations
Act, 2008.
Section 504. The Committee continues a provision that
prohibits funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the
Department to make payment to the Department's Working Capital
Fund, except for activities and amounts allowed in the
President's fiscal year 2008 budget, excluding sedan service,
shuttle service, transit subsidy, mail operations, parking, and
competitive sourcing.
Section 505. The Committee continues a provision providing
that not to exceed 50 percent of unobligated balances remaining
at the end of fiscal year 2008 from appropriations made for
salaries and expenses shall remain available through fiscal
year 2009 subject to reprogramming guidelines.
Section 506. The Committee continues a provision providing
that funds for intelligence activities are deemed to be
specifically authorized during fiscal year 2008 until the
enactment of an Act authorizing intelligence activities for
fiscal year 2008.
Section 507. 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 508. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision requiring notification of the Committees on
Appropriations three days before grant allocations,
discretionary grant awards, discretionary contract awards, or a
letter of intent totaling $1,000,000 or more is announced by
the Department. The Department is required to brief the
Committees on Appropriations five full day business days prior
to announcing the intention to make a formula based State
Homeland Security Program Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention
Program; or High-Threat, High-Density Urban Areas grant award.
Notification shall include a description of the project or
projects to be funded, including city, county and state.
Section 509. 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 510. 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 511. 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 512. The Committee continues a provision that none
of the funds may be used in contravention of the Buy American
Act.
Section 513. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision regarding Secure Flight.
Section 514. The Committee continues a provision mandating
that no funds can be used to contract out the services provided
by United States Citizenship and Immigration immigration
information officers, contract representatives, or
investigative assistants.
Section 515. The Committee continues a provision
prohibiting the use of funds in this or previous appropriations
Acts for the protection of the head of a Federal agency other
than the Secretary of Homeland Security unless the Secret
Service is fully reimbursed.
Section 516. The Committee includes a provision that
modifies Section 513 of Public Law 108-334 by requiring the
Secretary to modify air cargo Security Directives in effect as
of the date of enactment of this Act.
Section 517. The Committee continues a provision requiring
the Transportation Security Administration to utilize existing
checked baggage explosive detection equipment and screeners to
screen cargo carried on passenger aircraft to the greatest
extent practicable at each airport. The Committee also requires
quarterly submission of air cargo inspection statistics.
Section 518. The Committee continues a provision that
directs that only the privacy officer, appointed pursuant to
section 222 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, may alter,
direct that changes be made to, delay or prohibit the
transmission of a privacy officer report to Congress.
Section 519. The Committee continues a provision
prohibiting the use of funds made available in this or any
other Act to pay the salary of any employee serving as a
contracting officer's technical representative (COTR) who has
not received COTR training.
Section 520. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision that directs that any funds appropriated or
transferred to TSA ``Aviation Security'', ``Administration'',
and ``Transportation Security Support'' in fiscal years 2004,
2005, 2006, and 2007, which are recovered or deobligated, shall
be available only for procurement or installation of explosive
detection systems, for air cargo, baggage and checkpoint
screening systems, subject to section 503 of this Act.
Section 521. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision on Sensitive Security Information.
Section 522. The Committee continues a provision extending
the authorization of the Working Capital Fund.
Section 523. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision regarding weekly reporting requirements for the
Disaster Relief Fund, as required by Public Law 109-62.
Section 524. The Committee continues a provision requiring
the Chief Financial Officer to submit monthly budget execution
and staffing reports within 45 days after the close of each
month.
Section 525. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision relating to undercover investigative operations
authority of the Secret Service for fiscal year 2008.
Section 526. The Committee continues a provision
prohibiting the use of funds to contravene the federal
buildings performance and reporting requirements of Executive
Order 13123, part 3 of title V of the National Energy
Conservation Policy Act or subtitle A of title I of the Energy
Policy Act of 2005.
Section 527. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision classifying the functions of the instructor staff at
the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center as inherently
governmental for purposes of the of the Federal Activities
Inventory Reform Act.
Section 528. The Committee continues a provision
prohibiting the use of funds to contravene section 303 of the
Energy Policy Act of 1992.
Section 529. The Committee continues a provision
prohibiting the use of funds in contravention to Executive
Order 13149, relating to fleet and transportation efficiency.
Section 530. The Committee includes a new provision on
Coast Guard contracting and the Integrated Deepwater Systems
program.
Section 531. The Committee includes a new provision
prohibiting the use of funds provided in this or any previous
appropriations Act to be obligated for the development,
testing, deployment or operation of any system related to the
MAX-HR project, or any subsequent but related human resources
management project until all pending litigation has been fully
resolved.
Section 532. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision on chemical site security.
Section 533. The Committee includes a new provision that
allows CBP to offer Customs and Border Patrol Officers the
ability to be classfified as law enforcement officers.
Section 534. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision on butane lighters.
Section 535. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision prohibiting the Secretary of Homeland Security from
altering or reducing the Coast Guard's civil engineering
program until Congress receives and approves any planned
changes.
Section 536. The Committee includes a new provision
prohibiting funds for grants or contracts that do not comply
with IV of chapter 31 of title 40.
Section 537. The Committee includes a new provision that
limits obligation of funds for contracts and grants unless they
are competitively awarded. An exemption is provided during a
national emergency. For grants made based on risk, the
committee expects DHS to limit the competition based on risk
determinations.
Section 538. The Committee includes a new provision that
precludes the Department from using funds in this Act to carry
out reorganization authority.
Section 539. The Committee includes a new provision that
permits judicial review of the aviation security and
infrastructure fee.
Section 540. The Committee includes a new provision that
rescinds $55,273,000 from unobligated balances transferred to
the Department when it was formed in 2003.
Section 541. The Committee includes a new provision
prohibiting the use of funds for any position designated as a
Principal Federal Official during any declared disasters or
emergencies.
Section 542. The Committee includes a new provision on the
failure to collect airport security badges.
Section 543. The Committee includes a new provision
limiting appropriated funding for immigration benefit
processing.
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. In addition, the following table includes
the 2007 supplemental appropriations.
Additional Views of Jerry Lewis and Harold Rogers
The bill continues the Subcommittee's bi-partisan tradition
of strong oversight and strict accountability, a theme that has
been held constant since the Subcommittee's inception in 2003.
If not held accountable, this young Department may fail at its
crucial mission to protect our nation.
While we appreciate the majority's willingness to listen to
our concerns and accommodate them as much as possible, there
are several provisions that need improving and cause us great
concern. We are hopeful these provisions can be addressed as
the bill moves through the legislative process, and look
forward to those continuing discussions.
Fiscal Responsibility
The 302(b) allocation for the Department of Homeland
Security is $36.25 billion--$2.1 billion above the President's
fiscal year 2008 request. The reported bill amounts to a 13.6%
increase above fiscal year 2007 in base discretionary
appropriations. The President's request would give DHS a 7.2
percent increase. We believe that is sufficient, even generous;
especially when the $1.05 billion in unrequested homeland
security funding that was included in the recently enacted
fiscal year 2007 supplemental is considered. We firmly believe
that no Federal agency is immune from fiscal discipline, even
the Department of Homeland Security. Therefore, in full
committee we offered an amendment to limit the DHS budget
increase to a more than responsible 7.2 percent. Unfortunately,
this amendment was defeated on a mostly party-line vote.
Unfunded Mandates
The term ``responsible'' is also used with respect to
ensuring DHS has sufficient resources to carry out legislative
direction. The bill includes a bold, but unfunded mandate for
ICE to contact every correctional facility across the country--
over 5,050 facilities--at least once per month to identify
incarcerated aliens and initiate deportation proceedings. Such
direction, while perhaps a laudable goal, is both difficult to
implement and unfunded. Despite the requirement for ICE to
report on the resources needed to carry out this unfunded
mandate, we are concerned the bill presupposes ICE can simply
re-direct resources from vital criminal investigations and
fugitive operations to meet this requirement. To suggest that
ICE should focus its resources almost exclusively on
incarcerated illegal aliens, at the expense of the apprehension
of fugitive aliens--which includes sex offenders and other, at
large criminals--is extremely short sighted and perhaps even
dangerous. There must be a balance among ICE's many critical
missions, which includes a broad range of law enforcement
activities such as preventing the exportation of vital national
security technology, counter smuggling, and prevention of human
trafficking. Regrettably, this bill falls short of this needed
balance. While there are increased funds for the Criminal Alien
Program, which addresses incarcerated illegal aliens, both the
287(g) and Fugitive Operations programs that address fugitive
criminal aliens are cut.
Border Security and Immigration Policy
Any viable immigration policy must start with securing the
border. If we cannot effectively control who crosses our
nation's border, all other possible immigration initiatives
will fail. To address this critical issue, Congress has
authorized and appropriated for substantial infrastructure
along our borders. But the reported bill contains a number of
onerous restrictions on funding for fencing and tactical
infrastructure until the Department performs certain actions.
At first glance, these individual fencing and tactical
infrastructure requirements appear to be based upon sound
policy. However, added together they are a series of obstacles
that can potentially impede installation of critical border
security systems essential to our homeland security. We fear
that securing the border will be greatly deterred.
Specifically, the bill requires the Secretary to wait 15
days before taking any border security action that warrants the
use of his environmental waiver authority. We believe this
limitation changes existing law, alters the intent of Congress,
invites frivolous litigation, and has the potential to severely
inhibit DHS from addressing vulnerabilities along our borders.
Considering the Secretary has only used this waiver authority
twice and, when applying the waiver, still made every possible
accommodation to the affected environment and indigenous
wildlife, it is difficult to see the value in the bill's 15-day
waiting period.
The bill also requires the Secretary to solicit affected
State and local communities' advice and support prior to
building fencing or tactical infrastructure. While it is
certainly reasonable to expect DHS to engage with affected
communities along the border and solicit their input, the bill
seems to make border security beholden to localities whose
primary concern may only be parochial. The Department is
already doing sufficient outreach to these communities, and we
are greatly concerned that this provision provides them with an
effective veto over federal policy. This is a precedent that
should not be initiated.
Despite these concerns, we are pleased to see the
continuation of robust planning requirements for SBlnet as we
remain fully committed to securing our borders as rapidly as
possible. Therefore, we will continue to work to ensure this
bill enables DHS to accomplish its border security goals on
time and on budget. There must be a balance between prudent
oversight and timely execution of the Department's border
security mission. In full committee, an amendment was offered
to do just that. But again, the amendment was unfortunately
defeated on a party-line vote.
Transportation Security
The reported bill also removes the cap on the number of TSA
screeners that was enacted in 2002. That cap was created for
very good reasons--reasons that still exist today. Over and
over again, TSA has demonstrated a severe lack of discipline in
its planning, hiring, and use of technology. TSA's mindset was
to hire an army of screeners, some 70,000 strong, while
advancements in research and technology were largely ignored.
By requiring in law that TSA could not exceed 45,000 screeners,
TSA was forced to refocus its decision making. They began to
place better, cheaper and more effective technologies and
machines in the airports, and started to slowly clear out the
more expensive, man-power intensive trace detection systems.
The screener cap is working, and without it, we are fearful
that TSA will go back to its old ways of solving screener
problems by simply adding more people--a very short-sighted and
costly solution. To that end, we offered an amendment in full
committee to restore the 45,000 screener cap, which was
defeated on a mostly party-line vote.
Coast Guard
The bill continues the Committee's aggressive oversight of
the Coast Guard's troubled Deepwater program. However, the bill
also makes substantial cuts of almost $200 million to Deepwater
that will, in effect, slow down the program's acquisition
schedule and delay the much needed modernization of the Coast
Guard's ships and aircraft. After what has been considerable
oversight by the Congress, we are confident the Coast Guard is
putting in place the right managerial controls and
organizational improvements to get Deepwater heading in the
right direction. We firmly believe that too much of our
national security is at stake to fund Deepwater at a level that
may unnecessarily prolong the operation of antiquated systems--
some dating back to World War II.
Emergency Preparedness and Response
This bill is $2.1 billion above the President's request,
almost all of which is used to increase first responder grants
to their highest level in 4 years. This level of funding is
unwarranted, as there is still over $5 billion in unspent first
responder grant dollars lying in the pipeline. We are also
concerned about the annual expectations we may be setting for
these grants. These funds are intended to address
counterterrorism needs and disaster preparedness--the homeland
security portion of local first responders' duties. These
agencies are certainly happy to get these funds and now even
expect it. What began as a straightforward grant program has
turned into a revenue sharing program--something it never was
intended to be. Rather than just adding billions to these grant
programs--as this bill does--what we ought to be doing is
working with the relevant authorizing committees to change the
way these grant programs are authorized and administered, and
layout specifically what the Federal Government is expecting.
Grants to States and local communities are intended to reduce
our vulnerabilities and are not immune from fiscal discipline.
In conclusion, we believe this bill has the potential to do
a lot of good. There are provisions and funding recommendations
that are acceptable, and we are pleased with some of the
efforts that aim to keep the Department on track to produce
results, and remain accountable to the American people.
However, much improvement is needed, and we look forward to
working with our colleagues as the process continues.
Jerry Lewis.
Harold Rogers.