[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.

                                  
