★ 21–197 

109TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 109–79 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2006 

MAY 13, 2005.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky, from the Committee on Appropriations, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 2360] 

The Committee on Appropriations submits the following report in 

explanation of the accompanying bill making appropriations for the 

Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006. 

INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT 

Page number 

Bill Report 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS: 

Office of the Secretary and Executive Management ........................ 2 5 

Office of the Under Secretary for Management ............................... 3 13 

Office of the Chief Financial Officer .................................................. 3 14 

Office of the Chief Information Officer .............................................. 4 16 

Office of Inspector General ................................................................. 5 18 

TITLE II—SECURITY, ENFORCEMENT, AND INVESTIGATIONS: 

Office of the Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security ................................................................................................ 5 19 

Automation Modernization ................................................................. 5 22 

Customs and Border Protection ......................................................... 7 24 

Salaries and Expenses ................................................................. 7 24 

Automation Modernization ......................................................... 10 31 

Air and Marine Interdiction, Operations, Maintenance and 

Procurement ............................................................................. 11 31 

Construction ................................................................................. 12 33 

2 

Page number 

Bill Report 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement ........................................... 12 33 

Salaries and Expenses ................................................................. 12 33 

Federal Air Marshals .................................................................. 14 40 

Federal Protective Service .......................................................... 14 41 

Automation Modernization ......................................................... 14 42 

Construction ................................................................................. 15 42 

Transportation Security Administration ........................................... 16 43 

Aviation Security ......................................................................... 16 43 

Surface Transportation Security ................................................ 17 51 

Transportation Vetting and Credentialing ................................ 17 52 

Transportation Security Support ................................................ 18 56 

United States Coast Guard ................................................................ 18 57 

Operating Expenses ..................................................................... 18 57 

Environmental Compliance and Restoration ............................. 19 61 

Reserve Training .......................................................................... 19 62 

Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements .......................... 20 62 

Alteration of Bridges ................................................................... 23 69 

Retired Pay ................................................................................... 23 70 

United States Secret Service .............................................................. 24 70 

Salaries and Expenses ................................................................. 24 70 

Acquisition, Construction, Improvements, and Related Expenses ........................................................................................ 26 75 

TITLE III—PREPAREDNESS AND RECOVERY: 

Office for State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness ......................................................................................... 26 76 

Management and Administration ............................................... 26 76 

State and Local Programs ........................................................... 26 76 

Firefighter Assistance Grants ..................................................... 30 87 

Emergency Management Performance Grants .......................... 30 88 

Counterterrorism Fund ...................................................................... 31 88 

Office of the Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness And 

Response ........................................................................................... 31 89 

Emergency Preparedness and Response .................................... 31 89 

Preparedness, Mitigation, Response, and Recovery .................. 31 90 

Administrative and Regional Operations .................................. 32 91 

Public Health Programs .............................................................. 33 92 

Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program ....................... 33 93 

Disaster Relief .............................................................................. 34 93 

Disaster Assistance Direct Loan Program Account .................. 34 94 

Flood Map Modernization Fund ................................................. 34 94 

National Flood Insurance Fund .................................................. 35 95 

National Flood Mitigation Fund ................................................. 36 96 

National Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund ..................................... 36 97 

Emergency Food and Shelter ...................................................... 37 97 

TITLE IV—RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, TRAINING, ASSESSMENTS, AND SERVICES: 

Citizenship and Immigration Services .............................................. 37 98 

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center ...................................... 37 101 

Salaries and Expenses ................................................................. 37 101 

Acquisition, Construction, Improvements, and Related Expenses ........................................................................................ 39 102 

Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection ....................... 39 102 

Management and Administration ............................................... 39 102 

Assessments and Evaluations ..................................................... 39 103 

Science and Technology ...................................................................... 40 109 

Management and Administration ............................................... 40 109 

Research, Development, Acquisition, and Operations .............. 40 109 

TITLE V—GENERAL PROVISIONS: 

This Act ....................................................................................................... ........ 119 

3 

Page number 

Bill Report 

Compliance with House Rules ................................................................... ........ 124 

Tables .......................................................................................................... ........ 135 

Summary of the Total Bill ......................................................................... ........ 138 

The accompanying bill contains recommendations for new budget 

(obligational) authority for fiscal year 2006 for the Department of 

Homeland Security. The following table summarizes these recommendations and reflects comparisons with the budget, as 

amended, and with amounts appropriated to date for fiscal year 

2005: 

4 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Title 

New budget (obligation) authority fiscal 

year 2005 

enacted to date 

Budget estimates of 

(obligational) authority, fiscal year 2006 Recommended in the bill 

Bill compared with . . . 

New budget authority 

fiscal year 2005 

Budget estimate, 

fiscal year 2006 

Departmental Management and Operations ..................................................................................................... 606,774 747,689 684,545 +77,771 ¥63,144 

Security, Enforcement, and Investigations ........................................................................................................ 20,629,096 20,565,937 22,013,963 +1,384,867 +1,448,026 Preparedness and Recovery ............................................................................................................................... 15,971,218 6,709,433 6,588,393 <9,382,825 ¥121,040 

Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and Services .................................................................. 2,391,515 2,545,689 2,580,179 +188,664 +34,490 

Grand Total ............................................................................................................................................... 39,598,603 30,568,748 31,867,080 ¥7,731,523 +1,298,332 

5 

SUMMARY OF MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE BILL

The Committee recommends $30,846,000,000 in discretionary re- sources for the Department of Homeland Security, $1,291,332,000 

above the amount proposed by the President and $1,133,776,000 

below fiscal year 2005 enacted levels, after scorekeeping adjustments. 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY AND EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ............................................................ $ 85,034,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2006 .......................................................... 195,848,000 

Recommended in the bill ....................................................................... 133,239,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ..................................................... +48,205,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2006 ................................................... ¥62,609,000 

MISSION

The mission of management and operations is to provide efficient 

services to the Department for Homeland Security (DHS) and to 

support the Department in its achievement of its strategic goals: 

preventing terrorist attacks within the United States; reducing 

America’s vulnerabilities to terrorism; and minimizing the damage 

and recovery from attacks that may occur. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $133,239,000 for the Office of the 

Secretary and Executive Management, $62,609,000 below the 

President’s request and $48,205,000 above the amounts provided in 

fiscal year 2005. To adequately oversee expenditures and personnel 

changes within each office of the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management, the Committee has provided separate funding 

recommendations on an office-by-office basis as follows: 

Budget estimate Recommended 

Immediate Office of the Secretary .............................................................................. $2,393,000 $2,393,000 

Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary .................................................................. 1,132,000 1,132,000 

Office of Security ......................................................................................................... 61,278,000 51,278,000 

Chief of Staff ............................................................................................................... 4,103,000 4,103,000 

Executive Secretary ...................................................................................................... 5,491,000 5,400,000 

Office of Policy, Planning and International Affairs ................................................... 8,770,000 8,770,000 

Special Assistant to the Secretary-Private Sector ...................................................... 4,181,000 4,181,000 

Office of National Capital Region Coordination ......................................................... 1,072,000 982,000 

Public Affairs ............................................................................................................... 9,312,000 9,172,000 

Legislative Affairs ........................................................................................................ 6,182,000 5,500,000 

General Counsel ........................................................................................................... 11,947,000 11,800,000 

Civil Rights and Civil Liberties ................................................................................... 13,000,000 13,000,000 

Citizenship and Immigration Ombudsman ................................................................. 3,652,000 3,652,000 

Privacy Officer ............................................................................................................. 3,981,000 4,381,000 

Regions ........................................................................................................................ 49,895,000 0 

Operation Integration Staff ......................................................................................... 9,459,000 7,495,000 

Total .................................................................................................................... $195,848,000 $133,239,000 

STAFFING ADJUSTMENTS

The President requested 100 new full-time equivalents (FTEs) 

under the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management, including 60 FTEs for the Office of Security, 24 FTEs for the operVerDate Aug 04 2004 01:55 May 17, 2005 Jkt 021197 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR079.XXX HR079
6 

ation integration staff, two FTEs for the Executive Secretary, four 

FTEs for the Office of Policy, Planning and International Affairs, 

two FTE for the Office of National Capital Region Coordination, 

five FTEs for Public Affairs, two FTEs for General Counsel and one 

FTE for the Privacy Officer. Funding for all new FTEs was requested for the full fiscal year. While the Department has been reducing the number of vacancies it has within the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management, it is unrealistic to believe that 

these new staff will be on board the first day of the fiscal year. As 

a result, the Committee denies full year funding for any new FTEs 

except for the Privacy Officer. Instead, the Committee has assumed 

in its recommendations that these new staff will be on board beginning in the second quarter of fiscal year 2006, with the exception 

of the Office of Security and the operation integration staff, which 

are addressed separately. 

OFFICE OF SECURITY

The Committee recommends $51,278,000 for the Office of Security, $10,000,000 below the President’s request and $18,854,000 

above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005, including the recently approved reprogramming. The Committee has only provided 

half year funding for the 60 new staff requested. Further reductions were made due to insufficient justification. 

The Committee is concerned that the Department’s classified and 

security sensitive documents also contain information that is unclassified. Unfortunately, the unclassified information is not clearly 

marked on the documents. Therefore, as is done in other agencies, 

the Committee directs DHS to ensure that its classified and security sensitive documents contain classifications by paragraph and 

clearly mark which paragraphs are unclassified. 

BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS

The Committee remains concerned by apparent delays in personal security and suitability background investigations, update investigations, and periodic reinvestigations for Departmental employees. The Committee continues a provision (Section 516) to expand authority to conduct background investigations during fiscal 

year 2006 and modifies the provision to include Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement, which currently has over 500 pending investigations. The Committee directs that this authority be used to expeditiously process background investigations, including updates 

and reinvestigations, as necessary. The Committee directs the Secretary to submit a report by January 16, 2006, on the use of this 

authority and the status of any backlog in background investigations by component agency. 

SENSITIVE SECURITY INFORMATION DESIGNATION

The General Accountability Office (GAO) recently completed a review of the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) Sensitive Security Information designation process. GAO found that 

TSA has no clear SSI designation policies and procedures, that 

TSA has no monitoring controls on SSI designations, and that TSA 

has insufficient training for employees on SSI designation. In addition, TSA has not officially limited the number of TSA staff who 

7 

can designate SSI documents, so in essence all TSA employees currently may designate a document as SSI. 

The Committee finds this situation completely unacceptable. The 

Committee expects the Department to try to release as much, not 

as little, information to the public as possible. The current situation at TSA provides for a large amount of information to be prevented from public disclosure with no oversight of the designation 

to be prevented from public disclosure with no oversight of the designation process. 

Therefore, the Committee expects the headquarters Office of Security to develop SSI policies and procedures Department-wide. 

The Committee withholds $10,000,000 from the Office of Security 

until a report is provided to the Committee on the number of documents designated as SSI today, Department-wide SSI designation 

policies and procedures, and the total number of staff able to designate SSI within the Department. The ensure consistency, the 

Committee expects the Department and TSA to limit the number 

of employees able to designate information as SSI. The Committee 

has included a cop of sixty on the number of people within TSA 

able to designate SSI information. 

OPERATION INTEGRATION STAFF

The Committee recommends $7,495,000 for the operation integration staff, a decrease of $1,964,000 below the President’s request. To date, this office has been staffed with detailees provided 

from agencies within DHS. The budget proposed hiring 24 full-time 

staff for this office and ceasing its dependence on detailees. The 

Committee has approved the hiring of 12 new full-time staff, instead of the 24 requested. The Committee strongly encourages the 

Department to continue to rely on detailees to augment the staff, 

and suggests that DHS consider using these detailees for a twoyear period, instead of for shorter time frames. 

OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS

The Committee recommends $5,500,000 for the Office of Legislative Affairs, $682,000 below the budget request and an increase of 

$100,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. The Committee has reduced funding for this office because of the slowness 

in hiring and believes that vacancies will exist at the beginning of 

fiscal year 2006. 

REGIONAL STRUCTURE

The Committee has denied the $49,895,000 requested by the 

President to develop a new regional structure. The regional structure concept is currently under review by the Secretary. It is unclear at this time what, if any, regional structure will be proposed. 

Until a decision has been made, Congress has been briefed, and 

any outstanding concerns have been adequately addressed, it is 

premature to provide funding for this new structure. 

Once the Department has announced its new regional structure, 

the Committee directs the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 

to review the costs and benefits of the proposed structure. DHS 

may not enact such a new structure until GAO issues a report to 

the House Committee on Appropriations on its findings and the 

8 

Committee has had time to adequately analyze the Department’s 

regional proposal and GAO’s results. 

PRIVACY OFFICER

The Committee recommends $4,381,000 for the Privacy Officer, $400,000 above the budget request and an increase of $607,000 

above amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. Funding has been provided for four new FTEs, including the one requested in the budget. 

The Committee has included a new general provision (Section 

528) to ensure that the Privacy Officer has the independence necessary to report privacy abuses directly to Congress and has all 

documents and information necessary to carry out statutory responsibilities. The Privacy Officer, while an officer within the Department of Homeland Security, is a position that requires separateness from the leadership of the Department, in order to turn 

a critical eye upon Departmental activities and programs, with a 

focus on protecting individual privacy. The Privacy Officer should 

provide Congress, and thus the public, an unfettered view into the 

operations of the Department and its impact on personal privacy. 

In order to fulfill this relationship, the Privacy Officer must both 

have unrestricted access to information, and unrestrained ability to 

report critical findings to Congress and the public. The Committee 

directs the Secretary to instruct all Department of Homeland Security entities, whether programs, offices, directorates, contractors, 

inter-agency or private-sector partners, or individuals, that they 

must respond to information and document requests from the Privacy Officer within the time frames set by the Privacy Officer so 

that privacy issues may be analyzed and resolved expeditiously. 

INTERACTION WITH CONGRESS

The Committee continues to be frustrated by the Department’s 

inability to respond quickly, or at all, to items of Congressional interest or direction. Agencies throughout the Department have not 

submitted reports on time. Some notable examples include: (1) the 

Coast Guard’s failure to submit a Deepwater rebaseline that meets 

statutory requirements, such as an acquisition timeline for each 

new and/or legacy asset over the 20 to 25-year program, funding 

projections for each year of the program, and detailed descriptions 

of the revised mission needs requirements; (2) an inability to provide Congress with a plan to re-open National Airport to charter, 

business, and general aviation aircraft even though this has been 

requested multiple times, in multiple bills; and (3) failure to comply with language for the past two years that requires the Transportation Security Administration to submit quarterly reports on 

their plans to procure and install explosive detection systems at 

airports throughout the United States, as well as make other modifications, that will continue to permit these airports to screen 100–

percent of checked baggage. 

The Committee also continues to be frustrated with the lack of 

responsiveness from various agencies within the Department. Key 

questions that are asked are not followed up on. Requests for meetings are delayed or disregarded. Meetings to brief the Committee 

on high priority topics do not consistently involve the same Departmental officials which results in inconsistent, and often times conVerDate Aug 04 2004 01:55 May 17, 2005 Jkt 021197 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR079.XXX HR079
9 

tradictory, information being provided. While the Committee recognizes that there were growing pains when the Department was 

first formed and it might have been unclear which agency should 

respond to an inquiry, the Department is now over two years old. 

Responsiveness should no longer be a challenge. The Committee expects the Department to review its policies for handling of questions and requests for meetings. The current practice is unacceptable and it must change. In addition, the Department should make 

every effort to send the same knowledgeable staff to meetings, so 

that the information presented does not change randomly or selectively to suit a specific policy argument or audience. 

Finally, there is a growing public perception that the Department is not making advances in key areas, particularly in the review, purchase, and installation of new technologies that might enhance security in the field. Repeatedly constituents tell Members of 

Congress that the Department is unwilling and very slow to meet 

with vendors and evaluate their technologies, or to purchase technology for deployment. It is critical that the Department make 

every effort to speed this process along. It is the sense of the Committee that the Department needs a robust and perhaps innovative 

technology transfer program that not only reviews technologies, but 

also helps get products into production and assures rapid use once 

built. The Committee addresses this issue further within the Office 

of the Under Secretary for Science and Technology (S&T) and provides $10,000,000 within S&T to ensure that the Department 

moves forward with its efforts to evaluate technologies, make those 

evaluations more transparent, and to expedite placement of workable solutions. 

MEETING REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

The Committee is extremely concerned by the Department’s inability to submit reports on a timely basis. At this time, 123 of 169 

reports required by the fiscal year 2005 appropriations bill are late. 

The Committee has requested these reports in order to further its 

understanding of the Department’s operations in critical homeland 

security areas including immigration; aviation security; and mission and asset requirements of the Coast Guard, to name but a 

few. It is unacceptable that the Department continues to miss important deadlines and, in many instances submits reports that are 

not in compliance with Committee direction. The Committee has 

included a new provision within the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management that requires timely and comprehensive submission of all reports. The Committee withholds from obligation 

$20,000,000 until all reports are received. The Committee will not 

entertain the submission of draft reports in order to meet the intent of this bill language. The Committee cautions the Department 

to adequately plan for all necessary Departmental and Administration review in the calculation of time needed to submit Congressional reports. 

BUDGET JUSTIFICATIONS

In fiscal year 2007, the Committee directs that the Congressional 

budget justification for the Office of the Secretary and Executive 

Management be submitted in the same level of detail as the table 

contained in the back of this report. All funding and staffing 

10 

changes for each individual office must be highlighted and explained. The Committee expects this level of detail to include separate discussions for personnel, compensation, and benefits; travel; 

training; and other services. 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND

The Working Capital Fund (WCF) was established to provide 

funding for selected services, activities, and programs that benefit 

more than one Departmental organization. The WCF will also be 

used to consolidate funding for government-wide, mandated initiatives assessed to the Department by central management agencies, 

and DHS crosscutting initiatives identified by the Secretary. 

The Department has not adequately explained to the Committee 

what activities are funded by the WCF in fiscal year 2005 and 

planned for in fiscal year 2006. Without more clarity, it is very difficult for the Committee or the component agencies within the Department to adequately fund these activities within their budget 

requests. The Committee therefore directs the Department to submit a report identifying all services, activities, programs, government-wide and Secretarial initiatives supported through the WCF 

in fiscal years 2005 and 2006 by January 16, 2006. This is to include a description of each activity, the basis for the pricing policy, 

the estimated cost for fiscal years 2005 and 2006, (if the activity 

is a multi-year project with a defined cost, scope, and schedule for 

completion, also provide the total estimated cost of the activity by 

fiscal year and the estimated date for completion), the number of 

full-time federal employees funded in each activity, a list of each 

Departmental organization that is allocating funds to the activity, 

and the funding the organization is providing in fiscal years 2005 

and 2006. The report should also identify any cross-cutting initiatives or activities that benefit more than one organization that are 

not included in the WCF, and explain the omission. 

The Committee expects all cross-cutting initiatives funded by 

multiple organizations to be included in the WCF and to be 

promptly notified of any additions, deletions, or changes that are 

made to the WCF during the fiscal year. Taxing Departmental organizations for cross-cutting initiatives outside the WCF will not be 

approved by the Committee. Furthermore, the Department should 

not fund any activities within the WCF that the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations have disapproved either in report 

language or in its response to reprogramming requests. 

For fiscal year 2007, the same level of detailed information on 

the WCF is to be provided in the budget justification document 

submitted for the Departmental Operations account and the corresponding information contained in the salaries and expenses accounts for each organization that is funding the WCF. The Department should work with the Committee to ensure that the budget 

justification documents provide all necessary information at the appropriate level of detail. 

SHARED SERVICES

Problems and confusion over the administration of shared services between Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and Citizen and Immigration 

Services (CIS) continue to plague the Department. The problem 

11 

stems from the difficulty in adjusting to changes in these agencies’ previous structure and systems found in the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and Customs Service, and lack of guidance during the transition into the new structure. Field managers 

lack information about how shared services are handled. The Committee directs the Secretary to submit a report not later than January 16, 2006, on how shared services are defined, what policies are 

in place to guide managers on how to administer those services, 

and what mechanism is in place to resolve interagency disputes. 

IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT

The number of illegal aliens in the United States is now estimated to exceed 11,000,000, including 465,000 aliens with outstanding orders of deportation who have absconded, of whom 

80,000 have criminal records. The number of illegal aliens in the 

United States is growing by 485,000 per year. This troubling 

growth is the result of multiple factors: porous borders, lack of interior enforcement, and the lure of employment opportunities within 

the United States. The burden of immigration enforcement is split 

amongst many federal agencies, but falls primarily upon ICE and 

CBP. ICE is responsible for apprehending immigration violators inside the United States and CBP is charged with securing the border from illegal crossings. The combination of current threats facing our nation and the sheer magnitude of the growth in the illegal 

population reveals the fact that immigration enforcement efforts 

have not kept pace. Simply stated—immigration enforcement and 

border control is not working. 

The Committee believes a fundamental shift in the Department’s 

approach to immigration enforcement and border management is 

long overdue. The Committee includes a provision directing the 

Secretary to review the Department’s current immigration enforcement strategy and develop a comprehensive immigration enforcement strategy that achieves a 10 percent per year reduction in the 

total number of undocumented aliens in the United States, based 

on estimates using data from the U.S. Census Bureau. This strategy shall specifically address threats, risks, vulnerabilities, capabilities and priorities for the enforcement of immigration and border security in the context of the Department’s overall mission to 

protect our homeland. This strategy shall address all factors effecting immigration enforcement and border security, including but not 

limited to: force multipliers; repatriation, detention, and removal 

practices; worksite enforcement; interaction and coordination with 

immigration courts; technology; organizational structure; interagency coordination; staffing; and assets. Bill language is included 

that makes $20,000,000 unavailable for obligation until an immigration enforcement strategy to reduce the number of undocumented aliens by 10 percent per year is submitted to the Committee. 

THREAT ASSESSMENT

The Committee recognizes the threat assessment experience 

within the Secret Service and believes other DHS agencies can benefit from it. The Secret Service has developed innovative partnerships across government, the private sector, and academia to profile various types of threats, including targeted violence, assassins, 

12 

and cyber security breaches. The National Threat Assessment Center (NTAC), created in 1999 to provide leadership and guidance to 

the field of threat assessment, has demonstrated considerable value 

to the work of the Secret Service and, more recently, to DHS. 

NTAC has provided technical analysis of current terrorist tactics 

being used in Iraq and Afghanistan and applied the results to the 

enhancement of domestic protective operations. In August 2004, 

NTAC completed an Insider Threat Study that utilized the expertise of the Secret Service’s Electronic Crimes Special Agent Program (ECSAP) to develop profiles of illicit insider activities affecting information systems and data in critical infrastructure sectors. 

NTAC’s work, combined with the resources of the Secret Service’s 

Intelligence Division and the ECSAP, has furthered the testing and 

evaluation of protective technologies and led to the creation of 

tools, such as the Targeted Violence Information Sharing System 

(TAVISS). The Committee believes that DHS can make better use 

of the Secret Service’s proficiency in developing and providing 

threat assessment training and operational research, but the demand for such expertise far exceeds Secret Service resources. The 

Committee encourages the Secret Service to work with the Department to expand the application of its threat assessment resources 

across the critical infrastructure protection and cyber security functions of DHS. 

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY

In the statement of managers accompanying the fiscal year 2005 

Appropriations Act for DHS, the conferees directed the Secretary to 

submit a five-year integrated strategic transportation security plan. 

To date, the Committee has not received this plan. Without such 

a plan, the Committee remains concerned that the Department has 

concentrated homeland security funding and technology on aviation 

security, without placing equal resources on securing the Nation’s 

rail lines, tunnels, bridges, and ports. The Committee directs the 

Department to submit a report no later than January 16, 2006, on 

what progress has been made in securing this critical infrastructure, outlining a 5-year plan to achieve this objective. This report 

shall include how: infrastructure is identified; vulnerability assessments are accomplished; technologies are identified, tested, and deployed; funding is targeted; cooperation with private infrastructure 

owners is achieved; and progress in securing this infrastructure is 

measured. The Department shall accomplish this report in consultation with the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate, the Science and Technology Directorate, the 

Transportation Security Administration, the Office of State and 

Local Government Coordination and Preparedness, the United 

States Coast Guard, Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. 

SECURITY POLICIES RELATED TO RELEASE OF PERSONAL INFORMATION

The Committee directs the Secretary to ensure that every contract the Department enters into for services performed by any entity or person engaged in interstate commerce that owns, licenses, 

or collects data containing personal information, including electronically, must include a provision requiring that entity to have a 

security policy in place that contains procedures to promptly notify 

13 

any individual whose personal information was, or is reasonably 

believed to have been, lost or acquired by an unauthorized person. 

Notification can either be delayed or shall not occur if it would impede a law enforcement investigation or cause damage to national 

security. The Committee is concerned about the security of personal data, as highlighted recently by several security breaches at 

large companies that resulted in the theft of personal data. 

PROTECTION OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION

The Committee is pleased that the Department is taking steps 

to comply with the requirements for protecting classified information by using GSA-approved containers and vaults secured with a 

locking mechanism meeting the latest federal specifications for 

storage. The Committee urges the Department to complete these 

upgrades no later than January 16, 2006. 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR MANAGEMENT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ............................................................ $151,153,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2006 .......................................................... 146,619,000 

Recommended in the bill ....................................................................... 146,084,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ..................................................... ¥5,069,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2006 ................................................... ¥535,000 

MISSION

The Office of the Under Secretary for Management’s primary 

mission is to deliver quality administrative support services such 

as human resources and personnel; facilities, property, equipment 

and other material resources management; safety, health and environment; and identification and tracking of performance measurements relating to the responsibility of the Department. This office 

is also in charge of implementing a new mission support structure 

for the Department of Homeland Security to deliver administrative 

services while eliminating redundancies and reducing support 

costs. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $146,084,000 for the Office of the 

Under Secretary for Management, $535,000 below the President’s 

request and $5,069,000 below the amounts provided in fiscal year 

2005. In order to adequately oversee expenditures for each office, 

the Committee has provided separate funding recommendations as 

detailed in the following table: 

Budget estimate Recommended 

Under Secretary for Management ................................................................................ $1,867,000 $1,822,000 

Business Transformation Office .................................................................................. 948,000 948,000

Immigration Statistics ................................................................................................. 5,987,000 5,987,000 

Office of the Chief Procurement Officer ..................................................................... 9,020,000 9,020,000

Office of Chief Human Capital Officer ....................................................................... 61,996,000 61,951,000 

Office of Chief Administrative Officer ......................................................................... 66,801,000 66,356,000 

Total .................................................................................................................... $146,619,000 $146,084,000 

14 

STAFFING ADJUSTMENTS

The President requested 12 new full-time equivalents (FTEs) 

under the Office of the Under Secretary for Management, including 

one FTE for the Under Secretary for Management, one FTE for the 

Office of Chief Human Capital Officer and 10 FTEs for the Office 

of Chief Administrative Officer. Funding for all new FTEs was requested for the full fiscal year. While the Department has been reducing the number of vacancies it has with the offices of the Under 

Secretary for Management, it is unrealistic to believe that these 

new staff will be on board the first day of the fiscal year. As a result, the Committee denies full year funding for any new FTEs. Instead, the Committee has assumed in its budgetary recommendations, that these new staff will be on board beginning in the second 

quarter of fiscal year 2006. 

OFFICE OF CHIEF HUMAN CAPITAL OFFICER

The Committee recommends $61,951,000 for the Office of Chief 

Human Capital Officer, $45,000 below the President’s request. The 

funding reduction is applied to personnel, compensation and benefits. No reduction has been made to the $53,000,000 requested for 

the new human resource system. 

OFFICE OF CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER

The Committee recommends $66,356,000 for the Office of Chief 

Administrative Officer, $445,000 below the President’s request. The 

funding reduction is applied to personnel, compensation and benefits. No reduction has been made to the $26,070,000 requested to 

continue construction related activities at the Nebraska Avenue 

complex. 

MANAGEMENT INTEGRATION STRATEGY

In March 2005, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that, while DHS has made some progress in its management integration efforts, it should implement a more comprehensive and sustained approach. GAO recommended that the Under 

Secretary for Management: (1) develop an overarching management integration strategy for the Department, (2) designate the 

Business Transformation Office (BTO) as the dedicated implementation team for the Department’s management integration, and (3) 

provide the BTO with the requisite authority and responsibility to 

help set priorities and make strategic decisions to drive the integration across all functions. The Under Secretary for Management 

is directed: (1) to report to the House Committee on Appropriations, no later than August 1, 2005, on whether BTO has sufficient 

authority to serve as a dedicated implementation team to help set 

priorities and make strategic decisions to drive integration across 

all functions, and (2) to report quarterly, beginning on January 1, 

2006, on the progress of DHS management integration. 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ............................................................ $13,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2006 .......................................................... 18,505,000 

Recommended in the bill ....................................................................... 18,505,000 

15 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ..................................................... +5,505,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2006 ................................................... - - - 

MISSION

The primary responsibilities and functions of the Office of the 

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

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $18,505,000 for the Office of the 

Chief Financial Officer, the same as the budget request and 

$5,505,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. The 

Committee also approves the request for nine additional FTEs, including one new appropriations liaison staff. 

FINANCIAL AUDIT

The Committee is very concerned about the results of the 2004 

financial audit. In it, the auditor noted that DHS was experiencing 

a ‘‘financial setback’’ and had serious ‘‘structural problems’’. As a 

result, the auditor was unable to issue an opinion on the Department’s financial statement and identified 10 material weaknesses, 

largely within Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the 

Office of the Chief Financial Officer, and the U.S. Coast Guard. For 

example, the auditor found: ICE did not adequately maintain its 

accounting records in FY 2004; the Chief Financial Officer did not 

prepare timely financial statements and did not monitor bureau 

compliance with financial reporting requirements; and the Coast 

Guard lacked a process to adequately track property and equipment. While the Committee is aware that the CFO is working to 

address these problems, a repeat of such a negative audit in 2005 

will be unacceptable. The Committee has fully funded the budget 

request so that the CFO can deploy these additional funds to address financial weaknesses highlighted in the audit, to perform 

more budgetary reviews of each agency within the Department, improve budget execution, and more closely track reprogramming 

needs and requests. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET JUSTIFICATIONS

The Committee directs the Department to submit all of its fiscal 

year 2007 budget justifications on the first Monday in February of 

2006, concurrent with the official submission of the President’s 

budget to Congress. These justifications should have the customary 

level of detailed data and explanatory statements to support the 

appropriations requests, including tables that detail each agencies 

programs, projects, and activities for fiscal years 2006 and 2007. 

The Committee directs the CFO to ensure that adequate justification is given to each increase, decrease, and staffing change proposed in the fiscal year 2007 budget, particularly within the Departmental operations and management accounts. 

The Committee directs the Department to submit, as part of the 

fiscal year 2007 budget justification, a table identifying the last 

16 

year that authorizing legislation was provided by Congress for each 

program, project, or activity; the amount of the authorization; and 

the appropriation in the last year of the authorization. 

CLASSIFIED BUDGET JUSTIFICATIONS

Several components of the Department have classified programs 

that require preparation and submission of a separate classified 

budget justification document. These classified budget justification 

documents must be submitted to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations at the same time the unclassified budget 

justifications are transmitted. 

MONTHLY REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

For the past two years, the Department has been directed to submit to the Committee a monthly budget execution report showing 

the status of obligations and costs for all components of the Department. Consistently, the Department has been very tardy in providing this information. These delays are unacceptable and prevent 

the Committee from accurately analyzing budgetary needs, particularly when considering reprogrammings and supplemental requests. 

The Committee directs the Department to submit monthly budget execution reports. Each report shall include the total obligational 

authority appropriated (new budget authority plus unobligated carryover), undistributed obligational authority, amount allotted, current year obligations, unobligated authority, beginning unexpended 

obligations, year-to-date costs, and ending unexpended obligations. 

This budget execution information is to be provided at the level of 

detail shown in the tables displayed at the end of this report for 

each Departmental component. The Committee expects to receive 

these reports no later than 60 days following the end of the reporting month. 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ............................................................ $275,270,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2006 .......................................................... 303,700,000 

Recommended in the bill ....................................................................... 303,700,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ..................................................... +28,430,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2006 ................................................... - - - 

MISSION

The Chief Information Office (CIO) has oversight of all information technology projects in the Department. For projects that are 

estimated to cost over $5,000,000, the CIO is consulted, participates in the evaluation of proposals, and provides recommendations. The Chief Information Officer also has input into the development and execution of each directorate’s information technology 

budgets. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $303,700,000 for the Office of the 

Chief Information Officer, the same as the budget request and 

$28,430,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. Within the total, the Committee recommends $5,255,000 for geospatial 

17 

activities, the same as the budget request. The following table 

highlights funding levels by program, project and activity: 

Budget estimate Recommended 

Salaries and Expenses ................................................................................................ $75,756,000 $75,756,000 

Information Technology Services ................................................................................. 110,944,000 110,944,000 

Security Activities ........................................................................................................ 31,000,000 31,000,000 

Wireless Programs ....................................................................................................... 86,000,000 86,000,000 

Total .................................................................................................................... 303,700,000 303,700,000 

The Committee recognizes the sound leadership and hard work 

of the Department’s CIO over the last two years as the Department 

has attempted to coordinate, restructure and improve its Information Technology (IT) systems. The Committee also recognizes the 

Department’s IT challenges of standardizing and integrating the 

legacy systems and management practices of disparate agencies, 

while simultaneously attempting to maintain and enhance critical 

homeland security operations in a dynamic environment. The Committee appreciates how an enterprise architecture and other strategic IT management structures and controls are critical to the Department’s integration of stovepiped processes. Currently, there are 

multiple enterprise architectures within each of the operating 

agencies; multiple stovepipe systems with significant redundancy; 

and no apparent, comprehensive blueprint to guide investments 

and priorities. 

In the interest of fully leveraging and optimizing the potential 

contribution of IT investments in meeting the homeland security 

mission, while controlling IT investment costs, maintaining schedules, and delivering capabilities, it is critical that DHS develop an 

enterprise architecture. The Committee is concerned that DHS may 

continue to invest in IT at a time when its needs and goals have 

not been properly articulated through its strategic planning. The 

Committee has directed the Department, in bill language, to report 

on the following, with the aim of describing the maturity of each 

strategic element, how far along the Department is in implementing each element, and what activities remain to be done: (1) 

an enterprise architecture, as defined in OMB Circular A–130 and 

the Federal Chief Information Officers’ guidance; (2) an Information Technology Capital Plan, to include an inventory of current IT 

work skills, a gap analysis of any shortfalls, and a plan for addressing any shortfalls; (3) a capital investment plan for implementing 

the enterprise architecture; and (4) a description of the IT capital 

planning and investment control process. The report must be reviewed and approved by OMB, reviewed by GAO, and delivered to 

Congress within 180 days of enactment of this Act. 

Finally, the Committee is concerned that the Department of 

Homeland Security, an agency charged with securing the homeland, continues to face significant challenges in securing its own information systems. The Department lacks a complete and accurate 

inventory of its information systems; has not tested the contingency 

plans for the majority of the information systems that it knows it 

has; is well below the government-wide average in reviewing contractor operations, even though contractors perform a large percentage of its information systems operations; and, according to the 

Department’s Inspector General, has a poor certification and acVerDate Aug 04 2004 01:55 May 17, 2005 Jkt 021197 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR079.XXX HR079
18 

creditation process that is not performed consistently across the 

Department. The Committee directs the Department’s CIO to develop a plan by October 1, 2005, to address the weaknesses in DHS’

information security. The Inspector General is directed to review 

the CIO’s plan and report back to the Committee by November 30, 

2005, on the thoroughness of the CIO’s plan. 

GEOSPATIAL INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

The Committee directs the Chief Information Officer to report to 

the Committee, by January 16, 2006, on its efforts to develop a 

complete and accurate Global Geospatial Intelligence, Geographic 

Information System (GGI/GIS) border mapping inventory of critical 

U.S. infrastructure and assets through its Department-wide enterprise GIS (E-GIS) system. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

OPERATING EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ............................................................ $82,317,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2006 .......................................................... 83,017,000 

Recommended in the bill ....................................................................... 83,017,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ..................................................... +700,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2006 ................................................... - - - 

MISSION

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 established an Office of Inspector General in the Department of Homeland Security by 

amendment to the Inspector General Act of 1978. This office was 

established to provide an objective and independent organization 

that would be more effective in: (1) preventing and detecting fraud, 

waste, and abuse in departmental programs and operations; (2) 

providing a means of keeping the Secretary of Homeland Security 

and the Congress fully and currently informed of problems and deficiencies in the administration of programs and operations; (3) fulfilling statutory responsibilities for the annual audit of the Department’s financial statements and to ensure security of its information technology pursuant to the Federal Information Security Management Act; and (4) reviewing and making recommendations regarding existing and proposed legislation and regulations to the 

Department’s programs and operations. According to the authorizing legislation, the Inspector General is to report dually to the 

Secretary of Homeland Security and to the Congress. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $83,017,000 for the Office of Inspector General (OIG), the same as the budget request and $700,000 

above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. 

AUDIT REPORTS

The Committee directs the Inspector General to forward copies of 

all audit reports to the Committee immediately after they are 

issued and to immediately make the Committee aware of any review that recommends cancellation of, or modification to, any major 

acquisition project or grant, or that recommends significant budgVerDate Aug 04 2004 01:55 May 17, 2005 Jkt 021197 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR079.XXX HR079
19 

etary savings. The OIG is also directed to withhold from public distribution for a period of 15 days any final audit or investigation report, which was requested by the House Committee on Appropriations. 

BUY AMERICAN ACT

The Committee is disappointed that the Inspector General has 

still to report back to the Committee with an audit on the Department’s compliance with the Buy American Act and directs them to 

submit this report as soon as possible. The Committee directs the 

Inspector General to audit the Department’s compliance with the 

Buy American Act and submit the report at the same time the 

President submits to Congress the budget for fiscal year 2007. 

Furthermore, the Committee directs the Secretary to issue a report to the Committees on Appropriations that describes the articles, materials, and supplies acquired by the Department during 

fiscal years 2004–2006 that were manufactured outside of the 

United States as well as an itemized list of all waivers granted 

with respect to such articles, materials, or supplies under the Buy 

American Act. The report should include a summary of the total 

funds spent by the Department of Homeland Security on goods 

manufactured within the United States compared with funds spent 

on goods manufactured outside of the United States. 

The Committee includes bill language prohibiting funds from 

being used in contravention of the applicable provisions of the Buy 

American Act. The House and Senate Committees on Appropriations expect to be notified when the Department deviates from this 

direction pursuant to permissible exceptions. 

TITLE II—SECURITY, ENFORCEMENT, AND 

INVESTIGATIONS 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR BORDER AND

TRANSPORTATON SECURITY

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ............................................................ $9,617,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ........................................................ 10,617,000 

Recommended in the bill ....................................................................... 10,617,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ..................................................... +1,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ................................................. - - - 

MISSION

The Office of the Under Secretary for Border and Transportation 

Security (BTS) administers the directorate responsible for securing 

our nation’s borders, including 350 official ports of entry, 7,500 

miles of land border with Canada and Mexico, 95,000 miles of 

shoreline, and a 3.4 million square mile exclusive economic zone. 

BTS oversees the security of the nation’s transportation systems 

and enforcement of immigration and customs laws, and manages 

and coordinates a variety of automation modernization programs 

including US-VISIT as well as the activities of four major components: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Transportation Security 

20 

Administration (TSA), and the Federal Law Enforcement Training 

Center (FLETC). 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $10,617,000 for Salaries and Expenses, the same as the budget request and $1,000,000 above the 

amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. This includes $289,000 for 

two additional positions and contract services. 

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CBP AND ICE

The Committee has learned that there is a frequent lack of communication between CBP and ICE, and is concerned that the concept of operations between these two critical agencies is inadequately defined. Based on their experiences within single legacy 

agencies, there should be seamless coordination of investigative, intelligence, and enforcement missions. Instead, the agencies appear 

to have created relationships based on fragmented policies at the 

local level rather than from centralized guidance. The Committee 

is disappointed by BTS’ failure, after two years, to coordinate the 

relationships between these agencies. Some examples include: confusion over which agency can issue parole to an alien; disputes on 

exchange of information between agencies; and the role of the legacy INS Senior Inspector position in the prosecution of criminal immigration cases at the border. The Committee is encouraged by the 

Memorandum of Understanding signed in November 2004 between 

Border Patrol and ICE, but a myriad of issues remain unresolved 

between other components of CBP and ICE. The Committee directs 

BTS to submit a report no later than January 16, 2006, that describes the directives and guidelines that are in place to govern the 

interrelationship between BTS agencies and to clarify the operational roles and responsibilities of each agency and component. 

IDENT-IAFIS INTEROPERABILITY

In the fiscal year 2005 statement of managers, BTS was directed 

to report on the status of efforts to achieve real time interoperability between the two-fingerprint Automated Biometrics Identification System (IDENT), which is used by the Border Patrol and 

US-VISIT, and the FBI’s 10-fingerprint Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS). The report was due to Congress by January 14, 2005. In the meantime, in its Evaluation and 

Inspection report I–2005–001 dated December 2004, the Department of Justice Inspector General observed that efforts to achieve 

interoperability have stalled. This is in part due to disagreements 

about the appropriate fingerprint methodology between Justice, 

Homeland Security, and State Departments, but also because the 

databases contain different types of information and involve both 

criminal and non-criminal records. The report also notes that there 

are significant delays in transferring data between databases, estimating that it could take as long as six years to add seven million 

foreign criminal records into the IDENT database. The Committee 

is extremely frustrated that no report has yet been forthcoming, 

and expects to see the directed report as soon as possible, but in 

no case later than July 1, 2005. Given its delay, the Committee exVerDate Aug 04 2004 01:55 May 17, 2005 Jkt 021197 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR079.XXX HR079
21 

pects the report to address the issues raised in the aforementioned 

Justice IG report. 

ROLE OF FIELD EMPLOYEE FEEDBACK IN BTS

The October 2004 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report entitled ‘‘Homeland Security: Management Challenges Remain 

in Transforming Immigration Systems’’ cites the lack of a mechanism for obtaining field employee feedback as a weakness in the 

BTS agencies. The GAO report concluded that the influence of employee feedback could have identified and help avert communication and coordination problems among BTS agencies. The Committee directs BTS to submit a report no later than January 16, 

2006, on how BTS can utilize employee feedback to identify and 

mitigate problems between the BTS component agencies. 

CARGO CONTAINER SECURITY

The Committee is frustrated by the Department’s delay in submitting a report on the Department’s cargo security efforts, which 

the fiscal year 2005 conferees directed be submitted by February 

8, 2005. The Committee wants to receive this report, but is also 

aware that the Department has not released the National Cargo 

Security Strategy it circulated in draft form in December 2004. The 

Committee directs that the overdue report be submitted as soon as 

possible, and that an update, reflecting any changes resulting from 

the new Strategy, be delivered to the Committee at the time the 

Strategy is released. 

INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF ILLEGAL ALIENS

The Committee understands that significant numbers of illegal 

aliens, shortly after illegally entering the United States, are transported to their final destination within the United States using 

various transportation modes. For example, aliens who have illegally crossed the southwest Border or entered Los Angeles are 

grouped together and then moved via domestic transportation, such 

as commercial flights or cargo vans, to destinations in the interior 

or East Coast. The Committee understands that DHS lacks procedures to coordinate the efforts of DHS agencies—for instance, CBP, 

Federal Air Marshals (FAMs), and ICE agents—and other law enforcement agencies to identify smuggling or trafficking, and to ensure that appropriate enforcement or investigative action is taken. 

The Committee therefore directs the Secretary to report not later 

than January 16, 2006, on: estimates of the numbers of such aliens 

transported in this fashion by fiscal year broken out by transportation mode; the patterns of such movement; statistics for apprehension and investigation of such activity; and the processes and 

interagency agreements in development or in place to ensure a 

seamless federal approach to this facet of immigration enforcement. 

STOLEN PASSPORTS

The Committee is concerned about the results of the Department’s Inspector General report (OIG–05–07, December 2004) on 

the use of stolen passports from visa waiver countries to enter the 

United States. The IG found that aliens who seek admission into 

the United States using such documents were usually admitted, 

22 

and that it made little difference whether lookouts for the stolen 

passports existed, as aliens were often admitted even after such 

lookouts were posted. Both CBP and ICE responded that they intend to act on the eight IG recommendations. The Committee directs the Under Secretary to report semi-annually, beginning January 16, 2006, on the progress that CBP and ICE are making with 

respect to the eight recommendations contained in the IG report, 

and to continue such reports until they are in full compliance with 

those recommendations. 

AIR AND MARINE OPERATIONS

The Committee continues to wait for detailed planning information needed to assess the air and marine programs that have been 

integrated within Customs and Border Protection (CBP). The most 

recent information provided to the Committee noted that phase two 

of the integration was underway, and that further information 

about missions, strategy, recapitalization, basing, staffing, and 

other investments would be forthcoming. The details sought by the 

Committee were laid out in Committee reports and conference reports for the past two years, and the Committee expects to see 

those details—for the combined CBP programs, to include Air and 

Marine Operations and the Border Patrol air and marine operations—before October 1, 2005. As also directed in previous years, 

the Committee expects to see the results of the Departmental review of missions and operations to gain full appreciation of the potential for synergy that can operate between all DHS entities in the 

air and marine field, to include the Coast Guard. Without such detailed, multi-year information, the Committee will find it very hard 

to support funding for improvements and investments that may be 

necessary. The Committee makes $10,000,000 unavailable for obligation within CBP’s salaries and expenses account until all outstanding reports are submitted. 

AUTOMATION MODERNIZATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 1 .......................................................... $(340,000,000) 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 2 ...................................................... (411,232,000) 

Recommended in the bill ....................................................................... 411,232,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ..................................................... +71,232,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ................................................. - - - 1 Appropriation only reflects US–VISIT and is shown for comparability purposes only. 2The budget requested funding under a new Screening Coordination and Operations office. 

Funding for US-VISIT, FAST, NEXUS and SENTRI is shown for comparability purposes only. 

MISSION

Four programs are funded under the Automation Modernization 

account: Free and Secure Trade (FAST), NEXUS, Secure Electronic 

Network for Traveler’s Rapid Inspection (SENTRI) and US-VISIT. 

FAST aims to enhance secure trade by using advanced technology, 

risk management principles to clear commercial traffic at Points of 

Entry (POE) along the Mexican and Canadian Border. NEXUS and 

SENTRI are tools to assist the legitimate flow of people across the 

borders of Canada and Mexico. The mission of the United States 

Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) 

program is to enhance the security of U.S. citizens and visitors, facilitate legitimate travel and trade, ensure the integrity of the imVerDate Aug 04 2004 01:55 May 17, 2005 Jkt 021197 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR079.XXX HR079
23 

migration system, and to improve and standardize the processes, 

policies, and systems utilized to collect information on foreign nationals who apply for visas at an embassy or consulate overseas, attempt to enter the country at established ports of entry, request 

benefits such as change of status or adjustment of status, or depart 

the United States. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $411,232,000 for automation modernization. The Committee denies the proposal to form a Screening 

Coordination Operations office. The Committee supports consolidating US-VISIT, Free and Secure Trade (FAST) and NEXUS/ 

SENTRI. Of the total funding provided, $390,232,000 is for USVISIT, $7,000,000 is for FAST, and $14,000,000 is for NEXUS/ 

SENTRI. 

US-VISIT IMPLEMENTATION

The Committee recognizes the significant accomplishment of implementing US-VISIT entry procedures at 115 airports, 15 seaports, and in the secondary inspection areas of the 50 busiest land 

ports of entry. The balance of fiscal year 2005 and the beginning 

of fiscal year 2006 promise to be equally challenging because entry 

procedures will be deployed at the remaining land ports of entry 

by December 31, 2005. In addition, US-VISIT will need to fully assess the latest biometric technology as it becomes available, and potentially address significant infrastructure requirements. The Committee remains concerned about US-VISIT’s staffing levels given 

the size, complexity, and importance of this program. 

In order to ensure that program management is not disrupted by 

the requirement that no funds may be obligated prior to submission and approval of expenditure plans that are approved by DHS, 

OMB, and reviewed by GAO, the Committee has provided that 

$97,500,000 for program management and operations, including associated personnel costs and benefits for Program Management Office (PMO) staff, will be made available upon enactment of this Act. 

However, the Committee continues to require a detailed expenditure plan. This plan must reflect a clear benefit-cost analysis associated with the increments being proposed for funding. In addition, 

the Committee directs that US-VISIT adhere to the most stringent 

standards in developing and testing its system plans prior to their 

being deployed or made operational. The Committee also directs 

the Under Secretary to ensure that the contractors it selects to perform independent verification and validation tasks are genuinely 

independent and neutral with regard to whatever prime integrator 

or other vendors are participating in the project. 

OFFICE OF SCREENING COORDINATION AND OPERATIONS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ............................................................ - - - 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ........................................................ $525,526,000 

Recommended in the bill ....................................................................... - - - 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ..................................................... - - - 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ................................................. ¥525,526,000 

24 

MISSION

The mission of the Office of Screening Coordination and Operations (SCO) is to enhance the interdiction of terrorists and the instruments of terrorism by streamlining terrorist related screening. 

The SCO coordinates the procedures that detect, identify, track and 

interdict people, cargo, conveyances, and other objects that pose a 

threat to homeland security, while safeguarding legal rights guaranteed by federal law. The SCO consolidates the following Department of Homeland Security programs; United States Visitor and 

Immigration Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT), Secure 

Flight, Free and Secure Trade (FAST), NEXUS/SENTRI, 

credentialing administration and operations, Transportation Worker Identification Credentialing (TWIC), Registered Traveler, hazardous materials trucker background checks, and Alien Flight 

School checks. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends no appropriation for the proposed 

Office of Screening Coordination and Operations instead of 

$525,526,000 as proposed by the President. Although the President 

proposed to consolidate US-VISIT, Secure Flight, Free and Secure 

Trade, NEXUS/SENTRI and other screening related programs, the 

Committee has denied this consolidation. Within the Transportation Security Administration, the Committee has established a 

new office of Transportation Vetting and Credentialing to oversee 

Secure Flight, Crew Vetting, Registered Traveler, Transportation 

Worker Identification Credential, Hazmat, and Alien Flight programs. While many of these programs are funded by offsetting collections, the Committee has provided a direct appropriation totaling $84,294,000 for Secure Flight, Crew Vetting and administrative 

activities. US–VISIT, FAST, and NEXUS/SENTRI are funded within BTS Automation Modernization. 

CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 1 .......................................................... $4,534,119,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ........................................................ 4,730,544,000 

Recommended in the bill ....................................................................... 4,885,544,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ..................................................... +351,425,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ................................................. +155,000,000 1Does not include pending supplemental of $124,425,000. 

MISSION

The mission of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is to 

protect the borders of the United States by preventing, preempting 

and deterring threats against the United States through ports of 

entry and to interdict illegal crossing between ports of entry. CBP’s 

mission integrates homeland security, safety, and border management in an effort to ensure that all goods and persons crossing the 

borders of the United States do so in accordance with applicable 

laws and regulations, while posing no threat to the United States. 

Specifically, the priority of CBP is to prevent terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the United States, and supporting reVerDate Aug 04 2004 01:55 May 17, 2005 Jkt 021197 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR079.XXX HR079
25 

lated homeland security missions affecting border and airspace security. CBP is also responsible for apprehending individuals attempting to enter the United States illegally; stemming the flow of 

illegal drugs and other contraband; protecting our agricultural and 

economic interests from harmful pests and diseases; protecting 

American businesses from theft of their intellectual property; and 

regulating and facilitating international trade, collecting import duties, and enforcing U.S. trade laws. CBP has a workforce of over 

40,000, including inspectors, pilots and air and marine enforcement 

officers, canine enforcement officers, Border Patrol Agents, trade 

specialists, intelligence analysts, and mission support staff. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $4,885,544,000, including 

$3,000,000 for the collection of the Harbor Maintenance Fee, 

$155,000,000 above the President’s request and $351,425,000 above 

the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. This fully funds the 

President’s request, and includes an additional $150,000,000 to 

permit the hiring of 790 Border Patrol Agents, and $5,000,000 to 

partially fund increases for staff, equipment and operations for Air 

and Marine Operations. When combined with the pending supplemental, a total of 1,500 new Border Patrol agents will come on 

board during fiscal years 2005 and 2006. The Committee includes 

bill language, as requested, making $174,800,000 available until 

September 30, 2007, comprising $125,000,000 for radiation detection and inspection technology; $20,000,000 for replacement Border 

Patrol aircraft; $19,800,000 for the America’s Shield Initiative; and 

$10,000,000 for unmanned aerial vehicles. 

A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee recommended level by budget activity is as follows: 

Budget estimate Recommended 

Headquarters Management and Administration ......................................................... $1,250,033,000 $1,250,033,000 

Border Security Inspections and Trade Facilitation .................................................... 1,738,024,000 1,738,024,000 

Inspections, trade and travel facilitation at ports of entry ....................................... 1,274,994,000 1,274,994,000 

Harbor Maintenance Fee Collection (Trust Fund) .............................................. 3,000,000 3,000,000 

Container Security Initiative ............................................................................... 138,790,000 138,790,000 

Other International Programs ............................................................................. 8,629,000 8,629,000 

Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism .................................................. 54,268,000 54,268,000 

Inspection and Detection Technology Investments ............................................ 188,024,000 188,024,000 

Systems for Targeting ........................................................................................ 28,253,000 28,253,000 

National Targeting Center .................................................................................. 16,697,000 16,697,000 

Other Technologies ............................................................................................. 1,018,000 1,018,000 

Training ............................................................................................................... 24,351,000 24,351,000 

Border Security and Control Between Ports of Entry .................................................. 1,606,427,000 1,756,427,000

Border Security and Control ............................................................................... 1,464,989,000 1,614,989,000 

Air Program Operations and Maintenance ......................................................... 57,971,000 57,971,000 

Unmanned Aerial Vehicle ................................................................................... 10,180,000 10,180,000

America’s Shield Initiative ................................................................................. 51,084,000 51,084,000 

Training ............................................................................................................... 22,203,000 22,203,000 

Air and Marine Operations—Salaries and Benefits ................................................... 136,060,000 141,060,000 

Total ........................................................................................................... 4,730,544,000 4,885,544,000 

CONTAINER SECURITY

The Committee has consistently supported CBP initiatives to improve security for international trade and commerce, and protect 

the supply chain critical to a healthy U.S. and global economy. To 

26 

further support these promising efforts, the Committee fully funds 

the request of $138,790,000 for the Container Security Initiative 

(CSI), which currently operates at 35 international seaports. The 

Committee has not yet received the report that was due January 

14, 2005, providing detailed spending and planning projections for 

fiscal years 2005–2009, and directs CBP to submit it as soon as 

possible. The Committee includes a provision withholding 

$70,000,000 from obligation until this report is submitted. The 

Committee is aware that, in a number of instances, the host nations participating in the CSI program have been unable to deploy 

the necessary Non-Intrusive Inspection (NII) technology required of 

them as a CSI participant, and that CBP has provided assistance. 

The Committee is concerned that such assistance may draw resources from the program and reduce the incentive for foreign ports 

and governments to bear their share of the costs involved. On the 

other hand, a greater role for CBP in acquiring, certifying or possibly supporting the costs of NII in foreign ports could enhance the 

type of cooperation and the effective use of such systems in screening foreign shipments. The Committee therefore directs that the 

Commissioner submit a report not later than 90 days after enactment of this Act on how NII system selection and use could be improved, and the pros and cons of CBP involvement in financing or 

otherwise supporting NII systems at CSI ports. 

The Committee also supports the investigation by CBP into ways 

to improve security of domestic cargo containers that move or transit the United States as ‘‘in-bond’’ shipments, and includes 

$1,018,000 to continue this program, as requested. The Committee 

awaits the interim report on that effort, and reminds the Department that a report on the achievements of the program in fiscal 

year 2005 is due to the Committee on January 1, 2006. 

NON–INTRUSIVE INSPECTION AND DETECTION

The Committee continues to support the acquisition and deployment of radiation portal monitors (RPMs), including next generation monitors, and the deployment of other non-intrusive inspection 

(NII) technology to improve the ability to screen cargo thoroughly 

and efficiently. The CBP Project Execution Plan calls for approximately 2,397 RPMs to be deployed; to date the Committee understands that over 400 are in operation. The Committee provides 

$125,000,000 in new funding for an additional 279 RPMs, as requested. The Committee is also aware that CBP had planned to deploy in August 2004 a pilot of systems to screen for biological, 

chemical and explosive agents or devices. In order to fully understand the current status of CBP progress in this area, the Committee directs the Commissioner to report not later than January 

16, 2006, on (1) the status of the RPM program, in terms of deployment, systems in the pipeline, and the gap that remains to be 

filled; (2) steps being taken by CBP to maximize the effectiveness 

of RPMs to detect radioactive material; (3) the explicit tradeoffs 

made to reduce false positives and negatives, but to also minimize 

the risk that nuclear material will evade detection; (4) the spending 

plan for RPM investment and operation for fiscal years 2006–2010; 

and (5) the results of pilot testing of systems to detect biological, 

chemical or explosive materials or weapons. 

27 

The Committee understands that CBP has a total of 164 largescale NII systems, including truck and mobile truck x-ray systems, 

VACIS (gamma imaging) systems. The Committee further understands that the fiscal year 2004 cost of maintaining these systems 

was $56,000,000. CBP has indicated that, because these systems 

are still within their useful operational lifespan, there are no current plans to replace them. At the same time, the Committee is 

aware that some systems, in particular the large truck x-rays, are 

7–9 years old and have had mechanical and other systems problems that have affected their availability to inspectors. The Committee therefore directs CBP to report not later than January 16, 

2006, on its projected spending for maintenance and replacement 

of these systems for fiscal years 2006–2010. 

QUALITY ASSURANCE AT PORTS OF ENTRY

The Committee is concerned about reports that quality assurance 

procedures being applied by CBP at its ports of entry are not uniform. The Committee is aware that CBP currently uses videotape 

systems at some inspection sites, and urges CBP to expand the use 

of such quality assurance procedures nationwide. 

BACK PAY FOR CBP OFFICERS FOR FLETC TRAINING

It has come to the attention of the Committee that legacy Customs Inspectors and CBP Officers who received basic training at 

the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center during the period 

January 1, 2002, through October 1, 2004, were not compensated 

for the sixth day of training each week during that time, and that 

some of these Inspectors and officers may have been entitled to 

such compensation. The Committee directs the Commissioner to report on the number of CBP Officers and legacy Customs Inspectors 

who may be eligible under applicable regulations to back compensation for their sixth training day, the estimated total cost of 

any back compensation that may be due, and steps CBP has taken 

and is taking to resolve this issue. 

EXPEDITED REMOVAL

The Committee recognizes the success of the expedited removal 

program in the Laredo and Tucson Sectors in reducing the overall 

cost of detention housing for other than Mexican nationals and in 

reducing the number of aliens released on their own recognizance. 

The Committee recommends that expedited removal be implemented in all Border Patrol Sectors. 

IMMIGRATION ADVISORY PROGRAM

Based upon a program originally developed by the former Immigration and Naturalization Service, CBP has developed a pilot effort called the Immigration Advisory Program (IAP), previously 

known as the Immigration Security Initiative, for which $2,000,000 

was appropriated in fiscal year 2005. This program has placed CBP 

inspectors at two foreign airports (Warsaw and Amsterdam) to prevent people who lack required travel documents or are identified as 

national security threats from traveling to the United States. The 

program has resulted in thousands of intercepts, including hundreds of smuggling cases, and the saving of millions of dollars to 

28 

the U.S. Government in avoided removal and processing costs. To 

support the request to expand the program to two additional cities, 

the Committee includes an additional $2,000,000, as requested, for 

a total program level of $4,000,000. The Committee makes 

$2,000,000 of this unavailable for obligation until CBP submits the 

report on the performance of the IAP, due since January 1, 2005, 

as directed in House Report 108–541. 

AMERICA’S SHIELD INITIATIVE

The America’s Shield Initiative (ASI) deploys a sophisticated network of sensors, cameras, communication and analytic technology 

along the nation’s borders, to replace and subsume the Immigration 

and Naturalization Service (INS) legacy remote video surveillance 

(RVS) system of 269 cameras and other sensors. When implemented, ASI will permit the Border Patrol to detect and monitor 

illegal crossings in remote areas between ports of entry, and help 

deter and interdict such intrusions. The Committee provides 

$51,084,000 to continue this program. The Committee is following 

closely the investment review process for ASI, during which the 

Border Patrol has been working closely with the Science and Technical Directorate to assess the options for integrating new technology and capability into this system. The Committee expects the 

Department to keep it fully informed of the status of its investment 

planning, and to brief the Committee prior to the award of a contract to a prime integrator. 

The Committee expects that ASI will permit the Border Patrol 

and the Department not only to detect and respond to intrusions, 

but also to share this information with the Department, its intelligence components, and the larger homeland security community. 

ASI should also record and document the numbers and types of intrusions, include them in a historical database for operational and 

management analysis, and make such information available to 

DHS, including followup action taken in response to such intrusions. The Committee directs the Commissioner to report no later 

than January 16, 2006, on specific performance metrics that will be 

applied to the ASI. 

The Committee is concerned about the lack of information and 

planning involved in the INS predecessor to the ASI, known as the 

Integrated Surveillance Intelligence System (ISIS), which included 

the 269 RVS camera program. The December 9, 2004, audit report 

by the General Services Administration (GSA) Inspector General 

identified significant problems in the administration and oversight 

of procurement for the RVS program by the legacy INS and the 

GSA’s Federal Technology Service. The Committee believes that 

CBP and the Border Patrol are now taking a more rigorous approach to planning for this major investment, but remains concerned by the implications of the problems highlighted in the IG report. The Committee therefore directs the Commissioner to report 

not later than January 16, 2006, on the problems raised in the IG 

report, including specific actions CBP has taken to ensure strong 

contract management and oversight, and ensuring that it uses competition to ensure the best price and performance of this critical 

system. 

29 

BORDER PATROL CHECKPOINTS

Bill language is continued and modified prohibiting funds for the 

site acquisition, design, or construction of any permanent Border 

Patrol checkpoint in the Tucson sector. The Bureau of Customs and 

Border Protection is reminded that it must relocate a checkpoint no 

more than seven days after its establishment and may not return 

to the previous location until at least seven days after relocation. 

ARIZONA BORDER CONTROL INITIATIVE

The Committee is aware that more than half of Border Patrol arrests have occurred in Arizona since the advent of the Arizona Border Control Initiative (ABCI), and that the ABCI can be credited 

with 27 fewer deaths, a 26 percent reduction, in fiscal year 2004 

compared to fiscal year 2003, before the ABCI began. The Committee supports this multi-agency approach to protecting a vulnerable section of our border and saving lives, and thus includes the 

additional $1,000,000 requested for Border Patrol temporary duty 

costs. 

TOHONO O’ODHAM NATION AND THE ABCI

The Committee understands that one consequence of the ABCI 

has been an increase in illegal aliens who attempt to enter the 

United States via the 75-mile stretch of border occupied by the 

Tohono O’odham Nation. The Nation estimates that it spends over $3,000,000 in tribal funds annually in response to border related 

incidents. The Committee understands that a joint use facility was 

opened on the Tohono O’odham Nation on October 26, 2004, in 

which the Nation’s police department is co-located with the Border 

Patrol and other BTS agencies to improve the efficiency of border 

enforcement operations in the Nation, and provide a convenient location where persons found in distress in the West Desert may receive medical treatment. The Committee directs CBP to work closely with the Nation, including making appropriate use of cooperative 

operations and facilities such as the joint use facility, to ensure 

that the Nation is kept fully aware of CBP actions that have a direct impact on them. 

INTERIOR REPATRIATION

The Committee understands that the Border Patrol has repatriated over 14,000 aliens to Mexico since the inception of the Interior 

Repatriation Program in July 2004, averaging about 145 repatriations a day. The Committee directs the Commissioner to report 

not later than January 16, 2006, on the performance of this program, including cost, associated full-time equivalent, and statistics 

relating to the numbers repatriated and any data on recidivism for 

individuals so repatriated. 

TEXTILE TRANSSHIPMENT ENFORCEMENT

Section 352 of the Trade Act of 2002 authorized $9,500,000 for 

the Customs Service for Textile Transshipment Enforcement, and 

specified how the authorized funds were to be spent. Congress appropriated $4,750,000 for textile transshipment enforcement by 

CBP in fiscal years 2004 and 2005, for a total appropriation of 

$9,500,000. The Committee includes $4,750,000 for fiscal year 2006 

30 

to continue this effort, and directs that CBP report not later than 

January 16, 2006 on how these funds, as well as those appropriated in fiscal years 2004–2005, were spent. The report should include staffing levels in fiscal years 2003–2006, differentiated by position, as authorized in Section 352 of the Trade Act of 2002. The 

report should also describe how CBP has redeployed its workforce 

previously assigned to enter and monitor quota information, now 

that quotas have expired. 

VEHICLE MANAGEMENT

The Committee is waiting for the detailed report due on February 8, 2005, on the results of CBP’s comprehensive review of its 

vehicle management plan. The Committees urges the Department 

to expedite release of this plan, which should address the plans and 

milestones for the Border Patrol and its requirements for off-road 

and severe terrain vehicles. 

TOBACCO IMPORTS

The Committee is increasingly concerned that there is insufficient coordination between those Federal agencies responsible for 

tracking and permitting tobacco products to be imported into the 

United States, and those Federal agencies responsible for ensuring 

that Federal tax and other Federal requirements applicable to such 

imports are met. The Committee is also concerned that some tobacco product manufacturers (as defined in the Master Settlement 

Agreement) importing such tobacco products (as defined in the 

Master Settlement Agreement) may not be meeting their payment 

obligations under State tax laws, the Master Settlement Agreement, or State laws requiring that certain tobacco importers or 

companies place funds in escrow or make payments to States. The 

Committee strongly urges the Department to work with the Department of Treasury to ensure that information on tobacco imports is shared between the two departments, and that information 

about the validity of tobacco imports be included in screening used 

to assess whether or not such shipments should be cleared for 

entry. In addition, the Committee urges the Secretary to share information about imported tobacco products, and whether they are 

produced by manufacturers under the Master Settlement Agreement, with the Commodity Credit Corporation and any State, and 

the National Association of Attorneys General, as appropriate. 

STEEL TRAINING PROGRAM

The Committee includes continued funding for the Steel Training 

Program, as included in the President’s request. This program ensures that CBP enforcement of U.S. trade laws benefits from the 

expertise of the steel industry in classifying steel goods. 

2010 OLYMPIC WINTER GAMES

The Committee understands that the 2010 Olympic Winter 

Games will be conducted in Vancouver, British Columbia from February 12 through February 28, 2010, and the 2010 Paralympic 

Winter Games from March 12 through March 21, 2010. The Committee anticipates that these events of international significance 

will greatly increase the amount of people and goods crossing the 

31 

border between Washington State and Canada. The Committee directs the Department of Homeland Security to conduct a review, in 

conjunction with appropriate Washington State and Canadian entities, and to report back to the Committee within six months on all 

relevant Departmental issues related to the Vancouver Olympic 

and Paralympic Games, including, but not limited to, expected border flow, border security, estimated border wait times, and the possible need for increased border personnel. 

AUTOMATION MODERNIZATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ............................................................ $449,909,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ........................................................ 458,009,000 

Recommended in the bill ....................................................................... 458,009,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ..................................................... +8,100,000 

Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2006 ................................................ - - - 

MISSION

The Automation Modernization account includes funding for 

major information technology projects for U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP). Projects included in this request are the planned 

Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) system, continued support and transition of the legacy Automated Commercial System 

(ACS), and technology associated with integration and connectivity 

of information technology within CBP and the Department of 

Homeland Security. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $458,009,000, the same as the budg- et request and $8,100,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal 

year 2005. This includes $321,690,000 for the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) and International Trade Data System 

(ITDS), equivalent to the amount provided for fiscal year 2005. 

AUTOMATED COMMERCIAL ENVIRONMENT (ACE)

The Committee commends CBP on its progress in deploying releases 3 and 4 of ACE and in growing the ACE program to more 

than 450 importer, broker, and carrier accounts. The Committee 

also recognizes CBP’s plan to roll out ACE to port locations and geographic clusters and fully supports this initiative. The Committee 

will continue to track the progress of this activity so that best practices are followed and to ensure that the ACE schedule reflects cost 

controls and that ACE aligns with the DHS enterprise architecture. 

This is especially important as ACE seeks to avoid delays in delivering its releases and to manage the significant software development that remains to be completed. The Committee believes that 

ACE and CBP modernization should be integrated, if not form the 

core, of DHS information system and border security technology, 

including the Container Security Initiative and Automated Targeting Systems. The Committee directs CBP to address such issues 

in its quarterly reports on ACE implementation progress. 

AIR AND MARINE INTERDICTION, OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE AND

PROCUREMENT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ............................................................ $257,535,000 

32 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ........................................................ 292,780,000 

Recommended in the bill ....................................................................... 347,780,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ..................................................... +90,245,000 

Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2006 ................................................ +55,000,000 

MISSION

The Office of Air and Marine Operations (AMO) provides integrated and coordinated border interdiction and law enforcement 

support for homeland security missions; provides airspace security 

for high risk areas or national special security events; and combats 

the illegal entry of narcotics and other items into the United 

States. AMO also provides aviation and marine support for the 

counter-terrorism efforts of many other law enforcement agencies. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $347,780,000 for Air and Marine 

Operations, Interdiction, Maintenance and Procurement, 

$55,000,000 above the President’s request and $90,245,000 above 

the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. Of this total, $14,000,000 

is for acquisition of manned covert surveillance aircraft; 

$16,000,000 is for the P–3 surveillance aircraft service life extension program; $15,000,000 is to acquire and deploy palletized sensor packages for use with the P–3 Slick aircraft; and $10,000,000 

is to support procurement, operations and facilities needs of the 

National Capital Region air branch and the Air and Marine Operations Center. 

AIR AND MARINE OPERATIONS CENTER

As DHS evaluates its plans toward defining a common command 

and control (C2) architecture for the Department, the Committee 

strongly encourages it to consider the Air and Marine Operations 

Center as a leading C2 asset. AMOC is the only law enforcement 

command, control, communications, intelligence, surveillance and 

reconnaissance (C3ISR) center in the country that performs detection, monitoring, identification and interdiction coordination of general aviation aircraft at the nation’s borders. In addition, the Committee understands that the AMOC systems and technology have 

been suggested as a model for a possible maritime NORAD system. 

HH–60 BLACK HAWK AND THE HH–60 JAYHAWK

The Committee is aware that AMO relies heavily on a versatile 

and powerful asset, the HH–60 Black Hawk, as a key interdiction 

and air security tool. However, the Black Hawks are of the oldest 

vintage and seeing declining availability due to breakdowns and 

maintenance needs. Given current budget constraints, it is unlikely 

that the Black Hawk can be replaced in the near term. As the 

Committee has determined that extending the life and capability of 

the HH–60 Jayhawk platform is integral to the Coast Guard’s 

Deepwater program, it also sees great potential for efficiency in 

that AMO uses a similar asset, the HH–60 Black Hawk. Given the 

Coast Guard’s extensive modernization plan for the HH–60 Jayhawk, the Committee strongly urges the Department, the BTS Directorate, CBP, and the Coast Guard to collaborate in the operations, maintenance, and outfitting of the HH–60 platform. 

33 

CUSTOMS NATIONAL AVIATION CENTER

Over the last several years, the Committee understands that the 

Customs National Aviation Center (CNAC) has augmented its pilot 

training with computer based instruction and simulation, which 

has increased training efficiency while decreasing costs. The Committee encourages the Department to continue this approach. 

CONSTRUCTION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ............................................................ $ 91,718,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ........................................................ 93,418,000 

Recommended in the bill ....................................................................... 93,418,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ..................................................... +1,700,000 

Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2006 ................................................ - - - 

MISSION

The construction account funds the planning, design, and assembly of U.S. Border Patrol infrastructure, including border stations, 

checkpoints, temporary detention facilities, mission support facilities, and tactical infrastructure such as fencing, vehicle barriers, 

lighting, and road improvements at the border. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $93,418,000 for Construction, as requested by the President, and $1,700,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. 

IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 20051 ........................................................... $ 2,438,494,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ........................................................ 2,892,281,000 

Recommended in the bill ....................................................................... 3,064,081,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ..................................................... +625,587,000 

Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2006 ................................................ +171,800,000 1Does not include pending supplemental $454,250,000. 

MISSION

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is the lead 

agency responsible for enforcement of immigration laws, customs 

laws, air security laws, and facilities security. ICE protects the 

United States by investigating, deterring, and detecting threats 

arising from the movement of people and goods into and out of the 

United States. ICE consists of more than 15,000 employees within 

five major program areas: Office of Investigations, Federal Air Marshals Service, Federal Protective Service, Office of Intelligence, and 

Detention and Removal Operations. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $3,064,081,000 for Salaries and Expenses, $171,800,000 above the President’s request and 

$625,587,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. This 

fully funds the President’s request and adds $90,000,000 for an additional 1,920 bed spaces, $16,000,000 for an additional 60 fugitive 

34 

operations team members, $18,000,000 for an additional 100 Institutional Removal Program agents, $10,000,000 for an additional 49 

Alternatives to Detention positions, $19,000,000 for an additional 

150 Criminal Investigators, $18,000,000 for an additional 200 Immigration Enforcement Agents, and $800,000 in additional funding 

for the Cyber Crimes Center. When combined with the pending 

Supplemental, a total of 200 Criminal Investigators and 368 Immigration Enforcement Agents will come on board during fiscal years 

2005 and 2006. 

A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee recommended level by budget activity is as follows: 

Budget estimate Recommended 

Headquarters Management and Administration ............................................. $412,143,000 $412,143,000 

Investigations .................................................................................................. 1,233,848,000 1,271,648,000 

Operations ............................................................................................... 1,215,916,000 1,253,716,000 

Training ................................................................................................... 17,932,000 17,932,000 

Intelligence ...................................................................................................... 61,822,000 61,822,000 

Headquarters Reporting Center .............................................................. 4,988,000 4,988,000 

Operations/Operations Center ................................................................. 56,834,000 56,834,000 

Detention and Removal Operations ................................................................. 1,184,468,000 1,318,468,000 

Custody Management ............................................................................. 600,160,000 690,160,000 

Case Management .................................................................................. 166,277,000 166,277,000 

Fugitive Operations ................................................................................. 103,255,000 119,255,000 

Institutional Removal Program ............................................................... 70,104,000 88,104,000 

Alternatives to Detention ........................................................................ 33,406,000 43,406,000 

Transportation and Removal Program ................................................... 211,266,000 211,266,000 

Total ............................................................................................... 2,892,281,000 3,064,081,000

ICE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

The Committee is extremely concerned and disappointed by the 

persistent financial troubles of ICE that are a direct and total failure of DHS to deal with major costs and financial management 

issues that lingered from legacy agencies and were carried into the 

newly formed Department. The litany of problems—failure to fully 

disclose financial information, poor execution of budgets, the lack 

of strong management and adequate numbers of critical staff to ensure an effective transition—have caused what should have been a 

predictable cost of transition, to virtually undermine the financial 

solvency of the entire agency. In the meantime, ICE has been 

forced to employ drastic cost-cutting measures, including a hiring 

freeze, halting critical training and, the Committee believes, adversely limiting the operations of the second largest investigative 

and enforcement agency in the federal government. The Committee 

recognizes that the Department and its Office of the Chief Financial Officer have become heavily engaged in solving these problems, 

working to ensure that critical staff positions are filled, and that 

the financial situation at ICE is turned around. The Committee 

wants to encourage the progress being made and is therefore providing substantial resources to address this issue. The Committee 

expects to be kept fully informed on a monthly basis on the financial health of ICE and progress towards the management reforms 

that have been initiated. When combined with the pending Supplemental, the Committee has provided sufficient funds to make ICE 

whole in terms of its basic costs and its staffing needs, and will 

continue a high level of scrutiny into how ICE manages its funding 

35 

and communicates its budgetary and financial condition to the Congress. The intent of the Committee is not to fix the problem by filling a bottomless pit, but to ensure that pitfalls will henceforth be 

flagged and avoided. The Committee therefore directs the Secretary 

to report monthly on ICE’s financial condition, with the initial report, due no later than November 1, 2005, to cover the actions 

taken in fiscal year 2005. 

DETENTION CAPACITY

There will always be a limit on the number of beds available to 

hold detainees, but ICE has suffered from an acute shortage of detention space, exacerbated by its current financial straits. Since 

2004, ICE has reduced the available number of beds from 23,000 

to 18,000. As a result, ICE and Border Patrol Agents (who are responsible for most apprehensions of illegal aliens) have been forced 

to allow many aliens who are not ‘‘mandatory’’ to be released on 

their own recognizance (ROR). For example, the Committee understands that in fiscal year 2003, only 9,500 of the 49,500 non-Mexicans apprehended by the Border Patrol were ROR; but in fiscal 

2004, the number shot up to 75,000 apprehended and 34,800 ROR. 

The Committee believes there is a need for both additional detention capacity and alternatives to detention. The Committee adds 

$90,000,000 for additional detention capacity and adds an additional $10,000,000 for alternatives to detention. When combined 

with the pending Supplemental, a total of 3,870 beds will be added 

to current detention capacity during fiscal years 2005 and 2006. 

The Committee directs ICE to place emphasis on using funds for 

alternatives to detention to reduce the need for detention for those 

individuals who are low risk but who should not be released. The 

Committee also directs ICE to work with the Science and Technology Directorate to develop next generation electronic enforcement devices, such as GPS enabled ankle bracelets, to be used in 

this area. The Committee also recommends that ICE review options to gain efficiencies through the use of regional detention contracts. The Committee has included bill language making 

$50,000,000 unavailable for obligation until a plan has been provided to the Committee that sets forth, in detail, a comprehensive 

national detention management plan, with particular attention to 

the use of regional detention contracts and alternatives to detention. 

ENFORCEMENT PRIORITIES

The Committee believes that ICE’s enforcement mission is torn 

between criminal investigations and enforcing administrative violations, leaving a culture that will do neither activity well and is set 

up for failure. ICE, and the INS before it, incorrectly relied upon 

criminal investigators (special agents) to enforce administrative immigration violations, such as apprehending non-criminal illegal 

aliens. Special agents, who are trained and responsible for handling long term, intensive criminal investigations, in practice treat 

administrative violations as a lower priority compared to criminal 

cases. As a result, a vast element of immigration law is under-enforced. The Committee believes that administrative violations 

should be enforced by officers specifically designated for administrative enforcement, such as Immigration Enforcement Agents 

36 

(IEAs). The administrative enforcement mission has never been 

given a chance to be a distinct organizational component, apart 

from criminal investigations. ICE has indicated in its budget justifications that it plans to use IEAs to manage the Institutional Removal Program (IRP), freeing up special agents to pursue criminal 

or national security investigations. The Committee supports ICE’s 

plan for the IRP and sees great potential in the IEA position for 

expanded attention to administrative enforcement including, worksite enforcement and apprehending illegal aliens. 

The Committee supports an expansion of IEA’s role to enforce 

administrative immigration violations and provides $18,000,000 for 

an additional 200 positions in fiscal year 2006. An additional 168 

positions are funded in the pending emergency supplemental appropriations bill. The Committee has included bill language directing ICE to submit, with concurrence of Secretary of Homeland Security, a plan for the expanded use of Immigration Enforcement 

Agents to enforce administrative immigration violations by December 1, 2005. 

The Committee directs ICE to identify in their plan how their additional personnel will satisfy the immigration enforcement requirements of underserved States. 

STATE AND LOCAL SUPPORT FOR IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT

The Committee supports the ‘‘287(g) Program’’ to cross-designate 

state and local law enforcement officers to perform limited immigration enforcement functions and provides $5 million in support of 

this program, including the training of participants. Section 287(g) 

of the Immigration and Nationality Act authorizes the Secretary of 

Homeland Security to enter into written agreements to delegate 

authority to enforce federal immigration laws to state and local law 

enforcement officers. This program is completely voluntary for the 

state and local governments. The Committee understands that delegation is granted only after extensive training from ICE and that 

the delegated officers perform immigration enforcement functions 

under direct ICE supervision. Beginning in 2002, there are currently three jurisdictions enrolled in various stages of the program. 

The Committee directs DHS to be more proactive in encouraging 

state and local governments to participate in this program. The 

Committee fully supports the 287(g) program and views the program as a powerful force multiplier to better enforce immigration 

laws and, consequently, to better secure the homeland. 

FUGITIVE OPERATIONS

The Committee supports the expansion of the fugitive operations 

program, within Detention and Removal Operations. The Committee includes an additional $16,000,000 to expand the program 

in order to reduce the current fugitive alien population estimated 

to be 465,000. In order to mitigate the fugitive problem, the Committee strongly urges Detention and Removal Operations to explore 

ways to coordinate efforts with the immigration courts to apprehend those non-detained aliens immediately after a final order of 

removal is issued. When possible, ICE should be aware of the order 

of removal before the alien is notified. The current situation, in 

which an estimated 90 percent of non-detained aliens abscond after 

receiving an order of removal, is entirely unacceptable. 

37 

VISA SECURITY PROGRAM

The Committee continues to support the role that the Visa Security Program has in ensuring that terrorists and criminals are not 

given the opportunity to exploit the State Department’s visa 

issuance process to gain entry into the United States. The highly 

skilled officers that staff the Visa Security Program provide their 

expertise and guidance to State Department consular officers before a visa is issued. The first phase of the program was to deploy 

Visa Security Officers to Saudi Arabia to screen all visa applications in that country as directed in the Homeland Security Act of 

2002. ICE is now expanding the program to countries beyond Saudi 

Arabia, having used the lessons learned in Saudi Arabia to guide 

future deployments. The Committee supports the continued development of the program and recommends $19,000,000 for fiscal year 

2006 to expand the program to additional countries based on ICE’s 

site assessments. 

INTEGRATION OF LEGACY AGENCY INVESTIGATORS

The Committee is pleased to learn that all ICE special agents 

have been cross-trained in the legacy disciplines of immigration 

and customs related laws and investigative techniques. Additionally, ICE has resolved the pay parity issue that divided its special 

agents. The Committee recognizes that there are tangible benefits 

of having ICE investigators integrated to maximize the diverse experience and knowledge that ICE inherited upon its creation. However, there are areas of great concern to the Committee in regards 

to the integration of the ICE workforce. ICE is over two years old 

and the overwhelming majority of ICE’s law enforcement officers 

still carry legacy agency credentials and badges. The Committee 

views this as a divisive influence as well as a safety concern of having incorrectly identified officers. Another area of concern is ICE’s 

need to co-locate all of ICE’s legacy personnel, particularly within 

the Office of Investigations. Physical co-location is needed to unify 

personnel and manage a cohensive workforce. Estimates from ICE 

on the cost of co-location are approximately $150,000,000, with a 

goal of completion within five to seven years. The Committee directs ICE to submit, in conjunction with its 2007 budget request, 

a report on the cost and schedule for co-locating personnel, broken 

out by each field office location. Included should be an estimate for 

co-locating offices within a significantly shorter period than five to 

seven years. 

EMPLOYEE TRAINING

The Committee is concerned that, since March 2004, ICE has not 

provided any advanced training to its employees due to its strained 

financial condition in fiscal years 2004 and 2005. To address this 

critical issue, the Committee is providing $17,932,000 to ICE for 

training, which includes resources for advanced training for its 

Special Agents, Deportation Officers, Immigration Enforcement 

Agents and other personnel. The Committee directs ICE to resume 

this training with minimal delay in order to sustain a competent, 

effective workforce. The Committee requests that ICE submit a report in conjunction with its fiscal year 2007 budget request that 

provides statistical detail on basic, advanced, and specialized trainVerDate Aug 04 2004 01:55 May 17, 2005 Jkt 021197 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR079.XXX HR079
38 

ing from fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2006, to include: number and position of personnel trained, title and purpose of training, 

and location of training. 

FINANCIAL INVESTIGATIONS

The Committee recognizes and is encouraged by ICE’s efforts to 

combat money laundering and financial crimes, mainly through its 

Operation Cornerstone program. Illicit monetary proceeds and unlawful transfers of money are what motivate and sustain criminal 

organizations and provide a source of funding for terrorist groups. 

Cutting off funding to criminals and terrorists is essential to the 

broader mission of homeland security. ICE’s performance in this 

arena is worthy of recognition and is a testament to the dedicated 

personnel that enforce the agency’s diverse authority. The Committee supports and encourages the increased use of partnerships 

with the private sector and foreign governments in combating 

money laundering and other financial crimes. With the additional 

law enforcement resources provided in this bill, the Committee encourages ICE to build on its many successes in this area. 

LEGAL ORIENTATION PROGRAM

The Committee is aware that the Legal Orientation Program 

(LOP), which is run by the Justice Department’s Executive Office 

of Immigration Review (EOIR), has helped reduce the time some 

immigrants spend in detention and helped make EOIR proceedings 

more efficient. The Committee urges ICE to explore with EOIR possibly expanding LOP to more ICE detention facilities. 

FAMILY DETENTION

The Committee is concerned about reports that children apprehended by DHS, even as young as nursing infants, are being separated from their parents and placed in shelters operated by the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) while their parents are in separate adult facilities. Children who are apprehended by DHS while 

in the company of their parents are not in fact ‘‘unaccompanied;’’

and if their welfare is not at issue, they should not be placed in 

ORR custody. The Committee expects DHS to release families or 

use alternatives to detention such as the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program whenever possible. When detention of family 

units is necessary, the Committee directs DHS to use appropriate 

detention space to house them together. 

EXPEDITED REMOVAL

In response to the increase in other than Mexican nationals apprehended by the Border Patrol and subsequently released on their 

own recognizance, the Committee strongly urges that ICE provide 

adequate bed space to ensure the detention and removal of approximately 91,000 aliens along the US-Mexico Border. The Committee 

urges ICE to support more widespread implementation of the expedited removal program. 

IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT STATISTICS

The Committee is concerned that information about immigration 

enforcement and the impact that ICE makes on the problem naVerDate Aug 04 2004 01:55 May 17, 2005 Jkt 021197 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR079.XXX HR079
39 

tionally is difficult to find, and statistics are easily distorted. To assist the Committee in understanding better the enforcement actions of ICE, the Assistant Secretary of Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement is directed to provide on a quarterly basis, with the 

first report due January 1, 2006, a report on the (1) current estimate of illegal aliens in the U.S. including absconders (those who 

have not appeared for immigration hearings or fled after receiving 

orders for deportation) and criminal aliens; (2) current estimate of 

foreign born aliens in the U.S. prison system, and of those, how 

many ICE estimates are deportable; (3) the number of aliens who 

are apprehended by ICE, broken down by ICE office location and 

specific ICE program such as the Fugitive Operations teams or 

Compliance Enforcement; (4) the number of aliens who are apprehended by other law enforcement agencies and delivered to ICE; (5) 

the number of aliens who are released on their own recognizance; 

(6) the number of aliens so released who fail to appear for their immigration hearings; (7) the number of bed spaces available and the 

number of bed spaces actually occupied; (8) the number of aliens 

removed; (9) number of individuals placed in alternatives to detention; (10) types of alternatives to detention used; (11) number of 

worksite enforcement operations and inspections conducted; (12) 

the number of positions and FTE dedicated to administrative enforcement; and (13) staffing, to include on-board staffing, new hires 

and attrition broken down by function, such as Special Agents, 

IEAs, and Deportation Officers. 

TEXTILE TRANSSHIPMENT ENFORCEMENT

Section 352 of the Trade Act of 2002 authorized $9,500,000 for 

the Customs Service for Textile Transshipment Enforcement, and 

specified how the authorized funds were to be spent. Congress appropriated $4,750,000 for textile transshipment enforcement by 

ICE in fiscal years 2004 and 2005, for a total appropriation of 

$9,500,000. The Committee includes $4,750,000 for fiscal year 2006 

to continue this effort, and directs that ICE report not later than 

January 1, 2006, on how these funds, as well as those appropriated 

in fiscal years 2004–2005, were spent. The report should include 

staffing levels in fiscal years 2003–2006, differentiated by position, 

as authorized in Section 352 of the Trade Act of 2002. The report 

should also describe how ICE has redeployed its workforce previously assigned to investigate quota violations, now that quotas 

have expired. 

CYBER CRIMES CENTER

The Committee is aware that the ICE Cyber Crimes Center (C3) 

is a lead investigative asset in combating international criminal activities conducted on or facilitated by the Internet. As the core of 

ICE Internet-related investigations, the C3 provides technological 

assistance in forensic investigations, operates three units addressing child exploitation, computer forensics, and cyber crimes, and 

has been used extensively by ICE offices nationwide to develop 

leads and support the field offices in pursuing investigations. The 

Committee provided $4,200,000 in fiscal year 2005 to help improve 

data storage capacity for the C3 and to help begin the process of 

establishing six regional Cyber Crime Support Centers to provide 

computer forensic laboratories at major ICE field offices around the 

40 

country. The Committee strongly supports the C3 as a key asset in 

law enforcement and national security, and provides $5,000,000 in 

fiscal year 2006, an increase of $800,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2005. 

FEDERAL AIR MARSHALS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ............................................................ $662,900,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ........................................................ 688,860,000 

Recommended in the bill ....................................................................... 698,860,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ..................................................... +35,960,000 

Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2006 ................................................ +10,000,000 

MISSION

The Federal Air Marshals (FAMs) provide for the security of the 

nation’s civil aviation system through the effective deployment of 

armed federal agents to detect, deter, and defeat hostile acts targeting U.S. air carriers, airports, passengers, and crews. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $698,860,000 for FAMs, $10,000,000 

above the President’s request and $35,960,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. Of this total, $616,927,000 is for management and administration, $71,933,000 is for travel and training, 

and $10,000,000 is to implement the air-to-ground communications 

program. The Committee anticipates that this funding level will 

maintain, or perhaps increase, mission coverage on both domestic 

and international flights. 

AIR-TO-GROUND COMMUNICATIONS

For the past few years, Congress has been funding an air-toground communications program. As part of this program, FAMs 

has been working with other government agencies to integrate 

their airborne communication system into other communications 

systems. At a minimum, this system must be reliable, WiFi compatible, in compliance with government standards on wireless security, provide guaranteed timely transmission and/or receipt, and receive signal at any point (airborne or ground) within the continental United States or abroad. This program is reaching maturity. 

The Committee recommends $10,000,000 to continue this work, 

begin prototype testing, and possible implementation of this system 

in fiscal year 2006. Beginning on January 1, 2006, and quarterly 

thereafter, FAMs shall brief the House Committee on Appropriations on the status of the air-to-ground communications program. 

AIRPORT SURVEILLANCE

The Committee has learned that FAMs is exploring the idea of 

expanding its mission to go beyond the aircraft and enter the airport security arena. The proposed activities would include surveillance in the airport environment and airport related investigations. 

The Committee is not clear on the scope and detail of this proposed 

expansion and is concerned with potential mission creep and conflicting jurisdictions with other law enforcement agencies. The 

Committee directs FAMs to submit a report in conjunction with the 

fiscal year 2007 budget request that provides detail to these exVerDate Aug 04 2004 01:55 May 17, 2005 Jkt 021197 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR079.XXX HR079
41 

panded responsibilities and the potential impact to the FAMs mission, to include: the types of investigations that would be conducted 

in airports, the potential tangible benefits of FAMs conducting surveillance in an airport, whether this expansion would merit and require the conversion of FAMs to 1811 status, a timeframe for implementation, statistical distribution of workload hours between 

airport and aircraft missions, additional FTEs required, additional 

costs associated with an enhanced airport mission, additional training requirements, and how an expanded FAMs mission would 

interrelate with the numerous law enforcement agencies that are 

currently conducting airport security operations. 

CROSS TRAINING OF ICE AGENTS

The Committee has learned that FAMs and ICE have begun 

planning again to cross train ICE agents to serve as air marshals. 

Although the Committee does not oppose conducting such training, 

the Committee continues to be concerned that this cross training 

will not be particularly effective unless ICE agents serve as air 

marshals on a periodic basis, not just during times of heightened 

threats. As such, the Committee directs FAMs and ICE to report 

on their cross training plans, including the tentative number of 

ICE agents to be trained yearly, and how they plan to maintain 

these perishable skills. This report shall be submitted no later than 

July 15, 2005, so that the Committee can fully evaluate this proposal before ICE begins its cross-training. Absent receipt of this 

plan, the Committee will be unable to support this initiative in fiscal year 2006. 

FEDERAL PROTECTIVE SERVICE

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ............................................................ $ 478,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ........................................................ 487,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ....................................................................... 487,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ..................................................... +9,000,000 

Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2006 ................................................ - - - 

MISSION

The Federal Protective Service (FPS) is responsible for the protection of public buildings and other areas under the charge and 

control of the General Services Administration. FPS is also responsible for the enforcement of laws enacted for the protection of persons and property, the prevention of breaches of peace, suppression 

of affrays or unlawful assemblies, and enforcement of any rules and 

regulations made and promulgated by the GSA Administrator. This 

authority can also be extended, by agreement, to any area with a 

significant federal interest. Funding for the FPS is provided 

through a transfer of funds from the Federal Buildings Fund. FPS 

has three major law enforcement initiatives, including: Protection 

Services to all Federal facilities throughout the United States and 

its territories; New Initiatives including expanded intelligence and 

anti-terrorism capabilities; and Special Programs, including Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) detection, hazardous material detection and response, and canine programs. 

42 

RECOMMENDATION

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

year 2005. 

MANAGEMENT ISSUES

The Committee is aware of a national problem in contract management and very late vendor payments by FPS relating to its contracts for security guard services. While this is due in part to transition in switching from GSA to the ICE billing system, delays are 

excessive, and the problem must be fixed before it adversely affects 

security operations at FPS facilities. The Committee is also extremely troubled by reports of security lapses in the control of contract guard credentials. The Committee directs the Assistant Secretary, in consultation with the Director of the FPS, to immediately 

correct these problems and to submit to the Committee, not later 

than December 1, 2005, a report on actions taken. 

AUTOMATION MODERNIZATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ............................................................ $ 39,605,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ........................................................ 40,150,000 

Recommended in the bill ....................................................................... 40,150,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ..................................................... +545,000 

Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2006 ................................................ - - - 

MISSION

The Automation Infrastructure Modernization Account funds 

major information technology (IT) projects for U.S. Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement and for the U.S. Visitor and Immigrant 

Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) program. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $40,150,000, the same as the budget 

request and $545,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 

2005. This is for continued funding of the ATLAS information technology system. 

COST CONTROLS AND ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE

As noted throughout the report under other information technology accounts, the Committee will continue to track progress of 

this activity so that best practices are followed and to ensure that 

the ATLAS system reflects cost controls and aligns with the DHS 

enterprise architecture. 

CONSTRUCTION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ............................................................ $ 26,179,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ........................................................ 26,546,000 

Recommended in the bill ....................................................................... 26,546,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ..................................................... +367,000 

Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2006 ................................................ - - - 

43 

MISSION

The Construction account funds the planning, design, and assembly of ICE infrastructure, including detention facilities, mission 

support facilities, immigration field offices, and interior enforcement facilities. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $26,546,000, the same as the budget 

request and $367,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 

2005. 

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

AVIATION SECURITY

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ............................................................ $ 4,323,523,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ........................................................ 4,734,784,000 

Recommended in the bill ....................................................................... 4,591,612,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ..................................................... +268,089,000 

Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2006 ................................................ ¥143,172,000 

MISSION

Aviation security is focused on protecting the air transportation 

system against terrorist threats, sabotage and other acts of violence 

through the deployment of passenger and baggage screeners; detection systems for explosives, weapons, and other contraband; and 

other, effective security technologies. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total of $4,591,612,000 for aviation security activities, $143,172,000 below the President’s request 

and $268,089,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. 

In addition to the amounts appropriated, a mandatory appropriation of $250,000,000 is included to support the Aviation Security 

Capital Fund. Funds are partially offset through the collection of 

security user fees paid by aviation travelers and airlines. A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee recommended 

level by budget activity is as follows: 

Budget estimate Recommended 

Screening operations ................................................................................................... $3,661,929,000 $3,608,599,000 

Airport security direction and enforcement ................................................................. 1,072,855,000 983,013,000 

Aviation security capital fund 1 ................................................................................... (250,000,000) (250,000,000) 

Total .................................................................................................................... 4,734,784,000 4,591,612,000 

1 The Aviation Security Capital Fund is a non-add because it is not directly appropriated and is paid for entirely from user fees. 

SCREENING OPERATIONS

The Committee recommends $3,608,599,000 for passenger and 

baggage screening operations, $53,330,000 below the President’s request and $106,966,000 above amounts provided in fiscal year 

2005. The following table highlights funding levels by program, 

project, and activity: 

44 

Budget estimate Recommended 

Screener Workforce: 

Privatized screening ........................................................................................... $146,151,000 $139,654,000 

Passenger screeners, personnel compensation and benefits ............................ 1,590,969,000 1,520,000,000 

Baggage screeners, personnel compensation and benefits .............................. 931,864,000 884,000,000 

Subtotal, screener workforce ..................................................................... 2,668,984,000 2,543,654,000 

Screener Training and Other: 

Screener training ................................................................................................ 91,004,000 85,004,000 

Passenger screener, other .................................................................................. 26,952,000 20,952,000 

Checked baggage screeners, other .................................................................... 127,091,000 110,091,000 

Tort claims .......................................................................................................... 4,000,000 4,000,000 

Representation .................................................................................................... 3,000 3,000 

Model workplace ................................................................................................. 2,400,000 2,400,000 

Hazardous materials disposal ............................................................................ 9,800,000 9,800,000 

Subtotal, screener training and other ....................................................... 261,250,000 232,250,000 

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

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

EDS/ETD systems: 

EDS/ETD purchase .............................................................................................. 130,000,000 170,000,000 

EDS/ETD installation ........................................................................................... 14,000,000 75,000,000 

EDS/ETD maintenance and utilities ................................................................... 200,000,000 200,000,000 

Operational integration ....................................................................................... 23,000,000 23,000,000 

Subtotal, EDS/ETD systems ....................................................................... 367,000,000 468,000,000 

Total, screening operations ....................................................................... $3,661,929,000 $3,608,599,000

PRIVATIZED SCREENING

The Committee recommends $139,654,000 for privatized screening, $6,497,000 below the President’s request and $10,000,000 

above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. As of November 

19, 2004, airports could seek permission from the Transportation 

Security Administration (TSA) to ‘‘opt-out’’ of using Federal screeners. To date, only one airport has submitted paperwork to opt-out— Elko, Nevada—and this airport has less than 20 screeners. Numerous concerns have been expressed about the opt-out program, including that TSA has not made it clear that companies providing 

screening services shall not be liable in the case of a terrorist incident. The Committee is aware that TSA plans to review the optout program. Until it is clear that airports, other than the five 

original pilots and Elko, may participate in this program, a large 

increase in the privatized screening program is not justified for fiscal year 2006. 

PASSENGER AND CHECKED BAGGAGE SCREENERS

The Committee recommends a total of $2,404,000,000 for personnel, compensation, and benefits for the federal passenger and 

checked baggage screeners, $118,833,000 below the President’s request and $109,654,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 

2005. Within the amounts provided, $1,520,000,000 is for passenger screeners and $884,000,000 is for baggage screeners. This 

funding level is consistent with reprogramming actions taken in 

fiscal year 2005. 

The Committee continues bill language that limits the number of 

screeners to no more than 45,000 full-time equivalents on its payroll at the end of fiscal year 2006; the same provision included in 

45 

the fiscal years 2004 and 2005 appropriations bills. The Committee 

continues to believe that, as TSA deploys more advanced technologies that can better screen for weapons and explosive devices, 

there will be a need for a smaller screener workforce. For example, 

GAO recently reported that the majority of U.S. airports have 

stand-alone explosive detection systems (EDS) or explosive trace 

detection (ETD) systems deployed in their lobbies. These machines 

are very labor and time intensive to operate since each checked bag 

must be physically carried to an EDS or ETD machine for screening and then back to the baggage conveyor system prior to being 

loaded on an aircraft. GAO found that two or three times more 

bags can be screened per hour by an EDS in-line system compared 

to a stand alone system and 10 times more bags can be screened 

with an EDS in-line system as compared to a trace machine. Trace 

machines are much more labor intensive than EDS machines, yet 

TSA’s budget continues to support their use. GAO also noted that 

‘‘a typical lobby-based screening unit consisting of a stand alone 

EDS machine with three ETD machines had a baggage throughput 

of 376 bags per hour with a staffing requirement of 19 screeners. 

In contrast, TSA estimated that approximately 425 bags per hour 

could be screened by one in-line EDS machine with a staffing requirement of 4.25 screeners’’. The Committee has retained the 

screening cap, in part, to expedite TSA’s progress in installing 

more EDS systems in-line or at the ticket check-in counters so that 

the number of checked baggage screeners can be reduced, including 

the amount of funding necessary for their salaries. Funding for 

EDS procurement and installation has been increased. 

SCREENER TRAINING

The Committee recommends $85,004,000 for screener training, 

$6,000,000 below the budget request. This reduction was made because the Committee believes that more training can be provided 

locally instead of through large training contracts nationwide. 

SCREENER OTHER

The Committee recommends a total of $131,043,000 for other 

screener activities, $23,000,000 below the budget request. This 

level is consistent with reprogramming actions TSA has made to 

this account in the past fiscal year. 

CHECKPOINT SUPPORT

The Committee recommends $157,461,000 for checkpoint support, the same level as the budget request and $33,961,000 above 

the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. It is critical that TSA aggressively pursue the development and deployment of innovative 

aviation security technologies, particularly at screening checkpoints. These technologies should include backscatter x-ray, diffraction, portals, and document scanners. As a recent Inspector General report noted, even though the majority of screeners are diligent in the performance of their duties, they repeatedly failed to 

find weapons and improvised explosive devices both in checked and 

carry on baggage, as well as on a person. The Committee is disappointed that screener performance has not improved. The Inspector General recommended that TSA expedite its testing program 

46 

and give priority to technologies that will enable the screener workforce to better detect both weapons and explosives. This funding increase will help TSA meet this recommendation. 

EDS/ETD PURCHASE

The Committee recommends $170,000,000 for EDS and ETD pur- chases, $40,000,000 above the President’s request and $10,000,000 

below the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. The Committee is 

aware that TSA has recently certified and piloted next-generation 

EDS technology that is far smaller and less expensive than the current generation of screening units. In addition, there are other next 

generation systems that have certification pending that may reduce 

false alarm rates and screener workforces. TSA is encouraged to 

continue competition among vendors so that multiple EDS technologies are available to the airports. Within the funds provided, 

the Committee directs that not less than $40,000,000 be used to 

procure these next-generation in-line EDS systems to replace 

ETDs. In-line EDS is not only more effective than ETDs and standalone systems, it is considerably less costly to operate. Furthermore, the Committee believes that the deployment of these systems 

is essential to developing in-line solutions that do not require the 

costly redesign of baggage conveyor systems. 

EDS/ETD INSTALLATION

In addition to the statutory allocation of $250,000,000 for the 

Aviation Security Capital Fund, the Committee recommends 

$75,000,000 for EDS/ETD installation, $61,000,000 above the President’s request and $30,000,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. This funding level will fully support the eight airports that have entered into Letters of Intent (LOIs) with TSA 

($264,000,000) and provide funding to install next-generation EDS 

systems at other airports throughout the United States. 

The Committee has included bill language requested by the 

President that permits the Aviation Security Capital Fund to be 

used exclusively to fund these eight LOIs in fiscal year 2006 with 

a 75-percent federal share. Under tight budgetary restraints, the 

Committee does not have sufficient funding to raise these projects 

to a 90–percent federal share at a cost of $417,400,000, particularly 

at the expense of at least 45 other airports that need either an LOI 

to install EDS machines in-line or make other modifications to 

screen 100 percent of all checked bags through electronic means. 

For that reason, the Committee waives language contained in section 605 of the Vision 100 Act that distributes the Aviation Security Capital Fund by formula. 

The Committee has also included a new general provision (Section 530) that directs TSA to spend any recovered or deobligated 

funds appropriated to Aviation Security or Administration only on 

procurement and installation of explosive detection systems. This 

provision does not conflict with Section 515 of Public Law 108–334 

regarding the disposition of unclaimed money that airports may 

use for security needs. The Committee notes that, in the past, TSA 

has recovered over $133,000,000. 

The Committee remains frustrated with the Department’s inability and unwillingness to request funds above those provided by the 

Aviation Security Capital Fund that would permit more airports to 

47 

install EDS technologies and increase the number of bags screened, 

reduce false alarm rates, reduce federal dependency on airport 

screeners, and improve foot traffic in airport lobbies. For the past 

year, Congress has been exploring other, non-LOI, options to finance these improvements. The Committee urges TSA to enter into 

a small number of pilots with airports to improve their baggage 

screening process through creative financing options, which would 

result in operational and maintenance cost savings to TSA at each 

pilot airport. TSA would be required, upon system activation and 

subject to appropriations availability, to remit the identified annual 

cost savings to the airport every year for a term necessary to reimburse the initial capital cost. 

REMOTE BAGGAGE SCREENING

The Committee is aware that TSA is participating with airports 

and airlines in pilots at various airports around the country to 

evaluate off-site baggage check-in models. The Committee shares 

TSA’s interest in encouraging off-site check-in pilots. However, the 

Committee is concerned that these pilots are not moving forward 

expeditiously and may not be testing all options. The Committee is 

interested in seeing models widely tested that couple off-site checkin with off-site screening within the airport grounds at secure sort 

facilities before the baggage is introduced into the terminal or 

other critical airport infrastructure including all passenger areas. 

PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENTS

TSA is encouraged to work with airports to provide updated Public Service Announcements that remind airline passengers and 

crew of enhanced security requirements enacted after September 

11th, particularly when new security directions or requirements 

are enacted. 

FLIGHT ATTENDANT SECURITY TRAINING

In fiscal year 2005, the House directed TSA to expeditiously promulgate requirements for flight attendant security training. TSA 

shall report back to the House Committee on Appropriations no 

later than January 16, 2006, on the status of these performancebased training requirements. 

PASSENGER PROCESSING TIMES

The Committee notes that several airports experience unusually 

large peak volumes associated with international, charter and 

scheduled service. The Committee understands that many domestic 

travelers arriving in the same airport concourse as international 

flyers are often held up from proceeding to their final destinations 

because of slow processing times for these international visitors. 

The Committee directs TSA, in cooperation with CBP, to examine 

these unique situations, find appropriate solutions, and report back 

to the Committee on the status no later than January 16, 2006. 

AIRPORT SECURITY DIRECTION AND ENFORCEMENT

The Committee recommends $983,013,000 for airport security di- rection and enforcement, $89,842,000 below the President’s request and $161,123,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. 

48 

The following table highlights funding levels by program, project 

and activity: 

Budget estimate Recommended 

Aviation regulation and other enforcement ................................................................ $232,196,000 $222,416,000 

Airport management, information technology, and support ....................................... 758,370,000 655,597,000 

Federal flight deck officer and flight crew training ................................................... 36,289,000 29,000,000 

Air cargo ...................................................................................................................... 40,000,000 60,000,000 

Foreign and domestic repair stations ......................................................................... 6,000,000 6,000,000 

Airport perimeter security ............................................................................................ .............................. 10,000,000 

Total .................................................................................................................... $1,072,855,000 $983,013,000 

AVIATION REGULATION AND ENFORCEMENT

The Committee recommends $222,416,000 for aviation regulation 

and enforcement, $9,780,000 below the President’s request and 

$7,584,000 below the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. The 

Committee is concerned about the rapidly growing staffing levels in 

this area, which have increased by almost 43 percent over the past 

two years. The Committee notes that this office is not fully staffed 

and the funding reduction shall be applied to vacant FTEs, with 

the exception of new FTEs provided for security oversight of foreign 

and domestic repair stations. 

AIRPORT MANAGEMENT, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND SUPPORT

The Committee recommends $655,597,000 for airport management, information technology, and support, $102,773,000 below the 

President’s request and $128,707,000 above the amounts provided 

in fiscal year 2005. Reductions were made to two areas. First, a reduction of $66,773,000 was made to the budget request for highspeed connectivity. The Committee has provided $107,227,000 for 

high-speed connectivity. This funding level will complete all 

planned airport work in fiscal year 2006. No funding was provided 

for fiscal year 2007, as originally requested. Second, the Committee 

is concerned about the growing number of staff in this area. Over 

the past two years, TSA has hired almost 1,000 new staff, a 43 percent growth. In many cases, federal security directors at airports 

have more staff than are employed by the airports. The Committee 

has reduced funding for staff at these airports by $36,000,000. 

FEDERAL FLIGHT DECK OFFICERS AND FLIGHT CREW TRAINING

The Committee recommends $29,000,000 for the federal flight deck officer and flight crew training programs, $6,289,000 below 

the President’s request and $4,000,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. Of this total, $4,000,000 is for flight crew training and $25,000,000 for the Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO) 

program. Funding for the FFDO is consistent with amounts provided in fiscal years 2004 and 2005. Additional funding was not 

warranted due to high unobligated balances. 

AIR CARGO

The Committee recommends $60,000,000 for air cargo, 

$20,000,000 above the President’s request and $20,000,000 above 

the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. The Committee continues 

to be concerned that TSA is not focusing enough staff or resources 

49 

on the security issues surrounding air cargo. For example, Section 

513 of the fiscal year 2005 appropriations bill required the Department to immediately amend security directives to triple the screening of air cargo on passenger aircraft. The Committee is deeply disappointed that TSA has yet to fully implement this section. Similarly, late last year, the Intelligence Reform Act required TSA to 

issue a final notice of proposed rulemaking that would strengthen 

the air cargo security program. This has been slow to occur. At this 

time, TSA plans to finalize a rule to strengthen this program on 

August 19, 2005. The Committee is extremely disappointed that 

the fiscal year 2006 budget request does not include any funding 

to support these additional security enhancements. As a result, the 

Committee has: (1) included $10,000,000 to hire 100 new air cargo 

inspectors, which would increase the number of air cargo inspectors 

to 300; (2) increased travel funds for air cargo inspectors by 

$3,000,000; (3) increased funding by $5,000,000 to enhance the 

automated indirect air carrier maintenance system and known 

shipper database; and (4) included $2,000,000 to conduct security 

threat assessments of regulated parties and fast track certain provisions in the pending air cargo notice of proposed rulemaking. The Committee is concerned that, while $130,000,000 has been 

appropriated in the past two years for air cargo research and development, a substantial amount remains unobligated. Specifically, as 

of January 31, 2005, TSA has obligated less than 4 percent of air 

cargo security funding appropriated in 2005 and did not obligate almost $7,000,000 appropriated in fiscal year 2004. While the Committee recognizes that it takes a significant amount of time to develop and test existing and new pilot technologies to screen air 

cargo, high unobligated balances give the impression that TSA does 

not view air cargo as a serious aviation security vulnerability. 

Because of the slowness to implement Congressional direction 

and to obligate funds, the Committee sees it necessary to provide 

further direction to TSA on air cargo issues. As a result, the Committee has included three new legislative provisions relating to air 

cargo screening and standards development (Sections 512, 522 and 

523): 

(1) A legislative provision relating to section 513 of Public Law 

108–334 and the failure of TSA to modify security directives. 

(2) A legislative provision requiring TSA to develop standards 

and protocols, in conjunction with airline stakeholders, to better 

screen air cargo. Over the past two years, TSA tested current explosive detection systems, including both EDS and ETD, in the 

cargo screening environment and ultimately issued screening protocols using ETD systems. The Committee directs TSA to expeditiously develop similar screening standards and protocols for EDS 

so that the airlines have more options available to them to screen 

air cargo, particularly break bulk packages that could easily fit 

through an EDS machine. The Committee also directs TSA to develop protocols and standards in conjunction with promising new 

technologies to screen air cargo. In the past, delays have occurred 

in deploying technologies to screen air cargo while waiting for TSA 

to finalize usage protocols and standards. 

(3) A legislative provision requiring TSA to screen cargo at existing checked baggage screening locations to the greatest extent 

practicable. The Committee understands that the cargo screening 

50 

peak times come prior to the passenger screening peak times and 

that under the last Code Orange alert, TSA screened some cargo 

at its checked baggage screening locations. TSA is directed to provide monthly reports, beginning with November 2005, to the House 

Appropriations Committee on the amount of cargo screened at 

checked baggage locations by TSA at each airport. 

AIR CARGO PILOTS

The Committee has provided $40,000,000 to the Science and 

Technology Directorate (S&T) within the explosive countermeasures appropriation to continue air cargo activities, previously 

funded under TSA’s research and development program. Of this 

funding, $30,000,000 shall be used to conduct three cargo screening 

pilot programs—one at an all cargo airport and two at top ten passenger cargo airports. These pilots shall test different concepts of 

operation that TSA designs in coordination with the S&T. Testing 

shall consist of the following: (1) physically screening a significant 

percentage (e.g. six times more than today) of cargo at a passenger 

airport using TSA screeners during slack passenger and checked 

baggage screening periods; (2) physically screening a significant 

percentage (e.g. six times more than today) of cargo at a passenger 

airport using TSA or private screeners solely dedicated to cargo 

screening; and (3) using canine teams, supplemented as needed by 

technology, screening a similar percentage of cargo at an all cargo 

airport, specifically to detect explosives and hidden passengers. 

Based on results of each pilot, TSA will provide cost estimates 

(both non-recurring and recurring) of these different operational 

concepts if deployed to the top five air cargo only airports and top 

10 passenger airports. The Committee expects each of these pilots 

to be no shorter than nine months in duration and all pilots to be 

completed by January 31, 2007. The Committee directs S&T to provide a comprehensive report on each pilot, two months after each 

is completed, and interim reports of progress and results no later 

than August 31, 2006. 

GENERAL AVIATION

The Committee continues to support the Airport Watch program 

and expects TSA to continue funding the toll free number (866–GA 

Secure) to reinforce security at the nation’s 5,400 public use general aviation airports. The Committee recommends $275,000 for additional promotion of the Airport Watch program. 

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION’S ACCESS CERTIFICATE

The Committee is pleased with the progress and initial success 

of the Transportation Security Administration’s Access Certificate 

(TSAAC) program. This voluntary general aviation security program is being tested with 24 business aviation operators at three 

New York area general aviation airports. TSAAC participants have 

implemented specific security procedures including corporate background checks on flight and ground crew personnel, screening/inspection of passengers and baggage, integration of pre-flight, inflight and ground security programs, and utilization of threat intelligence. TSA audits of the current TSAAC participants found full 

compliance with the requirements. The Committee encourages TSA 

51 

to continue moving forward with this program and report back to 

the Committee no later than January 16, 2006, on any plans to further enhance and fully implement this initiative. 

AIRPORT PERIMETER SECURITY

The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for airport perimeter 

security pilots. While funding has been provided for this work in 

the past, none was provided in fiscal year 2005 or requested in fiscal year 2006. The Committee is aware of a variety of innovative 

technologies that may reduce security weaknesses and 

vulnerabilities in airports throughout the United States. 

AVIATION SECURITY FEES

In total, the Committee has assumed the collection of 

$1,990,000,000 in aviation security user fees in addition to the 

$250,000,000 in aviation security user fees that must automatically 

be deposited in the Aviation Security Capital Fund. The Committee 

assumes that, of this total, $1,640,000,000 shall be collected from 

aviation passengers and $350,000,000 shall be collected from the 

airlines. The Committee cannot support the budget request to increase passenger security fees by $3.00, raising the fee from $2.50 

to $5.50 on the first leg of each flight and retain the $2.50 charge 

for a second leg if the passenger is connecting. 

While the fee increase was proposed as a General Provision in 

the President’s fiscal year 2006 appropriations request, amending 

existing aviation security law falls under the jurisdiction of the 

Homeland Security Committee. Until the authorizing Committee 

passes legislation to enact this fee increase, this Committee is unwilling to adopt this budget proposal. 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION SECURITY

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ............................................................ $ 48,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ........................................................ 32,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ....................................................................... 36,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ..................................................... ¥12,000,000 

Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2006 ................................................ +4,000,000 

MISSION

Surface Transportation Security is responsible for assessing the 

risk of terrorist attacks to all non-aviation transportation modes, 

issuing regulations to improve the security of the modes, and enforcing these regulations to ensure the protection of the transportation system. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $36,000,000 for surface transportation security, $4,000,000 above the President’s request and 

$12,000,000 below the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. Funding for the majority of transportation security programs, including 

port, rail, bus, and trucking security is provided in the Office of 

State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness 

(SLGCP). Funding for the transportation worker identification credential and hazardous materials safety are contained within a separate appropriation for transportation vetting and credentialing. 

52 

Amounts appropriated to TSA largely fund surface transportation 

security staff that work in conjunction with SLGCP to make grant 

determinations and to coordinate security regulations and directives within DHS and with other federal entities, such as the Department of Transportation. A comparison of the budget estimate 

to the Committee recommended level by budget activity is as follows: 

Budget estimate Recommended 

Surface transportation security staffing ..................................................................... $24,000,000 $24,000,000 

Rail security inspectors ............................................................................................... 8,000,000 8,000,000 

Hazardous materials truck tracking program ............................................................. .............................. 4,000,000 

Total .................................................................................................................... $32,000,000 $36,000,000 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TRUCK TRACKING PROGRAM

The Committee continues to be supportive of the hazardous materials truck tracking program that has been ongoing for the past 

several years. This program is a public/private partnership that addresses the terrorist threat posed by the 800,000 truck shipments 

of hazardous materials each day. This program notifies the appropriate national, state, or local authorities of spills or terrorist incidents and provides them with critical information regarding the 

exact incident location, load content on the vehicle, volume of material involved, and handling instructions. A total of $4,000,000 has 

been appropriated to fund security requirements of the program, 

complete the system’s open architecture, and to connect with other 

related systems and services. 

NUCLEAR DETECTION AND MONITORING

The Committee continues to be frustrated by the slowness of TSA 

to obligate $4,000,000 provided in fiscal year 2004 for nuclear detection and monitoring capabilities. Because TSA appears to be unwilling or unable to identify the best use for this funding, the Committee directs TSA to transfer these funds to the newly established 

Domestic Nuclear Detection Office within DHS. These funds shall 

be used to initiate pilot programs for detecting nuclear materials 

at truck weigh stations in the United States. 

RAIL SECURITY

As discussed in fiscal year 2005, the Committee is aware of 

promising advances in train control technology that would allow a 

central operator the ability to remotely control the operation of a 

freight or passenger train in times of distress. The Committee believes development of such a system could enhance the safety, security, and efficiency of the rail system and strongly encourages TSA 

to continue its investigation of this promising technology. 

TRANSPORTATION VETTING AND CREDENTIALING

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 1 .......................................................... $ (69,919,000) 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 2 ...................................................... (94,294,000) 

Recommended in the bill ....................................................................... 84,294,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ..................................................... +14,375,000 

53 

Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2006 ................................................ ¥10,000,000 

1 In fiscal year 2005, funding was provided for programs within this office under the offices 

of Aviation Security and Maritime and Land. Funding is shown here for comparability purposes 

only. 2Funding for these activities was requested under a new screening coordination and operations office. Funding is shown here for comparability purposes only. 

MISSION

The Transportation Vetting and Credentialing account merges a 

variety of TSA credentialing programs into one new appropriations 

line, including: Secure Flight, crew vetting, transportation worker 

identification credential, registered traveler, hazmat, and alien 

flight school. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a direct appropriation of $84,294,000 for transportation vetting and credentialing activities, 

$14,375,000 above amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. No funding was requested within TSA for these activities in fiscal year 

2006. Instead the budget proposed a new Screening Coordination 

and Operations office (SCO) as part of the BTS Directorate. The 

Committee has denied funding for this new screening office and instead continues to fund critical credentialing programs within TSA. 

While the SCO office may have merit, the Committee would like 

to see a broader justification for this office pending the results of 

the Secretary’s ‘‘2nd Stage Review’’. Furthermore, the Committee is 

concerned that moving key transportation credentialing activities 

out of TSA and into this new office would greatly disrupt the work 

of these programs, many of which are in crucial stages of development. A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee recommended level by budget activity is as follows: 

Budget estimate Recommended 

Direct Appropriations: 

Secure flight ....................................................................................................... $80,994,000 $65,994,000 

Crew vetting ....................................................................................................... 13,300,000 13,300,000 

Screening administration and operations .......................................................... 0 5,000,000 

Subtotal, direct appropriations ................................................................. 94,294,000 84,294,000 

Fee Collections: 

Transportation worker identification credential ................................................. 100,000,000 100,000,000 

Registered traveler ............................................................................................. 20,000,000 20,000,000 

Hazmat ................................................................................................................ 50,000,000 50,000,000 

Alien flight school (by transfer from DOJ) ......................................................... 10,000,000 10,000,000 

Subtotal, fee collections ............................................................................ $180,000,000 $180,000,000 

SECURE FLIGHT

The Committee recommends $65,994,000 for Secure Flight, $15,000,000 below the President’s request under the SCO office and $31,075,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. 

TSA has a very aggressive program to implement Secure Flight; 

however, a number of uncertainties remain. First, Secure Flight is 

still under development. TSA is in the process of testing commercial data to see if it will be utilized in the system. Many outstanding items, including schedule, cost, and work that the airlines 

must do to incorporate Secure Flight into their reservation system, 

are still unclear. TSA hopes to have these issues resolved in the 

54 

summer; however, past experience has shown TSA unable to meet 

aggressive schedules the agency set internally for Secure Flight 

and its predecessor (CAPPS II). Second, TSA or any other DHS entity is statutorily prohibited from obligating appropriated funds to 

deploy or implement a passenger prescreening system, other than 

on a test basis, until TSA has satisfied each of the ten elements 

identified in section 522 of Public Law 108–334. As part of fulfilling 

this requirement, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 

must verify that these elements have been met. On March 28, 

2005, GAO reported that only one of the ten elements had been 

satisfied. DHS cannot implement Secure Flight until all ten elements have been met. Third, TSA assumed that the Secure Flight 

program would be fully operational by October 1, 2006, and that 

all 66 airlines would be fully participating in the program. However, at this time, the first two airlines will not begin testing this 

program until August 19, 2005. Assuming all goes well with the 

first two airlines and no major problems are identified that could 

set back this program, the next group of airlines are not scheduled 

to begin utilizing Secure Flight until late 2005. TSA’s current 

schedule of having all 66 airlines onboard by October 1, 2006, appears overly optimistic. In fact, in a recent briefing, TSA indicated 

that it is now more likely that full roll out of all 66 airlines will 

be completed in fiscal year 2007. For these reasons, the Committee 

has reduced funding for Secure Flight by $15,000,000. 

The Committee directs GAO to continue to evaluate DHS and 

TSA actions to meet the ten elements listed in the section 522 of 

Public Law 108–334 and to report to the House Committee on Appropriations, either incrementally as DHS meets additional elements, or when all elements have been satisfied by DHS. The Committee has included bill language (Section 518) similar to last year 

on Secure Flight. 

CREW VETTING

The Committee recommends $13,300,000 for crew vetting, the 

same as requested under the SCO and $3,300,000 above the 

amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. As explained in fiscal year 

2005, the Committee believes that there is a clear distinction between the crew vetting, Secure Flight, and other credentialing programs. Funding for these activities should not be merged. 

SCREENING ADMINISTRATION AND OPERATIONS

The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for screening administration and operations. This funding can be used to support staff 

efforts and other administrative actions that may not be fully covered by offsetting collections. For example, under the alien flight 

school program, the Committee is aware that Vision 100 excluded 

certain types of alien pilot training from this program, which reduced the population that pays the fee from the agency’s initial 

forecast by approximately 55,000. At the same time, TSA is still required to check these pilots’ backgrounds; a direct appropriation 

will offset some of these costs. The Committee directs that none of 

these funds may be used for Secure Flight. 

55 

FEE COLLECTIONS

The President’s budget request estimated a total of $321,387,000 

in fee collections from various TSA programs. This estimate was revised by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to reflect several 

recent changes to these programs, including that a number of policy decisions must still be made, these programs encompass populations whose size and ability to pay fees is largely unknown, and 

that there is uncertainty in the operational costs associated with 

these new programs. Because of these issues, CBO decreased the 

amount of estimated fees to be collected by $141,387,000. The Committee assumes collection of fees based on CBO’s estimates. 

TRANSPORTATION WORKER IDENTIFICATION CREDENTIAL

The Committee continues to be deeply disappointed with the direction and scope of the transportation worker identification credential (TWIC), which TSA is currently prototyping for use at various locations in the United States. The goals of the TWIC program 

are ambitious, but necessary: to create one standardized identification card, universally recognized and accepted across the transportation system. Given the complexity and importance of the initiative, the Committee is extremely frustrated with the lack of 

progress. Missed deadlines, high turnover, lack of budget justification, and subversion of Congressional direction have plagued this 

program from the very beginning. 

As in years past, the Committee again directs the Department to 

develop a personalization system that is centralized, and that uses 

an existing government card production facility for these purposes. 

These two conditions are integral to the success of the program as 

they relate to operational and physical security of the product. TSA 

shall not continue the program until these fundamental requirements are implemented. In addition, TSA may not move into the 

next phase of production until the House Appropriations Committee has been fully briefed on the results of the prototype phase 

and agrees that the program should move forward. 

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY CLEARINGHOUSE

The Committee includes a new general provision (Section 527) 

that directs the Secretary to utilize the Transportation Security 

Clearinghouse (TSC) as a central identity management system for 

a variety of transportation credentialing and vetting programs currently under development or in operation. This language was included because, despite TSC’s proven track record, DHS appears to 

be taking a typical government contracting approach where it 

awards large programs to individual vendors as a means of maintaining some programmatic control and then relies on those contractors to build a program from scratch. The case of hazardous 

materials truckers is a perfect example. Rather than integrating 

the existing TSC model to process and reconcile fingerprints from 

hazardous materials truckers across the country, TSA awarded the 

contract in its entirety to a separate vendor that is now trying to 

reinvent key parts of the TSC. Doing so increases both the cost to 

the Federal government and the time it takes to begin conducting 

background checks on hazardous materials truckers. 

56 

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY SUPPORT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ............................................................ $519,852,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ........................................................ 545,008,000 

Recommended in the bill ....................................................................... 541,008,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ..................................................... +21,156,000 

Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2006 ................................................ ¥4,000,000 

MISSION

The Transportation Security Support account includes financial 

and human resources support; the Transportation Security Intelligence Service; information technology support; policy development 

and oversight; performance management and e-government; communications; public information and legislative affairs; training 

and quality performance; internal conduct and audit; legal advice; 

and overall headquarters administration. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $541,008,000 for transportation se- curity support, $4,000,000 below the President’s request and $21,156,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. A 

comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee recommended 

level by budget activity is as follows: 

Budget estimate Recommended 

Headquarters administration ....................................................................................... $313,916,000 $309,916,000 

Intelligence .................................................................................................................. 21,000,000 21,000,000 

Information technology core support ........................................................................... 210,092,000 210,092,000 

Total .................................................................................................................... $545,008,000 $541,008,000 

HEADQUARTERS ADMINISTRATION

The Committee is extremely frustrated in TSA’s apparent disregard for Congressional direction and has reduced funding for 

headquarters administration staff by $4,000,000 accordingly. Reductions should be applied to the office of the Administrator, the 

Chief Technology Officer, Legislative Affairs, Operations Policy, 

and the Chief Financial Officer. While numerous examples can be 

cited, a few notable ones will suffice. 

First, Congress has repeatedly tasked TSA and other DHS agencies to develop a plan to open Ronald Reagan Washington National 

Airport to general aviation aircraft, including section 823 of Vision 

100 and in the statement of managers accompanying the fiscal year 

2005 appropriations bill. TSA and others have ignored this direction and have failed to provide a plan. As a result, the Committee 

has included bill language (Sec. 524) requiring DHS to implement 

a security plan that will permit general aviation aircraft to takeoff 

and land at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport 90 days 

after enactment of this Act. 

Second, for the past two years, the Committee has requested 

TSA to submit quarterly reports on plans for installing EDS machines inline as well as plans for other necessary physical modifications to airports so that they can perform 100-percent screening of 

checked baggage. TSA has failed to produce even one quarterly report. 

57 

Third, until six months into fiscal year 2005, TSA was unable to inform the Committee how it planned to award the $295,000,000 

appropriated for EDS installation. Additionally, TSA has not yet 

been able to inform this Committee of how it plans to obligate all 

of the $180,000,000 appropriated for EDS procurement. The Committee cannot adequately oversee the EDS/ETD program if TSA repeatedly fails to answer basic questions. As a result, the Committee has included bill language that requires TSA to provide a 

detailed plan for optimally deploying EDS machines at the nation’s 

airports on a priority basis to enhance security, reduce staffing, 

and save long-term costs; and a detailed spend plan for EDS procurement and installation on an airport-by-airport basis no later 

than 60 days after enactment of this Act. The Committee includes 

bill language fencing $50,000,000 until these plans are submitted. 

Fourth, TSA has failed to provide any of the quarterly reports on 

air cargo activities, as directed by the statement of managers accompanying the fiscal year 2005 Appropriations Act. Failure to provide this information limits the Committee’s ability to fully understand how the agency is working to improve air cargo security. As 

a result, the Committee has included three new general provisions, 

as discussed earlier, specifically related to air cargo activities. 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

OPERATING EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ............................................................ $5,190,587,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ........................................................ 5,547,400,000 

Recommended in this bill ...................................................................... 5,500,000,000 

Total appropriation compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ..................................................... +309,413,000 

Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2006 ................................................ ¥47,400,000 

MISSION

The operating expenses appropriation provides funding for the 

operation and maintenance of multipurpose vessels, aircraft, and 

shore units strategically located along the coasts and inland waterways of the United States and in selected areas overseas. This is 

the primary appropriation financing operational activities of the 

Coast Guard. 

RECOMMENDATION

Including $1,200,000,000 for national security activities, the 

Committee recommends a total appropriation of $5,500,000,000 for 

operating expenses. The recommended funding level is $47,400,000 

below the President’s request and $309,413,000 above the amounts 

provided in fiscal year 2005. The following table highlights the recommended level by program, project, and activity: 

Budget estimate Recommended 

Military Pay and Allowance: 

Military pay and allowances .............................................................................. $2,318,733,000 $2,318,733,000 

Military health care ............................................................................................ 581,122,000 581,122,000 

Permanent change of station ............................................................................. 111,275,000 109,695,000

Subtotal, military pay and allowances ..................................................... 3,011,130,000 3,009,550,000 

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

Training and Recruiting:.

58 

Budget estimate Recommended 

Training and education ...................................................................................... 84,636,000 84,636,000 

Recruitment ........................................................................................................ 93,576,000 93,576,000 

Subtotal, training and recruiting .............................................................. 178,212,000 178,212,000 

Operating Funds and Level Maintenance: 

Atlantic Command .............................................................................................. 169,347,000 169,347,000 

Pacific Command ............................................................................................... 177,967,000 177,967,000 

1st District .......................................................................................................... 47,166,000 47,166,000 

7th District ......................................................................................................... 58,076,000 58,076,000 

8th District ......................................................................................................... 39,134,000 39,134,000 

9th District ......................................................................................................... 28,431,000 28,431,000 

13th District ....................................................................................................... 20,238,000 20,238,000 

14th District ....................................................................................................... 14,575,000 14,575,000 

17th District ....................................................................................................... 23,950,000 23,950,000 

Headquarters directorates .................................................................................. 294,250,000 257,550,000 

Headquarters managed units ............................................................................. 111,128,000 129,933,000 

Other activities ................................................................................................... 1,047,000 1,047,000 

Subtotal, operating funds and level maintenance ................................... 985,309,000 967,414,000 

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

Immediate and Depot Level Maintenance: 

Aeronautical maintenance .................................................................................. 234,661,000 234,661,000 

Electronic maintenance ...................................................................................... 103,327,000 103,327,000 

Civil/Ocean engineering and shore facilities maintenance ............................... 160,126,000 160,126,000 

Vessel maintenance ............................................................................................ 144,863,000 144,863,000 

Subtotal, immediate and depot level maintenance .................................. 642,977,000 642,977,000 

Unspecified reduction .................................................................................................. .............................. ¥23,900,000 

Total ........................................................................................................... $5,547,400,000 $5,500,000,000 

RESPONSIVENESS TO CONGRESS

The Committee is extremely frustrated in the Coast Guard’s apparent disregard for Congressional direction and has reduced funding for headquarters directorates by $5,000,000 accordingly. Reductions should be applied to the offices of the Commandant (G–C), 

Planning, Resources, and Procurement (CG–82), and Resource 

Management (CG–83). Some notable examples include: (1) the 

Coast Guard’s failure to submit a Deepwater re-baseline that meets 

the statutory requirements of Public Law 108–334, including a 

comprehensive timeline spanning the entire 20–25 year program 

that clearly shows the acquisition schedule of new assets and the 

phase-out and transition of legacy assets, funding projections for 

each year of the program, and that includes and fully incorporates 

detailed descriptions of the revised mission needs requirements; 

and (2) repeated problems with reprogramming submissions that 

fail to recognize Congressional actions in prior years or requests for 

funding for longstanding actions that the Coast Guard failed to include in their original budget submissions. The Committee cannot 

adequately oversee Coast Guard programs when the agency fails to 

answer basic questions or fails to provide timely and complete information. 

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

The Committee is very concerned about the results of the 2004 

DHS financial audit that identified a number of weaknesses with 

the Coast Guard’s financial reporting capabilities and the accuracy 

of their records. The auditors noted, among other things, that: (1) 

59 

the accuracy of financial information at the Coast Guard was highly dependent on the knowledge and experience of a limited number 

of financial personnel; (2) the Coast Guard lacks policies and procedures to oversee key financial data; (3) the Coast Guard has problems recording financial data, including financial commitments and 

lapsed or unspent funds; and (4) the Coast Guard did not have controls to ensure that obligations were recorded in a timely manner 

or to verify that recorded obligations remained valid. The Committee is aware that the Coast Guard has made some efforts to address these issues, including the hiring of highly skilled, civilian 

personnel and the formulation of a new, financial management 

plan. However, the Committee is disappointed that the implementation of this plan is scheduled to be phased-in over four years and 

directs the Coast Guard to take more expedient action. 

ICEBREAKING

As requested in the President’s budget, the Committee approves the transfer of $47,500,000 in polar icebreaking funding from the 

Coast Guard to the National Science Foundation (NSF). Currently 

the Coast Guard operates three polar icebreakers, two of which are 

approaching the end of their service life. Much of the icebreaking 

work is done so that NSF can conduct research in the Artic and 

Antarctica. At this point, it makes sense that the primary user of 

the icebreakers decides how these aging vessels are used. The Committee encourages the Coast Guard, NSF, and the White House to 

finalize a long-term strategy for polar icebreaking. 

C4ISR UPGRADE FOLLOW-ON

The Committee recommends $12,450,000 for the C4ISR (command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance) upgrade follow-on, $20,000,000 below the 

President’s request. The budget justification for this activity is entirely unsatisfactory. While the bulk of this request falls under 

headquarters directorates, the justification fails to explain what the 

funds will actually accomplish. The C4ISR upgrades were an acquisition, construction and improvements (AC&I) function under the 

Deepwater program. The linkage between this capital improvement 

program and its associated operating expenses, which are presumably centrally managed maintenance contracts, is simply not established in the fiscal year 2006 budget justification. The Committee 

is entrusted to make funding recommendations that are predicated 

on clear, transparent information that sufficiently demonstrates 

the purpose and value of the amounts requested. The Coast Guard 

is directed to this section of its budget justification as an example 

of what not to do when requesting funds from the Committee. 

The Committee is aware that the C4ISR upgrades that have 

been installed are making a substantial impact in the operational 

effectiveness of the Coast Guard’s legacy assets, and recognizes the 

service’s efforts to leverage technology in the execution of its missions. This modernization effort has the full support of the Committee, provided that detailed justifications are provided along with 

the request for additional funds. The Coast Guard is directed to 

submit to the Committee no later than January 16, 2006, a report 

on the efficiencies and effectiveness realized through the installation of C4ISR upgrades. This report should include a detailed 

60 

breakout of the associated operating costs of such upgrades and a 

comprehensive explanation of ‘‘follow-on’’ costs. This report should 

compare and contrast operations of legacy assets prior to the installation of modernized C4ISR equipment to that of the present state 

of operations, including the impact upon operating expenses both 

before and after installation of the C4ISR upgrades. 

AREA SECURITY MARITIME EXERCISE PROGRAM

The Committee recommends $20,000,000 to continue the area security maritime exercise program under the headquarter managed 

units as required by the Maritime Transportation Security Act. The 

Coast Guard did not request any funding for this program in fiscal 

year 2006. Previous funding for this exercise program was provided 

from previously appropriated port security grants. Funding shall be 

used to conduct tabletop and field exercises to identify maritime 

vulnerabilities and weaknesses, to write after action reports on 

each exercise, and to follow through on any problems identified. 

The Committee believes that continuing these exercises is important because ports, facilities, vessels, and relevant government officials will be better trained if an incident occurs. 

The Coast Guard plays a primary and significant role in port security. The 85 port security terrorism exercises conducted last year 

identified a number of port security problems. GAO reports that 59 

percent of the exercises had communication problems, 54 percent 

had resource issues, such as a lack of training, 41 percent had command and control problems, and 28 percent had questions about 

who had decision-making authority. These are critical problems. 

GAO also reported that, of the 85 port security terrorism exercises 

conducted, after-action reports were not submitted by the Coast 

Guard on time for 61 percent of the exercises. In addition, 18 percent of the after-action reports did not provide an assessment of 

how well the objective of the exercise was met. The Committee expects the Coast Guard to use the port security terrorism exercises 

as a management tool to identify problems, fix them, and refine 

port security protocols. Therefore, the Committee directs Coast 

Guard to submit reports on the results of these exercises to the 

Committee every six months, beginning on October 1, 2005. The reports should include a description of the exercise, a summary of 

what was learned and how well the objective of the exercise was 

met, and corrective actions that were identified (including but not 

limited to Maritime Security Plan revisions, changes to procedures 

or policies, new equipment or equipment enhancements needed). 

ONE-TIME REINVESTMENT COSTS

The Committee has denied funding of $16,500,000 for one-time 

reinvestment costs due to a poor budget justification. 

RADIOLOGICAL/NUCLEAR (RAD/NUC) DETECTION

The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for enhanced rad/nuc detection, $2,000,000 below the President’s request. While the Committee is supportive of this mission, a lower level of funding is recommended until the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office develops 

the Department’s framework for rad/nuc operations. Without this 

61 

framework, it is premature to fully fund this budget request. Funding was specifically reduced from the headquarters directorate line. 

MERCHANT MARINERS DOCUMENTS

The Committee is concerned that the Coast Guard has yet to develop measures to improve merchant mariner credentialing as required by the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 

107–295). The Committee directs the Commandant to establish the 

pilot program outlined in section 611 of that Act to develop and 

evaluate technologies and procedures that improve the issuance of 

merchant mariner documents. 

SECTORS

The Committee directs the Coast Guard to continue reporting to 

the House Committee on Appropriations on each new sector command, as begun last year. This report shall lay out the before and 

after staffing levels (by rank and numbers), the organizational 

structure of each sector, the chain of command by sector, and information on infrastructure and other issues by sector that may require additional resources due to the move to sector commands. 

The Committee is frustrated that, with recent sector reports, the 

Coast Guard has either not provided the Committee the full 30 

days to review the proposal or has provided just 30 days, no more, 

not permitting an adequate time for questions and answers before 

the Coast Guard makes these changes. The Committee directs the 

Coast Guard to be more conscientious in meeting these deadlines 

and factor in adequate time for questions to be addressed before 

moving to the new sectors. 

LORAN C

In recent years, the Committee has provided more than 

$140,000,000 to the Coast Guard and the Federal Aviation Administration to modernize the Loran navigation infrastructure. The 

Committee continues to support that collaborative work being accomplished under the existing interagency agreement between the 

two agencies and remains convinced that this joint initiative offers 

potential for important marine security and safety benefits, along 

with substantially reduced future system operations and maintenance costs. The Committee believes heightened attention is warranted by the Coast Guard in supporting and completing the Loran 

recapitalization. 

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE AND RESTORATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ............................................................ $17,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ........................................................ 12,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ....................................................................... 12,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ..................................................... ¥5,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ................................................. - - - 

MISSION

The environmental compliance and restoration appropriation assists in bringing Coast Guard facilities into compliance with applicable federal, state and environmental regulations; conducting facilities response plans; developing pollution and hazardous waste 

62 

minimization strategies; conducting environmental assessments; 

and conducting necessary program support. These funds permit the 

continuation of a service-wide program to correct environmental 

problems, such as major improvements of storage tanks containing 

petroleum and regulated substances. The program focuses mainly 

on Coast Guard facilities, but also includes third party sites where 

Coast Guard activities have contributed to environmental problems. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $12,000,000 for environmental compliance and restoration, the same as the budget request and 

$5,000,000 below the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. 

RESERVE TRAINING

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ............................................................ $113,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ........................................................ 119,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ....................................................................... 119,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ..................................................... +6,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ................................................. - - - 

MISSION

This appropriation provides for the training of qualified individuals who are available for active duty in time of war or national 

emergency or to augment regular Coast Guard forces in the performance of peacetime missions. Program activities fall into the following categories: 

Initial training.—The direct costs of initial training for 

three categories of non-prior service trainees; 

Continued training.—The training of officer and enlisted 

personnel; 

Operation and maintenance of training facilities.—The 

day-to-day operation and maintenance of reserve training 

facilities; and 

Administration.—All administrative costs of the reserve 

forces program. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $119,000,000 for reserve training, 

the same as the budget request and $6,000,000 above the amounts 

provided in fiscal year 2005. 

ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, AND IMPROVEMENTS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ............................................................ $966,200,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ........................................................ 1,269,152,000 

Recommended in the bill ....................................................................... 798,152,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ..................................................... ¥168,048,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ................................................. ¥471,000,000 

MISSION

The acquisition, construction, and improvements appropriation finances the acquisition of new capital assets, construction of new facilities, and physical improvements to existing facilities and assets. 

63 

The appropriation covers Coast Guard-owned and operated vessels, 

aircraft, shore facilities, and other equipment such as computer 

systems, as well as the personnel needed to manage acquisition activities. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $798,152,000 for acquisition, construction, and improvements, $471,000,000 below the President’s 

request and $168,048,000 below the amounts provided in fiscal 

year 2005. The following table highlights the recommended level by 

program, project, and activity: 

Budget estimate Recommended 

Vessels and critical infrastructure: 

Response boat medium ...................................................................................... $22,000,000 $22,000,000 

Subtotal, Vessels and critical infrastructure ............................................ 22,000,000 22,000,000 

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

Aircraft: 

Covert surveillance aircraft ................................................................................ .............................. 10,000,000 

Armed helicopters ............................................................................................... 19,902,000 19,902,000 

C–130J missionization ........................................................................................ 5,000,000 ..............................

Subtotal, aircraft ....................................................................................... 24,902,000 29,902,000 

Other Equipment: 

Rescue 21 ........................................................................................................... 101,000,000 91,000,000 

Automatic identification system ......................................................................... 29,100,000 29,100,000 

High frequency recap ......................................................................................... 10,000,000 10,000,000 

Subtotal, other equipment ......................................................................... 140,100,000 130,100,000 

Shore Facilities and Aids to Navigation: 

Survey and design, shore operational and support projects ............................. 5,000,000 5,000,000 

Minor AC&I shore construction projects ............................................................. 3,000,000 3,000,000 

Renovate USCGA Chase Hall barracks, phase I ................................................ 15,000,000 15,000,000 

Replace multi-purpose building-Group Long Island Sound ............................... 10,000,000 10,000,000 

Construct breakwater-Station Neah Bay ............................................................ 2,800,000 2,800,000 

Waterways aids to navigation ............................................................................ 3,900,000 3,900,000 

Subtotal, shore facilities and aids to navigation ..................................... 39,700,000 39,700,000 

Personnel and Related Support: 

Direct personnel costs ........................................................................................ 75,950,000 75,950,000 

AC&I core ............................................................................................................ 500,000 500,000 

Subtotal, personnel and related support .................................................. 76,450,000 76,450,000 

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

DEEPWATER

The Committee recommends $500,000,000 for Deepwater, 

$466,000,000 below the President’s request and $223,950,000 below 

amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. The Committee is wholly disappointed in the Coast Guard’s management of this program and 

its utter disregard for the legislative direction included in P.L. 108– 334, intended to clarify the program’s total cost, acquisition 

timeline, and implementation schedule. Since the Coast Guard has 

failed to submit an updated plan that sufficiently justifies the entire Deepwater program, the Committee is providing an appropriation consistent with the original and previously approved, 20-year 

plan. While the Committee remains supportive of the replacement 

of the Coast Guard’s aging cutters and aircraft, it is not confident 

64 

in the Deepwater programmatic model as means to achieve this 

goal at this point in time. 

The Deepwater program was intended to be a departure from ‘‘traditional’’ capital acquisition and a move towards a more holistic, more integrated, and more efficient process of recapitalization. 

In theory, the Deepwater concept is a very logical approach for the 

Coast Guard—an operational, armed service whose current cutters 

and aircraft are collectively reaching the end of their service lives 

at approximately the same time. However, two events have 

stressed this program and moved it away from its theoretical, network-based approach: (1) the events of September 11, 2001, and the 

resulting mission focus upon homeland security and counter terrorism, and (2) the increasingly rapid failure of legacy assets such 

as the HH–65 helicopters and 110-foot patrol boats. The impact of 

these events has forced a complete shift in the original Deepwater 

acquisition timeline and implementation schedule. As of the end of 

fiscal year 2004, the initial system concept was no longer valid and 

it was apparent that a re-evaluation of the Coast Guard’s operational needs was necessary. Recognizing that Deepwater was at a 

crossroads and despite ostensible reluctance by the Coast Guard, 

the Committee required the service to re-baseline the entire program in the fiscal year 2005 appropriations bill (P.L. 108–334). 

The intent of the re-baselining requirement was not only to gather a more firm understanding of the total cost and implementation 

plan of the Deepwater program, but also to align the program’s 

modifications with the new and enhanced mission capabilities required of the Coast Guard in the post-9/11 environment. The Coast 

Guard’s failure to comply with this legislative directive suggests 

not only a fundamental disregard for the Committee and Congress, 

but also brings into question how the Coast Guard itself is able to 

manage its own future. The Committee believes this re-baselining 

to be both crucial in terms of Congressional oversight and essential 

in terms of the Coast Guard’s acquisition management and operational planning. The fact that the Coast Guard was over two 

months late in submitting a re-baselining and that its content was 

totally insufficient and not in compliance with the specified Congressional requirements, prohibits the Committee from considering 

such an expansive request for this program for fiscal year 2006. In 

fact, the lack of responsiveness by the Coast Guard prohibits the 

Committee from considering a major departure from the previously 

approved plan and associated funding structure and compels the 

Committee to take aggressive action to properly oversight this costly and sprawling program. To date, the Committee has yet to receive a report that fully satisfies the re-baselining requirements of 

P.L. 108–334. The Coast Guard has spent considerable time and effort attempting to rationalize a flawed and incomplete re-baseline 

plan, rather than adhering to the Congressional mandate and updating the previously submitted and approved 20-year plan or providing any justification for why such a re-baseline cannot be done. 

The current state of the Deepwater program includes a myriad 

of questions ranging from an absence of a cogent policy on the future of the Coast Guard’s patrol boats to a lack of a definitive maritime patrol aircraft solution to an alarmingly high increase in legacy asset sustainment. In the case of the latter issue, 25 percent 

of the fiscal year 2006 Deepwater request (or $239,500,000) is for 

65 

the sustainment of legacy assets—an enormous and unexpectedly high increase above the initially conceived $20,000,000 that would 

be devoted to legacy assets per fiscal year. In the case of the 110- 

foot Island Class patrol boats, the Coast Guard appears to be approaching a severe capability gap as the 110s experience significant 

hull failures and require mid-life maintenance overhauls while the 

replacement cutter, the Fast Response Cutter (FRC), is years away 

from full-scale production and deployment. In the case of the HH– 65 helicopter engine replacements, despite significant fiscal support 

from the Committee, the Coast Guard and its prime integrator 

have allowed this program to steadily rise in cost and slip in its 

projected delivery schedule. The uncertainty surrounding these two 

assets—arguably the most heavily used operational assets in the 

Coast Guard’s fleet—typifies why a functional Deepwater solution 

is needed now. Overcoming these legacy asset challenges and formulating a modernized solution that incorporates the homeland security mission focus is the purpose of the Deepwater program. 

The Coast Guard has expressed reservations about submitting a 

revised baseline for the Deepwater program. The report that was 

submitted amounts to only a five-year plan along with estimated 

ranges of total program cost and the total number of assets. The 

Coast Guard has stated within this plan that it is uncertain as to 

the total number of assets that will be needed because of the untested potential of C4ISR systems as well as uncertainty of future 

funding. The Committee fails to understand how the Coast Guard 

can so directly state that it will meet all required performance requirements while, at the same time, providing only ranges of cost 

and asset totals. The Committee also fails to understand why there 

is such a degree of uncertainty about how new C4ISR systems will 

translate into performance capability, given the Coast Guard’s 

operational experience and partnership with the Deepwater prime 

integrator. In fact, the Committee believes that one of the primary 

tenets of the Deepwater contract was to leverage the knowledge 

base of industry’s best and brightest to formulate a robust, technically sophisticated 20-year plan. Given the significant role and 

payment structure of the prime integrator within the Deepwater 

program, the Committee believes the Coast Guard has a technically 

proficient resource from which to project firm estimates for the entire span of the Deepwater program. Since the Coast Guard had 

previously submitted a full, 20-year plan with the original Deepwater proposal, the Committee believes it is more than reasonable 

to require a revised and comprehensive plan that is predicated 

upon the new, post-9/11 environment. 

The confluence of issues surrounding Deepwater has made fiscal 

year 2006 the tipping point for this program. Therefore, the Committee requires a completely revised Deepwater implementation 

plan that includes: a comprehensive acquisition timeline for the entire Deepwater program based upon the revised mission needs 

statement that is compared against the original Deepwater 

timeline; an exhaustive asset-by-asset breakdown of the entire program, aligned with the comprehensive acquisition timeline and revised mission statement that clearly shows the details of the phaseout of legacy assets and the phase-in of new, replacement assets; 

an aggregate total cost and timeline of the entire program that 

aligns with the acquisition timeline and asset-by-asset breakdown; 

66 

the revised, post-9/11 mission needs statement (MNS); a detailed 

progress report of the C4ISR equipment upgrades that have been 

installed on currently operational Deepwater assets and a complete, aggregate timeline for when such equipment will be installed 

on all legacy Deepwater assets; and a detailed projection of the remaining operational lifespan of every type of legacy cutter and aircraft. The Committee believes this report to be essential to the fiscal year 2007 appropriations process, just as the previously requested re-baselining request was inextricably linked to the fiscal 

year 2006 appropriation. The Committee restricts $50,000,000 of 

funds available for obligation until a revised Deepwater implementation plan, which fully complies with the outlined statutory requirements, has been received. 

MANNED COVERT SURVEILLANCE AIRCRAFT

The aerial surveillance of our harbors, ports, and contiguous waterways represents an urgent homeland security responsibility of 

the Coast Guard. Additionally, the Coast Guard relies heavily upon 

aerial surveillance in the southern transit zones in order to intercept possible incoming threats. The Committee has noted a void in 

the Coast Guard’s medium to short-range surveillance assets and 

provided $14,000,000 in fiscal year 2005 to procure and test three 

manned covert surveillance aircraft. The Committee recommends 

$10,000,000 in fiscal year 2006 to procure the appropriate sensor 

packages and to install them on the aircraft. 

C–130J MISSIONIZATION

The Committee has denied the $5,000,000 requested for C–130J 

missionization. Costs for this work have grown dramatically, causing the Coast Guard to re-evaluate the use of the C–130J. Until 

final decisions have been made on how this work is to be done and 

whether the Coast Guard still plans to operate these aircraft in the 

future, it is premature to provide funding. 

NATIONAL DISTRESS AND RESPONSE SYSTEM MODERNIZATION

(RESCUE 21)

The Committee recommends $91,000,000 for the National Distress and Response System Modernization, commonly referred to as 

Rescue 21, $10,000,000 below the President’s request and 

$15,000,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005, after 

recent reprogrammings and rescissions. While it appears that the 

contractor and the Coast Guard have resolved many of the software 

issues that have repeatedly delayed this program, the Committee 

believes that the current Rescue 21 schedule is overly optimistic 

and recognizes that the Service plans to carry over prior year appropriations into fiscal year 2007. As a result, a slight reduction to 

the budget request has been made to this program. 

ENHANCED MARITIME SAFETY AND SECURITY TEAM (E–MSST)

The Committee recognizes and supports the Coast Guard’s expansion of its counter-terrorism capabilities. At the forefront of this 

effort is the Enhanced Maritime Safety and Security Team (E–

MSST). This tactical and highly specialized unit provided an essential and otherwise missing capability to many high-profile National 

67 

Special Security Events (NSSEs) over the last year, including the 

G8 Summit in Sea Island Georgia and both national political conventions. Just as the creation of the original Maritime Safety and 

Security Teams (MSSTs) was a prudent course of action in the 

post-9/11 environment, the Committee believes the creation and 

sustainment of the E–MSST and its counter-terrorism capability is 

a worthy investment. However, the full operating capability and requirements of the MSSTs, located at strategic ports around the nation, has yet to be officially defined and it is unclear whether the 

Coast Guard wants to transition additional MSSTs into the E– MSST model. The Committee directs the Coast Guard to submit a 

MSST policy report, along with the fiscal year 2007 budget request, 

that articulates the Coast Guard’s policy on the use and full operating capabilities of both MSSTs and E–MSSTs throughout the 

Coast Guard. This report should specifically address and define the 

full operating capabilities of both an MSST and E–MSST; whether 

the Coast Guard intends to transition additional MSSTs to the enhanced model; and whether or not the Coast Guard intends to expand the mission profile or logistics base for its E–MSST program. 

The projected, associated costs of transitioning the MSST units into 

E–MSSTs should also be included. 

DEEPWATER LEGACY ASSETS

The Committee is extremely concerned about the operational status and rapidly increasing maintenance costs of Deepwater legacy 

assets. This concern is punctuated by recent events, including the 

engine power loss issues with the HH–65 helicopter and the hull 

degradation of the 110-foot patrol boats; but it also includes the 

aging medium and high endurance cutters. The Committee requires the Coast Guard to submit a legacy asset report not later 

than January 16, 2006, that describes the remaining operational 

life span of each and every one of its legacy cutters and aircraft 

that are part of the Deepwater program. This report should be broken down by asset and should explain the projected, remaining lifespan for effective operations. The report should also include specific 

details regarding specialized maintenance or mid-life overhaul programs, apart from routine or preventative maintenance, that are 

either required or planned to prolong the service life of a given legacy asset. 

110-FOOT PATROL BOATS

The 110-foot Island Class patrol boats serve as a major operational component for the Coast Guard and are often referred to as 

the ‘‘workhorse’’ of the cutter fleet. However, the service life of 

these assets is rapidly diminishing due to significant hull erosion 

and C4ISR obsolescence. To address this issue, the Coast Guard 

and its Deepwater program integrator designed a 110-to-123 conversion program that would not only lengthen the patrol boat, address hull degradation, and install a stern boat ramp, but also upgrade the vessel’s C4ISR equipment and align it with the networkcentric future of the Coast Guard. This conversion process was intended to be the bridge between the currently operating Island 

Class patrol boats and the Fast Response Cutter (FRC) component 

of the Deepwater program. Through the course of the first hull conversion on the USCGC MATAGORDA, it was revealed that there 

68 

was far greater hull damage than originally estimated. Since the 

completion of the MATAGORDA conversion, the Coast Guard and 

its patrol boat contractor have experienced repeated delays in this 

program and encountered significant hull degradation on subsequent cutters. 

The Coast Guard has effectively halted the conversion program by not obligating $83,999,942 in funds appropriated for this purpose. While the Coast Guard has sped up the development and 

long-lead items associated with the FRC and the conversion program idles, there appears to be a significant capability gap emerging due to the absence of a definitive patrol boat solution. This is 

further complicated by the fact that six 110-foot patrol boats are 

operating overseas in support of the Global War on Terrorism with 

no clear expectation of when they might return to domestic operations. 

To bridge this capability gap, the Coast Guard has pointed to the 

recent acquisition of five, 179-foot Cyclone Class patrol boats from 

the Navy and further emphasized the rapid development of the 

FRC. The Committee is completely dissatisfied by this course of action and is extremely concerned about the Coast Guard’s ability to 

execute its missions without an effective patrol boat fleet. The 110s 

have proven to be an essential asset to drug and migrant interdiction, search and rescue, and fisheries law enforcement as well as 

more recently becoming a principle contributor to maritime security 

operations. Under ideal circumstances regarding the integration of 

the 179-foot Cyclone class cutters with the fleet and the development and eventual deployment of the FRC, the Coast Guard is approaching a prolonged period where aging 110s will either not be 

refurbished to the extent required or not be replaced by a newer, 

more capable asset. The Committee finds this situation unacceptable and believes immediate action is necessary to avoid any loss 

in the Coast Guard’s operational capability or in our nation’s maritime security. 

To provide immediate action, the Committee includes a provision 

(Section 526) rescinding unobligated funds in the amount of 

$83,999,942 that were appropriated for the 110-to-123 conversions 

in fiscal years 2004 and 2005, and re-appropriating the funds towards the purchase of new Island Class patrol boats or the major 

maintenance availability of currently operating 110s. Although this 

is not an ideal solution, it provides immediate action on a proven 

asset. The Committee is aware that the original manufacturer of 

the 110-foot Island Class patrol boat has an operating production 

line that could rapidly construct new 110s or provide significant 

support on a service life extension of current vessels, including the 

installation of modernized C4ISR equipment and major hull repairs. This direction is consistent with the Coast Guard’s Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements submittal contained within 

the fiscal year 2005 supplemental budget request. 

AIRSPACE SECURITY

The Coast Guard has filled a critical mission by providing airspace security for the Department of Homeland Security during the 

five National Special Security Events (NSSEs) that occurred last 

year and in support of other DHS protective operations. The Committee is aware of the increased workload and resource hours that 

69 

are necessary to support airspace security operations and is providing appropriations support that will expand the capabilities of 

the Coast Guard’s aircraft in that regard. Specifically, the Committee is actively supporting the HH–65 re-engining, the airborne 

use of force outfitting of the HH–60, avionics modernizations, and 

several other aviation projects that will contribute to the Coast 

Guard’s performance in this mission area. 

HH–60 JAYHAWK

The Committee sees value in extending the life and capability of 

the HH–60 platform as an integral part of the Deepwater program. 

The Committee sees tremendous potential for efficiency in that the 

Bureau of Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) Air and Marine 

Operations Directorate uses a similar asset, the HH–60 Black 

Hawk. Given the Coast Guard’s extensive modernization plan for 

the HH–60 Jayhawk, the Committee strongly encourages the Department, the BTS Directorate, CBP, and the Coast Guard to collaborate in the operations, maintenance, and outfitting of the HH– 60 platform. 

ALTERATION OF BRIDGES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ............................................................ $15,900,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ........................................................ - - - 

Recommended in the bill ....................................................................... 15,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ..................................................... ¥900,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ................................................. +15,000,000 

MISSION

The bill includes funding for alteration of bridges deemed a hazard to marine navigation pursuant to the Truman-Hobbs Act. The 

purpose of these alterations is to improve the safety of marine 

navigation under the bridge rather than the improvement of surface transportation on the bridge itself. Because there are occasionally unsafe conditions on the waterway beneath a bridge which has 

an adequate surface or structural condition, Federal-aid highways 

funding is not appropriate to address the purpose of the TrumanHobbs program. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $15,000,000 for alteration of 

bridges, $15,000,000 above the President’s request and $900,000 

below the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. The Committee directs that, of the funds provided, $4,000,000 shall be allocated to 

the Canadian Pacific Railroad Bridge in LaCrosse, Wisconsin; 

$2,000,000 shall be allocated to the Chelsea Street Bridge in Chelsea, Massachusetts; $7,000,000 shall be allocated to the Fourteen 

Mile Bridge in Mobile, Alabama; and $2,000,000 shall be allocated 

to the Galveston Causeway Railroad Bridge in Galveston, Texas. 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION

The Committee agrees to the President’s proposal that 

$17,000,000 and associated personnel of the Coast Guard’s research, development, test, and evaluation program are funded in 

the Science and Technology Directorate. 

70 

RETIRED PAY

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ............................................................ $1,085,460,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ........................................................ 1,014,080,000 

Recommended in the bill ....................................................................... 1,014,080,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ..................................................... ¥71,380,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ................................................. - - - 

MISSION

This appropriation provides for the retired pay of military personnel of the Coast Guard and the Coast Guard Reserve, including 

career status bonuses for active duty personnel. Also included are 

payments to members of the former Lighthouse Service and beneficiaries pursuant to the retired serviceman’s family protection plan 

and survivor benefit plan, as well as payments for medical care of 

retired personnel and their dependents under the Dependents Medical Care Act. 

RECOMMENDATION

The bill provides $1,014,080,000, the same as the budget request and $71,380,000 below the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. 

This is scored as a mandatory appropriation in the Congressional 

budget process. 

UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ............................................................ $1,172,125,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ........................................................ 1,200,083,000 

Recommended in the bill ....................................................................... 1,228,981,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ..................................................... +56,856,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ................................................. +28,898,000 

MISSION

The United States Secret Service is directed by statute to carry 

out two significant missions: protection and criminal investigations. 

The Secret Service protects the President and Vice President, their 

families, heads of state, and other designated individuals; investigates threats against these protectees; protects the White House, 

Vice President’s Residence, Foreign Missions, and other buildings 

within Washington, D.C.; and plans and implements security designs for National Special Security Events. The Secret Service also 

investigates violations of laws relating to counterfeiting of obligations and securities of the United States; financial crimes that include, but are not limited to, access device fraud, financial institution fraud, identity theft, computer fraud; computer-based attacks 

on our nation’s financial, banking, and telecommunications infrastructure; and provides investigative support for missing and exploited children. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,228,981,000 for Secret Service 

Salaries and Expenses, an increase of $28,898,000 above the President’s request and $56,856,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. The Committee recommends an additional 

71 

$5,000,000 for National Special Security Events and an additional 

$23,320,000 above the President’s request to support staffing for 

protective operations, investigations, foreign field offices, and technical support functions. The Committee also recommends an additional $578,000 towards the support of the National Center for 

Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC). The recommended funding levels are as follows: 

Salaries and Expenses Budget Estimate Recommended 

Protection: 

Protection of persons and facilities ................................................................... $572,232,000 $583,652,000 

National Special Security Event Fund ................................................................ 5,000,000 10,000,000 

Protective intelligence activities ........................................................................ 55,561,000 57,061,000

White House mail screening ............................................................................... 16,365,000 16,365,000 

Subtotal, Protection ................................................................................... 649,158,000 667,078,000 

Field operations: 

Domestic field operations ................................................................................... 238,888,000 238,888,000 

International field office administration, operations and training ................... 19,768,000 22,168,000 

Electronic crimes special agent program and electronic crimes task forces ... 35,600,000 43,600,000 

Subtotal, Field operations ......................................................................... 294,256,000 304,656,000 

Administration: 

Headquarters, management and administration ............................................... 203,232,000 203,232,000 

National Center for Missing and Exploited Children ......................................... 7,100,000 7,678,000 

Subtotal, Administration ............................................................................ 210,332,000 210,910,000 

Training: 

Rowley training center ........................................................................................ 46,337,000 46,337,000 

Total, Salaries and expenses .................................................................... $1,200,083,000 $1,228,981,000 

WORKLOAD RE-BALANCING

From fiscal year 2000 through fiscal year 2002, the Committee 

fully funded the Secret Service initiative, ‘‘Workload Re-balancing,’’ to address unacceptably high levels of overtime and to achieve an 

appropriate balance between protective operations and criminal investigations. The Committee is extremely disappointed to learn 

that overtime has reached an average of over 80 hours per month 

for special agents, that a severely disproportionate amount of time 

is being devoted to protective operations over investigations, and 

that there has been a significant reduction in training opportunities due to the pace of operations. These issues are largely a result 

of the Secret Service operating under the intensity of a post-9/11 

mission environment while staffing and resources have remained 

relatively static. For instance, while staffing has remained relatively constant at approximately 3,200 special agents since 9/11, 

there has been a 275-percent increase in classified message traffic, 

a 280-percent increase in Internet threat investigation reviews, and 

a 650-percent increase in manhours needed to support protection. 

Similarly, identity theft cases and electronic criminal activity have 

proliferated through the expansion of the Internet and are now the 

fastest growing forms of financial crime. The Secret Service is currently responsible for three times as many protectees than it was 

pre-9/11; is responsible for establishing, implementing, and executing the operational plans for the increasingly frequent, expensive, and complex National Special Security Events (NSSEs); is the 

lead federal investigative agency for electronic and financial crime; 

and is now supporting critical infrastructure protection, threat asVerDate Aug 04 2004 01:55 May 17, 2005 Jkt 021197 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR079.XXX HR079
72 

sessment, and cyber security expertise of the Service’s investigators 

and analysts throughout the entire Department. The significant increase in the scope of the Secret Service’s dual mission has required the agency to pile a heavy workload upon its personnel, resulting in unsustainably high levels of overtime. 

The Committee directs the Secret Service to submit a workload 

re-balancing report along with the fiscal year 2007 budget request 

that provides a detailed summary of the steps the agency will take 

to achieve a target overtime of no more than 60 hours per special 

agent per month. The Committee believes that workload re-balancing should reflect an equitable split of special agent time devoted to investigations and protection of 50 percent to each as well 

as increased availability for training. 

PROTECTIVE OPERATIONS

Due to the unpredictable nature of the current threat environment, the Secret Service has developed protective intelligence and 

counter surveillance expertise that has worked as a force multiplier 

for its protective personnel. These components complement the 

service’s traditional cadres of physical security specialists, tactical 

units, and special agents, and have become an increasingly important asset in meeting the growing protective operations workload. 

In support of these efforts, the Committee recommends an additional $12,920,000 to support the costs associated with an increase 

in special agents for protective intelligence, the Counter Assault 

Team, the Counter Surveillance Unit, and the Presidential and 

Vice Presidential Protective Divisions by 60 FTEs; for the costs associated with an increase in protective intelligence research specialists by 20 FTEs and for the costs associated with an increase in 

physical security specialists by 20 FTEs. 

INVESTIGATIONS

Identity theft is now the fastest growing form of financial crime. 

Major database intrusions are now occurring at a pace of almost 

one per week, resulting in the loss of hundreds of thousands of personal data profiles and millions of dollars in financial fraud. As the 

lead federal agency for financial crime, the Secret Service has developed a robust set of technical, legal, and investigative skills to 

combat this activity, as demonstrated in the landmark Operation 

Firewall that was completed last year. Developed in 2001 pursuant 

to Congressional mandate in the USA PATRIOT Act, the Electronic 

Crimes Special Agent Program (ECSAP) is the cornerstone of the 

Secret Service’s electronic crime investigative efforts. There are 

currently 13 Electronic Crimes Task Forces (ECTFs) that receive 

their primary support through the ECSAP. The Committee views 

the ECTFs and the ECSAP as invaluable resources in support of 

the financial and electronic crimes investigative mission of the Secret Service and the Department-wide mission of providing for the 

security of critical infrastructure. The combination of the ECSAP 

with highly experienced anti-counterfeiting personnel has made the 

Secret Service’s investigative directorate one the most technically 

advanced entities in the global law enforcement community. In 

support of these efforts, the Committee recommends an additional 

$8,000,000 for the costs associated with increasing the staffing of 

the ECSAP by 50 FTEs. 

73 

FOREIGN FIELD OFFICES

Given the rise in cyber security breaches by both foreign and domestic criminals and the persistent level of international counterfeiting, the Secret Service has needed to develop and sustain an 

overseas presence. Foreign field offices provide a conduit for joint 

investigative operations with foreign law enforcement as well as 

logistical base of operations for protectee travel. Currently, the Secret Service has 42 Special agents assigned to foreign field offices. 

This staff faces dramatic increases in the volume of cyber crime 

and counterfeit manufacturing originating in foreign countries. The 

Committee recognizes the value in the Secret Service’s international operations and recommends $2,400,000 for an additional 

15 FTEs in foreign field office staffing. The Secret Service is directed to provide, no later than November 1, 2005, a report detailing where these additional FTEs will be located. This report should 

include a comprehensive summary of foreign field office salaries 

and expenses and should identify any impediments to locating 

agents in desired locations, whether it is additional staff in a currently operating foreign field office or staff for a proposed foreign 

field office. 

TRAINING

The Committee is concerned about the training productivity of 

the Secret Service given the recent increase in workload. The Committee is aware of the emphasis that has always been placed upon 

training within the culture of the Secret Service and encourages its 

continuation. The Committee requests that the Secret Service submit a report in conjunction with the fiscal year 2007 budget request 

that provides statistical details of training productivity for the period of fiscal year 2000 through fiscal year 2005, including: a complete breakout of the number of agents trained at the James J. 

Rowley Training Center and the purpose for which they received 

training; the number, type, and purpose of tactical and specialized 

training courses that have been administered; the number and type 

of state and local law enforcement officials that have been trained; 

and a detailed summary of changes in the training curriculum for 

both special agents and state and local officials. This report should 

also include an explanation of the metrics used by the Secret Service to measure training performance and productivity. 

NATIONAL SPECIAL SECURITY EVENTS

The Secret Service has been assigned the responsibility to lead 

security planning for National Special Security Events (NSSEs) 

such as the Presidential inaugurations, national political conventions, and other major events designated by the President or the 

Secretary. Examples of significant events in recent years that have 

been designated as NSSEs include the 2002 Winter Olympics, 

former President Ronald Reagan’s funeral, and international summits such as the G–8 conference, which took place in Sea Island, 

Georgia last June. Unfortunately, despite the fact that the size, 

complexity, and expense of these events has dramatically risen 

since the inception of the NSSE designation in the late 1990s, a 

separate line item to fund this activity had never been included in 

a budget request. As a result, the Secret Service was forced to abVerDate Aug 04 2004 01:55 May 17, 2005 Jkt 021197 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR079.XXX HR079
74 

sorb these costs within appropriated funds. In fiscal year 2004, four 

NSSEs were designated at a cost of over $23,500,000. To date, fiscal year 2005 NSSE related expenses are $6,755,000—costs associated with the Presidential inauguration. In order to address funding uncertainty, the Committee established a separate appropriation of $5,000,000 in fiscal year 2005. For fiscal year 2006, the 

Committee recommends an additional $5,000,000 for the expenses 

of planning, preparation, and execution of security operations for 

NSSEs. These funds are made available for two fiscal years. The 

Secret Service, as with other protective activity, may use such 

funds to reimburse the costs of other federal agencies in support 

of this mission. 

Given that the Secret Service now has years of experience with 

NSSEs and should be able to predict their occurrence and estimated cost, there is little justification for taking money from other, 

essential operations and not adequately budgeting for these types 

of events. The Committee directs the Secret Service to submit a 

NSSE Budgeting Model with the fiscal year 2007 budget request 

that includes a detailed accounting of the costs associated with 

NSSEs, including manpower projections, resources, technical support, travel, and other related expenses. This model should not only 

incorporate the historical cost data from previous NSSEs, it should 

also categorize these events in such a way that the primary variables associated with NSSEs—including geography, duration, 

protectees, and the nature of the given venue or event—are all considered and weighted accordingly. 

ARMORED VEHICLES

The Committee is concerned that the costs associated with the 

Primary Limousine Program are not included within the Secret 

Service’s base budget and that funds from the separate and distinct 

Armored Vehicle Program are taken to fund primary limousines, as 

needed. Maintenance and repair costs of armored vehicles are not 

sustained through the Armored Vehicle Program, but rather, funded within the Special Services Division (SSD) and spread across 

three object classes: supplies, equipment, and other contractual 

services. The Committee believes that the Secret Service needs to 

develop more comprehensive and transparent budgeting for both its 

Primary Limousine Program and Armored Vehicle Program to facilitate the planning, procurement, maintenance, and operations of 

all protective vehicles. Given the increasing costs and complexity of 

protective vehicles, brought upon by the rapid changes in the 

threat environment and technical advances in the associated countermeasures, the Committee believes this to be a core operating expense and one that demands a greater level of budgetary planning. 

NATIONAL CENTER FOR MISSING AND EXPLOITED CHILDREN (NCMEC)

The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children 

(NCMEC) was established in 1984 as a private, nonprofit organization to provide services nationwide for families and professionals in 

the prevention of abducted, endangered, and sexually exploited 

children. NCMEC involves a partnership among federal law enforcement, corporate sponsors, commercial media, and private donors. The Secret Service’s assistance to this cause has been substantial. In fiscal year 2004, the Secret Service opened 273 criminal 

75 

cases, conducted 55 polygraph examinations, and completed 31 forensic examinations. Additionally in fiscal year 2004, under the 

Operation Safe Kids initiative, Secret Service personnel attended 

17 events and fingerprinted 3,965 children. Since 1997, over 40,000 

children have been fingerprinted through Operation Safe Kids. The 

Committee believes the contributions made to NCMEC have made 

a tremendously positive impact in the lives and well-being of countless children and encourages the Secret Service to build upon these 

noteworthy efforts. The Committee recommends $7,678,000 in support of this effort, $2,678,000 for support of investigations and 

$5,000,000 for grants. 

ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENTS, AND RELATED

EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ............................................................ $3,633,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ........................................................ 3,699,000 

Recommended in the bill ....................................................................... 3,699,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ..................................................... +66,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ................................................. - - - 

MISSION

This account supports the acquisition, construction, improvement, equipment, furnishing and related cost for maintenance and 

support of Secret Service facilities, including the Secret Service Memorial Headquarters Building and the James J. Rowley Training 

Center. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $3,699,000, the same as the budget 

request and $66,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 

2005. 

JAMES J. ROWLEY TRAINING CENTER MASTER PLAN

In the fiscal year 2004 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Bill, the Committee directed the Secret Service to submit 

a five-year master plan for the James J. Rowley Training Center 

(JJRTC) in Beltsville, Maryland. As submitted, the master plan did 

not adequately provide a detailed assessment of current needs and 

challenges, or specific proposals for enhancing the curriculum and 

facilities to meet future training requirements. The Committee directs the Secret Service to re-submit the JJRTC Master Plan along 

with the fiscal year 2007 budget. This revised, 5-year plan should 

include a detailed breakout of the costs associated with current 

needs and challenges; a detailed breakout of the costs associated 

with specific proposals for enhancing the curriculum and facilities; 

a cost-benefit analysis of a student/trainee dormitory; the costs associated with the modernization and refurbishment of the canine 

training facility; and a detailed summary of how the JJRTC is supporting other federal agencies, particularly other DHS agencies. 

This report should include, at a minimum, historical data from fiscal year 2004, current year data from fiscal year 2005, and the fiveyear master plan for fiscal years 2006 through 2010. 

76 

TITLE III—PREPAREDNESS AND RECOVERY 

OFFICE OF STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT COORDINATION AND

PREPAREDNESS

MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ............................................................ $3,546,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 1 ...................................................... (47,846,000) 

Recommended in the bill ....................................................................... 3,546,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ..................................................... - - - 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ................................................. ¥44,300,000 1Funding for Management and Administration was requested under the State and Local Programs in fiscal year 2006. 

MISSION

The Office of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness (SLGCP) is responsible for coordinating the programs 

and policies of the Department as they relate to State and local 

governments, including funding issues and information sharing. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $3,546,000 for Management and Administration expenses for the Office of State and Local Government 

Coordination (SLGC). Management and Administration expenses 

for the Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP) are provided as a 

percentage of the State and Local grant programs, as authorized by 

Section 1014 of the USA PATRIOT Act. The President’s request included $47,846,000 under the State and Local Programs. Of the 

amount requested, $44,300,000 was for ODP and $3,546,000 was 

for SLGC. Funding of not to exceed $2,000 is provided for official 

reception and representation expenses. 

The Committee understands that the requested level of funding 

would allow ODP to hire an additional 36 full time equivalents 

(FTEs), for a total of 256 FTEs for fiscal year 2006, including those 

authorized in the Firefighter Assistance Grants appropriation. The 

Committee encourages ODP to hire up to their authorized level as 

quickly as possible. 

STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ............................................................ $3,086,300,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 1 ...................................................... 3,064,756,000 

Recommended in the bill ....................................................................... 2,781,300,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ..................................................... ¥305,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ................................................. ¥283,456,000 1The budget estimate for State and Local Programs includes funding for Management and 

Administration and Emergency Management Performance Grants, which the Committee recommends funding as separate appropriations in fiscal year 2006. 

MISSION

State and Local Programs provides for building and sustaining 

the terrorism preparedness of the first responder community. This 

program includes support of various grant programs, training programs, planning activities, and technical assistance. The grant programs funded by this appropriation include State homeland security grants, law enforcement terrorism prevention grants, highVerDate Aug 04 2004 01:55 May 17, 2005 Jkt 021197 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR079.XXX HR079
77 

threat high-density urban area grants, transit grants, and critical 

infrastructure grants. For purposes of eligibility for funds under 

this heading, any county, city, village, town, district, borough, port 

authority, transit authority, intercity rail provider, commuter rail 

system, freight rail provider, water district, regional planning commission, council of government, Indian tribe with jurisdiction over 

Indian country, authorized tribal organization, Alaska Native village, independent authority, special district, or other political subdivision of any state shall constitute a ‘‘local unit of government.’’

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $2,781,300,000 for State and Local 

Programs. With these amounts, total funding for ODP is 

$3,564,846,000, including $600,000,000 for Firefighter Assistance 

Grants, $180,000,000 for Emergency Management Performance 

Grants, and $3,546,000 for Management and Administration. In 

total, this is $90,000 above the President’s request. With this funding, since fiscal year 2002, $32,410,000,000 has been made available for assistance to State and local governments for terrorism 

prevention and preparedness, general law enforcement, firefighter 

assistance, transportation security, seaport security, and public 

health preparedness. Of that amount, $13,377,000,000 has been 

provided to first responders through ODP, and $3,166,000,000 has 

been provided directly to firefighters. 

The Committee believes that ODP must continue its vital program for assisting State and local response agencies to ensure first 

responders are prepared to respond in the event of a terrorist attack. However, the Committee notes that we are at a turning point 

in the methodology for administering the first responder grant program. Historically, funds have been distributed based on minimum 

percentages and population. The Department has also exercised a 

lack of supervision, while leaving the States and localities responsible for identifying terrorist threats and critical infrastructure, 

creating strategies to contend with terrorism, determining the 

types of equipment to buy and training methods, and assessing 

performance and preparedness levels. During this period, ODP has 

failed to provide adequate goals, standards, and guidance for the 

States and localities to undertake these tasks. With the implementation of Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8 (HSPD–8), 

ODP will begin a new methodology for administering the first responder grant program. Funding will be targeted based on threat 

and risk, while targeting gaps in levels of preparedness. Critical 

program goals, standards, and criteria will also be established. A 

National Preparedness Goal, which is formally established by 

HSPD–8, is the means by which all this will happen. However, the 

implementation plan for the National Preparedness Goal is a 

phased approach, with full implementation in fiscal year 2007. Because the Department is at these crossroads, the Committee does 

not believe it is in the best interest to continue to increase funding 

for first responder grants above the President’s request as the 

Committee has historically done. Therefore, the Committee recommends the following amounts for fiscal year 2006 for State and 

Local Programs: 

78 

State and Local Programs 

State Formula Grants: 

State Homeland Security Grant Program .............................................................................................. $750,000,000 

Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention ................................................................................................. 400,000,000 

Subtotal State Grants: ................................................................................................................. 1,150,000,000 

Discretionary Grants: 

High-Threat, High-Density Urban Area Grants ..................................................................................... 850,000,000 

Port Security .......................................................................................................................................... 150,000,000 

Rail and Transit Security ...................................................................................................................... 150,000,000 

Buffer Zone Protection Program ............................................................................................................ 50,000,000 

Intercity Bus Security ............................................................................................................................ 10,000,000 

Trucking Security ................................................................................................................................... 5,000,000 

Subtotal, Discretionary Grants ..................................................................................................... 1,215,000,000 

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

National Programs 

National Domestic Preparedness Consortium ....................................................................................... 125,000,000 

National Exercise Program .................................................................................................................... 52,000,000 

Metropolitan Medical Response System ................................................................................................ 40,000,000 

Citizen Corps ......................................................................................................................................... 40,000,000 

Demonstration Training Grants ............................................................................................................. 35,000,000 

Continuing Training Grants ................................................................................................................... 30,000,000 

Technical Assistance ............................................................................................................................. 20,000,000 

Evaluations and Assessments .............................................................................................................. 14,300,000 

Rural Domestic Preparedness Consortium ............................................................................................ 10,000,000 

.

Subtotal, National Programs ........................................................................................................ 366,300,000 

Total, State and Local Programs ................................................................................................. $2,781,300,000 

STATE HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM

The Committee recommends $750,000,000 for State Homeland 

Security grants. These funds are available to all States for purposes of training, procuring equipment, planning, and conducting 

exercises, based on each State’s approved updated homeland security strategy. Any subsequent grant made by a State shall also be 

based on that State’s approved updated homeland security strategy. The Committee makes these funds available to all States on 

a formula basis, as authorized by section 1014 of the USA PATRIOT Act, (Public Law 107–56). The Committee recognizes pending legislation to modify State formula grants and presumes ODP 

would distribute funds based on any successor legislation. Provided 

no succeeding legislation to the USA PATRIOT Act is signed into 

law, ODP shall assess each State’s threat, risk, and need to determine their minimum essential preparedness capability levels and 

allocate remaining funds to address those identified gaps in preparedness. The Committee directs ODP to brief the Committee 15 

days prior to announcement of the awarding of these funds. That 

briefing shall include all threat and risk analysis applied and the 

process for determining need based on filling gaps in preparedness 

levels. The Committee expects the application kits to be made 

available within 45 days after enactment of this Act, that States 

will have 90 days to apply after the grant is announced, and ODP 

will act within 90 days of its receipt. The increased time allowed 

for State application and ODP review above previous fiscal years 

is based on the new methodology by which these grants will be requested and awarded. States must identify gaps in levels of preparedness when applying and ODP must evaluate all applications 

79 

based on threat and risk before awards are made. The Committee 

also agrees that no less than 80 percent of these funds shall be 

passed by the State to local units of government within 60 days of 

the State receiving funds. None of the funds may be used for construction or overtime, except overtime to backfill those first responders attending ODP certified training classes. However, for 

those projects that specifically address enhanced security at critical 

infrastructure facilities, such as improved perimeter security, 

minor construction or renovation for necessary guard facilities, 

fencing, and related efforts, project construction or renovation not 

exceeding $1,000,000 is allowable, as deemed necessary by the Secretary. Not to exceed 3 percent may be used for administrative expenses. 

This level of funding will allow ODP to work with State and local 

agencies to address the concerns previously noted and to begin the 

process of allocating State funding based on risk, threat, and need, 

specifically targeting gaps in preparedness levels, as directed in 

HSPD–8. The Committee also notes that including fiscal year 2005 

grants, more than $7,000,000,000 in first responder funding remains unspent. While this does not mean that States or localities 

have not designated funding for a specific purpose, it does mean 

that billions of dollars remains in the pipeline. 

LAW ENFORCEMENT TERRORISM PREVENTION GRANTS

The Committee recommends $400,000,000 for State and local 

Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention grants and makes these 

funds available to all States on a formula basis, as authorized by 

section 1014 of the USA PATRIOT Act, (Public Law 107–56). The 

Committee recognizes pending legislation to modify State formula 

grants and presumes ODP would distribute funds based on any 

successor legislation. Provided no succeeding legislation to the USA 

PATRIOT Act is signed into law, ODP shall assess each State’s 

threat, risk, and need to determine their minimum essential preparedness capability levels and allocate remaining funds to address 

those identified gaps in preparedness. Law enforcement terrorism 

prevention activities that involve compensation of overtime shall be 

limited to those specifically related to homeland security, such as 

providing expanded investigation and intelligence efforts. Funding 

may not be used to supplant ongoing, routine public safety activities of State and local law enforcement. State applications must 

certify that all requests for overtime comply with this requirement. 

The Committee expects the application kits to be made available 

within 45 days after enactment of this Act, that States will have 

90 days to apply after the grant is announced, and ODP will act 

within 90 days of its receipt. The increased time allowed for State 

application and ODP review above previous fiscal years is based on 

the new methodology by which these grants will be requested and 

awarded. States must identify gaps in levels of preparedness when 

applying and ODP must evaluate all applications based on threat 

and risk before awards are made. The Committee also agrees that 

no less than 80 percent of these funds shall be passed by the State 

to local units of government within 60 days of the State receiving 

funds. None of the funds may be used for construction. Not to exceed 3 percent may be used for administrative expenses. 

80 

The Committee does not agree with the President’s proposal to 

set aside a percentage of first responder grant funding for prevention activities and has reestablished it as a separate grant program. The Committee believes that prevention is a key component 

in the fight against terror and is concerned the grant program 

would lose its focus if combined with other preparedness grants. 

The Committee encourages ODP to continue to establish a strong 

terrorism prevention program to serve as a frontline defense 

against future terrorist attacks. 

DISCRETIONARY GRANTS

The Committee recommends $1,215,000,000 for discretionary 

grants under the Urban Area Security Initiative. Not to exceed 3 

percent may be used for administrative expenses. 

HIGH-THREAT, HIGH-DENSITY URBAN AREA GRANTS

Of the funds recommended for Discretionary Grants, the Committee provides $850,000,000 for grants to high-threat, high-density urban areas. The Committee expects the application kits to be 

made available within 45 days after enactment of this Act, that 

States will have 90 days to apply after the grant is announced, and 

ODP will act within 90 days of its receipt. The increased time allowed for State application and ODP review above previous fiscal 

years is based on the new methodology by which these grants will 

be requested and awarded. States must identify gaps in levels of 

preparedness when applying and ODP must evaluate all applications based on threat and risk before awards are made. The Committee also agrees that no less than 80 percent of these funds shall 

be passed by the State to local units of government within 60 days 

of the State receiving funds. None of the funds may be used for 

construction. However, for those projects that specifically address 

enhanced security at critical infrastructure facilities, such as improved perimeter security, minor construction or renovation for 

necessary guard facilities, fencing, and related efforts, project construction or renovation not exceeding $1,000,000 is allowable, as 

deemed necessary by the Secretary. The Committee expects ODP 

to continue the practice of reimbursing eligible overtime expenses 

as designated in ODP Information Bulletin No. 127, dated August 

3, 2004. 

PORT SECURITY

Of the funds recommended for Discretionary Grants, the Committee provides $150,000,000 for Port Security grants. The President’s request combined all infrastructure protection grants into a 

single Targeted Infrastructure Protection Program. The Committee 

denies this request. The Committee directs ODP to ensure the coordination of all port security grants with the State, local port authority, and the Captain of the Port, to ensure all vested parties 

are aware and that the limited resources are maximized. 

The Committee is concerned about the effectiveness of the port 

security grant program. A recent DHS Inspector General report 

(OIG–05–10) criticized the Department for providing funding to low 

priority ports and for low priority projects. The Committee, therefore, has included bill language directing ODP to work with the InVerDate Aug 04 2004 01:55 May 17, 2005 Jkt 021197 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR079.XXX HR079
81 

formation Analysis and Infrastructure Protection (IAIP) Directorate 

to determine the threat environment at individual ports and with 

the U.S. Coast Guard to evaluate each port’s vulnerability. The 

Committee includes bill language that funds will be directed at 

those ports with the highest risk and largest vulnerabilities. In addition, funding may only be made available for those projects recommended by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port. 

The Committee is aware of the unique training challenges created by ports. Given the cost and logistics associated with live exercise disaster training, the Committee encourages ODP, in conjunction with the Science and Technology Directorate, to explore the 

use of high-fidelity reality-based synthetic environment technology 

for disaster management and training in the port environment. 

RAIL AND TRANSIT SECURITY

Of the funds recommended for Discretionary Grants, the Committee provides $150,000,000 for Rail and Transit Security grants. 

The President’s request combined all infrastructure protection 

grants into a single Targeted Infrastructure Protection Program. 

The Committee denies this request. The Committee directs ODP to 

continue to work with the Transportation Security Administration 

to develop a robust rail and transit security program, as well as 

with the Science and Technology Directorate on the identification 

of possible research and design requirements. 

The Committee is concerned by a recent ODP risk assessment 

that highlights the need for redundant transit operations control 

abilities in the national capital region to maintain federal government continuity of operations. The Committee directs ODP to submit a report no later than January 16, 2006, on the steps they may 

take to ensure that this deficiency is addressed. 

BUFFER ZONE PROTECTION PROGAM

Of the funds recommended for Discretionary Grants, the Committee provides $50,000,000 for the Buffer Zone Protection Program. The President’s request combined all infrastructure protection grants into a single Targeted Infrastructure Protection Program. The Committee denies this request. The Committee directs 

ODP to continue to work with IAIP to identify critical infrastructure, assess vulnerabilities at those sites, and direct funding to 

gaps in those vulnerabilities. 

INTERCITY BUS SECURITY

Of the funds recommended for Discretionary Grants, the Committee provides $10,000,000 for Intercity Bus Security grants. The 

President’s request combined all infrastructure protection grants 

into a single Targeted Infrastructure Protection Program. The 

Committee denies this request. 

TRUCKING SECURITY

Of the funds recommended for Discretionary Grants, the Committee provides $5,000,000 for Trucking Security grants. The President’s request combined all infrastructure protection grants into a 

single Targeted Infrastructure Protection Program. The Committee 

denies this request. 

82 

COMMERCIAL EQUIPMENT DIRECT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

The Committee recommends $50,000,000 for the Commercial 

Equipment Direct Assistance Program (CEDAP), $50,000,000 above 

the President’s request and the same as amounts provided in fiscal 

year 2005. This program, formerly known as the Technology Transfer Program, provides basic technologies, which are immediately 

deployable, directly to smaller local jurisdictions. These jurisdictions do not always benefit directly from other first responder 

grants, yet have the same need for basic technologies, such as 

interoperable communications, defensive protection equipment, and 

vulnerability assessment tools. The Committee commends ODP on 

its successful implementation of this program, and directs a report, 

no later than January 16, 2006, on any proposed changes to the 

program. The report shall also include a summary of current and 

proposed technologies, feedback received from recipients, and how 

ODP coordinates these awards with State and local governments 

and their homeland security strategies. 

NATIONAL PROGRAMS

The Committee recommends $366,300,000 for National Programs, $30,000,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. 

The President requested $206,910,000 for these programs under 

separate accounts. 

NATIONAL DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS CONSORTIUM

Of the funds recommended for National Programs, the Com- mittee provides $125,000,000 for the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium, $45,000,000 above the President’s request and $10,000,000 below the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. Of 

this amount, the Committee provides $45,000,000 for the Center 

for Domestic Preparedness, $5,000,000 below the amounts provided 

in fiscal year 2005. 

The Committee continues to be concerned at the level of funding 

requested for first responder training. The Department’s fiscal year 

2006 request for all first responder training programs is 

$112,000,000 less than last year’s enacted levels. This is the second 

consecutive year the Department has proposed to cut first responder training by 57 percent. These programs ensure the training of hundreds of thousands of first responders annually. Reducing these funds by the amount in the President’s request would seriously degrade ODP’s ability to train first responders across the 

Nation. The Committee strongly encourages the Department to 

fully fund all first responder training programs in the future. 

NATIONAL EXERCISE PROGRAM

Of the funds recommended for National Programs, the Com- mittee provides $52,000,000 for the National Exercise Program, the 

same as the President’s request and the amounts provided in fiscal 

year 2005. 

METROPOLITAN MEDICAL RESPONSE SYSTEM

Of the funds recommended for National Programs, the Committee provides $40,000,000 for the Metropolitan Medical Response 

System (MMRS), $40,000,000 above the President’s request and 

83 

$10,000,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. The 

Committee is concerned that the Department again did not request 

funding for this program in fiscal year 2006. MMRS is a vital system that provides minimal funds directly to the 124 jurisdictions 

to bring together local first responders, medical, public health and 

emergency managers to respond to and manage a weapon of mass 

destruction mass casualty event. 

CITIZEN CORPS

Of the funds recommended for National Programs, the Committee provides $40,000,000 for Citizen Corps, $10,000,000 below 

the President’s request and $25,000,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. 

DEMONSTRATION TRAINING GRANTS

Of the funds recommended for National Programs, the Committee provides $35,000,000 for Demonstration Training Grants, 

$35,000,000 above the President’s request and $5,000,000 above 

the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. The Committee agrees 

that these shall be peer reviewed competitive grants for first responder pilot and demonstration training projects, covering the 

local, regional, and national levels. 

COORDINATED PHYSICIAN TRAINING PROGRAM

The Committee believes that the nation’s physicians are an important component in the defense against biological, chemical, and 

nuclear attack. Not only are they on the front line in treating those 

impacted by such an attack, they may also prove to be critical in 

identifying and reporting an attack through their regular treatment of patients. The Committee encourages the Department to 

work with the Department of Health and Human Services in developing a uniform educational approach for physicians focusing on 

standardized recognition, treatment, and reporting information for 

possible biological, chemical, and nuclear attack. 

CONTINUING TRAINING GRANTS

Of the funds recommended for National Programs, the Com- mittee provides $30,000,000 for Continuing Training Grants, 

$26,990,000 above the President’s request and $5,000,000 above 

the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. The Committee agrees 

that these grants shall be used to fund current first responder 

training programs deemed of national importance by ODP. 

REGIONAL FIRST RESPONDER TRAINING

The Committee is aware of the vital role regional training centers play in equipping first responders to overcome the myriad of 

challenges they are called to face. The Committee has heard numerous times of training backlogs and is concerned that training 

needs are not being met expeditiously. Therefore, the Committee 

directs ODP to comprehensively assess this training backlog and 

whether providing states and localities with funding targeted to establishing regional first responder training centers will help meet 

these needs and provide a report on their findings no later than 

January 16, 2006. 

84 

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

Of the funds recommended for National Programs, the Com- mittee provides $20,000,000 for Technical Assistance, $12,400,000 

above the President’s request and $10,000,000 below the amounts 

provided in fiscal year 2005. The Committee recognizes the importance of interoperable communications standards, which are critical 

to the Department’s efforts to improve communications nationally. 

Therefore the Science and Technology (S&T) Directorate shall expedite the development of these standards, and coordinate with ODP 

to ensure that ODP’s technical assistance program incorporates 

these standards, as appropriate, and as spelled out in the Memorandum of Agreement between S&T and SLGCP, signed May 24, 

2004, by the Executive Director of SLGCP and August 9, 2004, by 

the Under Secretary of S&T. 

The Committee notes that there is currently no existing capability for real-time exchange of information at the regional or interstate levels regarding equipment and supplies inventory, readiness 

or the compatibility of equipment. Therefore, the Committee encourages ODP to review the use of logistic centers, which would 

consolidate State and local assets, provide life-cycle management 

and maintenance of equipment, allow for easy identification and 

rapid deployment during an incident, and allow for the sharing of 

inventories across jurisdictions. 

EVALUATIONS AND ASSESSMENTS

Of the funds recommended for National Programs, the Committee provides $14,300,000 for Evaluations and Assessments, the 

same as the budget request and the amounts provided in fiscal 

year 2005. 

RURAL DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS CONSORTIUM

Of the funds recommended for National Programs, the Com- mittee provides $10,000,000 for the Rural Domestic Preparedness 

Consortium (RDPC), $10,000,000 above the President’s request and $5,000,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. The 

RDPC provides technical assistance and training relating to weapons of mass destruction prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery in support of rural homeland security requirements. Rural 

communities pose unique training challenges for first responders 

and medical and government officials, such as the protection of 

critical infrastructure located in rural areas and the response to 

urban migration following an incident in an urban area. The Committee directs ODP to continue the development of specialized and 

innovative training curricula for rural first responders and ensure 

the coordination of such efforts with existing ODP training partners. 

HOMELAND SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE 8

The Committee commends ODP for its work in implementing 

Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8 (HSPD–8). HSPD–8 

calls for the creation of a National Preparedness Goal, which together with the National Incident Management System and the 

National Response Plan, define what needs to be done to manage 

a major event, how it needs to be done, and how well it needs to 

85 

be done. Specifically, under HSPD–8, ODP has developed the Universal Task List, the Target Capabilities List and the Homeland 

Security Exercise and Evaluation Program, which together will integrate performance and equipment standards into a capabilitiesbased planning framework. To help continue this effort, the Committee directs that ODP complete the National Preparedness Assessment and Reporting System no later than April 1, 2006. This 

system will allow ODP and States to assess the differing 

vulnerabilities of a jurisdiction, and identify what preparedness 

standard should be reached. The Committee further directs ODP to 

issue the final National Preparedness Goal, including the final Universal Task List and Target Capabilities List, no later than October 1, 2005. Consequently, the Committee has included bill language that no funds can be awarded to States that have not provided an updated State homeland security strategy based on the interim National Preparedness Goal, which was issued March 31, 

2005. 

STATE HOMELAND SECURITY STRATEGIES

Based on the findings of a recent Committee review of first responder grants, the Committee is aware that many States were 

disappointed by the lack of guidance offered by ODP for the 2004 

update of State homeland security strategies. The Committee is 

also aware of numerous problems associated with the online data 

collection tool used by ODP and States to develop these strategies. 

In fact, ODP officials have conceded that less than 50 percent of 

State security strategies are well thought out or provide a rational 

basis for procurements. In general, States and localities have been 

allowed to request any approved equipment item, regardless of the 

objective behind the procurement or their ability to operate and 

sustain it. Because updated strategies will be required before the 

award of fiscal year 2006 funds, the Committee directs ODP to provide proper guidance to the States, ensure software problems are 

resolved, and perform proper review of the updated strategies. 

COORDINATION OF FEDERAL GRANTS

Based on the findings of a recent Committee review of first responder grants, the Committee is concerned that there is a lack of 

coordination of all Federal grant programs at the State level. The 

Department, in its first annual report on Federal homeland security preparedness funding, identified 25 programs providing homeland security funding. Many of these programs provide funds for 

similar purposes, which increases the probability of duplication and 

inefficiency in procurements. At the same time, not all States are 

actively coordinating the use of the funding. The Committee believes all Federal funding for homeland security should be coordinated and directs ODP to include a requirement that States establish an executive level committee or process to coordinate Federal 

funding and eliminate redundant and duplicative Federal funding. 

REGIONALIZATION

Based on the findings of a recent Committee review of first responder grants, the Committee is encouraged that 23 States have 

instituted, or are in the process of instituting, some form of a reVerDate Aug 04 2004 01:55 May 17, 2005 Jkt 021197 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR079.XXX HR079
86 

gional intrastate structure. Such regionalization allows for greater 

coordination, streamlined procurement, and better leveraging of 

Federal grant dollars. The Committee, however, is concerned that 

ODP is not doing enough to encourage regionalization, both intra 

and interstate. The Committee believes regionalization should be a 

condition of all grants, not just the urban area grants as ODP currently does. Therefore, the Committee directs ODP to encourage 

States to establish both intra and interstate regionalization efforts 

in their fiscal year 2006 grant guidance. 

GRANTS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Based on the findings of a recent Committee review of first responder grants, the Committee is concerned at the lack of national 

standards guiding the distribution, tracking, and oversight of first 

responder grant funding. In large part, this stems from the lack of 

an automated system that would allow for real time tracking of the 

distribution and use of first responder funds. Therefore, the 

Commitee directs ODP to provide a report, no later than January 

16, 2006, on the requirements, feasibility, and costs of an automated grants management system for the States. 

AUTHORIZED EQUIPMENT LIST

Based on the findings of a recent Committee review of first responder grants, the Committee is concerned that, as authorized 

equipment lists are updated, prior year grants cannot be used for 

the new items. The Committee believes this may preclude State 

and local first responders from obtaining the most recent and advanced equipment available. Therefore, the Committee directs ODP 

to review this procedure and provide a report, no later than January 16, 2006, on the benefits and detriments to allowing previous 

year grant funds to be used for current authorized equipment purchases. 

EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES

The Committee is very concerned with the lack of first responder 

grant funding being provided to the Emergency Medical Services 

(EMS) community. In response to a report requested last fiscal 

year by this Committee, ODP reported that only 4 percent of first 

responder grants were awarded to EMS providers in fiscal year 

2004. This is extremely disproportionate as EMS providers, in conjunction with police and firefighters, are the primary first responders for medical assistance in the event of a terrorist attack. Therefore, the Committee directs ODP to require State and local governments to include EMS representatives in planning committees as 

equal partners and to facilitate a nationwide EMS needs assessment. Further, the Committee directs that no less than 10 percent 

of State Homeland Security Grants and High-Threat, High-Density 

Urban Area Grants must be provided to EMS providers to better 

train and equip them to provide critical life-saving assistance in 

the event of a chemical, biological, radiological, or explosive event. 

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PARTICIPATION IN STATE PROCESS

The Committee believes that the strong participation of local governments, including those of midsize and rural communities and 

87 

counties and multi-county regional cooperatives, is essential to the 

development of sound homeland security plans within each State. 

The Committee is concerned that the Department has done little 

to ensure the inclusion of all proper participants in State planning 

and therefore directs ODP to pay special attention to the inclusion 

of local participants in the State planning process while reviewing 

a State’s updated homeland security strategy prior to fiscal year 

2006 grant award. 

EQUIPMENT REUSE PROGRAM

The Committee is encouraged by the Department’s Homeland 

Defense Equipment Reuse (HDER) program, which provides surplus equipment, as well as training and technical support, to emergency responder agencies nationwide to enhance their domestic 

preparedness capabilities. The Committee is also aware of nonprofit organizations that refurbish old or used equipment for redeployment to other agencies that may not have the resources to obtain equipment on their own. Therefore, the Committee encourages 

the Department to work with outside organizations that provide 

these services to maximize the use of all serviceable equipment 

available to our nation’s first responders. 

FIREFIGHTER ASSISTANCE GRANTS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ............................................................ $715,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ........................................................ 500,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ....................................................................... 600,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ..................................................... ¥115,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ................................................. +100,000,000 

MISSION

Firefighter Assistance Grants provide grants to local fire fighting 

departments for the purpose of protecting the health and safety of 

the public and fire fighting personnel, including volunteers and 

emergency medical service personnel, against fire and fire-related 

hazards. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $600,000,000 for Firefighter Assistance Grants, $100,000,000 above the President’s request and 

$115,000,000 below the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. Of 

this amount, $50,000,000 shall be for firefighter staffing, as authorized by section 34 of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act 

of 1974. The Committee directs ODP to continue current grant administrative practices in a manner identical to the current fiscal 

year, including a peer review process of applications, granting 

funds directly to local fire departments, and the inclusion of the 

United States Fire Administration during grant administration. 

The Committee does not agree to place priority on terrorism, and 

directs ODP to maintain an all-hazards focus. The Committee also 

does not agree to limit the list of eligible activities, which are provided in section 2229 of title 15, United States Code. Not to exceed 

5 percent may be used for administrative expenses. Funds are 

available until September 30, 2007. 

88 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE GRANTS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ............................................................ $180,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 1 ...................................................... (170,000,000) 

Recommended in the bill ....................................................................... 180,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ..................................................... - - - 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ................................................. +10,000,000 

1Funding for Emergency Management Performance Grants was requested under the State 

and Local Programs in fiscal year 2006. 

MISSION

Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) funds are 

used to support comprehensive emergency management at the 

State and local levels and to encourage the improvement of mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery capabilities for all hazards. EMPG funds may also be used to support activities that contribute to the capability to manage consequences of acts of terrorism. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $180,000,000 for Emergency Man- agement Performance Grants, $10,000,000 above the President’s 

request and the same as amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. The 

Committee does not agree to transfer EMPGs to State and Local 

Programs, and continues to fund the EMPG program as a separate 

appropriation. The Committee also directs ODP to continue current 

grant administrative practices in a manner identical to the current 

fiscal year, including remaining focused on all-hazards and not limiting personnel expenses. Not to exceed 3 percent may be used for 

administrative expenses. 

The Committee is concerned about the possible impact of awarding EMPGs through the State Administrating Agency (SAA) to the 

State’s emergency management agency and the delay this process 

can cause. The Committee directs ODP to work with all SAAs to 

ensure these funds reach the emergency management communities 

as quickly as possible. 

COUNTERTERRORISM FUND

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ............................................................ $8,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ........................................................ 10,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ....................................................................... 10,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ..................................................... +2,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ................................................. - - - 

MISSION

This appropriation provides funding for unbudgeted and unanticipated costs associated with support to counter, investigate or 

pursue domestic or international terrorism, and to re-establish the 

operational capability of an office, facility, or other property damaged or destroyed as a consequence of any domestic or international terrorist act. Funds may be used for reward payments for 

information to assist in the pursuit of suspects or networks that 

support and foster terrorist activity. Funding may also be used to 

pay the costs for officially designated National Special Security 

Events. These funds are available to the extent that prior notificaVerDate Aug 04 2004 01:55 May 17, 2005 Jkt 021197 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR079.XXX HR079
89 

tion is given to the Committees on Appropriations in accordance 

with guidelines on reprogramming and transfer of funds. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for the 

Counterterrorism Fund, the same as the budget request and 

$2,000,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

AND RESPONSE

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ............................................................ $4,211,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ........................................................ 4,306,000 

Recommended in the bill ....................................................................... 2,306,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ..................................................... ¥1,905,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ................................................. ¥2,000,000 

MISSION

The Office of the Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness 

and Response (EP&R) is responsible for coordinating Federal disaster relief activities, including implementation of the National Response Plan, which authorizes the response and recovery operations of 26 federal agencies and departments as well as the American Red Cross. This office also oversees the National Flood Insurance Program and the U.S. Fire Administration as well as initiates 

proactive mitigation activities. Additionally, this office supports response capabilities of emergency responders and the direction of 

the National Disaster Medical System, the Mobile Emergency Response System, and the Nuclear Incident Response Team. In addition to its headquarters office, EP&R has ten regional offices and 

two area offices. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $2,306,000 for the Office of the 

Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response, 

$2,000,000 below the President’s request and $1,905,000 below the 

amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. 

CONGRESSIONAL INTERACTION

The Committee is concerned with the lack of cooperation received 

from EP&R, specifically regional and field offices, while working 

with this Committee and other Members of Congress to execute 

Congressional direction. Regional offices have continually adjusted 

their interpretation of Committee report language in several instances in an apparent attempt to avoid execution. On one specific 

occasion, this process stretched over several months as the Committee tried to address the regional office’s continually changing responses. It appears that interpretations of report language, codes, 

and regulations are being routinely changed to avoid following Congressional direction. To demonstrate the seriousness of this Committee with regards to the importance of following Congressional 

direction contained in report language, the Committee recommends 

90 

a $2,000,000 reduction to the Office of the Under Secretary for 

Emergency Preparedness and Response. 

PREPAREDNESS, MITIGATION, RESPONSE AND RECOVERY

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ............................................................ $239,499,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ........................................................ 235,499,000 

Recommended in the bill ....................................................................... 249,499,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ..................................................... +10,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ................................................. +14,000,000 

MISSION

The Preparedness, Mitigation, Response, and Recovery activity 

provides for the development and maintenance of an integrated, 

nationwide operational capability to prepare for, mitigate against, 

respond to, and recover from the consequences of disasters and 

emergencies, regardless of their cause, in partnership with other 

federal agencies, State and local governments, volunteer organizations, and the private sector. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $249,499,000 for Preparedness, Mitigation, Response, and Recovery activities, $14,000,000 above 

the President’s request and $10,000,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. 

NATIONAL INCIDENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Of the amounts recommended for Preparedness, Mitigation, Response, and Recovery, $25,000,000 is provided for the implementation of the National Incident Management System (NIMS), 

$10,000,000 above the President’s request and $10,000,000 above 

the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. The Committee is encouraged by EP&R’s implementation efforts to date. NIMS, in conjunction with the National Preparedness Goal and the National Response Plan, defines what needs to be done to manage a major 

event, how it needs to be done, and how well it should be done. 

Specifically, it will provide standardized training, organization, and 

communication procedures for multi-jurisdictional interaction. The 

Committee commends EP&R for its work, and directs them to use 

the recommended $10,000,000 increase to continue to implement 

NIMS nationwide, with a focus specifically on standards identification, testing and evaluation of equipment, and gap and lessons 

learned identification. 

EMERGENCY STRUCTURES

The Committee recommends $4,000,000 for rapidly deployable 

expandable structures for primary use as temporary infrastructure 

in response to a disaster. The Department is strongly encouraged 

to begin to utilize these new structures to address infrastructure 

needs, such as offices, schools, medical centers, and other public 

buildings. The Committee believes that innovative and higher quality structures could provide substantial cost-savings over time to 

the Federal government through effective multiple reuse, and will 

enhance current response and recovery activities well beyond the 

semi-disposable products currently being used. The Committee diVerDate Aug 04 2004 01:55 May 17, 2005 Jkt 021197 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR079.XXX HR079
91 

rects EP&R to begin using these structures at the earliest possible 

date and to ensure that emergency housing and infrastructure requirements are submitted with their fiscal year 2007 budget request. 

NATIONAL EMERGENCY COMMUNICATION SYSTEM

The Committee is aware of several ongoing demonstration programs studying emergency communications. EP&R is currently 

studying the use of public television digital broadcasting technology 

to provide secure, time-sensitive communications for Federal, State 

and local governments. EP&R was also directed in the Intelligence 

Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 to conduct a pilot 

study for issuing public warnings using a system that is similar to 

the AMBER Alert communications network. The Committee directs 

EP&R to provide a report on the status of these pilot programs and 

the overall status of upgrading the Nation’s emergency communication system, including milestones and timelines, no later than January 16, 2006. 

INTEROPERABILITY

The Committee is concerned about the interoperability of Federal 

assets responding to a major event. For example, multiple Urban 

Search and Rescue (US&R) teams from across the Nation may respond to an event. It is imperative that these Federal assets be 

able to seamlessly communicate with each other. Likewise, any 

Federal asset responding to an incident must have the ability to 

communicate with State and local officials and first responders. 

Therefore, the Committee directs EP&R to report, no later than 

January 16, 2006, on the interoperability of the national US&R 

teams and Federal communications with States and locals during 

an incident. 

CATASTROPHIC PLANNING

The Committee is aware that EP&R is developing major hurricane, and other natural and manmade disaster emergency response 

and shelter plans for major urban areas along the Gulf of Mexico 

and the Atlantic Coasts and encourages EP&R to finalize this initiative prior to hurricane season. 

SCHOOL EMERGENCY KITS

In the aftermath of the attack on the school in Beslan, Chechnya 

the Committee is concerned with the level of preparedness for a 

terrorist attack in our Nation’s schools and encourages the Department to develop standards for school emergency kits which would 

prepare students, teachers and administrators for a possible biological, chemical and nuclear attack and other weather related 

emergencies. These kits should also contain appropriate materials 

and resources for parents and local first responders to assist in the 

education of students in how to properly respond to an attack or 

natural disaster. 

ADMINISTRATIVE AND REGIONAL OPERATIONS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ............................................................ $202,939,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ........................................................ 218,441,000 

92 

Recommended in the bill ....................................................................... 225,441,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ..................................................... +22,502,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ................................................. +7,000,000 

MISSION

Administrative and Regional Operations includes the salaries 

and expenses required to provide executive direction and administrative staff support for all agency programs in both the headquarters and field offices. This account funds both program support 

and executive direction activities. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $225,441,000 for Administrative 

and Regional Operations, $7,000,000 above the President’s request 

and $22,502,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. 

Of these amounts, the Committee directs EP&R to provide 

$7,000,000 to continue its Document Management Support Program, an effort to archive key agency documents by digitization to 

optical disks. Funding of not to exceed $2,000 is provided for official reception and representation expenses. 

HIRING FREEZE

The Committee understands that, despite being funded for 945 

FTEs, EP&R can only fill 858 positions due to unbudgeted Department-wide obligations for fiscal year 2005. This hiring freeze is a 

direct result of an $18,501,425 bill for Department-wide services 

and Working Capital Fund payments, both of which were unknown 

during the fiscal year 2005 budget formulation. The Committee understands that a similar payment will be due in fiscal year 2006, 

but is again unbudgeted due to the Department’s inability to provide timely estimates, and will likely result in another hiring 

freeze. The Committee is disappointed that the Department cannot 

provide timely estimates for payments of such services and directs 

EP&R to provide a report on the impact of a second consecutive 

year under a hiring freeze on emergency preparedness, mitigation, 

response, and recovery efforts. This report shall include what steps 

EP&R has taken to ensure the costs are budgeted for in fiscal year 

2007 and is due no later than January 16, 2006. 

PUBLIC HEALTH PROGRAMS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ............................................................ $34,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ........................................................ 34,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ....................................................................... 34,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ..................................................... - - - 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ................................................. - - - 

MISSION

The Public Health Program account provides for the coordination 

of much of the Federal health, medical, and mental health response 

to major emergencies, federally declared disasters and terrorist 

acts. This nationwide response capacity supplements State and 

local medical resources during disasters and emergencies. 

93 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $34,000,000 for Public Health Programs, the same as the budget request and the amounts provided 

in fiscal year 2005. 

RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAM

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ............................................................ $¥1,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ........................................................ ¥1,266,000 

Recommended in the bill ....................................................................... ¥1,266,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ..................................................... ¥266,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ................................................. - - - 

MISSION

The Radiological Emergency Preparedness (REP) program ensures that the public health and safety of citizens living around 

commercial nuclear power plants is adequately protected in the 

event of a nuclear power station accident and informs and educates 

the public about radiological emergency preparedness. The REP 

program responsibilities encompass only ‘‘offsite’’ activities—State 

and local government emergency preparedness activities that take 

place beyond the nuclear power plant boundaries. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee provides for the receipt and expenditure of Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program fees collected as authorized by Public Law 105–276. The President’s request estimates fee collections to exceed expenditures by $1,266,000 in fiscal year 2006. 

DISASTER RELIEF

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 1 .......................................................... $8,542,380,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ........................................................ 2,140,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ....................................................................... 2,023,900,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ..................................................... ¥6,518,480,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ................................................. ¥116,100,000 

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

MISSION

The Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate is responsible for administering disaster assistance programs and coordinating the Federal response in Presidential disaster declarations. Major activities under the Disaster Relief program are 

human services which provide aid to families and individuals; infrastructure which supports the efforts of State and local governments to take emergency protective measures, clear debris and repair infrastructure damage; hazard mitigation which sponsors 

projects to diminish effects of future disasters; and disaster management, such as disaster field office staff and automated data 

processing support. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $2,023,900,000 for the Disaster Relief fund, $116,100,000 below the President’s request and $6,518,480,000 below the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. The 

94 

Committee does not agree to include bill language amending the 

Stafford Act for States that implement an Enhanced Mitigation 

Plan. Such a change is an authorizing issue and is properly addressed by the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. 

DISASTER RELIEF OVERPAYMENTS

The Committee has received numerous reports on the misuse of 

funds in disasters over the past year and is concerned that EP&R 

may not employ appropriate controls over disaster relief funding. 

For example, it was recently reported that EP&R is asking 7,300 

people in Florida to return Federal disaster assistance funds that 

should never have been provided in the first place. Therefore, the 

Committee directs EP&R to provide a comprehensive report, no 

later than March 15, 2006, on the overpayments made and recovered for the major disaster declarations of the past four years. This 

report should include analysis of additional safeguards that may be 

employed to prevent overpayments. 

DISASTER ASSISTANCE DIRECT LOAN PROGRAM ACCOUNT

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ............................................................ $567,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ........................................................ 567,000 

Recommended in the bill ....................................................................... 567,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ..................................................... - - - 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ................................................. - - - 

LIMITATION ON DIRECT LOANS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ............................................................ $25,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ........................................................ 25,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ....................................................................... 25,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ..................................................... - - - 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ................................................. - - - 

MISSION

Beginning in 1992, loans made to States under the cost sharing 

provisions of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 

Assistance Act were funded in accordance with the Federal Credit 

Reform Act of 1990. The Disaster Assistance Direct Loan Program 

Account, which was established as a result of the Federal Credit 

Reform Act, records the subsidy costs associated with the direct 

loans obligated beginning in 1992 to the present, as well as administrative expenses of this program. 

RECOMMENDATION

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

FLOOD MAP MODERNIZATION FUND

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ............................................................ $200,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ........................................................ 200,068,000 

95 

Recommended in the bill ....................................................................... 200,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ..................................................... - - - 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ................................................. ¥68,000 

MISSION

The mission of the Flood Map Modernization Program is to modernize and digitize the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate’s inventory of over 100,000 flood maps. These flood maps 

are used to determine appropriate risk-based premium rates for the 

National Flood Insurance Program, complete hazard determinations required for the Nation’s lending institutions, and to develop 

appropriate disaster response plans for Federal, State, and local 

emergency management personnel. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $200,000,000 for the Flood Map 

Modernization Fund, $68,000 below the President’s request and the 

same as amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. The Committee directs EP&R to continue funding ongoing flood mapping projects at 

those levels identified in the statement of managers accompanying 

P.L. 108–7. The Committee further directs EP&R to provide funding to update the flood maps of the following: Craighead, Arkansas, 

and Lonoke counties in Arkansas; Abilene, Texas; Union, Randolph, and Forsyth counties in North Carolina; and Floyd, Pulaski, 

and Martin counties in Kentucky. Not to exceed 3 percent may be 

used for administrative expenses. Funds are available until expended. 

The Committee understands that this 5–year, $1,000,000,000 

program will not update all flood maps; some maps will merely be 

converted to a digital format. The Committee is concerned that this 

program was originally portrayed as a means to update all of the 

Nation’s flood maps. Because this is not the case, the Committee 

directs EP&R to provide a report, no later than January 16, 2006, 

on the percentage of maps that will be updated, not merely transferred to a digital format, and the percentage of population that the 

updated maps cover. 

NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE FUND

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 1 .......................................................... ($112,593,000) 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 1 ...................................................... (123,854,000) 

Recommended in the bill 1 ..................................................................... (185,854,000) 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ..................................................... +73,261,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ................................................. +62,000,000 

1Fully offset by fee collections. 

MISSION

The Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 requires the purchase 

of insurance in communities where it is available as a condition for 

receiving various forms of Federal financial assistance for acquisition and construction of buildings or projects within special flood 

hazard areas identified by the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate. All existing buildings and their contents in 

96 

communities where flood insurance is available, through either the 

emergency or regular program, are eligible for a first layer of coverage of subsidized premium rates. 

Full risk actuarial rates are charged for new construction or substantial improvements commenced in identified special flood hazard areas after December 31, 1974, or after the effective date of the 

flood insurance rate map issued to the community, whichever is 

later. For communities in the regular program, a second layer of 

flood insurance coverage is available at actuarial rates on all properties, and actuarial rates for both layers apply to all new construction or substantial improvements located in special flood hazard 

areas. The program operations are financed with premium income 

augmented by Treasury borrowings. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee has included bill language for salaries and expenses to administer the National Flood Insurance Fund, not to exceed $36,496,000, the same as the budget request; not to exceed 

$40,000,000 for severe repetitive loss property mitigation expenses 

under section 1361A of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 

$40,000,000 above the budget request; not to exceed $10,000,000 

for a repetitive loss property mitigation pilot program under section 

1323 of the Act, $10,000,000 above the budget request; and not to 

exceed $99,358,000 for flood mitigation activities, $12,000,000 

above the President’s request. Total funding of $185,854,000 is offset by premium collections. The Committee also includes a limitation of $40,000,000 for expenses under section 1366 of the Act, 

$12,000,000 above the President’s request, which shall be available 

for transfer to the National Flood Mitigation Fund. Flood mitigation funds are available until September 30, 2007, and funds for 

mitigation activities associated with section 1361A are available 

until expended. 

NATIONAL FLOOD MITIGATION FUND

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ............................................................ $20,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ........................................................ 28,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ....................................................................... 40,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ..................................................... +20,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ................................................. +12,000,000 

MISSION

The National Flood Mitigation Fund assists States and communities in implementing measures to reduce or eliminate the longterm risk of flood damage to buildings, manufactured homes, and 

other structures insurable under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $40,000,000 for the National Flood 

Mitigation Fund, $12,000,000 above the President’s request and $20,000,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005, to be 

derived by transfer from the National Flood Insurance Program. 

97 

The increase is provided as authorized by section 1367 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended by section 102 of 

the Bunning-Bereuter-Blumenauer Flood Insurance Reform Act of 

2004. Funds are available until September 30, 2007. 

NATIONAL PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION FUND

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ............................................................ $100,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ........................................................ 150,062,000 

Recommended in the bill ....................................................................... 150,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ..................................................... +50,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ................................................. ¥62,000 

MISSION

The National Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund assists States and 

local governments (to include Indian Tribal governments) in implementing cost-effective hazard mitigation activities that complement 

a comprehensive mitigation program. All applicants must be participating in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) if they 

have been identified through the NFIP as having a Special Flood 

Hazard Area (a Flood Hazard Boundary Map or Flood Insurance 

Rate Map has been issued). In addition, the community must not 

be suspended or on probation from the NFIP. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $150,000,000 for the National PreDisaster Mitigation Fund, $62,000 below the President’s request 

and $50,000,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. 

Not to exceed 3 percent may be used for administrative expenses. 

Funds are available until expended. 

PRE-DISASTER HURRICANE MITIGATION INITIATIVE

Considering the loss of property and life due to the severe hurricane conditions experienced in the Southeastern United States last 

year, the Committee supports EP&R’s coordination with State and 

local governments to develop pre-disaster hurricane plans. The 

Committee is aware of a number of existing technologies that provide increased protection to physical structures and encourages 

EP&R to work closely with the private sector to determine various 

technologies, which will provide either passive or active protection 

to physical structures. Specific attention should be given to windows or other aspects of a structure that may be particularly lethal 

or destructive in hurricane conditions. 

EMERGENCY FOOD AND SHELTER

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ............................................................ $153,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ........................................................ 153,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ....................................................................... 153,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ..................................................... - - - 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ................................................. - - - 

MISSION

The Emergency Food and Shelter National Board Program was 

created in 1983 to supplement the work of local social service orgaVerDate Aug 04 2004 01:55 May 17, 2005 Jkt 021197 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR079.XXX HR079
98 

nizations within the United States, both private and governmental, 

to help people in need of emergency assistance. This collaborative 

effort between the private and public sectors has disbursed over 

$2.4 billion in Federal funds during its 22-year history. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $153,000,000 for the Emergency 

Food and Shelter program, the same as the budget request and as 

the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. Not to exceed 3.5 percent 

may be used for administrative expenses. Funds are available until 

expended. 

TITLE IV—RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, TRAINING, 

ASSESSMENTS, AND SERVICES 

CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ............................................................ $160,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ........................................................ 80,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ....................................................................... 120,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ..................................................... ¥40,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ................................................. +40,000,000 

MISSION

The mission of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) 

is to process all immigrant and non-immigrant benefits provided to 

visitors of the United States, promote national security as it relates 

to immigration issues, eliminate immigration adjudication backlogs, and implement solutions to improve immigration customer 

services. While essentially a service organization, CIS maintains 

substantial records and data that are relevant to both the individuals who seek immigration benefits, as well as for law enforcement 

and other homeland security purposes. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $120,000,000 for Citizenship and Immigration Services, an increase of $40,000,000 above the President’s request and $40,000,000 below the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. This increase supports the information technology 

transformation requirements for CIS, including efforts to digitize 

the active alien files that are currently handled in paper form, and 

continuation of digitizing old records as part of the Historical 

Records project. 

CIS REGIONAL SERVICE CENTERS

The Committee is pleased to see that there has been some reduction in backlogs for immigration services applications, but is concerned that this not be lost when the backlog initiative ends after 

fiscal year 2006. The Committee understands that CIS will streamline some of its processing among the four processing centers so as 

to gain some efficiencies and yet retain capacity for different benefit processing at a minimum of two sites. Because the Committee 

wants to ensure that CIS has the capacity to keep up with incoming workload, and in light of the potential impact of such initiatives 

as a temporary worker program, the Committee directs CIS to reVerDate Aug 04 2004 01:55 May 17, 2005 Jkt 021197 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR079.XXX HR079
99 

port not later than January 16, 2006, on the costs and benefits of 

adding a fifth regional service center. The report should take into 

account the impact of automation on its workload and system operation, its ability to use term employees and temporary capacity to 

respond to surges in workload, and physical constraints or features 

(such as location) of existing and potential sites. 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY TRANSFORMATION

The Committee has provided $40,000,000 for CIS’ information 

technology (IT) transformation efforts. The Committee believes that 

all work in this area must align with the Department’s enterprise 

architecture. The intensive administrative workload and documentation associated with the mission of CIS makes the agency 

ideally suited to apply technology and considerably improve its efficiency and productivity. However, the Committee is determined to 

prevent a haphazard approach to IT investments. As stated under 

the heading of the Chief Information Officer, the intent of the Committee is to fully leverage and optimize the potential contribution 

of IT investments in meeting the homeland security mission, while 

controlling IT investment costs, maintaining schedules, and delivering capabilities. Therefore, the Committee directs the Director of 

CIS to submit a report to the Committee on the agency’s information technology efforts and how these activities align with DHS’ enterprise architecture standards within 90 days of enactment of this 

Act. 

BORDER CROSSING CARDS

The Border Crossing Card (BCC), also known as the laser visa, 

used by Mexican citizens and residents to commute across the U.S. 

border, continues to be in great demand. With the deployment of 

biometric verification system (BVS) readers at U.S. ports of entry, 

and implementation of capacity through US–VISIT to read the information on such documents, the Committee believes it is important that there be an adequate supply of new and replacement 

cards to permit full use of the capabilities of the BCC as a border 

security technology. 

LEGAL PERMANENT RESIDENT CARDS

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

financial issues involved in adding biometric verification as a feature of the LPR card. 

USER FEE FUNDED PROGRAMS

Current estimates of examination fee collections, which constitute the majority of CIS offsetting resources, are $1,774,000,000. 

These would support adjudication of applications for immigration 

benefits and be derived from fees collected from persons applying 

for immigration benefits. Within the fees collected, the Committee 

directs CIS to provide not less than $47,000,000 to support the National Customer Service Center operations, and not to exceed 

100 

$5,000 shall be available for official reception and representation 

expenses. 

EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZATION DOCUMENTS (EADS)

The Committee understands that CIS issued an interim rule in 

July 2004 to permit applicants for immigration some relief from the 

prior requirement that they have their EADs renewed annually. In 

order to see the impact of this rule, the Committee directs CIS to 

report not later than January 16, 2006, on its analysis of the impact of this rule, to include the size of the affected applicant population, any impact on CIS backlogs, costs or staff workload; and, if 

known, the impact on applicants who previously were forced to 

change jobs due to the uncertainty of their work authorization status. 

BASIC PILOT PROGRAM

The Committee is aware that the Basic Pilot program, a voluntary program authorized under the Immigration and Nationality 

Act, permits employers to check with CIS to determine if new employees are legally allowed to work in the United States. This is 

voluntary for most employers, and free of charge. In practice, however, most employers do not participate in the program and CIS 

could not now accommodate verification requests from all US employers. The Committee is interested in knowing the implications 

of making such verification of the status of new employees mandatory for employers, and requests that CIS submit a comprehensive 

report not later than January 16, 2006, that outlines the issues involved in requiring all United States employers to electronically 

check the legal work status of all new employees. The report should 

include the costs of such a requirement, options and impediments 

to charging a user fee for such service, and any plans for instituting such a requirement. 

ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION

CIS and the Department of State share information in the course 

of conducting background checks and verifying lawful permanent 

residency and citizenship status. To better understand their ability 

to share such information electronically, the Committee directs CIS 

to report not later than January 16, 2006, on the nature of the connections that CIS and the State Department use to communicate 

inquiries. To the extent there are any issues in technical compatibility that limit the ability of CIS and the Department of State to 

exchange information, the report should identify them and the cost 

to correct them. 

SPANISH LANGUAGE PROGRAMS

The Committee is aware that CIS programs such as the National 

Customer Service Center provide nationwide telephone assistance 

to customers calling from within the United States about immigration services and benefits; information is available in English and 

Spanish. The Committee encourages CIS to continue to support 

programs that provide Spanish-speaking residents with information and assistance related to naturalization and citizenship. 

101 

OFFSETTING FEE COLLECTIONS

CIS operations depend on a variety of fees to offset operations, 

particularly the Immigration Examination Fee. The potential fluctuation of these fees can adversely affect operations if spending is 

not appropriately prioritized. The Committee directs CIS to ensure 

that it fully funds current, ongoing base operations that are feesupported before undertaking new initiatives. The following table 

displays how the Committee expects these fees will be applied: 

Adjudication Services (Fee Account): 

Pay and benefits ................................................................................................................................... $607,000,000 

District Operations ................................................................................................................................ 389,000,000 

Service Center Operations ..................................................................................................................... 260,000,000 

Asylum, Refugee and International Operations .................................................................................... 74,000,000 

Records Operations ............................................................................................................................... 66,000,000 

Subtotal, Adjudication Services ................................................................................................... 1,396,000,000 

Information and Customer Services: 

Pay and benefits ................................................................................................................................... 80,000,000 

National Customer Service Center ........................................................................................................ 47,000,000 

Information Services .............................................................................................................................. 14,000,000 

Subtotal, Information and Customer Service ............................................................................... 141,000,000 

Administration: 

Pay and benefits ................................................................................................................................... 44,000,000 

Operating Expenses ............................................................................................................................... 193,000,000 

Subtotal, Administration .............................................................................................................. 237,000,000 

Total, Citizenship and Immigration Services ............................................................................... 1,774,000,000 

FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING CENTER

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ............................................................ $177,440,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ........................................................ 183,362,000 

Recommended in the bill ....................................................................... 194,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ..................................................... +16,560,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ................................................. +10,638,000 

MISSION

The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) provides the necessary facilities, equipment, and support services to 

conduct advanced, specialized, and refresher training for federal 

law enforcement personnel. Specifically, FLETC serves as an interagency law enforcement training organization for 81 federal agencies with personnel located throughout the United States and its 

territories. The Center also provides services to state, local, and 

international law enforcement agencies, and on a space available 

basis, other federal agencies with missions related to law enforcement. 

FLETC is headquartered in Glynco, GA with sister facilities in 

Artesia, NM and Charleston, SC. A training facility in Cheltenham, 

MD, is intended to provide in-service and re-qualification training 

for officers and agents in the Washington, D.C. area. 

102 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $194,000,000 for FLETC, an increase of $10,638,000 above the President’s request and 

$16,560,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. This 

increase supports the increased training needs of the Border Patrol 

and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. 

ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENTS, AND RELATED

EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ............................................................ $44,917,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ........................................................ 40,636,000 

Recommended in the bill ....................................................................... 64,743,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ..................................................... +19,826,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ................................................. +24,107,000 

MISSION

This account provides for the acquisition, construction, improvements, equipment, furnishings, and related costs for expansion and 

maintenance of facilities of the Federal Law Enforcement Training 

Center, to include its facilities in Georgia, South Carolina, Maryland, and New Mexico. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $64,743,000 for FLETC Acquisition, 

Construction, Improvements, and Related Expenses, $24,107,000 

above the budget request and $19,826,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. This increase is to support increased facility needs for the Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement expansion. 

INFORMATION ANALYSIS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION

MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ............................................................ $132,064,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ........................................................ 204,005,000 

Recommended in the bill ....................................................................... 198,200,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ..................................................... +66,136,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ................................................. ¥5,805,000 

MISSION

This account provides funding for the salaries and expenses of 

the Federal employees in the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection (IAIP) Directorate. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $198,200,000 for Management and 

Administration, $5,805,000 below the President’s request and 

$66,136,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. This 

includes $6,878,000 for the Office of the Under Secretary and 

$191,322,000 for other salaries and expenses. Of these amounts, 

the Committee recommends no more than $5,000 may be used for 

official reception and representation expenses. 

103 

STAFFING LEVELS

The Committee’s recommendation includes a $5,805,000 reduction to $11,700,000 requested for half-year funding of 146 new 

fulltime equivalents (FTEs) proposed by the President. Based on 

the current hiring schedule, IAIP will already fall 60 FTEs short 

of their fiscal year 2005 authorized FTE level. The reduction also 

considers the possible shift in the focus of the mission of IAIP. Following the passage of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, the creation of the National Counter Terrorism 

Center (NCTC) and the Terrorist Screening Center (TSC), IAIP has 

seen the scope of its national intelligence mission reduced. For example, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and Executive Order 

13311 of July 29, 2003, placed the Secretary of Homeland Security 

in charge of information sharing systems for homeland security information, specifically authorizing the Secretary to implement procedures under which relevant Federal agencies share homeland security information with appropriate Federal, State, and local personnel. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 

2004, however, created an Information Sharing Environment, 

whose Program Manager’s responsibility it is to provide the means 

for sharing terrorism information among all appropriate Federal, 

State, local, and tribal entities, and the private sector. 

The Committee feels it would be imprudent to continue to add 

personnel until a review of the future mission for IAIP and reconciliation of these contradictory authorizations is completed. The 

Committee therefore directs the Department to review the mission 

and functions of IAIP in light of the passage of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, the creation of the 

NCTC and TSC, and provide a report no later than January 16, 

2006, on the future role IAIP will have in the intelligence community. The Department should include in this review how they reconcile the requirements of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 with 

those in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 

2004 and any recommended changes in IAIP’s focus or mission, 

staffing, and organizational structure. 

ASSESSMENTS AND EVALUATIONS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ............................................................ $761,644,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ........................................................ 669,240,000 

Recommended in the bill ....................................................................... 663,240,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ..................................................... ¥98,404,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ................................................. ¥6,000,000 

MISSION

The Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection (IAIP) 

Directorate is the focal point of intelligence and infrastructure protection operations within the Department of Homeland Security. 

Specifically, this activity includes the identification and assessment 

of current and future threats to the homeland, mapping of those 

threats against our vulnerabilities, issuance of timely warnings, 

and preventative and protective action. In addition to the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection branches, IAIP also includes the Homeland Security Operations Center (HSOC) and divisions devoted to cyber security and the National Communications 

104 

System. IAIP serves as the Department’s conduit to the Intelligence Community and is a full partner and consumer of all intelligence-generating agencies, such as the National Security Agency, 

the Central Intelligence Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigations. IAIP also works with localities by administering the 

Homeland Security Advisory System. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $663,240,000 for Assessments and 

Evaluations, $6,000,000 below the President’s request and $98,404,000 below the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. Funds 

are available until September 30, 2007. A comparison of the budget 

estimate to the Committee recommendation by budget activity level 

is as follows: 

Assessments and Evaluations Budget Estimate Recommended 

Critical Infrastructure Outreach and Partnerships ..................................................... $67,177,000 $62,177,000 

Critical Infrastructure Identification and Evaluation .................................................. 72,173,000 77,173,000 

National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center ............................................ 16,000,000 16,000,000 

Protective Actions ........................................................................................................ 91,399,000 91,399,000 

Biosurveillance ............................................................................................................. 11,147,000 10,147,000 

Cyber Security .............................................................................................................. 73,349,000 73,349,000 

National Security/Emergency Preparedness Telecommunications ............................... 142,632,000 142,632,000 

Threat Determination and Assessments ..................................................................... 19,900,000 19,900,000 

Infrastructure Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessments ................................................. 74,347,000 74,347,000 

Evaluations and Studies ............................................................................................. 34,526,000 34,526,000 

Homeland Security Operations Center (HSOC) ............................................................ 61,108,000 56,108,000 

Information Sharing and Collaboration ....................................................................... 5,482,000 5,482,000

Total, Assessments and Evaluations ................................................................. $669,240,000 $663,240,000 

CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE OUTREACH AND PARTNERSHIPS

Of the funds recommended for Assessments and Evaluations, the 

Committee provides $62,177,000 for Critical Infrastructure Outreach and Partnerships, $5,000,000 below the President’s request 

and $44,415,000 below the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. 

The private sector owns and operates more than 85 percent of the 

Nation’s critical infrastructure and key resources. Consequently, 

public-private cooperation is paramount. The goals of these partnerships include improving national planning, sharing protective 

actions, and enhancing outreach, education, training, and awareness. IAIP accomplishes these efforts through programs such as the 

National Infrastructure Coordinating Center, which maintains 

operational awareness of the National’s critical infrastructures and 

key resources and provides a mechanism and process for information sharing and coordination; the Protected Critical Infrastructure 

Information program, which provides assurance to private sector 

companies that information voluntarily submitted to the Department will be protected from release to the general public; the National Infrastructure Protection Plan, which provides the framework for implementing a coordinated, national infrastructure protection effort; and the Homeland Security Information NetworkCritical Sector, which provides a secure national communication 

platform for all 13 critical infrastructure and 4 key resource sectors. The Committee notes that IAIP has failed to provide the report requested in House Report 108–541, on the Information Sharing and Analysis Centers (ISACs). Fully functional ISACs are critVerDate Aug 04 2004 01:55 May 17, 2005 Jkt 021197 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR079.XXX HR079
105 

ical to enhance IAIP’s efforts to protect critical infrastructure. However, the Committee is unable to determine the level of ISAC support provided without this report. Therefore, the Committee recommends a $5,000,000 reduction to the Critical Infrastructure Outreach and Partnerships program for lack of responsiveness to Congressional direction. 

CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION

Of the funds recommended for Assessments and Evaluations, the 

Committee provides $77,173,000 for Critical Infrastructure Identification and Evaluation (CIIE), $5,000,000 above the President’s request and $688,000 below the amounts provided in fiscal year 

2005. The mission of CIIE is to carry out comprehensive vulnerability assessments of critical infrastructure and key assets by 

identifying and analyzing assets and their vulnerabilities, developing protective methodologies and guidelines, and supporting special events. To accomplish these objectives, CIIE provides Protective Security Advisors to 60 urban areas to act as a local community liaison, verify assets submitted for inclusion to the National 

Asset Database (NADB), validate implementation of protective 

measures, convey threat advisories and specific warning information, and provide and coordinate critical infrastructure training; deploys Field Security Detachments to conduct site assistance visits 

and assist local law enforcement agencies in developing and implementing Buffer Zone Protection Plans; collates and catalogs common vulnerabilities and potential indicators of terrorist activities 

collected from site assistance visits; deploys Protective Security 

Task Forces during times of heightened alert to provide specialized 

security augmentation to designated high value, critical infrastructure targets and events; and maintains the NADB, which catalogues critical infrastructure nationwide. 

COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW

The Committee commends IAIP for its initial work on the Comprehensive Review of commercial nuclear reactors and associated 

spent fuel storage facilities. This review process is designed to take 

a holistic approach to looking at individual commercial nuclear 

power plant security, general vulnerabilities, consequences of an 

attack, and associated local, State, and Federal preparedness and 

security plans. The review will include representatives from the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, U.S. Coast Guard, Federal Aviation Administration, the Emergency Preparedness and Response 

Directorate, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and local first responders and key officials. Comprehensive reviews will eventually 

be conducted across the Nation’s 17 critical infrastructure and key 

resource sectors, with the goal of reducing the Nation’s vulnerability to terrorism. The Committee recommends an additional 

$5,000,000 for IAIP to begin the expansion of the Comprehensive 

Review process beyond commercial nuclear power plants to other 

high value sectors, such as chemical and liquefied natural gas. The 

Committee directs IAIP to provide a report (classified if necessary) 

on the progress of the Comprehensive Review no later than January 16, 2006, including progress to date, a summary of the findings, action plans for addressing vulnerabilities (especially spent 

106 

nuclear fuel storage), and a plan for expansion to other high value 

sectors. 

PROTECTIVE SECURITY FIELD OPERATIONS

The Committee is encouraged by the ongoing training and deployment of Protective Security Advisors (PSAs) and Field Security 

Detachments (FSDs). These individuals and teams are essential for 

carrying out the Department’s nationwide critical infrastructure 

protection efforts. The Committee therefore directs the continuation 

of the quarterly report summarizing the status of the implementation of the PSA and FSD programs, including the number and locations of field personnel, the number of site assistance visits, buffer 

zone protection plans, and site verification and assistance visits 

that have been completed. These reports should be provided no 

later than 30 days after the end of each quarter. 

CHEMICAL SITE SECURITY

The Committee understands that IAIP has identified almost 300 

chemical manufacturing facilities that could impact over 50,000 

people if attacked, and over 3,000 manufacturing facilities that 

could impact over 1,000 people. The Committee believes that, as 

the lead Federal agency responsible for chemical security, the Department must renew its focus to develop a comprehensive national 

chemical security strategy and complete vulnerability assessments 

at all chemical facilities of highest concern. Therefore, the Committee directs IAIP to complete such vulnerability assessments by 

December 2006 either by conducting such assessments themselves 

or reviewing assessments already completed; to establish a national 

chemical security strategy; and to work with chemical facilities to 

ensure best practices, common characteristics and vulnerabilities, 

and lessons learned are shared throughout the sector. 

INFRASTRUCTURE MAPPING

The Committee is aware of local and regional efforts to map specific sectors of critical infrastructure, such as gas and oil pipelines. 

Such products will assist first responders and repair workers in 

identifying vulnerabilities and associated risks and will aide their 

ability to quickly respond to incidents. The Committee is aware 

that the Department of Transportation is responsible for the safety 

and mapping of all interstate transmission lines and encourages 

IAIP to collaborate and assist as appropriate. 

PROTECTIVE ACTIONS

Of the funds recommended for Assessments and Evaluations, the 

Committee provides $91,399,000 for Protective Actions, the same 

as the President’s request and $100,248,000 below the amounts 

provided in fiscal year 2005. The Protective Actions program works 

with Federal, State, local, and private sector organizations to implement protection strategies, such as the buffer zone protection 

plans to protect infrastructure and assets from attack. This program provides training to State Homeland Security Advisors and 

their State and local law enforcement personnel on how to protect 

their own critical infrastructure sites in a more effective and consistent manner. 

107 

The Committee supports the work of IAIP with the Protective Security Analysis Center to provide a more accurate, comprehensive, 

and real-time common operating picture. The Committee encourages IAIP to continue this effort to enable the targeted deployment 

of improved protective actions. 

BUFFER ZONE PROTECTION PLAN

The Committee recommends that grant funding for the Buffer 

Zone Protection Program be transferred to the Office for Domestic 

Preparedness, as proposed in the President’s request. The Committee directs IAIP to continue to work with ODP to identify critical infrastructure, assess vulnerabilities at those sites, and direct 

funding to gaps in those vulnerabilities. 

AGRICULTURE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENTS

The Committee encourages the Department to coordinate with 

the Department of Agriculture and private industry in expanding 

agriculture producer vulnerability assessments, and to support development of certified and on-farm security assessment protocols 

tailored to the various livestock sectors and production systems. 

BIOSURVEILLANCE

Of the funds recommended for Assessments and Evaluations, the 

Committee provides $10,147,000 for Biosurveillance, $1,000,000 

below the President’s request and $853,000 below the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. Biosurveillance is an interdepartmental 

program designed to improve the Federal government’s capability 

to rapidly identify and characterize a potential bioterrorist attack. 

The IAIP mission in this program is to integrate real-time biosurveillance data with relevant threat information into a comprehensive system that provides a real-time operating picture. The 

Committee is concerned that IAIP has not provided the classified 

report requested in House Report 108–541. This report would have 

provided the scope, cost, schedule and key milestones for IAIP’s 

portion of the Biosurveillance initiative. The Committee recommends a $1,000,000 reduction to the Biosurveillance program for 

lack of responsiveness to Congressional direction. 

CYBER SECURITY

Of the funds recommended for Assessments and Evaluations, the 

Committee provides $73,349,000 for Cyber Security, the same as 

the budget request and $5,969,000 above the amounts provided in 

fiscal year 2005. Cyber Security functions as the Federal government coordination point, bridging public and private institutions, to 

advance computer security preparedness and the response to cyber 

attacks and incidents through the Computer Emergency Readiness 

Team. Additionally, the Cyber Security program studies the interconnection of cyber assets to identify critical points in our Nation’s 

cyber infrastructure that could be exploited by malicious persons. 

The Committee supports cyber programs that enhance the Department’s Cyber Security program’s ability to build capacity for Federal, State, and local operational end-users. 

108 

NATIONAL SECURITY/EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

TELECOMMUNICATIONS

Of the funds recommended for Assessments and Evaluations, the 

Committee provides $142,632,000 for the National Security/Emergency Preparedness Telecommunications program, the same as the 

budget request and $1,877,000 below the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. This program supports mission-critical national security and emergency preparedness communications for the Federal, State, local, and tribal governments, and private industry. 

WIRELESS PRIORITY SERVICE

The Committee recognizes that Wireless Priority Service (WPS) 

provides a critical communications link between National Security/ 

Emergency Preparedness personnel and key government officials in 

the event of a national crisis. The Committee, therefore, encourages 

the Department to take into consideration whether an entity is a 

WPS provider in the awarding of federal wireless telecommunications contracts. 

HOMELAND SECURITY OPERATIONS CENTER

Of the funds recommended for Assessments and Evaluations, the 

Committee provides $56,108,000 for the Homeland Security Operations Center (HSOC), $5,000,000 below the President’s request 

and $21,108,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. 

The HSOC serves as the primary national level hub for operational 

communications, information sharing and situational awareness for 

all information pertaining to domestic incident management. It accomplishes this mission by receiving and integrating threat information with a detailed mapping of the Nation’s critical infrastructure to provide an accurate and timely common operating picture, 

and enabling information sharing and collaboration among Federal, 

State, tribal, local, and private sector entities through the Homeland Security Information Network. The Committee is concerned 

that IAIP has not provided the 5-year HSOC implementation plan 

requested in House Report 108–541, yet is being asked to provide more than $26,000,000 above fiscal year 2005. Without the implementation plan, the Committee cannot determine if the requested 

increase in funding is the most efficient use of the limited resources available. Therefore, the Committee recommends a 

$5,000,000 reduction to the HSOC for lack of responsiveness to 

Congressional direction. 

HOMELAND SECURITY INFORMATION NETWORK

The Committee is encouraged with IAIP’s implementation of the 

Homeland Security Information Network (HSIN), which is the primary information sharing and collaboration tool for all levels of 

government and private sector that provides a reliable, uniform 

platform to encourage information sharing and collaboration between all parties engaged in the security of the homeland. The 

Committee understands that the increase in funding requested 

would allow IAIP to connect all county level governments to HSIN; 

States and major urban areas were connected in previous years. 

The Committee directs IAIP to provide a report on the implementation of HSIN, no later than January 16, 2006, including who is conVerDate Aug 04 2004 01:55 May 17, 2005 Jkt 021197 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR079.XXX HR079
109 

nected, what training and outreach is provided, and what types of 

information is shared. 

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ............................................................ $68,586,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ........................................................ 81,399,000 

Recommended in the bill ....................................................................... 81,399,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ..................................................... +12,813,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ................................................. - - - 

MISSION

The Management and Administration appropriation provides for 

the salaries and expenses of federal employees of the Science and 

Technology Directorate. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $81,399,000, the same as the President’s request and $12,813,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. The President’s request includes salaries and expenses for several different program areas and also reflects the 

continued consolidation of research and development activities formerly funded from other accounts being transferred to Science and 

Technology. 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, ACQUISITION, AND OPERATIONS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ............................................................ $1,046,864,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ........................................................ 1,287,047,000 

Recommended in the bill ....................................................................... 1,258,597,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ..................................................... +211,733,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2006 ................................................. ¥28,450,000 

MISSION

The mission of the Science and Technology (S&T) Directorate is 

to develop and deploy technologies and capabilities to secure our 

homeland. This directorate conducts, stimulates, and enables research, development, test, evaluation, and the timely transition of 

homeland security capabilities to federal, state, and local operational end-users. This activity includes investments in both evolutionary and revolutionary capabilities with high payoff potential; 

early deployment of off-the-shelf, proven technologies to provide for 

initial defense capability; near-term utilization of emerging technologies to counter current terrorist threats; and development of 

new capabilities to thwart future and emerging threats. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,258,597,000, for Research, Development, Acquisition and Operations, $28,450,000 below the President’s request and $211,733,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. Decreases in the President’s budget include 

$100,000,000 from the newly created Domestic Nuclear Detection 

Office, $12,000,000 from Chemical Countermeasures, and 

$13,650,000 from Conventional Missions. Increases include 

110 

$40,000,000 for Explosives Countermeasures for air cargo activities, $21,000,000 for Interoperable Communications, $15,000,000 

for Critical Infrastructure Protection research, and $4,400,000 for 

Safety Act implementation. The Committee also provides 

$10,000,000 for implementation of Section 313 of the Homeland Security Act and technology development and transfer. 

TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSFER

The Committee recognizes that S&T has made good progress in 

developing, standardizing, and certifying new homeland related 

technologies in its two years of existence, and that quicker progress 

may be expected in the near-term as certain activities funded in 

prior years come on line. However, as the public has been waiting 

since 9/11 for improved flow through airport screening, assurance 

of secure cargo containers, and standards for interoperable communications to name a few, patience is growing thin. 

Some vendors complain that goods and services that they have 

to offer can solve many of these problems, but that S&T has not 

evaluated, certified, purchased or otherwise worked to assure their 

use. Further, once goods and services are identified, S&T appears 

slow to disseminate them through the Department or to make 

available to state and local entities. While this does not seem to be 

a problem solely for Science and Technology to address, it would 

play a central role in solving it. 

The Department is directed to develop and report to the Committee 180 days after enactment of this Act on its business model 

to address: (1) the process that determines goods and services needed; (2) how information about needs will be spread to the market 

place; (3) where individuals with ideas and products can be heard; 

(4) the development of needed technology transfer programs; (5) the 

certification process for appropriate products; (6) how the Department can build future funding into its budgetary process so that 

the Department can begin procurement immediately upon certification; (7) how the rate of deployment can be enhanced; and (8) 

how to integrate an ombudsman function to direct inquiries and 

correct problems. The report should outline how S&T is addressing 

the above and any other issues the Department believes are relevant, how far along the Department is in implementing the business plan, and indicate what challenges it faces toward full implementation. The report shall also include recommendations to help 

the process of assessment, certification, transparency of review and 

deployment of goods and services. 

A comparison to the President’s budget request, by budget activity, is as follows: 

Budget Estimate Recommended 

Technology Development and Transfer ........................................................................ 0 $10,000,000 

Biological Countermeasures ........................................................................................ $362,300,000 360,000,000 

Chemical Countermeasures ......................................................................................... 102,000,000 90,000,000 

Explosives Countermeasures ....................................................................................... 14,700,000 54,700,000 

Radiological and Nuclear countermeasures ................................................................ 19,086,000 19,086,000 

Domestic Nuclear Detection Office .............................................................................. 227,314,000 127,314,000 

Conventional Missions in Support of DHS .................................................................. 93,650,000 80,000,000 

Threat and Vulnerability, Testing and Assessment .................................................... 47,000,000 47,000,000 

Emerging Threats ........................................................................................................ 10,500,000 10,500,000 

Standards .................................................................................................................... 35,500,000 35,500,000 

University Programs/Homeland Security Fellowship Programs ................................... 63,600,000 63,600,000 

111 

Budget Estimate Recommended 

Cyber Security .............................................................................................................. 16,700,000 16,700,000 

Critical Infrastructure Protection ................................................................................. 20,800,000 35,800,000 

Rapid Prototyping program ......................................................................................... 20,900,000 30,000,000 

Counter MANPADS ........................................................................................................ 110,000,000 110,000,000 

Interoperability and Compatibility ............................................................................... 20,500,000 41,500,000 

SAFETY Act ................................................................................................................... 5,600,000 10,000,000 

Research and Development Consolidation .................................................................. 116,897,000 116,897,000

Total, Research, Development, Acquisition, and Operations ............................. 1,287,047,000 1,258,597,000 

BIOLOGICAL COUNTERMEASURES

The Biological Countermeasures program develops and implements an integrated systems approach to reducing the probability 

and potential consequences of a biological attack on this nation’s civilian population, infrastructure, or agricultural system. The Committee recommends $360,000,000, a decrease of $2,300,000 from 

the budget request. This reduction reflects the movement of some 

of the program’s rapid prototyping funds back to the core rapid 

prototyping program. 

PLUM ISLAND

The Committee recognizes that the Department of Homeland Security’s Plum Island facility will need to be replaced in the near future and that other potential locations need to be explored. The bill 

provides $23,000,000 for such an effort and authorizes the Department to explore alternative locations. It is the expectation of the 

Committee that the Department will assess a number of locations 

for suitability for handling animal pathogens and perform all environmental and health analysis necessary to make a determination 

that the site can be made suitable for safe handling of these pathogens. Money is provided for planning, design and other pre-construction activities. 

VETERINARY VACCINES

The Committee continues to be aware of various federal task 

force recommendations related to the need for development and 

stockpiling of improved veterinary vaccines. Specifically, there is a 

pronounced and recognized need for vaccines to mitigate the 

threats posed by high priority disease agents to public health, U.S. 

livestock, and the economy. The Committee is disappointed with 

the progress the Department has made on this important initiative 

and continues to encourage it to develop a vaccine defense regimen 

that incorporates advanced research done in the field. The Committee encourages S&T to review existing and innovative technologies that prove safe and effective, such as pharmaceutical proteins in plants. 

CHEMICAL COUNTERMEASURES

This portfolio focuses on characterizing and reducing the vulnerability posed by toxic industrial materials in use, storage or transport within the nation as well as providing countermeasures to 

emerging chemical threats. The Committee recommends 

$90,000,000 for Chemical Countermeasures, $12,000,000 less than 

the budget request and $37,000,000 above the amounts provided 

112 

fiscal year 2005. Much of this reduction reflects the movement of 

some of the program’s rapid prototyping funds back to the core 

rapid prototyping program. 

EXPLOSIVE COUNTERMEASURES

The Explosive Countermeasures program provides the science 

and technology needed to significantly increase the probability of 

interdicting an explosives attack on buildings, critical infrastructure, and this nation’s civilian population. The Committee rec- ommends $54,700,000 for Explosive Countermeasures, $40,000,000 

above the budget request and $35,000,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. Of the amount provided, the Committee 

recommends $40,000,000 for air cargo, of which $30,000,000 is for 

air cargo pilots and $10,000,000 is to continue air cargo research 

and development activities previously initiated by TSA. 

AIR CARGO

Based on recommendations in S&T’s system engineering study of civil aviation security, the Committee directs that $30,000,000 

shall be used to conduct three cargo screening pilot programs—one 

at an all cargo airport and two at top ten passenger cargo airports. 

These pilots shall test different concepts of operation that S&T designs in coordination with TSA. Testing shall consist of the following: (1) physically screening a significant percentage (e.g., six 

times more than today) of cargo at a passenger airport using TSA 

screeners during slack passenger and checked baggage screening 

periods; (2) physically screening a significant percentage (e.g., six 

times more than today) of cargo at a passenger airport using TSA 

or private screeners solely dedicated to cargo screening; and (3) 

using canine teams supplemented as needed by technology, screening a similar percentage of cargo at an all cargo airport, specifically 

to detect explosives and hidden passengers. Based on results of 

each pilot, cost estimates (both non-recurring and recurring) shall 

be developed for these different operational concepts if deployed to 

the top five air cargo only airports and top 10 passenger airports. 

The Committee expects each of these pilots to be no shorter than 

nine months in duration and all pilots to be completed by January 

31, 2007. The Committee directs S&T to provide a comprehensive 

report on each pilot, two months after each is completed, and interim reports of progress and results no later than August 31, 

2006. 

The remaining $10,000,000 shall be used to continue research 

and development efforts for new technologies that can be utilized 

to screen larger pieces of air cargo, including those that are odd 

sized, in pallets, banded, or shielded, for explosives, weapons or 

other security concerns. The Committee is deeply disappointed 

that, although Congress directed TSA to aggressively research and 

develop technologies that could screen air cargo carried on passenger aircraft at the earliest date possible, TSA was slow to begin 

these efforts. While the Administration awarded grants in 2004 to 

screen consolidated air cargo, the results were not anticipated for 

two years, or until 2006. In early 2005, TSA began researching and 

evaluating commercial off-the-shelf security systems in the three 

primary air cargo areas: break bulk (initiated January 2005), 

palletized and/or containerized (to be initiated in May 2005) and 

113 

mail (to be initiated in August 2005). Results from this work are 

not anticipated until late 2006 or 2007. Realizing that no single 

technology will provide the ultimate solution for inspection of air 

cargo, the Committee directs S&T to aggressively pursue processes 

and continue research to identify technologies, such as dual energy 

transmission x-ray, passive millimeter wave, computed tomography, quadrupole resonance, and amplifying fluorescent polymer 

that may provide tailored security ‘‘solutions’’ at aviation facilities 

(depending on, for instance, site requirements, cargo commodity 

‘‘mix’’, cargo volume). The Committee directs S&T to move more expeditiously than TSA has done in the past. 

NUCLEAR AND RADIOLOGICAL COUNTERMEASURES

The Nuclear and Radiological Countermeasures program has focused on providing appropriate and effective detection and interdiction technologies to prohibit the importation or transportation and 

subsequent detonation of nuclear or radiological device in the 

United States; however, its function is now less clear as the same 

role has been taken by the Administration’s creation of the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office that will report directly to the Secretary. The Committee recommends $19,086,000 for Nuclear and 

Radiological Countermeasures, the same as the budget request and 

$103,528,000 below the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. 

DOMESTIC NUCLEAR DETECTION OFFICE

While requested under this heading, the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office has been made a freestanding office reporting directly 

to the Secretary. The Committee recognizes the gravity of terrorists 

acquiring and using a nuclear device and commends the Department on its efforts to work with other Departments to prevent such 

an event. The Committee believes that DHS still needs to clarify 

its role in regard to other federal agencies, such as the Department 

of Defense and the Department of Energy, that have similar and 

more mature programs. The Committee looks forward to working 

with DHS as it moves forward to establishing this new office. The 

Committee recommends $127,314,000 for this new office, 

$100,000,000 less than the budget request and $127,314,000 above 

the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. In addition, because of 

the delay in obligating $4,000,000 provided in fiscal year 2004 for 

nuclear detection and monitoring capabilities through TSA, the 

Committee has directed TSA to transfer these funds to the newly 

established Domestic Nuclear Detection Office within DHS. These 

funds shall be used to initiate pilot programs for detecting nuclear 

materials at truck weigh stations in the United States. 

CONVENTIONAL MISSIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE DEPARTMENT

The Committee recommends $80,000,000 for Conventional Missions in support of the Department, $13,650,000 below the budget 

request and $25,350,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 

2005. Of this reduction, $5,000,000 reflects the movement of some 

of the program’s rapid prototyping funds back to the core rapid 

prototyping program. 

114 

CONTAINER SECURITY

The Committee is aware that Science and Technology, in cooperation with Transportation Security Administration and Bureau 

of Customs and Border Protection, has a number of initiatives underway concerning the security of containers, including the detection of materials within the container and the security of the container itself. S&T is looking to assure the integrity of conveyance 

loading and documentation; significantly reduce the risk of undetected tampering in transit; and provide accurate, complete, timely 

and protected shipment information while enhancing supply chain 

efficiency. These initiatives are underway through the solicitation 

of technologies through a small business innovative research effort 

and a broad agency announcement. The Committee continues to 

support this important effort and urges S&T to accelerate its efforts where possible and to report to the Committee by January 16, 

2006 on its progress to date. 

TUNNELS

The Committee notes with concern the recent discoveries of large 

tunnels under the U.S. border and encourages S&T to work with 

BTS to assess, and if needed, develop new technologies to locate 

tunnels. 

THREAT AND VULNERABILITY, TESTING AND ASSESSMENT

The Threat and Vulnerability, Testing and Assessment program 

creates advanced modeling, information and analysis capabilities 

that are used to enhance the Science and Technology’s ability to 

evaluate extensive amounts of data and information from diverse 

sources. The Committee recommends $47,000,000 for Threat and 

Vulnerability, Testing and Assessment, the same as the budget request and $25,350,000 below the amounts provided in fiscal year 

2005. 

EMERGING THREATS

The Emerging Threats portfolio aims to anticipate, detect and 

deter new threats that terrorists may pose using novel tactics. The 

Committee recommends $10,500,000, for Emerging Threats, the 

same as the budget estimate and $250,000 below the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. 

STANDARDS PROGRAM

The Standards Program develops standards for homeland security related equipment and systems in collaboration with operational end-users. The Committee recommends $35,500,000 for the 

Standards program, the same as the budget request and $4,200,000 

below the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. 

BLAST-RESISTANT RECEPTACLES

The Committee notes with concern that no standards for blastresistant receptacles have been established and strongly believes 

standards, which reflect the best available technology for explosion 

containment, should be established expeditiously to protect the 

traveling public. The Committee directs Science and Technology to 

115 

develop standards and testing protocols for measuring performance 

of blast-resistant products, and initiate testing of both installed 

and new products. The Committee further directs Science and 

Technology to report back on the status of this effort no later than 

January 16, 2006. 

UNIVERSITY PROGRAMS/FELLOWSHIP PROGRAMS

The Committee notes that the University and Fellowship Programs will have at least $45,000,000 in unobligated resources at 

the end of fiscal year 2005. The Committee recommends 

$63,600,000 in new budgetary authority, the same as the budget 

request, for a total of $108,600,000 available for these programs in 

fiscal year 2006. The Committee urges S&T to continue to expand 

its Centers of Excellence. Through the Homeland Security Centers 

of Excellence (HS-Centers) Science and Technology is encouraging 

universities to become centers of multi-disciplinary research. The 

future of homeland security science is being advanced through both 

its Centers of Excellence and by the development of the next generation of scientists through its Scholars and Fellows Program. 

There continues to be intense interest from universities with proposals to perform homeland security activities. This additional 

funding will allow Science and Technology to evaluate and support 

additional university proposals in fiscal year 2006. 

CYBER SECURITY

The Cyber Security program focuses on several areas: improving 

the security of process control systems, next generation cyber security technology; and economic assessment and modeling to recommend cyber security investments. The Committee recommends 

$16,700,000 for the Cyber Security program, the same as the budget request and $1,300,000 below the amounts provided in fiscal 

year 2005. 

CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION

The Critical Infrastructure Protection program conducts vulnerability, consequence and risk analysis to identify the best approaches to protecting the nation’s infrastructure, allowing priorities to be established based on a rational process and resources to 

be invested with the highest payoff of risk reduction and damage 

mitigation. The Committee recommends $35,800,000 for Critical Infrastructure Protection, $15,000,000 above the budget request, and 

$8,800,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. 

The Committee recommends $15,000,000 to support existing 

work in research and development and application of technology for 

community based critical infrastructure protection efforts. 

The Committee is concerned that the Department lacks appropriate assessment tools to help prioritize security risks for critical 

infrastructure and urges S&T to examine well-established scientific 

analysis tools commonly used in engineering and design, including 

six sigma analysis. 

RAPID PROTOTYPING PROGRAM

The Committee recommends $30,000,000 for Rapid Prototyping, 

$9,100,000 above the budget request and $46,000,000 below the 

116 

amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. The Rapid Prototyping Program accesses the capabilities of private sector industry for rapid 

development and prototyping of technologies in support of the Department of Homeland Security’s missions. The Committee has 

partially restored the Rapid Prototyping program and expects that 

prototyping activities will continue in other segments of the Directorate. The Committee believes that poor utilization of Rapid Prototyping is a factor in the growing frustration at the slow deployment 

of new technologies to the field. The Committee supports the President’s budget request, at a minimum, for the newly formed Public 

Safety and Security Institute for Technology (PSITEC) that acts as 

a centralized technology clearinghouse for federal, state and local 

governments, and perhaps a critical component of implementing 

Section 313 of the Homeland Security Act. 

COUNTER-MANPADS

The Counter-MANPADS program is focused on identifying, developing, and testing a cost-effective capability to protect the nation’s commercial aircraft against the threat of man-portable air 

defense systems (MANPADS), commonly called anti-aircraft missiles. The Committee recommends $110,000,000 for the CounterMANPADS program the same as the budget request, and 

$49,000,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. 

In prior fiscal years, Science and Technology has, appropriately, 

worked toward transitioning relatively mature, military counterMANPADS technologies to civilian use. It has been the expectation 

that fielding an existing technology would require less time, would 

be more reliable, and would cost less than a wholly new system. 

While the Directorate’s evaluation of the current systems is not 

complete, preliminary results are not entirely encouraging. The 

Committee is concerned that the resulting technologies will not be 

sufficiently able to meet the challenges of commercial application 

at a cost that is economically feasible. The Committee is also aware 

of emerging technologies that may be simpler and more cost effective, but are far from fully developed. 

The Counter-MANDPADS program is fully funded at the President’s request and the Directorate should continue its efforts to 

mature existing technologies to reduce their cost and maintenance 

needs. However, given the seriousness of the threat and the distinct possibility that the current technologies will not be made reliable enough for use, the Committee directs that not less than 

$10,000,000 be used to evaluate emerging technologies that could 

work better, could be more cost effective, and easier to deploy and 

maintain. 

INTEROPERABILITY AND COMPATIBILITY

The Committee recommends $41,500,000 for the Interoperability 

and Compatibility program, $21,000,000 above the budget request 

and $20,500,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. 

Of the increase, $10,000,000 is for expansion of the RapidCom program. 

The ability of the country’s first responders to communicate with 

one another across jurisdictions and disciplines is a long-standing, 

complex and critical issue facing our nation. The SAFECOM (Wireless Public SAFEty Interoperable COMmunications) program was 

117 

placed in the Department of Homeland Security’s Science and 

Technology Directorate for full access to the scientific expertise and 

resources needed to help our nation achieve true public safety wireless communications interoperability. The Committee commends 

Science and Technology for the work done thus far under 

SAFECOM, and for standing-up the Interoperability and Communications program in order to comprehensively address the interoperability of public safety communications. 

The Office of Interoperability and Compatibility (OIC) has made 

good progress in recently releasing a Statewide Communications 

Interoperability Planning (SCIP) Methodology, a Statement of Requirements and other documents. The Committee recognizes difficulties and the importance of interoperable communications 

standards, which are critical to the Department’s efforts to improve 

communications nationally. Therefore the Science and Technology 

Directorate (S&T) shall expedite the development of these standards, and coordinate with ODP to ensure that ODP’s technical assistance program incorporates these standards, as appropriate, and 

as spelled out in the Memorandum of Agreement between S&T and 

SLGCP, signed May 24, 2004, by the Executive Director of SLGCP 

and August 9, 2004, by the Under Secretary of S&T. 

The Committee recognizes that merging multiple agencies in the 

formation of the Department created overlapping activities, such as 

addressing interoperability and assessment of technology and 

equipment. The Committee strongly supports OIC efforts to align 

these programs to ensure conformance, compatibility and interoperability as well as steps to enhance training and communications. 

The Committee specifically notes the critical work done by the Risk 

Assessment Policy working group to align risk assessment policies 

and methodologies and directs OIC to report to the Committee on 

the status of its efforts no later than January 16, 2006. 

SAFETY ACT

The ‘‘Support Anti-terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies 

Act of 2002’’, (SAFETY Act) facilitates the development of homeland security technologies that otherwise would not be deployed because of the risk of liability. Companies can apply to have their 

products and services deemed ‘‘qualified anti-terrorism technologies’’. The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for the SAFETY Act program, $4,400,000 above the President’s request and the 

same as amounts provided in fiscal year 2005. These funds are for 

the continued establishment of a SAFETY Act Program Implementation Office. The Committee has increased resources to enhance 

the program’s slow progress to date in making only 17 decisions on 

83 applications. Many companies still voice concerns that the process requirements are so complicated that they discourage applications. The Committee directs the Office to report to the Committee 

on the status of applications, certification decisions, its actions to 

speed up this process, and efforts to streamline the application 

process by January 16, 2006. 

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CONSOLIDATION

The Committee approves the President’s request to transfer research and development funding for other agencies within the Department of Homeland Security to the Science and Technology DiVerDate Aug 04 2004 01:55 May 17, 2005 Jkt 021197 PO 00000 Frm 00117 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR079.XXX HR079
118 

rectorate. As noted in the statement of managers’ accompanying 

the fiscal year 2004 appropriations bill, the Committee was concerned that some of the research and development activities being 

independently conducted by each of the Department’s legacy agencies may be duplicative. The consolidation of these activities into 

the Science and Technology Directorate should assure better management oversight of these activities and enhance research 

synergies. 

The Committee recommends a total of $127,497,000 be transferred from DHS component agencies to S&T, as requested in the 

President’s budget. Of this total, the Committee recommends 

$10,599,000 come from S&T’s management and administration’s 

account and the remainder from S&T’s research and development 

account. Funding is distributed as follows: $17,000,000 for the U.S. 

Coast Guard’s research, development, test, and evaluation activities, $109,040,000 for Transportation Security Administration’s research and development activities, $1,456,000 for the U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection research and development activities, and 

$1,000 from Infrastructure Analysis and Infrastructure Protection 

research and development activities. 

MANHATTAN II

For the past several years, TSA has been funding the Manhattan 

II program. This program focused on activities to develop next-generation explosive detection systems, which may be tested in the airport environment within the next three to five years. Because of 

the longer-term nature of this program, the program has been 

transferred to S&T. 

Of the total funding S&T will provide to aviation security research activities in fiscal year 2006, the Committee recommends 

$15,000,000 to continue the Manhattan II program. The Committee 

understands that work is underway and advancing towards achieving the program’s objectives to reduce false alarm rates, increase 

throughput, reduce manpower costs, enhance resolution and vastly 

improve efficiencies. Existing Manhattan II program awardees represent a wide range of technologies and capabilities. The Committee directs DHS to give priority to those awardees with projects 

that develop a comprehensive system with a high probability of 

success in achieving the goals of the program. Further, the Committee urges the Department to encourage awardees to team with 

each other to add viable technology components, to create synergies 

and to accelerate the delivery of a comprehensive, next-generation 

explosive detection system. 

PORTS

The Committee is aware of the unique training challenges created by ports. Given the costs and logistics associated with live exercise disaster training, the Committee encourages Science and 

Technology, in conjunction with the Office of Domestic 

Preparednesss, to explore the use of high-fidelity reality-based synthetic environment technology for disaster management and training in the port environment. 

119 

CONVERGING TECHNOLOGIES

The Committee recognizes that DHS has made efforts to automate detection, identification, and warning of Chemical, Biological, 

Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosive (CBRNE) incidents. As these 

systems mature, they will likely be integrated with other tools in 

development, such as geospatial technologies that will indicate 

where an event is relative to response resources, how that event 

will be affected by the current weather, and other real time parameters that could affect response to a terrorist threat. As with other 

technology development activities, the Committee encourages S&T 

to work with other departments (e.g. DOD or DOE) that may have 

existing systems or relatively mature prototype systems that detect, integrate, and disseminate such information. 

DOCUMENT SECURITY

The S&T Directorate is encouraged to work with the United 

States Secret Service’s Forensic Services Division (FSD) in the research and development of standardized security features that can 

be embedded in paper documents such as birth certificates. Given 

FSD’s contributions to the implementation of security features to 

prevent counterfeiting and the Secret Service’s expertise in 

credentialing, the Committee believes the agency can lend considerable support to S&T’s efforts in the improvement of applied paper 

document security research. 

NANOTECHNOLOGY

The Committee believes that nanotechnology is a promising technology that could contribute significantly in the defense against 

terrorism. The Committee encourages S&T to pursue research in 

nanotechnologies that may aid in the detection of biological, chemical, radiological, and explosive agents. 

TITLE V—GENERAL PROVISIONS—THIS ACT 

(INCLUDING RESCISSION OF FUNDS)

Section 501. The Committee continues a provision providing that 

no part of any appropriation shall remain available for obligation 

beyond the current year unless expressly provided. 

Section 502. The Committee continues a provision providing that 

unexpended balances of prior appropriations may be merged with 

new appropriation accounts and used for the same purpose, subject 

to reprogramming guidelines. 

Section 503. The Committee continues and modifies a provision 

providing reprogramming authority for funds within an account 

and not to exceed 5% transfer authority between appropriations accounts with the requirement for a 15-day advance Congressional 

notification. A detailed funding table identifying each Congressional control level for reprogramming purposes is included at the 

end of this Report. All notifications shall be submitted no later 

than June 30, except in extraordinary circumstances. These reprogramming guidelines shall be complied with by all agencies 

funded by the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations 

Act, 2006. 

120 

Section 504. The Committee continues a provision providing that 

not to exceed 50 percent of unobligated balances remaining at the 

end of fiscal year 2006 from appropriations made for salaries and 

expenses shall remain available through fiscal year 2007 subject to 

reprogramming guidelines. 

Section 505. The Committee continues a provision providing that 

funds for intelligence activities are deemed to be specifically authorized during fiscal year 2006 until the enactment of an Act authorizing intelligence activities for fiscal year 2006. 

Section 506. The Committee continues a provision directing the 

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center to establish an accrediting body to establish standards for assessing federal law enforcement training programs, facilities, and instructors. 

Section 507. The Committee continues and modifies a provision 

requiring notification of the Committees on Appropriations three 

days before any grant allocation, discretionary grant award, discretionary contract award, or letter of intent totaling $1,000,000 or 

more is announced by the Department. 

Section 508. The Committee continues a provision providing that 

no agency shall purchase, construct, or lease additional facilities for 

federal law enforcement training without advance approval of the 

Committees on Appropriations. 

Section 509. The Committee continues a provision requiring the 

Director of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center to ensure that all training facilities are operated at optimal capacity 

throughout the fiscal year. 

Section 510. The Committee continues a provision providing that 

none of the funds may be used for any construction, repair, alteration, and acquisition project for which a prospectus, if required by 

the Public Buildings Act of 1959, has not been approved. 

Section 511. The Committee continues a provision that none of 

the funds may be used in contravention of the Buy American Act. 

Section 512. The Committee includes a new provision that reduces funding for the Transportation Security Administration’s Office of Transportation Security Support by $100,000 per day for 

each day after enactment of this Act that the second proviso of section 513 of Public Law 108–334 is not implemented. 

Section 513. The Committee continues a provision requiring the 

Coast Guard to submit, at the time of the President’s budget submission, a list of approved but unfunded priorities and the funds 

needed for each priority. 

Section 514. The Committee continues and modifies a provision 

that allows TSA to impose a reasonable charge for the lease of real 

and personal property to TSA employees. 

Section 515. The Committee continues and modifies a provision 

regarding the acquisition of equipment and supplies by the Transportation Security Administration. 

Section 516. The Committee continues and modifies a provision 

authorizing the Department of Homeland Security to conduct background investigations for certain employees. 

Section 517. The Committee continues a provision exempting the 

formula-based grants and high-threat, high-density urban area 

grants from the requirements of the Cash Management Improvement Act of 1990. 

121 

Section 518. The Committee continues and modifies a provision 

prohibiting the obligation of funds for the Secure Flight program, 

except on a test basis, until that the requirements of Section 522 

of Public Law 108–334 have been met and the Government Accountability Office has reviewed such certification. 

Section 519. The Committee continues a provision that directs 

that none of the funds may be used to amend the oath of allegiance 

required by section 337 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 

U.S.C. 1448). 

Section 520. The Committee continues a provision regarding competitive sourcing. 

Section 521. The Committee continues and modifies a provision 

that none of the funds may be used to alter the Secret Service from 

being anything but a district entity within the Department, to 

merge the Secret Service with any other agency or department 

function, or to alter the current reporting structure of the Secret 

Service. 

Section 522. The Committee includes a new provision that requires the Secretary of Homeland Security, in conjunction with airline stakeholders, to develop screening standards and protocols to 

more thoroughly screen all types of air cargo on passenger and 

cargo aircraft. The language specifies that these screening standards and protocols shall be developed in conjunction with the research and development of technologies that will permit screening 

of all high-risk air cargo. The Committee withholds funding appropriated to the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management 

until new air cargo screening standards and protocols are implemented. 

Section 523. The Committee includes a new provision that requires the Transportation Security Administration to utilize existing checked baggage explosive detection equipment and screeners 

to screen cargo carried on passenger aircraft to the greatest extent 

practicable at each airport and report back monthly on these efforts. 

Section 524. The Committee includes a new provision that requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to implement a security 

plan that permits general aviation aircraft to land and take off at 

Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport 90 days after enactment of this Act. 

Section 525. The Committee includes a new provision that restricts funds available for obligation for the transportation worker 

identification credential until the Department develops a personalization system that is centralized and a card production capability 

that utilizes an existing government card production facility. Language is also included limiting funds for the production phase until 

the House Appropriations Committee has been fully briefed on the 

results of the prototype phase and agrees that the program should 

move forward. 

Section 526. The Committee includes a new provision rescinding 

$83,999,942 from the unexpended balances of the Coast Guard ‘‘Acquisition, Construction and Improvements’’ account specifically 

identified in report language for Integrated Deepwater System patrol boats 110 to 123-conversion in fiscal years 2004 and 2005 and 

reappropriates these funds to procure new 110-patrol boats or for 

122 

major maintenance availability for the current 110-patrol boat 

fleet. 

Section 527. The Committee includes a new provision directing 

the Secretary of Homeland Security to utilize the Transportation 

Security Clearinghouse as the central identity management system 

for the deployment and operation of the registered traveler program, the transportation worker identity credential program and 

other applicable programs for the purposes of collecting and aggregating biometric data necessary for background vetting; provide all 

associated record-keeping, customer service and related functions; 

ensuring interoperability between different airports and vendors; 

and act as a central aviation, revocation, and transaction hub for 

participating airports, ports, and other points of presence. 

Section 528. The Committee includes a new provision relating to 

section 222 of the Homeland Security Act and reporting requirements of the privacy officer. 

Section 529. The Committee includes a new provision prohibiting 

funds made available in this or previous Appropriations Acts to pay 

the salary of any employee serving as a contracting officer’s technical representative (COTR) who has not received COTR training. 

Section 530. The Committee includes a new provision that recovered or deobligated TSA funds from fiscal years 2002–2005 shall be 

available only for procurement and installation of explosive detective systems. 

Section 531. The Committee includes a new provision rescinding 

funds from the unobligated balances available in the Department 

of Homeland Security Working Capital Fund. 

Section 532. The Committee includes a new provision withholding funds for obligation until the direction in the statement of 

managers accompanying Public Law 108–324 and House Report 

108–541 is completed. 

Section 533. The Committee includes a new provision clarifying 

H1B visa processing. 

Section 534. The Committee includes a new provision regarding 

the Sensitive Security Information designation process. 

Section 535. The Committee includes a new provision regarding 

Coast Guard Station ‘‘Group St. Petersburg’’. 

APPROPRIATIONS CAN BE USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES FOR

WHICH MADE

Title 31 of the United States Code makes clear that appropriations can be used only for the purposes for which they were appropriated as follows: 

Section 1301. Application. 

(a) Appropriations shall be applied only to the objects for which 

the appropriations were made except as otherwise provided by law. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORT REQUIREMENTS 

The following items are included in accordance with various requirements of the Rules of the House of Representatives. 

123 

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 to which transfer is to be made Amount Account from which transfer is to be 

made Amount 

Title III: 

National Flood Mitigation Fund ........... $40,000,000 National Flood Insurance Fund ...... $40,000,000 

RESCISSION OF FUNDS

In compliance with clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee reports that it recommends a rescission of $83,999,942 from the Coast Guard’s Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements account, and a rescission of 

$7,000,000 from the Department of Homeland Security Working 

Capital Fund. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY

Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives states that: 

‘‘Each report of a committee on a bill or joint resolution 

of a public character, shall include a statement citing the 

specific powers granted to the Congress in the Constitution 

to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint resolution.’’

The Committee on Appropriations bases its authority to report 

this legislation from Clause 7 of Section 9 of Article I of the Constitution of the United States of America that states: 

‘‘No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of Appropriations made by law * * *’’

Appropriations contained in this Act are made pursuant to this 

specific power granted by the Constitution. 

COMPLIANCE WITH RULE XIII, CL. 3 (RAMSEYER RULE) 

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee reports there are no 

changes to existing law made by the bill. 

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the Congressional 

Budget Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–344), as amended, the financial 

assistance to state and local governments is as follows: 

[In millions of dollars] 

FY 2006 new budget authority .......................................................... $5,439 

FY 2006 outlays resulting therefrom ................................................ $7,795 

124 

COMPARISON WITH BUDGET RESOLUTION

Clause 3(c)(2) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires an explanation of compliance with section 

308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control 

Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–344), as amended, which requires that 

the report accompanying a bill providing new budget authority contain a statement detailing how the authority compares with the reports submitted under section 302 of the Act for the most recently 

agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal year 

from the Committee’s section 302(a) allocation. This information 

follows: 

[In millions of dollars] 

Comparison with Allocation 

302(b) allocation This bill 

Budget Outlays Budget Outlays 

General Purpose Discretionary ....................................................... $30,846 $33,233 $30,846 *$33,213 

Mandatory ...................................................................................... 931 924 931 924 

Total .................................................................................. 31,777 34,157 31,777 34,137 

* Includes Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005 (HR 1268). 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of Rule XIII off the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following is a statement of general performance goals and objectives for which this measure authorizes funding: 

The Committee on Appropriations considers program performance, including a program’s success in developing and attaining 

outcome-related goals and objectives, in developing funding recommendations. 

FIVE YEAR OUTLAY PROJECTIONS

In compliance with section 308(a)(1)(B) of the Congressional 

Budget Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–344), as amended, the following 

table contains five-year projections associated with the budget authority provided in the accompanying bill: 

[In millions of dollars] 

Outlays: 2006 .............................................................................................. $19,335 

2007 .............................................................................................. 6,453 

2008 .............................................................................................. 3,722 

2009 .............................................................................................. 1,414 

2010 and beyond .......................................................................... 583 

COMPLIANCE WITH RULE XIII, CLAUSE 3(f)(1) 

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee has inserted at the appropriate 

place in the report a description of the effects of provisions proposed in the accompanying bill which may be considered, under 

certain circumstances, to change the application of existing law, either directly or indirectly. 

The bill provides, in some instances, for funding of agencies and 

activities where legislation has not yet been finalized. In addition, 

the bill carries language, in some instances, permitting activities 

125 

not authorized by law. Additionally, the Committee includes a 

number of general provisions. 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY AND EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT

The Committee includes language providing funds reception and 

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

provisions are satisfied. 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR MANAGEMENT

The Committee includes language providing funds for reception 

and representation expenses and for costs necessary to consolidate 

headquarters operations at the Nebraska Avenue Complex, including tenant improvements and relocation costs. 

CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER

The Committee includes language providing funds for the Chief 

Information Officer (CIO) and for the development and acquisition 

of information technology equipment, software, services, and related activities and prohibits the use of funds to augment other 

automated systems. The Committee also includes language that requires the CIO to submit a report on its enterprise architecture 

and other strategic activities. 

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

The Committee includes language providing funds for certain 

confidential operational expenses, including the payment of informants. 

TITLE II—SECURITY, ENFORCEMENT, AND 

INVESTIGATIONS 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR BORDER AND

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY

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

AUTOMATION MODERNIZATION

The Committee includes language making funds available until 

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

CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Committee includes language making funds available for 

border security, immigration, customs, and agricultural inspections 

and regulatory activities; acquisition, lease, maintenance and operation of aircraft; purchase of vehicles; contracting with individuals 

for personal services; Harbor Maintenance Fee collections; official 

126 

reception and representation expenses; inspection and surveillance 

technology, unmanned aerial vehicles, and equipment for the Container Security Initiative; Customs User Fee collections; payment 

of rental space in connection with pre-clearance operations; compensation of informants; contractual or reimbursable agreements 

with State and local law enforcement agencies; and Border Patrol 

checkpoints in the Tucson sector. The Committee includes a provision regarding average overtime limitations, requiring the submission of a report on the Immigration Advisory Program, the Container Security Initiative and Air and Marine Operations prior to 

the obligation of funds, and language making certain funds available until September 30, 2007. 

AUTOMATION MODERNIZATION

The Committee includes language making funds available until 

expended for automated systems and includes language requiring 

the submission of an expenditure plan prior to the obligation of 

funds. 

AIR AND MARINE INTERDICTION, OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE, AND

PROCUREMENT

The Committee includes language making funds available for the 

operation, maintenance and procurement of marine vessels and 

other equipment; travel; rental payments for facilities; and assistance to other law enforcement agencies and humanitarian efforts. 

The Committee includes language prohibiting the transfer of aircraft and related equipment out of the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection unless certain conditions are met. 

CONSTRUCTION

The Committee includes language making funds available until 

expended for the planning, construction, renovating, equipping, and 

maintaining of buildings and facilities. 

IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Committee includes language making funds available for enforcement of immigration and customs laws, detention and removals, and investigations; purchase of replacement vehicles; special 

operations; official reception and representation expenses; compensation to informants; promotion of public awareness of the child 

pornography tipline; Project Alert; and reimbursement of other 

Federal agencies for certain costs. The Committee includes language regarding overtime compensation, forced child labor laws, requiring the submission of a national detention management plan 

prior to the obligation of funds, and requiring the submission of a 

plan to enforce administrative violations of a immigration laws. 

The Committee makes funds available for the implementation of 

section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended. 

FEDERAL AIR MARSHALS

The Committee includes language making $5,000,000 available 

until expended for the Federal Air Marshals. 

127 

FEDERAL PROTECTIVE SERVICE

The Committee includes language making funds available until 

expended for the operations of the Federal Protective Service. 

AUTOMATION MODERNIZATION

The Committee includes language making funds available until 

expended for automated systems and includes language requiring 

the submission of an expenditure plan prior to the obligation of 

funds. 

CONSTRUCTION

The Committee includes language making funds available until 

expended for the planning, constructing, renovating, equipping, and 

maintaining of buildings and facilities. 

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

AVIATION SECURITY

The Committee includes language making funds available until 

expended for civil aviation security; and establishing conditions 

under which security fees are collected and credited. The Committee includes language limiting screener staffing levels to 45,000 

full time equivalents. The Committee includes language that limits 

the federal share of any letter of intent to 75 percent for any medium or large airport and 90 percent for any other airport and permits appropriations authorized for aviation security to be distributed in any manner necessary to ensure aviation security and fulfill the government’s cost share under existing letters of intent. The 

Committee also includes language providing funds for reception 

and representation expenses. 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION SECURITY

The Committee includes language providing funds for surface 

transportation security programs of the Transportation Security 

Administration. 

TRANSPORTATION VETTING AND CREDENTIALING

The Committee includes language on the development and implementation of screening programs. 

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY SUPPORT

The Committee includes language providing funds for transportation security support programs of the Transportation Security 

Administration. The Committee includes language requiring the 

submission of a long-term explosive detection plan and a detailed 

spend plan for explosive detection systems procurement and installation prior to obligation of funds. 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

OPERATING EXPENSES

The Committee includes a provision regarding passenger motor 

vehicles and the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, and prohibits the 

128 

use of funds for yacht documentation except under certain circumstances and for administrative expenses in connection with 

shipping commissioners in the United States. The Committee also 

includes language on reception and representation expenses. 

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE AND RESTORATION

The Committee includes language providing funds for environmental compliance and restoration of the Coast Guard. 

RESERVE TRAINING

The Committee includes language providing funds for the Coast 

Guard reserve, including maintenance and operation of the reserve 

program, personnel and training costs, equipment and services. 

ACQUISITIONS, CONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENTS

The Committee includes a provision requiring a capital investment plan for future appropriations years with certain conditions. 

The Committee includes language requiring that the Commandant 

of the Coast Guard submit a new baseline for the acquisition 

schedule of the Deepwater program prior to the obligation of funds. 

ALTERATION OF BRIDGES

The Committee includes a provision specifying certain conditions 

for the availability of funds for bridge alteration projects. 

RETIRED PAY

The Committee includes language providing funds for retired pay 

and medical care for the Coast Guard’s retired personnel and their 

dependents. 

UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Committee includes language that provides funds for the 

purchase and replacement of vehicles; the hire of aircraft; purchase 

of motorcycles; services of expert witnesses; rental of certain buildings; improvements to buildings as may be necessary for protective 

missions; per diem and subsistence allowances; firearms matches; 

presentation of awards; protective travel; research and development; grants for behavioral research; official reception and representation expenses; technical assistance and equipment to foreign 

law enforcement organizations; advance payment for commercial 

accommodations; and uniforms. The Committee includes language 

making funds available for investigations of missing and exploited 

children, including grants; provides for two year availability of 

funds for protective travel. The Committee authorizes the obligation of funds in anticipation of reimbursements for training, under 

certain conditions and authorizes short-term medical services for 

students undergoing training. The Committee includes bill language providing for costs associated with National Special Security 

Events and makes these funds available for two years. 

129 

ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENTS, AND RELATED

EXPENSES

The Committee includes language providing funds for the acquisition, construction, improvement, and related expenses of Secret 

Service facilities and makes these funds available until expended. 

TITLE III—PREPAREDNESS AND RECOVERY 

OFFICE OF STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT COORDINATION AND

PREPAREDNESS

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Committee includes language providing funds for reception 

and representation expenses. 

STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS

The Committee includes language that provides funds for grants, 

contracts, cooperative agreements, other activities, including grants 

to State and local governments for terrorism prevention. The Committee also includes a provision identifying the amount of funds 

available for formula-based grants, law enforcement terrorism prevention grants, high-threat, high-density urban area grants, rail 

and transit security grants, port security grants, trucking security 

grants, intercity bus security grants, national programs, and the 

Commercial Equipment Direct Assistance Program. The Committee 

includes language specifying the conditions under which both applications and grants are made to certain grants made in the Act. The 

Committee also includes language specifying the conditions for distribution of certain grants. The Committee also includes language 

that limits the availability of funds for construction, except for port 

security and rail and transit security grants; allows for law enforcement terrorism prevention grants and high-threat, high-density 

urban area grants to be used for operational expenses such as overtime in certain situations; directs grantees to report on use of funds 

as deemed necessary by the Secretary; and establishes a deadline 

for the final National Preparedness Goal, and a requirement for 

the submission of updated State homeland security strategies. 

FIREFIGHTER ASSISTANCE GRANTS

The Committee includes a provision providing funding for section 

34 of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act and authorizing 

the transfer of funds for program administration and language 

making funds available until September 30, 2007. 

COUNTERTERRORISM FUND

The Committee includes language authorizing the Secretary of 

Homeland Security to reimburse Federal agencies for the costs of 

providing support to counter, investigate, or prosecute unexpected 

threats or acts of terrorism, including payment of rewards in connection with these activities. 

130 

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

AND RESPONSE

The Committee includes language providing funds for the Office 

of the Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response. 

PREPAREDNESS, MITIGATION, RESPONSE, AND RECOVERY

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

ADMINISTRATIVE AND REGIONAL OPERATIONS

The Committee includes language that provides funds for administrative and regional operations. The Committee also includes a 

provision providing funds for reception and representation expenses. 

PUBLIC HEALTH PROGRAMS

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

RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAM

The Committee includes a provision regarding charges assessed 

for the radiological emergency preparedness program, including 

conditions and methodology for the assessment and collection of 

fees. 

DISASTER RELIEF

The Committee includes language making funds available until 

expended. 

DISASTER ASSISTANCE DIRECT LOAN PROGRAM ACCOUNT

The Committee includes a provision limiting gross obligations for 

direct loans; includes a provision regarding the cost of modifying 

loans; and provides for administrative expenses of the direct loan 

program. 

FLOOD MAP MODERNIZATION FUND

The Committee includes provisions regarding non-Federal sums 

for cost-shared mapping activities and limiting total administrative 

costs to 3 percent of the total appropriation. The Committee also 

includes language making funds available until expended. 

NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE FUND

The Committee includes a provision authorizing the transfer of 

funds for flood mitigation; a provision regarding the cost of modifying loans; and a limitation on operating expenses, mitigation activities associated with sections 1361A and 1323 of the National 

Flood Insurance Act of 1968, agents’ commissions and taxes, and 

for interest on Treasury borrowings. The Committee also includes 

language making funds flood hazard mitigation available until September 30, 2007, making funds for mitigation activities associated 

131 

with section 1361A available until expended, and authorizing the 

transfer of funds to the National Flood Mitigation Fund. 

NATIONAL FLOOD MITIGATION FUND

The Committee includes language regarding authorized activities 

and authorizing the transfer of funds from the National Flood Insurance Fund. The Committee also includes language making 

funds available until September 30, 2007. 

NATIONAL PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION FUND

The Committee includes language authorizing grant awards to be 

made on a competitive basis without reference to State allocations, 

quotas, or other formula-based allocation of funds. The Committee 

includes a provision limiting total administrative costs to 3 percent 

of the total appropriation. The Committee also includes language 

making funds available until September 30, 2006. 

EMERGENCY FOOD AND SHELTER

The Committee includes language making funds available until 

expended, and limiting total administrative costs to 3.5 percent of 

the total appropriation. 

TITLE IV—RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, TRAINING, 

ASSESSMENTS, AND SERVICES 

CITIZEN AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES

The Committee includes language making funds available for 

citizenship and immigration services. 

FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING CENTER

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Committee includes language making funds available for official representation expenses; purchase of police type pursuit vehicles; student athletic and related recreational activities; conducting 

and participating in firearms matches; public awareness and community support; services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; law enforcement accreditation; reimbursements for certain mobile phone expenses. The Committee includes language authorizing the training 

of certain law enforcement personnel; authorizes the use of appropriations and reimbursements for such training and establishes a 

cap on total obligations. The Committee also includes language 

that authorizes pecuniary actions for losses or destruction of government property; and makes material and support funds available 

until September 30, 2007. 

ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENTS AND RELATED

EXPENSES

The Committee includes language making funds available until 

expended for real property and facilities and authorizes reimbursement from government agencies requesting construction of special 

use facilities. 

132 

INFORMATION ANALYSIS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION

MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

The Committee includes language providing funds for reception 

and representation expenses. 

ASSESSMENTS AND EVALUATIONS

The Committee includes language making funds available until 

September 30, 2007 for information and analysis and infrastructure protection. 

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

The Committee includes language providing funds for 

managment and administration of programs and official reception 

and representation expenses. 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, ACQUISITION AND OPERATIONS

The Committee includes language making funds available until 

expended, as authorized. The Committee also includes language 

making funds available for the National Bio and Agrodefense Laboratory, and implementation of Section 313 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002. 

TITLE V—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

(INCLUDING RECISSION OF FUNDS)

Section 501. The Committee continues a provision providing that 

no part of any appropriation shall remain available for obligation 

beyond the current year unless expressly provided. 

Section 502. The Committee continues a provision providing that 

unexpended balances of prior appropriations may be merged with 

new appropriation accounts and used for the same purpose, subject 

to reprogramming guidelines. 

Section 503. The Committee continues and modifies a provision 

providing reprogramming authority for funds within an account 

and not to exceed 5% transfer authority between appropriations accounts with the requirement for a 15-day advance Congressional 

notification. A detailed funding table identifying each Congressional control level for reprogramming purposes is included at the 

end of this Report. All notifications shall be submitted no later 

than June 30, except in extraordinary circumstances. These reprogramming guidelines shall be complied with by all agencies 

funded by the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations 

Act, 2006. 

Section 504. The Committee continues a provision providing that 

not to exceed 50 percent of unobligated balances remaining at the 

end of fiscal year 2005 from appropriations made for salaries and 

expenses shall remain available through fiscal year 2006 subject to 

reprogramming guidelines. 

Section 505. The Committee continues a provision providing that 

funds for intelligence activities are deemed to be specifically auVerDate Aug 04 2004 01:55 May 17, 2005 Jkt 021197 PO 00000 Frm 00132 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR079.XXX HR079
133 

thorized during fiscal year 2006 until the enactment of an Act authorizing intelligence activities for fiscal year 2006. 

Section 506. The Committee continues a provision directing the 

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center to establish an accrediting body to establish standards for assessing federal law enforcement training programs, facilities, and instructors. 

Section 507. The Committee continues and modifies a provision 

requiring notification of the Committees on Appropriations three 

days before any grant allocation, discretionary grant award, discretionary contract award, or letter of intent totaling $1,000,000 or 

more is announced by the Department. 

Section 508. The Committee continues a provision providing that 

no agency shall purchase, construct, or lease additional facilities for 

federal law enforcement training without advance approval of the 

Committees on Appropriations. 

Section 509. The Committee continues a provision requiring the 

Director of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center to ensure that all training facilities are operated at optimal capacity 

throughout the fiscal year. 

Section 510. The Committee continues a provision providing that 

none of the funds may be used for any construction, repair, alteration, and acquisition project for which a prospectus, if required by 

the Public Buildings Act of 1959, has not been approved. 

Section 511. The Committee continues a provision that none of 

the funds may be used in contravention of the Buy American Act. 

Section 512. The Committee includes a provision reducing funding for the Transportation Security Administration’s Transportation Security Support for each day that the second proviso of Section 513 is not implemented. 

Section 513. The Committee continues a provision requiring the 

Coast Guard to submit, at the time of the President’s budget submission, a list of approved but unfunded priorities and the funds 

needed for each priority. 

Section 514. The Committee continues and modifies a provision 

that allows TSA to impose a reasonable charge for the lease of real 

and personal property to TSA employees. 

Section 515. The Committee continues and modifies a provision 

regarding the acquisition of equipment and supplies by the Transportation Security Administration. 

Section 516. The Committee continues and modifies a provision 

authorizing the Department of Homeland Security to conduct background investigations for certain employees. 

Section 517. The Committee continues a provision exempting the 

formula-based grants and high-threat, high-density urban area 

grants from the requirements of the Cash Management Improvement Act of 1990. 

Section 518. The Committee continues and modifies a provision 

prohibiting the obligation of funds for Secure Flight, except on a 

test basis, until that the requirements of Section 522 of Public Law 

108–334 have been met and the Government Accountability Office 

has reviewed such certification. 

Section 519. The Committee continues a provision that directs 

that none of the funds may be used to amend the oath of allegiance 

required by section 337 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 

U.S.C. 1448). 

134 

Section 520. The Committee continues a provision regarding competitive sourcing. 

Section 521. The Committee continues and modifies a provision 

that none of the funds may be used to alter the Secret Service from 

being anything but a distinct entity within the Department, to 

merge the Secret Service with any other agency or department 

function, or to alter the current reporting structure of the Secret 

Service. 

Section 522. The Committee includes a new provision that requires the Secretary of Homeland Security, in conjunction with airline stakeholders, to develop screening standards and protocols to 

more thoroughly screen all types of air cargo on passenger and 

cargo aircraft. The language specifies that these screening standards and protocols shall be developed in conjunction with the research and development of technologies that will permit screening 

of all high-risk air cargo. The Committee withholds funding appropriated to the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management 

until new air cargo screening standards and protocols are implemented. 

Section 523. The Committee includes a new provision that requires the Transportation Security Administration to utilize existing checked baggage explosive detection equipment and screeners 

to screen cargo carried on passenger aircraft to the greatest extent 

practicable at each airport and report back monthly on these efforts. 

Section 524. The Committee includes a new provision that requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to implement a security 

plan that permits general aviation aircraft to land and take off at 

Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport 90 days after enactment of this Act. 

Section 525. The Committee includes a new provision that restricts funds available for obligation for the transportation worker 

identification credential until the Department develops a personalization system that is centralized and a card production capability 

that utilizes an existing government card production facility. Language is also included limiting funds for the production phase until 

the House Appropriations Committee has been fully briefed on the 

results of the prototype phase and agrees that the program should 

move forward. 

Section 526. The Committee includes a new provision rescinding 

$83,999,942 from the unexpended balances of the Coast Guard ‘‘Acquisition, Construction and Improvements’’ account specifically 

identified in report language for Integrated Deepwater System patrol boats 110 to 123 conversion in fiscal years 2004 and 2005 and 

reappropriates these funds to procure new 110 patrol boats or for 

major maintenance availability for the current 110 patrol boat 

fleet. 

Section 527. The Committee includes a new provision directing 

the Secretary of Homeland Security to utilize the Transportation 

Security Clearinghouse as the central identity management system 

for the deployment and operation of the registered traveler program, the transportation worker identity credential program and 

other applicable programs for the purposes of collecting and aggregating biometric data necessary for background vetting; provide all 

associated record-keeping, customer service and related functions; 

135 

ensuring interoperability between different airports and vendors; 

and act as a central aviation, revocation, and transaction hub for 

participating airports, ports, and other points of presence. 

Section 528. The Committee includes a new provision relating to 

section 222 of the Homeland Security Act and reporting requirements of the privacy officer. 

Section 529. The Committee includes a new provision prohibiting 

funds made available in this or previous Appropriations Acts to pay 

the salary of any employee serving as a contracting officer’s technical representative (COTR) who has not received COTR training. 

Section 530. The Committee includes a new provision that recovered or deobligated TSA funds from fiscal years 2002–2005 shall be 

available only for procurement and installation of explosive detection systems. 

Section 531. The Committee includes a new provision rescinding 

funds from the unobligated balances available in the Department 

of Homeland Security Working Capital Fund. 

Section 532. The Committee includes a new provision withholding funds for obligation until the direction in the statement of 

managers accompanying Public Law 108–324 and House Report 

108–541 is completed. 

Section 533. The Committee includes a new provision clarifying 

H1B visa processing. 

Section 534. The Committee includes a new provision regarding 

the Sensitive Security Information designation process. 

DETAILED EXPLANATIONS IN REPORT

It should be emphasized again that a more detailed statement 

describing the effect of the above provisions inserted by the Committee which directly or indirectly change the application of existing law may be found at the appropriate place in this report. 

APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the House of Representatives, the following table lists the appropriations in the accompanying bill that are not authorized by law: 

APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW 

[Dollars in thousands] 

Agency/program Last year of authorization Authorization level 

Appropriations in 

last year of authorization 

Appropriations in 

this bill 

Office of the Secretary and Executive Management ..................................................... 1 NA NA NA $133,329 

Office of the Under Secretary for Management ........................................................... NA NA NA 146,084 

Office of the Chief Financial Officer ............. NA NA NA 18,505 

Office of the Chief Information Officer ......... NA NA NA 303,700 

Office of the Inspector General ..................... NA NA NA 83,017 

Counterterrorism Fund ................................... NA NA NA 10,000 

Automation Modernization 2 ........................... NA NA NA 21,000 

Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, 

Salaries and Expenses .............................. 3 2003 $2,739,695 4 $3,195,094 4,885,544 

Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, 

Salaries and Expenses .............................. 5 2002 Such sums 730,710 4,885,544 

Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Salaries and Expenses ............ 6 2003 2,739,695 7 3,032,094 3,064,081 

136 

APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW—Continued 

[Dollars in thousands] 

Agency/program Last year of author- ization Authorization level 

Appropriations in 

last year of author- ization 

Appropriations in this bill 

Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Automation and Modernization 8 2003 2,739,695 9 380,000 40,150 

Transportation Security Administration, Surface Transportation Security ..................... NA NA NA 36,000 

Transportation Security Administration, 

Transportation Vetting and Credentialing NA NA NA 84,294 

Office of State and Local Governments Coordination and Preparedness .................... NA NA NA 3,564,846 

National Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund .......... 10 2005 NA 200,000 150,000 

Flood Map Modernization Fund ...................... 8 2004 NA 200,000 200,000 

National Flood Insurance Program (limitation 

on expenses) .............................................. 8 2004 NA 110,570 185,854 

Preparedness, Migitation, Response and Recovery ......................................................... 11 2003 9 50,000 9 39,984 249,499 

Prepardeness, Migitation, Response and Recovery ......................................................... 12 2003 10 21,585 10 16,778 249,499 

US Citizenship and Immigration Services ..... 13 2002 631,745 14 707,392 120,000 

US Coast Guard, Operating Expenses ........... 005 5,404,300 15 5,157,220 5,500,000 

US Coast Guard, Environmental Compliance 

and Restoration ......................................... 2005 17,000 17,000 12,000 

US Coast Guard, Reserve Training ................ 2005 16 117,000 113,000 119,000 

US Coast Guard, Acquisitions, Construction 

and Improvements ..................................... 2005 1,500,000 17 982,200 798,152 

US Coast Guard, Alteration of Bridges ......... 2005 19,650 15,900 15,000 

US Coast Guard, Retired Pay ......................... 2005 1,085,460 1,085,460 1,014,080 

Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection, Assessments and Evaluations 

and Operating Expenses ............................ NA NA NA 861,440 

Operations ...................................................... 2003 Such sums NA 1,339,996 

1 NA indicates that no specific funding level has been authorized. 

2 Includes FAST and NEXUS/SENTRI only. 

3 Immigration and Naturalization Service—inspection, investigations, Border Patrol, detention and deportation only. 4 Includes $2,862,094,000 from the FY 2003 INS Salaries and Expenses appropriations, and $333,000,000 included in the FY 2003 Wartime 

Supplemental Appropriations Act, PL 108–11. 5 Agriculture Plant and Health Inspection Service only. 

6 Immigration and Naturalization Service—inspection, investigations, Border Patrol, detention and deportation only. 7 Includes $2,862,094,000 from the FY 2003 INS Salaries and Expenses appropriations, and $170,000,000 included in the FY 2003 Wartime 

Supplemental Appropriations Act, PL 108–11. 8 Immigration and Naturalization Service—inspection, investigations, Border Patrol, detention and deportation only. 9 For Entry-Exit system. 

10 Authorized through December 31, 2005. 11 Fire preparedness only. 12 Earthquake mitigation only. 13 INS Citizenship Services. 14 Includes $704,392,000 from FY 2003 INS Citizenship Service appropriations, and $3,000,000 in the FY 2003 Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, PL 108–11. 15 There is additional funding ($33,367) from the Emergency Supplemental for the Hurricane; also $100,000,000 authorized in DoD appropriations act for transfer to USCG from Iraqi Freedom Fund. 16 Reserve level is authorized under the National Defense Authorization Act; however, no appropriations level has been specified for reserve 

training. 17 Does not include funding of $34,000,000 in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2004. Does not include $16,000,000 rescission pursuant to P.L. 108–334. 

137 

FULL COMMITTEE VOTES 

Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the House 

of Representatives, the results of each rollcall vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with the names of those 

voting for and those voting against, are printed below: 

ROLLCALL NUMBER: 1

Date: May 10, 2005 

Measures: Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Bill, 

FY 2006 

Motion by: Mr. Obey 

Description of Motion: To provide $100,000,000 for the REAL ID 

Act of 2005; funding is offset through a rescission of unobligated 

prior year balances. 

Results: Rejected 26 yeas to 35 nays. 

Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay 

Mr. Berry Mr. Aderholt 

Mr. Bishop Mr. Alexander 

Mr. Boyd Mr. Bonilla 

Mr. Cramer Mr. Carter 

Mr. Dicks Mr. Crenshaw 

Mr. Edwards Mr. Culberson 

Mr. Farr Mr. Cunningham 

Mr. Fattah Mr. Doolittle 

Mr. Hinchey Mrs. Emerson 

Mr. Hoyer Mr. Frelinghuysen 

Ms. Kaptur Mr. Goode 

Mr. Kennedy Ms. Granger 

Ms. Kilpatrick Mr. Hobson 

Mrs. Lowey Mr. Istook 

Mr. Mollohan Mr. Kirk 

Mr. Moran Mr. Knollenberg 

Mr. Murtha Mr. Kolbe 

Mr. Obey Mr. LaHood 

Mr. Olver Mr. Latham 

Mr. Pastor Mr. Lewis 

Mr. Price Mr. Peterson 

Mr. Rothman Mr. Regula 

Ms. Roybal-Allard Mr. Rehberg 

Mr. Sabo Mr. Rogers 

Mr. Serrano Mr. Sherwood 

Mr. Visclosky Mr. Simpson 

Mr. Sweeney 

Mr. Taylor 

Mr. Tiahrt 

Mr. Walsh 

Mr. Wamp 

Dr. Weldon 

Mr. Wicker 

Mr. Wolf 

Mr. Young 

138 


Insert offset folio 178 HR79.004
139 


Insert offset folio 179 HR79.005
140 


Insert offset folio 180 HR79.006
141 


Insert offset folio 181 HR79.007
142 


Insert offset folio 182 HR79.008
143 


Insert offset folio 183 HR79.009
144 


Insert offset folio 184 HR79.010
145 


Insert offset folio 185 HR79.011
146 


Insert offset folio 186 HR79.012
147 


Insert offset folio 187 HR79.013
148 


Insert offset folio 188 HR79.014
149 


Insert offset folio 189 HR79.015
150 


Insert offset folio 190 HR79.016
151 


Insert offset folio 191 HR79.017
152 


Insert offset folio 192 HR79.018
153 


Insert offset folio 193 HR79.019
154 


Insert offset folio 194 HR79.020
155 


Insert offset folio 195 HR79.021
156 


Insert offset folio 196 HR79.022
157 


Insert offset folio 197 HR79.023
158 


Insert offset folio 198 HR79.024
159 


Insert offset folio 199 HR79.025
160 


Insert offset folio 200 HR79.026
161 


Insert offset folio 201 HR79.027
162 


Insert offset folio 202 HR79.028
163 


Insert offset folio 203 HR79.029
164 


Insert offset folio 204 HR79.030
165 


Insert offset folio 205 HR79.031
166 


Insert offset folio 206 HR79.032
167 


Insert offset folio 207 HR79.033
168 


Insert offset folio 208 HR79.034
169 


Insert offset folio 209 HR79.035
170 


Insert offset folio 210 HR79.036
171 


Insert offset folio 211 HR79.037
172 


Insert offset folio 212 HR79.038
(173) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF DAVID OBEY AND MARTIN OLAV 

SABO 

Four and a half years after September 11th, Americans should 

have tangible proof that our nation is safer; that for the billions of 

dollars spent, we are well prepared against terrorist attack. We 

must honestly ask ourselves: What progress have we made? What 

critical gaps still exist? What actions should we be taking to close 

those gaps? 

Public concern over a lack of progress on these critical questions 

led to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security more 

than two years ago. Yet, since then, the Department has been fractured and bureaucratic—far more focused on internal organization 

than in achieving results in some of our greatest security 

vulnerabilities. We can afford that no longer. 

The difficult task of our nation’s homeland defense requires vision and leadership and planning and pragmatism. We believe 

these qualities are more lacking today than money, but responsibility does not rest at the feet of the Administration alone. Time 

and again, the Congress has enacted new requirements without 

providing the appropriate funding or oversight to ensure that their 

implementation is a success. 

In these views we will lay out some of the homeland security 

gaps that continue to exist and some of the actions that our nation 

has taken since September 11th. The 2006 appropriations bill incrementally addresses some of these gaps. It does not, however, 

provide for the full-scale solution that is needed. Nor does it provide the resources required for the Department of Homeland Security to meet specific goals contained in numerous pieces of legislation passed by the Congress and signed into law by the President. 

BORDER SECURITY

It should be obvious to every American that to improve border 

security, we need more border agents and surveillance equipment. 

In legislation enacted by wide voting margins, Congress has repeatedly called for border security to be improved. The Patriot Act of 

2001, called for the tripling of border agents and customs and immigration inspectors on our northern border. The Intelligence Reform Act, enacted in December 2004, called for 2,000 additional 

border agents, 800 additional immigration investigators, and 8,000 

additional detention beds per year 2006 through 2010. 

The fact is that since September 11th, only 965 new border patrol agents have been hired. In four years, this is less than a 10% 

increase. Nine out of ten border patrol agents are assigned to guard 

the southern border. 

To help meet the northern border hiring and equipment goals in 

the Patriot Act, Congress provided $308 million to beef up security 

on our northern border with more agents, inspectors and equipVerDate Aug 04 2004 01:55 May 17, 2005 Jkt 021197 PO 00000 Frm 00173 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR079.XXX HR079
174 

ment. The Bush Administration requested only one-third of this 

funding, and had to be reminded by the Appropriations Committee 

to use the remaining $36 million in northern border funds in the 

most recently enacted supplemental. 

This legislation, when combined with the recent supplemental, is 

the first opportunity the Congress has had to address the mandates 

of the Intelligence Reform Act. Unfortunately, only five months 

since enactment of that legislation, this bill falls far short of its 

border enforcement directives—by 500 border patrol agents (25% 

short), by 600 immigration investigators (75% short), and by 4,000 

detention beds (50% short). 

We note that the border increases included in this bill are substantially more than those requested by the President. The President requested only 362 new personnel and few additional detention beds. The President’s budget did not request the resources necessary to back up his statement that Congress ‘‘took an important 

step in strengthening our immigration laws, by, among other items, 

increasing the number of border patrol agents and detention beds’’ in the Intelligence Reform Act. 

However, when Congress passes legislation dictating new homeland security mandates, and then does not follow up to provide the 

resources to fully meet them, we should expect questions about our 

credibility. Some might call this hypocrisy. 

We would also like to point out that there are some important 

border and port programs that are not funded adequately in the 

President’s budget or in this legislation. One is the radiation portal 

monitor program. The Department’s plan would result in these 

monitors, which screen for nuclear material and weapons of mass 

destruction, to be installed in all ports by 2009. Their sole reason 

for taking so long to implement this critical equipment is a lack of 

resources. We believe it is a misguided decision. 

LOCAL POLICE, FIRE AND EMERGENCY RESPONDER PREPAREDNESS

Increased funding to improve the ability of our local police, firefighters and emergency personnel to respond to terrorist acts or 

disasters has been called for numerous times. A 2003 Council of 

Foreign Relations report found that responders were ‘‘Drastically 

Underfunded, Dangerously Unprepared,’’ and that ‘‘America will 

fall approximately $98 billion short of meeting critical emergency 

responder needs over the next five years if current funding levels 

are maintained.’’ In 2003, funding for state homeland security grants (not including fire grants or port grants which were funded elsewhere in 

2003) and emergency management performance grants totaled $3.3 

billion. This legislation includes only $2.4 billion for these same 

programs in 2006, a reduction of 27%. 

A recent report by the ‘‘Task Force on A Unified Security Budget 

for the United States, 2006’’ found that funding reductions for preparedness and response programs ‘‘translate into dangerous 

vulnerabilities, given the scope and character of the terrorist 

threat.’’ The Administration and those in charge of the Congress are willing to wait too long for these preparedness vulnerabilities to be addressed. They argue that less than 30 percent of the funding proVerDate Aug 04 2004 01:55 May 17, 2005 Jkt 021197 PO 00000 Frm 00174 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR079.XXX HR079
175 

vided to date to states and localities to improve preparedness has 

been spent and that additional funding cannot be absorbed. It is 

true that due to Department of Homeland Security staff shortfalls 

and equipment backlogs, funding is not being spent quickly. However, we believe that the Department should address these issues, 

rather than use them as an excuse to cut funding. In addition, 

funding can only be spent when it is made available. 

Fire grants are probably the most successful grant program in 

the Department of Homeland Security. Local fire departments submit grants requests, which are independently evaluated. The needs 

of our fire departments are great. The number of firefighters has 

dropped by 32,000 during the past two decades. Only 13% of fire 

departments are prepared to respond to a hazardous material incident. An estimated 57,000 firefighters lack personal protective 

clothing for a chemical or biological attack. One-third of all firefighters per shift are not equipped with self-contained breathing 

apparatus. The fire grant program helps local fire departments 

deal with these and other problems. 

Yet, the Administration’s response to these firefighting needs is 

to cut funding more deeply. The Bush budget would reduce funding 

for this program by $215 million, or 30%. This bill makes up roughly half of the President’s proposed reductions. We believe that this 

program should be fully funded at last year’s level of $715 million. 

CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION

The Administration’s approach to protecting critical infrastructure, such as ports, transit and railroad facilities, and chemical 

plants continues to frustrate us. Critical infrastructure is not evaluated objectively or with consistent expertise. A cynical person 

might wonder whether federal support for infrastructure protection 

is directly related to the amount of influence the particular industry or entity has with the White House. 

With great fanfare, the President signed legislation requiring 

ports to assess their vulnerabilities and develop security plans. The 

requirements in this legislation were good first steps to minimize 

port vulnerabilities. The Coast Guard estimated in 2002 that $7 

billion in infrastructure improvements and operating costs would 

be needed to improve port security. Congress has provided $737 

million to improve port security since 2001. In that time, the Administration requested only $46 million, or six percent of this funding. No separate funding for port security was requested in the 

President’s 2006 budget. We are pleased that $150 million for port 

security is contained in this legislation. 

Despite terrorist attacks on transit systems in Japan and Spain, 

less than $550 million has been provided to improve rail and transit security since September 11th. The transit industry estimates 

that $6 billion is needed for security training, radio communications systems, security cameras, and limiting access to sensitive facilities. Again, the President’s 2006 budget requested no separate 

funding for transit security. We are pleased that $150 million is 

contained in this legislation to improve transit security. 

Last year the Department said that more transit security funds 

were not needed until the problem is better defined. How long must 

the American public wait for the Department to define the probVerDate Aug 04 2004 01:55 May 17, 2005 Jkt 021197 PO 00000 Frm 00175 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR079.XXX HR079
176 

lem? The Department’s main accomplishment in rail and transit 

security is a directive to transit operators and railroads to continue 

their current security practices. 

The Department of Homeland Security is the lead federal agency 

on chemical facility security. Yet, to our great frustration, the Department has set no deadlines to assess security vulnerabilities 

and implement security measures in these facilities. 

The Government Accountability Office recommended in 2003 that 

the Administration develop a comprehensive national chemical security strategy. We still do not have one. The American taxpayer 

is paying for DHS staff and contractors to assess the vulnerabilities 

of the highest risk chemical facilities. We question why these private, profit-making companies cannot do their own assessments. In 

fact, many of them do have risk and vulnerability assessments because it makes good business sense, but they have not shared this 

information with the Department. While this legislation directs the 

Department to establish a national chemical security strategy, we 

remain concerned that the chemical sector is not getting the attention it deserves from this Administration and therefore, the American public remains subject to unnecessary risk. 

AVIATION SECURITY

We are disappointed that the Administration continues to leave 

aviation security vulnerabilities unaddressed. The recent evacuation of the Capitol and the White House indicates that gaps remain in our aviation security system, despite having spent over 

$22 billion since September 11th on aviation security. The perimeters of passenger airports are not fully secured; it is not known 

how many of the general aviation security improvements suggested 

by TSA have been implemented; and most of air cargo is still not 

screened. 

The cargo carried on passenger aircraft is not inspected like either the passengers or their baggage. Last October, Congress directed TSA to increase threefold the percentage of cargo carried on 

passenger aircraft that is screened. It is now seven months after 

this legislative requirement and TSA still has not acted to implement the law. We fully support provisions of this legislation that 

impose penalties to the TSA Administrator if this requirement is 

not implemented before the end of this fiscal year. We are also 

pleased that this legislation requires TSA to utilize downtime in 

their checked baggage screening operations to screen air cargo. 

Last, we are encouraged by the $30 million included for three air 

cargo-screening pilot projects, two at passenger airports and one at 

an all cargo airport. 

The Administration is willing to give short shrift to the 9/11 

Commission recommendations to screen all passengers and carryon bags for explosives and to speed up the installation of in-line explosive detection systems. The Administration’s 2006 budget does 

not fund any additional in-line screening systems beyond the current eight approved airports. This legislation includes $101 million 

more for explosive detection system purchase and installation. This 

legislation also includes a provision mandating that recovered or 

deobligated TSA funds be used solely for additional explosive detection improvements. 

177 

Finally, we continue to be concerned that the air marshal program is not given a high enough funding priority by this Administration. The number of air marshals has decreased, and they still 

cannot communicate independently while they are in the air. 

REAL ID 

In the most recent supplemental legislation to fund the war in 

Iraq, which was signed into law by the President on May 11th, the 

majority saw fit to include the REAL ID Act, which among other 

things requires states, if their driver’s licenses are to be accepted 

as identification to board aircraft, to: retain paper or digital copies 

of source documents (such as birth certificates); verify source documents; capture digital images; subject their personnel to security 

clearances; and develop electronic access to all states motor vehicle 

databases. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the costs of 

these requirements to be $100 million. 

A Democratic amendment was offered in Committee to provide 

$100 million to pay for the requirements of the newly created 

REAL ID grant program, which was defeated on a party line vote. 

We lament that this vote is further proof of the uncanny ability of 

the majority party to say one thing and do another. 

CONCLUSION

Despite its rhetoric, the White House has not given homeland security the top priority it deserves. This failure is reflected in the 

Department of Homeland Security budget request. It is also reflected in the fact that in its two short years, the Department has 

had two Secretaries and three Deputy Secretaries. Today, six high 

level political positions, 42% of the total, are vacant or staffed by 

people who have already announced their departures. Homeland 

security leadership is woefully lacking today, and critical decisions 

have been pushed off until the new political appointees are in 

place. 

This legislation is much improved over the budget request of the 

Bush Administration in many respects, including border enforcement, port security, transit security, and aviation security. But, 

due to the nation’s fiscal mess exacerbated by the costs of war and 

tax cuts to millionaires, critical homeland security vulnerabilities 

will continue to go unaddressed. We sincerely hope that the people 

of our great country will not suffer for it. 

DAVID OBEY. MARTIN OLAV SABO. 

Æ