```

[House Report 109-476]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

109th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     109-476

======================================================================
 
       DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2007

                                _______
                                

  May 22, 2006.--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. 5441]

    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, 2007.

                        INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT

                                                            Page number

                                                            Bill Report
TITLE I--DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS
        Office of the Secretary and Executive Management...     2
                                                                      6
        Office of Screening Coordination and Operations....
                                                                     12
        Office of the Under Secretary for Management.......     3
                                                                     13
        Office of the Chief Financial Officer..............     4
                                                                     16
        Office of the Chief Information Officer............     4
                                                                     17
        Analysis and Operations............................     5
                                                                     19
        Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast 
            Rebuilding.....................................     5
                                                                     20
        Office of Inspector General........................     5
                                                                     21
TITLE II--SECURITY, ENFORCEMENT, AND INVESTIGATIONS
        United States Visitor and Immigrant Status 
            Indicator Technology...........................     6
                                                                     23
        Customs and Border Protection......................     7
                                                                     24
                Salaries and Expenses......................     7
                                                                     24
                Automation Modernization...................    11
                                                                     32
                CBP Air and Marine Interdiction, 
                    Operations, Maintenance and Procurement    12
                                                                     33
                Construction...............................    13
                                                                     34
        Immigration and Customs Enforcement................    14
                                                                     35
                Salaries and Expenses......................    14
                                                                     35
                Federal Protective Service.................    15
                                                                     43
                Automation Modernization...................
                                                                     44
                Construction...............................    15
                                                                     45
        Transportation Security Administration.............    15
                                                                     45
                Aviation Security..........................    15
                                                                     45
                Surface Transportation Security............    18
                                                                     53
                Transportation Threat Assessment and 
                    Credentialing..........................    18
                                                                     53
                Transportation Security Support............    18
                                                                     55
                Federal Air Marshals.......................    19
                                                                     56
        United States Coast Guard..........................    19
                                                                     58
                Operating Expenses.........................    19
                                                                     58
                Environmental Compliance and Restoration...    20
                                                                     61
                Reserve Training...........................    20
                                                                     61
                Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements    20
                                                                     62
                Alteration of Bridges......................    23
                                                                     67
                Research, Development, Test and Evaluation.    24
                                                                     67
                Retired Pay................................    24
                                                                     68
        United States Secret Service.......................    25
                                                                     69
                Protection, Administration, and Training...    25
                                                                     69
                Investigations and Field Operations........    26
                                                                     71
                Special Event Fund.........................    27
                                                                     73
                Acquisition, Construction, Improvements, 
                    and Related Expenses...................    27
                                                                     73
TITLE III--PREPAREDNESS AND RECOVERY
        Preparedness.......................................    28
                                                                     73
                Under Secretary for Preparedness...........    28
                                                                     73
                Office of Grants and Training..............    28
                                                                     77
                State and Local Programs...................    28
                                                                     77
                Firefighter Assistance Grants..............    31
                                                                     86
                Emergency Management Performance Grants....    32
                                                                     87
                Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program    32
                                                                     87
                United States Fire Administration and 
                    Training...............................    33
                                                                     88
                Infrastructure Protection and Information 
                    Security...............................    33
                                                                     88
        Federal Emergency Management Agency................    34
                                                                     92
                Administrative and Regional Operations.....    34
                                                                     92
                Readiness, Mitigation, Response and 
                    Recovery...............................    34
                                                                     93
                Public Health Programs.....................    35
                                                                     98
                Disaster Relief............................    35
                                                                     99
                Disaster Assistance Direct Loan Program 
                    Account................................    35
                                                                     99
                Flood Map Modernization Fund...............    36
                                                                    100
                National Flood Insurance Fund..............    36
                                                                    100
                National Flood Mitigation Fund.............    37
                                                                    102
                National Predisaster Mitigation Fund.......    38
                                                                    102
                Emergency Food and Shelter.................    38
                                                                    103
TITLE IV--RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, TRAINING, AND SERVICES
        United States Citizenship and Immigration Services.    39
                                                                    103
        Federal Law Enforcement Training Center............    39
                                                                    107
                Salaries and Expenses......................    39
                                                                    107
                Acquisition, Construction, Improvements, 
                    and Related Expenses...................    40
                                                                    107
        Science and Technology.............................    41
                                                                    108
                Management and Administration..............    41
                                                                    109
                Research, Development, Acquisition, and 
                    Operations.............................    41
                                                                    109
        Domestic Nuclear Detection Office..................    42
                                                                    118
TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS
        This Act...........................................    61
                                                                    120
        Compliance with House Rules........................
                                                                    124
        Tables.............................................
                                                                    137
        Summary of the Total Bill..........................

    The accompanying bill contains recommendations for new 
budget (obligational) authority for fiscal year 2007 for the 
Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The following table 
summarizes these recommendations and reflects comparisons with 
the budget, as amended, and with amounts appropriated to date 
for fiscal year 2006:

                                                                [In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               New budget                                                 Bill compared with . . .
                                                             (obligational)    Budget estimates                    -------------------------------------
                          Title                             authority fiscal  of (obligational)    Recommended in       New budget
                                                           year 2006 enacted  authority, fiscal       the bill       authority fiscal   Budget estimate,
                                                                to date           year 2007                             year 2006       fiscal year 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Departmental Management and Operations...................           $945,599         $1,073,599         $1,061,466          +$115,867           -$12,133
Security, Enforcement, and Investigations................         22,164,851         22,670,507         23,705,970         +1,541,119         +1,035,463
Preparedness.............................................          6,627,249          6,385,259          6,525,473           -101,776           +140,214
Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and               1,880,459          1,964,605          1,871,014             -9,445            -93,591
 Services................................................
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Grand total*.........................................         31,602,103         32,077,970         33,143,147         +1,541,044         +1,065,177
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Grand total include mandatory appropriations. Grand total for fiscal year 2006 does not include rescission of emergency funds (P.L. 109-148).

              Summary of Major Recommendations in the Bill

    The Committee recommends $32,080,000,000 in discretionary 
resources for the Department of Homeland Security, 
$1,065,353,000 above the amount proposed by the President and 
$1,822,300,000 above fiscal year 2006 revised enacted levels.

                           BUDGETARY GIMMICKS

    For the second year in a row, the President has submitted a 
budget request for DHS that assumes the Committee will almost 
double the amount of aviation security fees it collects from 
airline passengers. This proposed fee increase funds critical 
areas within the Department, permitting the Secretary and 
President to say that the budget request for fiscal year 2007 
contains an increase of $2.1 billion or six percent from the 
current year. But the truth is, excluding new user fees in 
order to make a fair comparison, the President's request is a 
one percent increase from the current fiscal year. As the 
Committee noted last year, it lacks jurisdiction to enact such 
a fee proposal. The Committee views this repeated attempt to 
artificially inflate DHS' budget as counterproductive and has 
reduced funding throughout the Department to make up for the 
gap in essential program funding created by this gimmick.

                         PRIORITIES IN THE BILL

    The Department of Homeland Security was established in 
March 2003 to prevent terrorist attacks in the United States, 
reduce America's vulnerabilities to terrorism, and minimize 
damage and recovery from attacks should they occur. While DHS 
has undoubtedly improved the security of our nation, the 
Department has been slow to effectively integrate the missions 
of its disparate legacy agencies with new homeland security 
functions and to develop comprehensive strategies and 
architectures to accomplish its goals. Of particular concern is 
the Department's ability to balance the allocation of resources 
for the new counterterrorism mission with that of its legacy 
missions. Over the past three years, the Congress has strived 
to help DHS achieve this balance.
    This year, the Committee has focused more directly on the 
following critical issues: border security and immigration 
enforcement; ports, container, and cargo security; lessons 
learned from Hurricane Katrina; and supporting key legacy 
missions that may not relate directly to thwarting terrorism 
but nonetheless play an important role in ensuring our homeland 
is secure. Funding for these issues is linked to the 
Department's ability to provide sound strategies to accomplish 
specific objectives. The Congress will continue to direct the 
Department to allocate resources based upon rational 
methodologies for achieving results. Each of these priorities 
is discussed more fully below.

              BORDER SECURITY AND IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT

    The Committee believes that border security and immigration 
enforcement are core DHS missions, and provides significant 
resources as well as extensive planning and performance 
requirements for these missions in fiscal year 2007. While the 
Committee supports the goals of the Department's recently 
announced Secure Border Initiative (SBI), it is apparent that 
this proposal was not fully incorporated into the fiscal year 
2007 budget request. The Committee is concerned, absent a 
strategic management plan that links funding to results, the 
SBI will fail to realize the Department's desired outcomes. The 
Committee is committed to preventing such a failure and views 
fiscal year 2007 as a turning point in the improvement of our 
nation's border security systems. The Committee takes a broad 
view of the SBI, to include the abilities to interdict threats 
before they reach our border, to support local law enforcement 
when they encounter illegal aliens in the interior, and to 
ensure that employers comply with the law when hiring immigrant 
labor. The Committee views these elements just as essential to 
effective, comprehensive border security as the performance of 
the SBI's physical security systems and provides oversight 
directing DHS in that regard.

                  PORTS, CONTAINER, AND CARGO SECURITY

    The Committee is very concerned about DHS' progress towards 
securing our nation's ports and inbound commerce. While the 
Department is to be commended for establishing many noteworthy 
security programs to address this issue, sustained, measurable 
improvement of our nation's port and commerce security as a 
whole remains unclear. To address this concern, the Committee 
provides extensive resources across the Department, and 
includes stringent performance requirements for the improvement 
of DHS' port, container, and cargo security programs.

                 LESSONS LEARNED FROM HURRICANE KATRINA

    The Gulf Coast hurricanes of 2005 and the corresponding 
government failures in preparation and response to those events 
have resulted in a nationwide reevaluation of our emergency 
preparedness and response capabilities. The Committee believes 
that DHS needs to capitalize on the lessons learned from the 
2005 hurricanes and make significant changes to better prepare 
for future events. To that end, the Committee, throughout this 
report, references the findings and recommendations found in 
the House Bipartisan Committee on Katrina, the White House's 
``The Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina-Lessons Learned'', 
and investigative reports from the Government Accountability 
Office and the Office of Inspector General to help guide the 
Department in its corrective actions. Congressional oversight 
will continue to ensure DHS is taking proactive measures to 
prevent future breakdowns, particularly in FEMA and the 
Preparedness Directorate.

                            LEGACY MISSIONS

    Concern has been expressed since DHS was formed that, as 
the Department maintains principal focus on protecting our 
homeland from terrorists, it may degrade legacy DHS missions. 
The Committee continues to believe that the Department should 
not skew its priorities and funding requests to terrorism 
related missions, while leaving other critical missions to 
scramble for the remaining funds. The Committee is further 
concerned that DHS leadership, while addressing pressing 
homeland security priorities such as Hurricane Katrina or 
immigration and border security, fails to recognize critical 
needs of other DHS components. The Committee has expressed this 
concern in the past, particularly about the Coast Guard's aging 
fleet and growing gaps in key mission hours, such as those for 
search and rescue operations. This year, the Committee notes 
gaps in funding for drug interdiction, human smuggling, cyber 
crimes, child pornography, Secret Service investigations, and 
funding for our first responders. Additional funding for these 
vital legacy missions has been provided. The Department is 
cautioned to remember that DHS was formed by integrating 22 
disparate organizations, all of which have a critical role to 
play in fighting the war on terror and protecting our homeland. 
The Committee directs the Department to ensure that all 
agencies receive attention from leadership, not just those that 
are newsworthy.

                 IMPROVING ACCOUNTABILITY AND OVERSIGHT

    The Appropriations Committee must have a clear 
understanding of how homeland security funds are being spent 
and how risk analysis guides important funding decisions. The 
funding must be coupled with planned strategies to make 
measurable improvements along our borders; at our ports, 
airports, and land ports of entry; and for emergency 
preparedness. In several programs the Committee directs the 
Department to develop strategic plans with measurable outcome-
oriented goals and directs that certain targets be met. Target 
levels or performance metrics shall include benchmarks for 
measuring achievement and shall be modified to reflect the 
completion of targets. In cases where the Department awards 
funds to States, localities, and nongovernmental organizations, 
the Committee directs that outcomes assessments not rely 
exclusively on self-reported data but include objective methods 
to measure performance. Risk based funding must entail a 
continuous process that includes setting strategic goals and 
objectives, assessing and quantifying risks, selecting which 
measures to undertake, and then measuring the outcomes of those 
investments. This is in the national interest and that of DHS--
not just our obligation as guardians of the taxpayers' dollar.
    For many years, the Committee has advocated stronger 
accountability and oversight of DHS. To this end, the Committee 
has included bill and report language requiring the development 
of strategic plans and overarching architectures for a variety 
of programs. Throughout the Department, a total of $1.3 billion 
has been withheld from obligation in pertinent accounts until 
these plans are received. In those instances where the 
Committee has not received previously requested plans or 
sufficient responsiveness to inquiries made to the Department, 
specific reductions have been applied, totaling $228,690,000. 
The Committee cannot support requests for appropriations absent 
sufficient justifications for how these resources will be 
spent.

            TITLE I--DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS

            Office of the Secretary and Executive Management

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 \1\...................      $125,898,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2007......................        97,508,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        95,884,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2006...................       -30,014,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2007..................       -1,624,000\1\ Includes $47,283,000 in supplemental appropriations from Public Law
  109-148 for avian flu.

                                Mission

    The mission of the Office of the Secretary and Executive 
Management is to provide efficient services to the Department 
of Homeland Security and to support the Department in 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 $95,884,000 for the Office of the 
Secretary and Executive Management, $1,624,000 below the 
President's request and $30,014,000 below the amounts provided 
in fiscal year 2006, after accounting for supplemental 
appropriations. To adequately oversee expenditures and 
personnel changes within each office, the Committee has 
provided separate funding recommendations as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget estimate      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immediate Office of the Secretary.         $3,148,000         $2,648,000
Immediate Office of the Deputy              1,648,000          1,248,000
 Secretary........................
Chief of Staff....................          5,779,000          5,642,000
Executive Secretary...............          5,001,000          5,001,000
Office of Policy..................         31,093,000         27,093,000
Secure Border Initiative Program                - - -          5,000,000
 Executive Office.................
Office of Public Affairs..........          6,808,000          6,000,000
Office of Legislative and                   6,479,000          5,700,000
 Intergovernmental Affairs........
Office of General Counsel.........         14,065,000         14,065,000
Office of Civil Rights and                 13,125,000         13,125,000
 Liberties........................
Citizenship and Immigration                 5,927,000          5,927,000
 Services Ombudsman...............
Privacy Officer...................          4,435,000          4,435,000
                                   -------------------------------------
      Total.......................        $97,508,000        $95,884,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          STAFFING ADJUSTMENTS

    The President requested 35 new full-time equivalents (FTEs) 
under the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management, 
including 15 FTEs within the Office of Policy, 11 FTEs for the 
Office of General Counsel, 2 FTEs for the Office of 
Counternarcotics Enforcement, 2 FTEs for the Executive 
Secretary, and 5 FTEs for the Office of Civil Rights and Civil 
Liberties. The Committee has fully funded all of the new FTEs.

                   IMMEDIATE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

    The Committee recommends $2,648,000 for the Immediate 
Office of the Secretary, $500,000 below the President's request 
and $279,000 above amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. The 
President's budget assumed an increase in aviation passenger 
fees in order to fund this program at the requested levels. 
This fee is not within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
Appropriations and the Committee has adjusted its fiscal year 
2007 recommendation for this account accordingly.

                IMMEDIATE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SECRETARY

    The Committee recommends $1,248,000 for the Immediate 
Office of the Deputy Secretary, $400,000 below the President's 
request and $127,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 
2006. The President's budget assumed an increase in aviation 
passenger fees in order to fund this program at the requested 
levels. This fee is not within the jurisdiction of the 
Committee on Appropriations and the Committee has adjusted its 
fiscal year 2007 recommendation for this account accordingly.

                             CHIEF OF STAFF

    The President requested to separate the budget for the 
Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement (CNE) from that of the 
Chief of Staff. The Committee denies this proposal. At this 
time, the CNE has not made a compelling case why this 
separation should occur and has been unable to fully justify 
their budget request. While the Committee recognizes the 
potential value of this office, it is disappointed with a lack 
of productivity. The Committee views this office as responsible 
for monitoring the resource needs of the traditional 
counternarcotics functions of DHS agencies as well as examining 
the nexus of drugs and terrorism. The Committee directs this 
office to report, in conjunction with the fiscal year 2008 
budget request, on its annual productivity and performance. The 
Committee provides a total of $2,741,000 for the Office of 
Counternarcotics Enforcement within the total funding 
appropriated to the Chief of Staff.

                            OFFICE OF POLICY

    The Committee recommends $27,093,000 for the Office of 
Policy, $4,000,000 below the President's request and $6,597,000 
above amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. The Committee fully 
funds all 15 new FTEs requested, including new FTEs for work 
with the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States 
(CFIUS). In addition, the Committee has transferred 
responsibilities for the Office of Screening Coordination and 
Operations to the Office of Policy. Last year, a separate 
appropriation for the Office of Screening Coordination and 
Operations was provided; however, eight months into the fiscal 
year, this office has not hired any staff or obligated any 
funding. As such, the Committee cannot continue to support this 
office as a stand alone appropriation and has merged activities 
into the Office of Policy. Finally, the Committee has included 
the funds and two FTEs requested within the Office of Policy 
for the Secure Border Initiative (SBI) in a separate 
appropriation for the SBI Program Executive Office. A separate 
discussion about this office follows.

                        SECURE BORDER INITIATIVE

    Announced in November of 2005, the Secure Border Initiative 
(SBI) is intended to revitalize DHS' approach to border 
security and provide a broad, multi-year resource strategy 
towards achieving operational control of our nation's borders. 
To support this effort, the Committee provides $19,632,348,000 
towards the border security and immigration programs across the 
Department. This includes an increase of $1,088,145,000 above 
the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006 for core SBI 
functions, including the SBI Program Executive Office and 
strategic elements of Customs and Border Protection (CBP), 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services.
    The Committee is concerned that SBI was not fully 
incorporated into the fiscal year 2007 budget request and a 
funding request of over $1,300,000,000 for core SBI programs 
was presented prior to the submittal of a strategic plan. Since 
1995, spending on border security has increased tenfold from 
$1.2 billion to over $12.7 billion, and the number of Border 
Patrol Agents has more than doubled from 5,000 to 12,319; yet 
during that same time period, the number of illegal immigrants 
in the U.S. has jumped from five million to over eleven 
million. The Committee is concerned that, absent a strategic 
management plan that links funding to results, this pattern 
will continue. In order to address this concern, the Committee 
includes a provision directing the Secretary to submit an SBI 
strategic plan to the House Committee on Appropriations and the 
House Committee on Homeland Security by November 1, 2006. This 
plan should clearly align resources to tasks for the entire 
timeframe of the SBI and toward the program's ultimate goal of 
achieving operational control of our borders over the next 
three years. The Committee also includes bill language under 
Customs and Border Protection withholding $25,000,000 from the 
SBInet program, project, and activity until the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations receive and approve a plan 
for expenditure that is certified by the Department's 
Investment Review Board and reviewed by the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO).
    The Committee has consistently supported a comprehensive 
strategy that puts together the right mix of resources to 
address the most critical vulnerabilities along our borders and 
coastlines, while also taking into account the economic 
realities of immigrant labor. However, the Committee believes 
that a border strategy must not be limited to a focus on 
counterterrorism; operational control of our borders includes 
the prevention of all contraband--whether it's narcotics, 
humans, terrorists, money, or weapons of mass destruction--from 
entering our nation. While the Committee acknowledges the 
significant resources needed to meet the challenges of such a 
comprehensive approach to border and immigration security, the 
Secretary is directed, through the SBI strategic plan, to 
establish performance metrics to demonstrate how the SBI is a 
more efficient and effective approach than the failed 
initiatives of the past.
    The Committee is also very concerned by the discrepancy 
between the projected resources of the SBI Program Executive 
Office (PEO) for fiscal year 2006 and the request for this 
office for fiscal year 2007. The Committee sees the SBI PEO as 
a relatively small investment towards the strategic planning 
for almost 50 percent of DHS' resources and therefore provides 
$5,000,000 for this function through a separate program, 
project, activity under the Office of the Secretary and 
Executive Management. The additional $1,000,000 above the 
President's request for this office is provided to fund 
enhancements to program planning and performance management. As 
part of the required strategic plan, the SBI PEO is directed to 
submit its staffing and resource requirements for meeting the 
goals and objectives of the SBI.

                  PORT, CONTAINER, AND CARGO SECURITY

    The Committee is committed to building upon and improving 
the Department's port, container, and cargo security programs, 
such as CBP's Container Security Initiative (CSI) and Customs-
Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT); the Coast Guard's 
port security patrols and facility inspections; Science and 
Technology's Cargo Security programs; and the Domestic Nuclear 
Detection Office (DNDO). The Committee believes the 
Department's port, container, and cargo security capabilities 
must evolve to combat new and emerging threats as well as to 
support the continuous growth of international trade. To 
address this concern, the Committee provides over 
$4,185,000,000 across DHS' component agencies, an increase of 
$447,800,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006, 
and includes stringent performance requirements for the 
improvement of the Department's port, container, and cargo 
security programs.
    The Committee withholds $10,000,000 from the Office of the 
Secretary and Executive Management until the Secretary submits 
a port, container, and cargo security strategic plan that 
comprehensively addresses the role of all Departmental 
components in providing for controlled access to U.S. ports, 
the integrity of the supply chain, and the physical integrity 
of U.S. ports. As part of this plan, the Secretary shall ensure 
all inbound cargo is screened through CBP's Automated Targeting 
System and shall ensure the percentage of inbound cargo 
currently inspected by CBP is doubled. Furthermore, as part of 
this plan, the Secretary is directed to ensure, by the end of 
fiscal year 2007, the CSI program maintains a one hundred 
percent manifest review rate; the C-TPAT program conducts 
validations of all new certified partners within the first year 
of participation and revalidations of all certified partners 
not less than once every three years following initial 
validation; and the percentage of inbound, containerized cargo 
screened for radiation as of January 1, 2006, is doubled. This 
plan must also address how the CSI program is coordinating its 
functions with the Department of Energy's Megaports program as 
well as how the CSI program is promoting the use of CBP-
approved non-intrusive inspection equipment in all 
participating foreign ports. This plan must also include 
minimum standards, as established by CBP and the Science and 
Technology Directorate, for securing cargo containers from 
their point of origin to their arrival in the U.S. and explain 
how these standards align with C-TPAT protocols. These cargo 
container standards must consist of general guidelines to 
industry for securing cargo containers including the most 
immediate, practicable standard and the best available, 
technological standard under the precepts of the Container 
Security Device and Advanced Container Security Device 
programs. This strategic plan should also include a detailed 
evaluation of cargo inspection systems utilized at high-volume 
foreign ports, such as the port of Hong Kong, for their 
applicability to CBP's cargo screening and inspection 
operations. This strategic plan should also address the 
staffing and resource needs of Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement for investigations of internal conspiracies and 
smuggling organizations, and for enforcement to prevent 
criminals and terrorists from penetrating and crippling 
critical ports. Finally, this strategic plan must also address 
how the implementation of the Transportation Worker 
Identification Credential (TWIC) in the maritime environment, 
as well as the awarding of port security grants based upon risk 
and need, aligns with DHS' port, container, and cargo security 
programs. The Committee directs that this plan be submitted to 
the House Committee on Appropriations and the House Committee 
on Homeland Security.

                        OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

    The Committee recommends $6,000,000 for the Office of 
Public Affairs, $808,000 below the President's request and 
$2,229,000 below the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. 
Funding has been reduced due to a large number of vacancies 
within this office that are estimated to continue through the 
remainder of fiscal year 2006 and into fiscal year 2007.

          OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

    The Committee recommends $5,700,000 for the Office of 
Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, $779,000 below the 
President's request and $562,000 below the amounts provided in 
fiscal year 2006. Funding has been reduced due to a large 
number of vacancies within this office that are estimated to 
continue through the remainder of fiscal year 2006 and into 
fiscal year 2007.

                       OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL

    The Committee is very disappointed that the Office of 
General Counsel failed to cooperate with the House 
Appropriations Committee Surveys and Investigations staff 
during their audit of how funds provided in response to the 
Gulf Coast hurricanes were spent. The Office of the General 
Counsel delayed the Committee's investigations by two and half 
months, engaged in a costly effort to monitor and control the 
conduct of staff interviews which resulted in less than a frank 
exchange of information, and required legal presence at every 
interview regardless of their expertise on the issue. The 
Committee expects the Office of General Counsel to be more 
responsive in the future and provide the Committee with 
unfettered access to information and personnel in a timely 
basis. If this obfuscation continues, the Committee will be 
unable to fully support the budget request for this office.

                                TRAINING

    The Committee is concerned that there are multiple funding 
sources supporting first responder training in both the 
Preparedness Directorate and the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency (FEMA). When the Department was formed, it was to meld 
the unique mission of each legacy agency and to develop 
comprehensive strategies and training programs. For training, 
it is still unclear whether these programs are interrelated or 
operate only within their individual agencies. The Committee 
directs the Secretary to provide a report, no later than 
January 16, 2007, providing an inventory of funds supporting 
training in the Preparedness Directorate and FEMA, including a 
description of each program, specific measures for success 
within each program, and how the programs work together to 
provide an integrated approach to training. The Committee 
further directs the Secretary to provide a much greater level 
of detail on the training programs for the Preparedness 
Directorate and FEMA as part of the fiscal year 2008 
congressional budget justifications.

                         BUDGET JUSTIFICATIONS

    In fiscal year 2008, the Committee directs that the 
Congressional budget justifications for the Office of the 
Secretary and Executive Management include the same level of 
detail as the table contained in the back of the Committee 
report. All funding and staffing changes for each individual 
office must be highlighted and explained. The Committee expects 
this level of detail to include separate discussions for 
personnel, compensation, and benefits; travel; training; and 
other services. The Committee urges the Department to make a 
better effort to fully explain all new FTEs requested. In many 
instances, the fiscal year 2007 submissions only provided a 
limited justification for new staff, including 
responsibilities, and associated costs.

                          WORKING CAPITAL FUND

    Consistent with prior years, the Committee directs the 
Department to include a separate appropriation justification 
for the Working Capital Fund (WCF) in fiscal year 2008. This 
justification should include a description of each activity 
funded by the WCF, the basis for the pricing, the number of 
full-time federal employees funded in each activity, a list of 
each Departmental organization that is allocating funds to the 
activity, and the funding the organization is providing in 
fiscal years 2007 and 2008. If a project contained in the WCF 
is a multi-year activity with a defined cost, scope and 
schedule, the estimated costs and schedule shall be clearly 
delineated.
    The Committee expects that all cross-cutting initiatives 
funded by multiple DHS organizations be included in the WCF. 
The Committee does not support taxing Departmental 
organizations for cross-cutting initiatives outside of the WCF. 
As such, the justification should identify any cross-cutting 
initiatives or activities that benefit more than one 
organization that are not included in the WCF and explain the 
omission.
    The Committee expects to be notified promptly of any 
additions, deletions, or changes that are made to the WCF 
during the fiscal year. Furthermore, the Department should not 
fund any activities within the WCF that the House or Senate 
Committees on Appropriations have disapproved either in report 
language or in their response to reprogramming requests.
    For fiscal year 2008, the same level of detailed 
information on the WCF is to be provided in the budget 
justification document submitted for Departmental Operations 
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 justifications provide all necessary 
information at the appropriate level of detail.

                        2010 VANCOUVER OLYMPICS

    The Committee understands that the 2010 Olympic and 
Paralympic Winter Games will be conducted in Vancouver, British 
Columbia. The Committee anticipates that these events will 
greatly increase the number of people and goods crossing the 
border between Washington State and Canada. The Committee 
directs the Department of Homeland Security to conduct a 
review, in conjunction with appropriate Washington State and 
Canadian entities, and to report to the Committee within six 
months of enactment of this Act on all relevant issues related 
to the Vancouver Olympic and Paralympic Games, including: 
expected increases in border flow, necessary enhancements to 
border security, estimated border crossing wait times, and any 
need for increased border personnel.

            Office of Screening Coordination and Operations

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2006.......................        $3,960,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2007......................         3,960,000
Recommended in the bill...............................             - - -
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2006...................        -3,960,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2007..................        -3,960,000
                                MISSION

    The Office of Screening Coordination and Operations aims to 
improve security screening by creating unified DHS standards 
and policies for traveler programs and assists in setting 
standards between the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative and 
Strategic Prosperity Partnership. Functions of this office 
include strategic planning for screening people; developing 
standards and coordinating policies; and overseeing DHS 
screening programs and credential acquisitions.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee provides no separate appropriation for the 
Office of Screening Coordination and Operations. Instead, these 
activities are funded in the Office of Policy within the 
Offices of the Secretary and Executive Management. While the 
Committee was supportive of a separate appropriation for this 
work last year, the Department has failed to hire any staff or 
obligate any funding during the first eight months of the 
fiscal year and finds no justification for maintaining a 
separate account for these activities in fiscal year 2007.

              Office of the Under Secretary for Management

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2006.......................      $167,146,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2007......................       209,138,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       159,489,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2006...................        -7,657,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2007..................       -49,649,000
                                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; and 
identification and tracking of performance measurements 
relating to the responsibility of the Department. This office 
is also in charge of implementing a mission support structure 
for the Department of Homeland Security to deliver 
administrative services while eliminating redundancies and 
reducing support costs.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $159,489,000 for the Office of the 
Under Secretary for Management, $49,649,000 below the 
President's request and $7,657,000 below the amounts provided 
in fiscal year 2006. In order to adequately oversee 
expenditures for each office, the Committee has provided 
separate funding recommendations as detailed in the following 
table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget estimate      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under Secretary for Management....         $2,012,000         $2,012,000
Office of Security................         58,514,000         51,914,000
Business Transformation Office....          2,017,000          1,317,000
Office of the Chief Procurement            16,895,000         16,895,000
 Officer..........................
Office of the Chief Human Capital          81,276,000         38,927,000
 Officer..........................
Office of the Chief Administrative         48,424,000         48,424,000
 Officer..........................
                                   -------------------------------------
      Total.......................        209,138,000        159,489,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          STAFFING ADJUSTMENTS

    The President requested 55 new full-time equivalents (FTEs) 
under the Office of the Under Secretary for Management, 
including 25 FTEs for the Office of Procurement, 15 FTEs for 
the Office of the Human Capital Officer to work on the new 
human resource management system; 11 FTEs for the Office of 
Security; 2 FTEs for the Immediate Office of the Under 
Secretary for Management; and 2 FTEs for the Business 
Transformation Office. The Committee has fully funded all new 
FTEs except for two FTEs requested for the Business 
Transformation Office and six FTEs related to the new human 
resource management system.

                           OFFICE OF SECURITY

    The Committee recommends $51,914,000 for the Office of 
Security, $6,600,000 below the amounts proposed by the 
President and $1,149,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal 
year 2006. The President's budget assumed an increase in 
aviation passenger fees in order to fund this program at the 
requested levels. This fee is not within the jurisdiction of 
the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee has adjusted 
its fiscal year 2007 recommendation for this account 
accordingly. The recommended funding level will permit the 
Office of Security to annualize the FTEs it began to hire in 
fiscal year 2006.

                   STORAGE OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION

    While the Department is taking steps to comply with the 
requirement to protect classified information by using GSA-
approved containers and vaults secured with locking mechanisms 
that meet the latest federal specifications for storage, its 
contractors may not be using these same high security locks and 
containers. The Committee is aware that some contractors may 
not be upgrading to newer protective measures because they can 
charge the costs of supplemental guard services needed to make 
up for the use of outdated equipment. While it may be more 
costly for contractors to upgrade their security equipment, in 
the long run DHS would save a significant amount of money by 
not paying for supplemental security costs. The Committee 
directs the Office of Security and Office of the Chief 
Procurement Officer to work jointly with DHS contractors to 
ensure that use of non-GSA approved containers is avoided.

                     BUSINESS TRANSFORMATION OFFICE

    The Committee recommends $1,317,000 for the Business 
Transformation Office, $700,000 below the President's request 
and $544,000 below the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. 
Funding has been reduced due to a large number of vacancies 
within this office that are estimated to continue through the 
remainder of fiscal year 2006 and into fiscal year 2007. In 
addition, the Committee has denied the two new FTEs requested 
for fiscal year 2007. The Committee believes that business 
transformation is a temporary function, necessary when the 
Department was first established to integrate the functions of 
22 legacy agencies. However, this should not be a permanent 
office. For fiscal year 2008, the Department shall submit a 
more robust budget justification detailing why this office 
should continue to receive funding, if necessary, and the 
specific tasks it needs to complete before ``transformation'' 
of DHS is concluded.

                OFFICE OF THE CHIEF PROCUREMENT OFFICER

    The Department has had numerous procurement problems, 
primarily due to the large number of broad contracts awarded 
and the lack of appropriate contract oversight. The Committee 
supports the Department's efforts to hire more procurement 
staff both within this office (25 FTEs) as well as within a 
variety of DHS components, including the Customs and Border 
Protection, Coast Guard, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the Transportation 
Security Administration. The Committee expects the Department 
to develop a procurement oversight plan, identifying necessary 
oversight resources and how improvements in the Department's 
performance of its procurement functions will be achieved. This 
plan shall be provided to the House Commitee on Appropriations 
and GAO no later than January 16, 2007. The Committee directs 
GAO to review this procurement oversight plan and brief the 
Committee no later than April 16, 2007 on their analysis.

               OFFICE OF THE CHIEF HUMAN CAPITAL OFFICER

    The Committee recommends $38,927,000 for the Office of the 
Chief Human Capital Officer, $42,349,000 below the President's 
request and $416,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 
2006. Of this total, $9,227,000 is recommended for the salaries 
and expenses of the Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer 
and $29,700,000 for the new human resource system (MAX-HR). The 
Committee has denied funding for six new FTEs for the Labor 
Relations Board, which directly pertains to the pending 
litigation on MAX-HR. In addition, the Committee has held 
funding for MAX-HR at the fiscal year 2006 enacted level 
because the President's budget assumed an increase in aviation 
passenger fees in order to fund this program at the requested 
levels. This fee is not within the jurisdiction of the 
Committee on Appropriations and the Committee has adjusted its 
fiscal year 2007 recommendation for this account accordingly.

                            DHS HEADQUARTERS

    The Committee is dismayed with the Department's haphazard 
approach to proposing and requesting funding for DHS 
headquarters and a proposed move of the Coast Guard's 
headquarters to St. Elizabeth's campus. Since September 11th, 
and before this Department was formed, Congress has been 
presented a variety of proposals for DHS headquarters that have 
neither been well thought out nor fully justified. In the 
interim, this Committee has provided a significant amount of 
funding for DHS to improve facilities at the Nebraska Avenue 
Complex as well as other facilities in the greater Washington, 
DC area. Included in the President's budget was a request for 
$50,200,000 to relocate the Coast Guard's headquarters from 
southwest Washington, DC to the St. Elizabeth's hospital campus 
on the east bank of the Anacostia River. In subsequent 
briefings on this subject, the Coast Guard and the Department 
informed the Committee that this move was the first phase to 
move most or all of DHS on to the St. Elizabeth's campus. 
However, the Department could not elaborate on the reason why 
St. Elizabeth's is the best location for a permanent DHS 
headquarters, what other sites had been considered, the costs 
of this proposed move, and what agencies would be impacted. The 
Committee directs the Department not to move forward with 
relocating the Coast Guard's headquarters, or any other DHS 
component, until it completes a new headquarters master plan 
and submits a prospectus for Congressional review and approval.

                 Office of the Chief Financial Officer

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2006.......................       $19,211,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2007......................        44,380,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        43,480,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2006...................       +24,269,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2007..................          -900,000
                                MISSION

    The primary responsibilities and functions of the Office of 
the Chief Financial Officer include budget execution and 
oversight, performance analysis and evaluation, oversight of 
the Department's financial and business management systems 
across all agencies and directorates, and credit card programs 
and audit liaisons.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $43,480,000 for the Office of the 
Chief Financial Officer (CFO), $900,000 below the President's 
request and $24,269,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal 
year 2006. Within this total, $18,000,000 has been realigned 
from the Office of the Chief Information Officer to the Office 
of the Chief Financial Officer for the Department's new 
financial management system (eMerge2) as proposed in the 
budget.

                          STAFFING ADJUSTMENTS

    The President requested 10 new full-time equivalents (FTEs) 
to continue to address financial weaknesses highlighted in the 
last two audit reports to improve budget execution and perform 
more budgetary reviews; to develop timely and accurate 
financial data; and to integrate the Department's lines of 
business. The Committee has fully funded these new FTEs. 
However, a slight reduction was made to the overall funding 
requested due to a large number of vacancies within this office 
that are estimated to continue through the remainder of the 
fiscal year. The funding reduction should not impact activities 
of the Appropriations Liaison Office, an office that has 
enormously improved the Department's relationship with this 
Committee including greater exchange of information on key 
policies, programs, initiatives, and budget line items. The 
Committee remains extremely pleased with the operations of the 
Appropriations Liaison office and directs the Secretary to fill 
key vacancies within this office as expeditiously as possible.

                  CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET JUSTIFICATIONS

    The Committee directs the Department to submit all of its 
fiscal year 2008 budget justifications on the first Monday in 
February 2007, concurrent with the official submission of the 
President's budget to Congress. This should include all 
classified budgets as well as non-classified budgets. These 
justifications should have the customary level of detailed data 
and explanatory statements to support the appropriations 
requests, including tables that detail each agency's programs, 
projects, and activities for fiscal years 2007 and 2008. The 
Committee directs the CFO to ensure that adequate justification 
is given to each increase, decrease, and staffing change 
proposed in fiscal year 2008, particularly within the 
Departmental operations and management account, the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency and the Science and Technology 
Directorate. The CFO shall submit, as part of the 
justifications, a detailed table identifying the last year that 
authorizing legislation was provided by Congress for each 
appropriation line; the amount of the authorization; and the 
appropriation in the last year of the authorization.

                     MONTHLY REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

    For the past three years, the Department has been directed 
to submit to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 
a monthly budget execution report showing the status of 
obligations and costs for all components of the Department 45 
days after the end of the month. In fact, it is quite common 
for the Department to provide information that is over six 
months old. For example, the most recent reporting data that 
the Committee has is from November 2005--six months old. These 
delays are unacceptable and prevent the Committee from 
accurately analyzing budgetary needs, particularly when 
considering reprogramming and supplemental requests. As a 
result, the Committee has included this monthly reporting 
requirement in bill language for fiscal year 2007 (Sec. 529). 
The Committee also withholds from obligation $10,000,000 until 
it is assured that these reports will be submitted on a timely 
basis.

                Office of the Chief Information Officer

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2006.......................      $294,257,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2007......................       323,765,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       364,765,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2006...................       +70,508,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2007..................       +41,000,000
                                MISSION

    The Office of the Chief Information Officer has oversight 
of all information technology projects in the Department. For 
projects that are estimated to cost over $5,000,000, the Chief 
Information Officer (CIO) is consulted, participates in the 
evaluation of proposals, and provides recommendations. The CIO 
also has input into the development and execution of each 
directorate's information technology budgets.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $364,765,000 for the Office of the 
Chief Information Officer, an increase of $41,000,000 above the 
President's request and $70,508,000 above the amounts provided 
in fiscal year 2006. A comparison of the budget estimate to the 
Committee recommended level by budget activity is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget estimate      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salaries and Expenses.............        $79,521,000        $79,521,000
Information Technology Services...         61,013,000         61,013,000
Security Activities...............         64,139,000        105,139,000
Wireless Programs.................         86,438,000         86,438,000
Homeland Secure Data Network......         32,654,000         32,654,000
                                   -------------------------------------
      Total, Office of the Chief          323,765,000        364,765,000
       Information Officer........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY OVERSIGHT

    The Committee recognizes DHS continues to attempt to 
coordinate and establish firm links between its component 
agencies, which often have well established legacy information 
technology (IT) systems, communications, management, and 
processes in place. With differing infrastructures among the 
components, the Department must work harder to ensure 
information sharing occurs between components, investments are 
made with an eye toward the Enterprise Architecture, wireless 
activities are coordinated, and components make required 
investments toward the Information Transformation Program. The 
Committee believes that if the Department is to achieve these 
goals the Chief Information Officer must have greater oversight 
of IT related resources spent by the various components. 
Therefore, the Committee directs that no funds be made 
available in this Act for obligation for any IT procurement of 
$5,000,000 or more without approval of the DHS CIO that the 
procurement conforms with the Enterprise Architecture.

                          SECURITY ACTIVITIES

    The Committee recommends $105,139,000 for Security 
Activities, $41,000,000 above the President's request and 
$86,329,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2006. Of 
this total, $41,000,000 is for establishing a mirror data 
center.

                 INFRASTRUCTURE TRANSFORMATION PROGRAM

    The Committee recognizes the Department's significant 
information management challenges, including a substantial need 
to migrate to a unified network and consolidate its many data 
centers. The Department is attempting to address these 
challenges through its ``Infrastructure Transformation 
Program'' (ITP) that will move the 22 legacy information 
technology frameworks into a single infrastructure, all with 
the aim of unifying operations, reducing costs and redundancy. 
However, the Committee is concerned that consolidating to the 
single National Center for Critical Information Processing and 
Storage (NCCIPS) may lead to a lack of data backup and 
recommends additional funding to find a cost effective means to 
mirror those data center activities at a separate remote 
location.

                           COMPUTER SECURITY

    The Committee is aware that the House Government Reform 
Committee has given the Department an ``F'' for computer 
security for the third straight year, a grade based on 
compliance with the Federal Information Security Management Act 
(FISMA). While the Department should be a leader in computer 
security, it appears to be lagging behind many other federal 
agencies. As the Department has a number of databases that may 
include private, corporate or national security sensitive 
information, it must make every effort to maintain and protect 
this information. The Committee directs the Department to 
expedite its compliance efforts and to report on the status, 
and each component's status, of compliance and any resources 
needed to achieve full compliance with the fiscal year 2008 
budget submission. The Committee cautions the Department from 
treating the FISMA process, which relies heavily on 
documentation of procedures and establishing good operational 
practices, as a form filling exercise to simply fulfill the 
letter of the law; the Department must devote adequate 
resources to address real vulnerabilities and fulfill the 
spirit of the law. Further, the CIO and CFO shall jointly 
report on the status of the Department and each component in 
supporting the mitigation of internal control weaknesses, and 
should specifically address the processes being taken to retire 
the IT material weakness as it relates to FISMA, as well as any 
funds needed to address the material weakness.

                        Analysis and Operations

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2006.......................      $252,940,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2007......................       298,663,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       298,663,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2006...................       +45,723,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2007..................             - - -
                                MISSION

    Analysis and Operations houses the Office of Intelligence 
and Analysis and the Directorate of Operations Coordination, 
which together collect, evaluate, and disseminate intelligence 
information as well as provide incident management and 
operational coordination.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $298,663,000 for Analysis and 
Operations, the same as the President's request and $45,723,000 
above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006.

                 DIRECTORATE OF OPERATIONS COORDINATION

    The Committee denies the Directorate of Operations 
Coordination's request to rename itself to the Directorate of 
Operations. The Committee believes the Directorate's function 
is to support decision makers rather than to direct activities.

               HOMELAND SECURITY OPERATIONS CENTER (HSOC)

    The House Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the 
Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina notes the 
Homeland Security Operations Center failed to provide valuable 
situational information to the White House and other officials 
during the disaster. Subsequent to the President's budget 
submission, HSOC and Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 
officials have indicated that they will create situational 
awareness teams comprised of ICE personnel, possibly 
complemented by other DHS agencies. These teams would be 
rapidly deployed throughout the country during an event to 
provide ``ground truthing'' and situational awareness. The 
Committee hopes that these teams will contribute to the ability 
of HSOC and DHS to understand conditions that exist in such 
fluid and dangerous circumstances. The Committee directs HSOC 
and ICE to report not later than January 16, 2007, on the 
number and composition of these teams; their locations; their 
actual and planned deployments in fiscal years 2006 and 2007; 
any impact the establishment of such teams has had on existing 
ICE operations; and their associated budgets and staffing 
resources, to include the costs of training, equipment, 
facilities, vehicles and operations.

                       INTELLIGENCE AND ANALYSIS

    The Committee is encouraged by the leadership put into 
place for the Department's Office of Intelligence and Analysis 
(IA) and looks forward to learning more about the evolving role 
of this office in the intelligence community. The Committee 
notes that understanding the threats facing the Nation is 
essential for prudent budgeting of scare resources, and directs 
IA to continue providing the Committee quarterly threat 
briefings.

                             FUSION CENTERS

    The Committee continues to strongly support information 
sharing between the intelligence community and the people 
responsible for taking action on that intelligence. An emerging 
venue for passing information is the ``fusion center''. The 
Committee understands that intelligence fusion centers have 
been established in a number of metropolitan areas and that the 
Department is encouraging expansion of the number of centers 
through the use of state or urban area preparedness grant 
funding. The Committee directs the Department to report by 
January 16, 2007, on the total number of intelligence fusion 
centers today, their funding sources and amounts, and where 
additional fusion centers are necessary.

                                STAFFING

    The Committee supports IA's recent effort to develop a 
staffing, recruitment and training plan. This type of 
comprehensive planning should be undertaken elsewhere in the 
Department. The Committee expects IA to expend unobligated 
personnel resources on recruitment and training, including 
fellowships and other tools deemed necessary and to report to 
the Committee bi-annually on its efforts.

      Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2006.......................             - - -
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.....................             - - -
Recommended in the bill...............................        $3,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2006...................        +3,000,000
    Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2007.................        +3,000,000
                                MISSION

    The President created the Gulf Coast Rebuilding Office and 
designated a Coordinator of Federal support for the recovery 
and rebuilding of the Gulf Coast Region by Executive Order 
13390 on November 1, 2005. The Coordinator is responsible for 
working with State and local officials to identify the priority 
needs for long-term rebuilding; communicating those needs to 
the decision makers in Washington, D.C.; and advising the 
President on the most effective, integrated, and fiscally 
responsible Federal strategies for support of the Gulf Coast 
recovery.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $3,000,000 for the Office of the 
Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding, $3,000,000 above 
the President's request and $3,000,000 above amounts provided 
in fiscal year 2006. The Committee is concerned to learn that 
the Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding 
is being supported by appropriations made to the Disaster 
Relief Fund as well as funds provided for other purposes within 
the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management. The 
Committee is extremely concerned by what appears to be a 
violation of section 503 of Public Law 109-90 which requires 
the Department to send advance notification of the 
reprogramming and transfer of funds. Specifically, it appears 
that DHS has reprogrammed funds from the Office of the 
Secretary and Executive Management in order to fund the Office 
of the Federal Coordinator. The Committee was not notified of 
this reprogramming and directs the Department to immediately 
submit proper notification on the reprogramming of these funds.

              FEDERAL MILESTONES IN GULF COAST REBUILDING

    In creating the Office of the Federal Coordinator, the 
President assigned it responsibility for managing long term 
Federal rebuilding efforts. However, the Executive Order 
establishing this Office (EO 13390) does not include specific 
roles, responsibilities and milestones for the Coordinator. The 
Committee is concerned that, absent a specific definition of 
the Coordinator's role in Federal response efforts, there can 
be no measures of performance either for the Office of the 
Federal Coordinator or for federal rebuilding efforts. The 
Committee directs the Office of the Coordinator to submit, by 
November 1, 2006, a strategic plan for Gulf Coast rebuilding 
that defines the objectives of the Office of the Coordinator; 
the specific tasks and milestones associated with each 
objective; and the goals, policies and programs that constitute 
the Federal Response for Gulf Coast rebuilding. The plan shall 
also identify specific milestones for each goal of the federal 
response as well as estimates of total federal cost by goal and 
program.

                      Office of Inspector General

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2006.......................       $82,187,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2007......................        96,185,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        96,185,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2006...................       +13,998,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2007..................             - - -
                                MISSION

    The Homeland Security Act of 2002 established an Office of 
the 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.
    While oversight of DHS disaster response is included in the 
OIG's mission, Hurricane Katrina brought a renewed focus and a 
major shift in OIG resources to that mission area. In October 
2005, in response to the need for oversight, the Inspector 
General established the Gulf Coast Hurricane Recovery Office to 
focus exclusively on preventing problems through a proactive 
program of internal control reviews and contract audits to 
ensure disaster assistance funds are spent wisely. The Gulf 
Coast Recovery Office has initiated numerous monitoring 
activities, reviews, investigations, and audits of the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency's disaster response and recovery 
activities as well as disaster-related activities of other DHS 
components. In addition, this office is coordinating the work 
of 23 other federal Inspectors General through the President's 
Commission on Integrity and Efficiency to review all federal 
spending on Gulf Coast relief.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $96,185,000 for the Office of 
Inspector General (OIG), the same as the budget request and 
$13,998,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. Of 
this total, $11,000,000 is provided to continue and expand 
audits and investigations related to Gulf Coast hurricanes and 
coordinate work with 23 other federal Inspector General's to 
review all federal spending on Gulf Coast relief. The remaining 
funding ($2,998,000) will permit the IG to hire five additional 
FTEs; investigate allegations of criminal or administrative 
misconduct on the part of DHS employees, contractors, or 
grantees; provide additional funding for audits of high 
priority procurement efforts such as MAX-HR, Deepwater, and US-
VISIT; and provide necessary pay and inflationary increases.

                             AUDIT REPORTS

    The Committee directs the Inspector General to forward 
copies of all audit reports to the Committee immediately after 
they are issued and to immediately make the Committee aware of 
any review that recommends cancellation of, or modification to, 
any major acquisition project or grant, or that recommends 
significant budgetary savings. The OIG is also directed to 
withhold from public distribution for a period of 15 days any 
final audit or investigation report which was requested by the 
House Committee on Appropriations.

          Title II--Security, Enforcement, and Investigations

    United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2006.......................      $336,600,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.....................       399,494,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       362,494,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2006...................       +25,894,000
    Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2007.................       -37,000,000
                                MISSION

    The mission of the United States Visitor and Immigrant 
Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) program is to enhance 
the security of U.S. citizens and visitors; facilitate 
legitimate travel and trade; ensure the integrity of the 
immigration system; and 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 (POE), request benefits such as 
change of status or adjustment of status, or depart the United 
States.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $362,494,000 for US-VISIT, 
$37,000,000 below the President's request and $25,894,000 above 
the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. The President's 
budget assumed an increase in aviation passenger fees in order 
to fund this program at the requested levels. This fee is not 
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations and 
the Committee has adjusted its fiscal year 2007 recommendation 
for this account accordingly.
    The Committee is pleased by initial results coming from the 
deployment of US-VISIT assets to the nation's ports of entry. 
The program has been deployed to all airports and seaports with 
international arrivals and to secondary inspection areas of 
land ports of entry. The program reports many instances of 
detecting and preventing criminals and other undesirable 
individuals from entering the country.

                           EXPENDITURE PLANS

    The Committee denies the Administration's request to remove 
requirements on DHS to provide an expenditure plan that has 
been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 
reviewed by GAO and approved by the Committee before resources 
may be obligated. However, in order to ensure that program 
management is not disrupted by this expenditure plan 
requirement, the Committee recommends $50,000,000 be made 
available to the program immediately upon enactment of this 
Act, an amount significantly reduced from fiscal year 2006 to 
encourage the Department to accelerate completion of future 
expenditure plans and other planning documents, such as the US-
VISIT strategic plan.

                      IAFIS-IDENT INTEROPERABILITY

    The Committee is pleased by the Administration's decision 
to migrate the US-VISIT program to a ten-fingerprint system--a 
major step toward full interoperability of DHS' Integrated 
Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) and FBI's 
IDENT fingerprint databases. The fiscal year 2006 appropriation 
conference report directs the Department to provide cost and 
schedule estimates no later than November 20, 2005, so the 
results could be incorporated into the fiscal year 2006 US-
VISIT expenditure plan and the fiscal year 2007 President's 
Budget. However, the fiscal year 2007 budget did not contain 
cost and schedule estimates. The Committee directs the 
Department to complete its strategic planning and cost/schedule 
estimates so that proper planning and budgeting can be made and 
to report on the status of this effort no later than July 1, 
2006.

                                INTERPOL

    The Committee has learned that the US-VISIT and other 
programs have been working closely with the international 
police organization, Interpol. The Committee encourages the 
Department to continue to develop this relationship and aid the 
development of lost and stolen passport databases and other 
activities that will be mutually beneficial to all 
participating countries.

                     Customs and Border Protection

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 \1\...................    $4,802,190,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.....................     5,519,022,000
Recommended in the bill...............................     5,435,310,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2006...................      +633,120,000
    Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2007.................      -83,712,000\1\ Includes $24,100,000 in emergency appropriations provided in P.L.
  109-148.

                                MISSION

    The mission of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is to 
protect the borders of the United States by preventing, 
preempting and deterring threats against the United States 
through ports of entry and to interdict illegal crossing 
between ports of entry. CBP's mission integrates homeland 
security, safety, and border management in an effort to ensure 
that all goods and persons crossing the borders of the United 
States do so in accordance with applicable laws and 
regulations, while posing no threat to the United States. 
Specifically, the priority of CBP is to prevent terrorists and 
terrorist weapons from entering the United States, and 
supporting related homeland security missions affecting border 
and airspace security. CBP is also responsible for apprehending 
individuals attempting to enter the United States illegally; 
stemming the flow of illegal drugs and other contraband; 
protecting our agricultural and economic interests from harmful 
pests and diseases; protecting American businesses from theft 
of their intellectual property; and regulating and facilitating 
international trade, collecting import duties, and enforcing 
U.S. trade laws. CBP has a workforce of over 42,000, 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 $5,435,310,000 for CBP salaries 
and expenses, $83,712,000 below the President's request and 
$633,120,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. 
This recommendation provides $2,328,954,000 for Border Security 
and Control between ports of entry, including $384,547,000 to 
hire 1,200 new border patrol agents and facilitate the training 
of 2,000 new Border Patrol agents, and $115,000,000 for SBInet. 
Costs associated with the training of Border Patrol agents are 
adjusted proportionally to the number of new agents supported 
in this bill and include a reduction of $3,753,000 which the 
Committee includes in the Federal Law Enforcement Training 
Center appropriation. As part of the Committee's support of 
port, container, and cargo security, $1,694,991,000 is provided 
for Border Security Inspections and Trade Facilitation, 
including an additional $15,100,000 above the President's 
request to facilitate validation and periodic re-validation of 
all certified Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-
TPAT) participants. The Committee also provides $162,976,000 
for CBP Air and Marine Personnel Compensation and Benefits, 
including an additional $3,100,000 to fully staff the Air and 
Marine Operations Center (AMOC) and enhance the AMOC's 
intelligence and surveillance capabilities. The Committee 
provides $1,248,389,000 for CBP's Headquarters, Management, and 
Administration, including $4,000,000 for 15 FTEs and contract 
support for internal audit controls and procurement staffing. 
The Committee reduces the request for CBP's Headquarters, 
Management, and Administration by a total of $10,000,000 due to 
CBP's poor responsiveness on the submittal of critical reports. 
In addition, the Committee's reductions reflect the fact that 
the President's budget assumed an increase in aviation 
passenger fees in order to fully fund this account. The 
Committee notes the aviation passenger fee is not within the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations and adjusts the 
fiscal year 2007 recommendation for this account accordingly.
    A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee 
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Salaries and Expenses         Budget estimate      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Headquarters, Management and
 Administration:
    Management and Administration,       $663,943,000       $658,943,000
     Border Security Inspections
     and Trade Facilitation.......
    Management and Administration,        594,446,000        589,446,000
     Border Security and Control
     between Ports of Entry.......
                                   -------------------------------------
        Subtotal, Headquarters          1,258,389,000      1,248,389,000
         Management and
         Administration...........Border Security Inspections and
 Trade Facilitation:
    Inspections, Trade, and Travel      1,282,102,000      1,282,102,000
     Facilitation at Port of Entry
    Harbor Maintenance Fee                  3,026,000          3,026,000
     Collection (Trust Fund)......
    Container Security Initiative.        139,312,000        139,312,000
    Other international programs..          8,701,000          8,701,000
    Customs Trade Partnership              75,909,000         91,009,000
     Against Terrorism/Free and
     Secure Trade (FAST)/NEXUS/
     SENTRI.......................
    Inspection and Detection               94,317,000         94,317,000
     Technology Investments.......
    Automated Targeting Systems...         27,298,000         27,298,000
    National Targeting Center.....         23,635,000         23,635,000
    Other Technology Investment,            1,027,000          1,027,000
     including information
     technology...................
    Training......................         24,564,000         24,564,000
                                   -------------------------------------
        Subtotal, Border Security       1,679,891,000      1,694,991,000
         Inspections and Trade
         Facilitation.............Border Security and Control
 between Ports of Entry:
    Border Security Control.......      2,243,619,000      2,176,679,000
    Border Technology (formerly           131,559,000              - - -
     ASI and ISIS)................
    Security Border Initiative                  - - -        115,000,000
     Technology and Tactical
     Infrastructure (SBInet)......
    Training......................         45,688,000         37,275,000
                                   -------------------------------------
        Subtotal, Border Security       2,420,866,000      2,328,954,000
         and Control between POEs.Air and Marine Personnel                  158,876,000        162,976,000
 Compensation and Benefits........
                                   -------------------------------------
            Total, Salaries and         5,519,022,000      5,435,310,000
             Expenses.............
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         WORKLOAD AND STAFFING

    The Committee is concerned about the balance of CBP 
personnel across all of the agency's mission areas. The 
Committee directs CBP to submit its staffing model in 
conjunction with the fiscal year 2008 budget request. This 
model shall address CBP's operational assumptions in requesting 
resources per mission component as well as the methodology for 
aligning staffing levels to threats, vulnerabilities, and 
workload across all mission areas and per port of entry, Border 
Patrol sector, and Foreign Trade Zone. This model shall also 
address CBP's ability to recruit, hire, and train new Border 
Patrol agents and CBP officers. Specifically, this model should 
include the FTE history of Border Patrol agents and CBP 
officers, including details on attrition rates and training 
productivity (number of agents and officers trained per year), 
from fiscal year 1995 through the fiscal year 2008 budget 
request. This model should also include the funding assumptions 
used to formulate all costs associated with the hiring, 
training, and deployment of new agents and officers. It is the 
Committee's expectation that, in conjunction with addressing 
its staffing needs, CBP also evaluate the office and inspection 
space needed per port of entry. CBP is directed to report on 
office and inspection space per location, specifically 
identifying areas of greatest need and CBP's plans to address 
such needs. The staffing model and report on office and 
inspection space shall be submitted to the House Committee on 
Appropriations and the House Committee on Homeland Security.

                     AIRPORT PROCESSING WAIT TIMES

    The Committee is very concerned about an increase in 
airport processing wait times and CBP's ability to effectively 
process the growing passenger workload at our nation's 
airports. The Committee is aware that a number of international 
airports are experiencing a significant increase in passenger 
volume and wait times, including the International Arrival 
Building (IAB) and Federal Inspection Services Station (FIS) at 
Washington Dulles International Airport and comparable 
facilities at Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport, John 
F. Kennedy International Airport, Ontario International 
Airport, Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport, 
Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport, and Miami 
International Airport. CBP is directed to provide quarterly 
reports to the House Committee on Appropriations and the House 
Committee on Homeland Security no later than 30 days after the 
end of the quarter, beginning January 30, 2007, on flight 
arrivals by airport that took longer than the 60-minute CBP 
standard to process. The report shall include the number of CBP 
inspectors processing the flight arrival, flight information, 
and the actual maximum wait time per airport. This report 
should also include CBP's plans to address the increased 
workload at the busiest U.S. airports, as determined by the 
volume of passenger traffic, as well as the airports listed 
above. In addition, the Committee requests that CBP expand the 
wait time information per airport on its web site to include 
times of day, similar to the wait time information listed on 
the web site of the Transportation Security Administration. 
This report shall be submitted to the House Committee on 
Appropriations and the House Committee on Homeland Security.

                  PORT, CONTAINER, AND CARGO SECURITY

    The Committee recommends $4,185,000,000 across DHS's 
components for port, container, and cargo security, an increase 
of $447,800,000 above fiscal year 2006 enacted levels. However, 
as stated under the Office of the Secretary and Executive 
Management, the Committee is very concerned about the 
Department's progress towards securing our nation's ports and 
inbound commerce. While CBP is to be commended for its efforts 
in establishing multiple, noteworthy security programs, such as 
the Container Security Initiative (CSI), Customs-Trade 
Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT), and Automated Targeting 
System (ATS), sustained, measurable improvement of our nation's 
port, container, and cargo security as a whole remains unclear. 
To address this concern, the Committee includes bill language 
under the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management 
requiring the development and submission of a comprehensive 
port, container, and cargo security strategic plan.
    Within CBP, the Committee provides $1,694,991,000 for port, 
container, and cargo security, $15,100,000 above the 
President's request and $89,874,000 above the amounts provided 
in fiscal year 2006. This fully funds the President's request 
and provides an additional $15,100,000 for staffing and 
contract support to enhance the validation capabilities of the 
C-TPAT program, including the costs of personnel compensation 
and benefits, training, validation visits, and contracts for 
third-party auditors. Of the funds provided for CBP's port and 
commerce security functions, $6,800,000 is included to enhance 
the staffing at the National Targeting Center (NTC) by 30 FTEs; 
$12,000,000 is included to enhance CBP's radiological detection 
staffing by 53 FTEs; and $139,312,000 and 155 FTEs are included 
for the CSI program to support expansion of the program to 58 
foreign ports and coordination with the Department of Energy's 
Megaports program.
    The Committee is aware CBP, in cooperation with the DHS 
Science and Technology (S&T) Directorate, has a number of 
initiatives underway addressing the security of cargo 
containers. As part of the Committee's port, container, and 
cargo security initiative and the strategic plan requirement 
under the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management, CBP 
is directed, in partnership with S&T, to establish minimum 
standards for securing cargo containers and explain how these 
standards align with C-TPAT protocols. CBP is also directed to 
work with S&T in accelerating the development of Container 
Security Device and Advanced Container Security Device, 
including a pilot test of such devices within the C-TPAT 
program, if appropriate.

                      COMBATING NUCLEAR SMUGGLING

    The Committee has consistently supported robust efforts to 
combat nuclear smuggling and is very concerned about recent GAO 
findings (GAO-06-389, ``Combating Nuclear Smuggling, DHS Has 
Made Progress Deploying Radiation Detection Equipment at U.S. 
Ports-of-Entry, but Concerns Remain''), most notably, the 
inability of CBP to verify proper licensing and documentation 
for handling and transporting radioactive material. Though CBP 
had the technological means to detect this material, they did 
not have processes in place to confirm its legitimacy. While 
CBP has stated such deficiencies have been addressed, the 
Committee believes CBP, through its partnership with the 
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO), should be 
implementing all practicable technical and procedural measures 
to detect and interdict illicit transport of radiological 
materials. The Committee is aware of the technological 
improvements made by CBP and DNDO and has been an unwavering 
supporter of the acquisition of radiological detection and 
monitoring systems, as noted elsewhere in this report. The 
Committee is also aware of CBP's ongoing work with the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC) to address proper licensing 
procedures. However, the Committee is troubled by the process 
deficiencies identified in GAO-06-389. The Committee directs 
CBP to report to the Committee no later than January 16, 2007, 
on its process improvements in combating nuclear smuggling, 
including CBP's documentation verification capabilities (such 
as licenses and governmental documentation) and container 
inspection procedures.

                IN-BOND CARGO CONTAINER SECURITY PROGRAM

    The Committee is pleased to see that CBP is working with 
the Science and Technology Directorate to address the security 
and control vulnerability presented by in-bond container 
shipments that transit the U.S. In support of this program, the 
Committee provides $1,027,000, the same as the President's 
request and $19,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 
2006. While the emphasis of the study to date has focused on 
the 10,000 to 15,000 agricultural shipments that transit the 
U.S. for delivery outside the U.S., the Committee reminds CBP 
that the program should address all shipments that enter and 
move through the U.S. in-bond, not only those carrying 
agricultural products.

                      IMMIGRATION ADVISORY PROGRAM

    The Committee believes CBP's Immigration Advisory Program 
(IAP) has shown great potential and provides $6,000,000 to 
support 21 FTEs, as requested by the President. This program 
has placed CBP inspectors at two foreign airports (Warsaw and 
Amsterdam) to prevent people who are identified as national 
security threats from traveling to the United States, and 
proposes to expand to London and Tokyo within fiscal year 2007. 
The program has resulted in thousands of intercepts, including 
hundreds of smuggling cases, and the saving of millions of 
dollars to the U.S. Government in avoided removal and 
processing costs. The Committee directs CBP to report on the 
performance of the IAP no later than January 16, 2007, to the 
House Committee on Appropriations and the House Committee on 
Homeland Security.

               INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS INFRINGEMENT

    The Committee is concerned about the growing workload 
related to the prevention of intellectual property rights (IPR) 
infringement. In fiscal year 2005, CBP reported 8,022 IPR 
seizures with a domestic value of over $93,200,000. Preliminary 
statistics for fiscal year 2006 indicate a projected increase 
in this workload of almost fifty percent. The Committee 
recognizes the detrimental impact of IPR infringement upon our 
nation's economy and is concerned about CBP's ability to 
adequately combat this activity. The Committee directs CBP to 
submit a detailed report to the Committee no later than January 
16, 2007, on the resources devoted to the prevention of IPR 
infringement. This report shall include the funding amounts and 
FTE devoted to IPR enforcement for fiscal years 2004 through 
2007 (projected) as well as a detailed explanation of how CBP 
is addressing the growing IPR infringement workload, detailed 
by port of entry. This report should also include CBP's 
detailed IPR infringement statistics for fiscal years 2000-2007 
(projected).

                   TEXTILE TRANSSHIPMENT ENFORCEMENT

    Section 352 of the Trade Act of 2002 authorizes funding for 
Customs Service textile transshipment enforcement, and 
specifies how the funds be spent. The Committee includes 
$4,475,000 to continue this effort and directs CBP to provide a 
report, at the time it transmits the fiscal year 2008 budget, 
on its actual and projected obligations of this funding, as 
well as of funds appropriated for this purpose in fiscal year 
2006. The report should include staffing levels in fiscal years 
2005-2007, differentiated by position, as authorized in section 
352 of the Trade Act of 2002, and include a five-year 
enforcement plan.

                            BORDER SECURITY

    As stated under Departmental Management and Operations, the 
Committee is supportive of the Secure Border Initiative (SBI) 
but is concerned about the absence of a strategic plan for an 
issue that has a history of failed, large-scale procurements. 
The Committee believes that the submittal and review of a 
strategic plan should have been the first step in establishing 
the SBI, rather than a haphazard funding request for fiscal 
year 2006 followed by a request for a significant increase in 
funding for fiscal year 2007. Given the recent failures of the 
Integrated Surveillance Intelligence Systems (ISIS) and 
America's Shield Initiative (ASI), the Committee remains 
skeptical at providing huge sums of money at the persistent 
problem of border control--especially without any strategic 
justification for why the SBI is any more effective than its 
predecessors. Therefore, as stated within the bill and report 
under the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management, the 
Committee directs the Secretary to submit the SBI strategic 
plan to the Committee no later than November 1, 2006.
    Despite the concerns stated above, the Committee remains 
committed to establishing a comprehensive system within the DHS 
border security and immigration components to achieve 
operational control of our borders and reform of our 
immigration system. To support this effort, the Committee 
provides $2,328,954,000 towards CBP's Border Security and 
Control beween Ports of Entry, $550,455,000 above the amounts 
provided in fiscal year 2006. Of this total, an increase of 
$472,329,000 is provided in direct support of core SBI 
components, including an increase of $384,547,000 to support 
the hiring of 1,200 new Border Patrol agents, the training of 
2,000 new Border Patrol agents, and a total Border Patrol 
workforce of over 13,580 agents by the end of fiscal year 2007; 
an increase of $84,029,000 for the SBInet Technology and 
Tactical Infrastructure program; and an increase of $8,500,000 
to fund additional operational costs associated with the 
Arizona Border Control Initiative. The Committee provides 
$5,000,000 for the SBI Program Executive Office under Office of 
the Secretary and Executive Management and includes $3,753,000 
for training costs for Border Patrol agents under the Federal 
Law Enforcement Training Center.

                                 SBINET

    The Committee combines funds for tactical infrastructure 
and border technology into a new program, project, and activity 
entitled ``Secure Border Initiative Technology and Tactical 
Infrastructure (SBInet)'' and provides $115,000,000 for this 
function. Funds are available until expended. When combined 
with unobligated balances in CBP's inspection and detection 
technology investments that will be applied toward SBInet at 
the end of fiscal year 2006, a total of $215,884,477 is 
available for this budget activity. Of the amount provided in 
fiscal year 2007, $30,000,000 shall be for the San Diego Border 
Infrastructure System. Funds for border technology and tactical 
infrastructure in Western Arizona are reduced from the 
President's request due to a poor budget justification, 
uncertainty surrounding the SBInet procurement, and the absence 
of the SBI strategic plan. The Committee is very concerned 
about the planning and controls for the SBInet prime integrator 
contract and includes bill language withholding $25,000,000 
until the Committees on Appropriations receive and approve a 
plan for expenditure that is certified by the Department's 
Investment Review Board and reviewed by the Government 
Accountability Office.

                           TUNNEL REMEDIATION

    The Committee is concerned about the steady increase in the 
use of tunnels to smuggle contraband across the U.S. border. 
The Committee is aware of the significant costs associated with 
the remediation of these tunnels and notes that CBP has not 
budgeted for this function. The Committee encourages CBP, in 
concert with the SBInet program and the DHS Science and 
Technology Directorate, to establish a program for detecting, 
and addressing this smuggling tactic and to incorporate the 
cost of such a program into future budget submissions.

                   CBP VEHICLE FLEET MANAGEMENT PLAN

    The Committee is extremely disappointed by the content 
included in the vehicle management plan dated June 28, 2005 and 
submitted in response to the fiscal year 2005 appropriations 
bill. The Committee directs CBP to re-submit the Vehicle Fleet 
Management plan with the required, detailed, five-year 
investment plan across all types of CBP vehicles, no later than 
November 1, 2006. The report submitted on June 28, 2005, was 
almost five months late and did not fully comply with the 
Committee's direction. The report required by this Act should 
address the plans, requirements, and milestones for all CBP 
vehicles, including off road vehicles, severe off road 
vehicles, all terrain vehicles, and high mobility multipurpose 
wheeled vehicles as well as the maintenance and logistics 
systems to support these vehicles for fiscal years 2007-2011. 
The Committee reduces funds provided to CBP's Headquarters, 
Management, and Administration by $1,000,000 due to the 
insufficient compliance with the fiscal year 2005 requirement.

                       BORDER PATROL CHECKPOINTS

    Bill language is continued prohibiting funds for the site 
acquisition, design, or construction of any permanent Border 
Patrol checkpoint in the Tucson sector. 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. The intent of this requirement is to foster 
randomness and unpredictability in the location of Border 
Patrol's checkpoints throughout the Tucson Sector.

                              CARRIZO CANE

    The Committee understands that removal of Carrizo cane from 
certain Rio Grande border locations may improve conditions for 
Border Patrol operations, and directs CBP to utilize the 
resources necessary for this removal if it is determined to be 
necessary.

       CBP AIR AND MARINE, PERSONNEL, COMPENSATION, AND BENEFITS

    The Committee provides $162,976,000 for CBP Air and Marine, 
Personnel, Compensation, and Benefits, $3,100,000 above the 
President's request and $1,052,000 above the amounts provided 
in fiscal year 2006. This fully funds the President's request 
for the salaries and expenses of all CBP airwings, including 
$2,100,000 for the new Northern Border airwing established in 
fiscal year 2006 in Great Falls, Montana. The Committee also 
provides an additional $3,100,000 to support 25 FTEs and 
enhancements to airspace security monitoring, aerial 
surveillance, and intelligence capabilities of the Air and 
Marine Operations Center (AMOC). The Committee believes the 
AMOC plays a central role in CBP's border security mission and 
provides the resources to fully staff and upgrade this 
Departmental command and control resource.
    The Committee is wholly disappointed by CBP's failure to 
submit an Air and Marine recapitalization plan. The Committee 
reduces funds provided to CBP's Headquarters, Management, and 
Administration by $4,000,000 due to the unacceptably poor 
responsiveness on this requirement. CBP is directed to submit a 
comprehensive Air and Marine recapitalization plan no later 
than November 1, 2006.

                        Automation Modernization

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2006.......................      $451,440,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.....................       461,207,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       451,440,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2006...................             - - -
    Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2007.................        -9,767,000
                                MISSION

    The Automation Modernization Account includes funding for 
major information technology projects for the Bureau of 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 $451,440,000, for Automation 
Modernization, $9,767,000 below the President's request and the 
same as amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. This includes 
$316,800,000 for the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) and 
for International Trade Data System (ITDS). The President's 
budget assumed an increase in aviation passenger fees in order 
to fund this program at the requested levels. This fee is not 
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations and 
the Committee has adjusted its fiscal year 2007 recommendation 
for this account accordingly.
    The Committee denies the Administration's request to remove 
requirements on CBP to provide an expenditure plan that has 
been approved by OMB, reviewed by GAO and approved by the 
Committee before resources can be obligated. However, in order 
to ensure that program management is not disrupted by this 
expenditure plan requirement, the Committee recommends 
$100,000,000 be made available to the program upon enactment of 
this Act.

                         ACE PROGRAM OVERSIGHT

    The Committee is pleased that CBP has aggressively moved 
forward with deployments of ACE releases. However, the 
Government Accountability Office, as part of its review of the 
fiscal year 2006 expenditure plan, points out that the program 
is still considered risky because operational performance of 
deployed releases has been mixed and the relationships among 
goals, benefits and desired business outcomes are not visible. 
The Committee directs CBP to improve oversight by assuring 
releases are ready to proceed beyond critical design and 
production readiness review before deployment. Also, CBP shall 
ensure ACE aligns its goals, benefits, desired business 
outcomes, and performance metrics. Future appropriations 
decisions will be affected by CBP progress towards these goals 
over the year.

     CBP Air and Marine Interdiction, Operations, Maintenance, and 
                              Procurement

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2006.......................      $396,228,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.....................       337,699,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       373,199,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2006...................       -23,029,000
    Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2007.................       +35,500,000
                                MISSION

    CBP Air and Marine provides integrated and coordinated 
border interdiction and law enforcement support for homeland 
security missions; provides airspace security for high risk 
areas or National Special Security Events upon request; and 
combats the illegal entry of narcotics and other contraband 
into the United States. CBP Air and Marine also provides 
aviation and marine support for the counter-terrorism efforts 
of many other law enforcement agencies.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $373,199,000 for CBP Air and 
Marine Interdiction, Operations, Maintenance, and Procurement, 
$35,500,000 above the President's request and $23,029,000 below 
the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. The Committee 
provides an additional $16,000,000 for the P-3 service life 
extension program; $5,000,000 for an additional 1,000 P-3 
flight hours; $10,000,000 for the missionization of three 
manned covert surveillance aircraft; $2,500,000 for unmanned 
aerial vehicle (UAV) logistics and communications upgrades; and 
$2,000,000 for the replacement of five marine interceptor 
boats. As requested by the President, the Committee includes 
$7,610,000 for operation and maintenance costs of the multi-
role patrol aircraft and $5,500,000 for the new Northern Border 
airwing established in fiscal year 2006 in Great Falls, 
Montana.

                    CBP AIR AND MARINE CONSOLIDATION

    It is the Committee's expectation that last year's 
consolidation of the Office of Border Patrol air and marine 
assets with the Office of Air and Marine Operations (AMO) into 
the newly formed ``CBP Air and Marine'', achieves operational 
and cost efficiencies that support the full range of homeland 
security missions, including counter terrorism, immigration 
enforcement, and counter smuggling. The Committee views CBP Air 
and Marine as a national strategic asset that should be 
deployed accordingly--providing airborne and seaborne law 
enforcement support to the air, sea, and land approaches into 
the United States; along our northern and southern borders; and 
within the confines of our borders, as warranted. While the 
Committee strongly supports the increased use of aviation 
assets to physically secure our borders, such support should 
not come at the expense of other critical homeland security 
missions in the source/transit zones and throughout the 
nation's interior that are vital, contributing elements of a 
comprehensive border security strategy. The Committee expects 
this comprehensive approach to be reflected in the required, 
but overdue, CBP Air and Marine re-capitalization plan 
previously referenced in this report. Furthermore, CBP is 
directed to report not later than January 16, 2007 on requests 
made in fiscal year 2006 for investigative and surveillance 
support, the response to those requests, and any consequences 
of reduced support to Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

               AERIAL SURVEILLANCE CAPABILITY ENHANCEMENT

    The Committee views CBP aerial surveillance capabilities as 
a force multiplier for the Department's border security and 
port and commerce security missions. Therefore, the Committee 
provides aerial surveillance enhancements above the President's 
request to include $21,000,000 to increase P-3 operations and 
$12,500,000 for manned and unmanned covert surveillance 
capabilities along our borders and coastlines. The Committee is 
very concerned about the recent crash of CBP's first UAV that 
occurred on April 25, 2006 outside of Nogales, Arizona. The 
Committee withholds $6,800,000 included within the budget 
request for the procurement of a UAV until CBP reports on the 
findings of the crash investigation and implications of those 
findings for CBP's future UAV operations along the U.S. border 
and coastline. The Committee also fully funds the operation and 
maintenance costs of the multi-role patrol aircraft and 
encourages CBP Air and Marine, as part of its recapitalization 
plan, to pursue greater efficiencies and acceleration in the 
procurement of the remaining 12 multi-role aircraft.

                      NATIONAL AIR TRAINING CENTER

    The Committee views the National Air Training Center (NATC) 
as a training and operational resource for the entire 
Department. CBP Air and Marine is encouraged to continue the 
NATC's highly successful and cost-effective computer based 
instruction and simulation program and to complete the planned 
NATC hangar expansion.

                         HELICOPTER PROCUREMENT

    The Committee directs CBP to provide, as part of the fiscal 
year 2008 budget justification, a comparison of the costs and 
benefits of leasing and purchasing helicopters for the purpose 
of operational testing and evaluation. This report should 
include detailed comparisons over the last five years, as 
available, and should also address the procurement of light 
observation helicopters and light enforcement helicopters 
scheduled in fiscal years 2006 and 2007.

                              Construction

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 \1\...................      $277,700,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.....................       255,954,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       175,154,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2006...................      -102,546,000
    Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2007.................      -80,800,000\1\ Includes $10,400,000 in emergency appropriations provided in P.L.
  109-148.

                                MISSION

    The construction account funds the planning, design, and 
assembly of 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 $175,154,000 for Construction, 
$80,800,000 below the President's request and $102,546,000 
below the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. Funds for 
tactical infrastructure in support of the SBI are provided 
under the SBInet program, project, and activity within the CBP 
Salaries and Expenses account. CBP is encouraged to consolidate 
funding for Border Patrol tactical infrastructure within the 
SBInet budget activity in future budget submissions.

                  Immigration and Customs Enforcement

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 \1\...................    $3,090,414,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.....................     3,902,291,000
Recommended in the bill...............................     3,843,257,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2006...................      +752,843,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.................       -59,034,000\1\ Includes $13,000,000 in emergency appropriations provided in P.L.
  109-148.

                                MISSION

    Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is the lead 
agency responsible for enforcement of immigration laws, customs 
laws, and Federal 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 four major program areas: Office of Investigations, 
Federal Protective Service, Office of Intelligence, and 
Detention and Removal Operations.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $3,843,257,000 for Salaries and 
Expenses, $59,034,000 below the President's request and 
$752,843,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. 
This reflects an increase of $275,000,000 over fiscal year 2006 
for detention bed space and related transportation and removal 
efforts associated with the Secure Border Initiative. It also 
reflects a decrease in $4,444,000 requested for basic training 
for additional Deportation Officers and Immigration Enforcement 
Agents, which the Committee includes in the Federal Law 
Enforcement Training Center appropriation. The Committee adds 
$57,100,000 in program increases as follows: $33,400,000 for an 
additional 70 fugitive operations team members; $13,700,000 for 
financial and trade investigations to support the Trade 
Transparency Initiative; $1,000,000 to fund ICE participation 
in the Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center; $5,000,000 to 
fund 20 additional Alternatives to Detention positions and 
expand the Intensive Supervisory Appearance Program from ten to 
twelve cities; and $4,000,000 and 40 positions to expand the 
Criminal Alien Program. The Committee recommendation includes 
$5,000,000, the same as the fiscal year 2006 level, for memory 
and technology support for the Cyber Crimes Center. The 
recommendation reflects a reduction from the President's 
request for Custody Management and Transportation and Removal 
of $111,690,000, in part due to inadequate information about 
the Department's detention management plan, and budget 
constraints caused by the increase to aviation passenger fees 
included in the President's budget. This fee is not within the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations and the 
Committee has adjusted its fiscal year 2007 recommendation for 
this account accordingly.
    The President's request proposed a budget structure that 
would spread Headquarters and information technology costs 
across other programs, projects and activities (PPAs). The 
Committee prefers the existing PPA budget structure. A 
comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee recommended 
level by budget activity is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget estimate      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Headquarters management and
 administration:
    Personnel compensation and                  - - -       $131,287,000
     benefits, services and other
     costs........................
    Headquarters managed IT                     - - -        134,015,000
     investment...................
                                   -------------------------------------
        Subtotal, headquarters                  - - -        265,302,000
         management and
         administration...........
Legal proceedings.................        206,511,000        187,353,000
Investigations:
    Domestic......................      1,456,650,000      1,317,992,000
    International.................        104,744,000        105,181,000
                                   -------------------------------------
        Subtotal, investigations..      1,561,394,000      1,423,173,000
Intelligence......................         57,932,000         51,379,000
Detention and removal operations:
    Custody operations............      1,432,702,000      1,291,220,000
    Fugitive operations...........        173,784,000        199,853,000
    Criminal alien program........        110,250,000        105,357,000
    Alternatives to detention.....         42,702,000         46,145,000
    Transportation and removal            317,016,000        273,475,000
     program......................
                                   -------------------------------------
        Subtotal, detention and         2,076,454,000      1,916,050,000
         removal operations.......
                                   =====================================
            Total, ICE salaries         3,902,291,000      3,843,257,000
             and expenses.........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        SECURE BORDER INITIATIVE

    The Committee supports the aim of the Secure Border 
Initiative (SBI): to gain control over our borders and the 
people, conveyances, and cargo that cross them. The SBI will 
involve many ICE components ranging from intelligence, 
investigations, training, legal proceedings, and detention and 
removal operations. The Administration requests an increase of 
$541,000,000 to cover such enhancements. However, because the 
SBI began in the middle of an appropriations cycle, the 
Committee has not received a detailed strategy, as noted 
previously in this report under Departmental Management and 
Operations, and as would be expected for such a major 
enterprise. For interior enforcement, the Department recently 
announced its ``comprehensive immigration enforcement 
strategy.'' While this strategy is comprehensive in scope, its 
aim--to ``reverse the tolerance'' for illegal immigration--does 
not satisfy criteria called for in the fiscal year 2006 
appropriation bill to reduce the illegal alien population by 10 
percent per year. The Committee expects the SBI strategy to be 
linked to this goal.
    The Committee funds increases for enhanced worksite and 
compliance enforcement and investigations; legal proceedings; 
fugitive operations; and training, to address acknowledged gaps 
in interior enforcement. As the Department has yet to supply 
the immigration enforcement strategy directed by Congress in 
fiscal year 2006, the Committee does not fully fund the 
President's request for detention, removal and transportation 
operations, providing an increase of $275,000,000 instead of 
$387,000,000 as proposed by the President.

                 DETENTION MANAGEMENT AND CONSOLIDATION

    In April 2006 the Committee received the cost and benefit 
analysis of a national contract approach to ICE detention 
management--a year after the report was due. That report 
expressed reservations about a specific approach to detention 
contracting, but did indicate that ICE was looking at 
consolidation and possible regional approaches to its 
operations. The Committee expects ICE to demonstrate it is 
making the best possible use of detention funding. The 
Committee continues to await a report on the national detention 
management plan called for in the fiscal year 2006 
Appropriations Act, and notes that $5,000,000 remains 
unavailable for obligation until such a plan is submitted. As 
ICE has indicated its intention of moving to a more 
consolidated regional approach, the Committee expects that the 
forthcoming report will address mechanisms to accomplish this, 
including the use of regional contracts for integrated 
detention services. The Committee believes advances in 
Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) should include both 
organizational and technology elements, such as a ``hoteling'' 
system to manage bedspace. The Committee also urges ICE to give 
consideration to regional pilots that might test concepts for 
consolidation and possibly accelerate the process of 
streamlining DRO operations.

                            ALIEN ABSCONDERS

    One goal of the SBI with which the Committee strongly 
agrees is to reduce the number of ``absconders'', those who 
disappear after failing to comply with removal orders or are 
ordered removed in absentia, now estimated to be 558,000, and 
growing by 40,000 per year. The Department has requested 
funding for 70 teams in fiscal year 2007, an increase of 18, 
and estimates that these will apprehend 24,125 absconders in 
fiscal year 2007. This represents an average of 460 
apprehensions per team with a ``performance target'' of 1,000 
per team. This good start will slow the increase, but not 
reduce the number of absconders. Therefore, the Committee 
recommends an additional $33,400,000 for ten more fugitive 
operations teams--for a total of 80--with associated bed space. 
While this increase will not eliminate the absconder problem, 
it will accelerate progress toward the SBI goal of 100 teams, 
and speed up apprehension and removal of absconders. The 
Committee wishes to see ICE achieve the performance target for 
fugitive operations, and directs ICE to report not later than 
January 16, 2007, on steps it is taking, including improving 
systems, equipment, management and intelligence, and any 
additional resources needed, to make progress towards this 
goal. This report shall be provided to the House Committee on 
Appropriations and the House Committee on Homeland Security.

                         CRIMINAL ALIEN PROGRAM

    ICE estimates that 551,000 alien criminals in U.S. jails 
and prisons have not been identified for removal, and another 
275,000 are at large. While ICE must certainly be prudent as it 
absorbs a substantial increase in funding to grow the Criminal 
Alien Program (CAP), there is still a sizeable population of 
criminal aliens yet to be addressed. Of particular concern are 
aliens held in State and local facilities, who may be held for 
only a matter of days and released before ICE is aware of their 
presence. The Committee thus urges ICE to take the necessary 
steps to ensure removal or detention of this population before 
they are released into communities. The Committee recommends an 
additional $4,000,000 to accelerate CAP efforts, including 
completing its transfer to Detention and Removal Operations.

      WORKSITE ENFORCEMENT AND INVESTIGATIONS OF CIVIL VIOLATIONS

    The President's request more than doubles the fiscal year 
2006 funding level to strengthen ICE enforcement of immigration 
laws affecting employers and worksites. The Committee strongly 
endorses this effort as critical to a comprehensive approach to 
deterring illegal immigration. In fiscal year 2006, the 
Committee provided $9,000,000 for additional Immigration 
Enforcement Agents (IEAs) to be dedicated to investigating 
employers' civil violations of immigration law. The Committee 
intended that increasing these investigative resources for 
administrative or civil sanctions would permit criminal 
investigators to pursue more complex criminal cases. Instead of 
following this direction, the Department reported in February 
that it intends to use IEAs in support of the CAP. In addition, 
for worksite enforcement, in lieu of IEAs, ICE plans to use 
civilian forensic auditors to undertake regulatory action and 
case preparation for civil worksite and employer cases. These 
plans are contrary to Committee direction and the intended use 
of appropriations. The Department is directed to take no action 
until a reprogramming has been submitted and approved in 
accordance with section 503 of Public Law 109-90.

                       ALTERNATIVES TO DETENTION

    The Alternatives to Detention program addresses aliens who 
are not mandatory detainees, but are deemed unlikely to appear 
at their immigration hearings. Programs for electronic 
monitoring devices and telephonic reporting, and especially the 
Intensive Supervision Appearance Program (ISAP), contribute to 
more effective enforcement of immigration laws at far less cost 
($22/night) than for detention ($95/night). The first full year 
of the ISAP program has seen significant success, with 94 
percent of participants in the eight pilot cities appearing at 
immigration proceedings, compared to 34 percent for non-ISAP 
participants. In at least one case, the results showed a 98 
percent appearance rate, a much higher rate of compliance with 
court orders, and gained Executive Office of Immigration Review 
agreement to expedite such cases. The Committee recommends an 
additional $5,000,000 for this promising program, with the 
expectation that it be expanded to at least two more cities.

   SBI AND IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT COOPERATION WITH STATE AND LOCAL 
                               GOVERNMENT

    The burgeoning undocumented alien population places a 
burden on State and local law enforcement agencies, which lack 
authority and resources needed to enforce federal immigration 
law. The problem is particularly acute in border communities 
and major trafficking routes in the Southwest and urban areas 
but the Committee is also aware that encounters with illegal 
aliens are commonplace nationally and can overwhelm small law 
enforcement organizations. at their destinations within 
America's heartland as well. This is exacerbated in areas where 
there is no ICE or Border Patrol presence, and has frustrated 
local law enforcement agencies who believe this gap adds to 
local crime problems and poses a homeland security 
vulnerability.
    Some relief may come from SBI funding the Committee has 
added to target fugitive and criminal aliens, but the SBI must 
have a more comprehensive goal--to achieve a cooperative 
federal, State and local capacity to enforce immigration law at 
entry points, corridors of transit, and destination points. To 
this end, the Committee supports expanding the use of the 
287(g) program to train State and local law enforcement, 
enhancing the Law Enforcement Support Center, and establishing 
federal, State and local Border Enforcement and Security Task 
Forces (BEST). In particular, joint efforts such as BEST help 
leverage the resources of all agencies, enable better State and 
local participation in enforcement efforts, relieve pressures 
on communities, and help this immigration enforcement gap. In 
addition, further relief will come when ICE can promptly assume 
custody, process and detain illegal aliens encountered by State 
and local law enforcement, where appropriate.
    The Committee therefore directs DHS, as part of the SBI, to 
examine the potential of establishing joint operations in high 
intensity immigration trafficking and smuggling areas, 
comparable to existing programs directed at countering drugs 
and money laundering, and submit findings and implementation 
options for such a program to the Committee not later than 
January 16, 2007. The Committee also directs ICE, working with 
the Department, to include as an SBI performance criterion the 
requirement that ICE respond fully to State and local requests 
for immigration enforcement operational assistance. Finally, 
the Committee encourages ICE to not limit SBI's initial 
implementation to border control only, but also to develop an 
integrated plan that concurrently phases in actions to place 
pressure on destinations where illegal aliens seek to find 
employment.

                       CBP AIR AND MARINE SUPPORT

    In fiscal year 2005 Congress funded transfer of the former 
Air and Marine Operations division of ICE to Customs and Border 
Protection (now CBP Air and Marine) and directed it, as a 
Departmental asset, to continue to provide critical 
investigative and surveillance missions for ICE. The Committee 
is displeased to hear that CBP and ICE have been unable to 
reach agreement on how this can best be done, with the result 
being a failure to maintain this support. The Committee directs 
the Department, ICE and CBP to rectify this apparent 
dysfunctional situation immediately, and directs ICE to report 
not later than January 16, 2007, on requests made in fiscal 
year 2006 for operational support, the response to those 
requests, and any consequences of reduced support to ICE.

                     TRADE TRANSPARENCY INITIATIVE

    ICE, together with CBP and the Departments of State and 
Treasury, has mounted a new initiative focused on trade-based 
money laundering through a new Trade Transparency Unit (TTU). 
The TTU focuses on the laundering of millions of dollars 
through seemingly legitimate trade, employing analytic tools, 
intelligence, and reciprocal information sharing with foreign 
governments. The initial success of this program has been 
followed by requests from foreign governments for more 
cooperative efforts and data sharing to stop such fraud, and 
demonstrates the potential of TTU to block criminal and 
potentially terrorist financing and to facilitate new and 
productive law enforcement arrangements in key countries. The 
Committee recommends providing $13,700,000 to fund the TTU, to 
include the cost of 34 full time equivalents (FTEs), equipment, 
materials and facilities. The Committee directs ICE to submit a 
detailed report on the performance of the TTU with its fiscal 
year 2008 budget submission.

                 HUMAN SMUGGLING AND TRAFFICKING CENTER

    The Committee commends ICE for its role as director of the 
Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center, an interagency joint 
intelligence fusion center focused specifically on human 
smuggling and human trafficking. To ensure that ICE can carry 
out this effort to reduce the number of victims of such 
despicable crimes, the Committee recommends providing 
$1,000,000 to fully fund ICE costs to support the Center.

                          CYBER CRIMES CENTER

    The Cyber Crimes Center (C3) has made significant 
contributions in the investigations of crimes committed over 
the Internet, operating through its child exploitation, 
computer forensics, and cyber crimes sections. C3 has 
experienced swiftly growing workload and a growing demand for 
skills and technology to analyze data encountered in criminal 
and homeland security investigations. The Committee recommends 
maintaining the funding level of $5,000,000 for continued 
expansion of C3 data storage and processing capacity to support 
ICE operations nationwide.

                             287(G) PROGRAM

    The Committee continues to support the voluntary 
participation of state, local and tribal law enforcement in 
immigration enforcement, as authorized under section 287(g) of 
the Immigration and Nationality Act. In fiscal year 2006 the 
Committee provided $5,000,000 in support of this program, 
including the training of participants. Currently, 7 State and 
local law enforcement entities participate, with another 11 
requesting to participate. The Committee includes $5,400,000 in 
fiscal year 2007, as requested, to continue these efforts. The 
Committee expects training to be provided efficiently and cost-
effectively. Furthermore, the Committee encourages ICE to 
optimize its efforts through use of law enforcement sensitive, 
secure, encrypted, Web-based e-learning, and including, where 
appropriate, working with the Distributed Learning Program of 
the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, and to provide 
basic immigration enforcement training, mentoring and updates 
as appropriate.

                         WORKLOAD AND STAFFING

    While the Committee recognizes that ICE has been undergoing 
rapid organizational change and growth, it is concerned that 
ICE achieve balance in its staffing and mix of personnel across 
all of the agency's mission areas. The Committee directs ICE to 
submit its staffing model in conjunction with the fiscal year 
2008 budget request. This model shall address ICE operational 
assumptions in requesting resources per mission component as 
well as the methodology for aligning staffing levels to 
threats, vulnerabilities, and workload across all mission areas 
and per field office. The staffing model shall be submitted to 
the House Committee on Appropriations and the House Committee 
on Homeland Security.

         ENFORCEMENT AND DETENTION OPERATIONS IN THE CARIBBEAN

    The Committee is very concerned about illegal immigration 
in the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, and the mix of 
Departmental resources available to address it. The Committee 
agrees with DHS that the apparent volume of illegal immigration 
and drug smuggling is lower than seen on the mainland, 
especially the Southwest Border, and that it is preferable to 
catch smugglers, traffickers and illegal immigrants while at 
sea. Moreover, the islands pose a special degree of criminal 
and terrorism risk unlike that seen on the mainland, due to the 
wide variety of nationalities in the region; the ease with 
which smugglers and illegal immigrants can reach U.S. territory 
and blend into island communities; and the simplicity of travel 
to the mainland. The Committee is unconvinced that ICE staffing 
adequately addresses both immigration and other criminal 
activities, as there is virtually no detention capacity or 
personnel in the Virgin Islands, exacerbated by a lack of 
Border Patrol presence. As a result, criminal investigators are 
diverted from their core missions to pursue complex smuggling, 
trafficking or other criminal cases, and are compelled to 
detain, process and escort illegal aliens--operations better 
suited and more efficiently done by Detention and Removal 
personnel.
    The Committee is aware that former Department of Defense 
facilities on the islands are being considered by DHS as 
possible co-location facilities for ICE and other DHS agencies. 
This offers a potential for improving the detention capacity 
now lacking. The Committee directs ICE to investigate such 
options and keep the Committee informed of progress in gaining 
such capacity and potential efficiencies. The Committee also 
directs ICE to work with the Department to seek an appropriate 
balance of personnel to fully support the ICE investigative 
mission and ensure effective immigration enforcement on both 
the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico.

        DETAINEE BONDS AND TIMELY INFORMATION ON REMOVAL ORDERS

    The Committee understands that ICE has no duty to notify 
holders of cash or surety bonds (obligors) that an alien 
released on bond has been ordered removed. ICE has pointed out 
that obligors, in accepting the terms of bonds, agree to 
produce aliens when so requested by ICE for hearings, removal 
or other reasons. ICE therefore believes that obligors have a 
duty to be aware of circumstances regarding the compliance, 
residence and activity of any alien for whom a bond is held, 
and no notification should be required. Furthermore, ICE notes 
that bondholders can get information regarding the status or 
disposition of alien cases by contacting the immigration courts 
directly. On the other hand, bondholders argue that routine 
notification of removal orders could better enable them to 
fulfill their obligations to produce aliens when requested for 
hearings or removal. While the Committee believes both 
arguments have merit, it notes that ICE operations depend on 
the significant funding derived from breached bonds, and 
directs ICE to submit a report with the fiscal year 2008 budget 
request describing actions it is taking or proposes to improve 
information sharing and cooperation with bondholders, including 
incentives to reduce the absconder population.

                   TEXTILE TRANSSHIPMENT ENFORCEMENT

    Section 352 of the Trade Act of 2002 authorizes funding for 
Customs Service textile transshipment enforcement, and 
specifies how the funds be spent. The Committee includes 
$4,475,000 to continue this effort and directs ICE to provide a 
report, at the time it transmits the fiscal year 2008 budget, 
on its actual and projected obligations of this funding, as 
well as of funds appropriated for this purpose in fiscal year 
2006. The report should include staffing levels in fiscal years 
2005-2007, differentiated by position, as authorized in section 
352 of the Trade Act of 2002, and include a five-year 
enforcement plan.
    The Committee directs ICE to submit a Vehicle Fleet 
Management plan, with a detailed, five-year investment plan 
across all types of ICE vehicles, with its fiscal year 2008 
budget submission. This should include the age and mileage of 
vehicles in use by the Office of Investigations, Intelligence, 
and Detention and Removal Operations, and any investment plans, 
requirements, and milestones for the ICE fleet.

                       LEGAL ORIENTATION PROGRAM

    The Department has reported that the legal orientation 
program, run by the Executive Office of Immigration Review 
(EOIR) of the Department of Justice, improves judicial 
efficiency in detention cases, with cases likely to be 
completed faster, resulting in fewer hearings and less time in 
detention. In recent years, EOIR has funded this program with 
transfers from ICE, and $2,000,000 remains in the ICE base, as 
requested by the President. The Committee supports the 
continuation of this program, and therefore does not reduce 
this funding; however, it directs ICE and the Department to 
work with EOIR to see that any future funding is included in 
the appropriations requests for the Department of Justice, as 
directed by the fiscal year 2006 Appropriations Act.

                       UNACCOMPANIED ALIEN MINORS

    The Committee is concerned by reports that unaccompanied 
alien children are not routinely transferred from DHS custody 
to the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) within the three-
to-five day timeframe provided in the 1996 Flores Settlement 
agreement, and are being held in unacceptable conditions (e.g., 
Border Patrol stations or jail-like facilities) for many days. 
The Committee directs ICE to contact ORR immediately upon 
apprehension of such children, explore the possible transfer of 
responsibility for transporting such children from DHS to ORR, 
continue its negotiations with ORR to resolve their differences 
over processing and transfer of custody, encourage 
establishment of ORR facilities near DHS detention facilities, 
and otherwise ensure that ORR gains custody within 72 hours. 
The Committee directs ICE to consider using holistic age-
determination methodologies recommended by medical and child 
welfare experts, which take into account a child's physical 
appearance and psychological maturity to determine the age of 
the child when it is uncertain, rather than relying exclusively 
on forensic evidence. The Committee is also concerned about the 
dearth of repatriation services for unaccompanied alien 
children who are removed from the United States to face 
uncertain fates in their homelands. The Committee urges the 
Department, in consultation with the Department of State and 
ORR, to develop policies and procedures to ensure the safe 
repatriation of these children to their home countries, 
including placement with their families or other sponsoring 
agencies.

                          DETENTION CONDITIONS

    The Committee is concerned with recent reports of possible 
deficiencies in the health care at some ICE detention 
facilities. The Committee directs ICE to report by January 16, 
2007, on all activities undertaken to ensure compliance with 
detention standards, including how ICE monitors compliance.

                         SEPARATION OF FAMILIES

    The Committee remains concerned about reports that children 
apprehended by DHS, some as young as nursing infants, continue 
to be separated from their parents. The Committee encourages 
ICE to work with reputable non-profit organizations to consider 
allowing family units to participate in the Intensive 
Supervision Appearance Program, where appropriate, or, if 
detention is necessary, to house these families together in 
non-penal, homelike environments until the conclusion of their 
immigration proceedings.

                       Federal Protective Service

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2006.......................      $487,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.....................       516,011,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       516,011,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2006...................       +29,011,000
    Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2007.................             - - -
                                MISSION

    The Federal Protective Service (FPS) is responsible for the 
protection of federally owned and leased buildings, property, 
and personnel, in particular in federal public buildings and 
other areas under the charge and control of the General 
Services Administration (GSA). 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 jointly by the Department 
of Homeland Security and the GSA. This authority can also be 
extended, by agreement, to any area with a significant federal 
interest. Funding for the FPS is provided through a security 
fee charged to all building tenants in FPS protected buildings. 
FPS has major law enforcement initiatives, including: 
Protection Services to all Federal facilities throughout the 
United States and its territories; and Special Programs for 
hazardous material detections and response, including Weapons 
of Mass Destruction (WMD) detection, and explosive detection 
canine programs. The FPS mission focuses on reducing 
vulnerability of federal facilities to criminal and terrorist 
threats, while ensuring that public facilities are safe and 
secure.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $516,011,000, the same as the 
President's request and $29,011,000 above the amounts provided 
in fiscal year 2006.

                          FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

    The Committee is aware that, in light of the transition of 
FPS from the General Services Administration (GSA) to ICE, 
elements of weakness in payroll, procurement and financial 
controls became apparent. Symptomatic of this were many cases 
of delays in recording invoices and paying for security guard 
services. As a result, ICE has been devoting significant 
resources and staff to analyzing and auditing FPS, to ensure 
that FPS financial management is effective, beyond reproach, 
and not adversely affecting FPS missions. In addition to 
establishing an independent capacity to manage and account for 
its finances, FPS is undergoing reorganization from the GSA 
regional structure to a four-region structure, with attendant 
changes in financial offices. ICE is directed to keep the 
Committee fully informed of progress in stabilizing FPS 
procurement and accounting systems.

                        Automation Modernization

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2006.......................       $39,749,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.....................             - - -
Recommended in the bill...............................             - - -
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2006...................       -39,749,000
    Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2007.................             - - -
                                MISSION

    The Automation Infrastructure Modernization Account funds 
major information technology (IT) projects for U.S. Immigration 
and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends no funding for Automation 
Modernization as requested by the President and $39,749,000 
below the amount provided in fiscal year 2006. While the 
Committee does not provide funding for this program, it 
recognizes ICE's considerable need to modernize its IT assets. 
However, the Administration has not been able to produce 
expenditure plans that will allow the program to obligate 
appropriated resources in a timely manner. The Committee urges 
the Administration to expedite review of any future expenditure 
plans.

                              Construction

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2006.......................       $26,281,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.....................        26,281,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        26,281,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2006...................             - - -
    Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2007.................             - - -
                                MISSION

    The Construction account funds the planning, design, 
construction, equipment and maintenance for ICE-owned buildings 
and facilities.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $26,281,000 for Construction, as 
requested by the President and the same level as appropriated 
in fiscal year 2006.

                 Transportation Security Administration

                           Aviation Security

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2006.......................    $4,561,312,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.....................     4,654,884,000
Recommended in the bill...............................     4,704,414,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2006...................      +143,102,000
    Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2007.................       +49,530,000
                                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 $4,704,414,000 for Aviation 
Security, $49,530,000 above the President's request and 
$143,102,000 above amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. In 
addition to the amounts appropriated, a mandatory appropriation 
of $250,000,000 is available 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..............     $3,685,866,000     $3,740,866,000
Aviation security direction and           969,018,000        963,548,000
 enforcement......................
Aviation security capital fund\1\.        250,000,000        250,000,000
                                   -------------------------------------
    Subtotal, aviation security...     $4,654,884,000    $4,704,414,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Aviation Security Capital Fund is a non-add because it is not
  directly appropriated and is paid for entirely from user fees.

                         AVIATION SECURITY FEES

    In total, the Committee has assumed the collection of 
$2,420,000,000 in aviation security user fees in addition to 
the $250,000,000 in aviation security user fees that are 
deposited in the Aviation Security Capital Fund. The Committee 
assumes that, of this total, $1,874,000,000 shall be collected 
from aviation passengers and $546,000,000 shall be collected 
from airlines. The airline amount assumes the collection of 
retroactive fees for fiscal years 2005 and 2006, following the 
release of the Government Accountability Office's audit on this 
subject. Unless a rulemaking is issued that changes the current 
air carrier billings, the Committee assumes that $448,000,000 
will be collected in 2007 and future fiscal years. The 
Committee cannot support the budget request to increase 
passenger security fees from a two-tiered to a flat fee of 
$5.00. While the fee increase was proposed as a General 
Provision in the President's fiscal year 2007 appropriations 
request, amending existing aviation security law falls under 
the jurisdiction of the House Homeland Security Committee. 
Until the authorizing Committee passes legislation to enact 
this fee increase, this Committee is unwilling to adopt this 
budget proposal. In order to make up for the shortfall in the 
President's budget brought upon by this untenable fee proposal, 
the Committee has reduced or deleted key funding proposals 
throughout the Department, including funding within the Office 
of the Assistant Secretary, as discussed throughout this 
report.

                          SCREENING OPERATIONS

    The Committee recommends $3,740,866,000 for passenger and 
baggage screening operations, $55,000,000 above the President's 
request and $171,483,000 above amounts provided in fiscal year 
2006. While TSA refers to the screener workforce as 
``Transportation Security Officers'', for the purpose of this 
bill and report, these personnel are referred to as ``passenger 
and baggage screeners''. A comparison of the budget estimate to 
the Committee recommended level by budget activity is as 
follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget estimate      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Screener Workforce:
    Privatized screening..........       $148,600,000       $148,600,000
    Passenger and baggage               2,470,200,000      2,470,200,000
     screeners, personnel,
     compensation and benefits....
                                   -------------------------------------
        Subtotal, screener              2,618,800,000      2,618,800,000
         workforce................
Screening training and other......        244,466,000        244,466,000
Human resource services...........        207,234,000        207,234,000
Checkpoint support................        173,366,000        173,366,000
EDS/ETD Systems:
    EDS purchase..................         91,000,000        136,000,000
    EDS installation..............         94,000,000         94,000,000
    EDS/ETD maintenance...........        234,000,000        234,000,000
    EDS/ETD refurbishment.........              - - -         10,000,000
    Operation integration.........         23,000,000         23,000,000
                                   -------------------------------------
        Subtotal, EDS/ETD systems.        442,000,000        497,000,000
                                   =====================================
            Total, screening           $3,685,866,000     $3,740,866,000
             operations...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PRIVATIZED SCREENING

    The Committee recommends $148,600,000 for privatized 
screening, the same level as requested and $10,343,000 above 
the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. The Committee 
continues to be surprised that only six airports have opted to 
use non-federal screeners. The Committee strongly encourages 
TSA to look at innovative ways that airports may employ private 
screeners, for example in hybrid situations to screen air cargo 
or to backfill at airports that may be experiencing significant 
attrition with their federal screeners. If additional airports 
are not interested in privatization, either fully or partially, 
or airports currently participating in the privatized screening 
program decide to begin using federal screeners during the 
fiscal year, TSA is directed to notify the Committees on 
Appropriations ten days prior to these changes occurring. After 
that time period has expired, TSA shall adjust its program, 
project, and activity line to account for changes in privatized 
screening contracts and screener personnel, compensation, and 
benefits to reflect the changing status of these contracts.

                PASSENGER AND CHECKED BAGGAGE SCREENERS

    The Committee recommends $2,470,200,000 for passenger and 
checked baggage screeners, the same level as requested and 
$100,583,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006.
    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 2007, the 
same provision that has been included since 2004. The Committee 
is pleased that the President's request supports a maximum of 
45,000 screeners. However, the Committee continues to believe 
that, without this language, TSA may increase their dependence 
on people for screening instead of procuring and deploying more 
advanced technologies that can screen faster and more 
accurately for weapons and explosives. This cap is retained, in 
part, to ensure TSA accelerates installation of additional 
explosive detection systems (EDS) in line or at the ticket 
counters and deployment of the latest technologies at passenger 
screening checkpoints. This language permits the agency to 
realign its workforce as necessary and provides the agency with 
the flexibility to hire screeners during the fiscal year at 
those airports where additional or replacement screeners are 
necessary to maintain aviation security and customer service.

                  DECENTRALIZATION OF SCREENER HIRING

    The Committee applauds TSA's efforts to decentralize the 
screener hiring process but has heard that this hiring 
continues to be encumbered due to the fact that funding has not 
been decentralized. The Committee directs TSA to report on how 
decentralized screener hiring is being instituted in light of 
this discrepancy by January 16, 2007.

                          SCREENING WAIT TIMES

    The Committee is concerned that screening wait times vary 
disproportionately by airport. The Committee directs TSA to 
review screening wait times over the past three years to 
identify airports with wait times consistently above average. 
This study should be provided to the Committee with the fiscal 
year 2008 budget request.

                           CHECKPOINT SUPPORT

    The Committee recommends $173,366,000 for checkpoint 
support, the same amount as requested and $10,016,000 above 
amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. Because of the growth in 
airline traffic and the emergence of new technologies at 
checkpoints that can better identify explosives and concealed 
weapons, the Committee strongly endorses TSA's plan to purchase 
and field test a variety of emerging technologies such as 
automated EDS for carry-on bags; automated explosive spot 
samplers; whole body imagers; and cast/prosthetic scanners. To 
date, TSA has installed 70 explosive trace portals at 27 
airports and plans to install next-generation checkpoint 
technologies, such as explosive spot samplers and whole body 
imagers, later in fiscal year 2006. The Committee encourages 
TSA to expand the use of these technologies to the highest risk 
airports.
    Of the total amount appropriated, $40,000,000 is provided 
for maintenance of existing checkpoint equipment, as requested. 
For fiscal year 2008, the Committee directs TSA to combine all 
maintenance expenses (checkpoint and EDS) into one program, 
project and activity line providing a complete picture of all 
maintenance costs for equipment deployed throughout our 
nation's airports.

                             EDS PURCHASES

    The Committee recommends $136,000,000 for EDS purchases, 
$45,000,000 above the President's budget request and 
$37,250,000 below the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. 
Within the funds provided, the Committee directs that not less 
than $56,600,000 be used to procure next-generation in-line and 
stand alone EDS systems to replace explosive trace detection 
machines (ETDs). In-line EDS is not only more effective than 
ETDs, it is considerably less costly to operate. Both TSA and 
the GAO have reported that in-line baggage screening could 
reduce the Administration's dependence on TSA screeners by 50 
to 78 percent. Consistent with TSA's strategic plan, the 
Committee directs that none of this funding shall be used to 
procure ETDs unless they are necessary for secondary screening 
of checked baggage or to replace an aging ETD system in those 
airports that are primarily dependent on ETD technology.

                           EDS INSTALLATIONS

    In addition to the statutory allocation of $250,000,000 for 
the Aviation Security Capital Fund, the Committee recommends 
$94,000,000 for EDS installations, the same level as requested 
and $49,450,000 above the amounts provided in 2006. As 
requested in the President's budget, this funding will fully 
support the five airports that have Letters of Intent (LOIs) 
through fiscal year 2007 (Atlanta, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, 
Seattle and Phoenix), totaling $187,822,333. TSA has fulfilled 
the remaining three LOIs with fiscal year 2006 funding. The 
remainder of the appropriation ($156,177,667) is available to 
non-LOI airports to install next generation technologies as 
well as modify their checked baggage systems to reduce false 
alarm rates, increase the amount of baggage screened, reduce 
the dependence on federal screeners, improve foot traffic in 
airport lobbies, and to ensure that airports remain 100 percent 
compliant with federal requirements. TSA has informed the 
Committee that, of this total, $131,400,000 is for the 
installation of next-generation systems. The Committee directs 
that no funding should be used for new ETD installations unless 
they are necessary for secondary screening of checked baggage. 
Instead, TSA should expedite the installation of in-line, 
reduced size, or stand alone EDS machines to replace ETD 
equipment now used for primary screening at airports where 
practicable.

                           EDS REFURBISHMENT

    Most of the EDS machines currently at our nation's airports 
were deployed in 2002 and 2003 and will need to be replaced or 
refurbished shortly. TSA has informed the Committee that EDS 
equipment is estimated to have a seven-year life cycle before 
requiring upgrades and/or refurbishment, giving the systems 
another four years of useful life. Total refurbishment costs 
may be as high as $5 billion over a 25-year period, but it is 
half the cost of procuring new systems. Additionally, such a 
refurbishment program would result in better detection, higher 
bag throughput and require substantially fewer screeners to 
operate.
    The Committee recommends $10,000,000 to begin EDS 
refurbishment of stand-alone units by upgrading them with the 
latest detection and throughput capabilities and reinstituting 
manufacturer warranties covering replacement parts, future 
upgrades and maintenance. The Committee understands that these 
units could be redeployed to in-line configuration at large 
airports or to replace existing trace machines at medium/small 
airports. Because of the escalating maintenance costs for EDS 
machines once they are out of warranty, the Committee strongly 
encourages TSA to refurbish only those machines that 
manufacturers are willing to place back under warranty.

                          EDS/ETD MAINTENANCE

    The Committee has had longstanding concerns about the 
increasing costs for EDS/ETD maintenance. Costs have risen from 
$75,000,000 in 2003 to $200,000,000 in 2006. From 2002-2005, 
TSA has obligated $470,000,000 on EDS/ETD maintenance and 
expects to obligate an additional $199,000,000 in 2006. In 
2004, the DHS Inspector General completed an audit on the EDS/
ETD maintenance contract and found that: (1) TSA did not 
``follow sound contracting practices'' in administering this 
program and (2) TSA paid provisional award fees totaling 
$44,000,000 without any evaluation of the contractor's 
performance. The IG recommended that TSA recover any excess 
award fees. To date, none has been collected but TSA plans to 
use any cost recoveries to purchase and install additional EDS 
machines. Because of concerns with the contractor and 
skyrocketing costs, in mid-2005, TSA moved to a firm fixed 
priced contract with a new vendor instead of cost reimbursement 
contracts. In May, 2006, GAO reported on this topic and found: 
(1) unresolved issues still remain with the previous EDS/ETD 
contractor; (2) TSA does not determine the reliability and 
validity of EDS maintenance data submitted by the contractors 
for payment; (3) TSA does not ensure that contractors perform 
scheduled preventive maintenance; and (4) TSA needs to provide 
stronger oversight to ensure contract costs are controlled in 
the future. GAO recommended that TSA should complete lifecycle 
cost models for all EDS and ETD machines and revise its 
policies and procedures to provide reasonable assurance that 
contractor performance data are recorded and reported in 
accordance with TSA contractual requirements. The Committee 
fully supports these recommendations and directs TSA to adopt 
them expeditiously. In the case of excess award fees, TSA 
should report to the House Appropriations Committee on any 
action it has taken to collect excessive award fees, how much 
have been received to date, and specific plans to obligate 
these collections.

                    ALTERNATIVE SCREENING PROCEDURES

    The Committee is concerned about TSA's occasional reliance 
on alternative screening procedures for checked baggage, which 
can be very time consuming and screener intensive. GAO recently 
reviewed TSA's management of checked baggage screening 
procedures and cited concerns with alternative procedures. For 
example, GAO noted that, while TSA has conducted national 
covert testing of standard screening procedures for checked 
baggage screening technologies and screener performance, TSA 
does not conduct covert testing specifically focused on 
alternative screening procedures. By not collecting data that 
could help determine how effective these alternative screening 
procedures are in an operational setting, TSA cannot learn how 
to improve security effectiveness of these procedures. 
Similarly, GAO found that while TSA has taken steps to reduce 
the use of alternative screening procedures at airports, it has 
not created targets to minimize the use of these procedures. 
The Committee directs TSA to (1) develop performance measures 
and performance targets for the use of alternative screening 
procedures; (2) track the use of alternative screening 
procedures at airports; (3) assess the effectiveness of these 
measures; (4) conduct covert testing at airports that use 
alternative screening procedures; and (5) develop a plan to 
stop alternative screening procedures at airports as soon as 
practicable. TSA shall report to the House Committee on 
Appropriations and the House Committee on Homeland Security by 
January 16, 2007, on implementation of these requirements. The 
Committee notes that, in 2005, GAO reported that additional EDS 
systems integrated into the airport's baggage handling system 
could reduce, by 78 percent, the number of baggage screeners 
and supervisors needed to screen checked baggage at airports 
with these systems. After in-line EDS systems are installed and 
staffing reductions are achieved, redistributing the screener 
positions to other airports with staffing shortages could also 
reduce the need to use alternative screening procedures at 
these airports.

              AVIATION SECURITY DIRECTION AND ENFORCEMENT

    The Committee recommends $963,548,000 for aviation security 
direction and enforcement, $5,470,000 less than requested and 
$28,381,000 less than amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. A 
comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee recommended 
level by budget activity is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget estimate      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aviation, regulation and other           $217,516,000       $217,516,000
 enforcement......................
Airport management, information           666,032,000        666,032,000
 technology and support...........
Federal flight deck officer and            30,470,000         25,000,000
 flight crew training.............
Air cargo.........................         55,000,000         55,000,000
                                   -------------------------------------
    Subtotal, aviation security          $969,018,000       $963,548,000
     direction and enforcement....
------------------------------------------------------------------------

         FEDERAL FLIGHT DECK OFFICERS AND FLIGHT CREW TRAINING

    The Committee recommends $25,000,000 for federal flight 
deck officers and flight crew training, $5,470,000 less than 
requested and $5,195,000 below amounts provided in fiscal year 
2006. This reduction was made due to high unobligated balances 
in this program.

                               AIR CARGO

    The Committee recommends $55,000,000 for air cargo, the 
same level as requested and $550,000 above the amounts provided 
in fiscal year 2006. The Committee continues to be strongly 
committed to increasing the amount of air cargo that is 
screened before it is carried on passenger and all-cargo 
aircraft as well as making other regulatory changes to 
strengthen the air cargo security program. However, TSA 
continues to drag its feet in this area. While the Committee is 
pleased that the percentage of cargo screened has increased 
substantially, TSA is utilizing airport screeners to screen air 
cargo in a number of locations, and TSA has shut down some 
indirect air carriers that are not complying with federal 
security requirements; the Committee is extremely disappointed 
that TSA has not finalized a rule to strengthen cargo security 
as required by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention 
Act. This regulation is almost two years behind schedule and 
may leave some important aspects of air cargo security 
unaddressed. Further, TSA continues to carry forward large 
unobligated balances in this program. For example, TSA failed 
to obligate 27 percent of the fiscal year 2005 air cargo 
appropriation. Additionally, the Department has been extremely 
slow to award the air cargo pilot projects funded in fiscal 
year 2006. Of the three projects, only one has been agreed to 
by the Science and Technology Directorate and TSA; the 
remaining two pilots are still being discussed. Finally, TSA 
has failed to provide a variety of air cargo reports that were 
specified in bill language in fiscal year 2006. Specifically, 
the Committee has not yet received a monthly report that 
identifies, by airport, the amount of cargo carried on 
passenger aircraft that has been screened by TSA; a report on 
actions taken to increase the level of air cargo screened at 
each airport beyond what was mandated under Public Law 108-334; 
and a biweekly report on any airports that did not comply with 
air cargo screening requirements identified in Public Law 108-
334. The Committee has learned of 55 instances of air cargo 
non-compliance so far in this fiscal year. The Committee has 
modified bill language to require quarterly reporting of air 
cargo inspection statistics. This quarterly report shall 
include the total number of cargo packages (including exempt 
items) and the number inspected by TSA, canines, and the air 
carrier, by airport and air carrier.
    In October 2005, GAO reported on federal action needed to 
strengthen domestic air cargo security (GAO-06-76). They found 
that while TSA has established a centralized database on people 
and businesses that routinely ship air cargo, there were 
problems with the reliability of the information and how TSA is 
using the information to identify shippers who may pose a risk. 
Also, GAO reported that while TSA has established requirements 
for air cargo to be randomly inspected, some cargo is exempt 
from these inspections. TSA did not have a good estimate of how 
much air cargo is exempt from inspections and whether air 
carriers are taking actions to make air cargo fit into these 
exempt categories. GAO recommended that TSA reexamine the 
existing air cargo inspection exemptions; ensure data being 
used in identifying elevated risk cargo is complete, accurate 
or current; define, analyze and gather information on air cargo 
security breaches; assess the effectiveness of compliance 
enforcement actions; and develop measures to gauge air carrier 
and indirect air carrier compliance. TSA agreed with GAO's 
recommendations. Because TSA action on each of these 
recommendations is critical to enhancing aviation security, the 
Committee has included bill language requiring that TSA submit 
a detailed action plan, with milestones and dates, for 
addressing these recommendations to the Committee before 
obligating any air cargo security funding, other than that for 
air cargo inspectors, screeners, and canines. The Committee 
directs that this action plan also be submitted to the House 
Committee on Homeland Security. The Committee also strongly 
encourages TSA to use some of its unobligated balances or 
fiscal year 2007 appropriation to hire additional permanent 
staff to enhance their internal air cargo security analytic 
capabilities.
    Because of these failures, the Committee has reduced 
funding for Headquarters Administration--specifically the 
offices of the Assistant Secretary and Chief Counsel--by 
$2,000,000. The Committee urges TSA to focus more attention on 
the security issues surrounding air cargo.

                            GENERAL AVIATION

    The Committee continues to support the Airport Watch 
program and expects TSA to continue funding the toll free 
number to reinforce security at the nation's 5,400 public use 
general aviation airports. The Committee recommends $275,000 
for this program, the same level as provided in fiscal year 
2006.

                    Surface Transportation Security

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2006.......................       $35,640,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.....................        37,200,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        37,200,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2006...................        +1,560,000
    Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2007.................             - - -
                                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 regulations to ensure the 
protection of the transportation system.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $37,200,000 for Surface 
Transportation Security, the same as the President's request 
and $1,560,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. 
Within this total, $24,000,000 is for surface transportation 
staffing and operations and $13,200,000 is for rail security 
inspectors and canines.

                    RAIL AND TRANSIT SECURITY PILOTS

    The Committee is concerned that TSA did not obligate 
$5,265,000--22 percent--of its fiscal year 2005 appropriation 
for surface transportation staffing and operations. While the 
Committee recognizes that there have been vacancies in this 
office, this funding may also be used for pilot projects and 
studies. As such, the Committee recommends that this carryover 
funding be used to test, procure and deploy qualified screening 
systems in mass transit and rail terminals in densely populated 
and heavily transited metropolitan areas in our nation. The 
Committee recommends a variety of screening systems be pilot 
tested, including next-generation explosive detection machines, 
to screen passengers and their baggage. This equipment should 
have significant detection capabilities, high throughput, and a 
low false alarm rate. Limited testing was done by TSA in 2004 
and the Science and Technology Directorate began testing a 
variety of technologies in early 2006. The Committee supports 
continuing these pilots in order to reduce vulnerabilities to 
security breaches in these modes of transportation.

           Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2006.......................       $74,246,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.....................        54,700,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        74,700,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2006...................          +454,000
    Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2007.................       +20,000,000
                                MISSION

    The Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing 
mission is to reduce the probability of a successful terrorist 
or other criminal attack to the transportation system through 
application of threat assessment methodologies that are 
intended to identify known or suspected terrorist threats 
working or seeking access to the Nation's transportation 
system. This appropriation consolidates the management of all 
TSA vetting and credentialing programs into one office and 
includes the following screening programs: Secure Flight, Crew 
Vetting, Transportation Worker Identification Credential, 
Registered Traveler, Hazardous Materials, and Alien Flight 
School.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a direct appropriation of 
$74,700,000 for Transportation Threat Assessment and 
Credentialing, $20,000,000 above the President's request and 
$454,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. In 
addition, the Committee anticipates TSA will collect 
$76,101,000 in fees. A comparison of the budget estimate to the 
Committee recommended level by budget activity is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget estimate      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Appropriation:
    Secure flight.................        $40,000,000        $40,000,000
    Crew vetting..................         14,700,000         14,700,000
    Transportation worker                       - - -         20,000,000
     identification credential....
                                   -------------------------------------
        Subtotal, direct                   54,700,000         74,700,000
         appropriations...........
Fee Collections:
    Registered traveler...........         35,101,000         35,101,000
    Transportation worker                  20,000,000         20,000,000
     identification credential....
    Hazardous materials...........         19,000,000         19,000,000
    Alien flight school (transfer           2,000,000          2,000,000
     from DOJ)....................
                                   -------------------------------------
        Subtotal, fee collections.        $76,101,000        $76,101,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

            TRANSPORTATION WORKER IDENTIFICATION CREDENTIAL

    As part of the Committee's port, container, and cargo 
security initiative, the Committee recommends a direct 
appropriation of $20,000,000 for the Transportation Worker 
Identification Credential (TWIC) in addition to the $20,000,000 
that the President expects will be collected from user fees. 
This funding is necessary to accelerate the implementation of 
the TWIC program in the maritime environment. Funding may be 
used for enrollment start-up, card production infrastructure, 
and final development costs of the Identity Management System, 
which are not permissible under user fee collections. The 
Committee is pleased that the Department plans to begin 
implementing TWIC as soon as possible. This credentialing 
program strengthens the Department's ability to detect threats 
to our nation's ports by only permitting authorized employees 
access to our ports and the containers and cargo within the 
port.
    As in past years, 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 TWIC program as they relate 
to operational and physical security of the product.

                             SECURE FLIGHT

    The Committee recommends $40,000,000 for the Secure Flight 
program, the same as the President's request and $16,129,000 
below the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. While the 
Committee remains supportive of the Secure Flight concept, 
longstanding concerns still exist. In fact, TSA is in the 
process of reviewing this program for privacy and security 
issues, as well as rebaselining cost and schedule data. These 
efforts have once again delayed this program.
    The Committee is concerned that TSA has made little 
progress in ensuring the security of its Secure Flight 
passenger screening program and, because of this, all passenger 
names are checked only against the No Fly and Selectee lists, 
not the full terrorist watch list. However, the Committee is 
cognizant that these two lists are derived from the full 
terrorist watch list. If the Administration believes that a 
security vulnerability exists because the full watch list is 
not checked, then TSA is directed to provide a detailed program 
plan describing key milestones and a schedule for implementing 
this full watch list check through the Secure Flight program to 
the House Appropriations Committee no later than January 16, 
2007.
    The Committee continues a general provision (Sec. 513) that 
directs the Government Accountability Office to continue to 
evaluate DHS and TSA actions to meet the ten elements listed in 
section 522 of Public Law 108-334. This provision also 
prohibits the use of commercial data.

                          REGISTERED TRAVELER

    The Committee directs the Secretary to ensure that the 
privacy of those who sign up for Registered Traveler is 
protected. As part of Registered Traveler, the Committee 
directs DHS to require that each applicant be provided 
information on how the personal information they provide in the 
application will be used and protected. In addition, TSA shall 
report to the Committee on Appropriations no later than January 
16, 2007 on: (1) how TSA plans to measure the success of the 
Registered Traveler pilot program, (2) the estimates of actual 
benefits derived to the participating passengers, (3) 
interoperability among the airports, (4) estimated program 
costs, and (5) plans for internal controls and audits of the 
program.

                    Transportation Security Support

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2006.......................      $505,378,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.....................       527,283,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       523,283,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2006...................       +17,905,000
    Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2007.................        -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 $523,283,000 for Transportation 
Security Support, $4,000,000 below the President's request and 
$17,905,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. As 
part of this increase, TSA plans to hire 30 new FTEs to improve 
the agency's procurement processes and internal controls. The 
Committee encourages the prompt hiring of these staff. TSA has 
had numerous procurement problems in the past years that may 
have been avoided with additional procurement and internal 
controls staff. A comparison of the budget estimate to the 
Committee recommended level by budget activity is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget estimate      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Headquarters administration.......       $296,191,000       $292,191,000
Information technology............        210,092,000        210,092,000
Intelligence......................         21,000,000         21,000,000
                                   -------------------------------------
    Subtotal, transportation             $527,283,000       $523,283,000
     security support.............
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      HEADQUARTERS ADMINISTRATION

    The Committee recommends $292,191,000 for headquarters 
administration, $4,000,000 below the President's request and 
$15,594,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. Of 
this reduction, $2,000,000 has been specifically applied to 
both the Office of the Assistant Secretary and the Office of 
the Chief Counsel due to failures in the air cargo program and 
because of the untenable budget request to raise aviation 
security fees, as previously discussed.

      EXPLOSIVE DETECTION EQUIPMENT SPENDING AND DEPLOYMENT PLANS

    Consistent with actions taken last year, the Committee has 
included bill language that withholds $5,000,000 from 
obligation until TSA provides the Committee with a detailed 
spending and deployment plan for explosive detection equipment. 
This plan shall be submitted no later than 60 days after 
enactment of this Act and shall detail: (1) expenditures for 
explosive detection procurement and installation on an airport-
by-airport basis for fiscal year 2007 that clearly delineates 
funding for next generation systems; and (2) a plan for EDS 
refurbishment, including a comparison of refurbishment costs 
versus procuring a new system, what enhancements were made, and 
where these refurbished systems will be used. The Committee 
does not believe that ETD equipment should be refurbished.

                          Federal Air Marshals

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2006.......................      $679,338,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.....................       699,294,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       699,294,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2006...................       +19,956,000
    Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2007.................             - - -
                                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 $699,294,000 for the Federal Air 
Marshals (FAMs), the same as the President's request and 
$19,956,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. Of 
this total, $628,494,000 is for management and administration 
and $70,800,000 is for travel and training. The Committee 
anticipates that this funding level will maintain mission 
coverage on both domestic and international flights as well as 
provide FAMs with the flexibility to begin conducting law 
enforcement operations in some of the nation's larger airports.

                 MULTI-MODAL SECURITY ENHANCEMENT TEAMS

    The Committee is concerned about TSA's proposal to use FAMs 
in multi-modal security enhancement teams that would look to 
counter potential criminal or terrorist activities throughout 
the transportation sector. Led by a supervisory FAM, teams 
would consist of FAMs, transportation security inspectors, 
aviation security officers, explosive canine teams, and local 
law enforcement officers. They would patrol transportation 
properties (rail, ports, and ferries) to make sure that they 
are implementing security directives correctly. These teams 
would also be deployed during special events or when 
intelligence or specific threats necessitate it. According to 
TSA, these teams are designed to supplement state or local law 
enforcement agencies. This activity goes well beyond what is 
authorized for FAMs, which ``is to protect passenger flights 
deemed a high security threat''. While the Committee is 
supportive of expanding the roles and responsibilities of the 
air marshals in airports, as necessary, it cannot support a 
broader expansion of the FAMs mission to work in other modes of 
transportation. The Committee directs TSA to cease using FAMs 
in multi-modal security enhancement teams outside the aviation 
environment, including any pilot tests.

                      AIR-TO-GROUND COMMUNICATIONS

    The Committee remains supportive of the air-to-ground 
communications program being developed by FAMs in conjunction 
with the private industry and Federal Aviation Administration. 
However, there have been numerous delays in this program, in 
part due to delays by the Federal Communications Commission to 
auction frequency spectrum. Until the spectrum sale occurs and 
FAMs completes a one-year pilot test of proposed systems, the 
Committee cannot provide additional funding above the base for 
this activity. However, there is $10,000,000 in carryover funds 
from prior appropriations that will sustain this program 
through fiscal year 2007.

                       United States Coast Guard

                           OPERATING EXPENSES
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 \1\...................    $5,293,771,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.....................     5,518,843,000
Recommended in the bill...............................     5,481,643,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2006...................      +187,872,000
    Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2007.................      -37,200,000\1\ Includes supplemental appropriations and rescissions from Public Law
  109-148.

                                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 $340,000,000 for national security activities, 
the Committee recommends a total appropriation of 
$5,481,643,000 for Operating Expenses. The recommended funding 
level is $37,200,000 below the President's request and 
$187,872,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. A 
comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee recommended 
level by budget activity is as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Budget estimate            Recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military pay and allowance:
    Military pay and allowance................................           $2,342,434,000           $2,342,434,000
    Military health care......................................              337,324,000              337,324,000
    Permanent change of station...............................              108,518,000              108,518,000
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
        Subtotal, military pay and allowance..................            2,788,276,000            2,788,276,000Civilian pay and benefits.....................................              569,434,000              569,434,000Training and recruiting:
    Training and education....................................               83,556,000               83,556,000
    Recruitment...............................................               97,320,000               97,320,000
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
        Subtotal, training and recruiting.....................              180,876,000              180,876,000Operating fund and unit level maintenance:
    Atlantic Command..........................................              188,982,000              188,982,000
    Pacific Command...........................................              196,449,000              196,449,000
    1st District..............................................               50,388,000               50,388,000
    7th District..............................................               63,771,000               63,771,000
    8th District..............................................               39,985,000               39,985,000
    9th District..............................................               28,756,000               28,756,000
    13th District.............................................               20,569,000               20,569,000
    14th District.............................................               15,754,000               15,754,000
    17th District.............................................               25,604,000               25,604,000
    Headquarters directorates.................................              305,453,000              253,253,000
    Headquarters managed units................................              125,104,000              125,104,000
    Other activities..........................................                  759,000                  759,000
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
        Subtotal, operating funds and unit level maintenance..            1,061,574,000            1,009,374,000Centrally managed accounts....................................              207,954,000              207,954,000Immediate and depot level maintenance:
    Aeronautical maintenance..................................              265,979,000              265,979,000
    Electronic maintenance....................................              111,736,000              111,736,000
    Civil/ocean engineering and shore facilities maintenance..              176,394,000              176,394,000
    Vessel maintenance........................................              156,620,000              156,620,000
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
        Subtotal, immediate and depot level maintenance.......              710,729,000              710,729,000Port security.................................................                    - - -               15,000,000
                                                               =================================================
            Total, operating expenses.........................            5,518,843,000            5,481,643,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      NEW COAST GUARD HEADQUARTERS

    The Committee has denied $50,200,000 requested in the 
President's budget to relocate the Coast Guard headquarters to 
St. Elizabeth's campus in Washington, D.C. According to DHS, 
this campus may house all or most of the Department; however, a 
plan to finalize this major move has not been completed. Until 
DHS has determined how many agencies it plans to move to the 
St. Elizabeth's campus, it is premature to relocate the Coast 
Guard's headquarters, as discussed previously in this report 
under Departmental Management and Operations.

                             PORT SECURITY

    In fiscal year 2005, the Coast Guard obligated 
approximately $115,000,000 implementing the Maritime 
Transportation Security Act (MTSA). Approximately 3,000 
facilities and 11,000 vessels are required to have security 
plans under MTSA. To date, the Coast Guard has inspected all of 
the facilities and more than half of the vessels, with all 
vessels to be inspected by the end of 2006. Since 2004, the 
Coast Guard has imposed 143 major control actions and found 339 
security deficiencies on foreign vessels as a result of its 
security examinations. Many of these deficiencies involved poor 
access controls. The Coast Guard has also begun visiting 
international ports to assess security. Half of the countries 
that conduct maritime trade with the United States will be 
visited by the end of 2006.
    The Committee recommends $15,000,000 for port security 
inspections, $15,000,000 above the President's budget request. 
Funding shall be allocated to two activities. First, this 
funding shall be used to double the amount of foreign port 
assessments, as required by MTSA. The Committee anticipates 
that, with these additional funds, the Coast Guard will be able 
to reduce the amount of time it will take to complete all 
foreign port assessments by half. Second, the funding will 
permit the Coast Guard to conduct unannounced inspections of 
domestic port facilities to ensure that they are maintaining 
agreed upon security levels. This funding is provided to 
strengthen the Department's overall port, container, and cargo 
security initiatives as discussed previously under the Office 
of the Secretary and Executive Management.
    Currently, the Coast Guard does not gather complete 
ownership information as part of its facility and vessel 
security plans. The Committee directs the Coast Guard to amend 
these plans so that it may gather ownership information in 
addition to information about the immediate entity running the 
facility or vessel.

                       HEADQUARTERS DIRECTORATES

    The Committee recommends $253,253,000 for headquarters 
directorates, $52,200,000 below the President's request and 
$1,722,000 below amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. As 
discussed previously, the Committee has reduced funding by 
$50,200,000 for the relocation to St. Elizabeth's campus. An 
additional $2,000,000 reduction has been applied because the 
President's budget assumed an increase in aviation passenger 
fees in order to fund this program at the requested levels. 
This fee is not within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
Appropriations and the Committee has adjusted its fiscal year 
2007 recommendation accordingly.

                       MERCHANT MARINER LICENSING

    The Committee understands the Coast Guard has a new rule 
under development to increase the number of locations where 
merchant mariner applicants may appear for fingerprinting and 
identification. The Committee supports this effort and directs 
the Coast Guard to complete it expeditiously.

                     OFFICE OF GREAT LAKES PILOTAGE

    The Committee has received conflicting information as to 
whether or not the Coast Guard intends to reduce support for 
the Office of Great Lakes Pilotage. While a reduction is not 
shown in the fiscal year 2007 budget request, recent 
documentation contradicts the budget. The Committee directs the 
Coast Guard to maintain funding for this office at the 2006 
level.

                                LORAN C

    The Coast Guard has proposed terminating the LORAN C 
program in the President's budget request because this system 
is no longer necessary for a secondary means of navigation. The 
Committee understands that a decision to terminate LORAN C is 
dependent upon agreement by the Department of Transportation, 
which has not yet occurred. The Committee assumes the 
continuation of LORAN C since this decision has not been fully 
coordinated within the Executive Branch.

           INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR AT THE COAST GUARD ACADEMY

    The Committee is aware that the Coast Guard Academy 
announced in March that it would take immediate action to 
improve the Adademy's response to sexual harassment claims made 
by cadets. Specifically, Academy administrators stated that 
female counselors or officers would be involved in 
investigations requested by female cadets, the reporting 
process would be made easier for victims and cadet training 
about sexual harassment would be improved.
    The Committee appreciates these efforts, and believes that 
they are positive steps for the Coast Guard Academy, where 
women represent about 30 percent of cadets, compared to less 
than 20 percent at the Air Force and Naval Academies and about 
15 percent at West Point. However, the Committee requires 
assurances that these promised changes are being implemented. 
Therefore, the Committee directs the Government Accountability 
Office to conduct a study of the progress made by the Coast 
Guard Academy in response to sexual harassment claims, and to 
report its findings to the House Appropriations Committee and 
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee not later 
than 180 days after the enactment of this Act.

                Environmental Compliance and Restoration

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2006.......................       $11,880,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.....................        11,880,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        11,880,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2006...................             - - -
    Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2007.................             - - -
                                MISSION

    The Environmental Compliance and Restoration appropriation 
assists in bringing Coast Guard facilities into compliance with 
applicable federal, state and environmental regulations; 
conducting facilities response plans; developing pollution and 
hazardous waste minimization strategies; conducting 
environmental assessments; and conducting necessary program 
support. These funds permit the continuation of a service-wide 
program to correct environmental problems, such as major 
improvements of storage tanks containing petroleum and 
regulated substances. The program focuses mainly on Coast Guard 
facilities, but also includes third party sites where Coast 
Guard activities have contributed to environmental problems.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $11,880,000 for Environmental 
Compliance and Restoration, the same as the President's request 
and amounts provided in fiscal year 2006.

                            Reserve Training

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2006.......................      $117,810,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.....................       123,948,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       122,348,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2006...................        +4,538,000
    Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2007.................        -1,600,000
                                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 $122,348,000 for Reserve Training, 
$1,600,000 below the President's request and $4,538,000 above 
the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. Funding has been 
reduced due to lapsed appropriations in this account.

              Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 \1\...................    $1,204,882,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.....................     1,169,537,000
Recommended in the bill...............................     1,139,663,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2006...................       -65,219,000
    Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2007.................      -29,874,000\1\ Includes emergency supplemental funding of $74,500,000 from Public
  Law 109-148.

                                MISSION

    The Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements 
appropriation finances the acquisition of new capital assets, 
construction of new facilities, and physical improvements to 
existing facilities and assets. The appropriation covers Coast 
Guard-owned and operated vessels, aircraft, shore facilities, 
and other equipment such as computer systems, as well as the 
personnel needed to manage acquisition activities.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $1,139,663,000 for Acquisition, 
Construction, and Improvements, $29,874,000 below the 
President's request and $65,219,000 below amounts provided in 
fiscal year 2006. A comparison of the budget estimate to the 
Committee recommended level by budget activity is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget estimate      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vessels and critical                      $24,750,000        $24,750,000
 infrastructure: Response boat
 medium...........................
                                   -------------------------------------
    Subtotal, vessels and critical         24,750,000         24,750,000
     infrastructure...............Deepwater:
    Aircraft:
        Maritime patrol aircraft..         77,616,000         77,616,000
        VTOL unmanned aerial                4,950,000          4,950,000
         vehicle (VUAV)...........
        HH-60 conversion projects.         49,302,000         49,302,000
        HC-130H conversion/                53,955,000         53,955,000
         sustainment project......
        HH65 re-engining project..         32,373,000         32,373,000
        Armed helicopter equipment         25,740,000         25,740,000
        C-130J missionization.....          4,950,000          4,950,000
                                   -------------------------------------
            Subtotal, aircraft....        248,886,000        248,886,000    Surface ships:
        National security cutter..        417,780,000        417,780,000
        Fast response cutter......         41,580,000              - - -
        IDS patrol boat long range          1,188,000          1,188,000
         interceptor..............
        Medium endurance cutter            37,818,000         37,818,000
         sustainment..............
        Replacement patrol boat...              - - -         10,000,000
                                   -------------------------------------
            Subtotal, surface             498,366,000        466,786,000
             ships................    C4ISR.........................         60,786,000         60,786,000    Logistics.....................         42,273,000         32,062,000    Systems engineering and                35,145,000         35,145,000
     integration..................    Government program management.         48,975,000         48,975,000
                                   -------------------------------------
    Subtotal, Deepwater...........        934,431,000        892,640,000Other equipment:
    Automatic identification               11,238,000         11,238,000
     system.......................
    Rescue 21.....................         39,600,000         39,600,000
    HF recap......................          2,475,000          2,475,000
    National Capital region air            48,510,000         48,510,000
     defense......................
    Counter Terrorism Training              1,683,000              - - -
     Infrastructure shoot house...
                                   -------------------------------------
        Subtotal, other equipment.        103,506,000        101,823,000Shore facilities and aids to
 navigation:
    Survey and design, shore                2,600,000          2,600,000
     operational and support
     projects.....................
    Minor AC&I shore construction           2,850,000          1,450,000
     projects.....................
    Renovate USCGA Chase Hall               2,000,000          2,000,000
     barracks, phase I............
    Replace multi-purpose building-         1,000,000          1,000,000
     Group Long Island Sound......
    Construct breakwater-Station            1,100,000          1,100,000
     Neah Bay.....................
    Waterways aids to navigation..          3,000,000          3,000,000
    Cordova, Alaska housing.......          5,500,000          5,500,000
    ISC Seattle, Group Sector               2,600,000          2,600,000
     admin operations facility....
    Base Galveston, rebuild                 5,200,000          5,200,000
     station and waterfront.......
                                   -------------------------------------
        Subtotal, shore facilities         25,850,000         24,450,000
         and aids to navigation...Aircraft:
    HH-60 replacement.............              - - -         15,000,000
                                   -------------------------------------
        Subtotal, aircraft........                            15,000,000Personnel and related support:
    Direct personnel costs........         80,500,000         80,500,000
    AC&I core.....................            500,000            500,000
                                   -------------------------------------
        Subtotal, personnel and            81,000,000         81,000,000
         related support..........
                                   =====================================          Total...................      1,169,537,000      1,139,663,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT

    The Committee is very concerned about the Coast Guard's 
ability to manage complex, large-scale contracts. As evidenced 
by contracts for Rescue 21, HH-65 helicopter re-engining, and 
the Fast Response Cutter (FRC), the Coast Guard's executive 
leadership is consistently failing to manage its acquisitions 
and meet critical, operational requirements. In all three of 
these projects, the Coast Guard has moved forward with 
contracts before design, model testing, and integrated 
baselines were completed. This approach increases the risks 
associated with the projects, increases the likelihood of 
schedule slippages and cost overruns, and creates uncertainty 
with the design of the project. In the case of re-engining the 
HH-65 helicopter, the delivery schedule has continued to slip--
from December 2006 until mid-to-late 2007--and the cost of the 
project has almost doubled--from about $190,000,000 to 
$355,000,000. Rescue 21 has experienced repeated software 
problems, schedule slippages, and has grown in cost from 
$250,000,000 to $710,500,000, culminating in the Coast Guard 
having to issue a stop work order and then terminate the vessel 
subsystem contract. The FRC acquisition has continued to grow 
in costs and schedule delays while also failing to produce a 
cogent business case for use of a composite hull form. The 
Committee believes this trend is unacceptable and directs the 
Coast Guard to take appropriate actions to immediately improve 
its acquisition management in order to meet its present and 
future operational requirements.

                               DEEPWATER

    The Committee recommends $892,640,000 for Deepwater, 
$41,791,000 below the President's request and $31,129,000 below 
amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. Specific changes to the 
President's request are discussed below.
    The Committee directs the Government Accountability Office 
(GAO) to continue its oversight of the Deepwater program. GAO 
should focus on (1) the status of development and delivery of 
the major aviation and maritime assets; (2) maintenance, 
logistics and training; and (3) the Coast Guard's management of 
the ICGS contract. GAO should provide the Committee the results 
of its work annually and the first report should be delivered 
no later than April 2007.

                       FAST RESPONSE CUTTER (FRC)

    The Committee denies $41,580,000 for the production of the 
Fast Response Cutter (FRC) requested by the President. This 
program is experiencing substantial difficulties and the 
estimated delivery date of the first FRC has been pushed back 
at least three fiscal years (2010). Until ongoing problems are 
resolved, the Committee cannot continue to support a program 
that has so much risk of failure that it may be terminated or 
substantially revised.
    The FRC was slated to replace the 110-foot and 123-foot 
patrol boats. According to the revised Deepwater implementation 
plan, the Coast Guard planned to acquire 58 FRCs by 2027. The 
FRC was to be built from composite materials to increase 
performance through weight savings; increase operational 
availability and extend the time between required maintenance 
activities; and reduce total ownership costs. However, since 
January 2005, well before the revised Deepwater plan was 
finalized, the Coast Guard and independent contractors began 
outlining as many as 14 concerns with the FRC's hull form, 
potential speed, and propulsion systems. The Coast Guard 
appeared to ignore these concerns until October 2005. At that 
time, the Coast Guard slowed down the critical design review of 
the FRC, scheduled for December 2005 to March 2006. This design 
review has been further delayed to June 2006. On February 28, 
2006, the Coast Guard's Deepwater Program Office temporarily 
suspended the work on the FRC design because of high technical 
risks associated with the current design. On April 6, 2006, the 
Coast Guard issued a request for information to obtain data 
about the state of the market for proven patrol boat design. It 
appears that the Coast Guard may procure ``off-the-shelf'' 
patrol boats instead of the FRC or procure two types of patrol 
boats (FRC and traditional patrol boats) concurrently. The 
Committee is extremely concerned that the Coast Guard continues 
to flounder to find an effective solution to replace the 110-
foot patrol boats--the workhorse of the Coast Guard's maritime 
fleet. Until a decision has been reached about what will be 
procured, it is premature for the Committee to continue funding 
the production of the first FRC. Further, the Committee expects 
the Coast Guard to provide monthly briefings on the patrol boat 
replacement problem.
    The Coast Guard has $79,347,002 in unobligated balances 
available to the FRC and for service life extensions of the 
110-foot patrol boat. Bill language (Sec. 521) has been 
included that reprograms these unobligated balances to the 
acquisition of traditional patrol boats (what the Coast Guard 
is referring to as the ``parent craft'' in their recent request 
for information) so that the Coast Guard may continue to 
maintain patrol boat hours and meet operational requirements in 
the near-term. Also, funding may continue to be used for 
service life extensions of the 110-foot patrol boat. Procuring 
new patrol boats and completing service life extensions is even 
more critical now that the Navy has informed the Coast Guard 
that they are not willing to extend the current Memorandum of 
Agreement to permit the Coast Guard to continue operating the 
Navy's five 179-foot patrol boats past 2008. Without these 
assets, the Coast Guard will have to reduce patrol hours by 
12,500 (7 percent) per year, further exacerbating a mission 
hour deficit.

                        REPLACEMENT PATROL BOAT

    The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for the replacement 
patrol boat, $10,000,000 above the President's budget. This 
funding is the first installment to procure ``off-the-shelf'' 
patrol boats (known as the ``parent craft'') discussed in the 
April 6, 2006 request for information. Based on the current 
timeline, the Coast Guard plans to award this contract at the 
beginning of fiscal year 2007. This funding, coupled with the 
rescission of $79,347,002, should provide the Coast Guard with 
sufficient funding to maintain sufficient patrol boat hours.

                        UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES

    The Committee recommends $4,950,000 for unmanned aerial 
vehicles (UAV), the same level as requested and $34,650,000 
below amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. The Committee is 
aware of an in-flight mishap with the UAV. While this aircraft 
was not one that the Coast Guard owns or is funding, but 
instead is a developmental UAV, the mishap resulted in damage 
to the system. The Coast Guard shall inform the Committee what 
the root cause of the mishap was, and what, if any, implication 
this may have on the planned procurements of these UAVs.

                               LOGISTICS

    The Committee recommends $32,062,000 for logistics, 
$10,211,000 below the President's request and $13,450,000 above 
amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. The Committee is 
concerned with funding contained in the budget for logistics 
support in Alaska, Florida and Puerto Rico. It is unclear 
whether funds are necessary as early as requested for these 
stations because of delays in surface ships.

          COUNTERTERRORISM TRAINING INFRASTRUCTURE SHOOT HOUSE

    The Committee denies $1,683,000 requested by the President 
for a counterterrorism training shoot house. Instead, the 
Committee encourages the Coast Guard to look at all training 
options, including those offered by the Federal Law Enforcement 
Training Center by local law enforcement, or by the Department 
of Defense, to meet this need.

                               RESCUE 21

    The Committee remains concerned about the acquisition of 
Rescue 21. Earlier this year, the GAO highlighted significant 
issues with project management, contractor oversight, and 
executive-level involvement that led to cost overruns and 
schedule delays. GAO found that: (1) costs of this program have 
almost tripled, from $250,000,000 to $710,500,000; (2) the life 
cycle costs for Rescue 21 may increase by another $161,000,000; 
(3) the schedule may slip past 2011, already five years behind 
the original completion date of 2006; and (4) the system will 
not be able to reduce coverage gaps to the extent originally 
promised. GAO also determined that the Coast Guard's executive 
oversight of Rescue 21 was not adequate and management did not 
take action to respond to risks and problems presented. Strong 
executive oversight is needed to improve the cost and schedule 
performance of the Rescue 21 acquisition.
    As discussed previously, the Committee has little 
confidence in the Coast Guard's contract management capability 
and their plans to aggressively oversee cost, schedule, and 
risk for the remaining development and deployment of Rescue 21. 
Given its failures in the past to develop accurate and reliable 
cost estimates and schedules, the Committee directs the Coast 
Guard to provide a detailed breakout of its revised costs and 
schedule and fully justify each estimate. This should be done 
on a quarterly basis or with any major change in the project. 
In addition, the Coast Guard shall provide the Committee with a 
detailed report on the membership of the Rescue 21's executive 
committee and a schedule of planned meetings for the upcoming 
fiscal year. The Committee expects that the oversight body will 
include executives from both the acquiring and the customer 
organizations, as well as the DHS Chief Financial Officer and 
the DHS Chief Information Officer. Additionally, planned 
meetings should occur monthly or quarterly, given this 
program's troubled past.
    The Coast Guard has been forced to terminate the portion of 
the Rescue 21 contract for vessel initiatives because of 
repeated and longstanding problems in this area. To provide 
vessel functionality, the Coast Guard is studying alternative 
solutions, including the use of Automatic Identification System 
for asset tracking and data transfers on vessels. If a decision 
is made to pursue an alternate vessel system, the Committee 
directs the Coast Guard to provide a detailed assessment of its 
impact on end users and the timeframes for implementing this 
solution that includes the effect, if any, on the remaining 
Rescue 21 development and deployment efforts. Bill language is 
included that limits the obligation of funds for Rescue 21 to 
just the shore facilities. No funds may be obligated for the 
vessel subsystem until a solution has been provided to the 
Committee.

                           HH-60 REPLACEMENT

    The Committee recommends $15,000,000 to replace the HH-60 
helicopter that was lost during a rescue in Alaska in 2004. The 
Committee understands that this funding will permit the Coast 
Guard to acquire one aircraft from the United States Navy and 
missionize it for Coast Guard specific work.

                SHORE FACILITIES AND AIDS TO NAVIGATION

    The Committee recommends $24,450,000 for shore facilities 
and aids to navigation, $1,400,000 below the President's 
request and $1,450,000 above amounts provided in fiscal year 
2006. The Committee has deleted funding within minor AC&I shore 
construction projects for the CGC HICKORY cutter support 
building because this project will not be completed in 2007.

                         Alteration of Bridges

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2006.......................       $14,850,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.....................             - - -
Recommended in the bill...............................        17,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2006...................        +2,150,000
    Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2007.................       +17,000,000
                                MISSION

    The bill includes funding for alteration of bridges deemed 
a hazard to marine navigation pursuant to the Truman-Hobbs Act. 
The purpose of these alterations is to improve the safety of 
marine navigation under the bridge rather than the improvement 
of surface transportation on the bridge itself. Because there 
are occasionally unsafe conditions on the waterway beneath a 
bridge which has an adequate surface or structural condition, 
Federal-aid highways funding is not appropriate to address the 
purpose of the Truman-Hobbs program.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $17,000,000 for Alteration of 
Bridges, $17,000,000 above the President's request and 
$2,150,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. The 
Committee directs that, of the funds provided, $10,000,000 
shall be allocated to the Fourteen Mile Bridge in Mobile, 
Alabama; $3,000,000 for Chelsea Street Bridge in Chelsea, 
Massachusetts, and $4,000,000 for the Canadian Pacific Railway 
Bridge in LaCrosse, Wisconsin. The Committee expects that, with 
this funding, the federal commitment to the Fourteen Mile 
Bridge will be completed.

              Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2006.......................       $17,573,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.....................        13,860,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        13,860,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2006...................        -3,713,000
    Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2007.................             - - -
                                MISSION

    The purpose of research, development, test and evaluation 
is to allow the United States Coast Guard to maintain its non-
homeland security research and development capability, while 
also partnering and leveraging initiatives identified by the 
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of 
Defense (DOD) for efforts beneficial to the Coast Guard, DHS, 
and DOD.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $13,860,000 for Research, 
Development, Test and Evaluation, the same as the President's 
request and $3,713,000 below the amounts provided in fiscal 
year 2006. In addition to this appropriation, the Coast Guard 
may supplement these funds with ongoing reimbursable agreements 
with the Science and Technology Directorate. At this time, the 
Committee is aware of $2,800,000 that Science and Technology is 
directing to Coast Guard research and development activities in 
fiscal year 2007. Half of this funding will be directed toward 
improving the boarding officers program while the other half 
will be devoted to advancing and adapting technologies used to 
stop or control threatening vessels or people.

        Medicare Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund Contribution

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 \1\...................    $(260,533,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007 \2\.................       278,704,000
Recommended in the bill \2\...........................       278,704,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2006...................       +18,171,000
    Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2007.................             - - -\1\ The Medicare-eligible retiree health care fund was part of the Coast
  Guard's operating expenses in fiscal year 2006. This figure is shown
  for comparison purposes only.
\2\ This expenditure requires no annual action by Congress, however, it
  is counted towards the Coast Guard's discretionary spending.

                                MISSION

    The Medicare-eligible retiree health care fund contribution 
provides funding to maintain the cost of accruing the military 
Medicare-eligible health benefit contributions to the 
Department of Defense Medicare-eligible health care fund. 
Contributions are for future Medicare-eligible retirees 
currently serving active duty in the Coast Guard, retiree 
dependents, and their potential survivors. The authority for 
the Coast Guard to make this payment on an annual basis was 
provided in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for 
Fiscal Year 2005.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    While this account requires no annual action by Congress, 
the Committee agrees with the recommendation contained in the 
budget request to provide $278,704,000 to fund the Medicare-
eligible retiree health care fund.

                              Retired Pay

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2006.......................    $1,014,080,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.....................     1,063,323,000
Recommended in the bill...............................     1,063,323,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2006...................       +49,243,000
    Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2007.................             - - -
                                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 $1,063,323,000 for Retired Pay, the same 
as the budget request and $49,243,000 above the amounts 
provided in fiscal year 2006. This is scored as a mandatory 
appropriation in the Congressional budget process.

                      United States Secret Service

                Protection, Administraton, and Training

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 \1\...................    $(895,556,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007 \1\.................     (930,879,000)
Recommended in the bill...............................       954,399,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 \1\...............     +(58,843,000)
    Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2007 \1\.............    +(23,520,000)\1\ Figures are shown for comparative purposes only. Funds for this
  purpose are requested under the Salaries and Expenses account, but are
  recommended to be provided in this new appropriations account for
  fiscal year 2007. Amounts for fiscal year 2006 include $3,600,000 in
  emergency supplemental appropriations provided in P.L. 109-148.

                                MISSION

    The Protection, Administration, and Training appropriation 
supports the protection of the President and Vice President, 
their families, heads of state, and other designated 
individuals; the investigations of threats against these 
protectees; and the protection of the White House, Vice 
President's Residence, Foreign Missions, and other buildings 
within Washington, DC as authorized by 18 U.S.C. 3056. This 
appropriation also supports the agency's administrative and 
training functions.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a new appropriation structure for 
the United States Secret Service, separating funds previously 
provided for salaries and expenses into two, new accounts: 
Protection, Administration, and Training and Investigations and 
Field Operations. To ensure accountability in budgeting for the 
Secret Service's dual missions of protection and 
investigations, the Committee recommends a separate 
appropriation of $954,399,000 for Protection, Administration, 
and Training. This is $23,520,000 above the President's request 
and $58,843,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. 
The Committee provides an additional $13,920,000 to support 
protection costs of the 2008 Presidential Campaign and fully 
staff the President's Post-Presidency Protective Detail; an 
additional $2,400,000 for twenty new intelligence analysts and 
eight new protective systems specialists; and an additional 
$7,200,000 for replacement of critical equipment including 
ammunition, communications, and vehicles. Funds supporting the 
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children are provided 
within the new Investigations and Field Operations account.
    A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee 
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Protection, Administration, and
             Training                Budget estimate    Recommended \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Protection:
    Protection of persons and            $639,747,000       $657,267,000
     facilities...................
    Protective intelligence                55,509,000         61,509,000
     activities...................
    White House mail screening....         16,201,000         16,201,000
                                   -------------------------------------
        Subtotal, Protection......        711,457,000        734,977,000
Administration:
    Headquarters, management and          169,370,000        169,370,000
     administration...............
Training:
    Rowley training center........         50,052,000         50,052,000
                                   =====================================
            Total, Protection,            930,879,000        954,399,000
             Administration, and
             Training.............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funds to support Investigations and Field Operations are recommended
  within a new, separate account for fiscal year 2007, as stated later
  in this report.

                          WORKLOAD AND BUDGET

    The Committee is very concerned about the ability of the 
Secret Service to align its resource requirements to workload 
and mission needs. Since 9/11, the protective and investigative 
operations of the Secret Service have become increasingly 
complex, but the agency's budget has grown in only nominal 
terms. This disparity has resulted in an erosion of the base 
budget and the inability of the Secret Service to meet its 
basic mission requirements. At a time when the Secret Service's 
budget has reached this critical juncture, culminating in 
severe limitations on overtime pay and equipment replacement, 
the Secret Service's administrative systems are failing to 
provide timely information on budget execution, workload, and 
performance. The Committee is aware that the Secret Service is 
taking considerable actions to address these deficiencies and 
improve its budgeting for the uncontrollable demands of 
protective operations, including: implementation of real time 
tracking for labor hours; implementation of a new Enterprise 
Financial Management System; establishment of refined 
performance metrics for both protection and investigations; and 
improved monitoring of monthly budget execution reports. The 
Committee believes the protective and investigative resources 
of the Secret Service are a vital national security asset and 
is committed to improving the agency's budgetary systems and 
processes. The Committee directs the Secret Service to submit a 
status report, in conjunction with the fiscal year 2008 budget 
request, on the implementation of its budgetary system 
improvements. This report shall include a detailed explanation 
of how the agency is progressing in the improvement of its 
resource planning for both protection and investigations.
    The Committee continues to await the workload rebalancing 
report required in Conference Report 109-241 and includes bill 
language withholding $2,000,000 from obligation until this 
report is submitted.

    2008 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN AND POST-PRESIDENCY PROTECTIVE DETAIL

    The Committee recognizes the unique protective challenges 
associated with the 2008 Presidential campaign and the Post-
Presidency protective detail. The Committee is disappointed 
that the Administration failed to request adequate funding for 
these critical and resource-intensive efforts. The Committee 
provides an additional $13,920,000 to support the protective 
requirements of the 2008 Presidential Campaign and fully staff 
the President's Post-Presidency Protective Detail. The 
Committee believes the special agents required to staff the 
Post-Presidency Protective Detail should also support the 2008 
Presidential campaign and provides funds to hire, train, and 
indoctrinate new special agents in fiscal year 2007 to backfill 
staffing vacancies as current agents are assigned to such 
protective assignments. The Committee directs the Secret 
Service to submit status reports on January 1, 2007 and June 1, 
2007, on the hiring and training of these new special agents.

              2008 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURE PLAN

    The Committee directs the Secret Service to submit an 
expenditure plan for the 2008 Presidential Campaign no later 
than January 16, 2007, that includes the full costs of 
additional staffing, equipment, vehicles, and required 
training. This plan should include the funds provided in fiscal 
year 2007, by appropriations account, through the completion of 
the Presidential campaign and the January 2009 Presidential 
Inauguration.

              PROTECTIVE INTELLIGENCE AND THREAT ANALYSIS

    The Committee recognizes the Secret Service's expertise in 
applying protective intelligence and threat analysis to 
operations, but is concerned that these functions are currently 
staffed at only 53 percent. To partially address this issue, 
and to augment the staffing needs of the 2008 Presidential 
Campaign, the Committee provides an additional $2,400,000 for 
twenty new intelligence analysts and eight new protective 
systems specialists.

                  Investigations and Field Operations

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 \1\...................    $(304,271,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007 \1\.................     (309,599,000)
Recommended in the bill...............................       312,499,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 \1\...............      +(8,228,000)
    Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2007 \1\.............     +(2,900,000)\1\ Figures are shown for comparative purposes only. Funds for this
  purpose are requested under the Salaries and Expenses account, but are
  recommended to be provided in this new appropriations account for
  fiscal year 2007.

                                MISSION

    The Investigations and Field Operations appropriations 
account supports the investigative functions of the United 
States Secret Service as authorized by 18 U.S.C. 3056 (b) 470, 
471, 472, 473, 1028, 1029 and 1030, including: the 
investigations of violations of laws relating to counterfeiting 
of obligations and securities of the United States; financial 
crimes such as: access device fraud, financial institution 
fraud, identity theft, and computer fraud; and computer-based 
attacks on our nation's financial, banking, and 
telecommunications infrastructure. This account also supports 
investigations involving missing and exploited children, as 
authorized by 18 U.S.C. 3056 (f).

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $312,499,000 for Investigations 
and Field Operations, $2,900,000 above the President's request 
and $8,228,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. 
To ensure accountability in the budgeting for the Secret 
Service's dual missions of protection and investigations, the 
Committee recommends a new, distinct appropriations account for 
Investigations and Field Operations. The Committee is very 
concerned about the erosion of funds from investigations due to 
the uncontrollable draw of protective operations. The Committee 
believes a separate and distinct appropriations account for 
each mission area will ensure improved budgetary planning by 
the Secret Service. The Committee reminds the Secret Service 
that transfers between appropriations accounts are not 
available for obligation unless approved by the Committee, as 
per the guidelines listed within Section 503 of this Act. Of 
the total, $7,811,000 is included to support the National 
Center for Missing and Exploited Children as follows: 
$5,445,000 for grants and $2,366,000 for forensic support. A 
comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee recommended 
level by budget activity is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Investigations and Field
            Operations               Budget estimate      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Domestic field operations.........       $236,093,000       $236,093,000
International field office                 21,616,000         24,516,000
 administration and operations....
Electronic Crimes Special Agent            44,079,000         44,079,000
 Program and Electronic Crimes
 Task Forces......................
Grants and forensic support for             7,811,000          7,811,000
 the National Center for Missing
 and Exploited Children...........
                                   =====================================
      Total, Investigations and           309,599,000        312,499,000
       Field Operations...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS

    The Committee recommends $24,516,000 for International 
Field Office Administration and Operations, $2,900,000 above 
the President's request and $3,758,000 above the amounts 
provided in fiscal year 2006. Given the significant increase in 
financial crime originating overseas and the expansion of 
protective intelligence operations, the Committee believes new 
field offices at the following locations are critical to the 
Secret Service's investigative and protective missions: 
Beijing, China; Madrid, Spain; and Moscow, Russia. Funds are 
provided to support the staffing and equipment needs of these 
three locations.

                          PERFORMANCE METRICS

    The Committee continues to be concerned about the impact of 
the persistent resource demands of protection upon 
investigations. The Committee is aware of the Secret Service's 
efforts to establish robust performance metrics that 
demonstrate the productivity and value of its investigative 
mission as well as quantify the impact of taking resources from 
investigations to fund protective operations. The Committee 
strongly supports this initiative and directs the Secret 
Service to report to the Committee no later than January 16, 
2007 on the implementation of these new performance metrics. 
Furthermore, the Secret Service is directed to apply these 
metrics to its budgetary system improvement efforts, discussed 
previously within the Protection, Administration, and Training 
account.

                           Special Event Fund

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2006.......................            $- - -
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.....................        20,900,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        20,900,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2006...................       +20,900,000
    Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2007.................             - - -
                                MISSION

    The Special Event Fund supports the Secret Service's 
extraordinary costs associated with National Special Security 
Events (NSSEs) and Presidential campaigns.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $20,900,000, the same as the 
President's request and $18,425,000 above the amounts provided 
in fiscal year 2006 for NSSEs.

     Acquisition, Construction, Improvements, and Related Expenses

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2006.......................        $3,662,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.....................         3,725,000
Recommended in the bill...............................         3,725,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2006...................           +63,000
    Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2007.................             - - -
                                MISSION

    This account supports the acquisition, construction, 
improvement, equipment, furnishing and related cost for 
maintenance and support of Secret Service facilities, including 
the Secret Service Memorial Headquarters Building and the James 
J. Rowley Training Center (JJRTC).

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $3,725,000, the same as the 
President's request and $63,000 above the amounts provided in 
fiscal year 2006.

                       REVISED JJRTC MASTER PLAN

    The Committee continues to await the revised JJRTC Master 
Plan required in House Report 109-79 and includes bill language 
withholding $1,000,000 from obligation until this report is 
submitted.

                  TITLE III--PREPAREDNESS AND RECOVERY

                              Preparedness

                    UNDER SECRETARY FOR PREPAREDNESS
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2006.......................       $15,918,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.....................        74,468,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        39,468,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2006...................       +23,550,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.................       -35,000,000
                                MISSION

    The key focus of the Preparedness Directorate is risk 
management. The Office of the Under Secretary for Preparedness 
works with federal, State, local, tribal governments and 
private sector partners to enhance coordination of preparedness 
to defend and secure the United States from terrorist attack, 
and to respond to and recover from catastrophic incidents, 
major disasters, and other emergencies.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $39,468,000 for the Office of the 
Under Secretary for Preparedness, $35,000,000 below the 
President's request and $23,550,000 above the amounts provided 
in fiscal year 2006. A comparison of the budget estimate to the 
Committee recommended level by budget activity is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget estimate      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immediate Office of the Under             $17,497,000        $17,497,000
 Secretary for Preparedness.......
Office of the Chief Medical                 4,980,000          4,980,000
 Officer..........................
Office of National Capital Region           1,991,000          1,991,000
 Coordination.....................
National Preparedness Integration          50,000,000         15,000,000
 Program..........................
                                   -------------------------------------
      Total.......................        $74,468,000        $39,468,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

               National Preparedness Integration Program

    The Committee recommends $15,000,000 for the National 
Preparedness Integration Program (NPIP), $35,000,000 below the 
amounts proposed by the President. The President's budget 
assumed an increase in aviation passenger fees in order to fund 
this program at the requested levels. Authorization of this fee 
is not within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
Appropriations and the Committee has adjusted its fiscal year 
2007 recommendation accordingly. Additionally, the 
justifications provided for NPIP were overly broad. The 
Committee has repeatedly asked for a prioritization of the 
initiatives proposed to be accomplished by the NPIP but has not 
yet received this list. Absent that, the Committee provides 
$15,000,000 for first year funding of the NPIP. The Under 
Secretary is directed to provide an expenditure plan for these 
funds, including priorities and performance metrics, no later 
than November 1, 2006.

                         PREPAREDNESS STRATEGY

    Since September 11, 2001, and including funds in this bill, 
$37,400,000,000 has been provided to State and local entities 
to build our Nation's preparedness. The funding has been 
provided to States, urban areas, and territories to enable them 
to develop local strategies and plans, equip and train 
emergency responders, and exercise operational plans. However, 
the funding has gone to the State and local levels without 
detailed guidance from the Department on the definition of 
preparedness and without coherent standards and measures to 
accomplish the missions of prevention, protection, response, 
and recovery. The Department of Homeland Security has not 
clearly defined what constitutes preparedness so that the 
States understand and can measure their level of preparedness. 
Simply stated--the enhancement of national preparedness from 
the money invested in the States and territories is unknown.
    A consistent strategy for preparedness in the United States 
is required. The Committee understands that the NPIP will serve 
as the Preparedness Directorate's lead in organizing, 
implementing, and monitoring initiatives to integrate and 
synchronize national preparedness. The Committee directs the 
Under Secretary for Preparedness to develop a comprehensive 
preparedness strategy that provides measures of preparedness 
for the States, urban areas and territories. This strategy 
shall specifically address threats, risks, vulnerabilities, 
capabilities, and priorities for preparedness. The strategy 
shall be based on the National Preparedness Goal; the required 
missions of prevention, protection, response, and recovery; and 
the supporting Target Capabilities for each mission. Inherent 
in this comprehensive strategy must be instructions for local 
jurisdictions as well as States to measure their respective 
preparedness against established standards to prevent, protect 
against, respond to, and recover from a terrorist incident or 
natural disaster. The Committee directs the Secretary to 
provide this strategy by January 16, 2007 to the House 
Committee on Appropriations and the House Committee on Homeland 
Security.

                   HURRICANE KATRINA LESSONS LEARNED

    Even though the Preparedness Directorate was not in place 
during Hurricane Katrina, the Directorate shares the burden, 
along with FEMA, of implementing changes to correct failures 
highlighted by Katrina. As noted above, the Committee has been 
forced to adjust its fiscal year 2007 recommendation throughout 
the bill to account for the assumed increase in aviation 
passenger fees. However, while the Committee has been compelled 
to make hard choices and adjustments to programs throughout the 
Department to account for the fee increase, it should be noted 
as evidence of the Committee's commitment to building a 
stronger federal preparedness and response system, that the 
Committee has increased funds for the Preparedness Directorate 
and FEMA. For the Preparedness Directorate, the Committee 
provides an increase of $464,991,000 or 13 percent above the 
President's request. The White House, House of Representatives, 
and Senate reports on the federal response to Hurricane Katrina 
all call for action, not more planning. The Committee provides 
the full funding requested by the President for the Immediate 
Office of the Under Secretary for Preparedness. With this level 
of funding, the Committee directs the Under Secretary for 
Preparedness to implement effective initiatives that respond to 
the findings of the Katrina investigations. The Committee 
specifically notes several key recommendations of the White 
House's ``The Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina--Lessons 
Learned.''
    Training and Exercises.--Hurricane Katrina revealed a lack 
of familiarity of emergency responders with large-scale 
incident management, including the National Response Plan (NRP) 
and National Incident Management System (NIMS). The White 
House's ``Lessons Learned,'' recommends a system of exercises 
at all levels of government. The foundation for these exercises 
should be training first responders on their role and 
responsibilities as described in the NRP and the NIMS. The 
Committee understands that the Under Secretary for Preparedness 
plans to develop and implement a campaign to ensure awareness 
of the NRP and the NIMS. The Committee expects the NPIP will 
support command and control expertise, as well as exercise 
planning to strengthen and test existing local and regional 
plans. The Committee directs the Under Secretary for 
Preparedness to report on improvements to training and 
exercises no later than November 1, 2006.
    Communications.--Hurricane Katrina destroyed the core 
communications infrastructure in the affected area, leaving 
emergency responders without reliable means of communications. 
The White House's ``Lessons Learned'' recommends the 
development of a National Emergency Communications Strategy 
that supports communications operability and interoperability. 
The Committee directs the Preparedness Directorate to develop 
and coordinate a revised strategy, procedures, and instructions 
for supporting emergency response operations. In addition, the 
Committee expects that within the funds provided, the NPIP will 
test and evaluate commercially available communications 
equipment and technologies that can provide immediate emergency 
communications services, and to acquire rapidly deployable 
equipment. The Committee directs the Under Secretary for 
Preparedness to report on the National Emergency Communications 
Strategy no later than November 1, 2006.
    Capabilities Assessments.--The investigations into 
Hurricane Katrina have revealed gaps and shortfalls in 
preparedness capabilities. They also revealed the need for an 
accurate inventory of the Nation's capabilities. The fiscal 
year 2006 conference report directs the Department to complete 
the National Assessment and Reporting System by September 30, 
2006, and the Committee expects that the Department is on 
schedule to meet this deadline. HSPD-8 and the White House's 
``Lessons Learned'' also direct the Department to develop a 
national assessment system. The Committee further expects that 
the National Assessment and Reporting System will not rely 
exclusively on self-reported data but that the system will 
include objective methods to measure State and local 
capabilities. This data should form the basis for decision 
making and national investments. The Committee has provided 
$700,000, as requested for the establishment of a Program 
Management Office to implement the National Assessment and 
Reporting System.

                   ENHANCING ALL-HAZARDS CAPABILITIES

    The Committee supports an all-hazards emergency 
preparedness approach--that is, preparedness for domestic 
terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies. The 
Committee is aware that 30 of the 37 capabilities on the Target 
Capabilities List (TCL) are common to both terrorist attacks 
and natural or accidental disasters. The Committee believes 
that the Office of the Under Secretary for Preparedness must 
continue to encourage an all-hazards approach to preparedness 
in grants, assistance, and funding requests and allocations. 
The House Bipartisan Committee on Hurricane Katrina concluded 
that, while a majority of State and local preparedness grants 
are required to have a terrorism purpose, this does not 
preclude a dual use application. The fiscal year 2006 homeland 
security grant guidance states that, while funding remains 
primarily focused on terrorism, the allowable scope of the 
activities includes all catastrophic events, provided that 
these activities also build capabilities that relate to 
terrorism. The Committee expects that the fiscal year 2007 
grant guidance will further support all-hazards activities. The 
Committee encourages the Under Secretary for Preparedness to 
give natural disasters appropriate weight in its risk based 
funding methodology.

                       NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS GOAL

    The Committee is concerned by the delay in issuing the 
final National Preparedness Goal (NPG). In the fiscal year 2006 
conference report, the conferees directed the Department to 
issue the final NPG, including the final Universal Task List 
and Target Capabilities List, no later than December 31, 2005. 
To date, the Committee has not seen the final NPG. Without such 
a plan, the Committee remains concerned about the direction of 
the Department's allocation of resources for first responders. 
Pursuant to HSPD-8, federal preparedness assistance is to be 
predicated on adoption of Statewide comprehensive all-hazards 
preparedness strategies that should be consistent with the 
national preparedness goal. However, the Committee remains 
concerned that federal preparedness assistance is being 
allocated for planning, procurement, and training absent a 
final goal, and identification of expected capabilities. The 
Committee withholds from obligation $4,400,000 from the Office 
of the Under Secretary for Preparedness until the Committee 
receives the final NPG.

             DOMESTIC PHARMACEUTICAL MANUFACTURING CAPACITY

    The Committee is concerned that the U.S. no longer has the 
manufacturing capacity to produce the drugs necessary to 
counter a bio-weapon attack or a pandemic threat. The Bioshield 
program was enacted to help resolve this problem, but the 
program has been slow in implementation. The Committee directs 
the Chief Medical Officer to examine the areas where U.S. 
manufacturing capacity is inadequate and make recommendations 
for Departmental action.

                     Office of Grants and Training

                        STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2006.......................    $2,476,287,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.....................     2,281,559,000
Recommended in the bill...............................     2,524,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2006...................       +47,713,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.................      +242,441,000
                                MISSION

    State and Local Programs provide for building and 
sustaining the 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, emergency management performance 
grants, high-threat high-density urban area grants, transit 
grants, port security grants, and critical infrastructure 
grants. For purposes of eligibility for funds under this 
heading, 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 $2,524,000,000 for State and Local 
Programs, $242,441,000 above the President's request and 
$47,713,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. 
Including $500,000,000 for Firefighter Assistance Grants, 
$40,000,000 for the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency 
Response Act (SAFER), and $186,000,000 for Emergency Management 
Performance Grants, the Committee provides a total of 
$3,250,000,000 for first responders in fiscal year 2007, 
$499,991,000 above the President's request. Since September 11, 
and including the funds provided in this bill, $37,400,000,000 
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 training and technical 
assistance. The Committee does not include a separate 
appropriation of $5,000,000 for Management and Administration 
as these programs are fully funded through the grant programs. 
A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee 
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget estimate      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State and Local Programs:
    State Formula Grants:
        State Homeland Security          $633,000,000       $545,000,000
         Grant Program............
        Law Enforcement Terrorism               - - -        400,000,000
         Prevention...............
                                   -------------------------------------
          Subtotal State Grants...        633,000,000        945,000,000
    Discretionary Grants:
        High-Threat, High-Density         838,000,000        750,000,000
         Urban Area Grants........
        Targeted Infrastructure           600,000,000              - - -
         Protection Program.......
        Buffer Zone Protection                  - - -         50,000,000
         Program..................
        Port Security Grants......              - - -        200,000,000
        Rail and Transit Security               - - -        150,000,000
         Grants...................
        Trucking Industry Security              - - -          5,000,000
         Grants...................
        Intercity Bus Security                  - - -         10,000,000
         Grants...................
                                   -------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Discretionary       1,438,000,000      1,165,000,000
           Grants.................
    Commercial Equipment Direct                 - - -         75,000,000
     Assistance Program...........
    National Programs:
        National Domestic                  89,351,000        135,000,000
         Preparedness Consortium..
        National Exercise Program.         48,708,000         49,000,000
        Technical Assistance......         11,500,000         25,000,000
        Metropolitan Medical                    - - -         30,000,000
         Response System..........
        Demonstration Training                  - - -         30,000,000
         Grants...................
        Continuing Training Grants          3,000,000         35,000,000
        Citizen Corps.............         35,000,000              - - -
        Evaluations and                    23,000,000         23,000,000
         Assessments..............
        Rural Domestic                          - - -         12,000,000
         Preparedness Consortium..
          Subtotal, National              175,559,000        339,000,000
           Programs...............
                                   =====================================
            Total, State and Local     $2,281,559,000     $2,524,000,000
             Programs.............
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 STATE HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM

    The Committee recommends $545,000,000 for State Homeland 
Security grants, $88,000,000 below the President's request and 
$500,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2006. 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. 
The Committee notes that, not including fiscal year 2006 
grants, more than $5,100,000,000, or 46 percent of the amount 
appropriated between fiscal years 2002-2005 for first responder 
funding, remains unspent at the close of the 2nd quarter of the 
fiscal year. At the same time in fiscal year 2005, the 
percentage of funds in the pipeline was also 46 percent. The 
Committee is concerned that there doesn't seem to be an 
increase in the spend-out rate, and therefore has maintained 
level funding for the program.
    Fiscal year 2006 was the first year that States and 
territories were to be awarded a base level of 0.75 percent of 
the total funding with the remaining appropriation allocated 
based on the Department's determination of risk and need. The 
President's request proposes to reduce the guaranteed amount to 
each State or territory to a minimum of 0.25 percent of the 
total. The Committee believes that each State and territory 
must have funds in order to meet minimum essential capabilities 
and continues to make these funds available to all States using 
on the formula authorized by section 1014 of the USA PATRIOT 
Act, (Public Law 107-56). Each State shall continue to be 
guaranteed a base of 0.75 percent of the total with the 
Department assessing each State's risk and need to determine 
their minimum essential preparedness capability levels and 
allocating remaining funds to address those identified gaps in 
preparedness. The Committee directs the Office of Grants and 
Training 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 the 
Office of Grants and Training will act within 90 days of its 
receipt. States must identify gaps in levels of preparedness 
when applying and the Office of Grants and Training must 
evaluate all applications based on threat and risk before 
awards are made. The Committee also agrees that no less than 80 
percent of these funds shall be passed by the State to local 
units of government within 60 days of the State receiving 
funds. None of the funds may be used for construction or 
overtime, except overtime to backfill those first responders 
attending Office of Grants and Training certified training 
classes. Not to exceed three percent may be used for 
administrative expenses.

              LAW ENFORCEMENT TERRORISM PREVENTION GRANTS

    The Committee recommends $400,000,000 for State and local 
Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention grants, $400,000,000 above 
the President's request and $4,000,000 above the amount 
provided in fiscal year 2006.
    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 Law Enforcement 
Terrorism Prevention grants as a separate grant program. The 
Committee continues to make these funds available to all States 
using the formula basis authorized by section 1014 of the USA 
PATRIOT Act, (Public Law 107-56). Each State shall continue to 
be guaranteed a base of 0.75 percent of the total with the 
Department assessing each State's risk and need to determine 
their minimum essential preparedness capability levels and 
allocating 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 the Office of Grants and Training will 
act within 90 days of its receipt. States must identify gaps in 
levels of preparedness when applying and the Office of Grants 
and Training 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 three percent may be used for 
administrative expenses.

              HIGH-THREAT, HIGH-DENSITY URBAN AREA GRANTS

    The Committee recommends $750,000,000 for discretionary 
grants to high-threat, high-density urban areas, $88,000,000 
below the President's request and $7,350,000 below the amounts 
provided in fiscal year 2006. 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 the Office of Grants and 
Training will act within 90 days of its receipt. States must 
identify gaps in levels of preparedness when applying and the 
Office of Grants and Training must evaluate all applications 
based on risk and need. 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 the Office of Grants and Training to continue the 
practice of reimbursing eligible overtime expenses as 
designated in ODP Information Bulletin No. 127, dated August 3, 
2004. Not to exceed three percent may be used for 
administrative expenses.

                     BUFFER ZONE PROTECTION PROGRAM

    The Committee recommends $50,000,000 for the Buffer Zone 
Protection Program, $500,000 above the amounts provided in 
fiscal year 2006. The President's request combined all 
infrastructure protection grants into a single Targeted 
Infrastructure Protection Program (TIPP). The Committee denies 
this request. The Committee directs the Office of Grants and 
Training to continue to work with Infrastructure Protection and 
Information Security to identify critical infrastructure, 
assess vulnerabilities at those sites, and direct funding to 
gaps in those vulnerabilities.

                             PORT SECURITY

    The Committee recommends $200,000,000 for Port Security 
grants, $26,750,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 
2006, as part of the Committee's port, container, and cargo 
security funding initiative as outlined under Office of the 
Secretary and Executive Management Operations. The President's 
request combined all infrastructure protection grants into a 
single TIPP. The Committee denies this request. The Committee 
directs the Office of Grants and Training 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 involved and that the limited resources are 
maximized.
    The Committee is concerned about the effectiveness of the 
port security grant program. The Department's Inspector General 
report (OIG-06-24) assessed the Department's actions to improve 
the port security grant program based on recommendations of an 
earlier IG report (OIG-05-10). The February 2006 report 
continues to criticize grant scoring and some award decisions. 
The Committee directs the Office of Grants and Training to work 
with the Infrastructure Protection and Information Security to 
determine the threat environment at individual ports and with 
the U.S. Coast Guard to evaluate each port's vulnerability. The 
Committee expects that funds will be directed at those ports 
with the highest risk and largest vulnerabilities.

                       RAIL AND TRANSIT SECURITY

    The Committee recommends $150,000,000 for Rail and Transit 
Security grants, $1,500,000 above the amounts provided in 
fiscal year 2006. The President's request combined all 
infrastructure protection grants into a single TIPP. The 
Committee denies this request. The Committee encourages the 
Office of Grants and Training 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.

                       TRUCKING INDUSTRY SECURITY

    The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for Trucking Security 
grants, $50,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. 
The President's request combined all infrastructure protection 
grants into a single TIPP. The Committee denies this request. 
The Committee encourages the Office of Grants and Training to 
implement within the trucking industry security program an 
outbound contact effort to assist with overall recruitment 
efforts and to enhance emergency and disaster information 
assistance.

                         INTERCITY BUS SECURITY

    The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for Intercity Bus 
Security grants, $100,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal 
year 2006. The President's request combined all infrastructure 
protection grants into a single TIPP. The Committee denies this 
request.

             COMMERCIAL EQUIPMENT DIRECT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

    The Committee recommends $75,000,000 for the Commercial 
Equipment Direct Assistance Program (CEDAP), $75,000,000 above 
the President's request and $25,500,000 above the amounts 
provided in fiscal year 2006. This program, formerly known as 
the Technology Transfer Program, provides basic technologies, 
which are immediately deployable 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.
    Phase I of the CEDAP program made available eight equipment 
choices, and Phase II of the program added 34 new pieces of 
equipment. CEDAP officials considered not only equipment 
available through the DHS Prepositioned Equipment Program and 
ONDCP's Technology Transfer Program but also through other 
government off-the-shelf equipment programs and commercial off-
the-shelf equipment. These pieces of equipment were selected 
from criteria established by the Committee in its fiscal year 
2005 report that defined equipment to include interoperable 
communications technology, defensive protective equipment for 
first responders, and vulnerability assessment technology 
appropriate to rural jurisdictions. The Committee understands 
that the selected equipment is continually evaluated. The 
Committee is pleased with the initial phases of the CEDAP 
program and supports an expansion from core direct assistance 
to grants for equipment and technical assistance not currently 
available through the CEDAP catalogue to jurisdictions of any 
size.

                           NATIONAL PROGRAMS

    The Committee recommends $339,000,000 for National 
Programs, $5,837,000 below the amounts provided in fiscal year 
2006. The President requested $175,559,000 for these programs 
under separate accounts.

               NATIONAL DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS CONSORTIUM

    Of the funds recommended for National Programs, the 
Committee provides $135,000,000 for the National Domestic 
Preparedness Consortium, $45,649,000 above the President's 
request and $8,550,000 below the amounts provided in fiscal 
year 2006. Of this amount, the Committee provides $47,000,000 
for the Center for Domestic Preparedness. The Committee directs 
that the remaining funds will be split evenly among the 
existing members.

                       NATIONAL EXERCISE PROGRAM

    Of the funds recommended for National Programs, the 
Committee provides $49,000,000 for the National Exercise 
Program, $292,000 above the President's request and $2,480,000 
below the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006.
    The Committee has heard time and time again from different 
offices within the Department that disaster exercises, 
including Federal TOPOFF exercises, and State and local 
exercises are critical to ensuring the preparedness of our 
nation to respond to terrorist attacks and disasters. The 
Committee has also heard that the lessons learned from these 
exercises and the actions taken in response to the lessons 
learned are more important than the exercises themselves. Yet 
the Committee is unclear how the Department is ensuring that 
these lessons learned are comprehensively addressed and directs 
the Department to report by January 16, 2007 on its method for 
tracking the results of exercises. The Committee also 
encourages the Department to provide additional funding to 
those areas that participate in Federal TOPOFF exercises.

                  METROPOLITAN MEDICAL RESPONSE SYSTEM

    Of the funds recommended for National Programs, the 
Committee provides $30,000,000 for the Metropolitan Medical 
Response System, $30,000,000 above the President's request and 
$300,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006.

                     DEMONSTRATION TRAINING GRANTS

    Of the funds recommended for National Programs, the 
Committee provides $30,000,000 for Demonstration Training 
Grants, $30,000,000 above the President's request and $300,000 
above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. 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.

                       CONTINUING TRAINING GRANTS

    Of the funds recommended for National Programs, the 
Committee provides $35,000,000 for Continuing Training Grants, 
$32,000,000 above the President's request and $10,250,000 above 
the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. The Committee agrees 
that these grants shall be used to fund current first responder 
training programs. The Committee recommends full funding for 
the graduate-level homeland security education programs 
currently supported by the Department. The Committee is 
particularly supportive of programs that have consistently 
delivered homeland security curricula in the form of executive 
education programs for State Governors and other leaders and 
accredited Masters Degree education already vetted by the 
Department of Homeland Security. Such programs are the building 
blocks of our next generation of homeland security leaders. The 
Department is encouraged to leverage these existing programs 
that have proven curricula to meet the growing need for 
graduate-level education.

                          TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

    Of the funds recommended for National Programs, the 
Committee provides $25,000,000 for Technical Assistance, 
$13,500,000 above the President's request and $5,200,000 above 
the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006.
    The fiscal year 2006 conference report encouraged ODP (now 
the Office of Grants and Training) to review the use of 
logistics 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. The Committee acknowledges that an 
important component of increasing regional and local homeland 
security capacity is the application of modern day logistics 
practices to the movement of equipment and supplies during a 
catastrophic event. The Committee therefore directs the Office 
of Grants and Training to use no less than $5,000,000 to 
develop a demonstration program with regional and local 
governments in the formation of innovative public and private 
logistical partnerships and centers to improve readiness, 
increase response capacity, and maximize the management and 
impact of homeland security resources.
    The Committee encourages the Department to continue the 
National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism's 
Lessons Learned system and the Responder Knowledge Base. These 
two databases provide invaluable information on currently 
available equipment and procedures, and are a cost-effective 
way to improve national preparedness, and should be kept intact 
under the oversight of the Office of Grants and Training.

                      EVALUATIONS AND ASSESSMENTS

    Of the funds recommended for National Programs, the 
Committee provides $23,000,000 for Evaluations and Assessments, 
the same as the budget request and $8,843,000 above the amounts 
provided in fiscal year 2006.

                 RURAL DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS CONSORTIUM

    Of the funds recommended for National Programs, the 
Committee provides $12,000,000 for the Rural Domestic 
Preparedness Consortium (RDPC), $12,000,000 above the 
President's request and $2,100,000 above the amounts provided 
in fiscal year 2006. The RDPC provides technical assistance and 
training for terrorism 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 the Office of Grants and 
Training to continue the development of specialized and 
innovative training curricula for rural first responders and 
ensure the coordination of such efforts with existing Grants 
and Training partners.

               TRANSPARENCY OF GRANT FUNDING DISTRIBUTION

    At Committee hearings this year, the Under Secretary for 
Preparedness stated that his goal was to make DHS' risk based 
grant determinations and the factors that go into those 
determinations as transparent as possible for State and local 
officials. The Committee applauds this goal and directs the 
Preparedness Directorate to report by November 1, 2006, on the 
steps taken to make the methodology transparent.

                        GRANTS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

    The fiscal year 2006 conference report directed the 
Department to provide a report, no later than January 16, 2006, 
on the requirements, feasibility, and costs of an automated 
grants management system. The Committee has not yet received 
this report. However, the Committee is aware that the Office of 
Grants and Training and the Under Secretary for Management are 
working collaboratively on the identification of a system 
solution for all DHS non-disaster grants. The Committee is 
supportive of this effort and directs the Department to 
include, in its fiscal year 2008 budget request, a solution 
that facilitates the full life-cycle of grants management.

                       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. The Committee directs the Office of 
Grants and Training to require in its grant guidance that State 
and local governments include EMS representatives in planning 
committees as an equal partner and to facilitate a nationwide 
EMS needs assessment. In addition, no later than January 16, 
2007, the Department is to report to the House Committee on 
Appropriations and the House Committee on Homeland Security on 
the use of State and local, urban area security initiative, and 
firefighter assistance grant funds for EMS. Finally, no less 
than ten percent of State Homeland Security Grants and the 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.

            LOCAL GOVERNMENT PARTICIPATION IN STATE PROCESS

    The Committee believes that the strong participation of 
local governments, including those of midsize and rural 
communities and counties and multi-county regional 
cooperatives, is essential to the development of sound homeland 
security plans within each State. The Committee expects that 
the Department will include outreach to localities as a 
required State/territorial action for fiscal year 2007 
compliance in the fiscal year 2007 grant guidance.

                   RAPID DECONTAMINATION PREPAREDNESS

    The Committee remains concerned with the lack of planning 
and preparation for a rapid decontamination response in the 
event of a large scale biological or chemical attack. The 
fiscal year 2006 conference report directed the Department to 
report, not later than February 10, 2006, on the feasibility 
and plan for establishing a regionally based, pre-positioned 
rapid response capability for the decontamination of biological 
and chemical agents based on technologies that meet the 
decontamination standards for those agents. The Committee is 
extremely concerned by the Department's inability to submit 
this report on time. The Committee expects this report by 
August 1, 2006.

             FIRST RESPONDER INTEGRATED INFORMATION SYSTEM

    The Committee is aware that Justice Information Exchange 
Modeling (JIEM) software is being used successfully by criminal 
justice agencies. The Committee expects that the Department of 
Homeland Security will investigate this software and, if 
appropriate, encourage and promote its use by first responders 
to build integrated information systems to effectuate the 
sharing of critical information among first responders and 
criminal justice agencies and between these agencies, the 
Department of Homeland Security and other appropriate federal 
agencies.

                     Firefighter Assistance Grants

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2006.......................      $648,450,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.....................       293,450,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       540,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2006...................      -108,450,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.................      +246,550,000
                                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 $540,000,000 for Firefighter 
Assistance Grants, $246,550,000 above the President's request 
and $108,450,000 below the amounts provided in fiscal year 
2006. Of this amount, $40,000,000 shall be for firefighter 
staffing, as authorized by section 34 of the Federal Fire 
Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (Staffing for Adequate Fire 
and Emergency Response--SAFER). The Committee directs the 
Office of Grants and Training to continue 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 the Office of Grants and Training to maintain an 
all-hazards focus. The Committee also does not agree to limit 
the list of eligible activities. Not to exceed five percent may 
be used for administrative expenses. Funds are available until 
September 30, 2008.

                Emergency Management Performance Grants

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2006.......................      $183,150,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.....................       170,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       186,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2006...................        +2,850,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.................       +16,000,000
                                MISSION

    Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) funds are 
used to support comprehensive emergency management at the State 
and local levels and to encourage the improvement of 
mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery capabilities 
for all hazards. 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 $186,000,000 for Emergency 
Management Performance Grants (EMPGs), $16,000,000 above the 
President's request and $2,850,000 above the amount provided in 
fiscal year 2006. 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 the Office of Grants and Training to continue 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 three percent may be 
used for administrative expenses.

              Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2006.......................       $-1,266,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.....................          -477,000
Recommended in the bill...............................          -477,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2006...................          +789,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.................             - - -
                                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 $477,000 in 
fiscal year 2007.

             United States Fire Administration and Training

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2006.......................       $44,499,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.....................        46,849,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        46,849,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2006...................        +2,350,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.................             - - -
                                MISSION

    The mission of the United States Fire Administration is to 
reduce economic losses and loss of life due to fire and related 
emergencies through leadership, coordination, and support, and 
also to prepare the Nation's first responder and health care 
leaders through ongoing, and when necessary, expedited training 
regarding how to evaluate and minimize community risk, improve 
protection to critical infrastructure, and to be better 
prepared to react to all hazard and terrorism emergencies of 
all kinds.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $46,849,000 for the U.S. Fire 
Administration and Training, the same as the President's 
request and $2,350,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 
2006. Of the amount provided, $5,962,000 is for the Noble 
Training Center.

           Infrastructure Protection and Information Security

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2006.......................      $619,245,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.....................       549,140,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       549,140,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2006...................       -70,105,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.................             - - -
                                MISSION

    Infrastructure Protection and Information Security (IPIS) 
aims to reduce the vulnerability of the nation's critical 
infrastructures, key resources, information technology and 
telecommunications to terrorists and natural disasters and aid 
in the recovery of these resources after an event.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $549,140,000 for Infrastructure 
Protection and Information Security (IPIS) programs, the same 
as the President's request and $70,105,000 below the amounts 
provided in fiscal year 2006.
    A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee 
recommended level by budget activity as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget estimate      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Management and Administration.....        $84,650,000        $84,650,000
Critical Infrastructure Outreach          101,100,000        101,100,000
 and Partnership..................
Critical Infrastructure                    71,631,000         71,631,000
 Identification and Evaluation....
National Infrastructure Simulation         16,021,000         16,021,000
 and Analysis Center..............
Biosurveillance...................          8,218,000          8,218,000
Protective Actions................         32,043,000         32,043,000
Cyber Security....................         92,205,000         92,205,000
National Security/Emergency               143,272,000        143,272,000
 Preparedness Telecommunications..
                                   -------------------------------------
      Total, Infrastructure               549,140,000        549,140,000
       Protection and Information
       Security...................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          BUDGET JUSTIFICATION

    IPIS, created with the Department and reorganized the last 
year, continues to define itself and clarify its mission. One 
impediment to achieving mission clarity is providing 
rudimentary budget information for programs relative to the 
goals and activities of the programs. Unfortunately, the 
current account lines do not align with programs, making 
budgetary judgments difficult. For sound decisions to be made 
in the appropriations process, timely and detailed programmatic 
and budgetary information is needed. Components of the 
Department provide such information slowly, if at all. The 
Committee expects IPIS, as a newly organized component of the 
Department, to provide more detailed supporting information to 
support its budgetary request; the Committee will not accept 
incomplete, vague or inaccurate submissions and expects IPIS 
will provide timely and complete information to the Committee. 
The Committee directs the Department, in consultation with the 
Committee, to submit its fiscal year 2008 budget and 
justification with budget lines that align with the operational 
divisions and programs of IPIS.

                           PROGRAM TRANSFERS

    The Committee notes that the IPIS request reflects a number 
of program ``transfers'' within IPIS and between IPIS and other 
components that are poorly justified or not discussed within 
the budget at all. While reorganizations can reflect sound 
management and reprioritization of programs, such action must 
be clearly documented and in compliance with the Committee's 
reprogramming and transfer requirements. Therefore, the 
Committee directs the Department to fully describe all program 
transfers in future budget submissions, including where the 
program has been transferred to and reasons for program 
changes.

                            ANALYSIS CENTERS

    The Committee believes that IPIS analysis centers have the 
potential to provide valuable insights to other programs, 
enabling better judgments about where grant monies should be 
directed. Though these programs are not large, they can 
influence the spending of billions of dollars, so their value 
should not be underestimated. While IPIS continues to redefine 
itself after the Second Stage Review and retools itself to 
address the needs of national priorities such as supporting 
implementation of the National Infrastructure Protection Plan, 
it must sustain and strengthen the basic analytic services it 
provides to other departmental functions and outside groups. 
The Committee supports the work of IPIS with the Protective 
Security Analysis Center to provide a more accurate, 
comprehensive, and real-time common operating picture. The 
Committee encourages IPIS to continue this effort to enable the 
targeted deployment of improved protective actions. The 
Committee directs IPIS to report on organizational placement, 
status and activities of its various analysis centers no later 
than January 16, 2007.

             NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PLAN (NIPP)

    The Committee approves the $35,000,000 requested for the 
creation of the National Infrastructure Protection Plan program 
to aid in the implementation of a framework to establish 
national priorities, goals and requirements for infrastructure 
protection. The White House's ``The Federal Response to 
Hurricane Katrina: Lessons Learned'' lists infrastructure 
protection as one of seventeen ``critical challenges'' and 
recommends finalization of the National Infrastructure 
Protection Plan as a major step toward addressing that 
challenge. Despite repeated promises, the Department has not 
yet released the NIPP. Therefore, the Committee makes 
$20,000,000 of the sums provided for Management and 
Administration unavailable for obligation until DHS finalizes 
the National Infrastructure Protection Plan to help address 
weaknesses discussed in the White House report.

                          OPERATION ARCHANGEL

    The Committee recognizes the work that DHS has done through 
Operation Archangel to provide a national model for protecting 
critical infrastructure and encourages DHS to continue such 
activities.

                          COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW

    The Committee notes IPIS has made progress on the 
Comprehensive Review of commercial nuclear reactors and 
associated spent fuel storage facilities, including development 
of a standardized process to assess functions of the site, 
local law enforcement, and emergency response agencies in 
protecting and securing nuclear facilities. The Committee is 
pleased with IPIS' plans to expand the comprehensive review to 
other nuclear sector segments and expects to be kept apprised 
of any conclusions drawn from the process, especially as they 
relate to spent nuclear fuel or emerging weaknesses in 
protecting these facilities.

    HOMELAND INFRASTRUCTURE THREAT ANALYSIS AND RISK CENTER (HITRAC)

    The Committee is pleased to learn that IPIS has established 
the Homeland Infrastructure Threat and Analysis Center (HITRAC) 
in partnership with Intelligence and Analysis, which some 
consider the first successful bridge between the infrastructure 
community and the intelligence community. The Government 
Accountability Office and others have pointed out that a lack 
of information sharing was the single greatest failure of 
government in the lead-up to the 9/11 attacks. The Committee 
encourages such partnerships and other activities that lead to 
enhanced information sharing between the intelligence community 
and those who will take action on it.

                  PROTECTIVE SECURITY FIELD OPERATIONS

    The Committee is pleased with 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 directs IPIS 
to continue its 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 is deeply concerned by recent statements from 
the Secretary indicating the chemical industry and the nation 
are held ``hostage to those few [chemical companies] who do not 
undertake the responsibility that they have to make sure 
security is at an appropriate level.'' Further, despite 
testimony from the Director of Central Intelligence that the 
chemical industrial infrastructure is vulnerable to a terrorist 
attack, no federal security measures have been established for 
the chemical sector. Finally, the Department has concluded 
that, from a regulatory perspective, the existing patchwork of 
authorities does not permit the effective regulation of the 
chemical industry.
    While the Administration requests $10,000,000 for 
establishment of the new Chemical Site Security program to help 
facilitate the security and safety of chemical sites, the 
request is poorly justified and it is unclear what this money 
will be used for. Ideally, this request would have been 
accompanied by separate legislation requesting authority for 
the Department to properly regulate chemical site security. No 
legislation has been sent for consideration. Further, as part 
of the fiscal year 2006 conference report, the Secretary was 
directed to submit a report to the Committees on Appropriations 
by February 10, 2006, on the resources needed to implement 
mandatory security requirements for the Nation's chemical 
sector and to create a system for auditing and ensuring 
compliance with security standards. The report was to include a 
description of security requirements and any reasons why the 
requirements should differ from those already in place for 
chemical facilities that operate in a port zone. This report 
has not been received.
    The Committee recommends fully funding the $10,000,000 
request for the Chemical Site Security program, but directs the 
Department to provide the Committee a spend plan showing how 
these resources will be used. The Committee also includes a 
provision to make $10,000,000 of the sums provided for IPIS 
Management and Administration unavailable for obligation until 
DHS submits the national security strategy for the chemical 
sector.

                             CYBER SECURITY

    The Committee recommends $92,205,000 for Cyber Security, 
$211,000 less than amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. 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 United States Computer 
Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT). 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 is 
encouraged by US-CERT advisories issued recently and is hopeful 
that this proactive approach will continue to prevent cyber 
threats.

            INFORMATION SHARING AND ANALYSIS CENTERS (ISACS)

    The Committee understands ISACs were developed after the 
issuance of Presidential Directive 63 to share important 
information about vulnerabilities, threats, intrusions, and 
anomalies within and between industry sectors and the National 
Infrastructure Protection Center. The Committee recognizes the 
positive work the Multi-State ISAC has accomplished to monitor 
for cyber intrusions so systems can respond more quickly to 
these threats and supports this ongoing work.

                  Federal Emergency Management Agency

                 Administrative and Regional Operations

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2006.......................      $236,228,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.....................       255,499,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       254,499,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2006...................       +18,271,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.................        -1,000,000
                                MISSION

    FEMA manages and coordinates the federal response to major 
domestic disasters and emergencies of all types in accordance 
with the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
Assistance Act. It ensures the effectiveness of emergency 
response providers at all levels of government in responding to 
terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies. FEMA 
also administers public assistance and hazard mitigation 
programs to prevent or to reduce the risk to life and property 
from floods and other hazards. Finally, FEMA leads all federal 
incident management preparedness and response planning by 
building a comprehensive National Incident Management System 
(NIMS) that incorporates federal, State, Tribal, and local 
government personnel, agencies, and regional authorities.
    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 $254,499,000 for Administrative 
and Regional Operations, $1,000,000 less than the President's 
request and $18,271,000 above the amount provided in fiscal 
year 2006. The President's request includes funding for 1,115 
FTEs, an increase of 83 FTEs. As of March 2006, the Department 
only had 754 FTEs on board. The Committee is concerned about 
this high level of vacancy, and is particularly concerned about 
the number of senior management positions that are in an acting 
capacity. While the Committee understands that the number of 
staff vacancies is being reduced through the Acting Director's 
hiring push, and that a few senior management positions were 
nominated on April 6, 2006, the Committee remains concerned 
about the lack of personnel and leadership. Therefore the 
Committee has reduced funding for Administrative and Regional 
Operations by $1,000,000 and directs the Department to provide 
a comprehensive staffing strategic plan for FEMA within 30 days 
of enactment. This strategic plan shall include recruitment and 
training needs and identify resources required. The Committee 
expects that all Regional and Division Directors will be on 
board by the start of fiscal year 2007.

                  CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET JUSTIFICATIONS

    FEMA's Congressional budget justifications do not address 
the needs of the Congress in its role of reviewing and 
allocating federal budgetary resources. The Committee directs 
the Secretary to submit the fiscal year 2008 budget 
justifications based on the specific budget activities within 
the divisions.

                   IMPROVING PUBLIC ALERT AND WARNING

    The Committee is aware of an innovative project in which 
the Department of Homeland Security and Public Television have 
successfully demonstrated the capability of public television 
stations to provide critical public warning information over 
their digital broadcast transmission facilities. The project is 
designed to begin the build out of a national network that 
enables the American public to receive timely and critical 
alerts via a range of technologies, such as cell-phones, 
personal digital assistants, lap tops, pagers, televisions, 
radios, satellite radio and cable and wireless networks. This 
technology uses the digital broadcast transmission 
infrastructure of public television stations as the backbone 
for the reception, relay and retransmission of emergency alerts 
in the system.
    The first phase of the pilot focused primarily on 
technology demonstration and proved that digital broadcasts to 
media and telecommunications service providers will 
significantly improve and enhance the ability of Federal, State 
and local governments to provide critical, lifesaving emergency 
messages to the public. The second phase expanded the number of 
participants and lays the foundation for a digitally-based 
federal public safety alert and warning system. This system 
will supplement the current Emergency Alert System to provide 
the President and other designated officials the capability to 
speak to the American public in periods of national emergency. 
The Committee directs the Department to finish the national 
build-out and to provide for origination of emergency alert 
messages from authorized local and state officials.

             Readiness, Mitigation, Response, and Recovery

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2006.......................      $202,017,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.....................       233,499,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       238,199,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2006...................       +36,182,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.................        +4,700,000
                                MISSION

    The Readiness, 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 $238,199,000 for Readiness, 
Mitigation, Response, and Recovery activities, $4,700,000 above 
the President's request and $36,182,000 above the amounts 
provided in fiscal year 2006.

                   HURRICANE KATRINA LESSONS LEARNED

    Consistent with other areas of this report, the Committee 
expects the Department to vigorously correct failures 
identified by Hurricane Katrina. The House Bipartisan Committee 
on Katrina, the White House's ``The Federal Response to 
Hurricane Katrina--Lessons Learned'', and investigative results 
from the Government Accountability Office and the Office of 
Inspector General point to changes that should be made to 
programs and responsibilities of the Federal Emergency 
Management Administration (FEMA). The Committee directs that, 
with the funds provided for fiscal year 2007, FEMA will 
implement recommended improvements, with particular emphasis on 
measures outlined below.
    Incident Management.--The investigations into Hurricane 
Katrina found that management capabilities were insufficient at 
both the headquarters and field levels. To strengthen incident 
management, the White House's ``The Federal Response to 
Hurricane Katrina--Lessons Learned'' recommends the 
establishment of a National Operations Center to replace the 
situational awareness mission of the Homeland Security 
Operations Center (HSOC) and FEMA's National Response 
Coordination Center (NRCC). The Committee understands that FEMA 
is developing protocols to improve operations between the NRCC 
and the HSOC, including upgrading equipment and installing 
software to improve the interface, coordination, and exchange 
of information. The Committee directs the Department to improve 
operations so that the NRCC can function as a true interagency 
command center. Below the headquarters level, the Committee 
directs FEMA to identify and train field personnel to fill the 
roles of future Principal Federal Official and Joint Field 
Office staffs. The Committee commends the Department's April 26 
predesignation of 28 federal officials to coordinate the 
federal government's role in the 2006 storm season. The 
Department is directed to define the roles of these officials 
and fully train these officials before the start of the 2006 
hurricane season. FEMA is directed to report no later than July 
1, 2006, on the status of these teams and the Department's 
efforts to identify and train field personnel.
    Logistics.--All States affected by Katrina have reported 
they could not rely on FEMA to provide the commodities 
requested and that federal and State managers had trouble 
determining what resources were available and where and when 
they were needed. The White House's ``Lessons Learned'' 
recommends that FEMA develop a modern, flexible logistics 
system. The Committee understands that FEMA is developing a new 
commodity tracking initiative (Total Asset Visibility: Phase I) 
that will provide FEMA with an improved ability to manage its 
inventory of certain commodities and to track the location of 
trailers carrying commodities. The Committee understands that, 
within the funds provided, FEMA will continue its efforts to 
expand this tracking system to encompass all logistics centers. 
FEMA is directed to report on the status of these efforts no 
later than July 1, 2006.
    Evacuations.--More than 70,000 individuals failed to 
evacuate New Orleans before Hurricane Katrina hit, resulting in 
catastrophe when it did. The White House's ``Lessons Learned'' 
found that, when local evacuations fail, the federal government 
must be prepared to fulfill this task. The Committee concurs 
with the recommendation that FEMA work with the Department of 
Transportation to plan and exercise mass evacuations. A related 
issue to mass evacuation is the resultant dislocated population 
needing temporary shelter. The Committee concurs with the 
``Lessons Learned'' recommendation that the Department must 
maintain awareness of the movement of shelter and temporary 
housing for residents. The Committee understands that FEMA is 
working with its nonprofit partners to improve the ability to 
meet temporary housing needs and the registration process and 
directs FEMA to report on the status of these efforts no later 
than July 1, 2006.
    Debris Removal.--The estimated 118 million cubic yards of 
debris caused by Hurricane Katrina were unprecedented. The 
Committee recognizes that FEMA has revised its debris removal 
policy to ensure consistent cost-sharing for federal 
contracting (through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) and 
local government contracting. Further, FEMA is establishing a 
nationwide list of debris removal contractors that can help 
States and local communities better plan for, and more rapidly 
respond to, debris removal requirements in times of disaster. 
FEMA is directed to notify the Committee of any changes to 
current debris removal policies prior to implementing these 
changes.

                   HURRICANE KATRINA FRAUD AND ABUSE

    The Committee is concerned by widespread reports of fraud 
and abuse associated with victim assistance programs for the 
2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes. GAO found in (GAO-06-403T, 
``Expedited Assistance for Victims of Hurricanes Katrina and 
Rita'') significant flaws in the process for registering 
disaster victims that leave the federal government vulnerable 
to fraud and abuse of Expedited Assistance payments. While the 
Committee recognizes the importance of providing aid as quickly 
as possible to disaster victims, FEMA must have in place basic 
controls to ensure that assistance goes to only those in need 
and affected by a disaster. The Committee directs FEMA to 
revise the validating and authenticating processes as 
recommended in the February GAO statement. The Committee 
concurs with the GAO--once fraudulent registrations are made 
and money is disbursed, recouping those funds is a costly and 
cumbersome process. The controls must be in place up front 
through validation of identities and addresses and enhanced use 
of automated system verification intended to prevent fraudulent 
disbursements. FEMA shall report on instituting revisions to 
its identity validation process no later than July 1, 2006, and 
provide an update of implemented reforms by January 16, 2007. 
The Committee directs the Department to provide a specific line 
item by program, project, and activity in its fiscal year 2008 
budget submission requesting necessary funds to implement 
revisions to the registration processes that will safeguard 
taxpayer dollars from fraud and abuse.

                         CATASTROPHIC PLANNING

    While support for planning has largely moved to the 
Preparedness Directorate, there continues to be a role for FEMA 
in this area. The Preparedness Directorate is responsible for 
providing assistance to State and local governments to carry 
out their planning efforts while FEMA remains responsible for 
planning the Federal-level effort required for effective 
catastrophic disaster response operations. The Committee 
provided $5,300,000 in fiscal year 2005, $20,000,000 in fiscal 
year 2006, and recommends $20,000,000 in fiscal year 2007 for 
catastrophic planning, as requested by the President. The 
$25,300,000 previously appropriated are ``no-year'' funds which 
remain available until expended. These appropriations indicate 
the Committee's support for catastrophic planning. However, the 
Committee remains concerned about the lack of detailed plans on 
the use of these funds and notes that FEMA is four months late 
in submitting the report on the status of catastrophic planning 
required in fiscal year 2006. The Committee includes bill 
language withholding from obligation the $20,000,000 provided 
in fiscal year 2007 until FEMA develops and provides a detailed 
catastrophic planning expenditure plan. This plan shall 
include: a schedule of catastrophic planning events; exercises 
of the NRP's Catastrophic Incident Supplement; and cost 
estimates, schedule milestones, and expected performance goals 
for each planning event. This detailed expenditure plan is in 
addition to the report requested in fiscal year 2006 due 
February 10, 2006, which the Committee expects no later than 
August 1, 2006.

     NATIONAL RESPONSE PLAN AND NATIONAL INCIDENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

    The fiscal year 2007 President's request for Readiness, 
Mitigation, Response, and Recovery (RMRR) included $5,300,000 
to initiate improvements to the National Response Plan. The 
Committee has included these funds in the pending fiscal year 
2006 supplemental appropriations bill to accelerate the 
revision process, and therefore does not include the $5,300,000 
in the amounts recommended for fiscal year 2007. The Federal 
response to Hurricane Katrina revealed several areas for 
revision in the NRP. The Committee recommends the following 
improvements: (1) clarify what constitutes an Incident of 
National Significance to eliminate the confusion and academic 
debate that surrounds this issue; (2) clarify the roles, 
authorities and responsibilities between the PFO and FCO; and 
(3) require that all Federal signatories to the NRP train 
deployable disaster response personnel. Of the funds provided 
for RMRR, $30,000,000 is included for the National Incident 
Management System (NIMS). The Committee directs FEMA to use no 
less than $10,000,000 to continue to implement NIMS nationwide, 
with a focus specifically on standards identification, testing 
and evaluation of equipment, and gap and lessons learned 
identification.

           NATIONAL CENTER FOR MISSING AND EXPLOITED CHILDREN

    The Committee commends the National Center for Missing and 
Exploited Children (NCMEC) for its laudable contributions to 
Hurricane Katrina relief efforts. In the six months that 
followed the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes, NCMEC recovered and 
reunited all of the 5,192 children reported as missing. While 
NCMEC has traditionally served the law enforcement community, 
the Committee views NCMEC as a unique national resource that 
has the potential to fill a critical need within DHS' response 
programs. The Committee is aware of ongoing discussions between 
FEMA and NCMEC that would include NCMEC in disaster relief 
operations. The Committee is extremely supportive of this 
relationship and encourages FEMA to examine how NCMEC can best 
contribute to the National Response Plan.

         PREPOSITIONED EQUIPMENT PROGRAM AND LOGISTICS CENTERS

    The Committee includes $7,000,000 as requested for further 
equipment purchase, maintenance, deployment, training and 
outreach for the Prepositioned Equipment Program. The Committee 
has learned that four of the nine Prepositioned Equipment 
Program Pods have been released. The Committee understands 
that, in some instances, this was because the Pods were housed 
in non-government buildings scheduled for closure or 
demolition. However, the Committee understands that instead of 
leasing new space for the Pods in a nearby location, the 
Department has moved the equipment to FEMA logistics centers. 
The Committee directs the Department to provide, by July 1, 
2006, the strategic or business plan that guided the site 
selection for the relocation of the materials housed in the 
four recently released Pods including the risk based 
methodology used to position the equipment. The Committee 
directs the Department to provide the strategy behind co-
locating the Pod equipment with logistics centers, as well as 
the original methodology used to select the locations of the 
logistics centers. As part of this plan, the Committee directs 
the Department to provide an accounting of the actions taken to 
date to extend the West Coast Logistics Center.
    The Committee is aware of failures in providing temporary 
housing structures in a reasonable time following Hurricane 
Katrina and of more than 14,945 hastily ordered, purchased, and 
now unused mobile homes. The Committee strongly recommends FEMA 
consider acquiring and storing at logistics centers temporary, 
stackable, and reusable emergency structures that can be 
expanded during assembly to increase useable space. The 
structures should also be suitable to address other 
infrastructure needs including offices, schools, and medical 
centers. The Committee believes these multiple reuse and 
expandable structures will result in cost-savings as well as 
provide immediate assets for improving delivery times, service, 
and enhance response capabilities.
    The Committee directs FEMA to consider prepositioning 
portable water purification systems and meals-ready-to-eat 
(MREs) near known natural disaster and other critical emergency 
response areas.

                        URBAN SEARCH AND RESCUE

    In 2005, the Department reported that the current 28 Urban 
Search and Rescue teams have the capacity to meet the Stafford 
Act urban search and rescue needs of this country. The 
Committee notes that the country has again been well served by 
the Urban Search and Rescue teams. Three days before Hurricane 
Katrina hit landfall, three Urban Search and Rescue Teams were 
initially deployed, and ultimately all 28 teams were deployed, 
to assist in rescue efforts in heavily impacted areas in 
Louisiana and Mississippi. The Committee is extremely impressed 
by the work of the teams, which consist of local emergency 
services personnel who helped 6,582 people reach safety in the 
hours and days immediately after Hurricane Katrina, and 
searched for trapped victims in 22,313 structures in New 
Orleans alone. The Committee is concerned that the personnel of 
the 28 existing teams worked around the clock from August 27, 
2005, through September 30, 2005, and encourages FEMA to expand 
the numbers of teams and to request appropriate funds to 
support additional teams in the fiscal year 2008 budget.

                         LEVEE RECERTIFICATION

    The Committee directs FEMA, in working with the Corps of 
Engineers, to provide a status report by January 16, 2007 on 
any levee inventories including the number and location of 
federal levees that require recertification, the estimated 
costs of recertification, and, a description of the 
Administration's policy on how these cost requirements should 
be met.

              EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM

    The Committee understands that the emergency preparedness 
demonstration program is in the information collection phase. 
The Committee directs FEMA to expand this pilot demonstration 
project so that information from Hurricane Katrina victims can 
be added to this study. The Committee recognizes that this may 
cause the time of the study to lengthen and directs that FEMA 
provide an interim report to the committee by March 31, 2007.

                         Public Health Programs

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2006.......................       $33,660,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.....................        33,885,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        33,885,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2006...................          +225,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.................             - - -
                                MISSION

    The Public Health Program account provides for the 
coordination of much of the federal health, medical, and mental 
health response to major emergencies, federally declared 
disasters and terrorist acts. This nationwide response capacity 
supplements State and local medical resources during disasters 
and emergencies.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $33,885,000 for Public Health 
Programs, the same as the budget request and $225,000 above the 
amounts provided in fiscal year 2006.

                            Disaster Relief

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2006.......................    $1,750,800,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.....................     1,941,390,000
Recommended in the bill...............................     1,662,891,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2006...................       -87,909,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.................      -278,499,000
                                MISSION

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency 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 provides 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 that 
sponsors projects to diminish effects of future disasters; and 
disaster management, including disaster field office staff and 
automated data processing support.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $1,662,891,000 for the Disaster 
Relief Fund, $278,499,000 below the President's request and 
$89,409,000 below the amount provided in the regular fiscal 
year 2006 bill.
    The Committee has appropriated $35,000,000,000 in Emergency 
Funds to the Disaster Relief Fund since September, 2005, and 
has recommended an additional $9,550,000,000 in the pending 
Supplemental bill. These funds remain available until expended 
for declared disasters and emergencies. Of these emergency 
funds provided in fiscal year 2005, Hurricane Katrina, almost 
$778,000,000 were expended to purchase 21,322 mobile homes, 
14,945 of which have not been used. The Committee expects that 
these homes will be used for housing needs for the upcoming 
hurricane seasons, thereby reducing estimated needs for the 
Disaster Relief Fund.

            Disaster Assistance Direct Loan Program Account

                        ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2006.......................          $561,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.....................           569,000
Recommended in the bill...............................           569,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2006...................            +8,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.................             - - -
                       LIMITATION ON DIRECT LOANS
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2006.......................       $25,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.....................        25,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        25,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2006...................             - - -
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.................             - - -
                                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.

                             RECOMENDATION

    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 $569,000 for 
administrative expenses of the program, the same as the budget 
request.

                      Flood Map Modernization Fund

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2006.......................      $198,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.....................       198,980,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       198,980,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2006...................          +980,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.................             - - -
                                MISSION

    The mission of the Flood Map Modernization Program is to 
modernize and digitize the inventory of over 100,000 flood 
maps. These flood maps are used to determine appropriate risk-
based premium rates for the National Flood Insurance Program, 
complete hazard determinations required for the nation's 
lending institutions, and to develop appropriate disaster 
response plans for federal, State, and local emergency 
management personnel.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $198,980,000 for the Flood Map 
Modernization Fund, the same as the President's request and 
$980,000 above amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. The 
Committee directs FEMA 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 
FEMA to provide funding to update the flood maps of the 
following: Independence County in Arkansas; Flint River in 
Albany, Georgia; Pike and Bell Counties in Kentucky; Hearne and 
Abilene, Texas; Brazos and Robertson Counties in Texas. Not to 
exceed three percent may be used for administrative expenses. 
Funds are available until expended.
    The Committee is concerned the Flood Map Modernization 
Program is using data that is outdated and inaccurate to 
produce its maps. The Committee therefore directs FEMA to use 
newly collected elevation data produced by using the best 
available technologies being utilized by other Federal 
agencies, such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, 
and the Department of Defense. This should include consultation 
and coordination with, at a minimum, the U.S. Geological Survey 
and the Army Corps of Engineers.

                     National Flood Insurance Fund

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2006.......................      $123,854,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.....................       128,588,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       128,588,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2006...................        +4,734,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.................             - - -
                                MISSION

    The Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 requires the 
purchase of insurance in communities where it is available as a 
condition for receiving various forms of federal financial 
assistance for acquisition and construction of buildings or 
projects within special flood hazard areas identified by the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency. All existing buildings and 
their contents in communities where flood insurance is 
available, through either the emergency or regular program, are 
eligible for a first layer of coverage of subsidized premium 
rates.
    Full risk actuarial rates are charged for new construction 
or substantial improvements commenced in identified special 
flood hazard areas after December 31, 1974, or after the 
effective date of the flood insurance rate map issued to the 
community, whichever is later. For communities in the regular 
program, a second layer of flood insurance coverage is 
available at actuarial rates on all properties, and actuarial 
rates for both layers apply to all new construction or 
substantial improvements located in special flood hazard areas. 
The program operations are financed with premium income 
augmented by Treasury borrowings.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee has included bill language for salaries and 
expenses to administer the National Flood Insurance Fund, not 
to exceed $38,230,000, the same as the budget request. The 
Committee has included bill language that not to exceed 
$50,000,000 for severe repetitive loss property mitigation 
expenses under section 1361A of the National Flood Insurance 
Act of 1968 and a repetitive loss property mitigation pilot 
program under section 1323 of the Act shall remain available 
until expended. Not to exceed $90,358,000 is available for 
flood mitigation activities, of which $31,000,000 is available 
under section 1366 of the Act for transfer to the National 
Flood Mitigation Fund. Flood mitigation funds are available 
until September 30, 2008. Total funding of $128,588,000 is 
offset by premium collections.

                     National Flood Mitigation Fund

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
 Appropriation, fiscal year 2006.......................       $28,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.....................        31,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        31,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2006...................        +3,000,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.................             - - -
                                MISSION

    The National Flood Mitigation Fund assists States and 
communities in implementing measures to reduce or eliminate the 
long-term risk of flood damage to buildings, manufactured 
homes, and other structures insurable under the National Flood 
Insurance Program (NFIP).

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $31,000,000 for the National Flood 
Mitigation Fund, the same as the President's request and 
$3,000,000 below the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006, to 
be derived by transfer from the National Flood Insurance 
Program. Funds are available until September 30, 2008.

                 National Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2006.......................       $49,500,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.....................       149,978,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       100,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2006...................       +50,500,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.................       -49,978,000
                                MISSION

    The National Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund assists State 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 $100,000,000 for the National Pre-
Disaster Mitigation Fund, $49,978,000 below the President's 
request and $50,000,000 above amounts provided in fiscal year 
2006. In addition to the funds recommended for fiscal year 
2007, the Committee understands that FEMA has approximately 
$75,000,000 in carryover funding from previous fiscal years. 
Further, the President's budget assumed an increase in aviation 
passenger fees in order to fund this program at the requested 
levels. Authorization of this fee is not within the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations and the 
Committee has adjusted its fiscal year 2007 recommendation 
accordingly.

                       Emergency Food and Shelter

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2006.......................      $151,470,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.....................       151,470,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       151,470,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2006...................             - - -
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.................             - - -
                                MISSION

    The Emergency Food and Shelter National Board Program was 
created in 1983 to supplement the work of local social service 
organizations within the United States, both private and 
governmental, to help people in need of emergency assistance. 
This collaborative effort between the private and public 
sectors has disbursed over $2.4 billion in Federal funds during 
its 23-year history.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $151,470,000 for the Emergency 
Food and Shelter program, the same as the budget request and as 
the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. Not to exceed 3.5 
percent may be used for administrative expenses. Funds are 
available until expended.

       TITLE IV--RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, TRAINING, AND SERVICES

           United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2006.......................      $113,850,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.....................       181,990,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       161,990,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2006...................       +48,140,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.................       -20,000,000
                                MISSION

    The mission of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(CIS) is to process all immigrant and non-immigrant benefits 
provided to visitors to the United States, naturalization 
requests, promote national security as it relates to 
immigration issues, eliminate immigration adjudications 
backlogs, and implement solutions to improve immigration 
customer services. While essentially a service organization, 
CIS maintains substantial records and data relevant to both 
individuals who seek immigration benefits, as well as for law 
enforcement and other homeland security purposes.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $161,990,000 for Citizenship and 
Immigration Services, a decrease of $20,000,000 below the 
President's request and $48,140,000 above the amount provided 
in fiscal year 2006. This includes $47,000,000 to support 
business system and information technology transformation; 
$24,500,000 to fully fund the Systematic Alien Verification for 
Entitlements (SAVE) program and expand it to meet requirements 
of the REAL ID Act; and $90,490,000 to expand the Employment 
Eligibility Verification (EEV) program. As noted earlier in 
this report, these investments are critical to the ultimate 
success of the SBI and immigration reform, while providing 
immediate efficiency and security benefits for current 
operations. The Committee reduced the overall discretionary 
funding for the EEV program from that requested due to the 
assumption in the President's budget of an increase in aviation 
passenger fees to fund this program at the requested levels. 
This fee is not within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
Appropriations and the Committee has adjusted its fiscal year 
2007 recommendation for this account accordingly.
    The following table specifies funding by program, project, 
and activity, and includes both direct appropriation and 
estimated collections:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Direct appropriations         Budget estimate      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Business and IT Transformation....        $47,000,000        $47,000,000
Systematic Alien Verification for          24,500,000         24,500,000
 Entitlements (SAVE)..............
Employment Eligibility                    110,490,000         90,490,000
 Verification (EEV) program.......
                                   -------------------------------------
    Subtotal, Direct                      181,990,000        161,990,000
     Appropriations...............
Adjudication Services (Immigration
 Examination Fee Account):
    Pay and Benefits..............        624,600,000        624,600,000
    District Operations...........        385,400,000        385,400,000
    Service Center Operations.....        267,000,000        267,000,000
    Asylum, Refugee and                    75,000,000         75,000,000
     International Operations.....
    Records Operations............         67,000,000         67,000,000
                                   -------------------------------------
        Subtotal, Adjudication          1,419,000,000      1,419,000,000
         Services.................
Information and Customer Services
 (Immigration Examination Fee
 Account):
    Pay and Benefits..............         81,000,000         81,000,000
    National Customer Service              48,000,000         48,000,000
     Center.......................
    Information Services..........         15,000,000         15,000,000
                                   -------------------------------------
        Subtotal, Information and         144,000,000        144,000,000
         Customer Service.........
Administration (Immigration
 Examination Fee Accounts):
    Pay and Benefits..............         45,000,000         45,000,000
    Operating Expenses............        196,000,000        196,000,000
                                   -------------------------------------
        Subtotal, Administration..        241,000,000        241,000,000
                                   -------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Immigration         1,760,000,000      1,760,000,000
           Examination Fee Account
Fraud Prevention and Detection Fee         31,000,000         31,000,000
 Account..........................
H-1B Non-Immigrant Petitioner Fee          13,000,000         13,000,000
 Account..........................
                                   =====================================
            Total, U.S.                 1,985,990,000      1,965,990,000
             Citizenship and
             Immigration Services.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        USER FEE FUNDED PROGRAMS

    Current estimates of fee collections, which constitute the 
majority of CIS offsetting resources, are $1,804,000,000. These 
will support adjudication of applications for immigration 
benefits and fraud prevention activities, and be derived from 
fees collected from persons applying for immigration benefits. 
Within the $1,760,000,000 of immigration examination fees 
collected, the Committee directs CIS to provide not less than 
$48,000,000 to support the National Customer Service Center 
operations, and not to exceed $5,000 shall be available for 
official reception and representation expenses.

                       OFFSETTING FEE COLLECTIONS

    CIS operations depend on a variety of fees to offset 
operations, particularly the Immigration Examination Fee. The 
potential fluctuation of these fees can adversely affect 
operations if spending is not appropriately prioritized. The 
Committee directs CIS to ensure that it fully funds current, 
ongoing base operations that are fee-supported before 
undertaking new initiatives.

       INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND BUSINESS SYSTEM TRANSFORMATION

    The Committee is convinced that CIS must dramatically 
upgrade its business operations, which are chained to 
anachronistic paper processes, to avoid future backlogs in 
processing, particularly in the event a temporary worker 
program or some significant demand for benefits or 
naturalization should arise. Of perhaps greater concern, the 
need to access and share CIS data by law enforcement and 
national security agencies will continue to be frustrated until 
such information can be digitized and standardized. The 
Committee therefore strongly supports the President's request 
for information technology and business system transformation, 
and provides $47,000,000 in fiscal year 2007. In order to 
ensure that this effort is consistent with best practices, the 
Committee makes this funding unavailable for obligation until 
CIS submits to the Committee, and the Committee approves, a 
strategic transformation plan that has been reviewed by the 
Secretary and the Government Accountability Office. The 
Committee directs that CIS submit with this plan a detailed 
breakout of costs associated with its business and information 
technology transformation effort in fiscal year 2007. The 
Committee also directs that CIS include in the report materials 
reflecting the alignment of the transformation process with 
Departmental architecture, as well as details on expected 
project performance and deliverables.
    The Committee is concerned that CIS may have changed its 
plans for the use of fiscal year 2006 funding provided for 
information transformation and digitization efforts. If so, the 
Committee directs CIS to submit a new expenditure plan for 
approval by the Committee before obligating these funds.

                          EMPLOYER COMPLIANCE

    Ensuring that CIS can respond to State and employer 
requests for information on immigration status is key to 
preventing illegal aliens from using fraud or counterfeit 
identity documents to gain credentials for employment and 
public services--the ``magnets'' that drive illegal 
immigration. The Committee fully supports development of SAVE 
and EEV systems. Because of budget constraints, the Committee 
reduces EEV funding by $20,000,000, with the expectation that 
this should not seriously delay investment in EEV.
    One element of IT and business system transformation 
relates to electronic communications with the State Department. 
The Committee is disappointed that it has not received the 
report on this information exchange, as required in the fiscal 
year 2006 Committee report, and directs that report be provided 
as soon as possible.

                     SECURITY AND INTERNAL AFFAIRS

    The Committee is aware of reports that CIS may be 
vulnerable to significant security lapses. One concern is that, 
because the Office of Security and Investigations (OSI) has a 
significant case backlog, critical enforcement action may be 
delayed--for example, were it later discovered that immigration 
benefits had been granted inappropriately. Another is that CIS 
adjudicators may lack necessary security clearances, with the 
result that immigration benefits or naturalization may have 
been granted without adequate background or watch list checks--
for which such security clearances may be required. At the same 
time, the Committee applauds the CIS Director for his 
declaration that security is the top priority for CIS--not 
maximizing output. The Committee strongly urges CIS to work 
closely with Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Office 
of the Inspector General to resolve any outstanding security 
gaps, and to keep the Committee fully informed of progress in 
this effort.

                           BACKGROUND CHECKS

    The Committee understands some individuals have been 
waiting over two years for the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
(FBI) to complete adjudication of their background checks. The 
Committee further understands the FBI has recognized this 
problem and is devoting additional resources to resolve these 
background checks. The Committee directs CIS to ensure those 
cases that have been held up the longest and those with the 
most compelling need are given priority in this process.

                          IMMIGRATION SERVICES

    The Committee encourages CIS to continue to expand its 
immigration service programs throughout the country in areas 
with high immigrant populations.

                     AVAILABILITY OF OFFICIAL FILES

    The Committee recognizes the importance of ensuring asylum 
applicants receive copies of their DHS files to prepare for 
their cases in immigration court, where this is appropriate. 
The Committee is concerned that, due to a backlog at the 
National Records Center, few, if any, asylum applicants who 
file FOIA requests for their files shortly after being served 
with a notice to appear in immigration court receive those 
files in time to prepare for their hearings. The Committee 
directs CIS to develop a plan to ensure that such requests are 
filled expeditiously, when appropriate, and to submit the plan 
to the Committee not later than January 16, 2007.

                                 U-VISA

    The Committee is concerned that CIS has yet to issue 
regulations on the U-visa for immigrant victims of crime. This 
visa was established pursuant to the Trafficking Victims 
Protection Act of 2000, but few victims have applied in the 
last six years, as only interim relief exists. The Committee 
directs CIS to report not later than January 16, 2007, on its 
plan for issuing U-visa regulations.

                FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING CENTER

                         Salaries and Expenses

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2006.......................      $192,060,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.....................       202,310,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       210,507,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2006...................       +18,447,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.................        +8,197,000
                                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 75 federal agencies with personnel located 
throughout the United States and its territories. FLETC also 
provides services to State, local, and international law 
enforcement agencies, and on a space available basis, other 
federal agencies with related law enforcement missions.
    FLETC is headquartered in Glynco, Georgia with facilities 
in Artesia, New Mexico and Charleston, South Carolina. Each of 
these facilities is designed primarily for residential training 
operations. There is a fourth training center for officers and 
agents in the Washington, D.C. area.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $210,507,000 for FLETC, an 
increase of $8,197,000 above the President's request and 
$18,447,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. 
This increase supports the increased training needs of the 
Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The 
Committee includes bill language and $300,000 as requested for 
compensation to recipients receiving law enforcement 
accreditation, and language permitting FLETC to hire retired 
Federal employees as instructors.
    The Committee encourages FLETC to explore the use of high 
fidelity interactive simulators to practice and assess critical 
incident preparedness skills. This would provide an authentic 
physics-based dynamic disaster environment to train decision 
makers and first responders, without the high costs or risks 
associated with live exercises.

     Acquisition, Construction, Improvements, and Related Expenses

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2006.......................       $87,474,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.....................        42,246,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        42,246,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2006...................       -45,228,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.................             - - -
                                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 $42,246,000 for FLETC Acquisition, 
Construction, Improvements, and Related Expenses, the same as 
the President's request and $45,228,000 below the amounts 
provided in fiscal year 2006. The decrease is due to one time 
facility construction costs funded in fiscal year 2006.

                         SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

                     Management and Administration

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2006.......................       $80,288,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.....................       195,901,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       180,901,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2006...................      +100,613,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.................       -15,000,000
                                MISSION

    The Management and Administration (M&A) appropriation 
provides for the salaries and expenses of federal employees of 
the Science and Technology Directorate (S&T).

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $180,901,000 for Management and 
Administration, $15,000,000 below the President's request and 
$100,613,000 above amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. The 
request reflects $112,013,000 in administrative costs 
previously funded in the Research, Development, Acquisition, 
and Operations (RDA&O) account in order to better account for 
resources S&T devotes to research, as distinguished from 
resources applied to administrative overhead.

                                 HIRING

    The Committee has reduced M&A funding by $10,000,000 due to 
the large number of vacancies within this office that are 
estimated to continue through the remainder of fiscal year 2006 
and into fiscal year 2007.

                             COMMUNICATIONS

    The Committee is very disappointed by S&T's poor response 
to Congressional requests for information, including a failure 
to provide congressionally directed reports. After three years, 
there has been no measurable improvement in this area, which is 
unacceptable. Therefore, the Committee's recommendation 
reflects a $5,000,000 reduction to the M&A account for lack of 
responsiveness.

                         BUDGET JUSTIFICATIONS

    Only with great difficulty has the Committee been able to 
gather basic budgetary information in support of the 
President's fiscal year 2007 request for S&T. This is 
disconcerting, since a budget should be built upon sound, 
mission-oriented planning and fiscal analysis rather than 
simply being cobbled together. In particular, inadequate 
justification was given for S&T administrative overhead 
funding, and how it would be employed. The Committee therefore 
makes $98,000,000 unavailable for obligation until S&T provides 
an expenditure plan with sufficient detail on how it developed 
its cost estimates, and explains the differences between the 
fiscal year 2007 congressional justification and S&T's 
projected plans for using these resources.

                    ADMINISTRATIVE COST ASSESSMENTS

    The Committee is extremely disappointed to learn S&T has 
adopted the practice of assessing significant fractions of S&T 
activities' appropriated funds to cover Directorate overhead 
costs. This has resulted in hiding true costs and a 
diminishment of resources aimed at critical initiatives. In 
addition, the method employed by S&T for such assessments is 
baffling--some programs are assessed less than ten percent, 
others more than 20 percent, with no clear reason for the 
difference. This practice must stop. The Committee directs S&T 
to identify and report any future assessments of a program 
within RDA&O to the Committee, and ensure that no assessment 
may exceed five percent of the total program appropriation. Any 
exception to the five percent cap must be approved by the 
Committee in accordance with section 503 of this Act.

                               LEADERSHIP

    The Committee directs the Department to expedite the naming 
of a new Under Secretary. To its credit, acting management has 
begun to provide the Committee with better information on the 
operations of S&T programs and priorities. Nevertheless, 
regardless of the competency of the acting Under Secretary and 
staff, S&T has a need for permanent leadership to take 
responsibility for corrective changes, be accountable for 
policy decisions, and set a clear agenda for the organization.

           Research, Development, Acquisition, and Operations

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2006.......................    $1,406,787,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.....................       806,370,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       775,370,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2006...................      -631,417,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.................       -31,000,000
                                MISSION

    The mission of the Science and Technology Directorate is to 
develop and deploy technologies and capabilities to secure our 
homeland. This directorate conducts, stimulates, and enables 
research, development, 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 
terrorist threats; and development of new capabilities to 
thwart future and emerging threats.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $775,370,000 for Research, 
Development, Acquisition and Operations (RDA&O), $31,000,000 
below the President's request and $631,417,000 below amounts 
provided in fiscal year 2006. The President's budget assumed an 
increase in aviation passenger fees in order to fund this 
program at the requested levels. This fee is not within the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations and the 
Committee has adjusted its fiscal year 2007 recommendation for 
this account accordingly. Decreases include $38,000,000 from 
the Chemical Countermeasures program; $10,000,000 from the 
Explosives Countermeasures program; $7,000,000 from the 
Regional Technology Integration (RTI) program and $3,000,000 
from the Response and Recovery activities, both within 
Conventional Missions Support. These decreases correspond to 
areas of research where other governmental agencies are taking 
the lead. The Committee directs S&T to work with the Department 
of Defense on its ongoing Chemical and Explosives 
Countermeasures activities and leverage those much larger 
programs to benefit the safety and security of the homeland. 
Further, the Department is directed to work with the Office of 
Grants and Training to assume a greater share of any RTI-type 
activities the Department wishes to pursue. Finally, S&T is 
directed to work with the Environmental Protection Agency on 
Chemical Response and Recovery activities.
    A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee 
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget estimate      Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biological Countermeasures........       $337,200,000       $337,200,000
Chemical Countermeasures..........         83,092,000         45,092,000
Explosives Countermeasures........         86,582,000         76,582,000
Threat Awareness..................         39,851,000         39,851,000
Conventional Missions.............         88,622,000         85,622,000
Standards.........................         22,131,000         22,131,000
Emergent and Prototypical                  19,451,000         19,451,000
 Technologies.....................
Critical Infrastructure Protection         15,413,000         35,413,000
University Programs Fellowship             51,970,000         51,970,000
 Programs.........................
Counter MANPADS...................          4,880,000          4,880,000
SAFETY Act........................          4,710,000          4,710,000
Cyber Security....................         22,733,000         22,733,000
Interoperability and Compatibility         29,735,000         29,735,000
                                   =====================================
      Total, Research,                    806,370,000        775,370,000
       Development, Acquisition,
       and Operations.............
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             BUSINESS MODEL

    The Committee continues to be concerned about the ability 
of S&T to advance the use of science and technology in battling 
terrorism and against other hazards related to homeland 
security. Despite its promise, S&T has failed to adequately 
convey its role or how it supports missions of DHS component 
agencies. Vendors continue to complain that S&T is slow to 
evaluate potentially valuable tools, and many DHS components 
express skepticism or even ignorance about the value of S&T in 
serving their agencies. Until recently, S&T has failed to 
explain how it is using resources appropriated in prior years, 
or even how it derived its request for fiscal year 2007. 
Reports on activities have been left undone and progress on 
ongoing reports has ceased when responsible staff left the 
Department.
    The Department is directed to report to the House Committee 
on Appropriations, the House Homeland Security Committee and 
the House Science Committee no later than 180 days after 
enactment of this Act on the status of its efforts to develop 
and implement a business model to enable it to: employ its 
countermeasure activities to combat weapons of mass 
destruction; lead and coordinate homeland security research and 
cultivate the next generation of scientists; provide research 
and consulting services to the component agencies; deliver new, 
validated technologies to first responders and those who need 
them most; and other activities deemed necessary by the 
Secretary.

                          FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

    The Committee is disappointed to learn DHS's independent 
financial auditors reported that during fiscal year 2005 S&T 
had financial reporting deficiencies, including serious 
difficulties maintaining accurate financial records related to 
obligations and disbursements. In addition, S&T was unable to 
provide breakdowns of funds obligated to private and public 
sector facilities, used multiple systems to track contracts, 
and lacked an automated system to provide information about 
obligations and unexpended obligations associated with 
contracts. Until these financial management challenges are 
addressed, uncertainty about the reliability of S&T's reported 
financial data may prevent DHS from resolving financial 
reporting deficiencies and raises questions about the fiscal 
year 2007 budget formulation. Therefore, the Committee makes 
$400,000,000 unavailable for obligation until the Committee 
receives and approves a report prepared by the Under Secretary 
that describes its progress to address financial management 
deficiencies; improve its management controls; and implement 
performance measures and conduct independent evaluations to 
assess the scope, quality and effectiveness of its research and 
development programs.

                             DNDO TRANSFER

    The proposed transfer of the Domestic Nuclear Detection 
Office (DNDO) from S&T is puzzling since all other DHS 
Countermeasures activities are located within S&T. This is 
particularly unusual given most of the DNDO budget is 
specifically directed toward research and development. 
Furthermore, the Department has failed to explain why such a 
move was necessary. While the Committee is dissatisfied with 
this, it recognizes the critical importance of the DNDO 
mission, and the liability it would face by remaining in a 
leaderless Directorate. The Committee therefore approves the 
transfer of DNDO.
    However, the Committee is concerned that, if DNDO is housed 
outside the primary research and development body of DHS, it 
may encounter unexpected hurdles in achieving its research 
aims. The Committee directs S&T to work with DNDO and support 
the R&D related needs of this new office. In addition, the 
Committee is aware DNDO does not have certain grant making and 
contracting authority; the Committee includes a new general 
provision (Sec. 531) providing this authority.

                       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 $337,200,000 for 
Biological Countermeasures as requested by the President. The 
Committee notes that the current deployed technologies are 
labor intensive, costly and detect a limited range of 
pathogens. The Committee supports the requested BioWatch Gen 2 
enhancements and expects S&T to proceed expeditiously in the 
development and deployment of Gen 3 instruments. The Committee 
notes that operational costs of the currently deployed systems 
that require personnel to manually extract samples daily are 
substantial and that fully autonomous Gen 3 systems currently 
in development will lead to decreased operational costs while 
increasing specificity and sensitivity.

               BIOLOGICAL COUNTERMEASURES STRATEGIC PLAN

    The Committee notes the Department's other major weapons of 
mass destruction countermeasure program, DNDO, has made efforts 
to develop an ``architecture'' to distinguish its efforts from 
those of other federal Departments, to coordinate those 
Departments' activities, and to chart its future activities and 
goals. Given the serious consequences of a successful 
biological attack and the disparate number of agencies working 
on the issue (e.g., the Centers for Disease Control, U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, and Food and Drug Administration) 
the Biological Countermeasures program should pursue a similar 
coordinating effort, as soon as practicable. The Committee 
directs S&T, in coordination with the DHS Chief Medical Officer 
and other related federal departments, to develop a similar 
strategic plan and to report not later than January 16, 2007 to 
the House Committee on Appropriations, the House Homeland 
Security Committee and the House Science Committee on DHS' 
roles and responsibilities, its framework for deploying 
sensors, its scope of activities, including how detector alerts 
would be managed, how it plans to enhance advance animal 
vaccine research and other agro-terrorism defense efforts, 
overall fulfillment of the Department's obligations under HSPD-
10, and how other activities of this portfolio relate to such 
efforts by other government agencies.

                      MATERIAL THREAT ASSESSMENTS

    The Committee is concerned with the lack of progress on 
completing the Material Threat Assessments authorized under the 
Public Health Service Act. These assessments are a vital 
component of the national preparedness posture and are 
essential for identifying the risks for which the Department of 
Health and Human Services (HHS) must develop countermeasures. 
The Committee urges the Department, in coordination with HHS, 
to finish all necessary assessments of chemical, biological, 
radiological, and nuclear agents capable of significantly 
affecting national security as quickly as possible. The 
Committee directs S&T to report on its plan for completing 
these assessments by January 16, 2007.

                            URBAN DISPERSION

    The Committee supports S&T's ongoing Urban Dispersion 
Program to provide urban first responders information they will 
need during a radiological, biological or chemical attack and 
recommends continued funding of this program.

                        CHEMICAL COUNTERMEASURES

    The Chemical Countermeasures program 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 $45,092,000 for 
Chemical Countermeasures, $48,958,000 below the amounts 
provided in fiscal year 2006. The Committee believes that 
ongoing work by other federal departments can be leveraged to 
benefit protecting the homeland. Of the amount provided, the 
Committee recommends $18,800,000 for the Chemical 
Countermeasures detection program. The Committee directs the 
Under Secretary for S&T to work with the Assistant to the 
Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical and Biological 
Defense Programs to help leverage DOD research toward the 
protection of the homeland where practicable. Included in the 
Committee's recommendations is $7,600,000 for the Chemical 
Countermeasures response and recovery activity. The Committee 
directs the Under Secretary to coordinate with the 
Environmental Protection Agency on its ongoing activities to 
prevent duplication of effort.

                       EXPLOSIVE COUNTERMEASURES

    The Explosive Countermeasures program provides the science 
and technology needed to significantly increase the probability 
of interdicting an explosives attack on buildings, critical 
infrastructure, and this nation's civilian population. The 
Committee recommends $76,582,000 for Explosive Countermeasures 
$33,022,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. Of 
the amount provided, the Committee recommends $4,200,000 for 
the Explosive Countermeasures suicide bomb detection program 
and $4,300,000 for the vehicle bomb program. The Committee 
directs the Under Secretary for S&T to work with the Assistant 
to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical and 
Biological Defense Programs to help leverage DOD research 
toward the protection of the homeland where practicable.

                              MANHATTAN II

    The Committee is very interested in the progress and 
outcomes of the Manhattan II project and has provided 
$13,500,000 in fiscal year 2007. This ongoing long-term 
research and development program focuses on developing highly 
efficient and fast next-generation explosive detection systems. 
This program, commenced by TSA, has been transferred to the 
Science and Technology Directorate.
    With the ``proof of concept'' phase now completed, the 
Committee expects S&T to release its next broad area 
announcement and begin the next phase of development as quickly 
as possible and to award funding to participants with 
capability to transition technology to the marketplace and who 
will likely be able to produce cost effective machines once in 
production. The Committee supports the program's efforts to 
reduce false alarm positives, increase throughput, reduce 
manpower costs, enhance resolution, and improve reliability and 
operating efficiencies.

                                AREA 300

    The Committee is aware S&T is working with the Department 
of Energy on replacement facilities at Area 300 of the Pacific 
Northwest National Laboratories, but no reference to this 
activity was in the budget justification. The Committee directs 
the Department to fully fund its obligations and characterize 
its efforts at this site in the fiscal year 2008 budget 
submission.

                            THREAT AWARENESS

    The Committee recommends $39,851,000 for Threat Awareness, 
the same as the President's request and $2,719,000 below the 
amount provided in fiscal year 2006. Within the Threat 
Awareness Portfolio, S&T has created the knowledge management 
architecture known as Analysis, Dissemination, Visualization, 
Insight, Synthesis, and Enhancement (ADVISE) to integrate 
various information capabilities. The Committee remains unclear 
of the Department's plans for ADVISE and directs S&T to submit 
a program plan, including goals and costs to the Committee by 
November 3, 2006.

           CONVENTIONAL MISSIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE DEPARTMENT

    The Committee recommends $85,622,000 for Conventional 
Missions, $6,422,000 above amounts provided in fiscal year 
2006. The Committee recommends $3,500,000 for the Regional 
Technology Integration (RTI) program and $6,200,000 for the 
Response and Recovery activities within Conventional Missions 
Support. As noted previously in this report, the Committee is 
concerned that component managers seem unaware that S&T is 
performing work on their behalf. The Committee believes that 
component needs should be incorporated into Conventional 
Missions activities to provide customer-oriented, requirements-
based research. The Committee directs S&T to include such 
criteria in the business model described previously in this 
report.
    The Committee believes new technologies may significantly 
help the Department as it seeks to secure our homeland. The 
Committee endorses the Department's plans to assess 
technologies such as infrared illumination systems, laser radar 
sensors, and aerial imaging technologies.

                      CARGO AND CONTAINER SECURITY

    The Committee is aware that S&T, in cooperation with the 
Transportation Security Administration and Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP), 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. The Committee believes that unsecured 
containers pose a significant threat to the homeland since 
terrorists could exploit the nation's open commerce and 
transport a weapon of mass destruction or themselves to this 
country. As described in the Office of the Secretary and 
Executive Management, the Committee recommends aggressive 
support of port, container, and cargo security. Within this 
account, the Committee recommends $23,000,000 for Border and 
Transportation Cargo Security, an increase of $7,100,000 over 
the amount requested. The Committee directs S&T, in partnership 
with CBP, to use these resources to pilot test, if appropriate, 
and accelerate development of Container Security Devices, 
Advanced Container Security Devices and other ongoing 
Department initiatives.

                         STANDARDS COORDINATION

    The Committee recommends $22,131,000 for the Standards 
program, the same as the President's request. The Committee 
also recommends that the program be renamed Standards 
Coordination. Setting standards is vital. For example, without 
appropriate standards, interoperability of radios will never be 
achievable, money cannot be wisely spent on the best safety 
product, and manufacturers' claims cannot be verified. However, 
setting standards is not S&T's role, and this program has no 
authority to do so. Rather, it supports the development and 
adoption of standards to help public safety agencies select 
equipment and tools that are safe, effective, and reliable. The 
current name and frequent communications from the Department 
lead many to believe DHS has this authority and ability--and 
leaves S&T vulnerable to criticism. However, within its mission 
space, S&T should encourage the rapid development of standards 
for technologies and training programs and be certain they are 
designed and validated to ensure that they perform as needed.

                 EMERGENT AND PROTOTYPICAL TECHNOLOGIES

    The Committee recommends $19,451,000, for Emergent and 
Prototypical Technologies, the same as the President's request 
and $17,300,000 below the combined amount provided to Emerging 
Threats and Rapid Prototyping in fiscal year 2006. The 
Committee supports the President's request for the Public 
Safety and Security Institute for Technology (PSITEC) to 
continue to implement the centralized technology clearinghouse 
for federal, State and local governments and for the 
development and execution of programs that assist DHS in 
implementing Section 313 of the Homeland Security Act. This 
includes programs to: provide assistance in assessing 
technology needs and establish requirements for the development 
of new technologies; facilitate the transfer of technologies to 
end users; and test and evaluate new technologies. The 
Committee understands there are other related activities within 
other components that, if properly linked to PSITEC, could 
bring synergies to end users. The Committee directs the 
Department to make information and databases of other DHS 
websites and portals integrated into the centralized 
Clearinghouse.

                   CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION

    The Critical Infrastructure Protection program conducts 
vulnerability, consequence and risk analyses 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 $35,413,000 for Critical Infrastructure Protection 
$20,000,000 above the President's request, and $4,979,000 below 
the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. The Committee 
recommends $20,000,000 to support existing work in research and 
development and application of technology for community based 
critical infrastructure protection efforts.

                UNIVERSITY PROGRAMS/FELLOWSHIP PROGRAMS

    The Committee recommends $51,970,000 for University 
Programs/Fellowship Programs, the same as the President's 
request and $10,400,000 below the amounts provided in fiscal 
year 2006. The Committee is concerned that this program has an 
unobligated balance of $67,399,000 halfway through the fiscal 
year and reduces funds below fiscal year 2006 accordingly. S&T 
is encouraging universities to become centers of multi-
disciplinary research, including long-term research, through 
its Centers of Excellence activities and fostering the 
development of the next generation of scientists through its 
Scholars and Fellows Program. The Committee continues to 
support S&T efforts to interest and educate the next generation 
of researchers, and notes the continued intense interest from 
universities with proposals to perform homeland security 
activities. The Committee directs S&T to report on activities 
funded under this appropriation by January 16, 2007.

                            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 $4,880,000 for the 
Counter-MANPADS program, the same as the President's request 
and $104,020,000 below the amounts provided in fiscal year 
2006. The Committee notes that the request reflects the 
completion of Phase 3 testing in fiscal year 2006, which will 
provide the Administration and Congress information about the 
applicability, reliability, and cost of airborne counter-
MANPADS currently being evaluated. The Committee directs S&T to 
complete and report on this testing as quickly as practicable.

                               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 $4,710,000 for the SAFETY Act program, the same as 
the President's request and $2,220,000 below amounts provided 
in fiscal year 2006.
    The Committee is encouraged by the progress S&T has made in 
reducing the processing time for SAFETY Act applications. The 
Committee directs S&T to explore new ways to expedite the 
SAFETY Act process, including: developing a procedure to 
identify active procurements that are eligible under the SAFETY 
Act and invite the vendors to apply for designation and 
certification; aligning SAFETY Act criteria for utility and 
effectiveness with procurement criteria where possible; and 
avoiding repeat technical reviews of anti-terrorism technology 
that other government agencies have conducted.

                                SAFECOM

    The Committee notes that SAFECOM has worked diligently 
within its mission space and is pleased with its efforts to 
enhance and accelerate communications interoperability for the 
nation's emergency responders. The Committee supports the 
continuation of the development and implementation of tools 
such as the Statewide Communications Interoperability Planning 
tools and is encouraged by results of regional planning 
efforts. The Committee supports the joint work of SAFECOM and 
the Office of Grants and Training (G&T) in continuing the 
Rapidcom initiative, and in overseeing the implementation of 
the grant guidance provided to State, regional and local 
jurisdictions. The Committee directs SAFECOM to work with G&T 
to assess the success of Rapidcom and the grant guidance, and 
to recommend steps to enhance the use of that guidance.
    The Committee directs OIC to test and report findings on 
the performance specifications of Internet-Protocol (IP) based 
interoperability solutions and corresponding transmission 
equipment. SAFECOM guidelines should then be amended to clarify 
that, for purposes of providing near-term interoperability, 
funding requests to improve interoperability need not be 
limited to the purchase of new radios, but can also fund the 
purchase of these successfully tested Internet-Protocol (IP) 
based interoperability solutions that connect existing and 
future radios over an IP interoperability network. Likewise, 
funding requests for successfully tested transmission equipment 
to construct mutual aid channels and upgrade such channels with 
IP connectivity will also be considered, so long as P-25 and 
other digital radios utilizing the public safety portions of 
the 700 MHz band can operate over an IP interoperability 
network.

                            RISK ASSESSMENT

    The Committee acknowledges the Department's assertion that 
the fiscal year 2007 budget request was formulated based on 
``risk''. In a world with limited resources, a department 
tasked with missions that range from finding persons lost at 
sea to detecting renegade nuclear weapons, prioritizing 
spending based on mitigating the greatest risk is not only 
proper budgeting, but the best means to save lives and protect 
property. Without a relative risk scale ranking the greatest 
dangers to society, decisionmaking can become arbitrary and 
lead to the use of resources for the most frightening threats 
rather than ones most likely to harm us. Unfortunately, the 
fiscal year 2007 budget request offers no details of how risk 
assessment was used in its formulation or even which DHS agency 
was tasked with prioritizing risks and assigning them 
resources.
    The Committee is aware of the work of the Risk Assessment 
Policy (RAP) Group and is pleased with the RAP Group approach 
to addressing conflicting risk assessment methodologies. The 
Committee directs DHS to report by January 16, 2007, on the 
direction that will be taken to make certain all elements of 
the Department involved in risk assessment activities are using 
compatible risk assessment methodologies including risks from 
all hazards and are coordinated with each other. The Committee 
also directs the RAP Group to work with the Office of Grants 
and Training and the Office of Infrastructure Protection and 
Information Security to develop grant guidance for all grant 
programs within DHS establishing common risk assessments to be 
used by all grantees.

                   Domestic Nuclear Detection Office

 Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 \1\...................    $(314,834,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.....................       535,788,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       500,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2006...................      +185,166,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2007.................      -35,788,000\1\ The Domestic Nuclear Detection Office was part of Science and
  Technology's Research, Development, Acquisition and Operations account
  in fiscal year 2006. This figure is shown for comparison purposes
  only.

                                MISSION

    The Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) leads the 
Department's efforts to prevent nuclear or radiological 
terrorism by improving the nation's capability to detect 
unauthorized possession of radiological material.

                             RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $500,000,000 for the Domestic 
Nuclear Detection Office, $35,788,000 below the President's 
request and $185,166,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal 
year 2006. The President's budget assumed an increase in 
aviation passenger fees in order to fund this program at the 
requested levels. This fee is not within the jurisdiction of 
the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee has adjusted 
its fiscal year 2007 recommendation for this account 
accordingly. The Committee does not recommend funding the 
proposed SURGE program and proposes the transformational 
research activities be funded at $85,200,000. While the 
Committee recommends reductions to the budget request, it notes 
that this still represents an increase of 59 percent over the 
amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. The Committee is 
impressed with the aggressive efforts and focus of this new 
organization. Though only a year old, DNDO has provided timely 
and accurate information, worked with Congress to clarify its 
important mission, and appears well on its way to greatly 
expanding domestic capability for detection of illicit nuclear 
materials. A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee 
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Budget
                                             estimate       Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Management and administration...........     $30,468,000     $30,468,000
Research, development, and operations...     327,320,000     291,532,000
Systems acquisition.....................     178,000,000     178,000,000
                                         ===============================
      Total, Office of the Chief             535,788,000     500,000,000
       Information Officer..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           CONTAINER SECURITY

    As described under the Office of the Secretary and 
Executive Management, the Committee recommends aggressive 
support of port, container, and cargo security. As part of the 
Department's strategic plan, Customs and Border Protection 
(CBP) and DNDO are required to double the percentage of in-
bound, containerized cargo that is screened, with January 1, 
2006 as a baseline.

                  RADIATION PORTAL MONITOR DEPLOYMENT

    GAO recently found that CBP's delays in deployment of 
radiation portal monitors (RPMs) were caused by DHS' lengthy 
review process and negotiations with seaport operators on the 
placement of the equipment. The Committee directs CBP and DNDO 
to streamline the RPM deployment process so that seaport 
placement plans are developed in advance and DHS does not delay 
the number of monitors that can be deployed within the funding 
available.

                  ADVANCED SPECTROSCOPIC PORTALS (ASP)

    The Committee is concerned over the lack of a quantitative 
analysis which demonstrates the increased effectiveness of 
sodium-iodide based Advanced Spectroscopic Portal monitors 
compared to the current generation RPMs. DNDO shall not expend 
any funds provided in this Act to create a Sodium-Iodide 
Manufacturing Program until DNDO demonstrates that Advanced 
Spectroscopic Portal monitors will significantly speed up 
commerce, reduce the costs of secondary inspection or 
significantly increase sensitivity over current generation 
RPMs. Until this assessment is completed, the current monitors 
should be deployed in an expeditious manner. The Committee 
directs DNDO to conduct a cost-benefit analysis to compare the 
benefits of ASP deployment to that of current RPMs and report 
to the Committee on the results of this analysis no later than 
July 1, 2006.

                              RED TEAMING

    The Committee is concerned that GAO recently succeeded in 
smuggling nuclear material into the country during a red team 
exercise (GAO-06-389, ``Combating Nuclear Smuggling, DHS Has 
Made Progress Deploying Radiation Detection Equipment at U.S. 
Ports-of-Entry, but Concerns Remain''). While the RPM detected 
the radioactive source, CBP failed to verify proper 
documentation transporting radioactive material. The Committee 
is also aware that DNDO proposes to begin red teaming 
activities to test the portions of the architecture over the 
coming years. The Committee cautions DNDO to not only test the 
technological component of the architecture, but to also 
explore administrative and bureaucratic weaknesses. The 
Committee directs DNDO to submit a report on red team exercises 
and any recommendations made by January 16, 2007.

                         SECOND LINE OF DEFENSE

    The Committee is pleased DNDO has been working closely with 
DOE's Second Line of Defense program--the first layer of 
defense in the global nuclear architecture to detect illicit 
nuclear materials. While DNDO's efforts focus on protecting the 
homeland and DOE's program focuses overseas, the Committee 
urges DNDO to continue to work closely with this parallel 
program to share intelligence, technology and best practices.

                              INTELLIGENCE

    The Committee believes that there is value in deploying 
technologies to potentially detect a nuclear weapon or dirty 
bomb. However, simply because technology has been deployed to 
ports and border crossings does not mean the nation is safe 
from a smuggled radiological weapon. Since we have not been 
confronted with a smuggled device to date, lessons may be drawn 
from looking at other types of smuggling or ways to develop a 
radiological weapon with common materials that exist in the 
United States already. Of most importance is the power of 
intelligence in leading to seizures. The Committee directs DNDO 
to strengthen its links to the intelligence community and to 
account for this aspect in its planning.

                 TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS ACT

    Section 501. The Committee continues a provision 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 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 a provision that 
provides authority to reprogram funds within an account and not 
to exceed 5 percent transfer authority between appropriations 
accounts with the requirement for a 15-day advance 
Congressional notification. A detailed funding table 
identifying each Congressional control level for reprogramming 
purposes is included at the end of this Report. These 
reprogramming guidelines shall be complied with by all agencies 
funded by the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations 
Act, 2007.
    Section 504. The Committee continues a provision that not 
to exceed 50 percent of unobligated balances remaining at the 
end of fiscal year 2007 from appropriations made for salaries 
and expenses shall remain available through fiscal year 2008 
subject to reprogramming guidelines.
    Section 505. The Committee continues a provision that funds 
for intelligence activities are deemed to be specifically 
authorized during fiscal year 2007 until the enactment of an 
Act authorizing intelligence activities for fiscal year 2007.
    Section 506. The Committee continues a provision directing 
the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center to lead the Federal 
law enforcement training accreditation process.
    Section 507. The Committee continues 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 made or announced by the Department.
    Section 508. The Committee continues a provision 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 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 continues a provision 
authorizing the Department of Homeland Security to conduct 
background investigations for certain employees.
    Section 513. The Committee continues and modifies a 
provision regarding Secure Flight.
    Section 514. The Committee continues a provision 
prohibiting the use of funds to amend the oath of allegiance 
required by section 337 of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(8 U.S.C. 1448).
    Section 515. The Committee continues a provision regarding 
OMB Circular A-76.
    Section 516. The Committee continues a provision 
prohibiting the use of funds to maintain the United States 
Secret Service as anything but a distinct entity within the 
Department of Homeland Security and shall not be used to merge 
the United States Secret Service with any other department 
function, cause any personnel and operational elements of the 
United States Secret Service to report to an individual other 
than the Director of the United States Secret Service, or cause 
the Director to report directly to any individual other than 
the Secretary of Homeland Security.
    Section 517. The Committee continues a provision 
prohibiting the use of funds in this or previous appropriations 
Acts for the protection of the head of a Federal agency other 
than the Secretary of Homeland security unless the Secret 
Service is fully reimbursed.
    Section 518. The Committee continues a provision regarding 
standards and protocols for increasing the use of explosive 
detection equipment to screen air cargo.
    Section 519. The Committee continues and modifies a 
provision requiring the Transportation Security Administration 
to utilize existing checked baggage explosive detection 
equipment and screeners to screen cargo carried on passenger 
aircraft to the greatest extent practicable at each airport. 
The Committee also requires the quarterly submission of air 
cargo inspection statistics. If the quarterly report is 
delayed, the appropriation for Aviation Security is reduced by 
$100,000 per day.
    Section 520. The Committee continues and modifies a 
provision prohibiting the obligation of funds for the 
transportation worker identification credential program using a 
decentralized personalization system or card production 
capability that does not utilize an existing government card 
production facility.
    Section 521. The Committee continues and modifies a 
provision rescinding unexpended balances within the United 
States Coast Guard ``Acquisition, Construction, and 
Improvements'' account.
    Section 522. The Committee continues a provision that 
directs that only the privacy officer, appointed pursuant to 
section 222 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, may alter, 
direct that changes be made to, delay or prohibit the 
transmission of a privacy officer report to Congress.
    Section 523. The Committee continues a provision 
prohibiting the use of 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 524. The Committee continues and modifies a 
provision that directs that any funds appropriated or 
transferred to TSA ``Aviation Security'' and ``Administration'' 
in fiscal years 2004, 2005 and 2006, which are recovered or 
deobligated, shall be available only for procurement and 
installation of explosive detection systems for air cargo, 
baggage and checkpoint screening systems, subject to section 
503 of this Act.
    Section 525. The Committee continues and modifies a 
provision regarding Sensitive Security Information.
    Section 526. The Committee continues and modifies a 
provision extending the authorization of the Working Capital 
Fund.
    Section 527. The Committee continues and modifies a 
provision rescinding prior year balances from the 
Counterterrorism Fund.
    Section 528. The Committee continues a provision regarding 
weekly reporting requirements for the Disaster Relief Fund, as 
required by Public Law 109-62.
    Section 529. The Committee includes a new provision 
requiring the Secretary to submit, within 45 days after the 
close of each month, a monthly budget execution report for each 
Departmental component and the Working Capital Fund at the 
level of detail shown in the table of detailed funding 
recommendations included in this report.
    Section 530. The Committee includes a new provision 
authorizing the United States Secret Service to apply proceeds 
from undercover operations to further investigations.
    Section 531. The Committee includes a new provision giving 
the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office grant making authority 
identical to that of Science and Technology.
    Section 532. The Committee includes a new provision 
regarding the importation of prescription drugs.
    Section 533. The Committee includes a new provision 
rescinding previously appropriated funds for the Transportation 
Security Administration ``Aviation Security'' and 
``Headquarters Administration.''
    Section 534. The Committee includes a new provision 
regarding the Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 
Act for building purposes.
    Section 535. The Committee includes a new provision 
regarding funds for Disaster Assistance for Unmet Needs for 
specific purposes.
    Section 536. The Committee includes a new provision 
providing the Secretary the authority to issue an interim final 
rule regarding chemical facility security.

    Appropriations Can Be Used Only for the Purposes for Which Made

    Title 31 of the United States Code makes clear that 
appropriations can be used only for the purposes for which they 
were appropriated as follows:
    Section 1301. Application.
    (a) Appropriations shall be applied only to the objects for 
which the appropriations were made except as otherwise provided 
by law.

              House of Representatives Report Requirements

    The following items are included in accordance with various 
requirements of the Rules of the House of Representatives.

                           Transfer of Funds

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2), rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following is submitted describing 
the transfer of funds provided in the accompanying bill.
    The table shows, by title, department and agency, the 
appropriations affected by such transfers:

                                 APPROPRIATION TRANSFERS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Account from which transfer is
    Account to which transfer is to be made         Amount                 to be made                 Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Flood Mitigation Fund................     $31,000,000  National Flood Insurance Fund...     $31,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          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 the following rescissions:

                        [In thousands of dollars] U.S. Coast Guard, Fast Response Cutter................          -$79,347
Counter Terrorism Fund................................           -16,000
Transportation Security Administration................            -4,776
                        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, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is 
printed in italic and existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

  2002 SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR FURTHER RECOVERY FROM AND 
           RESPONSE TO TERRORIST ATTACKS ON THE UNITED STATES

                          (Public Law 107-206)

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2002, and for other purposes, namely:

TITLE I--SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 12

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS CHAPTER

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    Sec. 1202. (a) The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center 
may, for a period ending not later than [5 years after the date 
of the enactment of this Act] December 31, 2009, appoint and 
maintain a cadre of up to [250] 350 Federal annuitants: (1) 
without regard to any provision of title 5, United States Code, 
which might otherwise require the application of competitive 
hiring procedures; and (2) who shall not be subject to any 
reduction in pay (for annuity allocable to the period of actual 
employment) under the provisions of section 8344 or 8468 of 
such title 5 or similar provision of any other retirement 
system for employees. A reemployed Federal annuitant as to whom 
a waiver of reduction under paragraph (2) applies shall not, 
for any period during which such waiver is in effect, be 
considered an employee for purposes of subchapter III of 
chapter 83 or chapter 84 of title 5, United States Code, or 
such other retirement system (referred to in paragraph (2)) as 
may apply.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          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 2007 new budget authority..........................            $4,816
FY 2007 outlays resulting therefrom...................            10,685
                   Comparison With Budget Resolution

    Clause 3(c)(2) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires an explanation of compliance with 
section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and 
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as 
amended, which requires that the report accompanying a bill 
providing new budget authority contain a statement detailing 
how the authority compares with the reports submitted under 
section 302 of the Act for the most recently agreed to 
concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal year from 
the Committee's section 302(a) allocation. This information 
follows:

                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                302(b) allocation                         This bill
     Comparison with Allocation      ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Budget Authority       Outlays        Budget Authority       Outlays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Purpose Discretionary.......            $32,080            $38,730            $32,080            $38,711
Mandatory...........................              1,017              1,014              1,017              1,014
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...........................             33,097             39,744             33,097             39,725
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

         Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of Rule XIII of 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.

                        [In millions of dollars] Outlays:
  2007................................................           $20,406
  2008................................................             6,904
  2009................................................             3,554
  2010................................................             1,362
  2011 and beyond.....................................               569
                      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:

               Compliance With Rule XIII, Clause 3(f)(1)

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee has inserted at the 
appropriate place in the report a description of the effects of 
provisions proposed in the accompanying bill which may be 
considered, under certain circumstances, to change the 
application of existing law, either directly or indirectly.
    The bill provides, in some instances, for funding of 
agencies and activities where legislation has not yet been 
finalized. In addition, the bill carries language, in some 
instances, permitting activities not authorized by law. 
Additionally, the Committee includes a number of general 
provisions.

             TITLE I--DEPARTMENT MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS

            Office of the Secretary and Executive Management

    The Committee includes language providing funds for 
reception and representation expenses. The Committee also 
restricts funds available for obligation until certain 
reporting requirements 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.

                 Office of the Chief Financial Officer

    The Committee includes language providing funds for the 
Chief Financial Officer, including $18,000,000 for the eMerge2 
program.
    The Committee also restricts funds available for obligation 
until monthly reporting requirements in general provisions are 
met.

                Office of the 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.

                        Analysis and Operations

    The Committee includes language providing funds for 
information analysis and operations coordination activities, as 
authorized by title II of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, 
including $5,000 for official representation expenses.

      Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding

    The Committee includes language providing funds for the 
Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding and 
restricts funds for obligation until the Federal Coordinator 
submits a report on Federal rebuilding efforts.

                    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

    United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology

    The Committee includes language making funds available 
until expended for the US-VISIT program and includes language 
requiring the submission of an expenditure plan prior to the 
obligation of funds.

                     Customs and Border Protection

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

    The Committee includes language making funds available for 
border security, immigration, customs, and agricultural 
inspections and regulatory activities; acquisition, lease, 
maintenance and operation of aircraft; purchase of vehicles; 
contracting with individuals for personal services; Harbor 
Maintenance Fee collections; official reception and 
representation expenses; inspection and surveillance 
technology, and equipment for the Container Security 
Initiative; Customs User Fee collections; payment of rental 
space in connection with pre-clearance operations; compensation 
of informants; and contractual or reimbursable agreements with 
State and local law enforcement agencies. The Committee 
includes provisions regarding average overtime limitations, 
Border Patrol checkpoints in the Tucson sector, and a 
restriction on the obligation of funds until a SBInet 
expenditure plan is submitted and approved.

                        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.

     CBP AIR AND MARINE INTERDICTION, OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE, AND 
                              PROCUREMENT

    The Committee includes language making funds available for 
the operation, maintenance and procurement of aircraft, 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 Customs and Border Protection unless certain conditions 
are met. The Committee includes language restricting the 
obligation of funds until a report on the crash of an unmanned 
aerial vehicle is submitted.

                              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 and 
forced child labor laws.

                       FEDERAL PROTECTIVE SERVICE

    The Committee includes language making funds available 
until expended for the operations of the Federal Protective 
Service.

                              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 no 
more than 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 includes language on reimbursement of 
security services for general aviation at Ronald Reagan 
Washington National Airport. The Committee includes language on 
an air cargo security action plan. The Committee also includes 
language providing funds for reception and representation 
expenses.

                    SURFACE TRANSPORTATION SECURITY

    The Committee includes language providing funds for surface 
transportation security programs of the Transportation Security 
Administration.

           TRANSPORTATION THREAT ASSESSMENT AND CREDENTIALING

    The Committee includes language on the development and 
implementation of screening programs.

                    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 detailed spending plan for 
explosive detection systems refurbishment, procurement and 
installation prior to the obligation of funds.

                          FEDERAL AIR MARSHALS

    The Committee includes language providing funds for the 
Federal Air Marshals.

                       United States Coast Guard

                           OPERATING EXPENSES

    The Committee includes a provision regarding passenger 
motor vehicles and the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, and 
prohibits the use of funds for yacht documentation except under 
certain circumstances and for administrative expenses in 
connection with shipping commissioners in the United States. 
The Committee also includes language on reception and 
representation expenses.

                ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE AND RESTORATION

    The Committee includes language providing funds for 
environmental compliance and restoration of the Coast Guard.

                            RESERVE TRAINING

    The Committee includes language providing funds for the 
Coast Guard reserve, including maintenance and operation of the 
reserve program, personnel and training costs, equipment and 
services.

              ACQUISITIONS, CONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENTS

    The Committee includes a provision requiring a capital 
investment plan for future appropriations years with certain 
conditions. The Committee includes language requiring that the 
Commandant of the Coast Guard submit revisions to the 
acquisition schedule of the Deepwater program with the fiscal 
year 2008 budget request, as well as other Deepwater related 
reporting requirements. Also, the Committee includes language 
requiring the submission of a vessel subsystem plan for Rescue 
21 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.

              RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

    The Committee includes language providing funds for applied 
scientific research, development, test, and evaluation; and for 
maintenance, rehabilitation, lease and operation of facilities 
and equipment. The Committee includes language allowing funds 
to remain available until expended; authorizing funds to be 
derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund; and 
authorizing funds received from State and local governments, 
other public authorities, private sources, and foreign 
countries to be credited to this account and used for certain 
purposes.

                              RETIRED PAY

    The Committee includes language providing funds for retired 
pay and medical care for the Coast Guard's retired personnel 
and their dependents.

                      United States Secret Service

                PROTECTION, ADMINISTRATION AND TRAINING

    The Committee includes language that provides funds for the 
purchase and replacement of vehicles; the hire of aircraft; 
services of expert witnesses; purchase of motorcycles; rental 
of certain buildings; improvements to buildings as may be 
necessary for protective missions; per diem and subsistence 
allowances; firearms matches; presentation of awards; 
protective travel; research and development; grants for 
behavioral research; official reception and representation 
expenses; technical assistance and equipment to foreign law 
enforcement organizations; advance payment for commercial 
accommodations; and uniforms. The Committee provides for two 
year availability of funds for protective travel. The Committee 
authorizes the obligation of funds in anticipation of 
reimbursements for training, under certain conditions. The 
Committee also makes funds unavailable for obligation until a 
workload re-balancing report is submitted.

                  INVESTIGATIONS AND FIELD OPERATIONS

    The Committee includes language providing funds for 
investigative operations including office space and services of 
expert witnesses as may be necessary. The Committee includes 
language limiting funds that can be provided to provide 
technical assistance and equipment to foreign law enforcement 
organizations in counterfeit investigations. The Committee also 
includes language making funds available for investigations of 
missing and exploited children, including grants.

                           SPECIAL EVENT FUND

    The Committee includes language providing funds for the 
extraordinary costs associated with Presidential campaigns and 
National Special Security Events and makes these funds 
available until expended.

     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. The Committee also makes funds unavailable for 
obligation until a revised James J. Rowley Training Center 
master plan is submitted.

                  TITLE III--PREPAREDNESS AND RECOVERY

                              Preparedness

                    UNDER SECRETARY FOR PREPAREDNESS

    The Committee includes language providing funds for the 
Office of the Under Secretary for Preparedness, the Office of 
the Chief Medical Officer, and the Office of National Capital 
Region Coordination, including funds for the National 
Preparedness Integration Program. The Committee also includes 
language providing funds for official reception and 
representation expenses. The Committee also makes funds 
unavailable for obligation until the Secretary submits the 
final National Preparedness Goal.

                     Office of Grants and Training

                        STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS

    The Committee includes language that provides funds for 
grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, other activities, 
including grants to State and local governments for terrorism 
prevention. The Committee also includes a provision identifying 
the amount of funds available for formula-based grants; law 
enforcement terrorism prevention grants; high-threat, high-
density urban area grants; rail and transit security grants; 
port security grants; trucking security grants; intercity bus 
security grants; buffer zone protection grants; training, 
exercises, technical assistance, and other 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, rail and transit 
security, and buffer zone 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; and directs grantees to report 
on use of funds as deemed necessary by the Secretary.

                     FIREFIGHTER ASSISTANCE GRANTS

    The Committee includes language providing that not to 
exceed five percent of the total is available for program 
administration.

                EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE GRANTS

    The Committee includes language providing that not to 
exceed three percent of the total appropriation is available 
for administrative costs.

              RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAM

    The Committee includes a provision regarding charges 
assessed for the radiological emergency preparedness program, 
including conditions and methodology for the assessment and 
collection of fees.

           INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION AND INFORMATION SECURITY

    The Committee includes language making funds available 
until September 30, 2008 and includes language requiring 
submission of an expenditure plan prior to obligating certain 
funds.

                  Federal Emergency Management Agency

                 ADMINISTRATION 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.

             READINESS, MITIGATION, RESPONSE, AND RECOVERY

    The Committee includes language that provides funds for 
readiness, mitigation, response, and recovery activities, 
including funds for Urban Search and Rescue Teams and 
administrative costs. The Committee also restricts funds until 
FEMA provides a catastrophic planning expenditure plan.

                            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 language limiting funds available 
for salaries and expenses; language making funds available for 
flood hazard mitigation available until September 30, 2008; and 
language authorizing the transfer of funds to the National 
Flood Mitigation Fund. The Committee includes provisions 
limiting operating expenses; for interest on Treasury 
borrowings; for agents' commissions and taxes; and for flood 
mitigation activities associated with sections 1361A and 1323 
of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968. The Committee 
includes language making funds for mitigation activities 
available until expended. The Committee includes language 
providing that not to exceed three percent of the total 
appropriation is available for administrative costs.

                     NATIONAL FLOOD MITIGATION FUND

    The Committee includes language regarding authorized 
activities and authorizing the transfer of funds from the 
National Flood Insurance Fund. The Committee also includes 
language making funds available until September 30, 2008.

                 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 expended.

                       EMERGENCY FOOD AND SHELTER

    The Committee includes language making funds available 
until expended and limiting total administrative costs to 3.5 
percent of the total appropriation.

       TITLE IV--RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, TRAINING, AND SERVICES

                    CITIZEN AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES

    The Committee includes language making funds available for 
citizenship and immigration services and makes funds 
unavailable for obligation until a strategic transformation 
plan is submitted.

                Federal Law Enforcement Training Center

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

    The Committee includes language making funds available for 
official representation expenses; purchase of police type 
pursuit vehicles; student athletic and related recreational 
activities; conducting and participating in firearms matches; 
public awareness and community support; marketing; room and 
board; services; services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; law 
enforcement accreditation; reimbursements for certain mobile 
phone expenses. The Committee includes language authorizing the 
training of certain law enforcement personnel; authorizes the 
use of appropriations and reimbursements for such training and 
establishes a cap on total obligations. The Committee also 
includes language authorizing funds for the compensation of 
accreditation costs for participating agencies; and authorizing 
the hiring of retired Federal employees until 2009.

      ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENTS AND RELATED EXPENSES

    The Committee includes language making funds available 
until expended for real property and facilities and authorizes 
reimbursement from government agencies requesting construction 
of special use facilities.

                         Science and Technology

                     MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

    The Committee includes language providing funds for 
reception and representation expenses and includes language 
requiring submission of an expenditure plan prior to obligating 
certain funds.

           RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, ACQUISITION AND OPERATIONS

    The Committee includes language making funds available 
until expended.

                   Domestic Nuclear Detection Office

           RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, ACQUISITION, AND OPERATIONS

    The Committee includes language making funds available to 
the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, including nuclear 
detection research, development, testing and evaluation, 
acquisition, operations, management and administration. 
Language is included making funds available until expended and 
providing funds for the purchase and deployment of radiation 
detection equipment; transformational research and development; 
and management and administration.

                      TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

    Section 501. The Committee continues a provision 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 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 a provision that 
provides authority to reprogram funds within an account and not 
to exceed 5 percent transfer authority between appropriations 
accounts with the requirement for a 15-day advance 
Congressional notification.
    Section 504. The Committee continues a provision that not 
to exceed 50 percent of unobligated balances remaining at the 
end of fiscal year 2007 from appropriations made for salaries 
and expenses shall remain available through fiscal year 2008 
subject to reprogramming guidelines.
    Section 505. The Committee continues a provision that funds 
for intelligence activities are deemed to be specifically 
authorized during fiscal year 2007 until the enactment of an 
Act authorizing intelligence activities for fiscal year 2007.
    Section 506. The Committee continues a provision directing 
the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center to lead the Federal 
Law Enforcement training accreditation process.
    Section 507. The Committee continues 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 made or announced by the Department.
    Section 508. The Committee continues a provision 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 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 continues a provision 
authorizing the Department of Homeland Security to conduct 
background investigations for certain employees.
    Section 513. The Committee modifies a provision regarding 
Secure Flight.
    Section 514. The Committee continues a provision 
prohibiting the use of funds to amend the oath of allegiance 
required by section 337 of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(8 U.S.C. 1448).
    Section 515. The Committee continues a provision regarding 
OMB Circular A-76.
    Section 516. The Committee continues a provision 
prohibiting the use of funds to maintain the United States 
Secret Service as anything but a distinct entity within the 
Department of Homeland Security and shall not be used to merge 
the United States Secret Service with any other department 
function, cause any personnel and operational elements of the 
United States Secret Service to report to an individual other 
than the Director of the United States Secret Service, or cause 
the Director to report directly to any individual other than 
the Secretary of Homeland Security.
    Section 517. The Committee continues a provision 
prohibiting the use of funds in this or previous appropriations 
Acts for the protection of the head of a Federal agency other 
than the Secretary of Homeland security unless the Secret 
Service is fully reimbursed.
    Section 518. The Committee continues a provision regarding 
standards and protocols for increasing the use of explosive 
detection equipment to screen air cargo.
    Section 519. The Committee continues and modifies a 
provision regarding screening of air cargo.
    Section 520. The Committee continues and modifies a 
provision prohibiting the obligation of funds for the 
transportation worker identification credential program using a 
decentralized personalization system or card production 
capability that does not utilize an existing government card 
production facility.
    Section 521. The Committee continues and modifies a 
provision rescinding unexpended balances within the United 
States Coast Guard ``Acquisition, Construction, and 
Improvements'' account.
    Section 522. The Committee continues a provision regarding 
the DHS privacy officer reporting to Congress.
    Section 523. The Committee continues a provision 
prohibiting the paying of the salary of any employee serving as 
a contracting officer's technical representative (COTR) who has 
not received COTR training.
    Section 524. The Committee continues and modifies a 
provision that directs that any funds appropriated or 
transferred to TSA ``Aviation Security'' and ``Administration'' 
in fiscal years 2004, 2005 and 2006, which are recovered or 
deobligated, shall be available only for procurement and 
installation of explosive detection systems for air cargo, 
baggage and checkpoint screening systems, subject to section 
503 of this Act.
    Section 525. The Committee continues and modifies a 
provision regarding Sensitive Security Information.
    Section 526. The Committee continues and modifies a 
provision extending the authorization of the Working Capital 
Fund.
    Section 527. The Committee continues and modifies a 
provision rescinding prior year balances from the 
Counterterrorism Fund.
    Section 528. The Committee continues a provision regarding 
weekly reporting requirements for the Disaster Relief Fund, as 
required by Public Law 109-62.
    Section 529. The Committee includes a new provision 
requiring the Secretary to submit a monthly budget execution.
    Section 530. The Committee includes a new provision 
authorizing the United States Secret Service to apply proceeds 
from undercover operations to further investigations.
    Section 531. The Committee includes a new provision giving 
the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office grant making authority 
identical to that of Science and Technology.
    Section 532. The Committee includes a new provision 
regarding the importation of prescription drugs.
    Section 533. The Committee includes a new provision 
rescinding previously appropriated funds for the Transportation 
Security Administration ``Aviation Security'' and 
``Headquarters Administration''.
    Section 534. The Commission includes a new provision 
regarding the Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Act for 
building purposes.
    Section 535. The Commission includes a new provision 
regarding funds for Disaster Assistance for Unmet Needs for 
specific purposes.
    Section 536. The Commission includes a new provision 
providing the Secretary the authority to issue an interim final 
rule regarding chemical facility security.

                    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:

          ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF DAVID OBEY AND MARTIN OLAV SABO

    Four and a half years after September 11th, America still 
has far too many vulnerabilities left wide open for terrorists 
to exploit. Last September, we also witnessed the terrible 
suffering and loss caused by inexcusable bureaucratic bungling 
in the response to a natural disaster.
    The creation of the Department of Homeland Security was 
supposed to be the solution to these problems. Instead, it is 
plain to see that the Department's bureaucracy presents many 
high hurdles to effective terrorism prevention and disaster 
response. The Department has been underfunded and fractured--
and far too focused on internal organization than on achieving 
results on our greatest security vulnerabilities. These 
handicaps undoubtedly contributed to the disgraceful response 
to Hurricane Katrina.
    We are also concerned about allowing the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency to remain under the control of the Department 
of Homeland Security. History tends to repeat itself, and only 
fools ignore the lessons of history. President Clinton made 
FEMA a cabinet-level agency based on National Academy of Public 
Administration recommendations following the response to 
Hurricane Andrew in 1992. Hurricane Katrina taught similar 
lessons, but it appears that the federal government will not 
acknowledge them. Instead, this Administration and House 
Republicans seem intent on creating a new bureaucracy to deal 
with preparedness and response, when one lean, mean 
organization, like the Clinton-era FEMA, would do. We fear that 
once again, the American public will suffer the consequences.
    We cannot afford not to learn from our past mistakes. We 
must be honest and proactive about addressing our remaining 
vulnerabilities. Leadership, proper funding and professional 
expertise are the keys to successfully meeting our nation's 
homeland security needs--whether in providing citizens with 
food and shelter after a disaster, or in shielding vulnerable 
targets from terrorist attack.
    Our nation cannot afford to underfund homeland programs 
that are so critical to our health and security. Unfortunately, 
the Committee bill does just that. It provides $165 million 
less than the Administration's request, and the President's 
request was inadequate to meet our security and preparedness 
needs.
    Given the total amount of funding provided by the 
Republican majority to homeland security, we do not disagree 
with many of the funding choices made in the Committee bill. 
However, we believe it is irresponsible to set an arbitrary cap 
which leaves many homeland security priorities poorly funded.
    To address this gap, Democrats offered a fiscally 
responsible amendment in Committee to provide an additional 
$3.5 billion for critical border, port, aviation and disaster 
preparedness and response programs. The amendment was part of a 
fiscally-balanced approach that would return Congressional 
budgeting to the principle of ``pay-as-you-go'', providing 
additional funding for key investments and reducing the deficit 
by scaling back supersized tax cuts for those making more than 
$1 million per year. The amendment would have reduced their tax 
savings from $114,172 to $104,503. Unfortunately, that 
amendment was defeated by a 33-25 party line vote.

                            Border Security

    A goal of the President's 2007 budget, submitted in 
February, was to gain operational control of 388 miles of our 
5,000 mile border with Canada and Mexico. Just this week, the 
President sent Congress an Emergency Supplemental bill to 
address border security problems. He has called it a 
``comprehensive proposal,'' yet the Department of Homeland 
Security cannot tell us how many additional border miles will 
be controlled under this proposal.
    The Democratic amendment, defeated in Committee, would have 
provided an additional $2.1 billion to enhance border security. 
It would have provided the funding to hire to the levels in the 
Intelligence Reform Act, by adding 1,800 border patrol agents, 
9,000 detention beds, and 800 immigration investigators above 
the Committee bill. It would have provided the funding to 
purchase about 500 additional radiation portal monitors, so 
that some of our land border locations do not have to wait 
another four years to screen traffic for radiation. It would 
have provided funding for the fifth planned northern border air 
wing and increased air patrols of our borders, because ``eyes 
in the sky'' are important to directing resources on the 
ground.
    How did we get here?
Border Patrol and Customs agents
    To improve border security, we need more border agents and 
surveillance equipment. Yet, from September 11, 2001 to April 
2006 only 1,641 new border patrol agents were hired, which is 
less than a 17 percent increase in 4\1/2\ years. Congress has 
repeatedly authorized border security improvements. 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.
    When Congress has provided additional border security 
resources, the Administration has dragged its feet in making 
the improvements. For example, to help meet the northern border 
hiring and equipment goals in the PATRIOT Act, Congress 
provided $308 million in 2002 to beef up northern border 
security with more agents, inspectors and equipment. The Bush 
Administration requested only one-third of this funding.
    In 2006 Congress funded only half of the 2,000 additional 
border patrol agents authorized in the Intelligence Reform Act 
of 2004. Yet, even with the President's top priority of border 
control, as of the end of April, 2006, the Administration has 
brought on board only 194 of these 1,000 additional border 
patrol agents. This 2007 appropriations bill continues the 
history of not funding the Intelligence Reform Act staffing 
mandates by providing for only 1,200 additional border patrol 
agents.
    Seven times over the last four and a half years, Democrats 
have offered amendments that would have resulted in over 6,600 
more border patrol agents, 14,000 more detention beds and 2,700 
more immigration and customs agents than exist today. Every 
time, their efforts were rejected by the Republican majority. 
The Democratic amendment defeated in Committee would have 
funded 1,800 additional border patrol agents, meeting the 
Intelligence Reform Act mandates.
    Congress undermines its credibility when we pass 
legislation dictating new homeland security mandates, but do 
not appropriate the necessary resources to meet them.

Detention beds

    A similar story must be told for detention beds. Detention 
beds and detention alternatives are key to our success in 
removing those apprehended by our border agents. Yet, the 
detention office at Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 
has had three different leaders in the three years it has been 
in the Department of Homeland Security. It is without a 
permanent leader today.
    ICE has been plagued by budget shortfalls since its 
formation: ICE was underfunded when DHS was created, and DHS 
leadership at all levels has failed to manage the budget. In 
2003, 2004 and 2005 ICE faced a hiring freeze and a reduced 
number of detention beds due to poor management. The number of 
detention beds dropped from 19,801 in 2002 to 18,500 in 2005.
    The DHS Inspector General has estimated that close to 
35,000 detention beds are needed just to detain criminal and 
special interest aliens. Yet, the President requested only 
27,516 detention beds and the Committee funded 25,670, 1,846 
less than the President.
    It is obvious that ICE lacks the resources necessary to be 
fully successful. Six times since September 11th, Democrats 
have offered amendments to increase detention bed space by 
14,000, but were rejected on party-line votes. If those 
Democratic amendments had been successful, we would now have 
the number of detention beds recommended by the Inspector 
General. Instead, today we are close to 14,000 below that level 
and the Committee bill will leave us about 9,000 beds short of 
the IG-recommended level. The Democratic amendment rejected in 
Committee would have provided these 9,000 additional beds.

Radiation portal monitors

    A number of other border security programs are underfunded 
and ill-managed. This bill makes no great inroads in correcting 
these problems.
    Many of our ports of entry lack radiation portal monitors. 
GAO recently found that these monitors work, but that delay in 
deploying these monitors were caused by DHS' lengthy review 
process and negotiations on the placement of the equipment. 
Approximately 2,400 of these monitors are needed, but less than 
30 percent are in place today. The funding provided in the bill 
would leave 1,000 monitors left to be purchased and deployed. 
To correct this misguided decision, the Democratic amendment 
offered would have provided funding to purchase up to 500 
additional radiation monitors.

                             Port Security

    In defense of the Dubai port deal, the White House was 
quick to remind the public that port security lies in the hands 
of federal border agents, the Coast Guard, port authorities and 
police agencies. However, the Bush Administration and this 
House have left our ports vulnerable by rejecting needed 
funding for these agencies at every opportunity.
    The evidence is clear. In 2000, the Interagency Commission 
on Crime and Security concluded American ports were highly 
vulnerable to potential terrorist attacks. In 2001, the Hart-
Rudman Commission reported that port security was underfunded 
and seaports were vulnerable to terrorist attacks.
    With great fanfare, the President signed legislation 
requiring ports to assess their vulnerabilities and develop 
security plans. In 2002, the Coast Guard estimated that $7 
billion were needed in infrastructure improvements and 
operating costs to improve port security. However, the Bush 
Administration has never proposed funding specifically for port 
security grants that could be used to pay for these needs. 
Congress has taken the lead in providing $910 million for the 
distinct port security grant program and operation safe 
commerce since the 9/11 attacks, but this is only 13 percent of 
the Coast Guard's estimate. Six Democratic amendments since 
2001, if adopted by the House, would have doubled port security 
funding and many necessary security improvements would already 
be taken care of.
    This bill contains $200 million in total for port security 
grants. The Democratic amendment would have doubled this 
amount, consistent with House passage of the Safe Port Act two 
weeks ago. Unfortunately it was defeated in Committee.

    Critical Infrastructure Protection, Including Chemical Facility 
                                Security

    We continue to be frustrated with the Administration's 
approach to protecting critical infrastructure, including 
transit, railroad and chemical facilities. The Administration 
generally leaves security decisions to these entities, without 
providing needed guidance from the federal government.

                           Chemical Security

    The fact that the federal government requires no security 
standards for most U.S. chemical facilities is one of our 
greatest security vulnerabilities. In 2003, GAO recommended the 
Administration develop a comprehensive national chemical 
security strategy. We just received this strategy from the 
Department on May 19, 2006. The Department's strategy concludes 
by calling for legislation that allows the Secretary to 
regulate the chemical sector. We are pleased that the Committee 
took an important first step in this regard by adopting Mr. 
Sabo's amendment to provide the Secretary of Homeland Security 
the authority he said that he needs to issue chemical facility 
security regulations. Mr. Sabo's letter laying out the key 
reasons why the Committee needed to include this provision on 
this appropriations bill is attached to these views. We 
strongly urge that this amendment be protected on the House 
floor.
    We note that:
     The Department of Homeland Security estimates that 
roughly 680, or 20 percent, of the 3,400 chemical facilities 
that it views as high risk adhere to no security guidelines. If 
attacked, 300 of these facilities could kill or injure 50,000 
or more people.
     At an April 27, 2005 Senate hearing, Carolyn 
Merritt, chair of the US Chemical Safety and Hazard 
Investigation Board said her agency has investigated 35 major 
chemical accidents and issued nearly 300 safety 
recommendations. She said the Safety Board has discovered 
``serious gaps'' that may allow for intentionally malicious 
acts.

                            Transit Security

    As we saw in London and Madrid, transit systems are 
terrorist targets. Yet, DHS has provided only $416 million 
since 9/11 to secure them. 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. The Democratic amendment defeated in 
Committee would have increased this amount by 67 percent, to 
$250 million, so that high-risk vulnerabilities in transit 
systems could begin to be addressed.

        Local Police, Fire and Emergency Responder Preparedness

    It is widely agreed that our local police, firefighters and 
emergency personnel need increased funding to improve their 
ability to respond to terrorist acts or disasters. The 2003 
Hart-Rudman 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.''
    A 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.''
    President Bush, speaking to the nation from New Orleans 
just eight months ago said, ``Four years after the frightening 
experience of September the 11th, Americans have every right to 
expect a more effective response in a time of emergency.'' We 
agree with the President. However, there was nothing in the 
President's budget request and there is nothing in this 2007 
appropriations bill that will ensure that Americans will not 
once again be left stranded in a crisis by the federal 
government.
    In 2003, funding for state homeland security grants (not 
including fire grants or port grants that were funded elsewhere 
in 2003) and emergency management performance grants totaled 
$3.3 billion. This legislation includes only $2 billion for 
these same programs in 2007, a 39 percent reduction.
    The Democratic amendment defeated in Committee would have 
provided a total of $600 million to improve our communities' 
ability to respond to and prepare for disasters, including an 
additional $150 million for state and local emergency 
preparedness personnel, $50 million for additional exercises to 
test response plans, $150 million for better flood maps in high 
risk locations, and $150 million to improve the capabilities of 
our fire fighters.
    The Administration and the majority in Congress are willing 
to defer acting on these preparedness vulnerabilities. The 
majority argues that only 55 percent of the funding so far 
provided to states and localities to improve preparedness has 
been spent, but this argument ignores the fact that all of 
these funds have been committed to specific equipment 
purchases. We believe that the Department bears a large share 
of responsibility for the delay in getting these equipment 
orders filled. In addition, DHS has not even distributed 2006 
funding to the states yet. The Department should better manage 
these programs, rather than make excuses to cut their funding.
    Fire grants are probably the most successful grant program 
in the Department of Homeland Security. Local fire departments 
submit grant requests, which are independently evaluated. The 
needs of our fire departments are great. A recent needs 
analysis identified that today 28 percent of firefighters per 
shift are not equipped with self-contained breathing apparatus, 
and 39,000 fire fighters lack personnel protective clothing. 
The fire grant program helps local fire departments deal with 
these and other problems.
    Everyone knows that local fire and police will be on the 
front line in all disasters, whether a man-made or natural 
event or pandemic outbreak. Yet, the Administration proposes to 
cut fire grant funding deeply. The Bush budget would reduce 
funding for this program by $355 million, or 55 percent. This 
bill makes up roughly two-thirds of the President's proposed 
reductions. At a minimum, we believe that fire grants should be 
fully funded at last year's level of $649 million. The 
Democratic amendment rejected in Committee would have provided 
a total of $690 million for fire grants.

                           Aviation Security

    We are disappointed that the Administration continues to 
leave aviation security vulnerabilities unaddressed despite 
having spent over $28 billion on it since September 11th. 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. In fact, TSA today 
does not know how much air cargo is actually screened because 
its security system only tracks the reviews of its cargo 
inspectors. We are pleased that this bill requires TSA to 
report air cargo inspection statistics quarterly.
    The Administration is willing to give short shrift to the 
9/11 Commission recommendations to screen all passengers and 
carry-on bags for explosives and to speed up the installation 
of in-line explosive detection systems. The Administration's 
2007 budget does not fund any additional in-line screening 
systems beyond the current eight approved airports, nor does 
the Committee bill. The Democratic amendment defeated in 
Committee would have provided $200 million more to expand 
passenger and carry-on baggage explosive screening to more than 
the 28 airports that currently have these systems.

                               Conclusion

    Despite its rhetoric, the White House does not give 
homeland security the top priority it deserves. If the 
Administration thinks that the American public should be 
content with the fact that America has not been hit by 
terrorists in the last 4-\1/2\ years, it is seriously mistaken. 
The Congress is also absurdly complacent. We should be furious 
over the events of the past year: a bungled response to a 
massive hurricane, a port takeover deal that was not properly 
reviewed, chemical plants open to attack and a border that is 
not secure. What will it take before this Administration and 
this Congress will be willing to take the actions needed to 
make our homeland secure?


```