TheWeekInCongress.com (TM)
Week Ending September 29, 2006
{This is the full report on the bill after it passed the House and Senate and before it went to House / Senate Conference. The House Appropriation Committee report on highlights after the conference report was agreed to can be read here}
H.R.5441 Making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes.
The mission of the Department of Homeland Security, beyond prevention and response to terrorist attacks, covers nearly any disaster impacting the US and its territories. DHS’ failure to respond to Congress with requested reports showing progress made or not made in protecting the country continues again this year. Congress again will attempt to withhold funding until certain reports are produced. The Committee marking up the bill also took exception to a procedure attributed to the President referred to in the bill report as a ‘gimmick’ According to report language the President requested a doubling of aviation security fees to increase funds for critical areas spending. The result prompted the administration to say their request was for a $2.1 billion increase from prior year spending. The Committee holds that it has no authority to raise the fees and that such activity would ‘artificially inflate’ the DHS budget. The committee, however, said that it reduced spending in other areas of the bill to make up for ‘the gap in essential program funding created by this gimmick.”
For fiscal year 2005 DHS had failed to produce nearly 150 reports to Congress including a national anti-terrorism strategy and a plan to protect infrastructure elements such as nuclear power plants. The fiscal year 2006 missing report lists is around 115. Congress would withhold up to $1.3 billion of DHS funding “until DHS provides strategic plans for catastrophic planning, chemical site security and port, container and cargo security,” bill highlights noted. The withholdings include: $10 million until a national strategy for the chemical sector is submitted, $10 million until a National Infrastructure Protection Plan is submitted, $4.4 million until a final National Preparedness Goal is submitted and $20 million until a catastrophic plan is submitted.
For fiscal year 2006 DHS would spend $32.08 billion, $1.8 billion over last year spending. What DHS is funded for parallels some current political issues. Border protection would get the most of the $1.9 billion increase. An additional $1.6 billion would total $19.6 billion for ‘border protection, immigration enforcement and related activities’. Nearly $4 billion of those funds would go to the Secure Border Initiative (SBI) a strategy to combine ‘technology, personnel and infrastructure to prevent’ exploitation of the immigration system. The spending break down includes $2.33 billion for border security by adding 1,200 new border patrol agents to a new total of 13,580; $4.1 billion to add 1,212 immigration and customs officers to total 11,500; $1.29 billion to add 4,870 detention beds bringing the total to $25,670; $273 million to transport and remove illegal aliens; $115 million for border security technology and tactical infrastructure’ $535 million for Air and Marine Operations for border and airspace security with $33.5 million to enhance aerial surveillance; $200 million for 28 Fugitive Operations teams to total 80 nationwide; $105 million for the Criminal Alien Program to include 40 new agents, $46 million for alternatives to detention; $362 million for the US-VISIT program--a slowly developing program where biometric data is taken on foreign visitors to the US when they apply at an embassy for entry to the US. (Later that data is used to verify the identity of the visa holder when entering and leaving the US. The program is still being tested in 12 US airports and US two seaports); $114 million would be spent to continue the development of immigration verification systems.
Local and State response officials would see $3.2 billion rising to $37.4 billion the funds provided locally since September 11, 2001.
That spending would include: $1.165 billion for high-density urban areas, including $750 million for urban area grants; $150 million for rail security; $200 million for port security; and $65 million for other infrastructure protection; $545 million for basic formula grants; $500 million for firefighter grants and $40 million for the SAFER program; $400 million for State and local law enforcement terrorism prevention grants; $180 million for Emergency Management Performance Grants; and $339 million for First Responder training, exercise, and assistance programs.
FEMA disaster relief spending would total $6.5 billion for that agency to ‘prepare and respond to a form of disaster or terrorist attack’. The spending breakdown includes $1.66 billion for disaster relief’ $493 million for FEMA operational capability; $198 million for flood map modernization; $20 million for catastrophic planning and $15 million for the National Preparedness Integration Program. (Yes, DHS has yet to actually produce the official National Preparedness Program required by Congress, Ed.)
That critical infrastructure that has managed to stay intact since September 11, 2001 would continue to be inventoried under this bill and includes a compatible communications system between all levels of government and private sector involvement in projects. The effort to continue to identify critical infrastructure and evaluate risk would spend $72 million this year; $101 million would be spent somehow on outreach and partnership with industry; $500 million funds the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office to seek out global nuclear threats; $32 million for protective actions and $458 million for biological, chemical and explosives countermeasures is slated.
For air travelers the bill aims to enhance security for all transportation modes but cargo safety is yet undefined. The bill provides $6.3 billion to develop and install the ‘next generation’ of technologies to inspect cargo, baggage and passengers. Some funds will come from fees but the bill rejects the President’s request that air security be paid by passenger fee increases. Specific spending areas include: $2.6 billion for passenger and baggage screeners; $244 million for the training of airport screeners; $497 million to procure, install, maintain and refurbish explosive detection systems; $173 million to procure, install, and maintain technologies at passenger screening checkpoints; $55 million for air cargo (Specific details not given); $13.2 million for rail security inspectors and explosive detection canines; and $699 million for Federal Air Marshalls, ‘ensuring mission coverage on both domestic and international flights.’
Finally the bill provides $2.4 billion for Coast Guard operations including drug interdiction, fisheries, environmental and humanitarian missions and $893 million for the Deepwater program. The bill would also spend $1.29 billion for the US Secret Service to enhance its’ ability to protect the President; $6 million for the US Fire Administration and $252 million for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. A provision would allow once again for the import of prescription drugs from Canada, a popular procedure that was curtailed by the siezing of such shipments when they crossed the border into the U.S.
Sponsor: Rep. Harold Rogers (R-KY-5th)
Vote: Passed House June 7, 2006 389 to 9 (RC 226). Passed Senate 100 to 0 July13, 2006. The bill went to the House / Senate Conference. The Conference report was agreed to in the Senate September 29, 2006. The House agreed to the Conference Report 412 to 6 (RC 509) September 29, 2006.
Cost to the taxpayers: $32.8 billion.
## All Rights Reserved. © 2006 TheWeekInCongress.com(TM)
No reproduction, language translation or distribution without written permission from TheWeekInCongress.com.(TM)
MORE INFORMATION
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF THE BILL AND ITS PROVISIONS
FEDERAL AIR MARSHALS AND RELATED ACTIVITIES
SPECIAL EVENT COVERAGE AND THE 2008 ELECTIONS
TITLE III--NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS INCLUDING GRANTS, LOANS, FEMA ETC.
TITLE IV--RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, TRAINING, AND SERVICES
ADDITIONAL VIEWS FO THE BILL AND ITS PROVISIONS
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 Secretary 1,648,000 1,248,000
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 Executive Office - - - 5,000,000
Office of Public Affairs 6,808,000 6,000,000
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs 6,479,000 5,700,000
Office of General Counsel 14,065,000 14,065,000
Office of Civil Rights and Liberties 13,125,000 13,125,000
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 5,927,000 5,927,000
Privacy Officer 4,435,000 4,435,000
Total $97,508,000 $95,884,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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).
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 benefits, services and other costs - - - $131,287,000
Headquarters managed IT investment - - - 134,015,000
Subtotal, headquarters management and administration - - - 265,302,000
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 program 317,016,000 273,475,000
3,902,291,000 3,843,257,000 1,916,050,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 CONTROL
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 screeners, personnel, compensation and benefits 2,470,200,000 2,470,200,000
Subtotal, screener workforce 2,618,800,000 2,618,800,000
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
$3,685,866,000 $3,740,866,000 497,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
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 - - -
------------------------------------------------
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.
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.
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.
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
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
------------------------------------------------
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.
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 identification credential - - - 20,000,000
Subtotal, direct appropriations 54,700,000 74,700,000
Fee Collections:
Registered traveler 35,101,000 35,101,000
Transportation worker identification credential 20,000,000 20,000,000
Hazardous materials 19,000,000 19,000,000
Alien flight school (transfer from DOJ) 2,000,000 2,000,000
Subtotal, fee collections $76,101,000 $76,101,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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.
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.
-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
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
-------------------------------------------------
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.
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 security support $527,283,000 $523,283,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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.
-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
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 - - -
-------------------------------------------------
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.
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.
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.
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.
---------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
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
---------------------------------------------------
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.
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 2,788,276,000
Civilian pay and benefits 569,434,000 569,434,000
Training and recruiting:
Training and education 83,556,000 83,556,000
Recruitment 97,320,000 97,320,000
Subtotal, training and recruiting 180,876,000 180,876,000
Operating 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 1,009,374,000
Centrally managed accounts 207,954,000 207,954,000
Immediate 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 710,729,000 710,729,000
5,518,843,000 5,481,643,000 15,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
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 - - -
------------------------------------------------
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.
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.
-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
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
-------------------------------------------------
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.
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.
---------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
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
---------------------------------------------------
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.
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 infrastructure: Response boat medium $24,750,000 $24,750,000
Subtotal, vessels and critical infrastructure 24,750,000 24,750,000
Deepwater:
Aircraft:
Maritime patrol aircraft 77,616,000 77,616,000
VTOL unmanned aerial vehicle (VUAV) 4,950,000 4,950,000
HH-60 conversion projects 49,302,000 49,302,000
HC-130H conversion/sustainment project 53,955,000 53,955,000
HH65 re-engining project 32,373,000 32,373,000
Armed helicopter equipment 25,740,000 25,740,000
248,886,000 248,886,000 4,950,000
Surface ships:
National security cutter 417,780,000 417,780,000
Fast response cutter 41,580,000 - - -
IDS patrol boat long range interceptor 1,188,000 1,188,000
Medium endurance cutter sustainment 37,818,000 37,818,000
498,366,000 466,786,000 10,000,000
C4ISR 60,786,000 60,786,000
Logistics 42,273,000 32,062,000
Systems engineering and integration 35,145,000 35,145,000
Government program management 48,975,000 48,975,000
Subtotal, Deepwater 934,431,000 892,640,000
Other equipment:
Automatic identification system 11,238,000 11,238,000
Rescue 21 39,600,000 39,600,000
HF recap 2,475,000 2,475,000
National Capital region air defense 48,510,000 48,510,000
Counter Terrorism Training Infrastructure shoot house 1,683,000 - - -
Subtotal, other equipment 103,506,000 101,823,000
Shore facilities and aids to navigation:
Survey and design, shore operational and support projects 2,600,000 2,600,000
Minor AC&I shore construction projects 2,850,000 1,450,000
Renovate USCGA Chase Hall barracks, phase I 2,000,000 2,000,000
Replace multi-purpose building-Group Long Island Sound 1,000,000 1,000,000
Construct breakwater-Station Neah Bay 1,100,000 1,100,000
Waterways aids to navigation 3,000,000 3,000,000
Cordova, Alaska housing 5,500,000 5,500,000
ISC Seattle, Group Sector admin operations facility 2,600,000 2,600,000
Base Galveston, rebuild station and waterfront 5,200,000 5,200,000
Subtotal, shore facilities and aids to navigation 25,850,000 24,450,000
Aircraft:
HH-60 replacement - - - 15,000,000
Subtotal, aircraft 15,000,000
Personnel and related support:
Direct personnel costs 80,500,000 80,500,000
AC&I core 500,000 500,000
Subtotal, personnel and related support 81,000,000 81,000,000
Total 1,169,537,000 1,139,663,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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.
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.
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.~
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
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
------------------------------------------------
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.
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.
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
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 - - -
------------------------------------------------
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.
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.
----------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------
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 - - -
----------------------------------------------------
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.
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.
---------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
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 - - -
---------------------------------------------------
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.
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.
------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------
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)
------------------------------------------------------
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.
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 facilities $639,747,000 $657,267,000
Protective intelligence activities 55,509,000 61,509,000
White House mail screening 16,201,000 16,201,000
Subtotal, Protection 711,457,000 734,977,000
Administration:
Headquarters, management and administration 169,370,000 169,370,000
Training:
930,879,000 954,399,000 50,052,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
SPECIAL EVENT COVERAGE AND THE 2008 ELECTIONS
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.
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.
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.
------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------
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)
------------------------------------------------------
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).
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 administration and operations 21,616,000 24,516,000
Electronic Crimes Special Agent Program and Electronic Crimes Task Forces 44,079,000 44,079,000
Grants and forensic support for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children 7,811,000 7,811,000
Total, Investigations and Field Operations 309,599,000 312,499,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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.
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
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 - - -
------------------------------------------------
The Special Event Fund supports the Secret Service's extraordinary costs associated with National Special Security Events (NSSEs) and Presidential campaigns.
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.
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
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 - - -
-----------------------------------------------
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).
The Committee recommends $3,725,000, the same as the President's request and $63,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006.
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.
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.
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 Secretary for Preparedness $17,497,000 $17,497,000
Office of the Chief Medical Officer 4,980,000 4,980,000
Office of National Capital Region Coordination 1,991,000 1,991,000
National Preparedness Integration Program 50,000,000 15,000,000
Total $74,468,000 $39,468,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
---------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
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
---------------------------------------------------
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.'
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 Grant Program $633,000,000 $545,000,000
Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention - - - 400,000,000
Subtotal State Grants 633,000,000 945,000,000
Discretionary Grants:
High-Threat, High-Density Urban Area Grants 838,000,000 750,000,000
Targeted Infrastructure Protection Program 600,000,000 - - -
Buffer Zone Protection Program - - - 50,000,000
Port Security Grants - - - 200,000,000
Rail and Transit Security Grants - - - 150,000,000
Trucking Industry Security Grants - - - 5,000,000
Intercity Bus Security Grants - - - 10,000,000
Subtotal, Discretionary Grants 1,438,000,000 1,165,000,000
Commercial Equipment Direct Assistance Program - - - 75,000,000
National Programs:
National Domestic Preparedness Consortium 89,351,000 135,000,000
National Exercise Program 48,708,000 49,000,000
Technical Assistance 11,500,000 25,000,000
Metropolitan Medical Response System - - - 30,000,000
Demonstration Training Grants - - - 30,000,000
Continuing Training Grants 3,000,000 35,000,000
Citizen Corps 35,000,000 - - -
Evaluations and Assessments 23,000,000 23,000,000
Rural Domestic Preparedness Consortium - - - 12,000,000
$2,281,559,000 $2,524,000,000 339,000,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
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
-------------------------------------------------
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.
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.
-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
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
-------------------------------------------------
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.
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.
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
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 - - -
------------------------------------------------
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.
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.
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
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 - - -
------------------------------------------------
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.
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.
-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
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 - - -
-------------------------------------------------
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.
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 and Partnership 101,100,000 101,100,000
Critical Infrastructure Identification and Evaluation 71,631,000 71,631,000
National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center 16,021,000 16,021,000
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 Preparedness Telecommunications 143,272,000 143,272,000
Total, Infrastructure Protection and Information Security 549,140,000 549,140,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
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
-------------------------------------------------
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.
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.
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.
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.
-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
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
-------------------------------------------------
The Readiness, Mitigation, Response, and Recovery activity provides for the development and maintenance of an integrated, nationwide operational capability to prepare for, mitigate against, respo