# H.R. 1 (Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act of 2007) and S. 4 (Improving America’s Security Act of 2007): A Comparative Analysis > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3ARL33942 ## Record - **Collection:** Congressional research report - **Document type:** CRS Report - **Published:** March 29, 2007 - **Citation:** RL33942 ## Text ȱ ǯǯȱŗȱǻ –™•Ž–Ž—’—ȱ‘ŽȱşȦŗŗȱ˜––’œœ’˜—ȱ ŽŒ˜––Ž—Š’˜—œȱŒȱ˜ȱŘŖŖŝǼȱŠ—ȱǯȱŚȱ ǻ –™›˜Ÿ’—ȱ–Ž›’ŒŠȂœȱŽŒž›’¢ȱŒȱ˜ȱŘŖŖŝǼDZȱȱ ˜–™Š›Š’ŸŽȱ—Š•¢œ’œȱ  Š›ȱǯȱ›ž—Ž›ǰȱ˜˜›’—Š˜›ȱ ™ŽŒ’Š•’œȱ’—ȱ˜›Ž’—ȱŠ’›œȱ Š›Œ‘ȱŘşǰȱŘŖŖŝȱ ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ ŝȬśŝŖŖȱ ǯŒ›œǯ˜Ÿȱ řřşŚŘȱ ȱŽ™˜›ȱ˜›ȱ˜—›Žœœ Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress ȱ ǯǯȱŗȱŠ—ȱǯȱŚDZȱȱ˜–™Š›Š’ŸŽȱ—Š•¢œ’œȱ ž––Š›¢ȱ This comparative analysis of H.R. 1 (Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act of 2007) and S. 4 (Improving America’s Security Act of 2007) is an assessment of major similarities and differences between the two bills as passed by the House (January 9, 2007) and Senate (March 13, 2007) and under conference consideration. References to the two bills are to engrossed versions. The presentation is organized to follow the basic construct of the House bill because its coverage remained more stable through the legislative process and as the analyses began. Titles unique to S. 4 follow the Titles of H.R. 1. CRS experts are available to follow up on any additional needs, including clarification of content or of legislative references. Each section of this analysis includes contact information for the analyst or attorney who prepared it. CRS also provides online access to research products that directly address a number of issues that are the focus of or are raised by H.R. 1 and S. 4. These products are available under the CRS home page Current Legislative Issues heading “Terrorism and Homeland Security” (see http://www.crs.gov). ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ ȱ ǯǯȱŗȱŠ—ȱǯȱŚDZȱȱ˜–™Š›Š’ŸŽȱ—Š•¢œ’œȱ ˜—Ž—œȱ Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Title I: Risk-Based Allocation of Homeland Security Grants ......................................................... 1 Homeland Security and Emergency Management Grant Funding............................................ 1 Overview ................................................................................................................................... 1 House Provisions ................................................................................................................ 2 Senate Provisions ................................................................................................................ 2 Comments ........................................................................................................................... 3 Title II: Ensuring Communications Interoperability for First Responders...................................... 3 Improve Communications for Emergency Response Grant Program ....................................... 3 Overview ................................................................................................................................... 3 House Provisions ................................................................................................................ 3 Senate Provisions ................................................................................................................ 4 Border Interoperability Demonstration Project......................................................................... 4 House Provisions ................................................................................................................ 4 Senate provisions ................................................................................................................ 5 Other Provisions Regarding Communications and Interoperability ......................................... 5 House Provisions ................................................................................................................ 5 Senate Provisions ................................................................................................................ 5 Title III: Strengthening Use of a Unified Incident Command During Emergencies ....................... 6 Overview ................................................................................................................................... 6 House Provisions ................................................................................................................ 6 Senate Provisions ................................................................................................................ 6 Comments ........................................................................................................................... 7 Title IV: Strengthening Aviation Security........................................................................................ 7 Overview ................................................................................................................................... 7 House Provisions ................................................................................................................ 7 Reauthorization of Appropriations...................................................................................... 7 Baggage Screening.............................................................................................................. 8 Passenger Checkpoint Screening ........................................................................................ 8 Air Cargo Security .............................................................................................................. 8 Airline Passenger Prescreening........................................................................................... 9 TSA Personnel Management............................................................................................... 9 Senate Provisions ................................................................................................................ 9 Reauthorization of Appropriations.................................................................................... 10 Baggage Screening............................................................................................................ 10 Passenger Checkpoint Screening ...................................................................................... 10 Air Cargo Security ............................................................................................................ 10 Airline Passenger Prescreening..........................................................................................11 TSA Personnel Management..............................................................................................11 Miscellaneous Provisions Not in the House Bill .............................................................. 12 Foreign Aviation Repair Station Security ......................................................................... 12 General Aviation Security ................................................................................................. 12 Airline Crew and Law Enforcement Credentials.............................................................. 12 Canine Explosives Detection Team Training.................................................................... 13 Comments ......................................................................................................................... 13 ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ ȱ ǯǯȱŗȱŠ—ȱǯȱŚDZȱȱ˜–™Š›Š’ŸŽȱ—Š•¢œ’œȱ Title V: Strengthening the Security of Cargo Containers .............................................................. 14 Overview ................................................................................................................................. 14 House Provisions .............................................................................................................. 15 Senate Provisions .............................................................................................................. 15 Comment........................................................................................................................... 16 Title VI: Strengthening Efforts to Prevent Terrorist Travel (H.R. 1)............................................. 17 Overview ................................................................................................................................. 17 Strengthening the Capabilities of the Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center.................. 17 Overview ................................................................................................................................. 17 House Provisions .............................................................................................................. 17 Senate Provisions .............................................................................................................. 18 Modernization of the Visa Waiver Program............................................................................ 18 Overview ................................................................................................................................. 18 House Provisions .............................................................................................................. 19 Senate Provisions .............................................................................................................. 19 Comment........................................................................................................................... 19 Enhancing Terrorist Travel Programs...................................................................................... 20 Overview ................................................................................................................................. 20 House Provisions .............................................................................................................. 20 Senate Provisions .............................................................................................................. 20 Comments ......................................................................................................................... 20 Biometric Entry and Exit System............................................................................................ 20 Overview ................................................................................................................................. 21 House Provisions .............................................................................................................. 21 Senate Provisions .............................................................................................................. 21 Comments ......................................................................................................................... 21 Enhanced Driver’s License/Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative ........................................ 21 Overview ................................................................................................................................. 22 House Provisions .............................................................................................................. 22 Senate Provisions .............................................................................................................. 22 Comments ......................................................................................................................... 22 Model Ports of Entry............................................................................................................... 22 House Provision................................................................................................................ 23 Senate Provisions .............................................................................................................. 23 Title VII: Improving Intelligence and Information Sharing with Local Law Enforcement and First Responders .................................................................................................................. 23 Overview ................................................................................................................................. 23 Fusion and Law Enforcement Education and Teaming (FLEET) Grant Program .................. 24 House Provisions .............................................................................................................. 24 Senate Provisions .............................................................................................................. 24 Comment........................................................................................................................... 24 Border Intelligence Fusion Center Program............................................................................ 25 House Provisions .............................................................................................................. 25 Senate Provisions .............................................................................................................. 25 Homeland Security Information Sharing Environment........................................................... 25 Overview ................................................................................................................................. 25 Unique House Provisions.................................................................................................. 26 Unique Senate Provisions ................................................................................................. 26 Comment: DHS Advisory System .................................................................................... 27 ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ ȱ ǯǯȱŗȱŠ—ȱǯȱŚDZȱȱ˜–™Š›Š’ŸŽȱ—Š•¢œ’œȱ Comment: Definition of DHS Intelligence Component.................................................... 27 Comment: Integration and Standardization of DHS Intelligence ..................................... 27 Comment: Program Manager ISE Term, Functions, and Additional Resources............... 28 Homeland Security Information Sharing Partnerships............................................................ 28 Overview ................................................................................................................................. 28 Unique House Provisions.................................................................................................. 28 Unique Senate Provisions ................................................................................................. 29 Comment........................................................................................................................... 29 Homeland Security Intelligence Offices Reorganization ........................................................ 29 House Provisions .............................................................................................................. 29 Senate Provisions .............................................................................................................. 30 Comment........................................................................................................................... 30 Interagency Threat Assessment Coordination Group.............................................................. 30 Overview ................................................................................................................................. 30 House Provisions .............................................................................................................. 31 Senate Provisions .............................................................................................................. 31 Comment........................................................................................................................... 31 Title VIII: Protecting Privacy and Civil Liberties While Effectively Fighting Terrorism............. 32 Reconstituting the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board ............................................ 32 Overview ................................................................................................................................. 32 House Provisions .............................................................................................................. 32 Senate Provisions .............................................................................................................. 32 Comments ......................................................................................................................... 33 Privacy Officers ...................................................................................................................... 33 Overview ................................................................................................................................. 33 House Provisions .............................................................................................................. 33 Senate Provisions .............................................................................................................. 34 Enhancement of Department of Homeland Security Privacy Officer’s Authorities................ 34 Overview ................................................................................................................................. 34 House Provisions .............................................................................................................. 35 Senate Provision ............................................................................................................... 35 Federal Agency Data Mining Reporting Act of 2007.............................................................. 35 Overview ................................................................................................................................. 35 House Provisions .............................................................................................................. 36 Senate Provisions .............................................................................................................. 36 Comments ......................................................................................................................... 36 Title IX: Improving Critical Infrastructure Security ..................................................................... 37 Overview ................................................................................................................................. 37 Vulnerability Assessment and Report on Critical Infrastructure Information......................... 38 House Provisions .............................................................................................................. 38 Senate Provisions .............................................................................................................. 38 Comment........................................................................................................................... 38 National Asset Database and National At-Risk Database ....................................................... 39 House Provisions .............................................................................................................. 39 Senate Provisions .............................................................................................................. 39 Comment........................................................................................................................... 40 Priorities and Allocations ........................................................................................................ 40 House Provisions .............................................................................................................. 40 Senate Provisions .............................................................................................................. 41 ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ ȱ ǯǯȱŗȱŠ—ȱǯȱŚDZȱȱ˜–™Š›Š’ŸŽȱ—Š•¢œ’œȱ Senate Provisions Comment ............................................................................................. 41 Title X: Transportation Security Planning and Information Sharing............................................. 41 House Provisions .............................................................................................................. 41 Senate Provisions .............................................................................................................. 41 Title XI: Private Sector Preparedness............................................................................................ 42 Participation of the Private Sector in Preparedness Activities ................................................ 42 Overview ................................................................................................................................. 42 House Provisions .............................................................................................................. 42 Senate Provisions .............................................................................................................. 42 Comments ......................................................................................................................... 42 Title XII: Preventing Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism ........................ 43 Overview ................................................................................................................................. 43 Repeal and Modification of Limitations on Nonproliferation Assistance............................... 43 House Provisions .............................................................................................................. 43 Senate Provisions .............................................................................................................. 43 Comments ......................................................................................................................... 44 Expanding Proliferation Security Initiative............................................................................. 44 House Provisions .............................................................................................................. 44 Senate provisions .............................................................................................................. 44 Comments ......................................................................................................................... 45 Assistance to Accelerate Programs to Prevent Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism .................................................................................................. 45 House Provisions .............................................................................................................. 45 Senate provisions .............................................................................................................. 45 Comments ......................................................................................................................... 45 Establishing a Coordinator and Commission on Preventing Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism .............................................................................. 46 House Provisions .............................................................................................................. 46 Senate Provisions .............................................................................................................. 46 Comments ......................................................................................................................... 46 Title XIII: Nuclear Black Market Counter-Terrorism Act............................................................. 47 Overview ................................................................................................................................. 47 House Provisions .............................................................................................................. 47 Senate Provisions .............................................................................................................. 47 Comments ......................................................................................................................... 47 Title XIV: 9/11 Commission International Implementation.......................................................... 48 Overview ................................................................................................................................. 48 Subtitle A: Quality Educational Opportunities in Arab and Predominantly Muslim Countries .............................................................................................................................. 48 House Provisions .............................................................................................................. 48 Senate Provisions .............................................................................................................. 49 Subtitle B: Democracy and Development in Arab and Muslim Countries ............................. 49 House Provisions .............................................................................................................. 49 Senate Provisions .............................................................................................................. 49 Subtitle C: Advancing United States Interests Through Public Diplomacy............................ 49 House Provision................................................................................................................ 49 Senate Provision ............................................................................................................... 50 House Provision................................................................................................................ 50 ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ ȱ ǯǯȱŗȱŠ—ȱǯȱŚDZȱȱ˜–™Š›Š’ŸŽȱ—Š•¢œ’œȱ Senate Provision ............................................................................................................... 50 House Provision................................................................................................................ 50 Senate Provision ............................................................................................................... 50 Subtitle D: Strategy for the United States Relationship with Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia .................................................................................................................. 51 House Provisions .............................................................................................................. 51 Senate Provisions .............................................................................................................. 51 Senate Provisions Not in H.R. 1.................................................................................................... 52 Title VII: Enhanced Defenses Against Weapons of Mass Destruction.......................................... 52 National Biosurveillance Integration Center........................................................................... 52 House Provision................................................................................................................ 52 Senate Provision ............................................................................................................... 52 Biosurveillance Efforts............................................................................................................ 53 House Provision................................................................................................................ 53 Senate Provision ............................................................................................................... 53 Interagency Coordination to Enhance Defenses Against Nuclear and Radiological Weapons of Mass Destruction.............................................................................................. 53 House Provisions .............................................................................................................. 53 Senate Provisions .............................................................................................................. 53 Comment........................................................................................................................... 53 Title XII: Congressional Oversight of Intelligence ....................................................................... 54 Availability to Public of Certain Intelligence Funding Information ....................................... 54 House Provision................................................................................................................ 54 Senate Provision ............................................................................................................... 54 Comment........................................................................................................................... 54 Response of Intelligence Community to Requests from Congress ......................................... 54 House Provision................................................................................................................ 54 Senate Provision ............................................................................................................... 54 Comment........................................................................................................................... 55 Public Interest Declassification Board .................................................................................... 55 House Provision................................................................................................................ 55 Senate Provision ............................................................................................................... 56 Comment........................................................................................................................... 56 Sense of the Senate Regarding a Report on the 9/11 Commission Recommendations with Respect to Intelligence Reform and Congressional Intelligence Oversight Reform ................................................................................................................................. 56 House Provision................................................................................................................ 56 Senate Provision ............................................................................................................... 56 Comment........................................................................................................................... 56 Availability of Funds for the Public Interest Declassification Board...................................... 56 House Provision................................................................................................................ 56 Senate Provision ............................................................................................................... 57 Comment........................................................................................................................... 57 Availability of the Executive Summary of the Report on Central Intelligence Agency Accountability Regarding the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001.............................. 57 House Provision................................................................................................................ 57 Senate Provision ............................................................................................................... 57 Comment........................................................................................................................... 57 Title XIII: International Cooperation on Antiterrorism Technologies ........................................... 57 ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ ȱ ǯǯȱŗȱŠ—ȱǯȱŚDZȱȱ˜–™Š›Š’ŸŽȱ—Š•¢œ’œȱ House Provisions .............................................................................................................. 58 Senate Provision ............................................................................................................... 58 Transparency of Funds ............................................................................................................ 59 House Provision................................................................................................................ 59 Senate Provision ............................................................................................................... 59 Title XIV: Transportation and Interoperable Communication Capabilities................................... 59 Subtitle A Part I: Improved Rail Security................................................................................ 59 Rail Transportation Security Risk Assessment........................................................................ 59 House Provisions .............................................................................................................. 59 Senate Provisions .............................................................................................................. 59 Rail Transportation Security Grant Programs ......................................................................... 60 House Provisions .............................................................................................................. 60 Senate Provisions .............................................................................................................. 60 Amtrak Provisions................................................................................................................... 60 House Provisions .............................................................................................................. 60 Senate Provisions .............................................................................................................. 60 Northern Border Rail Passenger Report.................................................................................. 61 House Provisions .............................................................................................................. 61 Senate Provisions .............................................................................................................. 61 Freight Rail Specific Provisions.............................................................................................. 61 House Provisions .............................................................................................................. 61 Senate Provisions .............................................................................................................. 62 Unified Carrier Registration System Plan Agreement ............................................................ 62 House Provisions .............................................................................................................. 62 Senate Provisions .............................................................................................................. 62 Authorization of Appropriations ............................................................................................. 62 House Provisions .............................................................................................................. 62 Senate Provisions .............................................................................................................. 62 Comment........................................................................................................................... 63 Subtitle A Part II: Improved Motor Carrier, Bus, and Hazardous Material Security..................... 63 Motor Carrier and Hazardous Material Security..................................................................... 63 House Provisions .............................................................................................................. 64 Senate Provisions .............................................................................................................. 64 Comment........................................................................................................................... 64 Over-the-Road Bus Security Assistance.................................................................................. 65 House Provisions .............................................................................................................. 65 Senate Provisions .............................................................................................................. 65 Subtitle B: See Title 4, H.R. 1................................................................................................. 65 Subtitle C: Interoperable Emergency Communications .......................................................... 65 Interoperable Emergency Communications ............................................................................ 65 House Provisions .............................................................................................................. 66 Senate Provisions .............................................................................................................. 66 Extension of Short Quorum .................................................................................................... 66 House Provisions .............................................................................................................. 66 Senate Provisions .............................................................................................................. 66 Requiring Reports to be Submitted to Certain Committees .................................................... 66 House Provisions .............................................................................................................. 66 Senate Provisions .............................................................................................................. 66 Title XV: Public Transportation Terrorism Prevention.................................................................. 66 ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ ȱ ǯǯȱŗȱŠ—ȱǯȱŚDZȱȱ˜–™Š›Š’ŸŽȱ—Š•¢œ’œȱ Overview ................................................................................................................................. 67 House Provisions .............................................................................................................. 67 Security Assessments ........................................................................................................ 67 Security Grants ................................................................................................................. 67 Security Training Program................................................................................................ 67 Intelligence Sharing .......................................................................................................... 67 Research, Development, and Demonstration Grants and Contracts ................................. 68 Authorization of Appropriations ....................................................................................... 68 Sunset Provisions.............................................................................................................. 68 Comment........................................................................................................................... 68 Title XVI: Miscellaneous Provisions ............................................................................................ 69 Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security for Management ..................................................... 69 Overview ................................................................................................................................. 69 House Provisions .............................................................................................................. 69 Senate Provisions .............................................................................................................. 69 Comment........................................................................................................................... 70 Sense of the Senate Regarding Oversight of Homeland Security ........................................... 70 Overview ................................................................................................................................. 70 House Provisions .............................................................................................................. 72 Senate Provisions .............................................................................................................. 72 Report Regarding Border Security.......................................................................................... 72 House Provisions .............................................................................................................. 72 Senate Provisions .............................................................................................................. 72 Law Enforcement Assistance Force ........................................................................................ 73 House Provisions .............................................................................................................. 73 Senate Provisions .............................................................................................................. 73 Quadrennial Homeland Security Review................................................................................ 73 Overview ................................................................................................................................. 73 House Provisions .............................................................................................................. 74 Senate Provisions .............................................................................................................. 74 Comments ......................................................................................................................... 74 Overview ................................................................................................................................. 75 Integration of Detection Equipment and Technologies ........................................................... 75 House Provisions .............................................................................................................. 75 Senate Provisions .............................................................................................................. 75 Title XVII: 911 Modernization...................................................................................................... 75 Overview ................................................................................................................................. 75 House Provisions .............................................................................................................. 75 Senate Provisions .............................................................................................................. 76 Title XVIII: Modernization of the American National Red Cross ................................................ 76 Altering the Governance of the American National Red Cross .............................................. 76 Overview ................................................................................................................................. 76 House Provisions .............................................................................................................. 76 Senate Provisions .............................................................................................................. 76 Comments ......................................................................................................................... 77 Title XIX: Advancement of Democratic Values ............................................................................ 77 House Provisions .............................................................................................................. 77 Senate Provisions .............................................................................................................. 78 ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ ȱ ǯǯȱŗȱŠ—ȱǯȱŚDZȱȱ˜–™Š›Š’ŸŽȱ—Š•¢œ’œȱ ˜—ŠŒœȱ Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 80 ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ ǯǯȱŗȱŠ—ȱǯȱŚDZȱȱ˜–™Š›Š’ŸŽȱ—Š•¢œ’œȱ ȱ —›˜žŒ’˜—ȱ This comparative analysis of H.R. 1 (Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act of 2007) and S. 4 (Improving America’s Security Act of 2007) is an assessment of major similarities and differences between the two bills as passed by the House (January 9, 2007) and Senate (March 13, 2007) and under conference consideration. References to the two bills are to engrossed versions. The presentation is organized to follow the basic construct of the House bill because its coverage remained more stable through the legislative process and as the analyses began. Titles unique to S. 4 follow the Titles of H.R. 1. CRS experts are available to follow up on any additional needs, including clarification of content or of legislative references. Each section of this analysis includes contact information for the analyst or attorney who prepared it. The two bills analyzed herein represent a resolve by many Members of the 110th Congress to address 9/11 Commission recommendations that may not have been completely resolved through legislative actions of the 109th Congress or Executive actions. For an assessment of what Commission recommendations were addressed through previously enacted legislation and Executive actions, see CRS Report RL33742, 9/11 Commission Recommendations: Implementation Status, by (name redacted). CRS also provides online access to research products that directly address a number of issues that are the focus of or are raised by H.R. 1 and S. 4. These products are available under the CRS home page Current Legislative Issues heading “Terrorism and Homeland Security” (see http://www.crs.gov). ’•Žȱ DZȱ’œ”ȬŠœŽȱ••˜ŒŠ’˜—ȱ˜ȱ ˜–Ž•Š—ȱŽŒž›’¢ȱ ›Š—œȱ ˜–Ž•Š—ȱŽŒž›’¢ȱŠ—ȱ–Ž›Ž—Œ¢ȱŠ—ŠŽ–Ž—ȱ ›Š—ȱž—’—ȱ Prepared by (name redacted), Analyst in Americ an National Government, CRS Government and Finance Division, 7-..... ŸŽ›Ÿ’Ž ȱ The 9/11 Commission recommended in its 2004 report that state and local homeland security assistance should be “based strictly on an assessment of risks and vulnerabilities.” The Commission went on to state that federal homeland security assistance “should supplement state and local resources based on risks and vulnerabilities that merit additional support.” (The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 396.) H.R. 1 and S. 4 propose to change the current formula used to distribute federal assistance for state and local homeland security. Both bills would include risk assessment requirements in the distribution of federal homeland security assistance. ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ ŗȱ ǯǯȱŗȱŠ—ȱǯȱŚDZȱȱ˜–™Š›Š’ŸŽȱ—Š•¢œ’œȱ ȱ ˜žœŽȱ›˜Ÿ’œ’˜—œȱ H.R. 1 (Title I, Section 101 “Title XX, Section 2002-2005” of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, P.L. 107-296) covers the State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP), the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program (LETPP), and the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI). The bill would authorize the DHS Secretary to award grants to eligible applicants. Additionally, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary would be required to evaluate and annually prioritize applications based on risk and vulnerability assessments— including assessments of national critical infrastructure sectors. H.R. 1 would guarantee that states without an international border, the District of Columbia (DC), and Puerto Rico receive a minimum of 0.25% of total appropriations for the covered grants. States with an international border would be deemed high risk and guaranteed a minimum of 0.45%, and U.S. insular areas and eligible tribes would be guaranteed a minimum of 0.08%. Finally, H.R. 1 details eligible activities and accountability requirements. Ž—ŠŽȱ›˜Ÿ’œ’˜—œȱ S. 4 (Title II, Section 202, “Title XX, Section 2002-2009” of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, P.L. 107-296) would authorize the DHS Secretary, through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Administrator, to award federal homeland security assistance to states, DC, Puerto Rico, and U.S. insular areas. The FEMA Administrator would be required to distribute federal homeland security assistance based on risk and threat assessments. The bill would establish UASI to help high-risk metropolitan areas prepare for, prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks, and would authorize $1.28 billion for fiscal years 2008 through 2010. The bill also would establish SHSGP for states, DC, Puerto Rico, and U.S. insular areas. States, DC, and Puerto Rico would be guaranteed a minimum of 0.45% of total SHSGP appropriations; U.S. insular areas, 0.08%. S. 4 would authorize $913 million for fiscal years 2008 through 2010, and thereafter such sums as necessary. The bill would require the FEMA Administrator to designate not less than 25% of UASI and SHSGP allocations for law enforcement terrorism prevention activities, and would establish an Office for the Prevention of Terrorism within DHS to coordinate policy, serve as a liaison for grant recipients, and coordinate with DHS’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis. Finally, S. 4‘s Title II would identify restrictions on the use of grant awards; the bill, however, would not prohibit grant recipients from using grant award funding for all-hazard preparedness if they also enhance terrorism preparedness. S. 4 would authorize the DHS Inspector General to conduct audits of grant recipient uses of SHSGP, UASI, and Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) program funding. Additionally, S. 4 (Title IV, Section 401) would amend Section 622 of the Post Katrina Act (Title VI, P.L. 109-295) by codifying the distribution method for EMPG awards. Each state, DC, and Puerto Rico would be guaranteed to receive 0.75% of total appropriations; U.S. insular areas, 0.25%. The amount remaining of total appropriations would be allocated on the state’s percentage of the national population. The bill would also ensure that the federal cost share would not exceed 50% of allocations to each state. The bill would authorize grant recipients to use EMPG funding for the Emergency Operations Center Improvement Program; the federal cost share for this program would not exceed 75%. Finally, S. 4 would authorize $913 million for fiscal years 2008 through 2010, and such sums as necessary thereafter. ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ Řȱ ǯǯȱŗȱŠ—ȱǯȱŚDZȱȱ˜–™Š›Š’ŸŽȱ—Š•¢œ’œȱ ȱ ˜––Ž—œȱ Neither H.R. 1 nor S. 4 proposes to fund state and local homeland security assistance strictly on risk and threat. Both bills propose a guaranteed minimum to states, DC, Puerto Rico, and U.S. insular areas, though both bills do propose to provide the majority of federal homeland security assistance based on risk. H.R. 1, unlike S. 4, does not authorize specific amounts of appropriations for any homeland security or emergency management program, nor does it address EMPG allocations. Additionally, H.R. 1 does not identify the FEMA Administrator as the DHS official responsible for administrating the allocation of federal homeland security and emergency management grants. ’•Žȱ DZȱ—œž›’—ȱ˜––ž—’ŒŠ’˜—œȱ —Ž›˜™Ž›Š‹’•’¢ȱ ˜›ȱ’›œȱŽœ™˜—Ž›œȱ –™›˜ŸŽȱ˜––ž—’ŒŠ’˜—œȱ˜›ȱ–Ž›Ž—Œ¢ȱŽœ™˜—œŽȱ ›Š—ȱ›˜›Š–ȱ Prepared by (name redacted), Analyst in Telecommunications and Technology Policy, CRS Resources, Science, and Industry Division, 7-..... ŸŽ›Ÿ’Ž ȱ Congress has passed legislation addressing communications among first responders focused on interoperability—the capability of different systems to connect—in several laws, starting with provisions in the Homeland Security Act (P.L. 107-296). The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (P.L. 108-458) provided more comprehensive language that included requirements for developing a national approach to achieving interoperability. In a section of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007 (P.L. 109-295), Congress revisited the needs of an effective communications capacity—operability—for first responders and other emergency personnel and expanded the emergency communications provisions of P.L. 108-458. Title VI of P.L. 109-295—the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006—reorganized the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Subtitle D—the 21st Century Emergency Communications Act of 2006—provided communications functionality to interface with the new FEMA, among other functions. It created an Office of Emergency Communications and the position of Director. The Director is required to take numerous steps to coordinate emergency communications planning, preparedness, and response, particularly at the state and regional level. Although a number of programs are required by Title D, the law does not authorize funding. ˜žœŽȱ›˜Ÿ’œ’˜—œȱ The provisions of H.R. 1, Title II would amend Title V of the Homeland Security Act (6 U.S.C. 311 et seq.). In response to the 9/11 Commission recommendation for public safety communications and interoperability, Title II would provide funding to assist in meeting the goals set for the Office of Emergency Communications by the 21st Century Emergency Communications Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-295). The bill would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish an Improve Communications for Emergency Response Grant Program through the Office of Grants and Training in cooperation with the Office of Emergency ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ řȱ ǯǯȱŗȱŠ—ȱǯȱŚDZȱȱ˜–™Š›Š’ŸŽȱ—Š•¢œ’œȱ ȱ Communications. “Such sums as are necessary” would be made available in the first fiscal year that DHS meets three goals set in P.L. 109-295: completion of a National Emergency Communications Plan; baseline assessment of interoperability; and progress report to Congress affirming “substantial progress” in developing standards. The grant program would make grants at the state and regional level to carry out initiatives at the state, regional, national, and international level. Uses of the funds would include planning, systems design and engineering, equipment procurement, technical assistance, and exercises, modeling, simulation, and other training activities. No other grant guidance is provided. The Congressional Budget Office, in providing an estimate for H.R. 1, placed the cumulative cost of funding interoperable communications at nearly $3.2 billion for fiscal years 2009 through 2012.1 Ž—ŠŽȱ›˜Ÿ’œ’˜—œȱ The provisions of S. 4, Title III, Section 301 would amend Title X of the Homeland Security Act (6 U.S.C. 571 et seq.), as amended by P.L. 109-295. As regards emergency communications, the bill adds substantially to requirements provided in the 21st Century Emergency Communications Act of 2006 of (P.L. 109-295). The bill provides detailed instructions to the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency on grants programs for communications, consistent with planning requirements set out in P.L. 109-295. Uses of the funds would include planning, systems design and engineering, equipment procurement, technical assistance, and exercises, modeling, simulation, and other training activities. Authorization of appropriations for the grants are $400 million in FY2008, $500 million for FY2009, $600 million for FY2010, $800 million for FY2011, $1,000 million for FY2012, and such sums as are necessary for subsequent years. Among specific requirements for administering grants are: minimum contents of grant applications such as identifying “critical aspects of the communications life cycle,” describing how the proposed use of funds would meet various goals, demonstrating consistency with already mandated Statewide Interoperable Communications Plan, and including a capital budget and timeline; specific considerations to be taken into account when approving applications and awarding grants; establishment of a review panel; minimum amounts for grants; availability of funds; state responsibilities; certifications; and reports on spending. Requirements for interoperable communications plans established in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (6 U.S.C. 194) are amended to include additional requirements. Requirements for a National Emergency Communications Plan established in Title VI Subtitle D of P.L. 109-295 are amended to mandate the establishment of a date by which interoperable communications will be achieved. ˜›Ž›ȱ —Ž›˜™Ž›Š‹’•’¢ȱŽ–˜—œ›Š’˜—ȱ›˜“ŽŒȱ ˜žœŽȱ›˜Ÿ’œ’˜—œȱ No comparable provision. 1 Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate for H.R. 1, Feb. 2, 2007, p. 4; and H.R. 1, Title II. ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ Śȱ ǯǯȱŗȱŠ—ȱǯȱŚDZȱȱ˜–™Š›Š’ŸŽȱ—Š•¢œ’œȱ ȱ Ž—ŠŽȱ™›˜Ÿ’œ’˜—œȱ To help resolve problems in coordinating wireless communications along the Canadian and Mexican borders, S. 4, Title III, Section 302 would establish a demonstration project. The project would address interoperable communications needs such as radio frequency spectrum coordination and standards, and would foster cross-border cooperation between U.S., federal, state, local, and tribal authorities and their Canadian and Mexican counterparts. Requirements for the program, funding, and reporting are provided. ‘Ž›ȱ›˜Ÿ’œ’˜—œȱŽŠ›’—ȱ˜––ž—’ŒŠ’˜—œȱŠ—ȱ —Ž›˜™Ž›Š‹’•’¢ȱ ˜žœŽȱ›˜Ÿ’œ’˜—œȱ No comparable provision. Ž—ŠŽȱ›˜Ÿ’œ’˜—œȱ Title XIV, Subtitle C contains additional provisions regarding interoperable communications. In particular, the Deficit Reduction Act (P.L. 109-171) would be amended as regards funding for interoperable communications as provided in Section 3006 (47 U.S.C. 309). This provision would redirect a $ 1 billion grant program away from specific requirements for interoperable systems at 700 MHz and would place more general requirements on the types of equipment eligible for grants. Specific grant guidance regarding eligibility is required. Some portion of the funds would go for strategic technology reserve grants, to support the procurement, in advance, of resources needed in an emergency. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) would be required to prepare a study on the technical feasibility of creating a back-up emergency communications system and to report to Congress on its findings. A joint advisory committee on the communications capabilities of emergency care medical facilities would be established jointly by the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information and the Chairman of the FCC, with the participation of the Secretaries of Homeland Security and Health and Human Services. The committee would assess communications capabilities, needs and options and report its findings to Congress. Up to 10 geographically dispersed pilot projects would be funded with no more than $2 million each. Progress and status reports on cross-border interoperability negotiations and treaties governing radio use would be required. Other provisions not pertaining to communications are listed in the section on Title XIV, Subtitle C. ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ śȱ ǯǯȱŗȱŠ—ȱǯȱŚDZȱȱ˜–™Š›Š’ŸŽȱ—Š•¢œ’œȱ ȱ ’•Žȱ DZȱ›Ž—‘Ž—’—ȱœŽȱ˜ȱŠȱ—’’Žȱ —Œ’Ž—ȱ ˜––Š—ȱž›’—ȱ–Ž›Ž—Œ’Žœȱ Prepared by (name redacted), Analyst in American National Government, CRS Government and Finance Division, 7-..... ŸŽ›Ÿ’Ž ȱ The 9/11 Commission recommended “aggressive and realistic training in accordance with ICS (Incident Command Systems) and unified command procedures.” Part of the incident command approach involves personnel credentialing and resource typing. Credentialing is a process that authenticates and verifies the qualifications of personnel. Typing is a process that evaluates resources to identify the use and capabilities of an asset or resource. The Commission also recommended development of a regional focus in the emergency responder community that would promote mutual assistance compacts and provide training in accordance with existing compacts. (The 9/11 Commission Report (2004), p. 397). ˜žœŽȱ›˜Ÿ’œ’˜—œȱ H.R. 1 (Title III, Section 301-302) would amend the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (Title VI, Subtitle C, Section 648) by requiring that FEMA’s training and exercise component include enhancement of an operational understanding of the Incident Command System and relevant mutual aid agreements within the emergency responder community. The bill would also require that the FEMA Administrator build an exercise program that considers special needs populations, after-action reports, plans to incorporate lessons learned into future operations, and model exercise programs. H.R. 1 (Title III, Section 303) also would amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 317) to extend the responsibilities of the FEMA Regional Administrator to include helping state, local, or tribal governments identify suitable sites for a unified command system. Ž—ŠŽȱ›˜Ÿ’œ’˜—œȱ S. 4 (Title X, Section 1001) would amend the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act (Title VI, Subtitle A, Section 611) by extending the responsibilities of the FEMA Regional Administrator to include helping state, local, or tribal governments to identify suitable locations for a unified command system. S. 4 (Title X, Section 1002) also would enhance the credentialing and typing language within the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 with more detailed language to provide for the establishment of national standards for credentialing personnel who perform a function under the ICS model and the integration of the national standards into the National Response Plan. Such credentialing would include the establishment of a database of all federal personnel credentialed to respond to natural disasters, acts of terrorism, or other man-made disasters. Additionally, the bill would expand the responsibilities of the FEMA Administrator to include creating detailed written guidance to state, local, and tribal governments for credentialing of emergency response providers. S. 4 also would require typing of resources, including the identification of minimal capabilities of an asset or resource. The bill also would require a national standard for typing resources and integration of this standard into the National Response Plan. ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ Ŝȱ ǯǯȱŗȱŠ—ȱǯȱŚDZȱȱ˜–™Š›Š’ŸŽȱ—Š•¢œ’œȱ ȱ ˜––Ž—œȱ H.R. 1 would enhance the design and implementation of a national exercise to test NIMS, the NRP, and mutual assistance compacts. S. 4 does not refer to exercise design or implementation but addresses individual-level training and credentialing of functions within the ICS model. Both H.R. 1 and S. 4 would expand the responsibilities of the FEMA Regional Administrator to assist state, local, and tribal governments in identifying locations for a unified incident command system. S. 4 would replace language in the Post-Katrina Emergency Reform Act of 2006 pertaining to credentialing and typing with more specific language that addresses the implementation of standards. H.R. 1 does not refer to credentialing or typing under Title III. ’•Žȱ DZȱ›Ž—‘Ž—’—ȱŸ’Š’˜—ȱŽŒž›’¢ȱ Prepared by (name redacted), Specialist in Aviation Safety, Security, and Technology, CRS Resources, Science, and Industry Division, 7-..... ŸŽ›Ÿ’Ž ȱ Both the House and the Senate bills include several provisions intended to strengthen or improve aviation security. In addition to reauthorizing such sums as may be necessary for the TSA to carry out aviation security functions, provisions in both the House and Senate bills: address air cargo security, with specific emphasis on cargo placed on passenger aircraft; propose continued investment for in-line baggage screening equipment; address the detection of explosives at passenger screening checkpoints; propose changes to implementing the advanced passenger prescreening system and modifications to passenger appeal and redress procedures; and seek to modify the TSA’s personnel management system in a manner that would extend collective bargaining and other rights to federal airport screeners. In addition to above mentioned issues addressed in both the House and the Senate bills, the Senate bill contains several additional provisions addressing: TSA screener staffing levels, training, and retention; airport exit lane staffing; general aviation security; repair station security; credentialing of airline crews and law enforcement personnel; and expansion of the national explosives detection canine team program. Specific provisions of the House and Senate bills are discussed in further detail below. ˜žœŽȱ›˜Ÿ’œ’˜—œȱ The House bill contains specific provisions addressing the reauthorization of appropriations for aviation security activities; baggage screening; passenger checkpoint screening; air cargo security; airline passenger prescreening; and TSA personnel management. ŽŠž‘˜›’£Š’˜—ȱ˜ȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ The House bill seeks to extend the authorization of such sums as may be necessary for core TSA aviation security functions through FY2011 (see Section 405). This authorization expired at the end of FY2006. ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ ŝȱ ȱ ǯǯȱŗȱŠ—ȱǯȱŚDZȱȱ˜–™Š›Š’ŸŽȱ—Š•¢œ’œȱ ŠŠŽȱŒ›ŽŽ—’—ȱ The bill seeks to extend authorization of the Aviation Security Capital Fund, set to expire at the end of FY2007, through FY2011 (see Section 402). The Aviation Security Capital Fund serves as a vehicle for funding airport capital improvements to accommodate and install explosives detection equipment (EDS), particularly in-line baggage screening systems that are integrated into baggage handling conveyors. Additionally, Section 401 of the bill would require the DHS to submit a report to the congressional homeland security oversight committees within 30 days describing the study on cost sharing formulas and innovative financing for funding in-line EDS installation that was called for as part of the FY2006 budget process in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (P.L. 108-458). ŠœœŽ—Ž›ȱ‘ŽŒ”™˜’—ȱŒ›ŽŽ—’—ȱ The House bill contains two specific provisions addressing passenger checkpoint screening. Section 403 of the bill would establish a “Checkpoint Screening Security Fund” modeled after the Aviation Security Capital Fund. The provision would require that, in FY2008, after the initial $250 million in passenger fees is deposited into the Aviation Security Capital Fund, the next $250 million collected would be deposited into the newly established Checkpoint Screening Security Fund. Those amounts deposited into the fund would be available for research, development, deployment, and installation of equipment to improve the detection of explosives at passenger checkpoints. Further, Section 404 of the bill would require the TSA to submit the strategic plan for deployment and use of explosive detection equipment at airport screening checkpoints, that was required by March 2005 under a provision in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (P.L. 108-458), within seven days of enactment. ’›ȱŠ›˜ȱŽŒž›’¢ȱ The House bill contains language (see Section 406) that would phase in a requirement to physically inspect 100% of cargo placed on passenger airliners by the end of FY2009. The language would require the screening of 35% of such cargo by the end of FY2007, and 65% by the end of FY2008, and that all such cargo be screened by the end of FY2009. The provision further allows for an interim final rule to be adopted—without regard to the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)2—for up to one year to implement cargo screening. After one year, TSA must issue, in accordance with the statutory requirements of the APA, a superceding final rule. The provision would require the TSA to submit a report to Congress within one year of enactment describing the system developed to meet this mandate. The bill would also require the DHS to submit to the homeland security oversight committees, and also to the GAO, a report identifying and assessing any exemptions to these cargo inspection requirements detailing: the rationale for each exemption; the percentage of cargo not screened as a result of the exemption; the impact on aviation security; the projected impact on air commerce if the exemption was not granted or was eliminated; and any plans and rationale for maintaining, changing, or eliminating each exemption. Within 120 days after receiving this report, the GAO 2 Presumably, though it is not specifically stated in the bill, the interim rule could be issued without public participation (“notice and comment”) or other procedural protections and guideline required of administrative agencies pursuant to the APA. ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ Şȱ ȱ ǯǯȱŗȱŠ—ȱǯȱŚDZȱȱ˜–™Š›Š’ŸŽȱ—Š•¢œ’œȱ would be required to review and report to Congress assessing the DHS methodology for handling exemptions. See CRS Report RL32022, Air Cargo Security, by (name redacted). ’›•’—ŽȱŠœœŽ—Ž›ȱ›ŽœŒ›ŽŽ—’—ȱ Section 409 of the bill would require the DHS to submit a strategic plan to Congress within 90 days of enactment describing the system to be deployed that would enable the DHS to assume the function of checking passenger data to the automatic selectee and no fly lists, utilizing records contained in the consolidated and integrated terrorist watchlist maintained by the Federal Government. The report would be required to include a projected timeline for testing and implementing the system; an explanation of how the system would be integrated with the passenger prescreening system in place for international flights; and a description of how the system complies with statutes pertaining to records maintained on individuals detailed in the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. Section 552a). Further, Section 407 of the bill seeks to establish a timely and fair appeal and redress process for individuals who perceive that they were wrongly identified by the prescreening process resulting in delayed or denied boarding. The provision would establish a DHS Office of Appeals and Redress and would authorize this office to maintain records of misidentified individuals. The bill would require the office to use these records to: authenticate the identity of such individuals; and provide this information to the TSA, CBP, and any other appropriate DHS entities for the purpose of improving passenger prescreening and reducing false positives. See CRS Report RL33645, Terrorist Watchlist Checks and Air Passenger Prescreening, by (name redacted) and (name redacted). ȱŽ›œ˜——Ž•ȱŠ—ŠŽ–Ž—ȱ Section 408 of the House bill would repeal authority granted to the TSA Administrator to establish a screener personnel system for employing, appointing, disciplining, terminating, and fixing the compensation, terms, and conditions of employment for screener personnel (also known as Transportation Security Officers or TSOs). The bill would instead require the TSA to implement a uniform personnel system that would “... provide for the uniform treatment of all TSA employees ...” The bill would require the TSA to implement this new personnel management system within 90 days of enactment. Further, the bill would require the TSA to provide a report to the congressional homeland security oversight committees and to the GAO detailing changes made to the TSA pay system. The provision specifies that the uniform personnel system for all TSA employees, including screeners, must conform to the structure of either the existing TSA personnel system for non-screener personnel or the DHS human resources management system established under Chapter 97 of Title 5 of the United States Code.3 Ž—ŠŽȱ›˜Ÿ’œ’˜—œȱ The Senate bill includes alternative language to the House bill regarding reauthorization of appropriations, baggage screening, and air cargo screening. The Senate bill parallels language in the House regarding passenger checkpoint screening, airline passenger prescreening, and TSA 3 At present, the TSA non-screener personnel are covered under a personnel or human resources management system that is separate from the DHS personnel management system established under 5 U.S.C. §9701. As prescribed in Section 114(n) of Title 49 U.S.C., TSA non-screener personnel are covered under the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) personnel system described in 49 U.S.C. §40122. ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ şȱ ȱ ǯǯȱŗȱŠ—ȱǯȱŚDZȱȱ˜–™Š›Š’ŸŽȱ—Š•¢œ’œȱ personnel management reform. Additionally, the Senate bill includes numerous miscellaneous provisions related to aviation security for which there is no comparable language in the House bill. ŽŠž‘˜›’£Š’˜—ȱ˜ȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ Whereas the House bill would extend authorization of the TSA’s aviation security functions through FY2011, the Senate bill would authorize these functions through FY2009. The Senate bill would also extend authorization of $50 million annually through FY2009 to accelerate research and development efforts, and broaden the scope to include technologies that may enhance transportation security, not just aviation security. The House bill contains no comparable provision. ŠŠŽȱŒ›ŽŽ—’—ȱ The Senate bill would re-authorize the Aviation Security Capital Fund at a level of $250 million annually through FY2028 (see Section 1466). The Senate bill would change the funding allocation to provide $200 million of these funds to airports with letters of intent, and the remaining $50 million in discretionary grants, with priority given to small hub and non-hub airports. The Senate bill would also extend authorization of the discretionary appropriations for airport security improvements for baggage screening through 2009, and increase the authorized funding level from $250 million to $450 million in FY2008 and FY2009 (see Section 1465). ŠœœŽ—Ž›ȱ‘ŽŒ”™˜’—ȱŒ›ŽŽ—’—ȱ Like the House bill, the Senate bill contains a provision (Section 1470) that would require the DHS to submit the strategic plan for passenger checkpoint explosives detection, but would allow 90 days after enactment, instead of seven days, for the plan to be submitted. Further, the Senate bill (see Section 1479) would require the TSA to conduct a pilot program to identify technology solutions capable of reducing the number of TSA employees deployed to monitor airport exit lanes. Within one year after implementation of the pilot program, the TSA is to submit a final report to appropriate congressional committees describing the security measures deployed, the projected costs savings, and the efficacy of the program and its applicability to other airports. ’›ȱŠ›˜ȱŽŒž›’¢ȱ In contrast to the House bill, which would mandate 100% physical inspections of cargo placed on passenger airliners by end of FY2009, the Senate bill offers an alternative that would require the TSA to establish a system to screen4 all cargo transported on passenger airliners within three years (see Section 1462). The provision would require a minimum set of standards for cargo screening technologies, equipment, and personnel to provide a level of security comparable to the level of security in effect for passenger checked baggage. Like the House bill, the Senate bill allows for the promulgation of an interim rule, which may be issued without compliance with the APA, for up to one year. The bill also requires that a superceding final rule, issued in compliance 4 The term “screen” or “screening” with regard to air cargo placed on passenger aircraft has generally been interpreted by the TSA and the air cargo industry to include risk-based assessment processes, such as the known shipper program, and does not necessarily require physical inspection (see 49 U.S.C. §44901(a)). ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ ŗŖȱ ȱ ǯǯȱŗȱŠ—ȱǯȱŚDZȱȱ˜–™Š›Š’ŸŽȱ—Š•¢œ’œȱ with the APA, be promulgated after one year. The Senate bill also contains language regarding assessment of exemptions to these requirements that is identical to the language in the House bill. The Senate also includes a provision (Section 1463) with no comparable language in the House bill that would require the TSA to evaluate the results of the ongoing blast-resistant container pilot program by January 1, 2008, and based on that evaluation, begin acquisition of blastresistant containers to meet the needs specified in the TSA’s cargo security program. The TSA would also be required to implement a program to make such containers available to passenger airliners and provide for their storage, maintenance, and distribution. Further, the Senate includes language (Section 1464) authorizing such sums as may be necessary for FY2008, to remain available until expended, for technology research and development and pilot projects “that can disrupt or prevent an explosive device from being introduced onto a passenger plane or from damaging a passenger plane....” While this scope is broadly defined, the provision specifically identifies blast-resistant cargo containers as a candidate technology that shall be included in research, development, and pilot projects. The language further calls for testing of technologies to expedite the analysis and determination of aircraft accident causes, such as deployable flight data and voice recorders, and remote location recording devices. The House bill contains no comparable provision. ’›•’—ŽȱŠœœŽ—Ž›ȱ›ŽœŒ›ŽŽ—’—ȱ The Senate bill contains language (see Section 1471) establishing an appeal and redress process for airline passengers wrongly delayed or denied boarding that is identical to the provision in the House bill (Section 407). Also the Senate bill contains language (Section 1472) similar to the House provision that would require the DHS to submit a strategic plan to test and implement advanced passenger prescreening. The Senate provision would, however, allow for 180 days after enactment for receipt of the plan, compared to the House language which calls for the plan to be submitted within 90 days. The Senate bill also contains additional language not included in the House bill that would require a GAO assessment of: the TSA’s progress in implementing the Secure Flight program, the current appeals process for aggrieved passengers; the TSA’s plan to protect passenger information, and its progress in integrating domestic passenger prescreening with international passenger prescreening carried out by CBP; a realistic time frame for system completion; and any other relevant observations and recommendations. ȱŽ›œ˜——Ž•ȱŠ—ŠŽ–Ž—ȱ Section 903 of the Senate bill contains language similar to the House Provisions on TSA personnel management reform. Like the House provision, the Senate bill would eliminate the TSA Administrators authority to establish a separate personnel management system for screeners and place all TSA employees under the same personnel management system. Like the House bill, the Senate bill would require the uniform personnel management system for all TSA employees to conform to either the existing personnel management system for non-screeners, or the DHS personnel management system. The Senate bill includes implementation time frames and reporting requirements for implementation of the uniform personnel management system for TSA employees that are identical to those in the House bill. Section 904 of the Senate bill would grant to screener personnel the right to appeal adverse actions, would require TSA to provide a collaborative employee engagement system, including collective bargaining (subject to certain limits relating to emergencies and other matters), and would extend whistleblower protections to screener personnel. ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ ŗŗȱ ǯǯȱŗȱŠ—ȱǯȱŚDZȱȱ˜–™Š›Š’ŸŽȱ—Š•¢œ’œȱ ȱ The Senate bill also contains a provision (see Section 1468) that would eliminate any statutory cap on the number of TSA employees, such as the 45,000 FTE screener cap found in appropriations language, after FY2007. The bill would require the TSA to recruit and hire personnel to provide appropriate levels of aviation security and achieve average passenger checkpoint wait times of less than 10 minutes. The House bill contains no comparable provision. Also, the Senate bill contains language requiring the TSA to provide screeners with advanced training on specialized skills such as behavioral observation techniques, explosives detection, and document inspection, to enhance layered security measures (see Section 1469). The House bill contained no comparable provision. ’œŒŽ••Š—Ž˜žœȱ›˜Ÿ’œ’˜—œȱ˜ȱ’—ȱ‘Žȱ ˜žœŽȱ’••ȱ The Senate bill includes several aviation security-related provisions for which there are no comparable provisions in the House bill, addressing foreign repair stations, general aviation security, airline crew and law enforcement credentials, and canine explosives detection team training. ˜›Ž’—ȱŸ’Š’˜—ȱŽ™Š’›ȱŠ’˜—ȱŽŒž›’¢ȱ Section 1473 of the Senate bill would require the FAA to suspend further certification of foreign aircraft repair stations if security regulations for domestic and foreign repair stations, that were required to be issued in early 2004 under a provision in Vision 100—the Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act (P.L. 108-176), are not issued by the TSA within 90 days of enactment. Ž—Ž›Š•ȱŸ’Š’˜—ȱŽŒž›’¢ȱ Section 1474 of the Senate bill would require the TSA to develop and implement a standardized threat and vulnerability assessment program for general aviation airports within one year of enactment. The provision would also direct the TSA to assess the feasibility of creating a grant program to provide grants to general aviation airports to upgrade security based on a risk managed approach. The language directs the TSA to establish such a grant program if it is deemed feasible and authorizes such sums as may be necessary for this purpose. Further, the provision would require all foreign-registered general aviation aircraft to submit passenger information to CBP prior to entering United States airspace for vetting against appropriate databases maintained by the TSA. See CRS Report RL33194, Securing General Aviation, by (name redacted). ’›•’—Žȱ›Ž ȱŠ—ȱŠ ȱ—˜›ŒŽ–Ž—ȱ›ŽŽ—’Š•œȱ Section 1475 of the Senate bill would require the TSA to produce a report detailing its efforts to implement a sterile area access system or other methods to expedite processing of airline flight and cabin crew members through airport screening checkpoints. Based on the findings of the report, the TSA shall implement such a program within one year of transmitting the report to Congress. Also, Section 1477 of the Senate bill would amend current statutes regarding implementation of a biometric credential system for law enforcement personnel seeking access to aircraft and secured areas of airports. The provision calls for establishing a national registered armed law enforcement program for law enforcement officers (LEOs) required to be armed while traveling on commercial flights. The provision stipulates that the credential program incorporate ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ ŗŘȱ ȱ ǯǯȱŗȱŠ—ȱǯȱŚDZȱȱ˜–™Š›Š’ŸŽȱ—Š•¢œ’œȱ biometric and other applicable technologies, provide flexibility for LEOs who must travel armed either on a regular or temporary basis; be coordinated with other uniform credentialing initiatives and directives; be applicable to all federal, state, local, tribal and territorial law enforcement agencies; and include a process for discreetly verifying the identity of LEOs traveling using biometric technology. In establishing the program, the DHS is to ensure that only those LEOs required to travel armed are issued credentials; that the anonymity of armed LEOs is preserved; that procedures are established to address failures to enroll, false positives, and false negatives; and that procedures are established to invalidate credentials that are lost, stolen, or no longer authorized for use. Š—’—Žȱ¡™•˜œ’ŸŽœȱŽŽŒ’˜—ȱŽŠ–ȱ›Š’—’—ȱ Section 1476 of the Senate bill would require the DHS to increase the capacity of the DHS National Explosives Detection Canine Team Program at Lackland Air Force Base, Texas to a level of 200 canine teams annually by the end of FY2008. The provision directs the DHS to further expand the facility so that, by the end of CY2009, it can train an adequate number of canine teams to meet the homeland security mission, as determined by the Secretary on an annual basis. The bill also directs the DHS to explore alternate training sites, considering options to establish a standardized TSA-approved canine program for private training vendors and options to establish two additional national canine training centers modeled after the Lackland AFB Center of Excellence. ˜––Ž—œȱ The similar provisions in the House and Senate bills regarding TSA personnel management are highly controversial and opposed by the administration. The White House OMB has issued statements of administration policy on both bills, indicating that if the bill presented to the President includes such provisions, the President’s senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill. The administration argues that elimination of the TSA Administrator’s flexibility in personnel management could hinder the TSA’s ability to quickly and effectively respond to rapidly changing security threats. Collective bargaining processes in particular, they argue, could significantly slow the TSA’s ability to change security posture in response to threats, including the rapid reassignment of personnel and other actions that may be subject to review under collective bargaining agreements if the current personnel system were eliminated. The Administration also opposes the House provisions that would require 100% screening of all cargo placed on passenger aircraft, cautioning that such a measure would likely result in a reduction of shipping cargo via passenger aircraft. The Administration urged the House to adopt an alternative, risk-based approach. Such an approach is reflected in the Senate language, which the Administration and the air cargo industry favor over the House language.5 Air cargo industry stakeholders, however, remain concerned about the ability to meet the three-year time frame for implementation of a cargo screening system specified in the Senate bill. They also caution that requiring such a system meet the minimum standard specified in the Senate bill—requiring the proposed cargo screening system to provide comparable security to existing checked baggage 5 See Airforwarders Association position statement at http://www.airforwarders.org/airmails/020707.html and industry letter to Senator Inouye dated Feb. 9, 2007, at http://www.aeanet.org/GovernmentAffairs/ gakm_CoalitionSenateBillLetterInouyeFeb07.asp. ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ ŗřȱ ǯǯȱŗȱŠ—ȱǯȱŚDZȱȱ˜–™Š›Š’ŸŽȱ—Š•¢œ’œȱ ȱ screening—fails to adequately consider the differences between cargo and baggage and the unique operational challenges of air cargo handling and supply chain logistics.6 Also, the Administration and industry groups do not support the Senate provision calling for deployment of blast-resistant cargo containers for use on passenger airliners, arguing that this would impose significant costs on the TSA; that many aircraft are not currently configured to support these containers; and that utilizing such containers is contradictory to current security measures to keep elevated risk cargo off of passenger aircraft. The Administration also opposes reauthorization of the Aviation Security Capital Fund and the proposed establishment of a separate $250 million Checkpoint Screening Security Fund as called for in the House bill. While the Administration supports the security enhancements anticipated by these initiatives, its concerns over use of these specific funds center on the lack of fungibility of monies paid into these funds, which it claims may strain TSA operating budgets and limit flexibility in the budget process. Also, in the case of the Aviation Security Capital Fund, the Administration has raised concerns over the federal share of airport security construction costs and would like to see a greater proportion of this cost shifted to airport operators. ’•ŽȱDZȱ›Ž—‘Ž—’—ȱ‘ŽȱŽŒž›’¢ȱ˜ȱŠ›˜ȱ ˜—Š’—Ž›œȱ Prepared by (name redacted), Analyst in Domestic Security, CRS Domestic Social Policy Division, 7-..... ŸŽ›Ÿ’Ž ȱ Both H.R. 1 and S. 4 contain provisions that pertain to maritime cargo container security. Congress enacted the SAFE Port Act (P.L. 109-347), on October 13, 2006, which contained several related provisions. Section 204. of P.L. 109-347 requires the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to: initiate a rulemaking within 90 days of enactment; issue an interim final rule within 180 days of enactment, establishing minimum standards for securing containers in transit to the United States; and to enforce those standards for all U.S.-bound containers within two years of the final rulemaking; regularly review and enhance the standards. Section 204 also requires the DHS Secretary to ensure that these standards are consistent with standards published by international organizations. Section 231(c) of P.L. 109-347 requires the DHS Secretary to implement a fully operational integrated scanning system (ISS) pilot program at three overseas ports within one year of enactment. Section 231(d) of P.L. 109-347 also requires the DHS Secretary to submit a report, within 180 days of achieving a full scale implementation of the pilot, evaluating the pilot program and analyzing the feasibility of expanding the ISS to other ports. Section 232(a) of P.L. 109-347 requires the DHS Secretary to implement 100% screening of containers and 100% scanning of all high-risk containers (before they leave the United States seaport). P.L. 109-347 defines a screen as the visual or automated review of manifest or entry documentation accompanying a shipment to determine the presence of misdeclared, restricted, or prohibited items, and to assess the level of 6 Ibid. ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ ŗŚȱ ǯǯȱŗȱŠ—ȱǯȱŚDZȱȱ˜–™Š›Š’ŸŽȱ—Š•¢œ’œȱ ȱ threat posed by such cargo. P.L. 109-347 defines a scan as utilizing non-intrusive imaging equipment, radiation detection equipment, or both, to capture data, including images of a container. Section 232(b) requires the DHS Secretary, in coordination with the Secretary of Energy and foreign partners, to fully deploy the ISS (non-intrusive image and radiation scan) as soon as possible once specific operational criteria are met, to scan all U.S.-bound containers before they reach the U.S. Section 232(c) of P.L. 109-347 requires the DHS Secretary to submit a report, within six months of submitting the initial evaluation of the ISS pilot program required by Section 231, and every six months thereafter, detailing the status of the full-scale deployment of the integrated scanning system and the costs of deploying the system at each foreign port where it is deployed. ˜žœŽȱ›˜Ÿ’œ’˜—œȱ Section 501(a) of H.R. 1 would amend 46 U.S.C. 70116 to require the Secretary to establish standards for scanning equipment and seals to be used on containers entering the United States and would require all U.S.-bound containers to be scanned and sealed according to those standards before the container is loaded on a U.S.-bound ship. H.R. 1 would require the standards ensure that the best-available technology be used, as soon as it is available, to identify when a container is breached, notify the Secretary of the breach, and track the time and location of the container while en route to the United States. H.R. 1 would require the Secretary to review and revise these standards at least once every two years. Section 501(b) of H.R. 1 would authorize such appropriations as necessary for FY2008-FY2013. Section 501(c)(1)(A) of H.R. 1 would require the Secretary to issue an interim final rule temporarily implementing Section 501(a) (consistent with the lessons learned from the ISS pilot program) within 180 days after the date of the submission of the report required by Section 231(d) of P.L. 109-347 that evaluates the integrated scanning system pilot program. Section 501(c)(1)(B) of H.R. 1 would require the Secretary to publish a final rule within one year of the submission of the evaluation report required by Section 231(d) of P.L. 109-347. Section 501(c)(2)(A) of H.R. 1 would require the scanning and sealing requirements of Section 501(a) of H.R. 1 to apply to any container entering the U.S. beginning three years after enactment for U.S.-bound containers loaded on a vessel at a foreign port in a country from which more than 75,000 twenty-foot equivalent units of U.S.-bound containers were loaded in 2005; and beginning five years after enactment for U.S.-bound containers loaded in all other countries. Section 501(c)(2)(B) would permit the DHS Secretary to extend these deadlines by up to one year if the required scanning equipment is not available and the Secretary notifies Congress within at least 60 days of his decision. Ž—ŠŽȱ›˜Ÿ’œ’˜—œȱ Section 905 of S. 4 would amend the reporting requirements set forth in Section 232(c) of the SAFE Port Act (P.L. 109-347), to include a plan for 100% scanning of cargo containers. The provision would require the plan to include (1) specific benchmarks for the percentage of U.S.bound cargo containers scanned at a foreign port; (2) annual increases in these benchmarks until 100% of U.S.-bound cargo containers are scanned before arriving in the United States, unless the DHS Secretary explains in writing to Congress that the criteria set out in Section 232(b) of P.L. 109-347 have not been met; (3) an analysis of how existing programs such as the Container Security Initiative and the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism could be used to achieve ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ ŗśȱ ȱ ǯǯȱŗȱŠ—ȱǯȱŚDZȱȱ˜–™Š›Š’ŸŽȱ—Š•¢œ’œȱ the benchmarks; and (4) an analysis of the scanning equipment, personnel, and technology needed to reach the 100% scanning goal. Section 905 would also require each subsequent report (to be submitted every six months after the initial report) to include an assessment of progress made towards implementing 100% scanning. ˜––Ž—ȱ To summarize, both H.R. 1 and S. 4 would require the DHS Secretary to take steps that could eventually lead to the application of some security standards and/or procedures being applied to 100% of U.S.-bound maritime containers. H.R. 1 would accomplish this by requiring all U.S.bound containers to be scanned and sealed with equipment meeting standards to be specified by the DHS Secretary after the completion of the integrated scanning system (ISS) pilot established by the SAFE Port Act. S. 4 would amend the ISS pilot reporting requirements specified by the SAFE Port Act to include a plan to eventually scan 100% of U.S.-bound cargo. The provisions in both bills refer to the ISS pilot that is currently being undertaken by DHS as the first iteration of the Secure Freight Initiative (SFI). SFI is being operated by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in six foreign ports. SFI at Port Qasim, Pakistan; Puerto Cortes, Honduras; and at Southampton in the United Kingdom will be fully operational, scanning all U.S.-bound containers from these ports. SFI will gradually be deployed in more limited capacities at Port Salaleh, Oman; the Port of Singapore; and at the Port of Busan, South Korea. Five of the foreign ports selected for the SFI pilot are currently Container Security Initiative (CSI) ports (all except Port Qasim, Pakistan). CSI is a program by which CBP stations CBP officers in foreign ports to target high-risk containers for inspection before they are loaded on U.S.-bound ships. CSI is operational in 50 ports as of October 2006, and container traffic through these 50 ports accounted for nearly 82% of all U.S.-bound containers.7 Subjecting all U.S.-bound containers to an integrated scan (an image and a radiation scan) prior to loading would represent a significant departure from the current strategy of scanning or inspecting only those targeted containers identified as high-risk. Currently, under the CSI program, only those containers that are identified through screening as high-risk are subject to scanning or inspection prior to loading. U.S.-bound containers loaded at non-CSI ports are screened, but are not scanned or searched until they reach the U.S. port. CBP officers stationed at CSI ports do not have authority to conduct inspections, and so the host-country government is responsible for conducting the inspection. The host country government is also responsible for providing the equipment and space required to conduct the scans and inspections; and the host country determines who pays for the equipment. It is currently unclear what impact the shift from scanning none or some containers at particular overseas ports to scanning all containers would have on CBP and host country resources. The execution of the ISS pilot under the SFI will likely provide some concrete idea of how increased levels of scanning and inspection would affect the deployment of resources and the flow of trade through the selected ports. Container carriers and importers claim that requiring 100% scanning will severely bottleneck port operations. Other opponents of 100% scanning contend that the process could be easily circumvented by terrorists and would absorb security resources away from other maritime threats. Advocates of 100% scanning assert that the information and intelligence that CBP reviews to 7 Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs, and Border Protection FY2008 Overview Congressional Budget Justification, p. CBP-26. ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ ŗŜȱ ǯǯȱŗȱŠ—ȱǯȱŚDZȱȱ˜–™Š›Š’ŸŽȱ—Š•¢œ’œȱ ȱ screen and target specific containers for scanning and inspection is simply not adequate, thus requiring that every container be scanned. ’•Žȱ DZȱ›Ž—‘Ž—’—ȱ˜›œȱ˜ȱ›ŽŸŽ—ȱŽ››˜›’œȱ ›ŠŸŽ•ȱǻ ǯǯȱŗǼȱ ŸŽ›Ÿ’Ž ȱ Title VI of H.R. 1 and Title V of S. 4 deal with programs within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that relate to the movement of terrorists. ›Ž—‘Ž—’—ȱ‘ŽȱŠ™Š‹’•’’Žœȱ˜ȱ‘Žȱ ž–Š—ȱ–ž•’—ȱŠ—ȱ ›Š’Œ”’—ȱŽ—Ž›ȱ Prepared by (name redacted), Specialist in Immi gration Legislation, CRS Domestic Social Policy Division, 7-..... ŸŽ›Ÿ’Ž ȱ Established by Congress in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorist Prevention Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-458, Section 7202), the Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center (HSTC) is an interagency group—including the Departments of Justice, State, and Homeland Security—which provides information to counter migrant smuggling, trafficking of persons, and clandestine terrorist travel. The center’s three primary objectives are (1) prevention and deterrence of smuggling and related trafficking activities, (2) investigation and prosecution of the criminals involved in such activity, and (3) protection of and assistance for victims as provided in applicable law and policy. The center’s efforts consist primarily of facilitating the dissemination of intelligence; preparing strategic assessments; identifying issues that would benefit from enhanced interagency coordination; and coordinating or otherwise supporting agency or interagency efforts. During its two year existence, the HSTC has had issues with cooperation between the different agencies and departments, relating to funding, staffing, and information sharing.8 ˜žœŽȱ›˜Ÿ’œ’˜—œȱ Section 601 would require the Secretary of DHS, acting through DHS’ Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), to provide administrative support and funding for the Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center (HSTC). H.R. 1 would also allow DHS to seek reimbursement from the Departments of State and Justice in such amounts as are appropriate to their participation in the HSTC. In addition, H.R. 1 would mandate the hiring of not less than 30 full-time equivalent staff 8 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Management, Integration, and Oversight, 9/11 Reform Act: Examining the Implementation of the Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center, hearings, 109th Cong., 2nd sess., Mar. 8, 2006. ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ ŗŝȱ ȱ ǯǯȱŗȱŠ—ȱǯȱŚDZȱȱ˜–™Š›Š’ŸŽȱ—Š•¢œ’œȱ for the HSTC, and would specify the type of staff to be hired (e.g., a director, 15 intelligence analysts or special agents), and that the staff must have at least three years of experience related to human trafficking or smuggling. H.R. 1 would require the intelligence analysts or special agents to be detailed to the HSTC for not less than two years. H.R. 1 would also require the Secretary of DHS to develop a plan for HSTC and execute a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Attorney General clarifying the cooperation and coordination between the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Immigration and Customs Enforcement regarding issues related to human smuggling and trafficking. Lastly, H.R. 1 would require that DHS’ Office of Intelligence and Analysis, in coordination with the HSTC, submit to federal, state, local, tribal law enforcement, and other relevant agencies periodic reports regarding terrorist threats related to human smuggling and trafficking, and terrorist travel. Ž—ŠŽȱ›˜Ÿ’œ’˜—œȱ Section 502 would also require that the DHS provide administrative support and funding for the HSTC, but unlike the House bill, S. 4 would require the Secretary of DHS, to the extent that such funds are made available, to reimburse each department or agency that provides a detailee to the HSTC for the cost of the detailee. In addition, S. 4 would mandate the hiring of not less than 40 full-time equivalent staff for the HSTC, and would specify the agencies and departments from which the personnel should be detailed (e.g., Transportation and Security Administration, United States Coast Guard, ICE, Central Intelligence Agency), and their areas of expertise (e.g., consular affairs, counterterrorism). S. 4 would also require the President to submit a report to Congress within 180 days of enactment on the operations and activities of the HSTC. The report would include among other items information on the roles and responsibilities of each agency and department participating in the HSTC, staffing levels, and information sharing mechanisms. S. 4 would authorize appropriations of $20 million for the HSTC in FY2008. ˜Ž›—’£Š’˜—ȱ˜ȱ‘Žȱ’œŠȱŠ’ŸŽ›ȱ›˜›Š–ȱ Prepared by (name redacted), Specialist in Immi gration Legislation, CRS Domestic Social Policy Division, 7-..... ŸŽ›Ÿ’Ž ȱ The Visa Waiver Program (VWP) allows nationals from countries that meet certain criteria to enter the United States as temporary visitors (nonimmigrants) for business or pleasure without first obtaining a visa from a U.S. consulate abroad. To qualify for the VWP, the Immigration and Nationality Act specifies that a country must: offer reciprocal privileges to U.S. citizens; have had a nonimmigrant refusal rate of less than 3% for the previous year or an average of no more than 2% over the past two fiscal years with neither year going above 2.5%; issue its nationals machine-readable passports that incorporate biometric identifiers; certify that it is developing a program to issue tamper-resistant, machine-readable visa documents that incorporate biometric identifiers which are verifiable at the country’s port of entry; and not compromise the law enforcement or security interests of the United States by its inclusion in the program. Countries ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ ŗŞȱ ǯǯȱŗȱŠ—ȱǯȱŚDZȱȱ˜–™Š›Š’ŸŽȱ—Š•¢œ’œȱ ȱ can be terminated from the VWP if an emergency occurs that threatens United States’ security interests.9 ˜žœŽȱ›˜Ÿ’œ’˜—œȱ No comparable provision. Ž—ŠŽȱ›˜Ÿ’œ’˜—œȱ Section 501 would allow the Secretary of DHS, in consultation with the Secretary of the Department of State (DOS), to waive the nonimmigrant refusal rate requirement for admission to the VWP on the date on which the Secretary of DHS certifies to Congress that an air exit system is in place that can verify the departure of not less than 97% of foreign nationals that exit through U.S. airports. In order for the Secretary of DHS to waive the nonimmigrant refusal rate requirement for admission to the VWP, the country would have to meet other specified criteria. S. 4 would also make several changes to the criteria to qualify as a VWP country, including authorizing the development and implementation of an electronic travel authorization system, through which each alien traveling under the VWP would electronically provide, in advance of travel, biographical information necessary to determine whether the alien is eligible to travel to the United States. S. 4 would also require the Secretary of DHS, no later than one year after enactment, to establish an exit system that records the departure of every alien who entered under the VWP and left the United States by air. Furthermore, under S. 4, to participate in the VWP, countries would be required to enter into agreements with the United States to: (1) report or make available through Interpol information about the theft or loss of passports; and (2) share information regarding whether a national of that country traveling to the United States represents a threat to U.S. security or welfare. ˜––Ž—ȱ Under this provision, in order for the Secretary of DHS to be able to waive the nonimmigrant refusal rate requirement and the provision to take effect, an air exit system must be in place that can verify the departure of not less than 97% of foreign nationals that exit through U.S. airports. To date, DHS has piloted the exit component of the biometric entry and exit system, commonly known as the U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) program, at 12 airports. However, GAO has reported that these pilot programs concluded in May of 2005, and that while they established the technical feasibility of the biometric exit component, they also “identified issues that limited the operational effectiveness of the solution, such as the lack of traveler compliance with the processes.”10 In its FY2008 budget submission, DHS requested a decrease in funding for pilot programs for the exit component of the system, instead requesting an increase in funding for the deployment of 10 fingerprint enrollment program at entry.11 9 For more information on the VWP and the VWP provision in S. 4, see CRS Report RL32221, Visa Waiver Program, by (name redacted). 10 Testimony of Richard Stana, Government Accountability Office, US-VISIT Program Faces Operational, Technological, and Management Challenges, before the Committee on Homeland Security, 110th Cong., 1st sess., Mar. 20, 2007, pp. 12-13. 11 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, DHS FY2008 Congressional Budget Justification, p. US-VISIT 3. ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ ŗşȱ ǯǯȱŗȱŠ—ȱǯȱŚDZȱȱ˜–™Š›Š’ŸŽȱ—Š•¢œ’œȱ ȱ —‘Š—Œ’—ȱŽ››˜›’œȱ›ŠŸŽ•ȱ›˜›Š–œȱ Prepared by (name redacted), Analyst in Do mestic Security, CRS Domestic Social Policy Division, 7-..... ŸŽ›Ÿ’Ž ȱ Currently, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (P.L. 108-458 Section 7215) directs DHS to establish, in consultation with the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, a program to oversee the implementation of terrorist travel initiatives at DHS. This program should also provide for the analysis, coordination, and dissemination of terrorist intelligence and operational information within DHS and between DHS and other federal agencies. ˜žœŽȱ›˜Ÿ’œ’˜—œȱ Section 611 would require DHS, in conjunction with the Director of National Intelligence and the heads of other appropriate federal agencies, to submit a report outlining the efforts that the United States government has undertaken to collaborate with international partners to increase border security, enhance document security, and exchange information concerning terrorists. The report would be due within 270 days of H.R. 1‘s enactment, and would include a summation of all the existing government programs and strategies concerning these efforts and the progress made in achieving their stated goals. Ž—ŠŽȱ›˜Ÿ’œ’˜—œȱ Section 503 would direct DHS to designate an individual to head the terrorism travel center established by P.L. 108-458 Section 7215. This individual would report directly to the Secretary of DHS and would be charged with developing and reviewing the strategies and policies put in place within DHS to prevent terrorists from entering or remaining undetected in the United States. The head of the program would also be charged with coordinating policies, programs, planning, operations, and the dissemination of intelligence among the various entities within DHS and with external stakeholders. Additionally, this individual will serve as the Secretary’s primary point of contact with the National Counterterrorism Center. Lastly, DHS would be required to report on its implementation of this section within 180 days of enactment. ˜––Ž—œȱ H.R. 1 would not make changes to DHS’ terrorist travel program; instead, it would require a report on how DHS and other federal agencies are cooperating with foreign partners on the issue of terrorist travel. S. 4 would modify the existing program by designating an individual within DHS to coordinate the program established by P.L. 108-458 Section 7215. ’˜–Ž›’Œȱ—›¢ȱŠ—ȱ¡’ȱ¢œŽ–ȱ Prepared by (name redacted), Analyst in Do mestic Security, CRS Domestic Social Policy Division, 7-..... ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ ŘŖȱ ǯǯȱŗȱŠ—ȱǯȱŚDZȱȱ˜–™Š›Š’ŸŽȱ—Š•¢œ’œȱ ȱ ŸŽ›Ÿ’Ž ȱ The biometric entry and exit system is commonly known as the U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) program. Congress first mandated that the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) implement an automated entry and exit data system that would track the arrival and departure of every alien in Section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA; P.L. 104-208). The objective for an automated entry and exit data system was, in part, to develop a mechanism that would be able to track nonimmigrants who overstayed their visas as part of a broader emphasis on immigration control. Following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks there was a marked shift in priority for implementing an automated entry and exit data system. While the tracking of nonimmigrants who overstayed their visas remained an important goal of the system, border security has become the paramount concern with respect to implementing the system. ˜žœŽȱ›˜Ÿ’œ’˜—œȱ Section 621 would require DHS to submit the plan previously developed by the Department regarding the biometric entry and exit system’s deployment. This report would be due within seven days of enactment. Ž—ŠŽȱ›˜Ÿ’œ’˜—œȱ No comparable provisions. ˜––Ž—œȱ The report in question was due in June of 2005 but has yet to be delivered to Congress. In February, 2007, GAO reported that the US-VISIT strategic plan was apparently formulated in March of 2005 but had yet to be approved by DHS.12 In recent testimony before Congress, Bob Mocny, Acting Director of the US-VISIT program, stated that this report would be made available to Congress soon but declined to set a firm date for its submission.13 —‘Š—ŒŽȱ›’ŸŽ›Ȃœȱ’ŒŽ—œŽȦŽœŽ›—ȱ Ž–’œ™‘Ž›Žȱ›ŠŸŽ•ȱ —’’Š’ŸŽȱ Prepared by (name redacted), Analyst in Do mestic Security, CRS Domestic Social Policy Division, 7-..... 12 Testimony of Randolph Hite and Richard Stana, Government Accountability Office, US-VISIT Has not Fully Met Expectations and Longstanding Management Challenges Need to be Addressed, before the Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, 110th Cong., 1st sess., Feb. 16, 2007, p. 19. Hereafter referred to as GAO Testimony, Feb. 2007. 13 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Hearing on the USVISIT Program, 110th Cong., 1st sess., Feb. 16, 2007. ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ Řŗȱ ǯǯȱŗȱŠ—ȱǯȱŚDZȱȱ˜–™Š›Š’ŸŽȱ—Š•¢œ’œȱ ȱ ŸŽ›Ÿ’Ž ȱ The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) will require U.S. citizens, and Canadian, Mexican, and some island nation nationals to present a passport, or some other document or combination of documents deemed sufficient to denote identity and citizenship status by the Secretary of Homeland Security, as per P.L. 108-458 Section 7209. DHS announced that it is requiring all U.S. citizens entering the country at airports of entry (POE) to present passports as of January 23, 2007. The current legislative mandate for expanding the program to all POE is the earlier of the following two dates: June 1, 2009, or three months after the Secretaries of Homeland Security and State certify that a number of implementation requirements have been met.14 DHS and the Department of State are currently working on the type of document, known as a PASS-Card, that will be used for this program. ˜žœŽȱ›˜Ÿ’œ’˜—œȱ No comparable provision. Ž—ŠŽȱ›˜Ÿ’œ’˜—œȱ Section 504 would require DHS to enter into a memorandum of agreement with at least one state to pilot the use of enhanced driver’s licenses that would be valid for a U.S. citizen’s admission into the United States from Canada (but not otherwise valid for certification of citizenship). It would also require DHS to submit a report within 180 days of enactment that would, among other things: analyze this pilot program’s impact on national security, make recommendations on how to expand the pilot program to other states, and plan for scanning participants against terrorist watch lists. Section 505 would require DHS to complete a cost-benefit analysis of the WHTI and a study of mechanisms for reducing the fees associated with PASS-cards prior to publishing a final rule on the program. ˜––Ž—œȱ Both of these provisions in S. 4 seem to address concerns by some in Congress that DHS and the Department of State have not made enough progress towards developing the PASS-Card and disseminating information to the public about the WHTI requirements. Section 505 would require DHS to study how it could reduce the costs associated with getting a PASS-Card, while Section 504 might circumvent the need for some PASS-Cards by allowing the driver’s licences used in the pilot program to be used to enter the country from Canada as per the WHTI requirements. ˜Ž•ȱ˜›œȱ˜ȱ—›¢ȱ Prepared by (name redacted), Analyst in Do mestic Security, CRS Domestic Social Policy Division, 7-..... 14 P.L. 109-295 Section 546. ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ ŘŘȱ ǯǯȱŗȱŠ—ȱǯȱŚDZȱȱ˜–™Š›Š’ŸŽȱ—Š•¢œ’œȱ ȱ ˜žœŽȱ›˜Ÿ’œ’˜—ȱ No comparable provision. Ž—ŠŽȱ›˜Ÿ’œ’˜—œȱ Section 506 would require DHS to establish a “model ports of entry” program aimed at streamlining the current arrival process for incoming travelers, facilitating business and tourist travel, and improving security. The program would be implemented at the 20 busiest international airports, and would include enhanced queue management prior to primary inspection, assistance for foreign travelers after their admission into the United States, and instructional videos explaining the inspection process. Lastly, S. 4 would direct DHS to hire at least 200 additional CBP officers to address staff shortages at the 20 busiest international airports. ’•Žȱ DZȱ –™›˜Ÿ’—ȱ —Ž••’Ž—ŒŽȱŠ—ȱ —˜›–Š’˜—ȱ ‘Š›’—ȱ ’‘ȱ˜ŒŠ•ȱŠ ȱ—˜›ŒŽ–Ž—ȱŠ—ȱ’›œȱ Žœ™˜—Ž›œȱ Prepared by (name redacted), Specialist in Domestic Intelligence and Counterterrorism, CRS Domestic Social Policy Division, 7-..... ŸŽ›Ÿ’Ž ȱ The two companion bills have two common subtitles (one each for the Homeland Security Information Sharing Environment and Homeland Security Information Sharing Partnerships) and a number of unique subtitles. Each of the common subtitles do not necessarily contain identical language. Three subtitles unique to H.R. 1 are: (1) the Fusion and Law Enforcement Education and Teaming (FLEET) Grant Program, (2) the Border Intelligence Fusion Center Program, and (3) the Homeland Security Intelligence Offices Reorganization. One subtitle, the Interagency Threat Assessment Coordination Group, is unique to S. 4. A summary of the common and unique subtitles follows: • Fusion and Law Enforcement Education and Teaming (FLEET) Grant Program (Unique to H.R. 1) • Border Intelligence Fusion Center Program (Unique to H.R. 1) • Homeland Security Information Sharing Environment (ISE) • Homeland Security Information Sharing Partnerships • Homeland Security Intelligence Offices Reorganization (Unique to H.R. 1) • Interagency Threat Assessment Coordination Group (Unique to S. 4) ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ Řřȱ ǯǯȱŗȱŠ—ȱǯȱŚDZȱȱ˜–™Š›Š’ŸŽȱ—Š•¢œ’œȱ ȱ žœ’˜—ȱŠ—ȱŠ ȱ—˜›ŒŽ–Ž—ȱžŒŠ’˜—ȱŠ—ȱŽŠ–’—ȱǻǼȱ ›Š—ȱ›˜›Š–ȱ ˜žœŽȱ›˜Ÿ’œ’˜—œȱ Under this subtitle a provision is included which would establish a grant program “... under which the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall make grants to local and tribal law enforcement agencies....” The proposed purposes for which these grants would be used include (1) to hire (state or local) personnel or pay existing personnel, to perform the duties of eligible personnel who are detailed to a fusion center,15 (2) to provide appropriate training for eligible law enforcement personnel who are detailed to a fusion center, and (3) to establish communications connectivity between eligible law enforcement personnel who are detailed to a fusion center and the home agency or department from which they are detailed. Ž—ŠŽȱ›˜Ÿ’œ’˜—œȱ No comparable provisions. ˜––Ž—ȱ While the existence of fusion centers precedes the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, it was not until the post attack period that the potential counterterrorism utility of such centers was recognized. In general, these centers have been established as initiatives of state and local governments, sometimes in regional cooperative configurations. Historically, the centers have been financed by participating state and local governments. Recently, the federal government has provided support for these centers through: (1) provision of Fusion Center Guidelines: Developing and Sharing Information and Intelligence in a New Era (August 2006), and (2) the detailing of intelligence analysts and intelligence liaison personnel from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to these centers.16 According to DHS, it has provided “... over $380 million in support ...” of these centers.17 In Fiscal Year 2007, for the first time, “hiring new staff and/or contractors to serve as intelligence analysts to support [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3ARL33942. Public record. Not legal advice.