Congressional Record, Volume 151 Issue 65 (Tuesday, May 17, 2005)

[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 65 (Tuesday, May 17, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H3383-H3405]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006

The Committee resumed its sitting.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.

Office of the Chief Financial Officer

For necessary expenses of the Office of the Chief Financial
Officer, as authorized by section 103 of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 113), $18,505,000.

Office of the Chief Information Officer

For necessary expenses of the Office of the Chief
Information Officer, as authorized by section 103 of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 113), and Department-
wide technology investments, $303,700,000; of which
$75,756,000 shall be available for salaries and expenses; and
of which $227,944,000 shall be available for development and
acquisition of information technology equipment, software,
services, and related activities for the Department of
Homeland Security, and for the costs of conversion to
narrowband communications, including the cost for operation
of the land mobile radio legacy systems, to remain available
until expended: Provided, That none of the funds appropriated
shall be used to support or supplement the appropriations
provided for the

[[Page H3384]]

United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator
Technology project or the Automated Commercial Environment:
Provided further, That the Department shall report within 180
days of enactment of this Act on its enterprise architecture
and other strategic planning activities in accordance with
the terms and conditions specified in the House report
accompanying this Act.

Office of Inspector General

For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.), $83,017,000, of which not to exceed
$100,000 may be used for certain confidential operational
expenses, including the payment of informants, to be expended
at the direction of the Inspector General.

TITLE II--SECURITY, ENFORCEMENT, AND INVESTIGATIONS

BORDER AND TRANSPORTATION SECURITY

Office of the Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses of the Office of the Under Secretary
for Border and Transportation Security, as authorized by
subtitle A of title IV of the Homeland Security Act of 2002
(6 U.S.C. 201 et seq.), $10,617,000: Provided, That not to
exceed $3,000 shall be for official reception and
representation expenses.

automation modernization

For necessary expenses of the United State Visitor and
Immigrant Status Indicator Technology project, as authorized
by section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1221 note)
and for the development, deployment, and use of Free and
Secure Trade (FAST), NEXUS, and Secure Electronic Network for
Traveler's Rapid Inspection (SENTRI), $411,232,000, to remain
available until expended, which shall be allocated as
follows:
(1) $7,000,000 for FAST.
(2) $14,000,000 for NEXUS/SENTRI.
(3) $390,232,000 for the United States Visitor and
Immigrant Status Indicator Technology project: Provided, That
of the funds provided for this project, $254,000,000 may not
be obligated until the Committees on Appropriations of the
Senate and the House of Representatives receive and approve a
plan for expenditure prepared by the Secretary of Homeland
Security that--
(A) meets the capital planning and investment control
review requirements established by the Office of Management
and Budget, including Circular A-11, part 7;
(B) complies with the Department of Homeland Security
enterprise information systems architecture;
(C) complies with the acquisition rules, requirements,
guidelines, and systems acquisition management practices of
the Federal Government;
(D) is reviewed and approved by the Department of Homeland
Security Investment Review Board, the Secretary of Homeland
Security, and the Office of Management and Budget; and
(E) is reviewed by the Government Accountability Office.

Customs and Border Protection

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses for enforcement of laws relating to
border security, immigration, customs, and agricultural
inspections and regulatory activities related to plant and
animal imports; acquisition, lease, maintenance and operation
of aircraft; purchase and lease of up to 4,500 (3,935 for
replacement only) police-type vehicles; and contracting with
individuals for personal services abroad; $4,885,544,000; of
which $3,000,000 shall be derived from the Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund for administrative expenses related to the
collection of the Harbor Maintenance Fee pursuant to section
9505(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and
notwithstanding section 1511(e)(1) of the Homeland Security
Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 551(e)(1)); of which not to exceed
$35,000 shall be for official reception and representation
expenses; of which not less than $141,060,000 shall be for
Air and Marine Operations; of which not to exceed
$174,800,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2007,
for inspection and surveillance technology, unmanned aerial
vehicles, and replacement aircraft; of which such sums as
become available in the Customs User Fee Account, except sums
subject to section 13031(f)(3) of the Consolidated Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(f)(3)),
shall be derived from that account; of which not to exceed
$150,000 shall be available for payment for rental space in
connection with preclearance operations; of which not to
exceed $1,000,000 shall be for awards of compensation to
informants, to be accounted for solely under the certificate
of the Under Secretary for Border and Transportation
Security; and of which not to exceed $5,000,000 shall be
available for payments or advances arising out of contractual
or reimbursable agreements with State and local law
enforcement agencies while engaged in cooperative activities
related to immigration: Provided, That for fiscal year 2006,
the overtime limitation prescribed in section 5(c)(1) of the
Act of February 13, 1911 (19 U.S.C. 267(c)(1)) shall be
$35,000; and notwithstanding any other provision of law, none
of the funds appropriated in this Act may be available to
compensate any employee of the Bureau of Customs and Border
Protection for overtime, from whatever source, in an amount
that exceeds such limitation, except in individual cases
determined by the Under Secretary for Border and
Transportation Security, or a designee, to be necessary for
national security purposes, to prevent excessive costs, or in
cases of immigration emergencies: Provided further, That of
the total amount provided, $10,000,000 may not be obligated
until the Secretary submits to the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives all required
reports related to air and marine operations: Provided
further, That of the total amount provided, $2,000,000 may
not be obligated until the Secretary submits to the Committee
on Appropriations of the House of Representatives a report on
the performance of the Immigration Advisory Program as
directed in House Report 108-541: Provided further, That of
the total amount provided, $70,000,000 may not be obligated
until the Secretary submits to the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives part two of
the report on the performance of the Container Security
Initiative progam, as directed in House Report 180-541:
Provided further, That no funds shall be available for the
site acquisition, design, or construction of any Border
Patrol checkpoint in the Tucson sector: Provided further,
That the Border Patrol shall relocate its checkpoints in the
Tucson sector at least once every seven days in a manner
designed to prevent persons subject to inspection from
predicting the location of any such checkpoint.

Automation Modernization

For expenses for customs and border protection automated
systems, $458,009,000, to remain available until expended, of
which not less than $321,690,000 shall be for the development
of the Automated Commercial Environment: Provided, That none
of the funds appropriated under this heading may be obligated
for the Automated Commercial Environment until the Committees
on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives receive and approve a plan for expenditure
prepared by the Under Secretary for Border and Transportation
Security that--
(1) meets the capital planning and investment control
review requirements established by the Office of Management
and Budget, including Circular A-11, part 7;
(2) complies with the Department of Homeland Security's
enterprise information systems architecture;
(3) complies with the acquisition rules, requirements,
guidelines, and systems acquisition management practices of
the Federal Government;
(4) is reviewed and approved by the Department of Homeland
Security Investment Review Board, the Secretary of Homeland
Security, and the Office of Management and Budget; and
(5) is reviewed by the Government Accountability Office.

Air and Marine Interdiction, Operations, Maintenance, and Procurement

For necessary expenses for the operations, maintenance, and
procurement of marine vessels, aircraft, and other related
equipment of the air and marine program, including
operational training and mission-related travel, and rental
payments for facilities occupied by the air or marine
interdiction and demand reduction programs, the operations of
which include the following: the interdiction of narcotics
and other goods; the provision of support to Federal, State,
and local agencies in the enforcement or administration of
laws enforced by the Department of Homeland Security; and at
the discretion of the Under Secretary for Border and
Transportation Security, the provision of assistance to
Federal, State, and local agencies in other law enforcement
and emergency humanitarian efforts, $347,780,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That no aircraft or other
related equipment, with the exception of aircraft that are
one of a kind and have been identified as excess to Bureau of
Customs and Border Protection requirements and aircraft that
have been damaged beyond repair, shall be transferred to any
other Federal agency, department, or office outside of the
Department of Homeland Security during fiscal year 2006
without the prior approval of the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives.

Construction

For necessary expenses to plan, construct, renovate, equip,
and maintain buildings and facilities necessary for the
administration and enforcement of the laws relating to
customs and immigration, $93,418,000, to remain available
until expended.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses for enforcement of immigration and
customs laws, detention and removals, and investigations; and
purchase and lease of up to 2,300 (2,000 for replacement
only) police-type vehicles, $3,064,081,000, of which not to
exceed $10,000,000 shall be available until expended for
conducting special operations pursuant to section 3131 of the
Customs Enforcement Act of 1986 (19 U.S.C. 2081); of which
not to exceed $15,000 shall be for official reception and
representation expenses; of which not to exceed $1,000,000
shall be for awards of compensation to informants, to be
accounted for solely under the certificate of the Under
Secretary for Border and Transportation Security; of which
not less than $102,000 shall be for promotion of public
awareness of the child pornography tipline; of which not less

[[Page H3385]]

than $203,000 shall be for Project Alert; of which not less
than $5,000,000 shall be for costs to implement section
287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended;
and of which not to exceed $11,216,000 shall be available to
fund or reimburse other Federal agencies for the costs
associated with the care, maintenance, and repatriation of
smuggled illegal aliens: Provided, That none of the funds
appropriated shall be available to compensate any employee
for overtime in an annual amount in excess of $35,000, except
that the Under Secretary for Border and Transportation
Security may waive that amount as necessary for national
security purposes and in cases of immigration emergencies:
Provided further, That of the total amount provided,
$3,045,000 shall be for activities to enforce laws against
forced child labor in fiscal year 2006, of which not to
exceed $2,000,000 shall remain available until expended:
Provided further, That of the amounts appropriated,
$50,000,000 shall not be available for obligation until the
Assistant Secretary of Immigration and Customs Enforcement
submits to the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives a national detention management plan
including the use of regional detention contracts and
alternatives to detention: Provided further, That the
Assistant Secretary of Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
with concurrence of the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall
submit, by December 1, 2005, to the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives a plan for the
expanded use of Immigration Enforcement Agents to enforce
administrative violations of United States immigration laws.

{time} 1500

Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. King of Iowa:
Page 12, line 20, after the first dollar amount insert the
following: ``(reduced by $5,000,000)(increased by
$5,000,000)''.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on
the gentleman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment to
establish how $5 million is spent with regard to the homeland security.
I rise today to offer this amendment to promote participation of
employers in the Basic Pilot Employment Eligibility Verification
System, a program I like to call Instant Check. This program takes the
guesswork out of hiring legal employees. This basic pilot program
checks the Social Security Administration and Department of Human
Services databases using an automated system so that employers can
verify the employment authorization of all of their new hires. This
program is voluntary and is free to participating employers. All an
employer needs is a computer with an Internet connection, which most
everyone has.
My amendment would make it easier for employers to hire legal
workers. By using this program, employers no longer have to worry about
whether the identification documents used to fill out the required I-9
form are real or forgeries. I have personally used this program and
found it easy to use. It was Web-based and gave me an answer quickly.
The longest wait for Instant Check that I could devise was 6 seconds.
My amendment would also improve the accuracy of wage and tax
reporting. Employees would know after the check whether their
information is properly recorded at the Social Security Administration
and with the immigration services. If there were any mistakes, they
could be corrected so that employees would get proper credit for their
Social Security contributions.
This amendment also protects jobs for authorized United States
workers. By using this instant check verification program, employers
can be sure that they are hiring either U.S. citizens or aliens who are
authorized to work in the United States.
The program began in November 1997 with five States in a pilot
program, added a sixth State in 1999, and as of December 1, 2004, this
basic pilot program has been available to employers in all 50 States. I
hope that more employers will take advantage of this and verify their
employees. Given that Immigration and Customs Enforcement has the
authority to sanction employers for hiring illegal workers, it only
makes sense that they should also encourage employers to use the free
instant check verification program so that employers can avoid breaking
the law.
We need to reduce and weaken the jobs magnet. This is something that
does that, the Basic Pilot Employment Eligibility Verification System.
I call it Instant Check. The Web page is www.vis-dhs.com/
employerregistration.
This amendment simply inserts $5 million and withdraws $5 million in
a pro forma effort to direct that funding in a fashion that will
promote the Instant Check program. That would be the most effective way
of utilizing it. It seems to be somewhat of a trade secret that
employers can now verify the employability of their employees.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Kentucky insist upon his point
of order?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman withdraws the point of order.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. King).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Federal Air Marshals

For necessary expenses of the Federal Air Marshals,
$698,860,000, of which not to exceed $5,000,000 shall remain
available until expended.

Federal Protective Service

The revenues and collections of security fees credited to
this account, not to exceed $487,000,000, shall be available
until expended for necessary expenses related to the
protection of federally-owned and leased buildings and for
the operations of the Federal Protective Service.

Automation Modernization

For expenses of immigration and customs enforcement
automated systems, $40,150,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That none of the funds appropriated under
this heading may be obligated until the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives
receive and approve a plan for expenditure prepared by the
Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security that--
(1) meets the capital planning and investment control
review requirements established by the Office of Management
and Budget, including Circular A-11, part 7;
(2) complies with the Department of Homeland Security
enterprise information systems architecture;
(3) complies with the acquisition rules, requirements,
guidelines, and systems acquisition management practices of
the Federal Government;
(4) is reviewed and approved by the Department of Homeland
Security Investment Review Board, the Secretary of Homeland
Security, and the Office of Management and Budget; and
(5) is reviewed by the Government Accountability Office.

Construction

Transportation Security Administration

Aviation Security

For necessary expenses of the Transportation Security
Administration related to providing aviation security,
$4,591,612,000, to remain available until September 30, 2007,
of which not to exceed $3,000 shall be available for official
reception and representation expenses: Provided, That of the
total amount provided under this heading, not to exceed
$3,608,599,000 shall be for screening operations, of which
$170,000,000 shall be available only for procurement of
checked baggage explosive detection systems and $75,000,000
shall be available only for installation of checked baggage
explosive detection systems; and not to exceed $983,013,000
shall be for aviation security direction and enforcement
presence: Provided further, That security service fees
authorized under section 44940 of title 49, United States
Code, shall be credited to this appropriation as offsetting
collections: Provided further, That the sum herein
appropriated from the General Fund shall be reduced on a
dollar-for-dollar basis as such offsetting collections are
received during fiscal year 2006, so as to result in a final
fiscal year appropriation from the General Fund estimated at
not more than $2,601,612,000: Provided further, That any
security service fees collected in excess of the amount
appropriated under this heading shall become available during
fiscal year 2007: Provided further, That notwithstanding
section 44923 of title 49, United States Code, the
Government's share of the cost of a project under any letter
of intent shall be 75 percent for any medium or large hub
airport and 90 percent for any other airport, and all funding
provided by subsection (h) of such section, or from
appropriations authorized by subsection (i)(1) of such
section, may be distributed in any manner deemed necessary to
ensure aviation security and to fulfill the Government's
planned cost share under existing letters of intent: Provided
further, That none of the funds in this Act shall be used to
recruit or hire personnel into the Transportation Security
Administration which would cause the agency to exceed a
staffing level of 45,000 full-time equivalent screeners.

[[Page H3386]]

Point of Order

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to raise a point of order against the
paragraph.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to raise a point of order against page
17 beginning with the colon on line 2 through ``intent'' on line 11.
This proviso violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes existing law
and therefore constitutes legislating on an appropriation bill in
violation of House rules.
The CHAIRMAN. Does anyone else wish to be heard on the point of
order?
The Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that this provision explicitly supersedes existing
law. The provision, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of
clause 2, rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained, and the provision is stricken from
the bill.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, I commend the chairman and ranking member
on a very difficult task. I regret that on this particular language, as
you may know, the Subcommittee on Aviation of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure want to fund even more than the 75
percent that was proposed in this particular provision of in-line
systems.
Again, it was necessary to raise a point of order here. I just want
to comment briefly, though, about what we are doing here and what we
are not doing here. This section appropriates about $4.6 billion to
continue the passenger screening and checked baggage screening system
that we have. This, unfortunately, is funded through a passenger tax.
It is now $2.50 and $5 maximum for a one-way ticket. It is a fee to pay
the security fee.
Members and the public should be aware that right now we are running
about a $2 billion shortfall. We assumed this responsibility from the
airlines. In addition, the airlines had promised and testified before
us that they were paying about a billion dollars and would pay a
billion dollars each year if we assumed this responsibility. They have
reneged in that responsibility; and last year they paid us $315
million, short some $700 million.
The administration proposed increasing this fee by $3. I proposed
increasing it by $2.50 and change this system from a heavy personnel
system, in fact, some 45,000 people, an army of TSA personnel which
according to the Inspector General and according to the GAO do not
perform very well because they do not have the technology.
I propose to impose this fee for a 3-year period and at that point to
eliminate the tax and also assist the airlines in the meantime with
some of their security finance responsibilities. Right now that has
been rejected, both the fee to pay for this by the administration and
my proposal. What it does is it leaves us at risk. We have a huge army
doing a very poor job because they do not have a high-tech system. That
is going to cost money, that money is not in the bill, and I am sad
that we are going to pass this legislation.
I raise this because I still want this to be a conferenceable item
because we must protect the people of this country and the flying
public, and we are not doing so with this provision, and we are not
financing it adequately with this provision.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

surface transportation security

For necessary expenses of the Transportation Security
Administration related to providing surface transportation
security activities, $36,000,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2007.

Transportation Vetting and Credentialing

For necessary expenses for the development and
implementation of screening programs by the Office of
Transportation Vetting and Credentialing, $84,294,000.

Transportation Security Support

For necessary expenses of the Transportation Security
Administration related to providing transportation security
support and intelligence activities, $541,008,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2007: Provided, That of the
funds appropriated under this heading, $50,000,000 may not be
obligated until the Secretary submits to the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives (1) a plan for
optimally deploying explosive detection equipment, either in-
line or to replace explosive trace detection machines, at the
Nation's airports on a priority basis to enhance security,
reduce Transportation Security Administration staffing
requirements, and long-term costs; and (2) a detailed spend
plan for explosive detection systems procurement and
installations on an airport-by-airport basis for fiscal year
2006: Provided further, That these plans shall be submitted
no later than 60 days after enactment of this Act.

United States Coast Guard

Operating Expenses

For necessary expenses for the operation and maintenance of
the Coast Guard not otherwise provided for, purchase or lease
of not to exceed 25 passenger motor vehicles for replacement
only, payments pursuant to section 156 of Public Law 97-377
(42 U.S.C. 402 note), and recreation and welfare,
$5,500,000,000, of which $1,200,000,000 shall be for defense-
related activities; of which $24,500,000 shall be derived
from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to carry out the
purposes of section 1012(a)(5) of the Oil Pollution Act of
1990 (33 U.S.C. 2712(a)(5)); and of which not to exceed
$3,000 shall be for official reception and representation
expenses: Provided, That none of the funds appropriated by
this or any other Act shall be available for administrative
expenses in connection with shipping commissioners in the
United States: Provided further, That none of the funds
provided by this Act shall be available for expenses incurred
for yacht documentation under section 12109 of title 46,
United States Code, except to the extent fees are collected
from yacht owners and credited to this appropriation.

Environmental Compliance and Restoration

For necessary expenses to carry out the Coast Guard's
environmental compliance and restoration functions under
chapter 19 of title 14, United States Code, $12,000,000, to
remain available until expended.

Reserve Training

For necessary expenses of the Coast Guard Reserve, as
authorized by law; operations and maintenance of the reserve
program; personnel and training costs; and equipment and
services; $119,000,000.

Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements

For necessary expenses of acquisition, construction,
renovation, and improvement of aids to navigation, shore
facilities, vessels, and aircraft, including equipment
related thereto; and maintenance, rehabilitation, lease and
operation of facilities and equipment, as authorized by law,
$798,152,000, of which $20,000,000 shall be derived from the
Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to carry out the purposes of
section 1012(a)(5) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33
U.S.C. 2712(a)(5)); of which $22,000,000 shall be available
until September 30, 2010, to acquire, repair, renovate, or
improve vessels, small boats, and related equipment; of which
$29,902,000 shall be available until September 30, 2010, to
increase aviation capability; of which $130,100,000 shall be
available until September 30, 2008, for other equipment; of
which $39,700,000 shall be available until September 30,
2008, for shore facilities and aids to navigation facilities;
of which $76,450,000 shall be available for personnel
compensation and benefits and related costs; and of which
$500,000,000 shall be available until September 30, 2010, for
the Integrated Deepwater Systems program: Provided, That the
Commandant of the Coast Guard is authorized to dispose of
surplus real property, by sale or lease, and the proceeds
shall be credited to this appropriation as offsetting
collections and shall be available until September 30, 2008,
only for Rescue 21: Provided further, That of the funds
appropriated under this heading for the Integrated Deepwater
System, $50,000,000 may not be obligated until the Committee
on Appropriations of the House of Representatives receives
from the Secretary of Homeland Security a new Deepwater
program baseline that reflects revised, post September 11th
operational priorities that includes--
(1) a detailed justification for each new Deepwater asset
that is determined to be necessary to fulfill homeland and
national security functions or multi-agency procurements as
identified by the Joint Requirements Council;
(2) a comprehensive timeline for the entire Deepwater
program, including an asset-by-asset breakdown, aligned with
the comprehensive acquisition timeline and revised mission
needs statement, that also details the phase-out of legacy
assets and the phase-in of new, replacement assets on an
annual basis;
(3) a comparison of the revised acquisition timeline
against the original Deepwater timeline;
(4) an aggregate total cost of the program that aligns with
the revised mission needs statement, acquisition timeline and
asset-by-asset breakdown;
(5) a detailed projection of the remaining operational
lifespan of every type of legacy cutter and aircraft; and
(6) a detailed progress report on command, control,
communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance equipment upgrades that includes what has been
installed currently on operational assets and when such
equipment will be installed on all remaining Deepwater legacy
assets: Provided further, That the Secretary shall annually
submit to the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives, at the time that the President's budget is
submitted under section 1105(a) of title 31, a future-years
capital investment plan for the Coast Guard that identifies
for each capital budget line item--

[[Page H3387]]

(1) the proposed appropriation included in that budget;
(2) the total estimated cost of completion;
(3) projected funding levels for each fiscal year for the
next 5 fiscal years or until project completion, whichever is
earlier;
(4) an estimated completion date at the projected funding
levels; and
(5) changes, if any, in the total estimated cost of
completion or estimated completion date from previous future-
years capital investment plans submitted to the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives:

Provided further, That the Secretary shall ensure that
amounts specified in the future-years capital investment plan
are consistent to the maximum extent practicable with
proposed appropriations necessary to support the programs,
projects, and activities of the Coast Guard in the
President's budget as submitted under section 1105(a) of
title 31 for that fiscal year: Provided further, That any
inconsistencies between the capital investment plan and
proposed appropriations shall be identified and justified.

Alteration of Bridges

For necessary expenses for alteration or removal of
obstructive bridges, $15,000,000, to remain available until
expended.

Retired Pay

For retired pay, including the payment of obligations
otherwise chargeable to lapsed appropriations for this
purpose, payments under the Retired Serviceman's Family
Protection and Survivor Benefits Plans, payment for career
status bonuses, concurrent receipts and combat-related
special compensation under the National Defense Authorization
Act, and payments for medical care of retired personnel and
their dependents under chapter 55 of title 10, United States
Code, $1,014,080,000.

United States Secret Service

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses of the United States Secret Service,
including purchase of not to exceed 614 vehicles for police-
type use, which shall be for replacement only, and hire of
passenger motor vehicles; purchase of American-made
motorcycles; hire of aircraft; services of expert witnesses
at such rates as may be determined by the Director; rental of
buildings in the District of Columbia, and fencing, lighting,
guard booths, and other facilities on private or other
property not in Government ownership or control, as may be
necessary to perform protective functions; payment of per
diem or subsistence allowances to employees where a
protective assignment during the actual day or days of the
visit of a protectee requires an employee to work 16 hours
per day or to remain overnight at his or her post of duty;
conduct of and participation in firearms matches;
presentation of awards; travel of Secret Service employees on
protective missions without regard to the limitations on such
expenditures in this or any other Act if approval is obtained
in advance from the Committees on Appropriations of the
Senate and the House of Representatives; research and
development; grants to conduct behavioral research in support
of protective research and operations; and payment in advance
for commercial accommodations as may be necessary to perform
protective functions; $1,228,981,000, of which not to exceed
$25,000 shall be for official reception and representation
expenses; of which not to exceed $100,000 shall be to provide
technical assistance and equipment to foreign law enforcement
organizations in counterfeit investigations; of which
$2,678,000 shall be for forensic and related support of
investigations of missing and exploited children; and of
which $5,000,000 shall be a grant for activities related to
the investigations of exploited children and shall remain
available until expended: Provided, That up to $18,000,000
provided for protective travel shall remain available until
September 30, 2007: Provided further, That of the total
amount appropriated, not less than $10,000,000 shall be
available solely for the unanticipated costs related to
security operations for National Special Security Events, to
remain available until September 30, 2007: Provided further,
That the United States Secret Service is authorized to
obligate funds in anticipation of reimbursements from
agencies and entities, as defined in section 105 of title 5,
United States Code, receiving training sponsored by the James
J. Rowley Training Center, except that total obligations at
the end of the fiscal year shall not exceed total budgetary
resources available under this heading at the end of the
fiscal year.

Acquisition, Construction, Improvements, and Related Expenses

For necessary expenses for acquisition, construction,
repair, alteration, and improvement of facilities,
$3,699,000, to remain available until expended.

TITLE III--PREPAREDNESS AND RECOVERY

Office of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness

Management and Administration

For necessary expenses for the Office of State and Local
Government Coordination and Preparedness, $3,546,000:
Provided, That not to exceed $2,000 shall be for official
reception and representation expenses.

State and Local Programs

For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other
activities, including grants to State and local governments
for terrorism prevention activities, notwithstanding any
other provision of law, $2,781,300,000, which shall be
allocated as follows:
(1) $750,000,000 for formula-based grants and $400,000,000
for law enforcement terrorism prevention grants pursuant to
section 1014 of the USA PATRIOT ACT (42 U.S.C. 3714):
Provided, That the application for grants shall be made
available to States within 45 days after enactment of this
Act; that States shall submit applications within 90 days
after the grant announcement; and that the Office of State
and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness shall act
within 90 days after receipt of an application: Provided
further, That no less than 80 percent of any grant under this
paragraph to a State shall be made available by the State to
local governments within 60 days after the receipt of the
funds.
(2) $1,215,000,000 for discretionary grants, as determined
by the Secretary of Homeland Security, of which--
(A) $850,000,000 shall be for use in high-threat, high-
density urban areas;
(B) $150,000,000 shall be for port security grants, which
shall be distributed based on risks and vulnerabilities:
Provided, That the Office of State and Local Government
Coordination and Preparedness shall work with the Information
Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate to assess
the risk associated with each port and with the Coast Guard
to evaluate the vulnerability of each port: Provided further,
That funding may only be made available to those projects
recommended by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port;
(C) $5,000,000 shall be for trucking industry security
grants;
(D) $10,000,000 shall be for intercity bus security grants;
(E) $150,000,000 shall be for intercity passenger rail
transportation (as defined in section 24102 of title 49,
United States Code), freight rail, and transit security
grants; and
(F) $50,000,000 shall be for buffer zone protection grants:

Provided, That for grants under subparagraph (A), the
application for grants shall be made available to States
within 45 days after enactment of this Act; that States shall
submit applications within 90 days after the grant
announcement; and that the Office of State and Local
Government Coordination and Preparedness shall act within 90
days after receipt of an application: Provided further, That
no less than 80 percent of any grant under this paragraph to
a State shall be made available by the State to local
governments within 60 days after the receipt of the funds.
(3) $50,000,000 shall be available for the Commercial
Equipment Direct Assistance Program.
(4) $366,300,000 for training, exercises, technical
assistance, and other programs:

Provided, That none of the grants provided under this heading
shall be used for the construction or renovation of
facilities; for minor perimeter security projects, not to
exceed $1,000,000, as determined necessary by the Secretary
of Homeland Security: Provided further, That the proceeding
proviso shall not apply to grants under subparagraphs (B) and
(E) of paragraph (2) of this heading: Provided further, That
grantees shall provide additional reports on their use of
funds, as determined necessary by the Secretary of Homeland
Security: Provided further, That funds appropriated for law
enforcement terrorism prevention grants under paragraph (1)
and discretionary grants under paragraph (2)(A) of this
heading shall be available for operational costs, to include
personnel overtime and overtime associated with Office of
State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness
certified training, as needed: Provided further, That in
accordance with the Department's implementation plan for
Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8, the Office of
State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness
shall issue the final National Preparedness Goal no later
than October 1, 2005; and no funds provided under paragraphs
(1) and (2)(A) shall be awarded to States that have not
submitted to the Office of State and Local Government
Coordination and Preparedness an updated State homeland
strategy based on the interim National Preparedness Goal,
dated March 31, 2005.

Amendment Offered by Mr. LaTourette

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. LaTourette:
Page 28, line 5, after the semicolon insert ``and''.
Page 28, strike lines 6 through 13.
Page 28, line 14, strike ``(F)'' and insert ``(C)''.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, it is my intention to ask unanimous
consent to withdraw the amendment at the conclusion of my remarks. I
want to commend Chairman Lewis of the full committee, Chairman Rogers
of the subcommittee, and also Chairman Young of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure for having dialogues on these
particular sections.
These sections in H.R. 2360 make appropriations to three State and
local grant programs that are not and have never been authorized,
specifically, a trucking industry security grant system, an inner city
bus security grants

[[Page H3388]]

and inner city rail, freight rail and transit security grants. In each
of these areas, the Department of Transportation has existing and
ongoing security programs that are managed at the Federal and State
level by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, the Federal
Railroad Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, and State
safety oversight agencies.
The FRA act provides the Federal Railroad Administration with strong
authority to promote rail safety in every aspect of rail operations.
The FRA has a robust and active inspector workforce that is on the
ground every day inspecting the safety and security of America's
freight railroads, and the same with the truck safety and the same with
the bus safety.
I want to commend the appropriations subcommittee for looking at this
problem, but I want to point out that, one, there is no authorization
from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure; two, it is my
understanding in the homeland security bill that will be on the floor
tomorrow there is no authorization as well.
One of the problems that we have seen in the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure right here in the District of
Columbia, Mr. Chairman, is the city council and the District of
Columbia when they have looked at a pot of money or when they have
looked at a program that has been passed by homeland security but has
not gone back and referenced the Federal Rail Act have said, You know
what? No more trains going through the District of Columbia. You are
going to have copycat legislation like this all over the United States
of America.
It is my understanding, and I would invite the distinguished
subcommittee chairman to comment if he would want to, that Chairman
Lewis and Chairman Young have talked about the fact that we need to
make sure that we do not create an overlay of law and regulation that
permits these NIMBY things to pop up. Obviously, everybody in this
House wants the safest rail system, safest trucking system, and the
safest inner-city bus systems in the world. But we cannot do it if we
create a fund over here, a fund over there, and a fund over there.
I would hope that the chairman perhaps could commit to us to working
as this bill goes to conference to see how we can put these into
existing programs or work out new programs that achieve what I know the
chairman is trying to achieve.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LaTOURETTE. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

{time} 1515

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman brings up a good
point, and I think the gentleman would agree that since 9/11 we have
spent most of the Transportation Security money on air flight and we
have neglected, I think, rail security and port security and bus
security and some of the others, trucking. However, I will be happy to
work with him so that we do have moneys that are designated for these
particular purposes, so that the Department does not have the
capability of spending it all in one place. I think it is important
that we do have, if we can get it through the authorization process,
kitties destined just for rail, just for ports, just for trucks, buses,
and the like.
Does the gentleman agree?
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I do agree. And I
want to thank the distinguished subcommittee chairman. I know some of
the frustration that some of us have felt is that the TSA should be
named the Aviation Security Administration rather than the
Transportation Security Administration. So I know that what the
gentleman and the subcommittee were attempting to do was shared by at
least this gentleman and I would assume most of the people in the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Our concern, and I think our concern has always been, as we move
forward, that we not create two parallel universes, neither of which
has sufficient money to get this job done. And the only purpose of this
amendment, which I am going to withdraw when I am through yielding to
the gentleman, was that we look at existing programs that already exist
and if we want to put $150 million dollars in for rail security that it
go to the FTA and that we say that it is going to be used only for
security and it is not going to be used for other goofy stuff.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LaTOURETTE. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman is right
on track and I think we can agree with it.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his agreement.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Firefighter Assistance Grants

For necessary expenses for programs authorized by the
Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C.
2201 et seq.), $600,000,000, of which $550,000,000 shall be
available to carry out section 33 (15 U.S.C. 2229) and
$50,000,000 shall be available to carry out section 34 (15
U.S.C. 2229a) of the Act, to remain available until September
30, 2007: Provided, That not to exceed 5 percent of this
amount shall be available for program administration.

emergency management performance grants

For necessary expenses for emergency management performance
grants, as authorized by the National Flood Insurance Act of
1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.), the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121
et seq.), the Earthquake Hazards Reductions Act of 1977 (42
U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), and Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978
(5 U.S.C. App.), $180,000,000: Provided, That total
administrative costs shall not exceed 3 percent of the total
appropriation.

Counterterrorism Fund

For necessary expenses, as determined by the Secretary of
Homeland Security, to reimburse any Federal agency for the
costs of providing support to counter, investigate, or
respond to unexpected threats or acts of terrorism, including
payment of rewards in connection with these activities,
$10,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That the Secretary shall notify the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives
15 days prior to the obligation of any amount of these funds
in accordance with section 503 of this Act.

Emergency Preparedness and Response

Office of the Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response

For necessary expenses for the Office of the Under
Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response, as
authorized by section 502 of the Homeland Security Act of
2002 (6 U.S.C. 312), $2,306,000.

Preparedness, Mitigation, Response, and Recovery

For necessary expenses for preparedness, mitigation,
response, and recovery activities of the Directorate of
Emergency Preparedness and Response, $249,499,000, including
activities authorized by the National Flood Insurance Act of
1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.), the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121
et seq.), the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42
U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), the Federal Fire Prevention and Control
Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2201 et seq.), the Defense Production
Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2061 et seq.), sections 107 and
303 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 404,
405), Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.), and
the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101 et seq.).

Administrative and Regional Operations

For necessary expenses for administrative and regional
operations of the Directorate of Emergency Preparedness and
Response, $225,441,000, including activities authorized by
the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et
seq.), the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), the Earthquake
Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), the
Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C.
2201 et seq.), the Defense Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C.
App. 2061 et seq.), sections 107 and 303 of the National
Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 404, 405), Reorganization
Plan No. 3 of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.), and the Homeland Security
Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101 et seq.): Provided, That not to
exceed $3,000 shall be for official reception and
representation expenses.

Public Health Programs

For necessary expenses for countering potential biological,
disease, and chemical threats to civilian populations,
$34,000,000.

Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program

The aggregate charges assessed during fiscal year 2006, as
authorized in title III of the Departments of Veterans
Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent
Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (42 U.S.C. 5196e), shall
not be less than 100 percent of the amounts anticipated by
the

[[Page H3389]]

Department of Homeland Security necessary for its
radiological emergency preparedness program for the next
fiscal year: Provided, That the methodology for assessment
and collection of fees shall be fair and equitable and shall
reflect costs of providing such services, including
administrative costs of collecting such fees: Provided
further, That fees received under this heading shall be
deposited in this account as offsetting collections and will
become available for authorized purposes on October 1, 2006,
and remain available until expended.

Disaster Relief

For necessary expenses in carrying out the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), $2,023,900,000, to remain available
until expended.

Disaster Assistance Direct Loan Program Account

For administrative expenses to carry out the direct loan
program, as authorized by section 319 of the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5162), $567,000: Provided, That gross obligations for
the principal amount of direct loans shall not exceed
$25,000,000: Provided further, That the cost of modifying
such loans shall be as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 661a).

Flood Map Modernization Fund

For necessary expenses pursuant to section 1360 of the
National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4101),
$200,000,000, and such additional sums as may be provided by
State and local governments or other political subdivisions
for cost-shared mapping activities under section 1360(f)(2)
of such Act, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That total administrative costs shall not exceed 3 percent of
the total appropriation.

National Flood Insurance Fund

(including transfer of funds)

For activities under the National Flood Insurance Act of
1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.), not to exceed $36,496,000 for
salaries and expenses associated with flood mitigation and
flood insurance operations; not to exceed $40,000,000 for
financial assistance under section 1361A of such Act to
States and communities for taking actions under such section
with respect to severe repetitive loss properties, to remain
available until expended; not to exceed $10,000,000 for
mitigation actions under section 1323 of such Act; and not to
exceed $99,358,000 for flood hazard mitigation, to remain
available until September 30, 2007, including up to
$40,000,000 for expenses under section 1366 of the National
Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4104c), which amount
shall be available for transfer to the National Flood
Mitigation Fund until September 30, 2007, and which amount
shall be derived from offsetting collections assessed and
collected pursuant to section 1307 of that Act (42 U.S.C.
4014), and shall be retained and used for necessary expenses
under this heading: Provided, That in fiscal year 2006, no
funds in excess of (1) $55,000,000 for operating expenses;
(2) $660,148,000 for agents' commissions and taxes; and (3)
$30,000,000 for interest on Treasury borrowings shall be
available from the National Flood Insurance Fund.

National Flood Mitigation Fund

Notwithstanding subparagraphs (B) and (C) of subsection
(b)(3), and subsection (f), of section 1366 of the National
Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4104c), $40,000,000,
to remain available until September 30, 2007, for activities
designed to reduce the risk of flood damage to structures
pursuant to such Act, of which $40,000,000 shall be derived
from the National Flood Insurance Fund.

National Pre-disaster Mitigation Fund

For a pre-disaster mitigation grant program pursuant to
title II of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5131 et seq.),
$150,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That grants made for pre-disaster mitigation shall be awarded
on a competitive basis subject to the criteria in section
203(g) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 5133(g)), and notwithstanding
section 203(f) of such Act, shall be made without reference
to State allocations, quotas, or other formula-based
allocation of funds: Provided further, That total
administrative costs shall not exceed 3 percent of the total
appropriation.

point of order

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against,
beginning with the colon on page 36, line 19, through ``funds'' on line
22.
The CHAIRMAN. Would the gentlemen state the premise of his point of
order? Does the gentleman raise a point of order that the provision
supersedes existing law?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained, and the
provision is stricken from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Emergency Food and Shelter

To carry out an emergency food and shelter program pursuant
to title III of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance
Act (42 U.S.C. 11331 et seq.), $153,000,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That total administrative
costs shall not exceed 3.5 percent of the total
appropriation.

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

Citizenship and Immigration Services

For necessary expenses for citizenship and immigration
services, $120,000,000: Provided, That the Director of United
States Citizenship and Immigration Services shall submit to
the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives a report on its information technology
transformation efforts and how these efforts align with the
enterprise architecture standards of the Department of
Homeland Security within 90 days of enactment of this Act.

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses of the Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center, including materials and support costs of
Federal law enforcement basic training; purchase of not to
exceed 117 vehicles for police-type use and hire of passenger
motor vehicles; expenses for student athletic and related
activities; the conduct of and participation in firearms
matches and presentation of awards; public awareness and
enhancement of community support of law enforcement training;
room and board for student interns; a flat monthly
reimbursement to employees authorized to use personal mobile
phones for official duties; and services as authorized by
section 3109 of title 5, United States Code; $194,000,000, of
which up to $36,174,000 for materials and support costs of
Federal law enforcement basic training shall remain available
until September 30, 2007; and of which not to exceed $12,000
shall be for official reception and representation expenses:
Provided, That the Center is authorized to obligate funds in
anticipation of reimbursements from agencies receiving
training sponsored by the Center, except that total
obligations at the end of the fiscal year shall not exceed
total budgetary resources available at the end of the fiscal
year: Provided further, That in fiscal year 2006 and
thereafter, the Center is authorized to assess pecuniary
liability against Center employees and students for losses or
destruction of government property due to gross negligence or
willful misconduct and to set off any resulting debts due the
United States by Center employees and students, without their
consent, against current payments due the employees and
students for their services.

Acquisitions, Construction, Improvements, and Related Expenses

For acquisition of necessary additional real property and
facilities, construction, and ongoing maintenance, facility
improvements, and related expenses of the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center, $64,743,000, to remain available
until expended: Provided, That the Center is authorized to
accept reimbursement to this appropriation from government
agencies requesting the construction of special use
facilities.

Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection

Management and Administration

For salaries and expenses of the immediate Office of the
Under Secretary for Information Analysis and Infrastructure
Protection and for management and administration of programs
and activities, as authorized by title II of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 121 et seq.), $198,200,000:
Provided, That not to exceed $5,000 shall be for official
reception and representation expenses.

Assessments and Evaluations

For necessary expenses for information analysis and
infrastructure protection as authorized by title II of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 121 et seq.),
$663,240,000, to remain available until September 30, 2007.

Science and Technology

Management and Administration

For salaries and expenses of the immediate Office of the
Under Secretary for Science and Technology and for management
and administration of programs and activities, as authorized
by title III of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C.
181 et seq.), $81,399,000: Provided, That not to exceed
$3,000 shall be for official reception and representation
expenses.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the gentleman from Kentucky in a
colloquy regarding critical funding that still must be realized in this
bill.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to engage in a
colloquy with the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) for all his great work on this very
difficult bill. We know that homeland security is an issue that is at
the forefront of all Americans' minds with a lot of competing
priorities. I know the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) has worked
hard to accommodate all of these competing programs. We appreciate that
he still has a lot of

[[Page H3390]]

work to do, and we appreciate all the great work he did in the past in
building that border fence that is presently in the number one
smugglers corridor in America between California and Mexico.
And as the chairman knows, we have been constructing that border
barrier for a number of years. In fact, I remember the days when a
number of border patrolmen held a big sign up saying ``Thank you, Hal
Rogers'' for the work that he has done. That fence has been a huge
success in stopping drug smuggling, alien smuggling, lawlessness and
the murders in that section of the border.
Unfortunately, the fence remains incomplete. And recently we provided
the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security with the authority
passed by the full House to expeditiously construct border barriers,
and I am specifically interested in that 3\1/2\ miles that remain on
the San Diego border fence project.
Unfortunately, the construction account in this bill is insufficient
to meet the needs of that nationally critical project, and each day
that we delay this project becomes more expensive, and with every day
that we delay we know that people are crossing in this section of the
border, many of whom have criminal records, and we are further mindful
of the intelligence reports that have indicated that terrorists are
seeking to use this section of the border for access into the U.S.
Mr. Chairman, we understand that the chairman's bill provides $93
million for Customs and Border Protection construction. Can we agree to
work with him to ensure that adequate funding is dedicated to this
project in fiscal year 2006?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, it will be my pleasure to work
with the gentleman and delegation on this project.
In fact, I remember not long ago, perhaps last year, helicoptering
along that fence and then getting to the gap where there is no fence
and seeing the results of that. So I will be happy to work with the
gentleman.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his response.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Cunningham), a very important member of our delegation and a real
advocate for this border fence and border security.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the chairman's efforts
and especially the efforts of his staff to increase the number of
Border Patrol agents above the amount requested by the President. As he
could see, Members on both sides of the aisle have spoken to this issue
over and over.
I serve as a member of the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, and may I have his commitment to work towards achieving
the target of Border Patrol agents of 2,000 authorized in the
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2005 and also
recommended by the 9/11 Commission?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I will be glad to work with the
gentleman and all of our colleagues toward that goal.
In fact, between the supplemental bill that passed last week and this
bill that is on the floor, if it is successful, we will have added some
1,500 new agents between now and next year. So we are getting closer to
his goal.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I now yield to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), chairman of the Committee on
Homeland Security.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
I would like to commend the gentleman from Kentucky for the funding
that is already in this bill that gets us to 1,500 agents, which he
just described, and I am very pleased to hear that he is going to work
with us to get to the 2,000 Border Patrol agents.
As the gentleman knows, the Homeland Security Authorization Act,
which will be on the floor this week, also authorizes funding for 2,000
new Border Patrol agents in fiscal year 2006. This is the same number
that was authorized in the 9/11 Commission Recommendations
Implementation Act. Moreover, an important part of 2,000 new agents is
the expansion of the Border Patrol training facilities.
Will the chairman work with us to ensure that the funding for these
2,000 new Border Patrol agents, who are critical to our national
security, and the accompanying training infrastructure necessary to do
so, will be a priority?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, it is a priority of mine. I am
delighted to hear the gentlemen who are standing with me here today all
agree on this topic.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman
for his work for border security and for our country.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Research, Development, Acquisition and Operations

For necessary expenses for science and technology research,
including advanced research projects; development; test and
evaluation; acquisition; and operations; as authorized by
title III of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 181
et seq.), $1,258,597,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That of the total amount provided under this
heading, $23,000,000 is available to find an alternative site
for the National Bio and Agrodefense Laboratory and other
pre-construction activities to establish research labs to
protect animal and public health from high consequence animal
and zoonotic diseases, in support of the requirements of
Homeland Security Presidential Directives 9 and 10: Provided
further, That of the total amount provided under this
heading, $10,000,000 shall be used to enhance activities
toward implementation of section 313 of the Homeland Security
Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 193).

TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

(including rescission of funds)

Sec. 501. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.

Ms. BEAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of provisions in this
bill that appropriate $110 million to the Department of Homeland
Security's research into shoulder-fired missile defense for our
passenger airlines. I have been working closely with the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Israel) to address this very real threat to our passenger
jets from shoulder-fired missiles.
The global black market has been flooded with hundreds of thousands
of these weapons that are now in the possession of 27 separate
terrorist groups around the world. Al Qaeda used them in 2002 to attack
an Israeli airliner in Kenya, and terrorists in Iraq came close to
shooting down a DHL freight plane leaving Baghdad in 2003. According to
the FBI, more than 500 civilians worldwide have been killed in
successful missile attacks against commercial aircraft. The State
Department has stated that one of the leading causes of loss of human
life in aviation has been from shoulder-launched attacks.
Our commercial aircraft passengers deserve from Congress vigilance
and commitment to their safety.
Mr. Chairman, the technology to defend American passengers from this
threat is almost a reality. Right now DHS-sponsored programs to apply
the Department of Defense's research and technology to our domestic
passenger jets are nearing their last phase of development and are
ready to equip test aircraft for operational evaluation.
This research brings us very close to leveraging the proven
technology that has successfully protected our military personnel to
commercial aircraft and their customers. Cutting support for this
program would be short-sighted at a time when we are just around the
corner from a cutting edge defense against terrorists' anticraft
missiles. Now is the time instead to move aggressively forward to
address this threat.
Mr. Chairman, the President, the DHS, and the State Department all
agree that this is important research with important ramifications. I
urge my colleagues to support the President's full request for funding
of this research and to work together with all of our colleagues in
moving beyond the pilot phase to fully protecting our airlines and
their passengers from anti-aircraft missiles.

[[Page H3391]]

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to thank the chairman
of the Homeland Security Subcommittee of the Committee on
Appropriations. I also want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr.
Cox), chairman of the authorizing Committee on Homeland Security; and
the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the chairman of the full
Committee on Appropriations, for working out what I consider to be a
good agreement to leave in this bill the $110 million that the
administration has requested for continuing both the development and
deployment of MANPADs, shoulder-launched missile defense system for our
commercial aircraft.

{time} 1530

I know border protection is a very popular agenda item on the
populace front, but I think folks send us to Congress not only to
protect our borders and deal with the populace issues in putting
resources where public opinion and popular opinion would have those
dollars, but also to look at the risks and the threat. Today, we face
the threat of someone walking through 1950 metal detector technology at
our airports which we see across the country, metal detectors, and
strapping explosives to their body and not being able to detect
explosives. That is our number one threat right now is suicide bombers.
In my opinion, the second greatest threat is a shoulder-launched
missile.
Now, folks, we have been very fortunate to date in Kenya and Saudi
Arabia and Iraq that we have not had a commercial airline with
passengers taken down. I think our luck is about to run out, and it is
important that we move forward.
Sometimes the administration, that is my administration, has not done
everything right, but this is one of the few programs I may say in
homeland security that was well thought-out, well-developed, and now
the next part is deploying that technology. If, in fact, there is money
left over and it is not expended in the program, and that would be my
hope, I would support every additional dollar to go towards those
priorities this subcommittee has developed for securing our borders.
But I do want to thank everyone for reaching this agreement;
hopefully, moving forward in the conference committee, and making
certain that we have the resources to protect us, again, against what I
consider is our second greatest danger, and that is the danger of a
shoulder-launched missile taking down a commercial aircraft. We have to
have a system available to protect our aircraft.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Shimkus). The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 502. Subject to the requirements of section 503 of
this Act, the unexpended balances of prior appropriations
provided for activities in this Act may be transferred to
appropriation accounts for such activities established
pursuant to this Act: Provided, That balances so transferred
may be merged with funds in the applicable established
accounts and thereafter may be accounted for as one fund for
the same time period as originally enacted.
Sec. 503. (a) None of the funds provided by this Act,
provided by previous appropriations Acts to the agencies in
or transferred to the Department of Homeland Security that
remain available for obligation or expenditure in fiscal year
2006, or provided from any accounts in the Treasury of the
United States derived by the collection of fees available to
the agencies funded by this Act, shall be available for
obligation or expenditure through a reprogramming of funds
that: (1) creates a new program; (2) eliminates a program,
project, or activity; (3) increases funds for any program,
project, or activity for which funds have been denied or
restricted by the Congress; (4) proposes to use funds
directed for a specific activity by either the House or
Senate Committees on Appropriations for a different purpose;
or (5) contracts out any functions or activities for which
funds have been appropriated for Federal full-time equivalent
positions; unless the Committees on Appropriations of the
Senate and the House of Representatives are notified 15 days
in advance of such reprogramming of funds.
(b) None of the funds provided by this Act, provided by
previous appropriation Acts to the agencies in or transferred
to the Department of Homeland Security that remain available
for obligation or expenditure in fiscal year 2006, or
provided from any accounts in the Treasury of the United
States derived by the collection of fees available to the
agencies funded by this Act, shall be available for
obligation or expenditure for programs, projects, or
activities through a reprogramming of funds in excess of
$5,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less, that: (1)
augments existing programs, projects, or activities; (2)
reduces by 10 percent funding for any existing program,
project, or activity, or numbers of personnel by 10 percent
as approved by the Congress; or (3) results from any general
savings from a reduction in personnel that would result in a
change in existing programs, projects, or activities as
approved by the Congress; unless the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives
are notified 15 days in advance of such reprogramming of
funds.
(c) Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made
available for the current fiscal year for the Department of
Homeland Security by this Act or provided by previous
appropriations Acts may be transferred between such
appropriations, but no such appropriations, except as
otherwise specifically provided, shall be increased by more
than 10 percent by such transfers: Provided, That any
transfer under this subsection shall be treated as a
reprogramming of funds under subsection (b) of this section
and shall not be available for obligation unless the
Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives are notified 15 days in advance of such
transfer.
(d) The Department shall submit all notifications pursuant
to subsections (a), (b), and (c) of this section no later
than June 30, except in extraordinary circumstances which
imminently threaten the safety of human life or the
protection of property.
Sec. 504. Except as otherwise specifically provided by law,
not to exceed 50 percent of unobligated balances remaining
available at the end of fiscal year 2006 from appropriations
for salaries and expenses for fiscal year 2006 in this Act
shall remain available through September 30, 2007, in the
account and for the purposes for which the appropriations
were provided: Provided, That prior to the obligation of such
funds, a request shall be submitted to the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives
for approval in accordance with section 503 of this Act.
Sec. 505. Funds made available by this Act for intelligence
activities are deemed to be specifically authorized by the
Congress for purposes of section 504 of the National Security
Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 414) during fiscal year 2006 until the
enactment of an Act authorizing intelligence activities for
fiscal year 2006.
Sec. 506. The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center shall
establish an accrediting body, to include representatives
from the Federal law enforcement community and non-Federal
accreditation experts involved in law enforcement training,
to establish standards for measuring and assessing the
quality and effectiveness of Federal law enforcement training
programs, facilities, and instructors.
Sec. 507. None of the funds in this Act may be used to make
a grant allocation, discretionary grant award, discretionary
contract award, or to issue a letter of intent totaling in
excess of $1,000,000 unless the Secretary of Homeland
Security notifies the Committees on Appropriations of the
Senate and House of Representatives at least 3 full business
days in advance: Provided, That no notification shall involve
funds that are not available for obligation.
Sec. 508. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no
agency shall purchase, construct, or lease any additional
facilities, except within or contiguous to existing
locations, to be used for the purpose of conducting Federal
law enforcement training without the advance approval of the
Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives, except that the Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center is authorized to obtain the temporary use of
additional facilities by lease, contract, or other agreement
for training which cannot be accommodated in existing Center
facilities.
Sec. 509. The Director of the Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center (FLETC) shall schedule basic and/or advanced
law enforcement training at all four training facilities
under FLETC's control to ensure that these training centers
are operated at the highest capacity throughout the fiscal
year.
Sec. 510. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be used for expenses of any
construction, repair, alteration, or acquisition project for
which a prospectus, if required by the Public Buildings Act
of 1959, has not been approved, except that necessary funds
may be expended for each project for required expenses for
the development of a proposed prospectus.
Sec. 511. None of the funds in this Act may be used in
contravention of the applicable provisions of the Buy
American Act (41 U.S.C. 10a et seq.).
Sec. 512. Funding for the Transportation Security
Administration's Office of Transportation Security Support,
Office of the Administrator, shall be reduced by $100,000 per
day for each day after enactment of this Act that the second
proviso of section 513 of Public Law 108-334 has not been
implemented.
Sec. 513. The Commandant of the Coast Guard shall provide
to the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives each year, at the time that the President's
budget is submitted under section 1105(a) of title 31, United
States Code, a list of approved but unfunded Coast Guard
priorities and the funds needed for each such priority in the
same manner and with the same contents as the unfunded
priorities lists submitted by the chiefs of other Armed
Services.

[[Page H3392]]

Sec. 514. Notwithstanding section 3302 of title 31, United
States Code, beginning in fiscal year 2006 and thereafter,
the Administrator of the Transportation Security
Administration may impose a reasonable charge for the lease
of real and personal property to Transportation Security
Administration employees and for use by Transportation
Security Administration employees and may credit amounts
received to the appropriation or fund initially charged for
operating and maintaining the property, which amounts shall
be available, without fiscal year limitation, for expenditure
for property management, operation, protection, construction,
repair, alteration, and related activities.
Sec. 515. Beginning in fiscal year 2006 and thereafter, the
acquisition management system of the Transportation Security
Administration shall apply to the acquisition of services, as
well as equipment, supplies, and materials.
Sec. 516. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
authority of the Office of Personnel Management to conduct
personnel security and suitability background investigations,
update investigations, and periodic reinvestigations of
applicants for, or appointees in, positions in the Office of
the Secretary and Executive Management, the Office of the
Under Secretary for Management, the Bureau of Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, the Directorate of Science and
Technology, and the Directorate of Information Analysis and
Infrastructure Protection of the Department of Homeland
Security is transferred to the Department of Homeland
Security: Provided, That on request of the Department of
Homeland Security, the Office of Personnel Management shall
cooperate with and assist the Department in any investigation
or reinvestigation under this section.
Sec. 517. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds
appropriated under paragraphs (1) and (2) of the State and
Local Programs heading under title III of this Act are exempt
from section 6503(a) of title 31, United States Code.
Sec. 518. (a) None of the funds provided by this or
previous appropriations Acts may be obligated for deployment
or implementation, on other than a test basis, of the Secure
Flight program or any other follow on or successor passenger
prescreening programs, until the Secretary of Homeland
Security certifies, and the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) reports, to the Committees on Appropriations of the
Senate and the House of Representatives, that all ten of the
elements contained in paragraphs (1) through (10) of section
522(a) of Public Law 108-334 have been successfully met.
(b) The report required by subsection (a) shall be
submitted within 90 days after the certification required by
such subsection is provided, and periodically thereafter, if
necessary, until the Government Accountability Office
confirms that all ten elements have been successfully met.
(c) During the testing phase permitted by subsection (a),
no information gathered from passengers, foreign or domestic
air carriers, or reservation systems may be used to screen
aviation passengers, or delay or deny boarding to such
passengers, except in instances where passenger names are
matched to a government watch list.
(d) None of the funds provided in this or any previous
appropriations Act may be utilized to develop or test
algorithms assigning risk to passengers whose names are not
on government watch lists.
(e) None of the funds provided in this appropriations Act
may be utilized for a database that is obtained from or
remains under the control of a non-Federal entity.
Sec. 519. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to amend the oath of allegiance required by section
337 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1448).
Sec. 520. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be
used to process or approve a competition under Office of
Management and Budget Circular A-76 for services provided as
of June 1, 2004, by employees (including employees serving on
a temporary or term basis) of Citizenship and Immigration
Services of the Department of Homeland Security who are known
as of that date as Immigration Information Officers, Contact
Representatives, or Investigative Assistants.
Sec. 521. None of the funds available in this Act or
provided hereafter shall be available to maintain the United
States Secret Service as anything but a distinct entity
within the Department of Homeland Security and shall not be
used to merge the United States Secret Service with any other
department function, cause any personnel and operational
elements of the United States Secret Service to report to an
individual other than the Director of the United States
Secret Service, or cause the Director to report directly to
any individual other than the Secretary of Homeland Security.
Sec. 522. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall develop
screening standards and protocols to more thoroughly screen
all types of air cargo on passenger and cargo aircraft by
March 1, 2006: Provided, That these screening standards and
protocols shall be developed in consultation with the
industry stakeholders: Provided further, That these screening
standards and protocols shall be developed in conjunction
with the research and development of technologies that will
permit screening of all high-risk air cargo: Provided
further, That of the amounts appropriated in this Act for the
``Office of the Secretary and Executive Management'',
$10,000,000 shall not be available for obligation until new
air cargo screening standards and protocols are implemented.
Sec. 523. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
shall utilize existing checked baggage explosive detection
equipment and screeners to screen cargo carried on passenger
aircraft to the greatest extent practicable at each airport:
Provided, That beginning with November 2005, TSA shall
provide a monthly report to the Committee on Appropriations
of the House of Representatives detailing, by airport, the
amount of cargo carried on passenger aircraft that was
screened by TSA in August 2005 and each month thereafter.
Sec. 524. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall
implement a security plan to permit general aviation aircraft
to land and take off at Ronald Reagan Washington National
Airport 90 days after enactment of this Act.
Sec. 525. None of the funds available for obligation for
the transportation worker identification credential program
shall be used to develop a personalization system that is
decentralized or a card production capability that does not
utilize an existing government card production facility:
Provided, That no funding can be obligated for the next phase
of production until the Committee on Appropriations of the
House of Representatives has been fully briefed on the
results of the prototype phase and agrees that the program
should move forward.
Sec. 526. (a) From the unexpended balances of the United
States Coast Guard ``Acquisition, Construction and
Improvements'' account specifically identified in statement
of managers language for Integrated Deepwater System patrol
boats 110- to 123-foot conversion in fiscal years 2004 and
2005, $83,999,942 are rescinded.
(b) For the necessary expenses of the United States Coast
Guard for ``Acquisition, Construction and Improvements'',
$83,999,942 is made available to procure new 110-foot patrol
boats or for major maintenance availability for the current
110-foot patrol boat fleet: Provided, That such funds shall
remain available until expended.
Sec. 527. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall utilize
the Transportation Security Clearinghouse as the central
identity management system for the deployment and operation
of the registered traveler program, the transportation worker
identification credential program, and other applicable
programs for the purposes of collecting and aggregating
biometric data necessary for background vetting; providing
all associated record-keeping, customer service, and related
functions; ensuring interoperability between different
airports and vendors; and acting as a central activation,
revocation, and transaction hub for participating airports,
ports, and other points of presence.
Sec. 528. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used by any person other than the privacy officer
appointed pursuant to section 222 of the Homeland Security
Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 142) to alter, direct that changes be
made to, delay or prohibit the transmission to Congress of,
any report prepared pursuant to paragraph (5) of such
section.
Sec. 529. No funding provided in this or previous
appropriations Acts shall be available to pay the salary of
any employee serving as a contracting officer's technical
representative (COTR) who has not received COTR training.
Sec. 530. Except as provided in section 44945 of title 49,
United States Code, funds appropriated or transferred to the
Transportation Security Administration in fiscal years 2002
and 2003, and to the Transportation Security Administration,
``Aviation Security'' and ``Administration'' in fiscal years
2004 and 2005, that are recovered or deobligated shall be
available only for procurement and installation of explosive
detection systems.
Sec. 531. From the unobligated balances available in the
``Department of Homeland Security Working Capital Fund''
established by section 506 of Public Law 108-90, $7,000,000
are hereby rescinded.
Sec. 532. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Committee withholds from obligation $25,000,000 from the
Directorate of Emergency Preparedness and Response,
Administrative and Regional Operations, until the direction
in the statement of managers accompanying Public Law 108-324
and House Report 108-541 is completed.
Sec. 533. None of the funds appropriated under this Act or
any other Act shall be available for processing petitions
under section 214(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
relating to nonimmigrant status under section
101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of such Act until the authority provided
in section 214(g)(5)(C) of such Act is being implemented such
that, in any fiscal year in which the total number of aliens
who are issued visas or otherwise provided nonimmigrant
status subject to the numerical limitation under section
101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of such Act reaches the numerical
limitation contained in section 214(g)(1)(A) of such Act,, up
to 20,000 additional aliens who have earned a master's or
higher degree from an institution of higher education (as
defined in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 1001(a))) may be issued visas or otherwise
provided nonimmigrant status under section
101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Sec. 534. None of the funds provided in this Act shall be
used to pay the salaries of more

[[Page H3393]]

than sixty Transportation Security Administration employees
who have the authority to designate documents as Sensitive
Security Information (SSI). In addition, $10,000,000 is not
available for the Department-wide Office of Security until
the Secretary submits to the Committee on Appropriations of
the House of Representatives: (1) the titles of all documents
currently designated as SSI; (2) Department-wide policies on
SSI designation; (3) Department-wide SSI designation auditing
policies and procedures; and (4) the total number of staff
and offices authorized to designate SSI documents within the
Department.
Sec. 535. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be
used to change the name of the Coast Guard Station ``Group
St. Petersburg''.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 55, line
25 be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment
at any point.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Kentucky?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Are there any points of order against any
pending portion of the bill?
If not, are there any amendments to this portion?

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Tancredo

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Tancredo:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. 536. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available in this Act may be used in contravention of section
642(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1373(a)).

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) reserves
a point of order.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would prevent State and
local governments who refuse to share information with Federal
immigration authorities from being able to obtain Federal funds under
this act. These so-called ``sanctuary'' policies are not only misguided
and dangerous; they are also illegal.
Section 642(a) of the illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 already makes it illegal for State and local
governments to prevent their police from interrupting the free exchange
of information between State and local police and Federal immigration
enforcement authorities. Nonetheless, many local governments adopt
policies that explicitly prevent their police officers from cooperating
with Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.
When local governments refuse to share information with Federal
immigration authorities, police departments often stop and/or arrest
criminal aliens time and again, only to release them without ever
having checked their immigration status. As a result, instead of being
deported, these aliens move on to commit other crimes oftentimes.
Earlier this month in Colorado, for example, one Denver policeman was
killed and another severely wounded by an illegal alien who had come
into contact with police in Denver at least three times prior to the
incident. He remains at large today.
Another illegal alien in the Denver area who is now awaiting trial
for a hit-and-run killing of a man, and he had been arrested, by the
way, six times since 1996 and even spent time in jail in Boulder,
Colorado, a sanctuary city, by the way; yet, because cooperation
between police departments and Immigration and Customs Enforcement was
restricted, he was never reported. He goes on trial in July.
The city of Denver, like many other cities, has a sanctuary policy
that violates Federal law. Their police manual explicitly prohibits
officers from initiating actions whose objective is to ``discover the
immigration status of a person.'' The manual also prohibits police from
detaining or taking any enforcement action against a person ``solely
because he or she is suspected of being an undocumented immigrant.''
These two components of city policy not only prohibit local police
from communicating with immigration authorities as required by Federal
law, the policy prohibits them from obtaining basic information that
might be central to their investigation. The policy sends a clear
message to local police when they encounter illegal aliens: don't ask,
don't tell. That kind of policy violates both the letter and intent of
the 1996 law.
My amendment would put an end to this practice by withholding Federal
funds from States and localities that have made an affirmative choice
to violate Federal law. In essence, the amendment simply says that if
you make a choice to violate Federal law, then you are making a choice
to forego Federal funds. It is a choice I think that few cities are
willing to make.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, under my reservation, would the gentleman
yield?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman insist on his point of order?
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I will continue to reserve my point of order,
and I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to have the gentleman explain the
amendment to me. What is it that somebody at the Federal level has to
do?
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, at the Federal level a determination
would be made as to whether or not a city has the policies that we have
just identified; and if so, then that city would be prohibited from
obtaining Federal funds under this act.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, who would make this
determination?
Mr. TANCREDO. The Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland
Security. It is really not up to me to make that decision.
Mr. SABO. How would they know how to make this judgment?
Mr. TANCREDO. Many of these policies are on record; in fact, all of
them are on record throughout the country. They are easily obtainable
and observable.
Mr. SABO. How would they proceed to make this judgment?
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, if they can read, they can make the
judgment.
Mr. SABO. Are all these laws filed with the Justice Department and
the Department of Homeland Security?
Mr. TANCREDO. Well, they are certainly, again, available to every
single person in the Department of Justice and Homeland Security
because they are printed. These are all laws and/or executive orders.
This requires no new determination.
Mr. SABO. So they know today?
Mr. TANCREDO. Absolutely.
Mr. SABO. If any town is doing this?
Mr. TANCREDO. Yes, sir.
Mr. SABO. Is there some registry of that?
Mr. TANCREDO. Well, as I have just explained, in city after city,
and, in fact, not too long ago if memory serves me right, the State of
Maine actually declared itself to be a sanctuary State. These are not
things that are hidden from anybody. These are, in fact, on the books
in States in their localities to which we refer. The stuff I used here
came right out of the Denver police manual. These are not hidden from
anybody.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I know they are not hidden, but somebody has
to find out. I have no idea how many endless grants they are making.
The departments make an endless number of grants, and some of them flow
to the State which then flow to local governments. In other cases, some
go directly to ports.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, perhaps the
gentleman's concern goes back to the law.
What I am talking about is adding a penalty to the law. The law is on
the books; I am not creating law here. The law is a Federal law; it was
passed in 1996. The only thing we are doing is adding some sort of
penalty to the violation of the law. So the fact that we have had it
now for almost 10 years, it seems to me that we are not creating any
new problem for any of these departments, and if the gentleman is
concerned about the law itself, then that is where he should perhaps
address his concerns.

Point of Order

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.

[[Page H3394]]

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I think, clearly, as the author of the
amendment says, he clearly is legislating on an appropriations bill
and, therefore, violating clause 2 of rule XI. By his most recent
statement, he is expanding penalties for the existing law.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does anyone else wish to be heard on the point
of order?
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, once again, we are not expanding the law
in any way, shape, or form. We are simply applying a penalty. That does
not expand the law.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does anyone else wish to be heard on the point
of order?
The Chair is prepared to rule.
The language of the amendment merely requires the Federal official
administering these funds to comply with Federal law. A new duty is not
required on the face of the amendment. Therefore, the point of order is
overruled and the amendment is in order.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
This is an amendment I think we voted on several years ago, in some
variety of it.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Minnesota
strikes the requisite number of words.
There was no objection.

{time} 1545

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I have no idea what the full impact of this
amendment will be. We voted on it, I think, in the last 2 or 3 years. I
think generally it has lost by a significant number of votes. What its
impact on local governments is, I think is unpredictable. There are
hundreds and thousands of different local units of government,
potentially receiving aid under this bill, which we would cut off
because of their failure to give some information to the Federal
Government.
I just think it is a totally wrong focus on what our problems are in
this country. We have real problems with immigration. The real problems
relate to how we deal with our borders. The real problem deals with how
we deal with undocumented people in this country who have violated
criminal laws of this country.
And to start harassing every unit of government, large or small,
depending on what information they send to the Federal Government,
tying that to they are eligible for funding to deal with basic homeland
security in this country, I think is just a serious mistake. I would
hope the House would reject this amendment.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
amendment being offered by Congressman Tancredo. The amendment does not
only target victims of crime, it is dangerous to the very security of
our homeland. This amendment coerces state and local police officers to
step into the role of federal immigration agents. And if they do not
assume this responsibility--they are punished.
I ask--who benefits from such a system? Does such a system mean safer
streets? No. As the son of a New York City police officer, I am very
aware of the importance of trust between local police and the
communities they serve. If an immigrant fears talking to police--there
will be fewer reported crimes, fewer witnesses offering information,
and more dangerous streets for all of us. Does this amendment mean
better national security? No. Under this amendment, foreign nationals
who might otherwise be helpful to security investigations will only be
more reluctant to come forward. Does this amendment mean better
communication between localities, states, and the Department of
Homeland Security? No. Cities with these quote-unquote ``sanctuary
policies'' are already often the ones who communicate with DHS most
regularly--to deal with foreign nationals who have committed crimes.
Does this amendment mean crime victims will be better protected?
Sadly, no. Crime victims who unfortunately happen to be immigrants will
fear their immigration status might be called into question, and will
avoid stepping forward to seek justice. So who benefits from this
amendment? People who don't like immigrants and people who mean our
country serious harm. Instead of working to support the efforts of
state and local police. Instead of working to make reasonable
improvements to our immigration system. Instead of state and local
governments being able to decide which policies allow them to best
``serve and protect'' their communities. Instead--we get an amendment
that pushes people further underground, leaving our cities even more
vulnerable to terrorist threats. If some are interested in scapegoating
hard-working immigrants across the US who contribute to our country,
schools, cities, and tax base every day--then at the very least we
should avoid jeopardizing our homeland security in the process. A
``yes'' vote on this amendment is a vote for Osama bin Laden; a ``no''
vote is a vote for America.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this very un-American and very dangerous
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. (Mr. Shimkus) The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. Tancredo) will be postponed.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia:
At the end of section 516, add the following:

Provided further, That this section shall cease to be
effective at such time as the President has selected a single
agency to conduct security clearance investigations pursuant
to section 3001(c) of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-458; 50 U.S.C. 435b)
and the entity selected under section 3001(b) of such Act has
reported to Congress that the agency selected pursuant to
such section 3001(c) is capable of conducting all necessary
investigations in a timely manner or has authorized the
entities within the Department of Homeland Security covered
by this section to conduct their own investigations pursuant
to section 3001 of such Act.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, there is a very serious
government-wide backlog of security clearance investigations which has
caused unacceptable delays in the process. This threatens national
security, and it costs taxpayers a lot of money. Because there are so
few security clearances and so much work to do, we are overpaying
people because of the work. It is just the law of supply and demand.
This backlog is the result of poorly designed management structures
and a lack of clearance reciprocity. As a result the Committee on
Government Reform, which I chair, held a hearing, and we authored
legislation that was included in the 9/11 Act to address the structural
problems that plague the security clearance system throughout the
government.
Given the longevity of this problem, it is understandable that
government agencies and Congressional committees have sought out their
own ways to try to avoid bottlenecks in clearance processes.
Section 516 of this bill is just such a work-around. It gives DHS the
authority to continue to conduct clearance investigations for itself
because government-wide it continues to be very dysfunctional.
The 9/11 Act reforms addressed the managerial chaos that has plagued
security clearance policy by creating a new oversight authority for all
Federal security clearance policy. Although this new oversight entity
will likely grant a number of agencies the authority to continue to
conduct their own investigations, it will also be responsible for
developing and enforcing consistent standards for investigations across
government. We need to give it a chance to do that.
Under this amendment, the Congressionally mandated oversight
authority will be responsible for ensuring that investigations for DHS
security clearances are done in the most timely and efficient manner
once the 9/11 Act reforms take effect, once they take effect. This will
keep us on the path to security clearance process reform for all
agencies and safeguard both national security and the pocketbooks of
the American taxpayer.
I would ask all Members to support this amendment.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, before the gentleman from
Virginia yields back, let me say that the

[[Page H3395]]

gentleman has brought forth a very important matter, and it is a matter
that he, as chairman of his authorizing committee, has worked with us
and our staff over the last several weeks very admirably, and I
appreciate the willingness of the chairman to work with us in this, and
we were happy to work with him.
So I am prepared to accept the amendment, with the congratulations to
the chairman, and thanks for his great work in this respect.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I want
to thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and I want to thank
the minority for working with us. I understand their frustration.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, it is a good amendment. Hopefully we will
adopt it.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I ask Members to support the
amendment.
The Acting Chairman. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and engage in
a colloquy with the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman
of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. Chairman, again, I want to express my gratitude to the chairman
of the Appropriations subcommittee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Rogers), who has done such a great job on this H.R. 2360, the
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year
2006.
As you know, I had planned to raise a point of order on section 524,
which directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to implement a
security plan to permit general aviation at Ronald Reagan National
Airport as legislating on an appropriations bill. However, I did not do
that because I think we share the same intent.
And the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) has put a provision
here in section 524 that does require a plan. However, I think the
chairman is aware and realizes that the committee bill passed; that is,
the Committee on Transportation bill. In our Subcommittee on Aviation's
work done on it, H.R. 1496 has even tougher language directing the
opening of Ronald Reagan National Airport. That is our intent, and
working with the appropriators, I believe that it will be your intent
to also include a strong provision and directive provision in
conference, or as this bill proceeds.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MICA. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Mica), chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation, for
his valued work in this and many, many areas. We agree on 99 percent of
the things that we work on. This is one of them. That is the opening of
Reagan Airport to limited general aviation aircraft, as you and I both
have for the last 3 years been talking with the Department and other
agencies downtown about the need to reopen that airport, at least on a
limited basis to general aviation aircraft, and they keep promising a
plan, a plan, a plan, and it has been 3 years. And, you know, we won
World War II in 4 years, and we can't even think about reopening an
airport here in these 3 years.
So it is time to do something, and so in our bill, Mr. Chairman, we
direct the Department to bring a plan forward and reopen that airport
in 90 days after enactment of this act. And I know that is authorizing
language. But I appreciate the gentleman who has jurisdiction over this
issue letting us do this at this point in time, because I think he and
I share the same view.
We may not be able to pass an authorization bill during the year, so
this is sort of a backup procedure. And if you pass an authorization
bill dealing with the subject, we will happily stand back and take
second fiddle.
Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman, and in spite of the incident that we
had last week, and that was not a planned scheduled arrival, it was a
departure from what we are talking about and properly opening National
Airport to general aviation, I think, again working together, that we
can find a plan that will work and not let the terrorists intimidate us
in operating our Nation's capital airport.
Thank you.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I think probably what the gentleman and
myself have been talking about is a plan that reopens that airport at
least to charter aircraft who would undergo the same security rigmarole
that commercial airliners do today: Background check of the crew and
passengers, background check of the owner of the plane, searching
passengers' baggage as we do commercial passengers, the same rigmarole
that we go on through on commercial passengers today on commercial
craft.
Is that the gentleman's understanding?
Mr. MICA. Except for too much rigmarole, I think that we are on the
same page. Again I thank you for your cooperation and your leadership,
and together I think we will have a chance to open with a sensible,
safe, secure plan to general aviation our Nation's capital airport.

Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Poe

Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Poe:
At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the
following (and conform the table of contents of the bill
accordingly):
Sec. 509. None of the funds made available under this Act
may be used to carry out section 105(a)(4) and (5) of the
Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001 (49 U.S.C.
44917(a)(4) and (5)).

Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I applaud the chairman for this
bill to better protect America. I would, however, like to highlight an
unfunded Federal security mandate on the already struggling airline
industry. The airline industry is an important sector of the American
economy, with increasing fuel costs and taxes, though the industry lost
$9.1 billion last year alone and has lost $32 billion since September
11, 2001.
Currently taxes and fees comprise 26 percent of an average $200
airplane ticket. While the Federal Government has taken over much of
the security for airlines after the terrorist attacks of September 11,
airlines are still paying $777 million annually out of their own pocket
for unfunded Federal security mandates, such as catering security,
security for checkpoints and exit lanes, and first flight cabin sweeps.
The people loading the peanuts, for example, the airlines are forced
to expend $81 million on not only their salaries, but the security
checks on these caterers, the people who mark your ticket up with the
red crayon at the checkpoint and exit lanes. Airlines, not the
government, dispense $79 million on these folks, and the first class
cabin sweep crew that inspects the plane prior to boarding, the people
who check for bombs in the bathrooms, airlines pay $26 million for
them. Perhaps the most and largest unfunded mandate, however, is the
Federal Air Marshal Service, which costs the airlines $195 million each
year.
Under current law, Federal air marshals are permitted to fly without
a cost to the Federal Government or the marshal. Air marshals fly to
better protect the cockpit. The Air Transport Association estimates the
airlines are losing $195 million a year in opportunity costs by losing
these seats.
Continental Airlines, for example, the carrier based out of Houston,
Texas, part of which is in my Congressional district, loses between $7
and $9 million in displaced revenue annually. This estimate reflects
losses not from being able to sell the Federal air marshal's seat at
full fare. Moreover, Continental will pay the Department of Homeland
Security $239 million in taxes in 2005 and is currently paying another
$312 million in unfunded security mandates.
So my amendment would simply prohibit funds being spent in the bill
to support this unfunded Federal security mandate that allows the
Federal Air Marshal Service to fly for free. The Federal Government has
deemed aviation security a national security issue, as it is. It is
only fair that the government fully assume these costs, and not saddle
them on the airlines.

[[Page H3396]]

In fact, at least two laws signed in the past two sessions have
provisions that support Congressional intent for the Federal Government
to reasonably pay for aviation security costs. Both the Aviation and
Transportation Security Act and Vision 100, the Century of Aviation
Reauthorization Act, authorized funds for reimbursement of airport
security mandates.
The Poe amendment preserves the ability of Federal air marshals to
fly on our airlines, protect our passengers and crew, but it would
allow the carriers to charge the government a fare. Airlines like
Continental support this amendment because it would enable them to
collect a minimal fare, the government fare or the lowest fare
available upon booking for Federal air marshal seats.
Mr. Chairman, some may argue that it is the airline's responsibility
to provide for security, and they are partially correct. Already
airlines cough up scores of dollars to comply with Federal regulations.
The Federal Airline Administration reports that full deployment of
hardened cockpit doors meeting outlined specifications have been
implemented on about 10,000 passenger airlines and foreign aircraft
flying to and the from the United States. Expenditures on video
monitors and other devices to alert pilots to cabin activity as well as
guns in the cockpit are just a few of the other efforts undertaken by
the airline industry, all of which are in addition to the hundreds of
millions of dollars they incur in unfunded Federal security mandates.
We must bring some relief to these carriers by reducing these
unfunded Federal mandates that they are expected to pay out of their
pocket. I urge my colleagues to help preserve this vital industry and
start by supporting my amendment to allow airlines to collect the
minimal government fare on seats filled by Federal air marshals.

{time} 1600

We want to keep the airlines flying and help them before they are in
a situation of bankruptcy.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, we have 50,000 employees in the Transportation Security
Administration, and they make it safe to fly on airlines. The United
States Government is paying the bill.
We have hundreds of millions of dollars worth of x-ray machines that
we have put in every airport in the country to be sure that the people
flying the airlines are safe. Uncle Sam is paying the bill.
I could go on. The airlines requested that we have marshals on board
airplanes so they can say it is safe to their customers for flying on
airlines. Uncle Sam pays the bill.
The law says that if we put these marshals on airplanes that the
airline will pay their fare or not charge the fare. It does not cost
the government anything to do it because it is a service that we are
providing. And who pays the salaries of the marshals? Uncle Sam.
Now, they come and say, oh, but you have got to pay a first-class fee
for this air marshal, protecting your plane, to fly on your plane? Give
me a break.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I will give the gentleman a break. I totally
agree with the gentleman.
The biggest benefactor of all the airline security is the airline
industry. Something happened post-9/11. We had to provide billions of
dollars to loan guarantees to keep them operating.
I recall where many speeches on the new Transportation Security
Agency was it was going to be fully paid for. I think over half of the
money comes from general revenue today.
I find this amendment sort of unbelievable that the airlines would
want us to do this. I totally agree with the gentleman. This amendment
should be defeated.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
First of all, Mr. Chairman, I think one of the assets or structures
that we have on this floor is to respect a Member's good intention; and
my colleague from Texas, I want to acknowledge his good intentions. I
would hope that we would have an opportunity to work through the
concern expressed here.
But I rise to express my support for the U.S. air marshals and the
hard work or heavy lifting that they do on the Nation's airlines every
single day and in the Nation's airports. They are not supposed to be
noticed, but those of us who happen to be frequent fliers are aware of
their service, and they are ready and prepared on some of the more
difficult flights that we have, coming to certain regions in the United
States.
I would only hope that as we debate this amendment in the midst of
fees and expense that I know is borne by our airlines, that we think
about the service of these men and women in particular that confront
dangers on our behalf on the Nation's airlines.
So I would beg to differ with the gentleman's amendment because I
stand in support of the air marshals, and I would hope that there could
be some response to the cost, some way of adding or eliminating the
burden that our airlines face; but I could not imagine us suffering the
loss of these air marshals which we determined were important to us
after 9/11. Even though we have given enhanced equipment on airlines,
more training to pilots, we are attempting to train our airlines or
flight stewards, and we are doing a better job, though it is not a
requirement. I believe airlines are doing a better job of informing and
training their flight stewards and flight attendants, but I still
believe that our flights are better and safer for marshals' existence.
I would hope that our colleagues would act accordingly in reference
to this amendment, and I would ask that they support the air marshals
in this instance because I believe their work is extremely important.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The gentleman from Texas, I am sure, has an excellent intention and
is interested in helping the airlines. Some of them are struggling, and
we do need to help the airlines; but sometimes the airlines do not even
help themselves.
I would rise in strong opposition to this amendment. There is
probably no economic activity that we support in this country more than
our commercial airlines. The chairman has correctly pointed out, 4.5,
almost $6 billion in this legislation is for passenger screening, of
which we only collect less than half of that. We have a $2 billion-plus
shortage that the general taxpayer is paying.
If this amendment was crafted so that we charged the airlines for
putting the air marshal on, I might agree with my colleague because we
have a shortfall.
I also stated earlier, the airlines came before the Subcommittee on
Aviation when we crafted the TSA bill and pledged to pay it $1 billion.
That is what they said they would pay if we took away from the
airlines, who had that responsibility, the responsibility for passenger
screening. Do my colleagues know what they paid last year? Let me
repeat it again, $315 million, a shortfall of almost $700 million. So I
will be darned if I am going to stand here and support an amendment
that would in any way reimburse them for the great expenses.
Look at the event of last week. Not only do we have the apparent
expenses; we spent some $20 billion on passenger screening on a system
that I have great questions about, but we have also spent billions of
dollars in training the pilots to be armed. I supported that program, I
promoted that program; but most of those pilots do not go at airline
expense. They go at their own expense, spend a week of their time. They
are not reimbursed; and now we will have more pilots armed on our
aircraft this year than we will have air marshals. They are not getting
a darn penny for reimbursement.
So, again, I think we have gone over backwards. We spent $5 billion
we appropriated for reimbursements for damages directly related to the
events of September 11 to our major airlines. We gave them another $3
billion. Some of that they deserve; some of that they did not deserve
in reimbursement. Then we set up a $10 billion loan guarantee fund, of
which they only used about $2 billion; but we have done everything, and
now they refuse to do anything to help us.

[[Page H3397]]

They cannot even collect an additional fee. They are collecting
$2.50. I said if we put in a high-tech system, that would double the
security fee but get rid of half of the screeners in 3 years, and allow
them to keep all $300 million they are now paying and up to a half a
billion dollars. They cannot even do the math to keep that money. So I
will be darned if I will get up and support giving them one more penny
when they will not pay their own fair share.
So I think the amendment is well intended. I salute the gentleman for
trying to help the aviation industry. I will join with him, but this is
not the vehicle; and it is not the reimbursement that we should be
providing in this appropriations measure.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Shimkus). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Poe) will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Meeks of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Meeks of New York:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. 536. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available in this Act may be used to close any detention
facility operated by or on behalf of U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement that has been operational in 2005.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that
debate on this amendment, and any amendments thereto, be limited to 10
minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the
opponent.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Kentucky?
There was no objection.
Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I rise today to urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment, which I
hope will cease the recent actions of the Department of Homeland
Security's Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement to begin
closing the only secure detention center in New York City for
noncriminal foreign nationals who enter our country illegally.
Closing this facility and releasing these individuals into the
streets, as ICE is beginning to do, without conducting a proper
screening, endangers the safety and security of New York City. The
Queens detention facility has been utilized by ICE and its predecessor,
INS, since 1989. Located within 4 miles of John F. Kennedy
International Airport, the facility houses and processes detainees
until their status can be determined. ICE oftentimes cannot properly
classify a person as ``high risk'' or ``low risk'' at the initial
questioning at John F. Kennedy Airport. Only after an investigation,
while the individual is detained, can ICE determine whether the
individual poses a threat. If it is determined that the entrant has
criminal intent, they are transferred to a more secure facility for
follow-up.
For example, a co-conspirator in the first World Trade Center bombing
slipped through ICE's initial questioning at JFK and was subsequently
identified by Queens detention facility personnel as a high-risk
individual after they discovered bomb-making plans on this individual.
Consequently, many high-risk individuals slip through the cracks
initially and are only later identified as high-risk while they are in
custody at the Queens detention facility.
In a recent correspondence, my colleagues and I who represent New
York City urged the director of ICE, who may become our city's next
U.S. Attorney, to halt its efforts to close the only secure noncriminal
detention facility in New York City. We know this is New York City now,
but it could be where any noncriminal detention facility is in the
United States tomorrow; and in this day and age in which we currently
live in, we have got to make sure that we are sure that individuals who
have entered illegally into this country, that we may have detained, we
have got to dot every I and cross every T to make sure we rely on no
one to slip through the process.
So to just close what is happening at this facility now, right next
to JFK in my district, to just close it in the manner in which they are
closing it, just releasing people on the streets, at times we talk
about how are you communicating with the individuals that are being
released. It is simply by telephonic measures, not even by ankle
bracelets or anything else. It endangers the entire population of New
York; and I say if it is New York City today, it could be anywhere in
the United States of America tomorrow.
So I ask and urge my colleagues to support this amendment which will
ensure that this essential facility which serves a vital role in New
York City, as well as the country's first line of defense, remain open.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
This amendment unnecessarily limits ICE's ability to efficiently
manage the limited detention bed space that it has. The fluid nature of
enforcement actions by ICE and changing migration patterns around the
country mean that demands for detention space across the country
changes from day to day, week to week, month to month, year to year.
This bill stresses efficiency and maximizing our limited resources.
This amendment would prevent ICE from closing inefficient or unneeded
facilities.
This bill already requires a report from the Department on its
detention management strategy; and until we see the result of that
report, I think this amendment is premature.
We do not like to handcuff an agency without having all of the
relevant information on the issue; but I would hate to see us say to
ICE, you cannot close any facility ever because it changes the
migration patterns of illegal immigration changes from day to day.
So I would urge that we defeat the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Let me just say that what we are looking at right now, the situation
where ICE is moving in my district, in this particular facility and the
next clearly in the immigration pattern in New York is one where it is
very high, coming through John F. Kennedy, which is the gateway to
America, if you will.
So when we have a facility like the facility that is currently in the
district, to close it without any rationale or reason, then I think
that we are defeating ourselves and defeating the security that is
necessary to prevent people who enter this country illegally, some who
could be very dangerous, from just walking the streets of the City of
New York.

{time} 1615

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Shimkus). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Meeks) will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Tiahrt

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Tiahrt:
At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the
following:
Sec. 536. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to promulgate regulations without consideration of
the effect of such regulations on the competitiveness of
American businesses.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on
the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I believe that the content of this
amendment

[[Page H3398]]

should be a part of the debate that we are having on every agency that
we are going to fund this year through the Federal budget. Over the
last generation, this government has made this country less and less
competitive through the regulatory process.
If you look to last year, last year we had a $670 billion trade
deficit. Our Federal budget deficit grew and we saw a lot of
outsourcing of jobs. Well, if you combine that with what we are seeing
happen across the world, pointed out by Thomas Friedman in his book
``The World is Flat,'' China is graduating 350,000 engineers every
year. India is graduating 80,000 software engineers. They are
attempting to create an Asian Union, which would be an economy of about
3 billion people.
The world is becoming more and more competitive, and part of the
reason that we are becoming less and less competitive, part of the
reason why we are seeing this trade deficit is because of our
regulatory process. But it just does not stop there. We also have
problems with litigation, and we need to reform our system because
right now the lawsuits are driving up the cost of American products. A
good example of how this could change is when common sense limits are
put on litigation, such as the statute of repose, where the aircraft
industry accepted through the legislation common sense limits on
liability and 4,000 jobs were created the very next year. We could
apply that to other industries.
Our health care system needs to be reformed. Today, in Kansas, for
every hour of health care it takes an hour to comply with regulations,
actually, more than an hour, 1.1 hours, on average, of regulatory
compliance.
We need to reform our tax policy, our education policy, and our trade
policy. We need to have research and development enhancements and we
need regulatory reform. Regulatory reform can be a biting part of our
government that can stop and stall the economic progress.
If you look at the current regulatory burden on businesses today,
about 12 percent of the cost of any product is buried in complying with
regulations. If we could cut that in half, we would be at least 5 to 6
percent more competitive worldwide.
So if we are going to find solutions to balancing our trade deficit,
to balancing our Federal budget, and to start bringing jobs into
America instead of seeing them outsourced out of America, we need to
look at every agency and not promulgate regulations that conflict with
the competitiveness of American businesses.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to see if the chairman of the Homeland
Security Subcommittee thinks we could work together to see that we do
not get regulations that would be overly burdensome on American
businesses through the Department of Homeland Security. Does the
gentleman think he could help me with that task?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TIAHRT. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has brought up a
very important point, and I would be delighted to work with the
gentleman. He is a valued member of our committee and, on top of that,
he is a very hard worker. So I would be happy to work with the
gentleman.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for those good words
and, hopefully, through the effort of our combined work we can make
sure we do not have any overly burdensome regulations.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Kansas?
There was no objection.

Vacating Demand for Recorded Vote on Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr.
Poe

Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my demand
for a recorded vote on my amendment No. 10 to the end that it stand
rejected by voice vote thereon.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Obey:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. (a) The amounts otherwise provided in this Act for
the following accounts are hereby increased by the following
sums:
(1) ``Customs and Border Protection--Salaries and
Expenses'', $95,000,000.
(2) ``Customs and Border Protection--Construction'',
$25,000,000.
(3) ``Immigration and Customs Enforcement--Salaries and
Expenses'', $266,000,000.
(4) ``Federal Law Enforcement Training Center--Salaries and
Expenses'', $9,000,000.
(5) ``Federal Law Enforcement Training Center--
Acquisitions, Construction, Improvements, and Related
Expenses'', $5,000,000.
(b) For the Secretary of Homeland Security to make grants
pursuant to section 204 of the REAL ID Act of 2005 (Pub. L.
109-13, div. B) to assist States in conforming with minimum
drivers' license standards, there is hereby appropriated
$100,000,000.
(c) In the case of taxpayers with adjusted gross income in
excess of $1,000,000 for calendar year 2006, the amount of
tax reduction resulting from enactment of the Economic Growth
and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (Pub. L. 107-16)
and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003
(Pub. L. 108-27) shall be reduced by 1.562 percent.

Mr. OBEY (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, if this is the REAL ID with tax
offset amendment, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's
amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me explain what this is. We have had a
steady stream of Members for weeks now decrying the fact we just do not
have enough resources to do the job we ought to be doing in homeland
security or in transportation or in education or in health care or any
other endeavor of the Federal Government. The fact is that we do not
have those needed available resources because the Members of this House
have put themselves in a box. They have done that by, in essence,
saying that their number one priority above all others is to provide
very large tax cuts for people very high up on the income scale.
Example: This year if you make over $1 million you will get, on
average, about a $140,000 tax cut. What I am trying to do here today is
to do two things. I am trying to, first of all, help the Congress keep
the promises that it made just 6 months ago. Therefore, this amendment
would provide an additional $500 million to the Department of Homeland
Security to meet the staffing and detention bed space increases that
were called for in the Intelligence Reform Act and to allow States to
meet the driver's license standards that were just imposed on those
States by this Congress 2 weeks ago.
So my amendment is simple. First of all, it adds 500 more people to
the Border Patrol. Second, it adds 600 people to the immigration
inspector workforce. And thirdly, it adds 4,000 more detention beds so
that we can keep the promises laid out in the Intelligence Reform bill.
Finally, we would fund the grant program that is authorized by the
REAL ID Act, which the Congress attached a couple of weeks ago. I did
not support that act. I did not vote for it. It was attached as a
nongermane amendment to the appropriations bill. But we are told by the
Congressional Budget Office it will cost about $100 million to
implement. We are told by the Council of State Legislative Leaders it
will cost $500 million to implement. That is a huge mandate however you
slice it that we are laying on the backs of State budgets.
So what I am simply suggesting is we can do both of these things by
simply scaling back by a tiny amount that super-sized tax cut for
people with super-sized incomes of over $1 million. We would simply cut
that average $140,000 tax cut to $138,000, and we would have more than
enough to fund these operations.
The Committee on Rules did not allow this amendment to be made in
order. That means that the only way it can be considered is if no one
raises a point of order against it. I would hope they would not do so.
This is a minor adjustment that we would make in the super-sized tax
cuts in order to provide significantly more security for the entire
country. I think it is worth the investment, and I would urge support
for

[[Page H3399]]

the amendment, assuming that no one decides to lodge a point of order
against the amendment.

Point of Order

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against
the amendment because its proposes to change existing law and
constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill and, therefore,
violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part ``an
amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if
changing existing law.''
This amendment changes the application of existing law, and I ask for
a ruling from the Chair.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I must concede that under the rule that
brought this bill to the floor, this amendment is not in order. I
regret it. I think the country would be a whole lot better off if we
passed the amendment. But I concede the point of order.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained.
The amendment is not in order.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Obey:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. For the Secretary of Homeland Security to make
grants pursuant to section 204 of the REAL ID Act of 2005
(Pub. L. 109-13, div. B) to assist States in conforming with
minimum drivers' license standards there is hereby
appropriated; and the amounts otherwise provided by this Act
for ``Office of the Secretary and Executive Management'' ,
``Office of the Under Secretary for Management'', ``Office of
the Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security--
Salaries and Expenses'', ``Information Analysis and
Infrastructure Protection--Management and Administration'',
and ``Science and Technology--Research, Development,
Acquisition and Operations'', are hereby reduced by;
$100,000,000, $20,000,000, $20,000,000, $2,000,000,
$8,000,000, and $50,000,000, respectively.

Mr. OBEY (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that
debate on this amendment and any amendments thereto be limited to 20
minutes to be equally divided between the proponents and myself, the
opponent.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This is a scaled-back version of the first amendment I just offered.
It does not have the tax offset. It is fully offset by other reductions
in this bill, and what it tries to do is to correct the problem that I
cited just a moment ago.
Just 2 weeks ago, this House passed a nongermane proposal which
established an elaborate and convoluted and Rube Goldberg process by
which every American will have to obtain their driver's license in the
future. It is going to require added security arrangements for every
office that issues State driver's licenses if those licenses are going
to be allowed to serve as an ID card when climbing on an airplane. It
provides substantial additional duties which will be imposed on States
and be imposed on the Department of Homeland Security itself.
Now, I do not know whose cost estimate is correct. I do not know
whether the Congressional Budget Office is correct when it says that
this will only be an unfunded mandate of $100 million or whether the
National Conference of State Legislative Leaders is correct when they
say that the unfunded mandate will amount to about $500 million in
cost. But for the moment, in deference to my conservative friends on
the other side of the aisle, I am assuming the conservative estimate of
cost is the accurate one, the one laid out by the Congressional Budget
Office.
So I am simply urging that we in fact provide for the States grant
program that was authorized in that REAL ID proposal that the majority
was so anxious to bring to the House floor just 2 weeks ago. We in the
minority had nothing to do with the writing. We in the minority were
not consulted on the language. We in the minority were not consulted
about the idea of imposing another mandate. We were just told ``take it
or leave it.'' And so it is now the law of the land.
Now, I am not in any way reducing accounts below last year's funding
level. All we are doing is reducing some of the Secretary's management
accounts by a portion of the increases that this bill provides.

{time} 1630

The science and technology account, for instance, is being reduced by
$50 million of the $55 million increase. That still leaves a small
increase.
The Office of Secretary Executive Management will still retain a $7
million increase.
I think we have hard choices to make, and I am not afraid to suggest
that I think it is a better use of resources to put this money where
the amendment tries to put it to at least keep the majority consistent
with its promise in the Contract With America, the good old Contract
With America which Congress passed 10 years ago and promised that there
would be no more unfunded mandates.
I am just trying to help keep a Republican promise, and I am sure I
will have enthusiastic support of Members on the majority side of the
aisle.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition
to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Shimkus). The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Rogers) is recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, no one knows at this point in time what this is going
to cost. We only passed it 2 or 3 weeks ago. No one has any idea at
this point in time what it is going to cost us or States or locals or
whomever. I think it is premature at this point in time to take up this
amendment. At some point in time during this year before we go to
conference, we are probably going to have to deal with this question.
But there is just nothing there to give us any idea. Estimates run from
$5 million to $100 million, depending on who is asked.
The REAL ID Act authorized such appropriations as necessary to help
States make their driver's licenses and other documents more secure for
ID purposes. But there has been no time, as I have said, to fully
assess the funding required in the first year of the program. DHS is
not prepared to move forward quickly. I think the $100 million is
absolutely premature. The CBO estimate is only $40 million in fiscal
year 2006, not $100 million. The committee has not seen any of the
estimates from the Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators which
probably knows more about this issue than anybody.
There already exists certain interstate driver's license databases
which perhaps could be used and save money which operate on the basis
of multistate compacts. These systems currently in existence should be
examined to assess their potential to expand or serve as models for a
nationwide database. It may be that many costs assumed in the CBO
estimate can be avoided by leveraging these systems. We do not need to
reinvent the wheel.
And then, Mr. Chairman, the offsets the gentleman's amendment would
cut into are very undesirable. Cutting these programs would be very
unwise. The IAIP agency has already been reduced $11 million for
failure to submit reports to the Congress. Any further reduction could
impact information sharing with State and local agencies conducting
vulnerability assessments and construction and renovation of space for
the directorate.
A cut to Science and Technology may have a direct linkage to the
success of other programs. For instance, a cut to the Office of
Interoperability and Communications can greatly impact the
effectiveness of resources spent on first responder grants. In every
war effort, it is easier to fund soldiers than science because what
soldiers do is obvious; what science does is not. However, like the
development of the tank in World War I and the development of the
atomic bomb in World

[[Page H3400]]

War II, science can profoundly influence the outcome.
There is reason to believe that homeland security science can have a
similar success on the war on terror. We cannot cut the Office of the
Secretary. It is a tempting target, but it has already been hit by
everybody in the room. Their office is only $133-plus million, and
significant reductions will negatively affect their operations. The
office is largely salaries and expenses, and cuts will result in fewer
people attempting to deal with an increasing workload. Fewer people
means DHS will have less time to respond to Congressional inquiries,
for example.
We have been critical of the office, but it is this office that will
ultimately make the changes needed to make the Department work. They
are working on the new Secretary's second-stage review even as we
speak. So I hope we would not accept this amendment for the reason that
we do not know how much money we need to run this program this year. We
will find out as time goes by during the year. We can put money in the
conference at the end of the year as necessary. So let us not jump off
the cliff until we get to it.
Number two, this amendment would devastate the Department's
operations because it goes right to the heart of what they are doing. I
urge the defeat of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Let me get this straight. Two weeks after the majority party imposed
this huge new unfunded mandate and required that it be attached to the
defense appropriations supplemental to pay for the war in Iraq, we are
now told by the majority, gee, we do not have any idea what this is
going to cost. You mean you imposed a mandate without having any idea
what it was going to cost?
If we follow the logic of what the gentleman is saying, we will say
to the States, Congress had no idea what it was doing and so you are
going to pay the bill. That is what the gentleman has just said. I find
that mighty peculiar.
I urge an ``aye'' vote on this amendment. I want to make clear I did
not vote for REAL ID. I think it is a cockamamie idea, but it is now
the law of the land; and the question is, is the Federal Government
going to pay for what it mandated, or is it going to stick the cost on
the backs of local and State governments? I hope it is not the latter.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Sabo).
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me
this time.
First, let me ask the gentleman a question: Is not a significant
amount of the money that the gentleman is reducing consultant money?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, what we are doing is reducing the increase in
the amount of money that is in this bill for consultants.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
I am just afraid we are doing another miniature No Child Left Behind
in this law that we passed a couple of weeks ago. It is the Federal
Government again deciding how the States should run something that
States have historically done. States have historically issued driver's
licenses in this country. So now wise people in Washington are now
telling them how to do it. Again, we are not going to pay them money to
do it. Then we have all kinds of requirements that may or may not make
sense. They make sense to somebody who sits down here and writes law
who, I doubt, has ever administered the issuing of driver's licenses in
any State.
Sort of a repetition again in miniature scale of what we did in No
Child Left Behind. I think that is a law which is fraught with troubles
throughout the country. This is much smaller in scale, but we are
repeating the same thing that we did in that law. I think it is a
mistake. I think it is going to complicate life immensely for all of
our citizens as they go about the process of moving around this country
and getting new driver's licenses.
But at a minimum, we should be doing a significant part of the
funding to make sure we do not adversely impact all of the States by
this wisdom that we are sending down from Washington.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
As the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) pointed out, this
amendment is simply asking the Congress to stick to its promise in the
Contract With America, to not provide any more unfunded mandates. What
we are saying on this side of the aisle, we did not vote for this
turkey, but it is now law; and given that fact, we ought to at least
make sure this does not wind up on the backs of the States and local
governments. What we are saying is at least keep your commitment not to
load any more on the State and local property taxes, and let us pay for
this by simply reducing the size of the growth in consultants at the
Secretary's level. This is already a bloated, dysfunctional agency. We
are now going to be asked to provide very large increases to provide
more consultants. It seems to me that they can afford to get along with
a few less consultants so we can provide one less unfunded mandate in
State and local government.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of
my time.
The gentleman is right in the respect at some point in time we are
going to have to pay the bill. At this point in time, we have not
received a bill. We have no idea what the bill is going to be. We get
different estimates. Different people have different ideas, but there
has been no consensus reached on how much money is needed and to whom.
I assure Members in the due course of time when that information
comes to us, monies will be made available to pay for this program in
due course of time without hampering the agency, as this amendment
would do. I urge a ``no'' vote on the Obey amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey)
will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. 536. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be used to patrol the border of the
United States except as authorized by law.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply, as
stated, eliminates the opportunity for any resources to be utilized to
patrol the border of the United States except as authorized by law.
I spoke earlier today on the floor of the House about the frustration
Americans have with respect to the influx of illegal immigrants and
immigration and, of course, I also offered to my colleagues that we
must solve this problem in a bipartisan manner.
In respecting that frustration, I am respectful of those who have
taken up their own causes. One group happens to be the Minutemen.

{time} 1645

The Minuteman group has utilized their resources in Arizona and
expect to move their operations to Texas, New Mexico and California. I
would argue vigorously that these kinds of efforts can make a very
difficult and unsuitable atmosphere for the border.
Let me cite for you one of the individuals that is responsible for
the organization Minutemen speaking about the issues, for example, in
Texas:
If the Minutemen were to come to Texas, there are serious logistical
problems for patrols in Texas. Most of the

[[Page H3401]]

land along the Texas border is privately owned and some of it is
urbanized, unlike the open land the group monitored in Arizona. And the
same reports of drug violence that have scared some tourists away from
the south Texas region have become a concern for the Minutemen. ``The
Texas border is pretty dangerous right now,'' Chris Simcox said, who
heads the Minutemen. ``That won't scare the Arizona-based citizen
patrols away,'' he said, ``but it does mean they will be more careful
in planning their operations. Security becomes a serious issue because
we are going to be annoying a lot of people.''
This amendment is simple. What it says is that we have to protect the
Federal officers and other law enforcement officers that are entrusted
with the responsibility of immigration control in the United States of
America. That protection cannot give them the extra added burden using
resources to try to protect those who are acting in an unauthorized
way. This specifically states that we would not allow such funds to be
used in an unauthorized way.
Mr. Chairman, this proposal seeks to prevent the funding of increased
liability for the Federal Government, to prevent the incidental
injuring or killing of aliens, citizens, or volunteers, to prevent the
creation of a sad precedent of shirked Federal responsibility. The
purpose of the Jackson-Lee amendment is to control these issues before
they become problems. Last Sunday, May 15, 2005, I put the people of
the Eighteenth Congressional District and of the State of Texas on
notice that the ``Minuteman Project'' has proposed to enter our borders
in order to monitor for illegal border crossings.
I was joined on Sunday by Ms. Mabel Rogers, who is the President of
the American Federation of Government Employees, AFGE, Local No. 3332
for coming out to share her expertise in the area of border security
and the issues that can arise if groups such as the Minutemen attempt
to enforce immigration law.
In addition, I was joined by Ms. Adriana Fernandez, who leads the
Association for Residency and Citizenship of America, ARCA, right here
in the Eighteenth Congressional District of Houston, Texas for her
time, efforts, and more so for the passion that she exhibited in
bringing her colleagues to share their concerns in this matter.
The Minuteman Project has good intentions, but we object to the
potential negative social, legal, and economic impact that it can have
on the Texas borders.
The problem of porousness of the borders is a Federal Government
problem. It is a Department of Homeland Security, DHS, problem. DHS has
legal jurisdiction over the borders; therefore, it is DHS that must
address our border security needs.
An unofficial, untrained, and uncontrolled militia is the wrong
answer for a problem that is within the Federal Government's
responsibility. If the job is not being done sufficiently, we must look
to Congress and the executive branch to exercise oversight and to
improve performance.
The Minuteman Project is headed for the Texas borders, and their
presence will be the recipe for danger, conflict, and increased legal
enforcement costs for the Federal Government. The Houston Chronicle
reported on May 12 that the controversial group that began as a month-
long engagement along the Arizona border plans to enter Texas to
operate its hunt for illegal border crossings.
Other media and eyewitnesses have suggested that many of the
participants in the Minuteman Project have carried firearms, incited
retaliatory measures by gang members, incited more groups to organize
in a similar fashion along other American borders, and created a
situation that suggests potential constraints on the individual civil
rights of undocumented persons.
The arrival of this group to Texas is an example of what I feared
during its initial engagement during the month of April--propagation in
other borders. Empowerment of unofficial, untrained militia to carry
out the functions of the Federal Government instead of simply improving
the staffing situation at the Customs and Border Patrol and the
Immigration, Customs, and Enforcement Agencies is a dereliction of duty
and a condoning of potential vigilantism. I urge the Governor of Texas
to disinvite the Minuteman Project to the U.S.-Mexico border of Texas.
Several differences between the U.S.-Mexico border of Arizona and
Texas make it potentially injurious for the arrival of the Minutemen.
The traffic growth in Texas would dramatically increase the probability
of injury or death of aliens or other innocent civilians.
In 2001, U.S. Customs inspectors logged 3,133,619 cargo trucks as
they entered Texas border towns from Brownsville to El Paso, up from
1,897,888 commercial vehicles in fiscal year 1995, the year NAFTA took
effect. Furthermore, the topography at the Texas borders is more dense
and provides more places for people involved in violent disputes to
hide. In addition, even as the leader of the Minuteman Project stated
to the Houston Chronicle, `there are serious logistical problems for
patrols in Texas. Most of the land along the Texas border is privately
owned, and some of it is urbanized, unlike the open land the group
monitored in Arizona.'
What we need instead of a situation of potential violence, violation
of civil rights, and costs associated with restoring peace and security
at the borders is a comprehensive immigration plan like I proposed with
the introduction of my legislation, the `Save America Comprehensive
Immigration Act, H.R. 2092.'
As a member of the House Committees on the Judiciary and on Homeland
Security, I had the opportunity to actively participate in a markup
hearing for the ``Homeland Security Authorization Act for FY 2006, H.R.
1817.''
In the context of an amendment that I offered that called for studies
and analysis of the issue of border violence, I was able to obtain a
commitment from the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee to join
me and the ranking member in a bipartisan letter to the Department of
Homeland Security to direct it to gather information and to identify
the problems surrounding the contention reported at the locations
patrolled by volunteers.
Effective, efficient, and safe border security requires properly
trained personnel. We need to improve our Customs and Border Patrol and
Immigration and Customs Enforcement agencies rather than empower
militias to do their job. The enforcement job requires accountability,
training in the area of human rights, language skills, non-violent
restraint techniques, and weapons handling.
The legal accountability principles such as respondeat superior and
vicarious liability do not clearly apply to the Minutemen for injuries
or damage that may be sustained by the private properties that abut the
Texas borders; the heavy stream of commerce constantly traversing the
border; or innocent bystanders who may be in the wrong place at the
wrong time.
Mr. Chairman, the Jackson-Lee amendment seeks to prevent liability
``powder kegs'' from propagating nationally. I ask that my colleagues
support the amendment.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the
amendment if we can go ahead and conclude it at this moment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished chairman. I am
willing to accept the chairman's acceptance.
Let me just say, Mr. Chairman, that this amendment speaks to the
whole question of protecting our borders in an authorized manner. There
seems to be an effort to do it in an unauthorized manner, and I desire
to protect those who need protecting. I would ask my colleagues to
support this amendment and, as well, I do want to acknowledge that the
work that we have done with staff, I want to appreciate it and I hope
the Members will consult with their staff on amendments when Members do
consult with the Members' staff and that their amendments are in order.
With that, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

This Act may be cited as the ``Department of Homeland
Security Appropriations Act, 2006''.

Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed in the following order: Amendment No. 14 offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), Amendment No. 1 offered by
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), the amendment offered by
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks), and the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Menendez

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Menendez) on which further proceedings were

[[Page H3402]]

postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 225,
noes 198, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 176]

AYES--225

Abercrombie
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Butterfield
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Gordon
Granger
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kind
King (NY)
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pelosi
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Simmons
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wilson (NM)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--198

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cox
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Graves
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Poe
Pombo
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)

NOT VOTING--10

Ackerman
Brady (PA)
Kilpatrick (MI)
Larson (CT)
Lewis (GA)
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Payne
Wexler
Young (FL)

{time} 1713

Ms. FOXX, and Messrs. HOBSON, NEUGEBAUER, MORAN of Virginia, NUSSLE,
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut, Mr. THOMAS, and Mr. GOHMERT changed their
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. PELOSI, and Messrs. GREEN of Wisconsin, WELLER, GUTIERREZ,
GILCHREST, SCHWARZ of Michigan, RAMSTAD, and Mrs. JONES of Ohio changed
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Tancredo

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo)
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 165,
noes 258, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 177]

AYES--165

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Carter
Chabot
Coble
Conaway
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Emerson
Everett
Feeney
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Gutknecht
Hall
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline
Kolbe
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
Mica
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Otter
Paul
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rehberg
Renzi
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryun (KS)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Upton
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf

NOES--258

Abercrombie
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Cannon
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Castle
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cole (OK)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings

[[Page H3403]]

Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hensarling
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McMorris
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Northup
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pearce
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Reichert
Reyes
Reynolds
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Sherwood
Simmons
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weller
Wilson (NM)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)

NOT VOTING--10

Ackerman
Brady (PA)
Kilpatrick (MI)
Larson (CT)
Lewis (GA)
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Payne
Wexler
Young (FL)

{time} 1723

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Meeks of New York

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 199,
noes 223, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 178]

AYES--199

Abercrombie
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Capps
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kind
King (NY)
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Lee
Levin
Linder
Lipinski
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pitts
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Reynolds
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tauscher
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--223

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Berman
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capuano
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Costa
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Grijalva
Gutknecht
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
McKinney
McMorris
Mica
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schiff
Schwarz (MI)
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Solis
Stearns
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)

NOT VOTING--11

Ackerman
Bonilla
Brady (PA)
Kilpatrick (MI)
Larson (CT)
Lewis (GA)
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Payne
Wexler
Young (FL)

{time} 1732

Mr. SNYDER changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

personal explanation

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer a personal
explanation of the reason I missed rollcall votes Nos. 176-178 on May
17, 2005. These were votes on amendments to H.R. 2360 The Department of
Homeland Security Appropriations bill for FY 06. due to personal
circumstances I was detained until after these votes had concluded.
If present, I would have voted rollcall Vote No. 176, the Menendez
Amendment ``no''; rollcall Vote No. 177, the Tancredo Amendment
``aye''; rollcall Vote No. 178, the Meeks (NY) Amendment, ``no.''

Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) on

[[Page H3404]]

which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 226,
noes 198, not voting 9, as follows:

[Roll No. 179]

AYES--226

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Butterfield
Camp
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gerlach
Gillmor
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hyde
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Lee
Levin
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Otter
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Platts
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)

NOES--198

Aderholt
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Cannon
Cantor
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cox
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Emerson
English (PA)
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schwarz (MI)
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf

NOT VOTING--9

Akin
Brady (PA)
Kilpatrick (MI)
Larson (CT)
Lewis (GA)
Millender-McDonald
Payne
Wexler
Young (FL)

{time} 1741

Mr. BOEHLERT changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. OTTER and Mr. EVERETT changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do
now rise and report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments,
with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the
bill, as amended, do pass.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Putnam) having assumed the chair, Mr. Gillmor, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2360)
making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes, had
directed him to report the bill back to the House with sundry
amendments, with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to
and that the bill, as amended, do pass.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 278, the
previous question is ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will
put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 424,
nays 1, not voting 8, as follows:

[Roll No. 180]

YEAS--424

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode

[[Page H3405]]

Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McMorris
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--1

Paul

NOT VOTING--8

Brady (PA)
Kilpatrick (MI)
Larson (CT)
Lewis (GA)
Millender-McDonald
Payne
Smith (WA)
Wexler

{time} 1805

So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________