[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

       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, $26,546,000, to remain available 
     until expended.

                 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.

                          ____________________