[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 66 (Wednesday, May 18, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H3455-H3543]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 283 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
consideration of the bill, H.R. 1817.

                              {time}  1231


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 1817) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2006 for the 
Department of Homeland Security, and for other purposes, with Mr. 
Simpson in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 7 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, we begin today a historic debate on the floor of this 
House that commences the annual authorization process for the 
Department of Homeland Security. This annual process is designed to 
recognize that the function of the Department of Homeland Security is 
the essence of our government's national security mission, protecting 
the American people and our territory.
  This is the same national security mission ultimately that is 
performed in different ways by the Pentagon and by the intelligence 
community. Both the Pentagon and the intelligence community for this 
same reason undergo an annual authorization process in the Congress. 
That is a collaboration between the executive and the legislative 
branches that is necessary to ensure that we fulfill this most vital 
function.
  We must remember that the Department of Homeland Security in the 
executive branch and the Committees on Homeland Security in this House 
and in the other body were formed because the congressional leadership 
and the President recognized that neither branch of government as then 
constituted was properly organized to deal with the 21st century threat 
of terrorism directed against Americans on our own territory. On an 
ongoing basis, the Congress and the executive need to focus together on 
this vital process and the annual authorization is the means for doing 
so.
  The Department of Homeland Security authorization bill that is before 
the House today reflects an impressive bipartisan effort. That is due, 
in large part, to the strong and able leadership of the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Thompson). The Members on both sides of the aisle have 
never forgotten for a single day since September 11, 2001, that the 
security of the American people must be placed above politics.
  So as we meet today to consider the Department of Homeland Security 
authorization bill for fiscal year 2006, we find that we have forged 
agreement on many important challenges facing our country and the 
Department, and on ways to begin to address them. In establishing the 
procedures for bringing this annual authorization bill to the floor, we 
have been guided by the long-standing practices of the Committee on 
Armed Services and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. 
Those committees have always brought to the floor bills that live 
within the spending boundaries established in the House-passed budget. 
H.R. 1817, the Department of Homeland Security authorization bill also 
does exactly that.
  To have credibility, a national security authorization bill must set 
the executive's priorities within the framework of its actual budgetary 
resources. It does little good for us to pretend that the Department of 
Homeland Security has infinite budget resources, and then give it 
mandates that it cannot carry out. So this bill funds priorities within 
the overall DHS budget, not on top of it.
  Within that constraint, we have been able to accomplish a great deal 
more for the security of the American people and for this country. We 
fully fund the 2,000 new Border Patrol agents called for in the 
Intelligence Reform Act passed last year, and we increase the 
Department of Homeland Security's funding by nearly one-quarter of a 
billion dollars for this purpose.
  The bill authorizes $40 million so that immigration and customs 
enforcement can expedite illegal alien removal. It provides $5 million 
in new funding to implement the Safety Act so we can more quickly 
deploy anti-terrorism technologies to protect the American people from 
terrorism. It adds $20 million for interoperable communications and 
technical assistance for our first responders. It increases funding for 
cybersecurity research and development and for cybersecurity education 
and training.
  Within the Department of Homeland Security budget that this House has 
already approved, we have authorized $40 million in additional funds to 
support the training of State and local law enforcement personnel so 
they can help enforce Federal immigration laws. This provision is 
contained in a separate amendment that I will offer today with the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  On these and all other funding decisions in the bill, we have had to 
make hard choices and set priorities. That is our responsibility. As a 
result, we have not funded every initiative to protect against every 
conceivable means by which terrorists might mount an attack. But what 
we have done is based our funding decisions on the best intelligence 
available, on terrorist capabilities and intentions, and on the actual 
risk of terrorist attack. The bill also advances our prime objective of 
preventing terrorism by improving our intelligence capability within 
the Department of Homeland Security.
  Prevention of terrorism requires that information sharing about 
terrorist threats be seamless, that it be timely, and that that 
communication be secure. That is exactly what this bill accomplishes, 
both within the Department of Homeland Security and across the Federal 
Government and with our State, local and private sector partners. It 
provides the Department of Homeland Security with new tools to build a 
robust intelligence capability. It strengthens the partnership with 
these other stakeholders.

  Those partnerships are essential in sustaining the counterterrorism 
mission into the foreseeable future, and the bill will help the 
Department of Homeland Security to streamline and integrate the 
multitude of different background checks and security screenings that 
are conducted for travelers, workers and other critical personnel who 
are required to undergo security checks by the Department.
  The bill revises the color-coded homeland security advisory system to 
make sure that threat warnings are specific and informative, and 
wherever possible, that these warnings be targeted. By targeting these 
warnings to the areas of the country or sectors of the economy that are 
threatened, we can be sure that we are warning the right people and not 
needlessly scaring the wrong people. We also need to make sure that the 
Federal Government gives clear guidance and speaks with one voice when 
it issues such warnings. This bill will ensure this happens.
  This authorization bill is shorter this year than it will ever be in 
future years. That is because, first, the Department itself is only 2 
years old, and Congress has just recently written the entire 
legislative charter for the Department.

[[Page H3456]]

  Second, we have a new homeland security Secretary who is just 
concluding his top to bottom 90-day review of the entire department. We 
want to give Secretary Chertoff the opportunity to draw his own road 
map, both organizationally and programatically, of where this 
Department should go.
  We will proceed on additional authorizing legislation later this year 
once we have had the opportunity through hearings and oversight to 
evaluate the Secretary's proposals.
  Mr. Chairman, I conclude by thanking the Members on both sides of the 
aisle and the House leadership on both sides of the aisle for their 
foresight in creating the Committee on Homeland Security within the 
House of Representatives and for allowing us to initiate this annual 
authorization process on the floor. This is a significant milestone on 
our long journey toward keeping America safe from terrorism.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) for 
his tireless efforts to see that this day came to be. He worked 
continuously to create a permanent Committee on Homeland Security and 
put in the right track to producing the bill.
  It took 13 hours to mark up this bill in committee, and I have to say 
that he never lost his patience or his good character, nor his sense of 
humor; but clearly, it was a bipartisan effort, and for that I want to 
thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).
  This bill has many good provisions in it. It rejects the section of 
the President's shortsighted budget that sought to hire only 210 new 
Border Patrol agents this year. Instead, it provided for the 2,000 
border agents that everybody else agreed that we needed.
  It also, by creating an Assistant Secretary of Cybersecurity at DHS, 
finally recognizes the threat posed by cyber attacks. The gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren) and other Democrats on this committee 
have sought the creation of this position for a very long time.
  The evaluation of the color-coded terrorist system is also welcomed. 
The system has provided more material for late-night comedians than 
effective information on threats on the public.
  Also, I am glad that this bill requires the Department to explain how 
it is working to protect agriculture and the Nation's food supply from 
terrorist attacks.
  That said, I wish this bill would have been more comprehensive. I am 
glad that, as the chairman mentioned, it is small only because we are a 
new committee, but there are some things that we overlooked. We did not 
mention airports or chemical plants in this legislation. I just hold up 
for the chairman's view and the view of the public the defense 
authorization bill which is sizable, and I look forward to, in the next 
authorization effort next year, to having a bill that is comprehensive.
  The present authorization bill is very, very short on content, but 
nonetheless it is a start. There is no comparison between the two, so I 
am convinced that at the end of the day Members will recognize we have 
a long way to go and there can be no effort or wasting time. We must do 
what it takes to make America secure. I hope that we work closely to 
close the security gaps left by this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I would like to 
first of all add my thanks to both the chairman and the ranking member 
of this committee for the bipartisan way in which they have approached 
this issue.
  I was not a member of this House of Representatives on 9/11. I saw, 
as did many Americans, an attack that many of us had never anticipated. 
It only brought memories of what my parents' generation must have felt 
on the day that we had the attack at Pearl Harbor.
  The question before us really now is what is the proper response and 
what will that response be by our legislative branch. There has been 
established a Department of Homeland Security. It is an amalgamation of 
many departments and agencies that previously existed. It has been an 
effort to try and bring a single focus to a major issue, our response 
to terrorism. It was a well-done job under the circumstances.
  Yet now we are here some 3-plus years after 9/11, and we recognize 
that everything we did was not exactly perfect. We recognize there are 
changes that must be made. This authorization bill is the first chance 
that our committee has to present to the House our effort to try and 
get our arms around not only this problem but the response to this 
problem, and that is the Department of Homeland Security.
  While there are other elements of the executive branch which deal 
with this, the primary responsibility is with the Department of 
Homeland Security, and we have attempted on a bipartisan basis to look 
at the issues, to do the proper oversight, to try and make some 
recommendations, but none should be deluded to the fact that we somehow 
believe this is the total response to the problem.

                              {time}  1245

  This is our first effort. This is the beginning of a job that is 
going to be ongoing. Much like the Defense Department was organized in 
the late 1940s, early 1950s, and while it took time for Congress to 
properly get its arms around that, we similarly must do that now.
  Time is not on our side. The terrorists are not waiting until we get 
organized, so we must make sure that we do this in the best fashion 
possible, in a timely fashion.
  I would say that I am very proud of the fact that the bill that has 
been brought to floor is a bill that got the unanimous support of the 
members of this committee, both Democrat and Republican. It is a worthy 
bill. It is a worthy effort at our direction to the Department of 
Homeland Security.
  There will be things that we will do in the future. One of the things 
mentioned by the ranking member that I believe is a real step forward 
is establishing the position of Assistant Secretary for cybersecurity. 
There is a need to have a concentration on that issue. There is a need 
to have that at a heightened level. There is a need for us to 
understand the embedded nature of cyberoperations in our society, both 
public and private. I believe that we have on a bipartisan basis 
reached that conclusion.
  I thank both the ranking member and the chairman for the work they 
have done. I would ask that the Members support this bill as presented 
by this committee.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez), the ranking Democrat 
on the Subcommittee on Economic Security, Infrastructure Protection, 
and Cybersecurity.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the 
gentleman from Mississippi for yielding me this time.
  I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1817, the Department of 
Homeland Security Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006. This is our 
first authorizing bill for the now 2-year-old Department of Homeland 
Security, and it represents hard work by all the members of the 
Committee on Homeland Security. I would like to congratulate the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the gentleman from Mississippi 
(Mr. Thompson), and all the members of the committee for their hard 
work in crafting this bill and bringing it to the floor today.
  While I would have liked to have seen a more comprehensive bill such 
as the substitute that will be offered by the gentleman from 
Mississippi which would have addressed aviation security, port 
security, interoperability for our first responders and a host of other 
important areas not addressed in H.R. 1817, I recognize that this bill 
marks significant progress for the Congress, and I urge its adoption.
  H.R. 1817 will authorize specific amounts for certain programs within 
the Committee on Homeland Security's jurisdiction, such as fully 
funding the 2,000 additional border patrol agents recommended by the 9/
11 Commission and authorized under the Intelligence Reform and 
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004.
  I was gratified that during the markup of the bill in the Committee 
on

[[Page H3457]]

Homeland Security that important amendments I offered concerning the 
national infrastructure protection plan and cargo container security 
were adopted, but I am also disappointed that an amendment that I 
intended to offer on the floor today was not accepted by the Committee 
on Rules. It is the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism 
amendment. C-TPAT, as it is known, is a program that offers companies 
reduced inspections of their cargo, and in return the companies must 
submit and adhere to a security plan.
  There are currently 5,000 companies participating in this program 
that receive the benefit of reduced inspections, yet only 600 of these 
have had an on-site validation to ensure compliance with the security 
requirements. C-TPAT in its current form represents a dangerous 
security gap that must be closed, and I hope that Congress and DHS will 
address this problem before it is too late.
  I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes 
to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), a member of the committee.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me this 
time. I congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) for working so well together 
in the interest of national security to bring this measure to the 
floor.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1817. History has 
provided us with many examples of leaders who have taken the steps to 
ensure the safety and security of the American people. Today this House 
takes its place in that historical record through consideration of an 
unprecedented measure that authorizes the activities of the new 
Department of Homeland Security.
  In addition to authorizing over $34 billion in funding for DHS 
operations in fiscal year 2006, this legislation calls for DHS to 
accelerate its efforts to identify and deploy homeland security 
technologies and creates mechanisms by which State and local leaders 
can effectively communicate with Federal homeland security officials.
  As the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Nuclear and 
Biological Attack, I have been tasked with overseeing the Department's 
efforts to prevent terrorist attacks on the United States using nuclear 
and biological weapons. I cannot think of a more devastating event both 
in terms of loss of life and economic fallout than an attack on this 
country involving a weapon of mass destruction.
  H.R. 1817 refocuses the mission of DHS to follow a similar path. 
First, this legislation authorizes full funding of 2,000 new border 
agents. It is no secret that much of our Nation's 7,000 miles of border 
with both Canada and Mexico are vulnerable to illegal crossings. The 
addition of these agents will strengthen our Nation's ability to 
protect those borders and to prevent terrorists from smuggling nuclear 
or biological material into our country.
  Prevention, however, should not be limited to our borders, and H.R. 
1817 authorizes approximately $200 million in funding for a new nuclear 
detection office which will play a substantial role in coordinating the 
overseas nonproliferation efforts of the Federal Government. Moreover, 
H.R. 1817 provides nearly $140 million in funding for the Container 
Security Initiative and requires DHS to conduct a risk assessment of 
each foreign seaport that is designated as a CSI port. While we should 
do everything possible to ensure that the free flow of commerce between 
countries is not inhibited, we cannot ignore the possibility that 
terrorists may use foreign seaports to transport weapons of mass 
destruction into our country.
  We cannot simply wait at home for terrorists to come to us. These 
efforts must be conducted in areas of the world that have, or can 
obtain, weapons of mass destruction but lack the responsibility of 
ensuring that such weapons do not fall into malevolent hands.
  Mr. Chairman, government has no greater responsibility than that of 
protecting the rights and freedoms of its citizens. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in taking an additional step forward in this 
effort by supporting H.R. 1817.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill. I want to 
commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) for their very hard work. This bill includes 
provisions to improve our homeland security a great deal, but I regret 
that it is not complete.
  Communication barriers faced by emergency personnel in Oklahoma City 
10 years ago still plagued our first responders on September 11; 3\1/2\ 
years later, the very same first responders are waiting for further 
guidance and funding for communications interoperability. Section 308 
reinforces Congress's intent for DHS, the Department of Commerce, and 
the FCC to work together to issue voluntary standards and a schedule to 
reach those standards.
  I applaud this provision, but we could have done better. I am 
frustrated that two amendments I submitted to the Committee on Rules 
were not allowed under the rule. One of the amendments would have 
authorized grant funding for interoperability. Standards are a first 
step, but we must follow with resources. The U.S. Conference of Mayors 
June 2004 interoperability report noted that 75 percent of the cities 
surveyed have not received Federal funds for interoperable 
communications. This is unacceptable. First responders need, and quite 
frankly deserve, a commitment from this Congress that roadblocks to an 
interoperable communications system, particularly a lack of consistent 
and sustained Federal funding, will be eliminated.
  My second amendment would have required that all airport employees go 
through some form of physical screening when entering sterile and 
secure areas. This happens at the busiest airport in the world, 
Heathrow, and in Canada; but it does not happen in the U.S. 9/11 
Commission Chairman Kean told the Committee on Homeland Security that 
everybody should go through metal detectors without exception. We have 
spent tens of billions of dollars on passenger screening, but have 
nevertheless left gaping holes in the security of our airports.
  These two fundamentals of homeland security, grant funding for first 
responder communications system and screening of airport workers, are 
long overdue. I support the bill, but it could have been improved with 
these commonsense measures.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes 
to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in 
support of H.R. 1817, the Homeland Security Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2006. I applaud the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) for 
his leadership and commitment to securing our Nation's borders. 
Congress has not been idle when it comes to our Nation's security, 
recently passing the REAL ID Act in the emergency wartime supplemental. 
I applaud all of these changes. They provide identification checks that 
will keep our vital infrastructure facilities like chemical and nuclear 
power plants safe from terrorists.
  I know firsthand the value of security, as my hometown recently 
experienced the unfortunate confluence of illegal immigration, Social 
Security fraud, and potential terrorist threats. I live in Crystal 
River where there is a nuclear power plant, and it was found to have 
contracted with a businessman who, unbeknownst to them, had actually 
been using illegal immigrant day laborers who provided false or stolen 
Social Security numbers to obtain government-issued driver's licenses.
  This issue brought home the vital importance of not only upgrading 
our identity verification processes but also of securing our borders. 
These people actually had been deported but sneaked back into the 
country and got a little too close to a critical infrastructure site 
for this Member of Congress to be able to tolerate.
  We worked to strengthen our ID laws, but we also must work to 
strengthen our borders. Today our borders are overwhelmed. To anyone 
watching today, it is clear that America needs

[[Page H3458]]

border patrol agents. Just last week in the Committee on Government 
Reform, my colleagues and I heard testimony that the Department of 
Homeland Security does not have enough agents and that it desperately 
needs more. Last year's intelligence reform bill authorized 2,000 new 
agents. These new border patrol agents will deter illegals from 
entering the United States and will enhance response capabilities by 
almost 20 percent. However, funding was only proposed for 210 of these 
agents. This is unacceptable. 210 agents cannot adequately protect our 
borders.
  Accordingly, I join my colleagues on the Immigration Reform Caucus to 
call for the full 2,000 new border patrol agents. I thank the gentleman 
from California again for placing this as a priority of securing our 
borders and authorizing the additional agents that America needs. Mr. 
Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to protect our borders and to 
vote in favor of the Homeland Security Authorization Act which does 
better protect nuclear power plants and chemical facilities.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, today represents a very important step to 
ensure that Congress truly begins to exercise a robust, judicious, and 
intense oversight of the Department of Homeland Security. Our committee 
has been called on to defend our ports, our infrastructure, our 
neighborhoods, indeed our families. We have risen to the challenge. 
Indeed, this first-ever authorization bill, H.R. 1817, will begin an 
annual ritual to critically examine the Department of Homeland Security 
and its effectiveness in securing our Nation.
  Oversight is germane to our mission. It is an austere and sober 
undertaking, to be sure; and it should be. This Department was formed 
because of the disastrous terrorist attacks of September 11, and its 
mission is to help prevent and respond to any potential future assault.
  I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman 
from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) for their leadership in undertaking 
this process. I understand the pressures that were faced in trying to 
complete this inaugural authorization, and our chairman has had to 
navigate a difficult course.
  Make no mistake, there are provisions within this bill that will make 
very good public policy. The creation of an Assistant Secretary for 
cybersecurity within the Department is a wise measure to help combat a 
very real vulnerability. Likewise, allowing the Department of Homeland 
Security Secretary to provide additional incentives to recruit highly 
sought after intelligence analysts is a great step to combat one of our 
biggest national security problems.
  However, while I applaud the work and the spirit that went into this 
legislation, I would have preferred to see a more comprehensive bill 
that addressed a greater assortment of security gaps that we have 
uncovered.

                              {time}  1300

  I will proudly support the substitute that the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), ranking member, will offer later today. The 
gentleman from Mississippi will improve this authorization by better 
funding our border security in aviation research. His substitute will 
provide the tools necessary to secure our chemical plants and ports, 
just to name but a few.
  This is indeed a big day for homeland security and the Committee on 
Homeland Security and for Congress as a whole. I thank the chairman and 
the ranking member for all of their hard work.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes 
to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), chairman 
of the Committee on Science, someone who worked closely with our 
committee.
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill, 
which will help us better guide the Department of Homeland Security in 
its most important responsibilities. I want to thank the gentleman from 
California (Chairman Cox) and the staff for working so closely with us 
on areas of the bill that were under the jurisdiction of the Committee 
on Science, which I am privileged to chair.
  The Committee on Science created the Science and Technology 
Directorate, and we want to do everything we can to ensure that it 
succeeds in this mission. As I have said before many times, the war 
against terrorism, like the Cold War, will be won in the laboratory as 
much as on the battlefield.
  The Committee on Science also played a key role in the establishment 
of the Information Assurance and Infrastructure Protection Directorate, 
where our interests have focused on cybersecurity, a grave and 
underappreciated threat, and one on which DHS unfortunately has focused 
too little attention and too few resources. We hope that is going to 
change.
  This bill will strengthen research and development activities at the 
Department and will place new and added emphasis on cybersecurity. 
Specifically, the bill includes language to enhance technology 
transfer, to improve cybersecurity training, and to create an Assistant 
Secretary for cybersecurity and to authorize explicitly a cybersecurity 
research and development program. All of this language either 
originated in our committee or was worked out in collaboration between 
the Committee on Science and the Committee on Homeland Security.
  I am especially pleased that the bill recognizes the need to focus 
more on cybersecurity. We all recognize it. We want to make sure that 
the agency follows through and responds accordingly. We need to act 
both immediately and in the long term. Immediately, we need to shore up 
existing networks and develop a system to detect, report, and respond 
to attacks. Over the long term, we need to figure out how to make 
computers harder to attack.
  DHS needs to be working with the National Science Foundation, the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Defense Advanced 
Research Projects Agency, and the National Security Agency on 
cybersecurity. But its own contributions are critical.
  Let me close by thanking the gentleman from California (Chairman Cox) 
and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), ranking member, 
working together, their staffs, and especially Tom DiLenge, and the 
entire Committee on Homeland Security by working cooperatively to come 
up with an excellent bill which has earned our support.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).
  Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate certainly the 
Committee on Homeland Security. I mean it was very difficult, I am 
sure, for them to try to work everything out that needed to be in 
starting and looking at a new territory. I happen to think that it is a 
bill that certainly has been put together and hopefully it is going to 
be everything that we need to keep this land safe.
  With that being said, last night in the Committee on Rules, I tried 
to offer five different amendments. A lot of them had to do with gun 
safety. Mr. Chairman, as far as I am concerned, part of this 
legislation is incomplete when we talk about homeland security. It 
totally ignores threats posed by terrorists aiming themselves at our 
country. And according to a GAO report published earlier this year, 
they are finding exactly that. Why? Because of our pre-9/11 gun laws.
  Common sense would dictate if we do not trust one to board a plane, 
we should not trust them to buy a gun. And that is exactly what we are 
seeing. We are seeing that certain people are on the no fly list, they 
are not allowed to get on a plane; yet those same people, a lot of them 
who certainly have backgrounds as terrorists, can go into any store, 
they can go to a gun show anywhere to be able to buy a gun.
  That does not make sense to me. We are supposed to be protecting the 
American people. We are supposed to be protecting our law enforcement 
people and certainly our Federal employees. Anybody on a Federal 
terrorist watch list can buy assault weapons with the large capacity 
clips. We tried to have that addressed, especially the large capacity 
clips. We saw what all these people can do with only box cutters and 
boarding passes. What makes

[[Page H3459]]

it so easy for them to buy guns? Why is Congress ignoring this serious 
homeland security threat that we are facing? Why do we allow our 
enemies on the war on terror to arm themselves within our borders and 
make it so easy for them?
  Almost all of the legislation that I have been proposing certainly 
would not stop one citizen from buying a gun. Until we address our pre-
9/11 gun laws, our Nation's homeland security will be at risk.
  As I said, we will certainly, hopefully before this Congress is over, 
be able to address these issues. Safety for the American people is 
paramount for all of us. Both sides agree on that, and I hope that we 
can have a new dialogue on how we talk about gun safety in this 
country, and part of it has to be homeland security.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in support of H.R. 1817, the Department 
of Homeland Security Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006.
  Mr. Chairman, I come to Congress in an era when rancor between the 
parties seems to dominate the headlines. This bill, however, is a 
testament to the idea, uniquely American, that congressional politics 
will always be placed on the back burner when it comes to the job of 
protecting the homeland.
  This legislation has come to the floor of the House in no small part 
because of the bipartisan efforts of both the chairman and the ranking 
member of the Committee on Homeland Security, of which I am a member.
  This is not to say that both sides did not state their positions 
forcefully. In this regard, there were spirited exchanges while this 
bill was being marked up in committee. There were over 30 amendments 
offered, and all were extensively and vigorously debated. Yet 
throughout all of this, the dialogue was cordial, and I believe this is 
because everyone involved possessed the same goal: pass a bill that 
would give this country the protection it deserves at a cost that we 
can all afford to pay.
  The bill indeed puts resources where those resources are needed. It 
authorizes some $34 billion to fund programs designed to combat a host 
of homeland security issues. It allocates $1.84 billion so that the 
government can afford to hire and train some 2,000 new border patrol 
agents. These newly minted law enforcement officers will not only serve 
as a deterrent to would-be terrorists but also as an important element 
in the fight to curb illegal immigration in general.
  Improving intelligence capabilities is also an important part of this 
legislation. The bill provides moneys so that the Department of 
Homeland Security can hire the best intelligence analysts available. It 
promotes the development of an open-source intelligence strategy, and 
it increases the capabilities of the Department of Homeland Security to 
detect and preempt the most serious kind of terrorism imaginable: a 
nuclear or biological attack.
  Some have wondered whether or not this bill is comprehensive enough 
to deal with all the security threats the Nation must confront. There 
is no doubt in my mind that it is. There is money authorized here to 
make sure that containers coming from foreign ports receive risk-based 
cargo screening. Funding for this important project will also increase 
from $126 million in 2005 to $133 million in 2006. Further, the bill 
provides funding for such varied security issues as the protection of 
civilian passenger and cargo aircraft, $10 million; chemical 
countermeasure development, $76 million; the detection of weapons of 
mass destruction, $100 million; and critical infrastructure protection, 
$465 million.
  The idea that homeland security funding should be based on security 
rather than on political concerns is one that resonates on both sides 
of the aisle of this great Chamber. The Members of this body recognize 
that the security challenges we face are unique in our history. The 
Homeland Security Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 gives us the 
tools to meet these challenges. For that reason, I vigorously and 
strongly support this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), an excellent member on 
the committee.
  (Mr. ETHERIDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
California (Chairman Cox) and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
Thompson), ranking member, for conducting what I think is a thoroughly 
balanced markup of this bill, the first House authorization of the 
Department of Homeland Security. This bill is a bipartisan product of 
our committee, and I am pleased that the committee included my 
amendment addressing the importance of agriculture security in the 
bill.
  Too often folks take the safety of our food for granted. It is 
critical that the Department of Homeland Security work in close 
cooperation with other agencies of the Federal Government, especially 
the U.S. Department of Agriculture, to ensure the safety of the food in 
this country.
  Although the authorization bill addresses many important issues, it 
is far from perfect. It fails to address a number of the important and 
wide-ranging security gaps, including the need for communication and 
interoperability between first responders. We also need more investment 
not only in the research and development of security technologies but 
also in the training of scientists, researchers, and analysts to 
support and protect our Nation.
  This bill is a good first step, and I look forward to working on a 
bipartisan basis to address the remaining security gaps, and hopefully 
we will get a chance to vote on them today.
  I thank the gentleman from Mississippi for his hard work and for 
yielding me this time, and I am proud to support this legislation.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Jindal).
  Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1817. This 
bill funds Homeland Security and helps to further protect our country 
from those who would intend to do us harm.
  This bill creates a department-wide terrorism prevention plan, 
uniting the actions of 22 different Federal organizations that were 
combined into the Department. This bill expedites the deployment of the 
antiterrorism technology. It requires the Department to create and 
establish a technology clearinghouse within 90 days to expedite the 
deployment of antiterrorism technology for use by Federal, State, 
local, and private sector officials.
  This bill increases border enforcement. It requires the Secretary to 
study the division of border security between Customs and Border Patrol 
and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement and to look at the merits 
of consolidation. This bill also gives the Secretary the ability to 
provide incentives to recruit highly-sought-after intelligence 
analysts.
  As many speakers have already said, I certainly commend the chairman, 
I commend the ranking member for working together in a bipartisan 
fashion on such an important bill.
  I would also like this Chamber to recognize that so much of this bill 
is focused on streamlining homeland security efforts, from better 
coordinating the various agencies to facilitating communication with 
local officials. I strongly rise in support of the creation of regional 
offices, which are called for in the committee report, because I 
believe that would aid these efforts. These regional offices would 
create a stronger platform to lead national efforts to set priorities, 
identify critical vulnerabilities, and to coordinate State, local, and 
private sector entities in order to protect our homeland from terrorist 
attacks.
  Louisiana has got a lot to protect. We are home to more than 190 
sites identified as national critical infrastructure. New Orleans is 
one of the largest port systems in the world. Baton Rouge, my hometown, 
is the Nation's furthest inland port, the only port in the country 
capable of handling superships. My State is the third largest producer 
of petroleum, the third leading State in petroleum refining, all of 
which requires critical infrastructure. Twenty-five percent of the 
Nation's exports are already shipped through Louisiana.
  For those reasons, I strongly rise in support of these provisions 
that shift

[[Page H3460]]

our funding to one based on the risk and threat of actual attack as 
opposed to just politics. Louisiana is already home to a Coast Guard 
and border patrol regional office. We certainly hope that when the 
Department does come and decide where to locate these regional offices, 
we will be considered.
  I rise in strong support of the bill.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Houston, Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), also a member of the 
committee.
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, first I want to offer my 
great appreciation of the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), 
the ranking member of this committee, and of course for his 
collaborative efforts with the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), 
chairman of this committee.

                              {time}  1315

  I think that we can go on record as one of the more collaborative 
committees on something that requires an American response.
  I rise today to say that we have made a good first step. As all of 
America's eyes were looking at a little Cessna, the Committee on 
Homeland Security now recognizes or has recognized that we are and have 
to be a proactive committee. We must give an answer to the American 
people that they will appreciate and find comfort that we are securing 
the homeland, the rural hamlets, the urban areas, the suburban areas, 
the counties, the cities, and Homeland Security Should be in our 
neighborhoods.
  So I am somewhat disappointed that my community preparedness 
amendment was not included, but I look forward to working with the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from Mississippi 
(Mr. Thompson) so that we can emphasize an enhanced citizen corps. I am 
glad that we will study the question of whether or not border violence 
requires volunteer efforts and whether or not we are doing all that we 
can as a governmental entity to protect our borders. That is the role 
and the responsibility of America.
  Then I am delighted that we have done a few things in this bill, but, 
Mr. Chairman, I raise a question that there is no emphasis, no work 
done on the aviation security issues that are still growing and still 
there; no further work done on port security that really is important 
in America with the need for new technology and the inspection of 
cargo, which is not done in all of America's ports; and certainly, 
coming from Texas, I think it is important that we understand industry 
such as the energy industry, but we must demand safety and, as well, 
there is a great need for protecting, or at least providing those kinds 
of requirements and oversight.
  We could do more. I look forward to supporting the substitute offered 
by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), and I ask my 
colleagues to support my amendments regarding border violence as well 
as studies dealing with temporary protective status. I ask my 
colleagues that we work together to secure the homeland.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the overall measure we consider 
today, the Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act for FY 
2006, H.R. 1817. While there remain areas that have not been adequately 
addressed in its provisions, I recognize the importance of a bi-
partisan effort to secure our homeland. We have waited three years for 
the crafting and consideration of an authorization measure, and now we 
have the chance to show America that we are responsible, prudent, and 
expedient.
  H.R. 1817 is the first authorization measure since the passage of the 
Homeland Security Act of 2003. The appropriators withheld over $700 
million from DHS due to incomplete fulfillment of specific reporting 
requirements; therefore, our passage of the most comprehensive and 
representative measure possible would equate to having conducted ``due 
diligence'' on our part.
  Just yesterday, we in the House passed the Appropriations Act for FY 
2006, H.R. 2360, by a margin of 424-1. I joined my committee colleagues 
in considering this bill from its incipiency as it passed in both the 
Committees on Homeland Security on April 28, 2005 and Judiciary on May 
12, 2005 unanimously by voice vote. Today, the Committee of the Whole 
will make history by passing its first Homeland Security Authorization 
measure, and I support an expedient but prudent completion of this 
endeavor.
  In the markup hearing of the Committee on the Judiciary held on May 
12, 2005, I offered an amendment on behalf of and in conjunction with 
my colleague from California, who serves on the Democratic Caucus Task 
Force on Homeland Security, Vice Chair of the Democratic Caucus Task 
Force on Immigration, and First Vice Chair of the Congressional 
Hispanic Caucus. As I serve as the Ranking Member of this Committee's 
Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims, this 
important amendment that would require the collection of data on 
immigration consultants and ``notarios'' who conduct fraudulent 
immigration services for compensation, I was happy to offer this 
amendment. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin, the Chairman of the 
Committee on Judiciary and the Ranking Member from Michigan for their 
collaborative support of this amendment as it was accepted and 
incorporated as Section 506 of the Amendment in Nature of a Substitute 
that we consider today.
  During the 13-hour Homeland Security Committee markup session that 
ended at 11:15 p.m. I was able to secure sincere commitments from the 
Majority Leadership to work with me for inclusion of some of my major 
initiatives: funding and more clearly defining the Citizen Corps and 
the Citizen Corps Councils--which will include consideration of a 
stand-alone bill that I will introduce shortly; and increasing capacity 
for Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving 
Institutions, and Tribal Institutions in Homeland Security procurement 
and in employment with the Department of Homeland Security. In 
addition, I was fortunate to have had my amendment, co-sponsored by the 
Gentlelady from California, Ms. Lofgren, that seeks to authorize the 
funding of programs for the education of minorities in the areas of 
cyberscience, research, and development to close the gap in achievement 
in those areas and to make America better equipped to fight terrorism 
overall. Furthermore, I achieved an agreement from the Majority 
Committee Leadership to collaborate on addressing the issue of border 
violence, an initiative that the distinguished Chairman of the 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security showed his commitment 
to addressing, as evidenced by his support for an amendment that I 
offered yesterday during the House's consideration of the 
appropriations measure, H.R. 2360. Not only do I hope to see this 
language survive the deliberations of the Conferees, but I hope to see 
follow-through by the Homeland Security Committee with the bi-partisan 
letter and with consideration of the amendment that I plan to offer 
during our consideration of H.R. 1817.
  Mr. Speaker, what the House has done this week and will do today will 
establish the breadth and efficacy of the entire Department of Homeland 
Security. I hope that my colleagues will keep that in mind as we work 
to debate the amendments that have been made in order.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire as to how much time 
remains.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Cole of Oklahoma). The gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent) has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining; the gentleman 
from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) has 14\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  As I stated in my previous remarks, this legislation is important for 
a number of reasons, not the least of which is it will help us in our 
fight against nuclear and biological terrorism. I think we all can 
agree that that is the one issue that, as Americans, we can agree to as 
our greatest threat. This committee has spent a great deal of time 
discussing that issue recently, and I believe, for one, that this bill 
adequately addresses that issue and many, many others.
  So with that, again, I rise in strong support of this authorization 
legislation. I am proud of the bipartisan spirit that we have embraced 
in this committee led the chairman and the ranking member.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cox).
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, we have no more speakers on our side, and I 
reserve the balance of the time for closing.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), a member of the committee.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  The Republican leadership has denied a debate on the House floor on 
the very important issue that passengers who

[[Page H3461]]

fly on commercial flights across America, tens of millions of Americans 
a year who put their families on commercial flights, are put in the 
situation where they take off their shoes, they have their computers 
checked, they have their bags which are inspected on those passenger 
flights, because we know that al Qaeda is trying to infiltrate 
commercial flights in America.
  But the cargo, the cargo which goes on that very same plane, of 
somebody who did not buy a ticket on that flight but placed the cargo 
on that plane, is going to fly without being screened at all. Almost 
none of the cargo on American planes that carry passengers across our 
country is screened, although that cargo is almost the same size as 
your bags, which are on the same plane. So you have your bags screened, 
you have your family screened, but the cargo on that plane is not 
screened.
  How much sense does that make, that your shoes are screened but that 
the cargo on the very same plane is not screened?
  And do my colleagues want to hear something else even more absurd? If 
it is a package 16 ounces or less, they do not even look at the 
paperwork for it. It goes on that passenger plane automatically.
  Mr. Chairman, this is wrong. In the past week, we have had two planes 
diverted that were coming from overseas because the no-fly terrorist 
list had not been completely checked before the plane was in midair, 
and it caused diversions both times. How can we allow the back door of 
planes to have cargo placed upon it that is not screened? It is 
absolutely wrong.
  And the fact that the technology exists, that the Israelis screen the 
cargo, that other countries screen the cargo, how can we place tens of 
millions of Americans who place their families on planes, going to 
vacation, going back to school, on planes where the cargo is not 
inspected, and then have the Republicans say, we are not going to have 
a debate on that on the House floor.
  My amendment with the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) would 
have guaranteed that over the next 3 years technology would have been 
put in place that would have guaranteed that every single bit of cargo 
that goes on passenger planes is screened. And all we asked from the 
Republicans was that if you are not going to allow us to even make that 
amendment on the House floor, at least let us have a warning, a warning 
to all American families at the airports that you are placing your 
children on planes to go back to school or go to vacation when the 
cargo on that plane has not been screened.
  Every American parent has the right to know that their children are 
being placed on planes to go to vacation or go to school without it 
being screened. Every American family has the right to know that when 
they put their children on passenger planes in America that almost none 
of the cargo has been screened, and then they can make the decision for 
themselves. I think that parents would not put their children on planes 
if the cargo has not been screened. They themselves, they might get on 
the plane.
  But for the Republicans to not allow us to have a debate on the House 
floor on this issue, as we know that al Qaeda continues to target 
commercial aircraft as their number one terrorist target, is absolutely 
wrong.
  So I ask opposition to this bill. It just is not dealing with the 
real issues that threaten the American public.

                                             Rapiscan Systems,

                                       Hawthorne, CA, May 9, 2005.
     Hon. Edward J. Markey,
     House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Markey: We applaud your efforts to 
     focus more attention on the glaring hole in the United 
     States' aviation security--lack of air cargo inspection. 
     Rapiscan Systems develops, manufactures, installs and 
     services the world's widest array of non-intrusive inspection 
     systems for airports, seaports, border crossings, military 
     installation. Currently Rapiscan Systems provides nearly half 
     of the checkpoint security systems at U.S. airports.
       Included in our portfolio of systems is an air cargo 
     inspection system that can inspect fully-loaded cargo 
     containers. This system is being installed at George H.W. 
     Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston, Texas and Ted 
     Stevens Anchorage International Airport in Alaska.


   containerized air cargo inspection technology exists and is being 
                       installed at U.S. airports

       In the late 1980's in response to the Pan Am 103 bombing, 
     the United States Department of Defense began development of 
     a material-specific bomb detection technology for aviation. 
     As a result of this effort, the Ancore Corporation (now 
     Rapiscan Systems Neutronics and Advanced Technologies 
     Division) developed Pulsed-Fast Neutron Analysis (PFNA) 
     technology. PFNA can automatically detect all explosives, 
     chemical weapons, radioactive materials, narcotics and even 
     hazardous aviation cargo. This technology was most recently 
     deployed to the Ysleta border crossing in El Paso, TX.
       Rapiscan Systems is currently deploying two PFNA air cargo 
     inspection systems at U.S. airports: George H.W. Bush 
     Intercontinental Airport in Houston and Ted Stevens Anchorage 
     International Airport. Both of these installations are part 
     of Transportation Security Administration programs. Similar 
     neutron-based systems have been installed internationally, 
     including an air cargo inspection facility at Taipei airport 
     in Taiwan.


  containerized cargo inspection maintains current air cargo flow of 
                                commerce

       While TSA and other government agencies have evaluated 
     break-bulk cargo x-ray inspection systems (Rapiscan also 
     manufacturers these systems), only PFNA can inspect 
     containerized cargo. The difficulty with break-bulk systems 
     is that they require containerized or palletized cargo to be 
     unpacked to inspect. This adds hours to inspection time and 
     makes some technologies unfeasible for fast delivery air 
     cargo.
       PFNA systems inspect fully loaded cargo containers and 
     pallets for aviation-quantity threats (established by TSA). 
     This allows for fast inspection without unpacking. PFNA 
     systems meet the time constraints of the air cargo 
     environment.


    air cargo inspection can be provided with current screener corps

       Another common argument against air cargo inspection is 
     that they technologies will require hundreds of new TSA 
     screeners to operate and inspect. Because PFNA provides 
     automatic, material specific inspection each system only 
     requires a single operator. And since, PFNA systems can 
     inspect 6-10 containers per hour, most airports will only 
     require one to two systems.
       As congress debates the policy surrounding air cargo 
     inspection, Rapiscan Systems offers to help Members and staff 
     investigate the current availability and state of cargo 
     inspection technologies. While cost and level of risk shou1d 
     factor into this debate, the question of the availability of 
     technology to inspect air cargo has already been answered. 
     Thank you again for your efforts to call attention to and 
     rectify this important homeland security issue. Please let me 
     know if Rapiscan Systems can be helpful in your continued 
     efforts.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Peter Kant,
     Vice President, Government Affairs.
                                  ____

                                                  American Science


                                        and Engineering, Inc.,

                                      Billerica, MA, May 17, 2005.
       Dear Congressman Markey: American Science and Engineering 
     Inc. (AS&E) would like to extend its support for the Bill 
     being introduced by you and Congressman Shay which addresses 
     the need to improve Air Cargo Security. As you know, 
     potential threats in current Air Cargo could go undetected 
     due the lack of a comprehensive inspection requirement or 
     strategy.
       Finding a broad range of potential explosive threats in Air 
     Cargo is a challenge to today's technology. Although existing 
     systems may not be able to find all threats under all 
     conditions, it is still imperative to address the issue of 
     Air Cargo security. Finding the theoretical small amount of 
     explosive that could bring down an aircraft is not the only 
     way to provide a higher sense of security. Many organizations 
     around the World provide Air Cargo security by approaching 
     the problem differently. In some cases they use X-ray 
     technology to inspect cargo prior to loading a container or 
     pallet. Others use current technology to inspect the entire 
     container to find anomalies in the cargo such as bulk 
     explosives, radioactive materials and stowaways. They can 
     also determine if the cargo looks different from what the 
     manifest stipulates, if there are false bulkheads or floors 
     or there are extra or unusual containers present. Any of 
     these anomalies can indicate the presence of a potential 
     threat.
       Most available systems today, including AS&E's product line 
     of X-ray Transmission, Backscatter Imaging and Radioactive 
     Threat Detection systems, can provide a significant step 
     toward insuring that Air Cargo has not been tampered with or 
     poses a threat.
       If properly implemented into an airport flow of cargo, 
     security can be improved with minimal impact to the flow of 
     commerce. Many users of current Air Cargo inspection systems 
     throughout the World have done this successfully. What is 
     required in the USA is a mandate to move forward with Air 
     Cargo security as a priority and a willingness to think about 
     the problem differently.
       We support your efforts and trust that our Government will 
     do the responsible things to make our citizens safer in these 
     troubled times. If we can be of further help, please feel 
     free to contact us.
           Best Regards,
                                                 Rich Mastronardi,
                                   VP Strategic Marketing & Sales.

[[Page H3462]]

     
                                  ____
                               Cargo Security Solutions, Inc.,

                                      Lewisville, TX, May 4, 2005.
     Hon. Edward Markey,
     Rayburn House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Christopher Shays,
     Longworth Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman: We are aware that Congressman Markey and 
     Congressman Shays are proposing a new Air Cargo Security Act 
     (H.R. 2044). We feel that this is a comprehensive step 
     forward for the entire security of the nation and that it 
     should be enacted without hindrance. This nation needs a 
     mandate similar to what was enacted in the days after 9/11 to 
     screen passengers and we implore Congress to pass a similar 
     measure for air cargo.
       Air Cargo Security in this country poses a great risk and 
     danger to the well being of every American.
       The air cargo security solution is one that requires more 
     than just technology. It will require coordination, 
     resources, and a valid security infrastructure to apply a 
     comprehensive effort. Cargo security must yield at least the 
     results of the passenger screening initiatives without 
     jeopardizing next day competitiveness of our businesses. 
     Those, like Cargo Security Solutions, Inc. who are in the 
     business of securing air cargo, recognize this fact and have 
     integrated these concerns in their security models. At CSSI 
     the speed of the supply chain is kept intact by the specific 
     interaction of trained personal, stringent oversight, and 
     ``out of the box'' solutions. These include the use next 
     generation ``tickets'' for every piece of freight.
       As industry and air cargo specialists we are very aware of 
     the dangers threatening a vital part of the nation's economy. 
     Cargo Security Solutions Inc., was established in the days 
     after September 11th to ensure that a tragedy of equal 
     magnitude never originates within the air cargo system.
       Since 9/11 CSSI has developed and refined a security 
     program that is centered around and focuses on 100% 
     inspection. The program that has been developed implements 
     inspections at various strategic points during the events of 
     a shipment through the supply chain thus creating little 
     negative impact on the chain itself. 100% inspection is 
     feasible and CSSI is ready to implement a full solution and 
     infrastructure, with the leadership of TSA and contributions 
     from the air cargo industry.
       There are other similar enterprises that are ready to 
     contribute to this effort. These businesses run the gamut of 
     industries, from technological to human resources. These are 
     all specialized firms who are ready willing and able to 
     tackle this issue.
       Congressional leaders have received an abundant amount of 
     information regarding the critical nature and threat posed by 
     the air cargo security situation in this country. Countless, 
     OIG, GAO, and other reports show how dire the situation 
     really is. CSSI has joined in this effort and sent 
     information regarding air cargo security to several 
     congressional leaders. Included in some of these documents, 
     have been clear plans as to how and why 100% inspection is 
     feasible and the very ``clear and present danger'' that is 
     posed by air cargo.
       Most recently ``diamonds for arms'' shipments were 
     discovered on Soviet made Antonov aircraft operated by 
     designated arms dealer Viktor Bout. HIS company has been in 
     business and operating within The United States since the 
     early 1990s and has brought unknown shipments from all over 
     the world including former soviet states with nuclear arms. 
     Proliferation does exist, has existed and its results have 
     made it on American soil. This should be a wakeup call for 
     all American policy leaders. 100 percent inspection of all 
     cargo is not only needed but necessary.
           Regards,
                                            Capt. Robert C. Davis,
                               Cargo Security Solutions, Inc. CEO.

  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi for 
purposes of closing debate.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  We have heard a number of statements about this bill. It is an 
initial step in the right direction. It is not comprehensive. There are 
some glaring overlooks in the bill. We do not address any aviation 
security, we do not address chemical security. There are a number of 
things that we could do better in this bill.
  However, I have to join my chairman in recognizing the fact that this 
is our first attempt to do an authorization bill. It is by no means 
complete, but given his leadership and willingness to work in a 
bipartisan spirit, I am looking forward to moving this legislation and 
making sure that we do the right thing for this country. We have to 
secure this Nation.
  I will be offering a substitute later in the debate which obviously 
will cover far more areas than what this authorization bill covers that 
we are debating here today.
  Clearly, if we support the substitute, we can move closer to making 
America secure.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), both for his generous remarks but, more 
importantly, for his hard work on this piece of legislation over a 
period of several months and, as he pointed out, through ultimately a 
very long, arduous markup in the committee where members on both sides 
had an unlimited opportunity to offer amendments and consider a variety 
of topics.
  As we conclude general debate and prepare to move into debate on the 
specific amendments on this bill, I think we can recognize one 
important fact, and that is that we are all agreed on the essence of 
the underlying bill. We have some things, each of us, that we might 
like to add to this bill, and I predict that in due course, over the 
rest of this year, we will have an opportunity again on this House 
floor to take up issues, including aviation security, chemical 
security, port security, and so on.
  But the entirety of what we do accomplish in this bill is bipartisan 
in nature and agreed upon by the members on both sides of the aisle, at 
least in the Committee on Homeland Security, and we will soon see about 
the House as a whole. That is because we have allocated the $32 
billion, for what is now the third largest Cabinet department, in a way 
that demonstrably advances our number one goal of preventing terrorism 
in the future on American soil, directed against American citizens, 
protecting America's most critical infrastructure against terrorist 
attack, and being prepared to respond and recover should, against all 
our best preparations, that ever occur in the future.
  In order to bring us to this point, we have had to have a great deal 
of bipartisan assistance, all motivated by the best interests of the 
country from Members on both sides.
  I specifically want to mention the vice chairman of the full 
committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon); the chairmen 
and ranking members of our five subcommittees, and the Staff Directors 
on both sides, Ben Cohen on the Majority side and Calvin Humphreys on 
the minority side. The staffs have done extraordinary professional 
work, and their staffs are drawn from, in many cases, the executive 
branch, with experience about precisely the work and the programs that 
we are overseeing in this legislation. Many of them have come from the 
intelligence community, others come from the Coast Guard and other 
branches of the armed services.
  We can be very proud in this House about the institutionalization of 
the role of homeland security oversight and authorization that has been 
set in motion as a result of a decision of leadership on both sides, 
and I want to conclude by taking this opportunity, once again, to thank 
the House leadership for its very wise decision to create permanent 
authorizing and oversight responsibility in this Congress on an 
institutionalized basis, and then, today, taking the next important 
step of institutionalizing an annual authorization process so that 
together the legislative branch and the executive branch will closely 
collaborate on what is the essence of our national security 
responsibility to all Americans: making sure that we are safe and 
secure on American territory for the American citizens.
  So, Mr. Chairman, with that, I will draw this general debate to a 
conclusion, and I look forward to working with the body on the several 
amendments that have been made in order under the rule.
  Mr. Chairman, I will at this time introduce into the Record a series 
of letters exchanged between the Committee on Homeland Security and 
other standing committees, including the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence of the House of Representatives, concerning jurisdictional 
issues raised by this legislation.

                               Committee on Government Reform,

                                     Washington, DC, May 18, 2005.
     Hon. Christopher Cox,
     Chairman, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your willingness to 
     consult and work with me as you guided H.R. 1817, ``the 
     Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act for Fiscal 
     Year 2006'' from introduction, through

[[Page H3463]]

     the Homeland Security Committee, and to the floor. As you 
     know, the Committee on Government Reform has been interested 
     in a number of provisions within H.R. 1817. The Committee has 
     been concerned that the expansion of the Department's 
     responsibilities for information sharing in Title II, 
     Subtitle B, Homeland Security Information Sharing and 
     Analysis Enhancement, not lessen the Department's 
     responsibility to follow government-wide policies and 
     procedures for the sharing of information. In addition to the 
     information sharing provisions of Subtitle B, the Committee 
     has specific jurisdictional interests in the following 
     provisions of your substitute: Sec. 201--Consolidated 
     Background Check Process; Sec. 216--Coordination of homeland 
     security threat analysis provided to non-Federal officials; 
     Sec. 217--9/11 Homeland Security Fellows Program; Sec. 221--
     IAIP Personnel Recruitment; Sec. 302--Technology Development 
     and Transfer; Sec. 303--Review of Antiterrorism Activities; 
     Title III, Subtitle B--Department of Homeland Security 
     Cybersecurity Enhancement; Sec. 334--Protection of 
     Information; and Sec. 502--GAO Report to Congress.
       I would like to confirm our mutual understanding with 
     respect to the consideration of H.R. 1817. As you know, H.R. 
     1817 was sequentially referred to the Committee on Government 
     Reform. Because of your willingness to work with us to 
     resolve issues of concern to the Committee and to include 
     those improvements to the bill in your amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute on the floor, the Committee on 
     Government Reform did not consider H.R. 1817. However, the 
     Committee has done so only with the understanding that this 
     procedural route would not prejudice the Committee on 
     Government Reform's jurisdictional interest and prerogatives 
     on this bill or similar legislation.
       I respectfully request your support for the appointment of 
     outside conferees from the Committee on Government Reform 
     should this bill or a similar Senate bill be considered in 
     conference with the Senate. Finally, I would ask that you 
     include a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter in 
     the Congressional Record during the House debate of this 
     bill. If you have questions regarding this matter, please do 
     not hesitate to call me. Thank you for your attention to this 
     matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Tom Davis,
     Chairman.
                                  ____



                               Committee on Homeland Security,

                                     Washington, DC, May 18, 2005.
     Hon. Tom Davis,
     Chairman, Committee on Government Reform,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your recent letter 
     regarding the Committee on Government Reform's jurisdictional 
     interest in H.R. 1817, ``the Department of Homeland Security 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006'', and your 
     willingness to forego consideration of H.R. 1817 by the 
     Committee.
       I agree that the Committee on Government Reform has a valid 
     jurisdictional interest in particular sections of H.R. 1817, 
     and that the committee's jurisdiction with respect to those 
     provisions will not be adversely affected by the Committee's 
     decision to not consider H.R. 1817. In addition, I agree that 
     for provisions of the bill that are determined to be within 
     the jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Reform, I 
     will support representation for your Committee during 
     conference with the Senate on this or similar legislation, 
     should such a conference be convened.
       As you have requested, I will include a copy of your letter 
     and this response in the Congressional Record during 
     consideration of the legislation on the House floor. Thank 
     you for your assistance as we work towards the enactment of 
     H.R. 1817.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Christopher Cox,
     Chairman.
                                  ____



                                     Committee on Agriculture,

                                      Washington, DC, May 2, 2005.
     Hon. Christopher Cox,
     Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Cox: On April 27, 2005, the Committee on 
     Homeland Security ordered reported a committee print titled 
     the, ``Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 2006.'' Section 309 of the bill, which provides 
     for a report to Congress on protecting agriculture from 
     terrorist attack, falls within the jurisdiction of the 
     Committee on Agriculture. Recognizing your interest in 
     bringing this legislation before the House quickly, the 
     Committee on Agriculture agrees not to seek a sequential 
     referral of the bill. By agreeing not to seek a sequential 
     referral, the Committee does not waive its jurisdiction over 
     this provision or any other provisions of the bill that may 
     fall within its jurisdiction. The Committee also reserves its 
     right to seek conferees on any provisions within its 
     jurisdiction considered in the House-Senate conference, and 
     asks for your support in being accorded such conferees.
       Please include this letter as part of the report on the 
     Department of Homeland Security Act for Fiscal Year 2006, or 
     as part of the Congressional Record during consideration of 
     this bill by the House.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Bob Goodlatte,
     Chairman.
                                  ____



                               Committee on Homeland Security,

                                     Washington, DC, May 16, 2005.
     Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
     Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your recent letter 
     expressing the Agriculture Committee's jurisdictional 
     interest in section 309 of the ``Department of Homeland 
     Security Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006.'' I 
     appreciate your willingness not to seek a sequential referral 
     in order to expedite proceedings on this legislation. I agree 
     that, by not exercising your right to request a referral, the 
     Agriculture Committee does not waive any jurisdiction it may 
     have over section 309. In addition, I agree to support 
     representation for your Committee during the House-Senate 
     conference on provisions determined to be within your 
     Committee's jurisdiction.
       As you have requested, I will include a copy of your letter 
     and this response as part of the Committee on Homeland 
     Security's report or the Congressional Record during 
     consideration of the legislation on the House floor. Thank 
     you for your cooperation as we work towards the enactment of 
     the ``Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 2006.''
           Sincerely,
                                                  Christopher Cox,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                      Committee on Ways and Means,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                     Washington, DC, May 13, 2005.
     Hon. Christopher Cox,
     Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security, Adams Building 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Cox: I am writing concerning H.R. 1817, the 
     ``Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 2006,'' which the Committee on Homeland Security 
     reported on May 3, 2005. Subsequently, the Committee on Ways 
     and Means received a joint, sequential referral on the bill 
     for a period not ending later than May 13, 2005.
       As you know, the Committee on Ways and Means has 
     jurisdiction over trade and customs revenue functions. A 
     range of provisions in H.R. 1817 affects the Committee's 
     jurisdiction, including: authorization language for the 
     Department of Homeland Security, a required review of trade 
     documents that accompany crossborder shipments, a required 
     plan to reduce disparities in customs processing at major 
     airports, a requirement that certain recommendations of a 
     commercial advisory committee representing the trade 
     community be embodied in new regulations, a requirement of a 
     study of the potential merger of the Department of Homeland 
     Security bureau implementing most customs revenue functions 
     with the bureau charged with immigration enforcement, and 
     authorization of a program that would merge security and 
     customs revenue inspection equipment and requirements.
       I am pleased to acknowledge the agreement, outlined in the 
     attached chart, between our Committees to address various 
     issues, including changes you will include in the Manager's 
     Amendment to the bill. Thus, in order to expedite this 
     legislation for floor consideration, the Ways and Means 
     Committee agrees to forgo action on this bill based on the 
     agreement reached by our Committees and that no other 
     provisions affecting the jurisdiction of the Ways and Means 
     Committee are included in the Manager's Amendment. This is 
     being done with the understanding that it does not in any way 
     prejudice the Committee with respect to the appointment of 
     conferees or its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or 
     similar legislation. In addition, I would appreciate if you 
     would share with my staff copies of the amendments when they 
     are made available to the Homeland Security Committee staff.
       I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming 
     this understanding with respect to H.R. 1817, and would ask 
     that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be 
     included in the Congressional Record during floor 
     consideration.
           Best regards,
                                                      Bill Thomas,
                                                         Chairman.
       Attachment.

        WAYS AND MEANS AMENDMENTS AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY RELATED TO HOMELAND SECURITY AUTHORIZATION BILL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                           HSC and
                                                                                                             W&M
                                                                          Issue                             agreed
                                                                                                           changes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------
Sec. 103--CBP Authorization (includes amount    Insert CBP Authorization number--$6,926,424,722 in the
 in Customs Reauthorization bill passed by the   Manager's Amendment.
 House in 2004, along with additions            Number may be adjusted, but any change would be fully
 identified by W&M and HSC).                     cleared between HSC and Ways and Means.
Sec. 201(b)--Annual cross-cutting analysis of   Delete 201 (b)(1)(D) and replace with ``(1)(D) To
 proposed funding for DHS programs.              facilitate trade and commerce;''
                                                Add 201 (b)(1)(E)--``To carry out other important
                                                 functions of the agencies and subdivisions within the
                                                 Department not specifically noted above.''

[[Page H3464]]

 
                                                Under 201 (b)(2)--Delete the following language: ``for
                                                 functions that are both related directly and not related
                                                 directly to homeland security'' and add: ``for functions
                                                 that would address more than one of the mission areas
                                                 listed in (b)(1)(A) through (E) of this subsection.''
                                                Rewrite 201(b)(3)(F) to state ``(F) Screening cargo to
                                                 identify and segregate shipments at high risk for
                                                 compromise by terrorists or terrorist weapons,'' rather
                                                 than ``screening cargo to identify and segregate high-
                                                 risk shipments.''
Sec. 306--Security of Maritime Cargo            Amend Sec. 306(a) to read: ``(a) STANDARDS AND
 Containers (Sanchez Amendment).                 REGULATIONS--
                                                (1) STANDARDS.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
                                                 the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland
                                                 Security shall establish standards and procedures for
                                                 securing maritime cargo containers relating to
                                                 obligation to seal, recording of seal changes, modal
                                                 changes, seal placement, ocean carrier seal
                                                 verification, and addressing seal anomalies. These
                                                 standards shall include the standards for seals and
                                                 locks as required under paragraph (3) of subsection (b)
                                                 of section 70116 of Title 46 U.S.C.
                                                (2) REGULATIONS.--No later than 90 days after completion
                                                 of the requirements in subsection (a), the Secretary of
                                                 Homeland Security shall issue regulations for the
                                                 security of maritime cargo containers consistent with
                                                 the standards developed in subsection (a).''
                                                Amend Sec. 306(b) to read: ``(b) INTERNATIONAL
                                                 AGREEMENTS.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
                                                 Department of State, Department of Commerce, Department
                                                 of the Treasury, Office of the United States Trade
                                                 Representative, and other appropriate Federal agencies,
                                                 shall seek to enter into agreements with foreign
                                                 countries and international organizations to establish
                                                 standards for the security of maritime cargo containers
                                                 moving within the intermodal transportation system that,
                                                 to the maximum extent practicable, meet the requirements
                                                 of subsection (a).''
                                                Amend Sec. 306(c) to read ``(c) CONTAINER TARGETING
                                                 STRATEGY.--STRATEGY.--The Secretary shall develop a
                                                 strategy to improve the ability of the Department of
                                                 Homeland Security to use advance cargo information to
                                                 identify anomalies in such information to determine
                                                 whether such cargo poses a security risk. The strategy
                                                 shall include a method of contacting shippers to verify
                                                 or explain any anomalies discovered in such
                                                 information.''
                                                Will include acknowledgement in legislative history that
                                                 ``It is intended that the advance cargo information
                                                 referred to in Section 306(c) should be provided to the
                                                 government by the party that has the most direct
                                                 knowledge of that information consistent with Public Law
                                                 107-210 Section 343(a)(3)(B).''
                                                Amend Section 306(d) to read: ``(d) CONTAINER SECURITY
                                                 DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.--(1) PROGRAM.--The Secretary is
                                                 authorized to establish and carry out a demonstration
                                                 program that integrates radiation detection equipment
                                                 with other types of non-intrusive inspection equipment
                                                 at an appropriate United States seaport, as determined
                                                 by the Secretary.
                                                (2) REQUIREMENT.--The demonstration program shall also
                                                 evaluate ways to strengthen the capability of Department
                                                 of Homeland Security personnel to analyze cargo
                                                 inspection data and ways to improve the transmission of
                                                 inspection data between appropriate entities within the
                                                 Department of Homeland Security.''
                                                Amend Section 306(e) to read: ``(e) COORDINATION AND
                                                 CONSOLIDATION OF CONTAINER SECURITY PROGRAMS.--The
                                                 Secretary shall coordinate all programs that enhance the
                                                 security of maritime cargo, and, to the extent
                                                 practicable, consolidate Operation Safe Commerce, the
                                                 Smart Box Initiative, and similar programs that evaluate
                                                 security enhancements for maritime cargo containers, to
                                                 achieve enhanced coordination and efficiency. The
                                                 Secretary shall report to the appropriate Congressional
                                                 committees before consolidating any program mentioned in
                                                 this subsection.''
                                                Add new Sec. New Section 306(f): ``DEFINITION.--In this
                                                 section, the tenn `appropriate congressional committees'
                                                 means appropriate Congressional Committees as defined in
                                                 the Homeland Security Act of 2002.''
Sec. 401--Study by Sec. of DHS on Organization  Section 401(b)(I)--delete ``to the Committee on Homeland
 of DHS.                                         Security of the House of DHS on Organization of
                                                 Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security
                                                 and Government Affairs of the Senate'' and replace with
                                                 ``to the appropriate Congressional Committees as defined
                                                 in the Homeland Security Act of 2002.''
Section 402--GAO Report on DHS Organization...  Insert at the end of this section: ``The report shall be
                                                 submitted to the appropriate Congressional committees as
                                                 defined in the Homeland Security Act of 2002.''
See. 403--Plan for Establishing Consolidated    If Sec. 403, or a similar provision is included in the
 and Colocated Regional Offices.                 bill, amend that section by adding at the end of the
                                                 section: ``In developing the plan, the Secretary shall
                                                 ensure that the plan does not compromise the uniform and
                                                 consistent implementation and application of laws,
                                                 policies and procedures related to customs processing
                                                 operations.''
Sec. 404--Plan to Reduce Wait Times...........  Amend Sec. 404(2) to include ``passenger'' following
                                                 ``customs''.
Ways and Means Customs Bill...................  In addition to the authorization for CBP, include all
                                                 other Customs sections of HR 4418 as passed by the House
                                                 that were not already enacted as part of other laws--
                                                 Secs. 102, 104, 124, and 125.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                         House of Representatives,


                               Committee on Homeland Security,

                                     Washington, DC, May 13, 2005.
     Hon. William Thomas,
     Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, Longworth House Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your recent letter 
     expressing the Ways and Means Committee's jurisdictional 
     interest in H.R. 1817, the ``The Department of Homeland 
     Security Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006.'' I 
     appreciate your willingness to forgo action on this bill, in 
     order to expedite this legislation for floor consideration. I 
     agree that, by forgoing further action on the bill, the 
     Committee on Ways and Means does not waive any jurisdiction 
     it has over provisions within H.R. 1817 and the Manager's 
     amendment. This is being done with the understanding that it 
     does not in any way prejudice the Ways and Means Committee 
     with respect to the appointment of conferees or its 
     jurisdictional prerogatives on this or similar legislation. 
     We will also share with you copies of any amendments as they 
     are made available to us.
       As you have requested, I will include a copy of your letter 
     and this response as part of the Congressional Record during 
     consideration of the legislation on the House floor. Thank 
     you for your cooperation as we work towards the enactment of 
     H.R. 1817.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Christopher Cox,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                      Committee on Armed Services,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                      Washington, DC, May 2, 2005.
     Hon. Christopher Cox,
     Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security, House of 
         Representatives, Adams Building, Library of Congress, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: On April 27, 2005, the Committee on 
     Homeland Security ordered reported a committee print, the 
     ``Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 2006.'' This bill contains provisions that fall 
     within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Armed Services, 
     including: section 222 (relating to information collection 
     requirements and priorities) and section 302(b) (establishing 
     a working group relating to military technology). Recognizing 
     your interest in bringing this legislation before the House 
     quickly, the Committee on Armed Services agrees not to seek a 
     sequential referral of the bill. By agreeing not to seek a 
     sequential referral, the Committee does not waive its 
     jurisdiction over these provisions or any other provisions of 
     the bill that may fall within its jurisdiction. The Committee 
     also reserves its right to seek conferees on any provisions 
     within its jurisdiction considered in the House-Senate 
     conference, and asks for your support in being accorded such 
     conferees.
       Please include this letter as part of the report, if any, 
     on the Department of Homeland Security Act for Fiscal Year 
     2006 or as part of the Congressional Record during 
     consideration of this bill by the House.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Duncan Hunter,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                               Committee on Homeland Security,

                                      Washington, DC, May 2, 2005.
     Hon. Duncan Hunter,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
     Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your recent letter 
     expressing the Armed Services Committee's jurisdictional 
     interest in Section 222 and the working group on transfer of 
     military technologies established under Section 302(b) of the 
     ``Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 2006.'' I appreciate your willingness not to seek 
     a sequential referral in order to expedite proceedings on 
     this legislation. I agree that, by not exercising your right 
     to request a referral, the Armed Services Committee does not 
     waive any jurisdiction it may have over the relevant 
     provisions of Sections 222 and 302(b). In addition, I agree 
     to support representation for your Committee during the 
     House-Senate conference on any provisions determined to be 
     within your Committee's jurisdiction.
       As you have requested, I will include a copy of your letter 
     and this response as part of the Committee on Homeland 
     Security's report and the Congressional Record during 
     consideration of the legislation on the House floor. Thank 
     you for your cooperation as we work towards the enactment of 
     the ``Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 2006.''
           Sincerely,
                                                  Christopher Cox,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

         House of Representatives, Permanent Select Committee on 
           Intelligence,
                                     Washington, DC, May 16, 2005.
     Hon. Christopher Cox,
     Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: In recognition of the importance of 
     expediting the passage of H.R. 1817, the ``Department of 
     Homeland Security Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006,'' 
     the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence hereby waives 
     further consideration of the bill. The Committee has 
     jurisdictional interests in H.R. 1817, including but not 
     limited to intelligence activities within the Department of 
     Homeland Security authorized within the National Intelligence 
     Program.
       The Committee takes this action only with the understanding 
     that this procedural route should not be construed to 
     prejudice the House Permanent Select Committee on 
     Intelligence's jurisdictional interest over this bill or any 
     similar bill and will not be considered as precedent for 
     consideration of matters of jurisdictional interest to the 
     Committee in the future. In addition, the Permanent Select 
     Committee on Intelligence reserves the possibility of seeking 
     conferees on any provisions of the bill that are within its 
     jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference that may be 
     convened on this legislation.

[[Page H3465]]

       Finally, I would ask that you include a copy of our 
     exchange of letters on this matter in the Congressional 
     Record during the House debate on H.R. 1817. I appreciate the 
     constructive work between our committees on this matter and 
     thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Peter Hoekstra,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                               Committee on Homeland Security,

                                     Washington, DC, May 16, 2005.
     The Hon. Peter Hoekstra,
     Chairman, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your recent letter 
     expressing the Intelligence Committee's jurisdictional 
     interest in H.R. 1817, the ``The Department of Homeland 
     Security Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006.'' I 
     appreciate your willingness to waive further consideration of 
     the bill in order to expedite this legislation for floor 
     consideration: I agree that by waiving further consideration, 
     the Intelligence Committee does not waive any jurisdiction it 
     may have over provisions of the bill, including those 
     relating to intelligence activities of the Department of 
     Homeland Security authorized within the National Intelligence 
     Program.
       As you have requested, I will include a copy of your letter 
     and this response as part of the Congressional Record during 
     consideration of the legislation on the House floor. Thank 
     you for your cooperation as we work towards the enactment of 
     H.R. 1817.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Christopher Cox,
                                                          Chairman

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I support passage of this 
important bill--the first-ever authorization bill for the new 
Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
  The bill includes many provisions that will improve Americans' 
security. These include authority for recruitment and training of 2,000 
new border agents, better screening of incoming cargo, and improved 
background checks for people taking part in programs regulated by the 
DHS.
  The bill also will help the government speak more clearly to 
Americans regarding threats to their security and will improve the way 
the federal government works with the States and local agencies to 
respond to those threats.
  And it includes provisions to improve research on and implementation 
of anti-terror technology.
  Of course, the bill could be better in a number of respects, which is 
why I voted for the substitute offered by Representative Thompson of 
Mississippi.
  That substitute would have authorized $6.46 billion for homeland 
security grants to state and local governments, $2.29 billion more than 
the President's budget. It also would have authorized $400 million to 
restore funding to the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention program, 
which the President's budget would eliminate. And It would have 
authorized an additional $150 million in funding for the FIRE Act 
grants program, which provides fire departments across the nation with 
the equipment they need to respond to a terrorist attack.
  The substitute also included a number of provisions to ensure that 
the commitments made in the 9/11 Reforms bill (PL 108-458) are 
fulfilled. Unfortunately, the President's budget left many of these 
commitments unmet. Among others, these included authorization for an 
additional $160 million to meet the 9/11 Act's commitment to securing 
air cargo, an additional $92 million to install radiation portal 
monitors at all ports of entry.
  The substitute also would have authorized an additional $61 million 
to hire 600 additional immigration investigators, in order to reach the 
800 investigators called for in the 9/11 Act. This would have gone a 
long way to increase the ability of the federal government to address 
immigration violations.
  Of course, even without the additions that would have been made by 
the substitute, the bill does include a number of provisions related to 
immigration.
  In that connection I want to note my vote on the Norwood amendment. 
Though the intentions of Mr. Norwood's amendment are laudable, I could 
not support the amendment because of the expansion of authority it 
gives to states to deport illegal immigrants.
  Other parts of this bill will provide states with resources to train 
officers to enforce immigration law, without a mandate, by letting 
state and local government decide if they want to participate in this 
training. I believe Mr. Norwood's amendment also intended to provide 
resources to states without creating a mandate of enforcement.
  However, it stated that local governments have the authority to 
``apprehend, detain, or remove'' illegal immigrants. I do not believe 
it is the role of the states to make decisions on the deportation of 
individuals. Currently, states who are detaining illegal immigrants 
turn them over to the Department of Homeland Security, and I believe 
this is the proper process.
  So, though I was supportive of the intent of that amendment, I could 
not support the expansion of authority to state and local governments.
  As I mentioned, I believe this bill could be improved. Yet, our 
homeland security is an important priority and I am pleased to support 
this authorization bill.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1330

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Cole of Oklahoma). All time for general 
debate has expired.
  In lieu of the amendments recommended by the committees on Homeland 
Security, Energy and Commerce, and the Judiciary now printed in the 
bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the 
purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule an amendment in the nature 
of a substitute printed in part A of House Report 109-84. That 
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Department of Homeland 
     Security Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006''.

     SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.

                TITLE I--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Sec. 101. Department of Homeland Security.
Sec. 102. Customs and border protection; border patrol agents.
Sec. 103. Departmental management and operations.
Sec. 104. Critical infrastructure grants.
Sec. 105. Research and development.
Sec. 106. Border and transportation security.
Sec. 107. State and local terrorism preparedness.
Sec. 108. Immigration resources.

     TITLE II--TERRORISM PREVENTION, INFORMATION SHARING, AND RISK 
                               ASSESSMENT

                    Subtitle A--Terrorism Prevention

Sec. 201. Consolidated background check process.

    Subtitle B--Homeland Security Information Sharing and Analysis 
                              Enhancement

Sec. 211. Short title.
Sec. 212. Provision of terrorism-related information to private sector 
              officials.
Sec. 213. Analytic expertise on the threats from biological agents and 
              nuclear weapons.
Sec. 214. Alternative analysis of homeland security information.
Sec. 215. Assignment of information analysis and infrastructure 
              protection functions.
Sec. 216. Coordination of homeland security threat analysis provided to 
              non-Federal officials.
Sec. 217. 9/11 Memorial Homeland Security Fellows Program.
Sec. 218. Access to nuclear terrorism-related information.
Sec. 219. Access of Assistant Secretary for Information Analysis to 
              terrorism information.
Sec. 220. Administration of the Homeland Security Information Network.
Sec. 221. IAIP personnel recruitment.
Sec. 222. Homeland Security Information Requirements.
Sec. 223. Homeland Security Advisory System.
Sec. 224. Use of open-source information.
Sec. 225. Full and efficient use of open-source information.
Sec. 226. Coordination with the intelligence community.
Sec. 227. Consistency with applicable Federal laws.

            TITLE III--DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS AND PROTECTION

                Subtitle A--Preparedness and Protection

Sec. 301. National terrorism exercise program.
Sec. 302. Technology development and transfer.
Sec. 303. Review of antiterrorism acquisitions.
Sec. 304. Center of Excellence for Border Security.
Sec. 305. Requirements relating to the Container Security Initiative 
              (CSI).
Sec. 306. Security of maritime cargo containers.
Sec. 307. Security plan for general aviation at Ronald Reagan 
              Washington National Airport.
Sec. 308. Interoperable communications assistance.
Sec. 309. Report to Congress on implementation of recommendations 
              regarding protection of agriculture.

 Subtitle B--Department of Homeland Security Cybersecurity Enhancement

Sec. 311. Short title.
Sec. 312. Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity.
Sec. 313. Cybersecurity training programs and equipment.
Sec. 314. Cybersecurity research and development.

         Subtitle C--Security of public transportation systems

Sec. 321. Security best practices.
Sec. 322. Public awareness.

[[Page H3466]]

           Subtitle D--Critical infrastructure prioritization

Sec. 331. Critical infrastructure.
Sec. 332. Security review.
Sec. 333. Implementation report.
Sec. 334. Protection of information.

 TITLE IV--U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION AND U.S. IMMIGRATION AND 
                          CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT

Sec. 401. Establishment and implementation of cost accounting system; 
              reports.
Sec. 402. Report relating to One Face at the Border Initiative.
Sec. 403. Customs services.
Sec. 404. Sense of Congress on interpretation of textile and apparel 
              provisions.

                         TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS

Sec. 501. Border security and enforcement coordination and operations.
Sec. 502. GAO report to Congress.
Sec. 503. Plan to reduce wait times.
Sec. 504. Denial of transportation security card.
Sec. 505. Transfer of existing Customs Patrol Officers unit and 
              establishment of new CPO units in the Bureau of 
              Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Sec. 506. Data collection on use of immigration consultants.
Sec. 507. Office for State and local government coordination.
Sec. 508. Authority of other Federal agencies unaffected.

                TITLE I--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

     SEC. 101. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY.

        There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security for the necessary expenses of the 
     Department of Homeland Security for fiscal year 2006, 
     $34,152,143,000.

     SEC. 102. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION; BORDER PATROL 
                   AGENTS.

       Of the amount authorized under section 101, there is 
     authorized to be appropriated for U.S. Customs and Border 
     Protection for fiscal year 2006, $6,926,424,722, of which 
     $1,839,075,277 is authorized for border security and control 
     between ports of entry, including for the hiring of 2,000 
     full-time active-duty border patrol agents above the number 
     of such positions for which funds were allotted for fiscal 
     year 2005 (excluding any supplemental appropriations).

     SEC. 103. DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS.

        Of the amount authorized under section 101, there is 
     authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2006 for 
     departmental management and operations, $649,672,000, of 
     which--
       (1) $44,895,000 is authorized for the Department of 
     Homeland Security Regions Initiative;
       (2) $4,459,000 is authorized for Operation Integration 
     Staff; and
       (3) $56,278,000 is authorized for Office of Security 
     initiatives.

     SEC. 104. CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE GRANTS.

        Of the amount authorized under section 101, there is 
     authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2006 for grants 
     and other assistance to improve critical infrastructure 
     protection, $465,000,000.

     SEC. 105. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.

        Of the amount authorized under section 101, there are 
     authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2006--
       (1) $76,573,000 to support chemical countermeasure 
     development activities of the Directorate of Science and 
     Technology;
       (2) $195,014,000 to support a nuclear detection office and 
     related activities;
       (3) $19,000,000 for cybersecurity-related research and 
     development activities;
       (4) $10,000,000 for research and development of 
     technologies capable of countering threats posed by man-
     portable air defense systems, including location-based 
     technologies and noncommercial aircraft-based technologies; 
     and
       (5) $10,600,000 for the activities of such directorate 
     conducted pursuant to subtitle G of title VIII of the 
     Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 441 et seq.).

     SEC. 106. BORDER AND TRANSPORTATION SECURITY.

        Of the amount authorized under section 101, there are 
     authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2006--
       (1) $826,913,000 for expenses related to Screening 
     Coordination and Operations of the Directorate of Border and 
     Transportation Security;
       (2) $100,000,000 for weapons of mass destruction detection 
     technology of such directorate; and
       (3) $133,800,000 for the Container Security Initiative of 
     such directorate.

     SEC. 107. STATE AND LOCAL TERRORISM PREPAREDNESS.

       Of the amount authorized under section 101, there are 
     authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2006--
       (1) $40,500,000 for the activities of the Office for 
     Interoperability and Compatibility within the Directorate of 
     Science and Technology pursuant to section 7303 of the 
     Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (6 
     U.S.C 194); and
       (2) $2,000,000,000 for grants to State and local 
     governments for terrorism preparedness awarded by the Office 
     of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness.

     SEC. 108. IMMIGRATION RESOURCES.

       Of the amount authorized under section 101, there is 
     authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2006 the 
     following:
       (1) For the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Legal 
     Program, $159,514,000, including for the hiring of an 
     additional 300 attorneys above the number of such positions 
     for which funds were allotted for fiscal year 2005, and 
     related training and support costs.
       (2) Sufficient sums for the hiring of an additional 300 
     adjudicators above the number of such positions for which 
     funds were allotted for fiscal year 2005 to carry out the 
     functions stated in section 451(b) of the Homeland Security 
     Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 271(b)), and related training and 
     support costs. The fees provided for in section 286(m) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1356(m)) shall be 
     adjusted in order to provide sufficient sums for the hiring 
     of the additional adjudicators and for the related training 
     and support costs provided for in this paragraph.

     TITLE II--TERRORISM PREVENTION, INFORMATION SHARING, AND RISK 
                               ASSESSMENT

                    Subtitle A--Terrorism Prevention

     SEC. 201. CONSOLIDATED BACKGROUND CHECK PROCESS.

       (a) Requirement.--The Secretary of Homeland Security, in 
     consultation with the Attorney General, shall establish a 
     single process for conducting the security screening and 
     background checks on individuals participating in any of the 
     programs identified under subsection (b).
       (b) Included Programs.--The process established under 
     subsection (a) shall apply to the following programs:
       (1) The Transportation Worker Identification Credential.
       (2) The security risk determination and related background 
     checks under section 5103a of title 49, United States Code, 
     performed by the Transportation Security Administration as 
     part of the Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials 
     Endorsement credentialing program.
       (3) The Free and Secure Trade program.
       (4) The NEXUS and SENTRI border crossing programs.
       (5) The Registered Traveler program of the Transportation 
     Security Administration.
       (c) Features of Process.--The process established under 
     subsection (a) shall include the following:
       (1) A single submission of security screening information, 
     including personal data and biometric information as 
     appropriate, necessary to meet the security requirements of 
     all applicable departmental programs.
       (2) An ability to submit such security screening 
     information at any location or through any process approved 
     by the Secretary with respect to any of the applicable 
     departmental programs.
       (3) Acceptance by the Department of a security clearance or 
     other credential issued by a Federal agency, to the extent 
     that the security clearance process of the agency satisfies 
     requirements that are at least as stringent as those of the 
     applicable departmental programs under subsection (b).
       (4) Appropriate standards and procedures for protecting 
     individual privacy, confidentiality, record retention, and 
     addressing other concerns relating to information security.
       (d) Deadlines.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall--
       (1) submit a description of the process developed under 
     subsection (a) to the appropriate congressional committees 
     (as defined in section 2 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 
     (6 U.S.C. 101)) by not later than 6 months after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act; and
       (2) begin implementing such process by not later than 12 
     months after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (e) Inclusion of Other Programs.--The Secretary of Homeland 
     Security shall review other existing or developing Department 
     of Homeland Security programs that include security screening 
     or background checks for participating individuals, and 
     report to the appropriate congressional committees (as 
     defined in section 2 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 
     U.S.C. 101)) any recommendations for inclusion of such 
     additional programs in the consolidated screening process 
     established under this section.
       (f) Relationship to Other Laws.--(1) Nothing in this 
     section affects any statutory or regulatory requirement 
     relating to the operation or standards of the programs 
     described in subsection (b).
       (2) Nothing in this section affects any statutory 
     requirement relating to title III of the Intelligence Reform 
     and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (50 U.S.C. 435b et 
     seq.).

    Subtitle B--Homeland Security Information Sharing and Analysis 
                              Enhancement

     SEC. 211. SHORT TITLE.

       This subtitle may be cited as the ``Homeland Security 
     Information Sharing and Analysis Enhancement Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 212. PROVISION OF TERRORISM-RELATED INFORMATION TO 
                   PRIVATE SECTOR OFFICIALS.

       Section 201(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 
     U.S.C. 121(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(20) To require, in consultation with the Assistant 
     Secretary for Infrastructure Protection, the creation and 
     routine dissemination of analytic reports and products 
     designed to provide timely and accurate information that has 
     specific relevance to each of the Nation's private critical 
     infrastructure

[[Page H3467]]

     sectors (as identified in the national infrastructure 
     protection plan issued under paragraph (5)), to private 
     sector officials in each such sector who are responsible for 
     protecting institutions within that sector from potential 
     acts of terrorism and for mitigating the potential 
     consequences of any such act.''.

     SEC. 213. ANALYTIC EXPERTISE ON THE THREATS FROM BIOLOGICAL 
                   AGENTS AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

       Section 201(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 
     U.S.C. 121(d)) is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(21) To ensure sufficient analytic expertise within the 
     Office of Information Analysis to create, on an ongoing 
     basis, products based on the analysis of homeland security 
     information, as defined in section 892(f)(1), with specific 
     reference to the threat of terrorism involving the use of 
     nuclear weapons and biological agents to inflict mass 
     casualties or other catastrophic consequences on the 
     population or territory of the United States.''.

     SEC. 214. ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS OF HOMELAND SECURITY 
                   INFORMATION.

       (a) Requirement.--Subtitle A of title II of the Homeland 
     Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 121 et seq.) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 203. ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS OF HOMELAND SECURITY 
                   INFORMATION.

       ``The Secretary shall establish within the Department a 
     process and assign an individual or entity the responsibility 
     to ensure that, as appropriate, elements of the Department 
     conduct alternative analysis (commonly referred to as `red-
     team analysis') of homeland security information, as that 
     term is defined in section 892(f)(1), that relates to 
     potential acts of terrorism involving the use of nuclear 
     weapons or biological agents to inflict mass casualties or 
     other catastrophic consequences on the population or 
     territory of the United States.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section 
     1(b) of such Act is amended by inserting after the item 
     relating to section 202 the following:

``Sec. 203. Alternative analysis of homeland security information.''.

     SEC. 215. ASSIGNMENT OF INFORMATION ANALYSIS AND 
                   INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION FUNCTIONS.

       Section 201(b) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 
     U.S.C. 121(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Assignment of specific functions.--The Under 
     Secretary for Information Analysis and Infrastructure 
     Protection--
       ``(A) shall assign to the Assistant Secretary for 
     Information Analysis the responsibility for performing the 
     functions described in paragraphs (1), (4), (7) through (14), 
     (16), and (18) of subsection (d);
       ``(B) shall assign to the Assistant Secretary for 
     Infrastructure Protection the responsibility for performing 
     the functions described in paragraphs (2), (5), and (6) of 
     subsection (d);
       ``(C) shall assign to the Assistant Secretary for 
     Cybersecurity the primary authority within the Department 
     over the National Cyber Security Division and the National 
     Communications System, and, in coordination with other 
     relevant Federal agencies, the cybersecurity-related aspects 
     of paragraphs (2), (3), (5), (6), (15), and (17) of 
     subsection (d);
       ``(D) shall ensure that the Assistant Secretary for 
     Information Analysis and the Assistant Secretary for 
     Infrastructure Protection both perform the functions 
     described in paragraphs (3), (15), and (17) of subsection 
     (d); and
       ``(E) may assign to each such Assistant Secretary such 
     other duties relating to such responsibilities as the Under 
     Secretary may provide.''.

     SEC. 216. COORDINATION OF HOMELAND SECURITY THREAT ANALYSIS 
                   PROVIDED TO NON-FEDERAL OFFICIALS.

       (a) In General.--Title I of the Homeland Security Act of 
     2002 (6 U.S.C. 111 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

     ``SEC. 104. COORDINATION OF HOMELAND SECURITY THREAT ANALYSIS 
                   PROVIDED TO NON-FEDERAL OFFICIALS.

       ``(a) Primary Authority.--Except as provided in subsection 
     (b), the Secretary shall be responsible for coordinating all 
     homeland security threat analysis to be provided to State and 
     local government and tribal officials and the private sector.
       ``(b) Coordination Required.--No Federal official may 
     disseminate any homeland security threat analysis to State, 
     local, tribal, or private sector officials without the 
     coordination of the Secretary or the Secretary's designee 
     except--
       ``(1) in exigent circumstances under which it is essential 
     that the homeland security threat analysis be communicated 
     immediately; or
       ``(2) when such homeland security threat analysis is issued 
     to State, local, or tribal law enforcement officials for the 
     purpose of assisting them in any aspect of the administration 
     of criminal justice.
       ``(c) Definition.--(1) As used in this section, the term 
     `homeland security threat analysis' means any informational 
     product that is the result of evaluating information, 
     regardless of its source, in order to--
       ``(A) identify and assess the nature and scope of terrorist 
     threats to the homeland;
       ``(B) detect and identify threats of terrorism against the 
     United States; and
       ``(C) understand such threats in light of actual and 
     potential vulnerabilities of the territory of the United 
     States.
       ``(2) As defined in paragraph (1), the term `homeland 
     security threat analysis' does not include--
       ``(A) any information that has not been processed, 
     evaluated, or analyzed;
       ``(B) any information that is evaluated to create any 
     finished analytic product;
       ``(C) facts or summaries of facts;
       ``(D) reports of interviews; or
       ``(E) reports or other documents that merely aggregate or 
     summarize information derived from multiple sources on the 
     same or related topics.''.
       (b) Clerical Ammendment.--The table of contents in section 
     1(b) of such Act is amended by inserting after the item 
     relating to section 103 the following:

``Sec. 104. Coordination of homeland security threat analysis provided 
              to non-Federal officials.''.

     SEC. 217. 9/11 MEMORIAL HOMELAND SECURITY FELLOWS PROGRAM.

       (a) Establishment of Program.--Subtitle A of title II of 
     the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 121 et seq.) is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 204. 9/11 MEMORIAL HOMELAND SECURITY FELLOWS PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Establishment.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a 
     fellowship program in accordance with this section for the 
     purpose of bringing State, local, tribal, and private sector 
     officials to participate in the work of the Homeland Security 
     Operations Center in order to become familiar with--
       ``(A) the mission and capabilities of that Center; and
       ``(B) the role, programs, products, and personnel of the 
     Office of Information Analysis, the Office of Infrastructure 
     Protection, and other elements of the Department responsible 
     for the integration, analysis, and dissemination of homeland 
     security information, as defined in section 892(f)(1).
       ``(2) Program name.--The program under this section shall 
     be known as the 9/11 Memorial Homeland Security Fellows 
     Program.
       ``(b) Eligibility.--In order to be eligible for selection 
     as a fellow under the program, an individual must--
       ``(1) have homeland security-related responsibilities; and
       ``(2) possess an appropriate national security clearance.
       ``(c) Limitations.--The Secretary--
       ``(1) may conduct up to 4 iterations of the program each 
     year, each of which shall be 90 days in duration; and
       ``(2) shall ensure that the number of fellows selected for 
     each iteration does not impede the activities of the Center.
       ``(d) Condition.--As a condition of selecting an individual 
     as a fellow under the program, the Secretary shall require 
     that the individual's employer agree to continue to pay the 
     individual's salary and benefits during the period of the 
     fellowship.
       ``(e) Stipend.--During the period of the fellowship of an 
     individual under the program, the Secretary shall, subject to 
     the availability of appropriations, provide to the individual 
     a stipend to cover the individual's reasonable living 
     expenses during the period of the fellowship.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section 
     1(b) of such Act is further amended by adding at the end of 
     the items relating to such subtitle the following:

``Sec. 204. 9/11 Memorial Homeland Security Fellows Program.''.

     SEC. 218. ACCESS TO NUCLEAR TERRORISM-RELATED INFORMATION.

       Section 201(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 
     U.S.C. 121(d)) is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(22) To ensure that--
       ``(A) the Assistant Secretary for Information Analysis 
     receives promptly and without request all information 
     obtained by any component of the Department if that 
     information relates, directly or indirectly, to a threat of 
     terrorism involving the potential use of nuclear weapons;
       ``(B) such information is--
       ``(i) integrated and analyzed comprehensively; and
       ``(ii) disseminated in a timely manner, including to 
     appropriately cleared Federal, State, local, tribal, and 
     private sector officials; and
       ``(C) such information is used to determine what requests 
     the Department should submit for collection of additional 
     information relating to that threat.''.

     SEC. 219. ACCESS OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR INFORMATION 
                   ANALYSIS TO TERRORISM INFORMATION.

       Section 201(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 
     U.S.C. 121(d)) is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(23) To ensure that the Assistant Secretary for 
     Information Analysis--
       ``(A) is routinely and without request given prompt access 
     to all terrorism-related information collected by or 
     otherwise in the possession of any component of the 
     Department, including all homeland security information (as 
     that term is defined in section 892(f)(1)); and
       ``(B) to the extent technologically feasible has direct 
     access to all databases of any component of the Department 
     that may contain such information.''.

     SEC. 220. ADMINISTRATION OF THE HOMELAND SECURITY INFORMATION 
                   NETWORK.

       Section 201(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 
     U.S.C. 121(d)) is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(24) To administer the homeland security information 
     network, including--

[[Page H3468]]

       ``(A) exercising primary responsibility for establishing a 
     secure nationwide real-time homeland security information 
     sharing network for Federal, State, and local government 
     agencies and authorities, tribal officials, the private 
     sector, and other governmental and private entities involved 
     in receiving, analyzing, and distributing information related 
     to threats to homeland security;
       ``(B) ensuring that the information sharing systems, 
     developed in connection with the network established under 
     subparagraph (A), are utilized and are compatible with, to 
     the greatest extent practicable, Federal, State, and local 
     government, tribal, and private sector antiterrorism systems 
     and protocols that have been or are being developed; and
       ``(C) ensuring, to the greatest extent possible, that the 
     homeland security information network and information systems 
     are integrated and interoperable with existing private sector 
     technologies.''.

     SEC. 221. IAIP PERSONNEL RECRUITMENT.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 97 of title 5, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding after section 9701 the following:

     ``Sec. 9702. Recruitment bonuses

       ``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any provision of chapter 
     57, the Secretary of Homeland Security, acting through the 
     Under Secretary for Information Analysis and Infrastructure 
     Protection, may pay a bonus to an individual in order to 
     recruit such individual for a position that is primarily 
     responsible for discharging the analytic responsibilities 
     specified in section 201(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 
     2002 (6 U.S.C. 121(d)) and that--
       ``(1) is within the Directorate for Information Analysis 
     and Infrastructure Protection; and
       ``(2) would be difficult to fill in the absence of such a 
     bonus.
     In determining which individuals are to receive bonuses under 
     this section, appropriate consideration shall be given to the 
     Directorate's critical need for linguists.
       ``(b) Bonus Amount, Form, Etc.--
       ``(1) In general.--The amount of a bonus under this section 
     shall be determined under regulations issued by the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security, with the concurrence of the Director of 
     National Intelligence, but may not exceed 50 percent of the 
     annual rate of basic pay of the position involved. The 
     Director of National Intelligence shall concur in such 
     regulations only if the amount of the bonus is not 
     disproportionate to recruitment bonuses offered to 
     intelligence analysts in other intelligence community 
     agencies.
       ``(2) Form of payment.--A bonus under this section shall be 
     paid in the form of a lump-sum payment and shall not be 
     considered to be part of basic pay.
       ``(3) Computation rule.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the 
     annual rate of basic pay of a position does not include any 
     comparability payment under section 5304 or any similar 
     authority.
       ``(c) Service Agreements.--Payment of a bonus under this 
     section shall be contingent upon the employee entering into a 
     written service agreement with the Department of Homeland 
     Security. The agreement shall include--
       ``(1) the period of service the individual shall be 
     required to complete in return for the bonus; and
       ``(2) the conditions under which the agreement may be 
     terminated before the agreed-upon service period has been 
     completed, and the effect of any such termination.
       ``(d) Eligibility.--A bonus under this section may not be 
     paid to recruit an individual for--
       ``(1) a position to which an individual is appointed by the 
     President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate;
       ``(2) a position in the Senior Executive Service as a 
     noncareer appointee (as defined under section 3132(a)); or
       ``(3) a position which has been excepted from the 
     competitive service by reason of its confidential, policy-
     determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character.
       ``(e) Termination.--The authority to pay bonuses under this 
     section shall terminate on September 30, 2008.

     ``Sec. 9703. Reemployed annuitants

       ``(a) In General.--If an annuitant receiving an annuity 
     from the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund becomes 
     employed in a position within the Directorate for Information 
     Analysis and Infrastructure Protection of the Department of 
     Homeland Security, the annuitant's annuity shall continue. An 
     annuitant so reemployed shall not be considered an employee 
     for the purposes of chapter 83 or 84.
       ``(b) Termination.--The exclusion pursuant to this section 
     of the Directorate for Information Analysis and 
     Infrastructure Protection from the reemployed annuitant 
     provisions of chapters 83 and 84 shall terminate 3 years 
     after the date of the enactment of this section, unless 
     extended by the Secretary of Homeland Security. Any such 
     extension shall be for a period of 1 year and shall be 
     renewable.
       ``(c) Annuitant Defined.--For purposes of this section, the 
     term `annuitant' has the meaning given such term under 
     section 8331 or 8401, whichever is appropriate.

     ``Sec. 9704. Regulations

       ``The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with 
     the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, may 
     prescribe any regulations necessary to carry out section 9702 
     or 9703.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 97 of 
     title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding after the 
     item relating to section 9701 the following:

``9702. Recruitment bonuses.
``9703. Reemployed annuitants.
``9704. Regulations.''.

     SEC. 222. HOMELAND SECURITY INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Homeland Security Information Requirements.--The Joint 
     Intelligence Community Council shall advise the Director of 
     National Intelligence with respect to homeland security 
     intelligence requirements.
       (b) Designation of Members.--The President may designate 
     officers of the United States Government in addition to the 
     members named in or designated under section 101A(b) of the 
     National Security Act to serve on the Joint Intelligence 
     Community Council in a capacity limited to consideration of 
     homeland security intelligence requirements.
       (c) Participation in National Intelligence Collection 
     Requirements and Management Processes.--The Secretary shall 
     be a member of any Director of National Intelligence-
     established interagency collection and requirements 
     management board that develops and reviews national 
     intelligence collection requirements in response to 
     Presidential intelligence guidelines.

     SEC. 223. HOMELAND SECURITY ADVISORY SYSTEM.

       (a) In General.--Subtitle A of title II of the Homeland 
     Security Act of 2002 is further amended--
       (1) in section 201(d)(7) (6 U.S.C. 121(d)(7)) by inserting 
     ``under section 205'' after ``System''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 205. HOMELAND SECURITY ADVISORY SYSTEM.

       ``(a) Requirement.--The Under Secretary for Information 
     Analysis and Infrastructure Protection shall implement a 
     Homeland Security Advisory System in accordance with this 
     section to provide public advisories and alerts regarding 
     threats to homeland security, including national, regional, 
     local, and economic sector advisories and alerts, as 
     appropriate.
       ``(b) Required Elements.--The Under Secretary, under the 
     System--
       ``(1) shall include, in each advisory and alert regarding a 
     threat, information on appropriate protective measures and 
     countermeasures that may be taken in response to the threat;
       ``(2) shall, whenever possible, limit the scope of each 
     advisory and alert to a specific region, locality, or 
     economic sector believed to be at risk; and
       ``(3) shall not, in issuing any advisory or alert, use 
     color designations as the exclusive means of specifying the 
     homeland security threat conditions that are the subject of 
     the advisory or alert.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section 
     1(b) of such Act is further amended by adding at the end of 
     the items relating to subtitle A of title II the following:

``Sec. 205. Homeland Security Advisory System.''.

     SEC. 224. USE OF OPEN-SOURCE INFORMATION.

       Section 201(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 
     U.S.C. 121(d)) is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(25) To ensure that, whenever possible--
       ``(A) the Assistant Secretary for Information Analysis 
     utilizes open-source information and produces reports and 
     analytic products based on such information that do not 
     require a national security classification under applicable 
     law; and
       ``(B) such unclassified open-source reports are produced, 
     to the extent consistent with the protection of intelligence 
     sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure, 
     contemporaneously with reports or analytic products 
     concerning the same or similar information that the Assistant 
     Secretary for Information Analysis produces in a classified 
     format.''.

     SEC. 225. FULL AND EFFICIENT USE OF OPEN-SOURCE INFORMATION.

       (a) Requirement.--Subtitle A of title II of the Homeland 
     Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 121 et seq.) is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 206. FULL AND EFFICIENT USE OF OPEN-SOURCE 
                   INFORMATION.

       ``The Under Secretary shall ensure that, in meeting their 
     analytic responsibilities under section 201(d) and in 
     formulating requirements for collection of additional 
     information, the Assistant Secretary for Information Analysis 
     and the Assistant Secretary for Infrastructure Protection 
     make full and efficient use of open-source information 
     wherever possible.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section 
     1(b) of such Act is further amended by inserting after the 
     item relating to section 205 the following:

``Sec. 206. Full and efficient use of open-source information.''.

     SEC. 226. COORDINATION WITH THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY.

       Section 201 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 
     121) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) Coordination With the Intelligence Community.--The 
     Under Secretary shall ensure that, as to the responsibilities 
     specified in subsection (d), the Assistant Secretary for 
     Information Analysis serves as the official responsible for 
     coordinating, as appropriate, with elements of the 
     intelligence community.''.

[[Page H3469]]

     SEC. 227. CONSISTENCY WITH APPLICABLE FEDERAL LAWS.

       Unless otherwise expressly stated in this subtitle, the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security shall ensure that all 
     activities carried out under this subtitle are consistent 
     with any applicable Federal laws relating to information 
     policy of Federal agencies.

            TITLE III--DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS AND PROTECTION

                Subtitle A--Preparedness and Protection

     SEC. 301. NATIONAL TERRORISM EXERCISE PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Section 430(c) of the Homeland Security 
     Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 238) is amended by striking ``and'' 
     after the semicolon at the end of paragraph (8), by striking 
     the period at the end of paragraph (9) and inserting ``; 
     and'', and by adding at the end the following:
       ``(10) designing, developing, performing, and evaluating 
     exercises at the national, State, territorial, regional, 
     local, and tribal levels of government that incorporate 
     government officials, emergency response providers, public 
     safety agencies, the private sector, international 
     governments and organizations, and other appropriate entities 
     to test the Nation's capability to prevent, prepare for, 
     respond to, and recover from threatened or actual acts of 
     terrorism.''.
       (b) National Terrorism Exercise Program.--
       (1) Establishment of program.--Title VIII of the Homeland 
     Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subtitle:

             ``Subtitle J--Terrorism Preparedness Exercises

     ``SEC. 899A. NATIONAL TERRORISM EXERCISE PROGRAM.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary, through the Office for 
     Domestic Preparedness, shall establish a National Terrorism 
     Exercise Program for the purpose of testing and evaluating 
     the Nation's capabilities to prevent, prepare for, respond 
     to, and recover from threatened or actual acts of terrorism 
     that--
       ``(1) enhances coordination for terrorism preparedness 
     between all levels of government, emergency response 
     providers, international governments and organizations, and 
     the private sector;
       ``(2) is--
       ``(A) multidisciplinary in nature, including, as 
     appropriate, information analysis and cybersecurity 
     components;
       ``(B) as realistic as practicable and based on current risk 
     assessments, including credible threats, vulnerabilities, and 
     consequences;
       ``(C) carried out with the minimum degree of notice to 
     involved parties regarding the timing and details of such 
     exercises, consistent with safety considerations;
       ``(D) evaluated against performance measures and followed 
     by corrective action to solve identified deficiencies; and
       ``(E) assessed to learn best practices, which shall be 
     shared with appropriate Federal, State, territorial, 
     regional, local, and tribal personnel, authorities, and 
     training institutions for emergency response providers; and
       ``(3) assists State, territorial, local, and tribal 
     governments with the design, implementation, and evaluation 
     of exercises that--
       ``(A) conform to the requirements of paragraph (2); and
       ``(B) are consistent with any applicable State homeland 
     security strategy or plan.
       ``(b) National Level Exercises.--The Secretary, through the 
     National Terrorism Exercise Program, shall perform on a 
     periodic basis national terrorism preparedness exercises for 
     the purposes of--
       ``(1) involving top officials from Federal, State, 
     territorial, local, tribal, and international governments, as 
     the Secretary considers appropriate;
       ``(2) testing and evaluating, in coordination with the 
     Attorney General, the Nation's capability to detect, disrupt, 
     and prevent threatened or actual catastrophic acts of 
     terrorism, especially those involving weapons of mass 
     destruction; and
       ``(3) testing and evaluating the Nation's readiness to 
     respond to and recover from catastrophic acts of terrorism, 
     especially those involving weapons of mass destruction.
       ``(c) Consultation With First Responders.--In implementing 
     the responsibilities described in subsections (a) and (b), 
     the Secretary shall consult with a geographic (including 
     urban and rural) and substantive cross section of 
     governmental and nongovernmental first responder disciplines, 
     including as appropriate--
       ``(1) Federal, State, and local first responder training 
     institutions;
       ``(2) representatives of emergency response providers; and
       ``(3) State and local officials with an expertise in 
     terrorism preparedness.''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of contents in section 
     1(b) of such Act is amended by adding at the end of the items 
     relating to title VIII the following:

             ``Subtitle J--Terrorism Preparedness Exercises

``Sec. 899a. National terrorism exercise program.''.
       (c) TOPOFF Prevention Exercise.--No later than one year 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security shall design and carry out a national 
     terrorism prevention exercise for the purposes of--
       (1) involving top officials from Federal, State, 
     territorial, local, tribal, and international governments as 
     the Secretary considers appropriate; and
       (2) testing and evaluating, in coordination with the 
     Attorney General, the Nation's capability to detect, disrupt, 
     and prevent threatened or actual catastrophic acts of 
     terrorism, especially those involving weapons of mass 
     destruction.

     SEC. 302. TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSFER.

       (a) Establishment of Technology Clearinghouse.--Not later 
     than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary shall complete the establishment of the Technology 
     Clearinghouse under section 313 of the Homeland Security Act 
     of 2002.
       (b) Transfer Program.--Section 313 of the Homeland Security 
     Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 193) is amended--
       (1) by adding at the end of subsection (b) the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(6) The establishment of a homeland security technology 
     transfer program to facilitate the identification, 
     modification, and commercialization of technology and 
     equipment for use by Federal, State, and local governmental 
     agencies, emergency response providers, and the private 
     sector to prevent, prepare for, or respond to acts of 
     terrorism.'';
       (2) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (e); and
       (3) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new 
     subsections:
       ``(c) Elements of the Technology Transfer Program.--The 
     activities of the program described in subsection (b)(6) 
     shall include--
       ``(1) identifying available technologies that have been, or 
     are in the process of being, developed, tested, evaluated, or 
     demonstrated by the Department, other Federal agencies, the 
     private sector, or foreign governments and international 
     organizations, and reviewing whether such technologies may be 
     useful in assisting Federal, State, and local governmental 
     agencies, emergency response providers, or the private sector 
     to prevent, prepare for, or respond to acts of terrorism; and
       ``(2) communicating to Federal, State, and local 
     governmental agencies, emergency response providers, or the 
     private sector the availability of such technologies for 
     antiterrorism use, as well as the technology's 
     specifications, satisfaction of appropriate standards, and 
     the appropriate grants available from the Department to 
     purchase such technologies;
       ``(d) Responsibilties of Under Secretary for Science and 
     Technology.--In support of the activities described in 
     subsection (c), the Under Secretary for Science and 
     Technology shall--
       ``(1) conduct or support, based on the Department's current 
     risk assessments of terrorist threats, research, development, 
     demonstrations, tests, and evaluations, as appropriate, of 
     technologies identified under subparagraph (c)(1), including 
     of any necessary modifications to such technologies for 
     antiterrorism use;
       ``(2) ensure that the technology transfer activities 
     throughout the Directorate of Science and Technology are 
     coordinated, including the technology transfer aspects of 
     projects and grants awarded to the private sector and 
     academia;
       ``(3) consult with the other Under Secretaries of the 
     Department and the Director of the Office for Domestic 
     Preparedness, on an ongoing basis;
       ``(4) consult with Federal, State, and local emergency 
     response providers;
       ``(5) consult with government agencies and standards 
     development organizations as appropriate;
       ``(6) enter into agreements and coordinate with other 
     Federal agencies, foreign governments, and national and 
     international organizations as the Secretary determines 
     appropriate, in order to maximize the effectiveness of such 
     technologies or to facilitate commercialization of such 
     technologies;
       ``(7) consult with existing technology transfer programs 
     and Federal and State training centers that research, 
     develop, test, evaluate, and transfer military and other 
     technologies for use by emergency response providers; and
       ``(8) establish a working group in coordination with the 
     Secretary of Defense to advise and assist the technology 
     clearinghouse in the identification of military technologies 
     that are in the process of being developed, or are developed, 
     by the Department of Defense or the private sector, which may 
     include--
       ``(A) representatives from the Department of Defense or 
     retired military officers;
       ``(B) nongovernmental organizations or private companies 
     that are engaged in the research, development, testing, or 
     evaluation of related technologies or that have demonstrated 
     prior experience and success in searching for and identifying 
     technologies for Federal agencies;
       ``(C) Federal, State, and local emergency response 
     providers; and
       ``(D) to the extent the Secretary considers appropriate, 
     other organizations, other interested Federal, State, and 
     local agencies, and other interested persons.''.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Under Secretary for Science and 
     Technology shall transmit to the Congress a description of 
     the progress the Department has made in implementing the 
     provisions of section 313 of the Homeland Security Act of 
     2002, as amended by this Act, including a description of the 
     process used to review unsolicited proposals received as 
     described in subsection (b)(3) of such section.

[[Page H3470]]

       (d) Savings Clause.--Nothing in this section (including the 
     amendments made by this section) shall be construed to alter 
     or diminish the effect of the limitation on the authority of 
     the Secretary of Homeland Security under section 302(4) of 
     the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 182(4)) with 
     respect to human health-related research and development 
     activities.

     SEC. 303. REVIEW OF ANTITERRORISM ACQUISITIONS.

       (a) Study.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     conduct a study of all Department of Homeland Security 
     procurements, including ongoing procurements and anticipated 
     procurements, to--
       (1) identify those that involve any product, equipment, 
     service (including support services), device, or technology 
     (including information technology) that is being designed, 
     developed, modified, or procured for the specific purpose of 
     preventing, detecting, identifying, or deterring acts of 
     terrorism or limiting the harm such acts might otherwise 
     cause; and
       (2) assess whether such product, equipment, service 
     (including support services), device, or technology is an 
     appropriate candidate for the litigation and risk management 
     protections of subtitle G of title VIII of the Homeland 
     Security Act of 2002.
       (b) Summary and Classification Report.--Not later than 180 
     days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary 
     shall transmit to the Congress a report--
       (1) describing each product, equipment, service (including 
     support services), device, and technology identified under 
     subsection (a) that the Secretary believes would be an 
     appropriate candidate for the litigation and risk management 
     protections of subtitle G of title VIII of the Homeland 
     Security Act of 2002;
       (2) listing each such product, equipment, service 
     (including support services), device, and technology in order 
     of priority for deployment in accordance with current 
     terrorism risk assessment information; and
       (3) setting forth specific actions taken, or to be taken, 
     to encourage or require persons or entities that sell or 
     otherwise provide such products, equipment, services 
     (including support services), devices, and technologies to 
     apply for the litigation and risk management protections of 
     subtitle G of title VIII of the Homeland Security Act of 
     2002, and to ensure prioritization of the Department's review 
     of such products, equipment, services, devices, and 
     technologies under such Act in accordance with the 
     prioritization set forth in paragraph (2) of this subsection.

     SEC. 304. CENTER OF EXCELLENCE FOR BORDER SECURITY.

       The Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish a 
     university-based Center of Excellence for Border Security 
     following the merit-review processes and procedures and other 
     limitations that have been established for selecting and 
     supporting University Programs Centers of Excellence. The 
     Center shall prioritize its activities on the basis of risk 
     to address the most significant threats, vulnerabilities, and 
     consequences posed by the Nation's borders and border control 
     systems. The activities should include the conduct of 
     research, the examination of existing and emerging border 
     security technology and systems, and the provision of 
     education, technical, and analytical assistance for the 
     Department of Homeland Security to effectively secure the 
     Nation's borders.

     SEC. 305. REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO THE CONTAINER SECURITY 
                   INITIATIVE (CSI).

       (a) Designation of New Foreign Seaports.--The Secretary of 
     Homeland Security may designate a foreign seaport as a 
     participating seaport in the Container Security Initiative 
     program on or after the date of the enactment of this Act if 
     the Secretary--
       (1) determines, based on a foreign port assessment carried 
     out under section 70108(a) of title 46, United States Code, 
     or such other risk assessment that the Secretary may perform, 
     and a cost-benefit analysis, that the benefits of designating 
     such seaport as a participating seaport outweigh the cost of 
     expanding the program to such seaport; and
       (2) enters into an agreement with the foreign government of 
     such seaport, in consultation with the Department of State 
     and other appropriate Federal agencies to--
       (A) establish security criteria to identify the potential 
     compromise by terrorists or terrorist weapons of maritime 
     cargo containers bound for the United States based on advance 
     information; and
       (B) screen or inspect such maritime cargo containers for 
     potential compromise by terrorists or terrorist weapons prior 
     to shipment to the United States.
       (b) Deployment of Inspection Equipment to New CSI 
     Participating Seaports.--
       (1) Deployment.--The Secretary may--
       (A) loan or otherwise provide nonintrusive inspection 
     equipment for maritime cargo containers, on a nonreimbursable 
     basis, at a seaport designated under subsection(a); and
       (B) provide training for personnel at a seaport designated 
     under subsection (a) to operate the nonintrusive inspection 
     equipment.
       (2) Additional requirements.--
       (A) Capability requirements and operating procedures.--The 
     Secretary shall establish technical capability requirements 
     and standard operating procedures for nonintrusive inspection 
     equipment described in paragraph (1), consistent with any 
     standards established by the Secretary under section 70116 of 
     title 46 United States Code.
       (B) Agreement required.--The Secretary shall require each 
     CSI port to agree to operate such equipment in accordance 
     with requirements and procedures established under 
     subparagraph (A) as a condition for receiving the equipment 
     and training under paragraph (1).
       (c) Deployment of Personnel to New CSI Ports; Reevaluation 
     of Personnel at All CSI Ports.--
       (1) Deployment.--The Secretary shall deploy United States 
     Customs and Border Protection personnel to each seaport 
     designated under subsection (a) with respect to which the 
     Secretary determines that the deployment is necessary to 
     successfully implement the requirements of CSI at the port.
       (2) Reevaluation.--The Secretary shall periodically review 
     relevant risk assessment information with respect to each 
     seaport at which personnel are deployed under paragraph (1) 
     to assess whether or not continued deployment of such 
     personnel, in whole or in part, is necessary to success fully 
     implement the requirements of CSI at the port.
       (d) Inspection and Screening at United States Ports of 
     Entry.--Cargo containers arriving at a United States port of 
     entry from a CSI port shall undergo the same level of 
     inspection and screening for potential compromise by 
     terrorists or terrorist weapons as cargo containers arriving 
     at a United States port of entry from a foreign seaport that 
     is not participating in CSI unless the containers were 
     initially inspected at the CSI port at the request of 
     personnel deployed under subsection (c) and such personnel 
     verify and electronically record that the inspection 
     indicates that the containers have not been compromised by 
     terrorists or terrorist weapons.

     SEC. 306. SECURITY OF MARITIME CARGO CONTAINERS.

       (a) Standards and Regulations.--
       (1) Standards.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     shall establish standards and procedures for securing 
     maritime cargo containers relating to obligation to seal, 
     recording of seal changes, modal changes, seal placement, 
     ocean carrier seal verification, and addressing seal 
     anomalies. These standards shall include the standards for 
     seals and locks as required under paragraph (3) of subsection 
     (b) of section 70116 of title 46, United States Code.
       (2) Regulations.--No later than 90 days after completion of 
     the requirements in subsection (a), the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security shall issue regulations for the security of maritime 
     cargo containers consistent with the standards developed in 
     subsection (a).
       (b) International Agreements.--The Secretary, in 
     consultation with the Department of State, Department of 
     Commerce, Department of Treasury, Office of the United States 
     Trade Representative, and other appropriate Federal agencies, 
     shall seek to enter into agreements with foreign countries 
     and international organizations to establish standards for 
     the security of maritime cargo containers moving within the 
     intermodal transportation system that, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, meet the requirements of subsection (a).
       (c) Container Targeting Strategy.--The Secretary shall 
     develop a strategy to improve the ability of the Department 
     of Homeland Security to use advance cargo information to 
     identify anomalies in such information to determine whether 
     such cargo poses a security risk. The strategy shall include 
     a method of contacting shippers to verify or explain any 
     anomalies discovered in such information.
       (d) Container Security Demonstration Program.--
       (1) Program.--The Secretary is authorized to establish and 
     carry out a demonstration program that integrates radiation 
     detection equipment with other types of nonintrusive 
     inspection equipment at an appropriate United States seaport, 
     as determined by the Secretary.
       (2) Requirement.--The demonstration program shall also 
     evaluate ways to strengthen the capability of Department of 
     Homeland Security personnel to analyze cargo inspection data 
     and ways to improve the transmission of inspection data 
     between appropriate entities within the Department of 
     Homeland Security.
       (e) Coordination and Consolidation of Container Security 
     Programs.--The Secretary shall coordinate all programs that 
     enhance the security of maritime cargo, and, to the extent 
     practicable, consolidate Operation Safe Commerce, the Smart 
     Box Initiative, and similar programs that evaluate security 
     enhancements for maritime cargo containers, to achieve 
     enhanced coordination and efficiency. The Secretary shall 
     report to the appropriate congressional committees (as that 
     term is defined in section 2 of the Homeland Security Act of 
     2002 (6 U.S.C. 101) before consolidating any program 
     mentioned in this subsection.

     SEC. 307. SECURITY PLAN FOR GENERAL AVIATION AT RONALD REAGAN 
                   WASHINGTON NATIONAL AIRPORT.

       Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall implement 
     section 823(a) of the Vision 100--Century of Aviation 
     Reauthorization Act (49 U.S.C. 41718 note; 117 Stat. 2595).

     SEC. 308. INTEROPERABLE COMMUNICATIONS ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1) The 9/11 Commission determined that the inability of 
     first responders to communicate effectively on September 11, 
     2001 was

[[Page H3471]]

     a critical obstacle to an effective multi-jurisdictional 
     response.
       (2) Many jurisdictions across the country still experience 
     difficulties communicating that may contribute to confusion, 
     delays, or added risks when responding to an emergency.
       (3) During fiscal year 2004, the Office for Domestic 
     Preparedness awarded over $834,000,000 for 2,912 projects 
     through Department of Homeland Security grant programs for 
     the purposes of improving communications interoperability.
       (4) Interoperable communications systems are most effective 
     when designed to comprehensively address, on a regional 
     basis, the communications of all types of public safety 
     agencies, first responder disciplines, and State and local 
     government facilities.
       (5) Achieving communications interoperability is complex 
     due to the extensive training, system modifications, and 
     agreements among the different jurisdictions that are 
     necessary to implement effective communications systems.
       (6) The Congress authorized the Department of Homeland 
     Security to create an Office for Interoperability and 
     Compatibility in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
     Prevention Act of 2004 to, among other things, establish a 
     comprehensive national approach, coordinate federal 
     activities, accelerate the adoption of standards, and 
     encourage research and development to achieve interoperable 
     communications for first responders.
       (7) The Office for Interoperability and Compatibility 
     includes the SAFECOM Program that serves as the umbrella 
     program within the Federal government to improve public 
     safety communications interoperability, and has developed the 
     RAPIDCOM program, the Statewide Communications 
     Interoperability Planning Methodology, and a Statement of 
     Requirements to provide technical, planning, and purchasing 
     assistance for Federal departments and agencies, State and 
     local governments, and first responders.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that the Department of Homeland Security should implement as 
     expeditiously as possible the initiatives assigned to the 
     Office for Interoperability and Compatibility under section 
     7303 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act 
     of 2004 (6 U.S.C. 194), including specifically the following:
       (1) Establishing a comprehensive national approach to 
     achieving public safety interoperable communications.
       (2) Issuing letters of intent to commit future funds for 
     jurisdictions through existing homeland security grant 
     programs to applicants as appropriate to encourage long-term 
     investments that may significantly improve communications 
     interoperability.
       (3) Providing technical assistance to additional urban and 
     other high-risk areas to support the establishment of 
     consistent, secure, and effective interoperable 
     communications capabilities.
       (4) Completing the report to the Congress on the 
     Department's plans for accelerating the development of 
     national voluntary consensus standards for public safety 
     interoperable communications, a schedule of milestones for 
     such development, and achievements of such development, by no 
     later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 309. REPORT TO CONGRESS ON IMPLEMENTATION OF 
                   RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING PROTECTION OF 
                   AGRICULTURE.

       The Secretary of Homeland Security shall report to the 
     appropriate congressional committees (as defined in section 2 
     of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101)) by no 
     later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act regarding how the Department of Homeland Security will 
     implement the applicable recommendations from the Government 
     Accountability Office report entitled ``Homeland Security: 
     Much is Being Done to Protect Agriculture from a Terrorist 
     Attack, but Important Challenges Remain'' (GAO-05-214).

 Subtitle B--Department of Homeland Security Cybersecurity Enhancement

     SEC. 311. SHORT TITLE.

       This subtitle may be cited as the ``Department of Homeland 
     Security Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 312. ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR CYBERSECURITY.

       Section 201(b) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 
     U.S.C. 121(b)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(3) Assistant secretary for cybersecurity.--There shall 
     be in the Department an Assistant Secretary for 
     Cybersecurity, who shall be appointed by the President.''; 
     and
       (3) in paragraph (4), as redesignated by subparagraph (A) 
     of this paragraph--
       (A) by striking ``Analysis and the'' and inserting 
     ``Analysis, the''; and
       (B) by striking ``Protection shall'' and inserting 
     ``Protection, and the Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity 
     shall''.

     SEC. 313. CYBERSECURITY TRAINING PROGRAMS AND EQUIPMENT.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security, acting 
     through the Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity, may 
     establish, in conjunction with the National Science 
     Foundation, a program to award grants to institutions of 
     higher education (and consortia thereof) for--
       (1) the establishment or expansion of cybersecurity 
     professional development programs;
       (2) the establishment or expansion of associate degree 
     programs in cybersecurity; and
       (3) the purchase of equipment to provide training in 
     cybersecurity for either professional development programs or 
     degree programs.
       (b) Roles.--
       (1) Department of homeland security.--The Secretary, acting 
     through the Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity and in 
     consultation with the Director of the National Science 
     Foundation, shall establish the goals for the program 
     established under this section and the criteria for awarding 
     grants under the program.
       (2) National science foundation.--The Director of the 
     National Science Foundation shall operate the program 
     established under this section consistent with the goals and 
     criteria established under paragraph (1), including 
     soliciting applicants, reviewing applications, and making and 
     administering grant awards. The Director may consult with the 
     Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity in selecting awardees.
       (3) Funding.--The Secretary shall transfer to the National 
     Science Foundation the funds necessary to carry out this 
     section.
       (c) Grant Awards.--
       (1) Peer review.--All grant awards under this section shall 
     be made on a competitive, merit-reviewed basis.
       (2) Focus.--In making grant awards under this section, the 
     Director shall, to the extent practicable, ensure geographic 
     diversity and the participation of women and underrepresented 
     minorities.
       (3) Preference.--In making grant awards under this section, 
     the Director shall give preference to applications submitted 
     by consortia of institutions to encourage as many students 
     and professionals as possible to benefit from this program.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--Of the amount 
     authorized under section 101, there is authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary for carrying out this section 
     $3,700,000 for fiscal year 2006.
       (e) Definitions.--In this section, the term ``institution 
     of higher education'' has the meaning given that term in 
     section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     1001(a)).

     SEC. 314. CYBERSECURITY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.

       Title III of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 
     181 et. seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new section:

     ``SEC. 314. CYBERSECURITY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.

       ``(a) In General.--The Under Secretary for Science and 
     Technology shall support research and development, including 
     fundamental, long-term research, in cybersecurity to improve 
     the ability of the United States to prevent, protect against, 
     detect, respond to, and recover from cyber attacks, with 
     emphasis on research and development relevant to large-scale, 
     high-impact attacks.
       ``(b) Activities.--The research and development supported 
     under subsection (a), shall include work to--
       ``(1) advance the development and accelerate the deployment 
     of more secure versions of fundamental Internet protocols and 
     architectures, including for the domain name system and 
     routing protocols;
       ``(2) improve and create technologies for detecting attacks 
     or intrusions, including monitoring technologies;
       ``(3) improve and create mitigation and recovery 
     methodologies, including techniques for containment of 
     attacks and development of resilient networks and systems 
     that degrade gracefully; and
       ``(4) develop and support infrastructure and tools to 
     support cybersecurity research and development efforts, 
     including modeling, testbeds, and data sets for assessment of 
     new cybersecurity technologies.
       ``(c) Coordination.--In carrying out this section, the 
     Under Secretary for Science and Technology shall coordinate 
     activities with--
       ``(1) the Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity; and
       ``(2) other Federal agencies, including the National 
     Science Foundation, the Defense Advanced Research Projects 
     Agency, and the National Institute of Standards and 
     Technology, to identify unmet needs and cooperatively support 
     activities, as appropriate.
       ``(d) Nature of Research.--Activities under this section 
     shall be carried out in accordance with section 306(a) of 
     this Act.''.

         Subtitle C--Security of Public Transportation Systems

     SEC. 321. SECURITY BEST PRACTICES.

       Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination 
     with the Secretary of Transportation, shall issue a report 
     containing best practices for the security of public 
     transportation systems related to the threats from terrorism. 
     Such report shall be developed in consultation with providers 
     of public transportation, industry associations, public 
     transportation employee representatives, first responders, 
     and appropriate Federal, State, and local officials. The 
     Secretary of Transportation shall disseminate the report to 
     providers of public transportation, industry associations, 
     public transportation employee representatives, and 
     appropriate Federal, State, and local officials, the 
     Committee on Homeland Security and the Committee on 
     Transportation

[[Page H3472]]

     and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, and any 
     other appropriate entities.

     SEC. 322. PUBLIC AWARENESS.

       Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Transportation, after consultation 
     with the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall develop a 
     national plan to increase awareness of measures that the 
     general public, public transportation passengers, and public 
     transportation employees can take to increase public 
     transportation security related to the threat of terrorism. 
     Such plan shall also provide outreach to providers and 
     employees of public transportation systems on available 
     transportation security technologies, ongoing research and 
     development efforts, employee training, and available Federal 
     funding sources to improve public transportation security. 
     Not later than 9 months after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall disseminate 
     the plan to providers of public transportation, industry 
     associations, public transportation employee representatives, 
     appropriate Federal, State, and local officials, and other 
     appropriate entities.

           Subtitle D--Critical Infrastructure Prioritization

     SEC. 331. CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE.

       (a) Completion of Prioritization.--Not later than 90 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security shall complete the prioritization of the 
     Nation's critical infrastructure according to all of the 
     following criteria:
       (1) The threat of terrorist attack, based on threat 
     information received and analyzed by the Office of 
     Information Analysis of the Department regarding the 
     intentions and capabilities of terrorist groups and other 
     potential threats to the Nation's critical infrastructure.
       (2) The likelihood that an attack would cause the 
     destruction or significant disruption of such infrastructure.
       (3) The likelihood that an attack would result in 
     substantial numbers of deaths and serious bodily injuries, a 
     substantial adverse impact on the national economy, or a 
     substantial adverse impact on national security.
       (b) Cooperation.--Such prioritization shall be developed in 
     cooperation with other relevant Federal agencies, State, 
     local, and tribal governments, and the private sector, as 
     appropriate.

     SEC. 332. SECURITY REVIEW.

       (a) Requirement.--Not later than 9 months after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security, in coordination with other relevant Federal 
     agencies, State, local, and tribal governments, and the 
     private sector, as appropriate, shall--
       (1) review existing Federal, State, local, tribal, and 
     private sector plans for securing the critical infrastructure 
     included in the prioritization developed under section 331;
       (2) recommend changes to existing plans for securing such 
     infrastructure, as the Secretary determines necessary; and
       (3) coordinate and contribute to protective efforts of 
     other Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies and the 
     private sector, as appropriate.
       (b) Contents of Plans.--The recommendations made under 
     subsection (a)(2) shall include--
       (1) protective measures to secure such infrastructure, 
     including milestones and timeframes for implementation; and
       (2) to the extent practicable, performance metrics to 
     evaluate the benefits to both national security and the 
     Nation's economy from the implementation of such protective 
     measures.

     SEC. 333. IMPLEMENTATION REPORT.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 15 months after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     shall submit a report to the appropriate congressional 
     committees (as defined in section 2 of the Homeland Security 
     Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101)) on the implementation of section 
     332. Such report shall detail--
       (1) the Secretary's review and coordination of security 
     plans under section 332; and
       (2) the Secretary's oversight of the execution and 
     effectiveness of such plans.
       (b) Update.--Not later than 1 year after the submission of 
     the report under subsection (a), the Secretary shall provide 
     an update of such report to the congressional committees 
     described in subsection (a).

     SEC. 334. PROTECTION OF INFORMATION.

       (a) Protection of Information.--The information set forth 
     in subsection (b) that is generated, compiled, or 
     disseminated by the Department of Homeland Security in 
     carrying out this subtitle--
       (1) is exempt from disclosure under section 552 of title 5, 
     United States Code; and
       (2) shall not, if provided by the Department to a State or 
     local government or government agency--
       (A) be made available pursuant to any State or local law 
     requiring disclosure of information or records;
       (B) otherwise be disclosed or distributed to any person by 
     such State or local government or government agency without 
     the written consent of the Secretary; or
       (C) be used other than for the purpose of protecting 
     critical infrastructure or protected systems, or in 
     furtherance of an investigation or the prosecution of a 
     criminal act.
       (b) Information Covered.--Information referred to in 
     subsection (a) is the following:
       (1) The Secretary's prioritization of critical 
     infrastructure pursuant to section 331, including any 
     information upon which such prioritization was based;
       (2) the Secretary's review of existing security plans for 
     such infrastructure pursuant to section 332(a)(1).
       (3) The Secretary's recommendations for changes to existing 
     plans for securing such infrastructure pursuant to section 
     332(a)(2).
       (4) The nature and scope of protective efforts with respect 
     to such infrastructure under section 332(a)(3).
       (5) The report and update prepared by the Secretary 
     pursuant to section 333, including any information upon which 
     such report and update are based.

 TITLE IV--U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION AND U.S. IMMIGRATION AND 
                          CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT

     SEC. 401. ESTABLISHMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF COST ACCOUNTING 
                   SYSTEM; REPORTS.

       Section 334 of the Customs and Border Security Act of 2002 
     (19 U.S.C. 2082 note) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 334. ESTABLISHMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF COST 
                   ACCOUNTING SYSTEM; REPORTS.

       ``(a) Establishment and Implementation; Customs and Border 
     Protection.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than September 30, 2006, the 
     Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection shall, in 
     accordance with the audit of the Customs Service's fiscal 
     years 2000 and 1999 financial statements (as contained in the 
     report of the Office of Inspector General of the Department 
     of the Treasury issued on February 23, 2001), establish and 
     implement a cost accounting system--
       ``(A) for expenses incurred in both commercial and 
     noncommercial operations of U.S. Customs and Border 
     Protection of the Department of Homeland Security, which 
     system should specifically identify and distinguish expenses 
     incurred in commercial operations and expenses incurred in 
     noncommercial operations; and
       ``(B) for expenses incurred both in administering and 
     enforcing the customs laws of the United States and the 
     Federal immigration laws, which system should specifically 
     identify and distinguish expenses incurred in administering 
     and enforcing the customs laws of the United States and the 
     expenses incurred in administering and enforcing the Federal 
     immigration laws.
       ``(2) Additional requirement.--The cost accounting system 
     described in paragraph (1) shall provide for an 
     identification of expenses based on the type of operation, 
     the port at which the operation took place, the amount of 
     time spent on the operation by personnel of U.S. Customs and 
     Border Protection, and an identification of expenses based on 
     any other appropriate classification necessary to provide for 
     an accurate and complete accounting of expenses.
       ``(b) Establishment and Implementation; Immigration and 
     Customs Enforcement.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than September 30, 2006, the 
     Assistant Secretary for U.S. Immigration and Customs 
     Enforcement shall, in accordance with the audit of the 
     Customs Service's fiscal years 2000 and 1999 financial 
     statements (as contained in the report of the Office of 
     Inspector General of the Department of the Treasury issued on 
     February 23, 2001), establish and implement a cost accounting 
     system--
       ``(A) for expenses incurred in both commercial and 
     noncommercial operations of U.S. Immigration and Customs 
     Enforcement of the Department of Homeland Security, which 
     system should specifically identify and distinguish expenses 
     incurred in commercial operations and expenses incurred in 
     noncommercial operations;
       ``(B) for expenses incurred both in administering and 
     enforcing the customs laws of the United States and the 
     Federal immigration laws, which system should specifically 
     identify and distinguish expenses incurred in administering 
     and enforcing the customs laws of the United States and the 
     expenses incurred in administering and enforcing the Federal 
     immigration laws.
       ``(2) Additional requirement.--The cost accounting system 
     described in paragraph (1) shall provide for an 
     identification of expenses based on the type of operation, 
     the amount of time spent on the operation by personnel of 
     U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and an 
     identification of expenses based on any other appropriate 
     classification necessary to provide for an accurate and 
     complete accounting of expenses.
       ``(c) Reports.--
       ``(1) Development of the cost accounting systems.--
     Beginning on the date of the enactment of the Department of 
     Homeland Security Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and 
     ending on the date on which the cost accounting systems 
     described in subsections (a) and (b) are fully implemented, 
     the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection and 
     the Assistant Secretary for U.S. Immigration and Customs 
     Enforcement, respectively, shall prepare and submit to 
     Congress on a quarterly basis a report on the progress of 
     implementing the cost accounting systems pursuant to 
     subsections (a) and (b).
       ``(2) Annual reports.--Beginning one year after the date on 
     which the cost accounting systems described in subsections 
     (a) and (b) are fully implemented, the Commissioner of U.S. 
     Customs and Border Protection and the Assistant Secretary for 
     U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, respectively, shall 
     prepare and submit to Congress on an

[[Page H3473]]

     annual basis a report itemizing the expenses identified in 
     subsections (a) and (b).
       ``(3) Office of the inspector general.--Not later than 
     March 31, 2007, the Inspector General of the Department of 
     Homeland Security shall prepare and submit to Congress a 
     report analyzing the level of compliance with this section 
     and detailing any additional steps that should be taken to 
     improve compliance with this section.''.

     SEC. 402. REPORT RELATING TO ONE FACE AT THE BORDER 
                   INITIATIVE.

       Not later than September 30 of each of the calendar years 
     2006 and 2007, the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border 
     Protection of the Department of Homeland Security shall 
     prepare and submit to Congress a report--
       (1) analyzing the effectiveness of the One Face at the 
     Border Initiative at enhancing security and facilitating 
     trade;
       (2) providing a breakdown of the number of personnel of 
     U.S. Customs and Border Protection that were personnel of the 
     United States Customs Service prior to the establishment of 
     the Department of Homeland Security, that were personnel of 
     the Immigration and Naturalization Service prior to the 
     establishment of the Department of Homeland Security, and 
     that were hired after the establishment of the Department of 
     Homeland Security;
       (3) describing the training time provided to each employee 
     on an annual basis for the various training components of the 
     One Face at the Border Initiative; and
       (4) outlining the steps taken by U.S. Customs and Border 
     Protection to ensure that expertise is retained with respect 
     to customs, immigration, and agriculture inspection functions 
     under the One Face at the Border Initiative.

     SEC. 403. CUSTOMS SERVICES.

       Section 13031(e)(1) of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(e)(1)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(1) Notwithstanding section 451 of the 
     Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1451) or any other provision of 
     law (other than paragraph (2)),'' and inserting:
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) Scheduled flights.--Notwithstanding section 451 of 
     the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1451) or any other 
     provision of law (other than subparagraph (B) and paragraph 
     (2)),''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Charter flights.--If a charter air carrier (as 
     defined in section 40102(13) of title 49, United States Code) 
     specifically requests that customs border patrol services for 
     passengers and their baggage be provided for a charter flight 
     arriving after normal operating hours at a customs border 
     patrol serviced airport and overtime funds for those services 
     are not available, the appropriate customs border patrol 
     officer may assign sufficient customs employees (if 
     available) to perform any such services, which could lawfully 
     be performed during regular hours of operation, and any 
     overtime fees incurred in connection with such service shall 
     be paid by the charter air carrier.''.

     SEC. 404. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON INTERPRETATION OF TEXTILE AND 
                   APPAREL PROVISIONS.

       It is the sense of Congress that U.S. Customs and Border 
     Protection of the Department of Homeland Security should 
     interpret, implement, and enforce the provisions of section 
     112 of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (19 U.S.C. 
     3721), section 204 of the Andean Trade Preference Act (19 
     U.S.C. 3203), and section 213 of the Caribbean Basin Economic 
     Recovery Act (19 U.S.C. 2703), relating to preferential 
     treatment of textile and apparel articles, broadly in order 
     to expand trade by maximizing opportunities for imports of 
     such articles from eligible beneficiary countries.

                         TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS

     SEC. 501. BORDER SECURITY AND ENFORCEMENT COORDINATION AND 
                   OPERATIONS.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) As part of the creation of the Department of Homeland 
     Security, section 442 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 
     (Public Law 107-273) established a Bureau of Border Security 
     and transferred into it all of the functions, programs, 
     personnel, assets, and liabilities pertaining to the 
     following programs: the Border Patrol; alien detention and 
     removal; immigration-related intelligence, investigations, 
     and enforcement activities; and immigration inspections at 
     ports of entry.
       (2) Title IV of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public 
     Law 107-273) also transferred to the new Department the 
     United States Customs Service, as a distinct entity within 
     the new Department, to further the Department's border 
     integrity mission.
       (3) Utilizing its reorganization authority provided in the 
     Homeland Security Act of 2002, the President submitted a 
     reorganization plan for the Department on January 30, 2003.
       (4) This plan merged the customs and immigration border 
     inspection and patrol functions, along with agricultural 
     inspections functions, into a new entity called United States 
     Customs and Border Protection.
       (5) The plan also combined the customs and immigration 
     enforcement agents, as well as the Office of Detention and 
     Removal Operations, the Office of Federal Protective Service, 
     the Office of Federal Air Marshal Service, and the Office of 
     Intelligence, into another new entity called United States 
     Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
       (6) The President's January 30, 2003, reorganization plan 
     did not explain the reasons for separating immigration 
     inspection and border patrol functions from other 
     immigration-related enforcement functions, or to combine 
     immigration-related enforcement functions with customs and 
     other functions, contrary to the design of the Bureau of 
     Border Security as prescribed by the Congress in section 442 
     of the Homeland Security Act of 2002.
       (7) United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement has 
     faced major budgetary challenges that are, in part, 
     attributable to the inexact division of resources upon the 
     separation of immigration functions. These budget shortfalls 
     have forced United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
     to impose hiring freezes and to release aliens that otherwise 
     should be detained.
       (b) Report.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     shall review and evaluate the current organizational 
     structure of the Department of Homeland Security established 
     by the President's January 30, 2003, reorganization plan and 
     submit a report of findings and recommendations to the 
     appropriate congressional committees (as defined in section 2 
     of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101)).
       (2) Contents of report.--The report shall include--
       (A) a description of the rationale for, and any benefits 
     of, the current organizational division of United States 
     Immigration and Customs Enforcement and United States Customs 
     and Border Protection, with respect to the Department's 
     immigration and customs missions;
       (B) a description of the organization, missions, 
     operations, and policies of United States Customs and Border 
     Protection and United States Immigration and Customs 
     Enforcement, and areas of unnecessary overlap or operational 
     gaps among and between these missions;
       (C) a description of the rationale for, and any benefits 
     of, the current organizational combination of immigration-
     related enforcement functions with customs and other 
     functions;
       (D) an analysis of alternative organizational structures 
     that could provide a more effective way to deliver maximum 
     efficiencies and mission success;
       (E) a description of the current role of the Directorate of 
     Border and Transportation Security with respect to providing 
     adequate direction and oversight of the two agencies, and 
     whether this management structure is still necessary;
       (F) an analysis of whether the Federal Air Marshals and the 
     Federal Protective Service are properly located within the 
     Department within United States Immigration and Customs 
     Enforcement;
       (G) the proper placement and functions of a specialized 
     investigative and patrol unit operating at the southwest 
     border on the Tohono O'odham Nation, known as the Shadow 
     Wolves;
       (H) the potential costs of reorganization, including 
     financial, programmatic, and other costs, to the Department; 
     and
       (I) recommendations for correcting the operational and 
     administrative problems that have been caused by the division 
     of United States Custom and Border Protection and United 
     States Immigration and Customs Enforcement and by the 
     combination of immigration-related enforcement functions with 
     customs and other functions in both entities, including any 
     appropriate reorganization plans.

     SEC. 502. GAO REPORT TO CONGRESS.

       (a) In General.-- Not later than 6 months after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the 
     United States shall submit to the appropriate congressional 
     committees (as defined in section 2 of the Homeland Security 
     Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101)) a report that sets forth--
       (1) an assessment of the effectiveness of the 
     organizational and management structure of the Department of 
     Homeland Security in meeting the Department's missions as set 
     forth in section 101(b)(1) of the Homeland Security Act of 
     2002 (6 U.S.C. 111(b)(1)); and
       (2) recommendations to facilitate and improve the 
     organization and management of the Department to best meet 
     those missions.
       (b) Cybersecurity Assessment.--Not later than one year 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller 
     General shall submit a report to the appropriate 
     congressional committees (as defined in section 2 of the 
     Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101)) that sets forth 
     an assessment of the effectiveness of the efforts of the 
     Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity to fulfill the 
     statutory responsibilities of that office.

     SEC. 503. PLAN TO REDUCE WAIT TIMES.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall develop a 
     plan--
       (1) to improve the operational efficiency of security 
     screening checkpoints at commercial service airports so that 
     average peak waiting periods at such checkpoints do not 
     exceed 20 minutes; and
       (2) to ensure that there are no significant disparities in 
     immigration and customs passenger processing times among 
     airports that serve as international gateways.

     SEC. 504. DENIAL OF TRANSPORTATION SECURITY CARD.

       Section 70105(c) of title 46, United States Code, is 
     amended--

[[Page H3474]]

       (1) in paragraph (3) by inserting before the period 
     ``before an administrative law judge''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) In making a determination under paragraph (1)(D) that 
     an individual poses a terrorism security risk, the Secretary 
     shall not solely consider a felony conviction if--
       ``(A) that felony occurred more than 7 years prior to the 
     date of the Secretary's determination; and
       ``(B) the felony was not related to terrorism (as that term 
     is defined in section 2 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 
     (6 U.S.C. 101)).''.

     SEC. 505. TRANSFER OF EXISTING CUSTOMS PATROL OFFICERS UNIT 
                   AND ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW CPO UNITS IN THE 
                   BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) Transfer of Existing Unit.--Not later than 180 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security shall transfer to the Bureau of Immigration 
     and Customs Enforcement all functions (including the 
     personnel, assets, and obligations held by or available in 
     connection with such functions) of the Customs Patrol 
     Officers unit of the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection 
     operating on the Tohono O'odham Indian reservation (commonly 
     known as the ``Shadow Wolves'' unit).
       (b) Establishment of New Units.--The Secretary is 
     authorized to establish within the Bureau of Immigration and 
     Customs Enforcement additional units of Customs Patrol 
     Officers in accordance with this section.
       (c) Duties.--The Customs Patrol Officer unit transferred 
     pursuant to subsection (a) and the additional units 
     established pursuant to subsection (b) shall be responsible 
     for the prevention of the smuggling of narcotics, weapons of 
     mass destruction, and other contraband, and the illegal 
     trafficking of persons, on Indian lands.
       (d) Basic Pay for Journeyman Officers.--A Customs Patrol 
     Officer in a unit described in this section shall receive 
     equivalent pay as a special agent with similar competencies 
     within the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
     pursuant to the Department of Homeland Security's human 
     resources management system established under section 841 of 
     the Homeland Security Act (6 U.S.C. 411).
       (e) Supervisors.--Each unit described under this section 
     shall be supervised by a Chief Customs Patrol Officer, who 
     shall have the same rank as a resident agent-in-charge of the 
     Office of Investigations.

     SEC. 506. DATA COLLECTION ON USE OF IMMIGRATION CONSULTANTS.

       The Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish 
     procedures to record information on applications for an 
     immigration benefit submitted by an alien with respect to 
     which--
       (1) the alien states that the alien used the services of an 
     immigration consultant; or
       (2) a Department employee or official investigating facts 
     alleged in the application, or adjudicating the application, 
     suspects that the alien used the services of an immigration 
     consultant.

     SEC. 507. OFFICE FOR STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT COORDINATION.

       The Homeland Security Act of 2002 is amended----
       (1) in section 801--
       (A) in the section heading, by striking ``STATE AND LOCAL'' 
     and inserting ``STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL'';
       (B) in subsection (a), by striking ``State and Local'' and 
     inserting ``State, Local, and Tribal''; and
       (C) in subsection (b), by striking ``State and local'' each 
     place it appears and inserting ``State, local, and tribal''; 
     and
       (2) in section 1(b) in the table of contents by striking 
     the item relating to section 801 and inserting the following:

``Sec. 801. Office for State, Local, and Tribal Government 
              Coordination.''.

     SEC. 508. AUTHORITY OF OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES UNAFFECTED.

       Except to the extent explicitly provided in section 216, 
     nothing in this Act shall affect the authority under statute, 
     regulation, or Executive order of other Federal agencies than 
     the Department of Homeland Security.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. No amendment to that amendment is in order 
except those printed in part B of the report. Each amendment may be 
offered only in the order printed in the report, by a Member designated 
in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the 
time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment and shall 
not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in part B of 
House Report 109-84.


             amendment no. 1 offered by mr. meek of florida

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

       Part B amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Meek of Florida:
       Page 7, after line 6, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 109. AUTHORIZATION FOR OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL.

       Of the amount authorized under section 101, there is 
     authorized to be appropriated for the Office of the Inspector 
     General of the Department of Homeland Security for fiscal 
     year 2006, $200,000,000.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Meek) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek).
  (Mr. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is an amendment that will increase the 
amount of funding to the Department of Homeland Security Inspector 
General's office by $200 million.
  Mr. Chairman, this is so very, very important due to the fact that 
the Department of Homeland Security is the largest agency in the world 
right now, not only the Federal Government. It has 22 legacy agencies 
that had problems before the Department of Homeland Security was 
created. If it were not for the fact that they are in charge, this 
Department is in charge of protecting the homeland and making sure that 
all of the 9/11 Commission recommendations are implemented properly and 
also making sure that they protect our borders and our airways.
  The inspector general really needs the additional funding and 
staffing to be able to keep up with the growing Department of Homeland 
Security. The spending on contracts alone was $6.1 billion in 2004, and 
in 2005 it moved up to $10.9 billion. That is a 40 percent increase in 
1 year. It is literally impossible for the Inspector General's office 
to keep up not only with the policing of the Department but to ensure 
that the mission's integrity is followed through on.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I now rise in strong 
support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Meek), my Homeland Security Committee colleague, the ranking member on 
the Management, Integration and Oversight Subcommittee.
  Mr. Chairman, we have heard testimony time and time again on our 
committee about the underfunding of the office of Inspector General. We 
had committee testimony from three Inspector Generals indicating that 
the office was underfunded.
  Just to show you what they found in recent reviews, we found that the 
Department spent $31,000 on rubber plants. We also found that they 
spent $500,000 on an awards ceremony. Clearly these expenditures are 
out of line and should not have been.
  Testimony also revealed that had we had a more robust Office of 
Inspector General, we could do more oversight. So the gentleman from 
Florida's (Mr. Meek) amendment is in order. It is something that we 
should do. If we look at other agencies, this Department is woefully 
underfunded. And for that reason I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I 
yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, first I want to compliment the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Meek), who is a very able and well-informed Member of the 
committee and serves as the ranking member on the committee on 
oversight, which has particular responsibilities in this area. I 
support his view of the importance of the Inspector General's function 
inside the Department of Homeland Security and of the mission of 
fighting waste, fraud, and abuse in the Federal Government, and 
specifically in the Department of Homeland Security, because it is a 
critical mission.
  The reason, however, that I cannot support the amendment is different 
than what I have just said. I agree with the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Meek) about the Inspector General's function and fighting waste, 
fraud, and abuse. First, I cannot support it because the authorization 
of $200 million, which is a tripling of the current budget, has no 
offset. It is therefore a budget buster.

[[Page H3475]]

  As I stated in general debate, what has characterized our efforts on 
the underlying bill is that we are operating within the parameters of 
the House-passed budget, and specifically the allocation for the 
overall Department of Homeland Security of $32 billion.
  When we make changes in the priorities in the bill by doing something 
else that is good, we have got to find somewhere to take the money 
from, and this amendment simply does not do it. It pulls the money from 
thin air.
  Second, the new level of funding that this would establish, the 
enormous increase from $83 million at present to $200 million, would 
create an IG office and staff and administration virtually identical in 
size to that which exists in the largest Cabinet Department, the 
Department of Defense, even though DOD's budget and empire and 
responsibilities are 10 times larger than the Department of Homeland 
Security. So there is a problem of scale.
  Third, not withstanding the testimony, correctly cited by my 
colleague, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), of former IGs 
about their experience and their need for more staff, the current IG 
has more staff.
  The staffing level of the Office of Inspector General already has 
grown significantly over the last 3 years from 475 full-time employees 
in fiscal year 2004, to 502 in fiscal 2005, to 540 in fiscal year 2006.
  And for that reason, neither the administration nor the Inspector 
General himself has asked for this increase that is before us in this 
amendment.
  For all of these reasons, I regretfully oppose the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek).
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am glad that the chairman pointed out the good points 
about this amendment and also maybe pointed out a few other issues as 
it relates to the budget issue.
  This is the Homeland Security Authorization bill, not the 
appropriations bill. We are authorizing the Department, hopefully, to 
be able to move towards this $200 million to be able to take care of 
some of the issues that we hear about and read about in newspapers 
daily, about mismanagement, about contractors not following through on 
their obligation to the Federal Government.
  I mean, it is not fine if it was just wasteful spending, but this is 
the protection of the homeland. And when we look at accountability and 
protection, I think it is important that we move in this direction.
  I would also like to argue the fact that the Government 
Accountability Office, in report after report of issues and unmet 
mandates by the Department, reports by the Department to help this 
Congress make wise decisions are backlogged in the hundreds. And I 
think it is important that we as the oversight committee do as much as 
we can to bring about the kind of accountability that the American 
people deserve and that this Congress hopes to get.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I simply want to commend the gentleman from Florida for 
his leadership on oversight and investigation. I will commit to 
continuing to work with him on the full committee and to make sure that 
the IG gets the resources that he needs.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to just close by saying that this 
amendment is just a simple accountability amendment. Yes, I know it 
mirrors the Department of Defense. But the Department of Defense has 
the duty to protect not only Americans but also make sure that our men 
and women that are in harm's way are protected.
  The Department of Homeland Security has a similar responsibility of 
making sure that we protect the homeland and make America safe and 
sound for future generations.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I would urge the Members to vote in the affirmative 
for this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. 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 Florida (Mr. 
Meek) will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in part B of 
House Report 109-84.


                   Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Cox

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

       Part B amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Cox:
       Page 7, after line 6, insert the following (and amend the 
     table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 109. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR TRAINING OF 
                   STATE AND LOCAL PERSONNEL PERFORMING 
                   IMMIGRATION FUNCTIONS.

       (a) In General.--To carry out subsection (b), from amounts 
     authorized under section 101, there are authorized to be 
     appropriated $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2007.
       (b) Use of Funds.--From amounts made available under 
     subsection (a), the Secretary of Homeland Security may 
     reimburse a State or political subdivision for the expenses 
     described in subsection (d).
       (c) Eligible Recipients.--A State, or a political 
     subdivision of a State, is eligible for reimbursement under 
     subsection (b) if the State or political subdivision--
       (1) has entered into a written agreement described in 
     section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1357(g)) under which certain officers or employees of 
     the State or subdivision may be authorized to perform certain 
     functions of an immigration officer; and
       (2) desires such officers or employees to receive training 
     from the Department of Homeland Security in relation to such 
     functions.
       (d) Expenses.--The expenses described in this subsection 
     are actual and necessary expenses incurred by the State or 
     political subdivision in order to permit the training 
     described in subsection (c)(2) to take place, including 
     expenses such as the following:
       (1) Costs of travel and transportation to locations where 
     training is provided, including mileage and related 
     allowances for the use of a privately owned automobile.
       (2) Subsistence consisting of lodging, meals, and other 
     necessary expenses for the personal sustenance and comfort of 
     a person required to travel away from the person's regular 
     post of duty in order to participate in the training.
       (3) A per diem allowance paid instead of actual expenses 
     for subsistence and fees or tips to porters and stewards.
       (4) Costs of securing temporary replacements for personnel 
     traveling to, and participating in, the training.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
Thompson) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I want to take this 
opportunity to thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) with whom I am offering 
this amendment.
  Our amendment will authorize funds to reimburse States for training 
costs that they incur if they voluntarily participate in the training 
of their law enforcement agents for the purposes of enforcing our 
Nation's immigration laws.
  In 1996, I authored section 133 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and 
Immigrant Responsibility Act. That section is now codified as section 
287(G) of the INA. It provided and continues to provide as a piece of 
our permanent legislation local and State law enforcement officers with 
the option of being trained and deputized by the Federal Government so 
that they can assist with the enforcement of our immigration laws in 
the pursuit of their normal duties of protecting citizens from crime.
  Over the last 8 years, slowly but surely, we have learned how to use 
this facility so that the Department has entered into several memoranda 
of understanding, for example, with the State

[[Page H3476]]

of Florida in September 2002, the State of Alabama in September of 
2003, and very recently the County of Los Angeles in pursuit of 
specific authorization by the elected officials of the County of Los 
Angeles in February of 2005.
  So the reason that we are offering this amendment today is that 
inasmuch as this is a purely voluntary program, offering aid to State 
and local law enforcement that wants it that is asking for it and is 
volunteering for it, they should be reimbursed for their costs as first 
responders of helping us enforce Federal law and achieving the national 
mission of protecting our borders.
  We need to capitalize on existing law enforcement resources by 
ensuring that State and local law enforcement have the opportunity to 
receive this training that will help them to protect their local 
communities.
  In turn, those enforcement efforts will help protect the Nation from 
threats of terrorism. I want to emphasize just a few things. First, 
this amendment does not alter the fundamental voluntary nature of the 
participation of States and Federal Government. So no State and no 
subdivision of the State that does not wish in any way to be involved 
in the enforcement of our immigration laws will be required to do so, 
either under existing law or under this fund provision.
  Second, the purpose of the law, of the training, and of the 
reimbursement is to focus on crime and on people who are not only 
unlawfully in this country but who are committing other crimes, in 
particular felonies.
  Third, the training that is provided by the Federal Government 
specifically includes training in the areas of civil rights and the 
prevention of profiling.

                              {time}  1345

  I want to reiterate that this amendment does not change or alter any 
authority that already exists in law. It merely provides funding for 
States for their first responders who should be reimbursed for this 
training.
  I fully support this program, and I urge my colleagues to support 
this important amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I encourage Members to vote ``no'' on the Cox-
Sensenbrenner amendment authorizing $40 million to be appropriated from 
the fiscal year 2006 budget to reimburse States and locals for the 
costs associated with having State and local law enforcement trained 
and certified by DHS' Immigration and Customs Enforcement to enforce 
immigration laws.
  Mr. Chairman, plain and simple, we are shirking our responsibility as 
a government by passing this mission on to local authority. If we have 
the responsibility for immigration and immigration enforcement, we 
should do our job. We should appropriate the money to the respective 
department, whatever the requirements are, rather than passing the buck 
to local law enforcement. Local law enforcement clearly will tell my 
colleagues we have enough on our plate now, do not give us further 
responsibility by giving us immigration.
  So, Mr. Chairman, while I understand my colleague's reasoning behind 
the amendment, it is clearly something that allows us to put this 
responsibility on someone else.
  I guarantee my colleagues, when we do this, it will come with another 
program in the not-too-distant future. We will give other 
responsibilities to the local level.
  I am a former mayor and a former county supervisor. Knowing law 
enforcement at the personal level, I am convinced that we have more 
than enough to do at the local level. The Federal Government should do 
what it is required to do on immigration. Let us not pass the buck. Let 
us make sure that we take the immigration responsibility and retain it 
at the Federal level.
  That is why I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, this amendment is 
offered jointly by myself as chairman of the Committee on Homeland 
Security and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) as 
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), a member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and 
particularly the gentleman from California (Chairman Cox) for yielding 
me time and for working and participating on this amendment.
  I rise today in support of the Cox-Sensenbrenner amendment which 
authorizes funding to train State and local law enforcement officers to 
perform immigration officer functions.
  I submitted a nearly identical amendment to the Committee on Rules 
because I believe this amendment provides the help our local law 
enforcement needs to enforce our Nation's immigration laws and keep our 
citizens safe. I am proud to stand today with the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), my chairman, and the author of the 
underlying bill, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the Committee 
on Homeland Security chairman, to urge my colleagues to support this 
funding.
  Under section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, State 
and local governments can enter into cooperative agreements with the 
Department of Homeland Security to train on Federal immigration law and 
be reimbursed for that training. This amendment would authorize the 
funds needed for that reimbursement for States all across this Nation.
  There are two reasons to encourage local police to assist in 
enforcing immigration laws. First, while there are an estimated 8 to 10 
million illegal aliens in the United States, ICE currently has only 
about 2,000 special agents to identify and remove them. Second, local 
officers come into contact with many of those illegal aliens, 
especially criminal aliens, daily in performing their duties. So it is 
a practical marriage.
  The House Committee on the Judiciary has promoted and supported local 
immigration enforcement since section 287(g) was added to the INA in 
1996. In January of 2002, the Committee on the Judiciary pressed the 
Attorney General to accept local assistance in enforcing the 
immigration laws. As the then-Immigration Subcommittee chairman stated, 
``In light of the tragic events of September 11, 2001, and the growing 
problem of illegal immigration into the United States, this is perhaps 
the most pressing time for the Department of Justice to consider 
utilizing the power'' conveyed under section 287(g).
  The Federal Government subsequently authorized officers to perform 
immigration enforcement functions with Florida and Alabama.
  The Committee on the Judiciary has revisited this issue in evaluating 
interior immigration enforcement, in examining sanctuary policies in a 
number of major cities, and in assessing the inherent authority of 
local police to enforce the immigration laws.
  This amendment is an improvement over a narrow provision struck from 
H.R. 1817 during the markup of the legislation on May 12. That narrowly 
tailored provision applied only to States with a location 30 miles from 
a border or coastline. In order to truly protect our citizens from 
those who have entered our country illegally to do them harm, this 
policy must be applied nationwide.
  As an April 2005 Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and 
Claims hearing revealed, alien gang violence has followed immigration 
patterns from the ports and borders into the communities of the 
interior United States. Similarly, new reports indicate that local 
police far from the nearest national border confront alien criminals 
and smugglers on a daily basis.
  So in summary, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in 
support of this amendment that addresses the necessary cooperation 
between local law enforcement, both local and State, and the Federal 
educational support so that we can build that level of cooperation.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of 
my time for closing.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time remains on this 
side?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Cole of Oklahoma). The gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cox) has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Rogers).

[[Page H3477]]

  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Cox-Sensenbrenner amendment.
  I would like to associate myself with the comments of the gentleman 
from California (Chairman Cox) and agree this proposal would help local 
law enforcement better enforce our Nation's immigration laws.
  Two years ago, 21 Alabama State troopers completed ICE's Federal 5-
week training course. Since that time, these State troopers have 
detained 128 illegal aliens as a result of routine traffic stops. For 
example, this January of 2004, two individuals were stopped by an 
Alabama State trooper for a traffic violation. Because the trooper was 
trained on how to spot false immigration documents, the two were 
detained. In the course of the investigation, the men were found guilty 
of attempting to smuggle over $435,000 in U.S. currency out of the 
country.
  Likewise, in March of this year, two other individuals were stopped 
by an Alabama State trooper for a traffic violation. The driver 
identified was in possession of a U.S. passport, and the passenger was 
identified as a citizen of Mexico illegally present in the United 
States. A consensual search of the vehicle found nine firearms and 
ammunition hidden under the bed liner of the truck. Both were taken 
into ICE's custody for prosecution.
  It is important to note that all officers enrolled in this program 
received extensive training in cultural sensitivity and civil rights 
procedure.
  Contrary to the fears of the program's opponents, ICE has received no 
complaints of intimidation, harassment or profiling. In fact, Alabama 
law enforcement officials have reached out to its immigrant community 
to help educate them on the law.
  Overall, the program is an essential force multiplier and helps ICE 
officials better enforce our Nation's immigration laws.
  I would also like to recognize the work of the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. McCaul), a member of our committee, and all that he has done on 
this committee.
  I thank the chairman for his leadership, and I ask for the House's 
support of this amendment.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a member of the Committee 
on Homeland Security.
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman from Mississippi for yielding me time.
  I rise to acknowledge the good intentions of the effort offered by 
the proponent of this amendment, but I also raise a number of red flags 
that are not answered by this amendment. In fact, it creates a whole 
new obligation for the Federal Government that does not address the 
Federal Government's responsibility for immigration enforcement and 
reform.
  Frankly, I wish we were debating $40 million plus and more to fully 
fund the first responders bill or the first responders efforts to 
ensure that fire persons and police persons are fully funded for the 
work that they have to do to secure the homeland.
  I would prefer an amendment that would fully fund the 2,000 plus 
every year border security protection agents that the 9/11 Commission 
recommended.
  I would prefer this amendment to support the 800 a year ICE agents, 
the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers who are at a measly 
123 per year and do not have full complement to do their work.
  All this amendment does is to set up an incentive that will not last 
and to get local communities dependent upon resources and place them in 
the line of fire to be doing the enforcement of immigration laws that 
the Federal Government should actually be doing. This gives them the 
false hope of memorandums of understanding that year after year will 
not be fully funded.
  I am delighted that we are having this debate. At least we separate 
from the other body that wants to shut down the democratic process of 
debate by eliminating the filibuster. I will not do that today, but I 
think that we have an opportunity here to put forward a homeland 
security legislative initiative that really responds to the needs of 
enforcing immigration.
  Authorizing funding, as I indicated, would be a deceptive 
encouragement to States to enter into MOUs. The history of the State 
Criminal Alien Assistance Program, however, makes it clear that such 
funding is unlikely. That program was established by Congress to 
reimburse State and local governments for costs incurred when 
incarcerating undocumented aliens convicted of crimes.
  According to the National Association of Counties, State and local 
governments receive just 40 cents for every dollar they spend housing 
and processing such inmates. Meaning, Mr. Chairman, it has not worked.
  I see the very same pathway for this limited funding. Really, what we 
should be doing is giving the States $100 million plus that we have now 
burdened them with in the unfunded mandate of the REAL ID bill. That 
bill, that is not funded, is going to create the greatest amount of 
havoc for untrained individuals dealing with this. It is not the law 
enforcement officers' ground. It is the Department of Public Safety 
that is going to have to characterize and create something we call a 
national ID card.
  It also creates a false sense of public safety and it harms public 
safety. The false promise of funding would encourage some agencies to 
enter into MOUs, but expanded State and local enforcement of Federal 
immigration laws would harm public safety.
  When police become immigration agents, the trust and confidence of 
immigrants and their communities are shaken. Word spreads like 
wildfire, and those very same immigrants, legal and nonlegal, if you 
will, will stifle, cut out the work of helping local law enforcement 
solve crime. We know that immigrants, documented and undocumented, are 
preyed upon, are victims, and they are victims and they are fearful, 
and they are in the midst of crimes being perpetrated against them and 
their neighbors. They have the answers and they will not give the 
answers and we will not solve crime in many of our communities because 
they believe that the local law enforcement is there to harm them and 
not there to help them.
  I believe one frustration they run into is the fact that the 
Department of Homeland Security does not always respond to the request 
for assistance when people are believed to be undocumented. That is 
really where our problem is.
  The other problem I might say is that when they arrest these 
individuals, we do not have the adjudicators to process them. So there 
is an enormous backlog. I tried on the floor of the House to offer an 
appropriations increase to get us 300 adjudicators, an amendment of 
myself and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers). That did not 
prevail. So, in actuality, this is a false effort, giving $40 million 
with good intentions, but it really does nothing to help local law 
enforcement.
  Let us fully fund them for the work they have to do, fully fund the 
immigration law enforcement for the work they have to do, and let us do 
our work as a Federal Government in securing the homeland and providing 
immigration enforcement.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment to the Department of Homeland Security 
Authorization bill would authorize Federal funding for State and local 
police agencies who enter into MOUs with ICe to enforce immigration 
laws.
  Based on earlier versions of the amendment as it was proposed during 
committee consideration of the bill, it appears that only training 
costs would be reimbursed. Ongoing personnel and administrative costs 
incurred by law enforcement agencies that enter into MOUs would not.
  This amendment is inadequate for a variety of reasons:


                            false incentive

  Authorizing funding would be a deceptive encouragement to States to 
enter into MOUs. The history of the State Criminal Alien Assistance 
Program (SCAAP), however, makes it clear that such funding is unlikely. 
SCAAP was established by Congress to reimburse State and local 
governments for costs incurred when incarcerating undocumented aliens 
convicted of crimes.
  According to the National Association of Counties, State and local 
governments received just 40 cents for every dollar they spend housing 
and processing such inmates. Also, President Bush has consistently 
attempted to eliminate the program entirely in his annual budget 
requests.
  If Congress and the White House do not support full funding to 
reimburse State and

[[Page H3478]]

local governments for costs incurred during criminal enforcement 
activities, it is highly unlikely that they will appropriate the monies 
needed to fund State and local agencies that engage in civil 
immigration law enforcement.
  Not only is appropriation of this money less than certain, but the 
money covers a very small portion of the costs incurred by State and 
local agencies entering into MOUs. It does not fund ongoing salary and 
administrative costs for police as they take on new demands related to 
immigration enforcement. Indeed, if the drafters did want to 
appropriate this money, it would make more sense for them to fund 
hiring and training of additional Federal agents.


                          Harms public safety

  The false promise of funding would encourage some agencies to enter 
into MOUs. But expanded State and local enforcement of Federal 
immigration laws would harm public safety.
  When police become immigration agents, the trust and confidence of 
immigrants and their communities are shaken. Word spreads like wildfire 
that any contact with police could mean deportation for themselves or 
their family members. Immigrants decline to report crimes or suspicious 
activity, and criminals see them as easy prey, making our streets less 
safe as a result.
  Experience shows that this fear extends not only to contact with 
police, but also to the fire department, hospitals, and the public 
school system.


                             Not their role

  State and local law enforcement's priorities are and should be 
stopping, investigating, and punishing criminal activity. State and 
local police already have all the tools they need to work with Federal 
agencies, including ICE, on joint operations and investigations. They 
can also detain criminals who are also immigration law violators and 
contact ICE to come pick them up. They do this every day.
  One frustration they run into is the fact that DHS doesn't always 
respond to their requests for assistance with people believed to be 
undocumented. DHS also has its priorities, and has focused first on 
terrorists and criminals. Undocumented workers fall further down the 
list. This amendment does nothing to ensure that agencies entering into 
MOUs will actually see responses from ICE as they come across people 
they think could be undocumented and attempt to sort it out.
  Obviously the broken immigration system and lack of consistent 
enforcement cannot stand. But asking State and local police agencies to 
fill in where the Federal Government has failed is a cheap and false 
``solution.''


                            Not the solution

  The answer is not asking State and local governments to make up for 
the failures of the feds. The answer is modernizing the immigration 
system so that well-intentioned migrants can enter to work and reunite 
with their families legally. When the current undocumented population 
is brought out of the shadows for a proper vetting and gets on a path 
to legal status, our enforcement resources will be better trained on 
the smugglers and fake document rings, the drug runners and violent 
criminals, and the terrorists who might manipulate our system.
  As President Bush said, once immigrants have legal papers, ``Law 
enforcement will face fewer problems with undocumented workers, and 
will be better able to focus on the true threats to our Nation from 
criminals and terrorists. . . . Temporary workers will be able to 
establish their identities by obtaining the legal documents we all take 
for granted. And they will be able to talk openly to authorities, to 
report crimes when they are harmed, without the fear of being 
deported'' (White House policy announcement, 01/07/2003).
  These reforms are the real solution.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).
  Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding 
me time and for his hard work on this amendment which is vital to 
assisting State and local law enforcement to participate in this very 
important program. I was proud to offer the base amendment at the 
committee level, along with my friend from Alabama.
  An estimated 8- to 12 million undocumented aliens are here in the 
United States, and Border Patrol estimates that for every one that is 
apprehended at the border up to three others enter our Nation. In the 
post-9/11 world, these figures are no longer just an immigration 
problem but, rather, one of national security.

                              {time}  1400

  My experience on border security is that our Federal law enforcement 
officers are being stretched too thin and asked to do too much and need 
all the help available. With this amendment, State and local officers 
can be trained to be qualified to perform the essential functions of an 
immigration officer, including investigation, apprehension, and 
detention of not only undocumented aliens but potential criminals and 
terrorists.
  The $40 million to States who qualify will serve as a needed force 
multiplier to our border patrol, border inspectors, and ICE 
investigators; and it is purely a voluntary program.
  If we have learned anything from the tragedy of September 11, it is 
that we must work together. No longer can we afford the turf battles 
between State, Federal, and local law enforcement. As the head of the 
Joint Terrorism Task Force back in my State, the State of Texas, I can 
tell you that State and locals participate in the Joint Terrorism task 
forces. This will give them the tools and the training necessary to 
enforce not only our terrorist laws but the immigration laws that so 
often overlap into the Federal terrorist criminal penalties.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It will bring law 
enforcement together in a unified front to protect our national 
security.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how 
much time remains.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Cole of Oklahoma). The gentleman from 
Mississippi has 3\1/2\ minutes left on his side.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek), a member of the committee.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, we argued this amendment in 
committee, and I have some concerns about it because I used to be a 
State trooper in Florida. I know exactly what happens when we feel that 
we are doing something, but we are really not doing anything.
  With all due respect to my colleagues on the other side and their 
hard work, which I join them in the theory of making sure that we 
reimburse local law enforcement agencies that have invested time in 
doing what is a Federal agency responsibility, but the 9/11 report 
called for more ICE officers, it called for more Custom border 
protection officers, and it called for a Federal agency, like the 
Department of Homeland Security, to have what it needs to carry out its 
duties.
  I must point out to the Members at line 10 on this particular 
amendment, on the front page, page 7 here of the overall bill, it says 
that the Secretary of Homeland Security ``may'' reimburse State and 
political subdivisions for the expenses that are carried out in this 
subsection.
  Now, I am going to tell you right now this is the kind of language, 
and I want to make sure the law enforcement communities understand 
this, that this is not a guaranteed reimbursement. We are not 
guaranteeing them that they are going to be reimbursed. So I want to 
make sure the Members understand that wholeheartedly.
  I understand the intent of this amendment, but I believe that if we 
are going to run, let us run. If we are going to walk, let us walk. But 
let us not jog on an issue such as this. I believe that that language 
should say ``shall'' if we are going to come to the floor and say we 
are going to reimburse local subdivisions and State law enforcement 
agencies.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume in closing.
  (Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, as I have already 
indicated from my opposition to this amendment, we are moving toward 
making States and localities assume a Federal responsibility. This is 
not in the best interest of homeland security. We have certain things 
as a Federal Government that we should do. Immigration protection is 
one of those items.
  I understand from my chairman that he is interested in trying to 
help, but at some point we have to do our job. What we need to do is 
provide the resources to the Department to make sure that the 
Department can do its job, not pass the buck to another State.
  You have heard from my colleague who used to be a State trooper who 
talks about the difficulties in crossing the lines. I ask my colleague 
to consider that, but I also ask opposition to the amendment.

[[Page H3479]]

  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bonner). All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cox).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in part B of House Report 109-84.


         Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island

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

       Part B amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Kennedy of Rhode 
     Island:
       At the end of the matter proposed to be added as section 
     205 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 by section 223(a)(2) 
     of the bill strike the closing quotation marks and the final 
     period and insert the following:
       ``(c) Consultation.--In carrying out this section, the 
     Under Secretary shall consult with the Homeland Security 
     Center of Excellence for Behavioral and Social Research on 
     Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism and with such other academic 
     research centers with expertise in risk communications as the 
     Under Secretary considers appropriate.''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, the gentleman 
from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Terrorism is a psychological warfare. Terrorists try to manipulate us 
and change our behavior by creating fear, uncertainty, and division in 
society. To succeed, the terrorists do not necessarily need to land an 
attack. Threats of an attack and failed attacks can still create fear, 
uncertainty, and division; and that is the terrorists' goal.
  The key battleground in the war on terrorism, therefore, is in the 
minds of the American public. And how the government communicates about 
homeland security is central to how the public responds. I would argue 
that the communications record of the Department of Homeland Security 
has been an abysmal failure. The duct tape and plastic sheeting fiasco 
speaks for itself. The color-coded system does not work well and has 
undermined the Department's credibility.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), chairman of the Committee on 
Homeland Security, and I have talked about this issue over the last 
year, and I know he is very concerned about it. I am grateful that the 
committee has instructed the Department of Homeland Security in this 
bill to fix the problems with the color-coded terror alert system.
  As the bill requires, any terror alert system must give people and 
organizations some indication about what steps they must take to 
improve their own security and assist in the Nation's security. It also 
requires that the alert be targeted at specific populations or regions, 
when possible.
  What we have now is a system that tells us to be scared. That is it. 
We do not find out any information about the nature of the threat. We 
have no idea what we can do to make ourselves more secure. And this 
kind of vague warning inadvertently plays to the hands of the 
terrorists who want us to be afraid.
  On the other hand, the American public possesses a great resilience 
and strength, and good risk communication strategies can tap into and 
even amplify those assets. In other words, risk communications is 
crucial to homeland security because it can be the difference between 
hardening the target and making it more vulnerable.
  I have been working on these issues for several years now, and I can 
tell you that there is a wealth of knowledge out there about how the 
government should communicate in emergencies about threats. This 
amendment would simply require that in replacing the inadequate system 
we have now, that the Department draw on this expertise and research in 
order to help the government in its risk communications.
  In particular, I think it is critical that the Department consult 
with the Center of Excellence in Behavioral and Social Research in 
Terrorism and Counterterrorism, which is already funded by the 
Department. We are already paying for this research, and we should make 
sure it is realized.
  I want to thank the chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security 
and the ranking member, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), 
for agreeing to this amendment and for their leadership. I also want to 
extend special thanks to Dr. Mike Barnett from my office, who has been 
indispensable to me in crafting this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I will just close by saying that this amendment is not 
controversial, it has no cost, and it is very simple: When it comes to 
homeland security, communications have a lasting impact. So let us make 
sure we get it right by tapping the best experts.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. I yield to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding; and if I 
might, I would like to speak first to the amendment that the gentleman 
has offered, and then we could engage in a colloquy on a second 
amendment.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I rise therefore in support of the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Rhode Island. As the gentleman observes, 
we have established in the Federal Government, through the Department 
of Homeland Security, the Homeland Security Center of Excellence for 
Behavioral and Social Research on Terrorism and Counterterrorism. This 
center, which is located in Maryland, was established by a $12 million 
grant from the Department of Homeland Security in January of this year.
  This is the fourth Homeland Security Center of Excellence to be 
established. Its expertise lies precisely in this area, and it makes a 
good deal of sense to rely on this newly available expertise as we 
redesign the homeland security advisory system.
  As the gentleman from Rhode Island points out, section 205 of the 
underlying bill, which we are amending, will already require redesign 
of that system to move from vague and general warnings to specific 
warnings that wherever possible are sector specific, industry specific 
and threat specific; regional in nature wherever possible.
  We have to stop issuing vague warnings that only serve to alarm the 
general public, and we have to provide useful information to the 
category of people who receive the warning. Using the expertise of this 
center will accomplish both of these important objectives. And I am 
very glad that the gentleman from Rhode Island has worked with the 
staff on the committee to address some concerns with the original draft 
of the amendment so that we are now completely in accord on both the 
language and the wisdom of the proposal.
  For all of those reasons, I am pleased to accept the amendment and 
urge my colleagues to vote in its support.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, as my 
colleague and I have just spoken on the importance of communications 
and risk communications, as you know, research shows that the more the 
public is brought into the terrorism planning and response, 
particularly through social networks like churches, unions, 
professional organizations, and business groups, as well as 
neighborhood associations, the more effective we can be at limiting the 
impacts of terrorist acts and terrorist threats.
  Not only is the inherent resilience and the strength of the American 
public enhanced by participating, but the American public has a 
critical commonsense knowledge that the government agencies and 
community organizations need in order to develop plans that will 
protect as many people as possible.
  For this reason, it is a high priority of mine, as it is of my 
colleagues, to better integrate the public into the planning at State, 
local, and Federal levels. Preparedness and response efforts are likely 
to be far less successful than they should be if we do not have a plan 
and a substantial public involvement in the process.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, although I am in support of the amendment, I 
ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

[[Page H3480]]

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode 
Island (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, in closing, when the sarin 
gas attack happened in Japan, 90 percent of the people who went to the 
hospital had no infection or exposure to the sarin gas whatsoever. 
People died at the hospital because the medical teams were not able to 
attend to them because they were overwrought with people coming in and 
clogging up the hospital.
  If we had a terrorist attack, the way the people respond is going to 
determine whether that attack is just a tragedy or whether that attack 
becomes an all-out disaster. And that is why risk communications are so 
important. That is why the chairman and I are trying to work to make 
sure that the Department of Homeland Security does better than it has 
thus far and does better than the plastic sheeting and duct tape, which 
they once recommended in the wake of a terrorist threat, in addition to 
the color-coded system, which has not proven to be very successful.
  So I thank the chairman for his assistance in this matter.
  Mr. COX. I yield myself the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman, and I 
would like to commend the gentleman from Rhode Island for his comments 
on and his commitment to this vitally important issue. I too am 
committed to citizen terrorism preparedness.
  I agree that the Department of Homeland Security should make it a 
priority to engage the American public as partners in homeland 
security. It simply makes sense to encourage continued dialogue between 
the Department and its constituency, the American people.

                              {time}  1415

  The Department of Homeland Security has taken many important steps to 
foster just this kind of dialogue. For example, the Department 
administers the Citizen Corps Program which is specifically designed to 
improve civilian terrorism preparedness. In addition, the Department 
Science and Technology Directorate plans to establish a Center of 
Excellence on Domestic Preparedness and Response Capabilities. When 
established later this year, this center will engage in mission-
oriented research to enhance citizen preparedness and improve citizen 
input into local, State and Federal preparedness and response efforts.
  As chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, I believe it would 
be prudent for the committee to hold hearings on the purpose and 
effectiveness of the Department's citizen terrorism preparedness 
programs. I also agree with the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. 
Kennedy) that our government's preparedness is contingent upon actively 
and substantively engaging the citizens, and that that question must be 
part of our inquiry.
  I look forward to working with the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. 
Kennedy) as well as Members on both sides of the aisle on the Committee 
on Homeland Security as we examine this topic more closely. I think we 
all agree that citizen preparedness is simply too important to ignore.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bonner). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in part B of House Report 109-84.


                   Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Cox

  Mr. COX. 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. 4 offered by Mr. Cox:
       In section 302(c), strike ``the Congress'' and insert ``the 
     appropriate congressional committees''
       In section 331, strike subsection (b) and insert the 
     following:
       (b) Coordination and Cooperation.--
       (1) Coordination.--The Secretary shall coordinate the 
     prioritization under this section with other relevant Federal 
     agencies.
       (2) Cooperation.--Such prioritization shall be developed in 
     cooperation with other relevant State, local, and tribal 
     governments, and the private sector, as appropriate.
       In section 332, strike subsection (a) and insert the 
     following:
       (a) Requirement.--Not later than 9 months after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     shall--
       (1) review existing Federal, State, local, tribal, and 
     private sector plans for securing the critical infrastructure 
     included in the prioritization developed under section 331;
       (2) recommend changes to existing plans for securing such 
     infrastructure, as the Secretary determines necessary; and
       (3) coordinate and contribute to protective efforts of 
     other Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies and the 
     private sector, as appropriate.
       At the end of section 332, add the following new 
     subsection:
       (c) Coordination.--The Secretary shall coordinate the 
     security review and recommendations required by subsection 
     (a) with other relevant Federal agencies.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Cox) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) to speak in support of the amendment 
which the gentleman offered to the Committee on Rules and was made in 
order under the rule.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security for offering my 
amendment when it would have been very easy for the gentleman to just 
let it go when I was not here, but being the gentleman he is, he did 
the honorable decent thing, and I appreciate that.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say that the Dingell-Barton amendment that is 
before us right now makes a simple but important change to H.R. 1817, 
the Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2006. This bipartisan amendment enshrines a commitment made by the 
Committee on Homeland Security but which was inadvertently left out of 
the Cox manager's amendment.
  There are two primary reasons that the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce, which I chair, decided to mark up H.R. 1817. First was the 
creation of Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity at the Department of 
Homeland Security. The issue of cybersecurity is one that is core to 
the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. Indeed, the 
committee has existing oversight on telecommunications, nuclear, energy 
and information networks, systems, facilities and equipment over which 
any cybersecurity attack would occur as well as the potential effects 
of cybersecurity incidents on our Nation's interstates and foreign 
commerce.
  The other primary reason, and the one for which I am offering this 
amendment today, is to require, and I want to emphasize require, the 
Department of Homeland Security to coordinate with other relevant 
Federal agencies, especially as it pertains to the protection of 
critical infrastructure. Many of these Federal agencies are taking 
strong and innovative steps to protect the critical infrastructure they 
regulate, which is why it is so important for the Department of 
Homeland Security to closely coordinate with these agencies.
  Unfortunately, the Committee on Homeland Security which had assured 
us that this particular language would be a part of the manager's 
amendment, did not get included, and I understand it was inadvertent. 
But because of that reason we have had to offer this as an amendment on 
the floor. It is my understanding that the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Cox), the chairman of the committee, fully support this language, 
and I am not aware that anybody opposes it. I hope at the appropriate 
time we can pass this by voice vote and all Members voting aye.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the chairman of the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce in a colloquy.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COX. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, there are a number of places in 
the manager's amendment to H.R. 11817

[[Page H3481]]

that refer to coordination efforts between the Department of Homeland 
Security with ``other relevant Federal agencies,'' specifically as it 
relates to protection of critical infrastructure and cybersecurity. I 
want to ask the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Homeland 
Security if those ``other relevant Federal agencies'' would include the 
departments and agencies under the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce, including the Department of Commerce, Department 
of Energy, Department of Health and Human Services, Federal 
Communications Commission, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Federal Trade Commission, National 
Information Agency, and the Environmental Protection Agency?
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, yes, I agree. Certainly in matters relating to 
cybersecurity and protection of critical infrastructure, the agencies 
the gentleman listed will be considered ``relevant Federal agencies.''
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the gentleman for his explanation and 
look forward to working with him to ensure that all relevant Federal 
agencies have a role to play in homeland security. And although it is 
not a part of the colloquy, there may come a day when the gentleman 
from California is the chairman of the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce, and he will be very glad he answered yes to those questions.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
claim the time in opposition to the amendment for purposes of debate, 
although I do not oppose the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Mississippi?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, for the record, I am in support of this 
amendment, as are the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) and the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
  This amendment highlights the important need for the Secretary of the 
Department of Homeland Security to coordinate the prioritization of the 
Nation's critical infrastructure with other relevant Federal agencies. 
By requiring the Secretary to enter such partnerships, the Department 
of Homeland Security can draw upon the institutional expertise of a 
variety of agencies.
  This is critical for completing an accurate, comprehensive and 
thorough assessment of terrorist threats to our country's critical 
infrastructure. Having seen the national asset database lists for 
Mississippi, I believe the Department needs as much help as it can get. 
Our Nation can no longer wait for an accurate prioritization of our 
most valuable asset. This is why I join my other colleagues and 
encourage Members to vote yes on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cox).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in part B of House Report 109-84.


     Amendment No. 5 Offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas

  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part B Amendment No. 5 offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson 
     of Texas:
       Page 50, after line 17, insert the following:

     SEC. 310. NATIONAL MEDICAL PREPAREDNESS CONSORTIUM.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     make grants for the National Medical Preparedness Consortium 
     to train emergency medical professionals to prepare for the 
     mass casualties that would be caused by a terrorist event 
     involving weapons of mass destruction.
       (b) Description of Consortium.--The Consortium referred to 
     in subsection (a) is a consortium of institutions that--
       (1) have existing facilities and experience in emergency 
     medical training;
       (2) have worked together for over 10 years on disaster 
     medical training and mass casualty management;
       (3) in 2004, established a national standard, known as the 
     National Disaster Life Support curricula, for the medical 
     treatment of mass casualties from terrorist events involving 
     weapons of mass destruction; and
       (4) have worked to implement throughout the United States 
     training programs for medical professionals that use such 
     standard.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--For the purpose of 
     making grants under subsection (a), there is authorized to be 
     appropriated $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2006.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) and the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Deal) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice 
Johnson).
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking 
member as well as the chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security 
for coming forth with this legislation.
  The objective of my amendment is very simple. This amendment attempts 
to promulgate a national standardization of emergency medical response 
training to events involving weapons of mass destruction.
  The centerpiece of the National Medical Preparedness Consortium is 
its affiliation with the Center for Mass Destruction Defense, a CDC 
Center for Public Health Preparedness.
  The Center For Mass Destruction Defense is the original developer of 
the National Disaster Life Support courses, Basic Disaster Life Support 
and Advanced Disaster Life Support, which provides an all-hazards 
approach to emergency medical services preparedness and are the only 
courses certified by the American Medical Association as national 
standards.
  The Center for Mass Destruction Defense was also one of the founding 
members of the National Disaster Life Support Education Committee of 
the AMA, which oversees the development and current implementation of 
the basic and advanced disaster life support courses, as well as a 
cofounder of the National Medical Preparedness Consortium. The funding 
for the National Medical Disaster Consortium would come from the Office 
of Domestic Preparedness which would not exceed $5 million.
  Since before the 9/11 attacks, great progress has been made in the 
level of training and preparedness for the first responders for 
terrorist attacks, including firefighters, police and other law 
enforcement personnel.
  These first responders have been telling their trainers we really 
appreciate the training and preparedness, especially for large-scale 
attacks, but when are you going to start training the health care 
people? They are going to be real efficient about bringing these 
patients up to the emergency room, but what happens after they enter?
  It is one of those strange disconnects. When we had 9/11, most of the 
people were killed and all we thought about was firemen and policemen. 
But we do not expect that everyone will be killed if we have another 
disaster. They will need emergency care, and that is where this comes 
in.
  The physicians, nurses, hospitals, providers and other health care 
personnel have not been getting the widespread training in terrorist 
attacks that the firefighters, police and other first responders have 
gotten. There has been a variety of courses done here and there, but 
the vast majority of the health care personnel have not been trained 
and the ones that have received some training have received a real 
hodgepodge of courses of different course content, different quality, 
and even with strange disagreements between the courses.
  As a trained, educated, degreed nurse myself, I can tell Members 
firsthand that in certain critical fields of medicine the professional 
community has come up with a national standard of training in order to 
get everybody on the same page because it is often important that 
nurses and physicians go from one end of the country to another when 
needed, just as firemen and policemen do, but they need to have a 
specific body of knowledge when they get there.

[[Page H3482]]

  The two main examples were trauma care and cardiac care before we 
came up with a national standard for trauma care. Like car wrecks, 
people were getting different approaches in some places, and patients 
were dying from poor care.

                              {time}  1430

  The same was happening with cardiac care. Then we came up with 
advanced trauma life support, or ATLS, and advanced cardiac life 
support. These national standards revolutionized trauma and cardiac 
care around the Nation. I have taken both the ATLS and the ACLS myself 
and this is the way to go.
  What we need now is a national standard for disaster care so that the 
medical community will be able to respond responsibly across the 
Nation. What we need is a national standard for advanced disaster life 
support. Well, there is an advanced disaster life support curriculum 
that has been developed by the CDC center known as the Center for Mass 
Destruction Defense, and this curriculum has been endorsed by the 
American Medical Association for a national standard for disaster 
medical care.
  In addition to the AMA, a number of specialty medical organizations 
have also adopted the advanced disaster life support curriculum, such 
as the American College of Emergency Physicians. The advanced disaster 
life support and its sister courses, basic disaster life support and 
CDLS, have been presented in 35 States now which is a wider 
distribution for an all-hazards disaster medical curriculum than any 
other available.
  I know that the opposition to this is that it did not come through 
the Committee on Energy and Commerce and there are some who think it 
has already been done. What I am attempting to do here is to put 
something in a standard for around the Nation so that all of the people 
involved will have a standard body of knowledge.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman 
yield?
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to know if I 
can depend on my colleague to help to get this in the right order so 
that we can still standardize this training around the Nation.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Yes, I can give the gentlewoman that assurance. 
I am sympathetic to the issue that she is concerned with. Our committee 
is more than willing to work with my colleague and her staff to try to 
coordinate that. We simply do not think that we ought to have grants 
that are duplicative of other programs that are there. For example, the 
Noble Training Center in Alabama, which I am sure the gentleman from 
Mississippi may be familiar with, has a specialized hospital that is 
engaged in training health professionals for this specific purpose. We 
simply think that we should coordinate the grants and that the 
Department of Health and Human Services is the appropriate agency to 
coordinate these grant programs.
  If the gentlewoman would be so kind as to withdraw her amendment, I 
can assure her that I and the members of our Subcommittee on Health 
will be glad to work with her to try to achieve the goals that she has 
in mind with this amendment.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I thank the gentleman very much, 
and I will withdraw this amendment.
  I would like to say, too, that the Bechtel, Nevada/National Nuclear 
Security Administration; the Dartmouth College Interactive Media 
Laboratory; Eastern Kentucky University; Hazard Community College of 
Kentucky; New Mexico Technical University; New York City Office of 
Chief Medical Examiner; Summerlin Medical Center, University Medical 
Center, Las Vegas; Tulane University Medical Center; University of 
Findlay, Ohio; University of Georgia/Medical College of Georgia; 
University of Louisville (Kentucky); University of Texas Southwest 
Medical School, which is in my district; Upper Iowa University; 
Vanderbilt University; and Western Michigan University along with about 
30 emergency physicians that we have been collaborating with for the 
last 3 years.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bonner). Without objection, the amendment is 
withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in part B of House Report 109-84.


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Ehlers

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

       Part B Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Ehlers:
       At the end of subtitle A of title III, add the following 
     (and conform the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 310. COMMERCIAL FLIGHTS TO AND FROM RONALD REAGAN 
                   WASHINGTON NATIONAL AIRPORT.

       (a) Passenger Seating Requirements.--Passengers on 
     commercial flights arriving at and departing from Ronald 
     Reagan Washington National Airport shall remain seated for 15 
     minutes after takeoff from and before touchdown at that 
     airport.
       (b) Violations.--If a passenger violates the requirements 
     of subsection (a), the captain of the aircraft shall 
     determine if the passenger's actions present a security 
     threat to other passengers or the aircraft. Only if the 
     captain determines that the passenger's actions present such 
     a threat shall a flight be diverted to a destination other 
     than Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.
       (c) Regulations.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security may issue regulations to 
     decrease the time limit set forth in subsection (a).

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This is a very simple amendment. It would change the 30-minute rule 
that requires passengers on commercial flights into and out of 
Washington Reagan National Airport to remain seated for the first or 
last 30 minutes of the flight and for passengers to remain tightly in 
their seats and not even use the restroom facilities. I believe every 
Member of this House has experienced the nuisance of this rule. It 
simply does not make sense. It is an inconvenience to the traveler and 
does nothing to enhance flight security, particularly because there are 
two marshals aboard every plane into and out of Washington Reagan 
National Airport. My amendment would reduce the time in seat to 15 
minutes, which should certainly be adequate. It would also permit the 
Secretary of Homeland Security to decrease the time even more. The 
amendment would also prohibit the pilot from diverting a flight from 
DCA for a violation of the seating rule unless he or she determines the 
passenger's actions to be a threat to the security of the other 
passengers or the aircraft.
  There are several reasons for offering this amendment. We have 
already dramatically enhanced airport and airplane security since the 
time the rule was imposed. We have done this through several measures. 
First, improved passenger screening. Secondly, we have increased the 
number of in-flight Federal air marshals. Third, we have reinforced the 
cockpit doors. And, fourth, have authorized armed pilots in the 
cockpit.
  Mr. Chairman, requiring DCA passengers to remain seated for 30 
minutes when similar restrictions are not placed on passengers 
traveling to and from Dulles and BWI or any other airport does not make 
sense. Planes leaving DCA go past Dulles Airport in approximately 10 
minutes, so under a 30-minute rule for DCA, should Dulles passengers 
not be forced to remain seated for 20 minutes on westbound flights and 
40 minutes on eastbound flights? This rule just does not make sense, 
particularly since the incidents that already have taken place with 
hijacked airplanes were not from DCA but one of them, in fact, was from 
Dulles Airport.
  I understand that our Nation's capital faces significant terrorist 
threats and boasts many important terrorist targets, but it is 
important to note that none of these flights that were hijacked on 
September 11 originated at DCA. LaGuardia does not have this

[[Page H3483]]

rule. JFK does not have the same rule, even though the attack occurred 
on New York.
  Mr. Chairman, I fly into and out of Reagan airport every week. 
Several times on these flights I have heard snickering and jokes about 
the 30-minute rule. People know that this rule makes no sense, and the 
government is the butt of jokes about it. It is nonsense to have rules 
that are nonsensical, causes the government to lose the respect of the 
people. I have also seen people, particularly children and elderly, 
desperate to use the bathroom but unable to do so. This inconvenience 
is pointless.
  I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek recognition in opposition?
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Silence in the Chamber represents approval in this particular case. I 
appreciate the incredible support I have received from my colleagues 
for this amendment since I offered it. I have instantly become popular 
for the first time in my congressional career. I appreciate the meaning 
of the silence that we have.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 
printed in part B of House Report 109-84.


                 Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. DeFazio

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

       Part B Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. DeFazio:
       At the end of subtitle A of title III, add the following 
     (and conform the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 310. FEDERAL FLIGHT DECK OFFICERS.

       (a) Training and Requalification Training.--Section 
     44921(c) of title 49, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Location of training.--
       ``(A) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study of the 
     feasibility of conducting Federal flight deck officer initial 
     training at facilities located throughout the United States, 
     including an analysis of any associated programmatic impacts 
     to the Federal flight deck officer program.
       ``(B) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary shall transmit to 
     Congress a report on the results of the study.
       ``(4) Dates of training.--The Secretary shall ensure that a 
     pilot who is eligible to receive Federal flight deck officer 
     training is offered, to the maximum extent practicable, a 
     choice of training dates and is provided at least 30 days 
     advance notice of the dates.
       ``(5) Travel to training facilities.--The Secretary shall 
     establish a program to improve travel access to Federal 
     flight deck officer training facilities through the use of 
     charter flights or improved scheduled air carrier service.
       ``(6) Requalification and recurrent training.--
       ``(A) Standards.--The Secretary shall establish 
     qualification standards for facilities where Federal flight 
     deck officers can receive requalification and recurrent 
     training.
       ``(B) Locations.--The Secretary shall provide for 
     requalification and recurrent training at geographically 
     diverse facilities, including Federal, State, and local law 
     enforcement and government facilities, and private training 
     facilities that meet the qualification standards established 
     under subparagraph (A).
       ``(7) Costs of training.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall provide Federal 
     flight deck officer training, requalification training, and 
     recurrent training to eligible pilots at no cost to the 
     pilots or the air carriers that employ the pilots.
       ``(B) Transportation and expenses.--The Secretary may 
     provide travel expenses to a pilot receiving Federal flight 
     deck officer training, requalification training, or recurrent 
     training.
       ``(8) Communications.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     date of enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary shall 
     establish a secure means for personnel of the Transportation 
     Security Administration to communicate with Federal flight 
     deck officers, and for Federal flight deck officers to 
     communicate with each other, in support of the mission of 
     such officers. Such means of communication may include a 
     secure Internet website.
       ``(9) Issuance of badges.--Not later than 180 days after 
     the date of enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary shall 
     issue badges to Federal flight deck officers.''.
       (b) Revocation of Deputization of Pilot as Federal Flight 
     Deck Officer.--Section 44921(d)(4) of title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(4) Revocation.--
       ``(A) Orders.--The Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security 
     (Transportation Security Administration) may issue, for good 
     cause, an order revoking the deputization of a Federal flight 
     deck officer under this section. The order shall include the 
     specific reasons for the revocation.
       ``(B) Hearings.--An individual who is adversely affected by 
     an order of the Assistant Secretary under subparagraph (A) is 
     entitled to a hearing on the record. When conducting a 
     hearing under this section, the administrative law judge 
     shall not be bound by findings of fact or interpretations of 
     laws and regulations of the Assistant Secretary.
       ``(C) Appeals.--An appeal from a decision of an 
     administrative law judge as a result of a hearing under 
     subparagraph (B) shall be made to the Secretary or the 
     Secretary's designee.
       ``(D) Judicial review of a final order.--The determination 
     and order of the Secretary revoking the deputization of a 
     Federal flight deck officer under this section shall be final 
     and conclusive unless the individual against whom such an 
     order is issued files an application for judicial review 
     under subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5 (popularly known 
     as the Administrative Procedure Act) within 60 days of entry 
     of such order in the appropriate United States court of 
     appeals.''.
       (c) Federal Flight Deck Officer Firearm Carriage Pilot 
     Program.--Section 44921(f) of title 49, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Pilot program.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary shall implement a 
     pilot program to allow pilots participating in the Federal 
     flight deck officer program to transport their firearms on 
     their persons. The Secretary may prescribe any training, 
     equipment, or procedures that the Secretary determines 
     necessary to ensure safety and maximize weapon retention.
       ``(B) Review.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     initiation of the pilot program, the Secretary shall conduct 
     a review of the safety record of the pilot program and 
     transmit a report on the results of the review to Congress.
       ``(C) Option.--If the Secretary as part of the review under 
     subparagraph (B) determines that the safety level obtained 
     under the pilot program is comparable to the safety level 
     determined under existing methods of pilots carrying firearms 
     on aircraft, the Secretary shall allow all pilots 
     participating in the Federal flight deck officer program the 
     option of carrying their firearm on their person subject to 
     such requirements as the Secretary determines appropriate.''.
       (d) Federal Flight Deck Officers on International 
     Flights.--
       (1) Agreements with foreign governments.--The President is 
     encouraged to pursue aggressively agreements with foreign 
     governments to allow maximum deployment of Federal flight 
     deck officers on international flights.
       (2) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the President (or the President's 
     designee) shall submit to Congress a report on the status of 
     the President's efforts to allow maximum deployment of 
     Federal flight deck officers on international flights.
       (e) References to Under Secretary.--Section 44921 of title 
     49, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a) by striking ``Under Secretary of 
     Transportation for Security'' and inserting ``Secretary of 
     Homeland Security'';
       (2) by striking ``Under Secretary'' each place it appears 
     and inserting ``Secretary''; and
       (3) by striking ``Under Secretary's'' each place it appears 
     and inserting ``Secretary's''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This amendment which I am offering with the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Mica) of the Subcommittee on Aviation would make a good program 
even better, the Federal flight deck officer program, the last line of 
defense on the plane. Arming the pilots on the flight deck makes a 
tremendous amount of sense. There cannot be an air marshal on every 
plane, planes lack secondary barriers, and on longer flights pilots 
have to frequently open the door to receive food or use the facilities. 
If a terrorist attack or attempt should occur, knowing that the pilots 
are armed could provide the critical thing to save the passengers on 
that flight.
  This amendment has the strong support of the Airline Pilots 
Association--I have a letter here--the National Rifle Association and 
others. This would

[[Page H3484]]

make a number of changes. They would be issued badges which they do not 
currently have and they sometimes have a hard time convincing people 
they are authorized to have a gun and they are a Federal law 
enforcement officer for purposes of aviation. It would give them an 
appeals process for revocation of their certification. It would look 
toward making the training more accessible for people, particularly the 
recertification, although the facility we are using now is an excellent 
facility but we want to be certain that because of distance or time 
that more pilots are not precluded from becoming volunteers and 
providing this critical defense.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Mica).
  Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman for yielding time. Hopefully that 2 
minutes will be sufficient to deal with this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment does make a successful program even more 
successful. Sometimes that is hard to find in government agencies and 
activities and it is also sometimes hard to find in the incredible 
amount of dollars that we spend for homeland security. This takes a 
program that was opposed by the airlines, somewhat by the 
administration, by the other body, by some Members on both sides of the 
aisle and actually takes a program that gives us a last line of 
defense, an additional layer. This is in addition to the air marshals. 
This is in addition to secured cockpit doors and other improvements 
that we have put in place.
  These individuals involved in this, the pilots, I have nothing but 
the greatest praise for their going forward in a long training program, 
it takes a full week, going practically to the end of the earth. I went 
out there with the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce), he 
represents Albuquerque, and then we went to Roswell, which is 2 or 3 
hours to the south. I said, are we there yet? He said, no, tomorrow I'm 
taking you to the end of the earth which is where they have put this 
program.
  I cannot tell you how many pilots have participated in this, both 
commercial passenger and cargo. It will exceed the number of air 
marshals that we have in this fine program. This does some things in 
helping them access recurrent training that is required, improves 
communications and gives them safe weapons carriage. It is a great 
program. They are great, dedicated Americans and pilots involved in 
this program and this enhances a very successful back line of defense 
for aviation security.
  I commend the gentleman from Oregon, the former ranking member of our 
subcommittee, for his efforts.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the ranking member on the 
Committee on Homeland Security.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this 
amendment. It is a commonsense amendment. We have to do all we can to 
protect the flying public. As has already been said, our pilots are the 
last line of defense to protect the flying public. By training them 
with this program and providing all of the necessary background checks, 
there is no excuse for not making this program successful. I compliment 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) and join the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) in support of this amendment, and I look forward 
to its passage.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1445

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bonner). It is now in order to consider 
amendment No. 8 printed in part B of House Report 109-84.


                 Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Cardin

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

       Part B amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Cardin:
       Page 55, line 15, after ``Research Projects Agency,'' 
     insert the following: ``the Information Assurance Directorate 
     of the National Security Agency,''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, by way of brief background, this legislation creates an 
Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity, a much-needed high-level 
position in the Department of Homeland Security. We need one person in 
our government to serve as the point person on cyber security issues.
  The legislation also tasks the Under Secretary for Science and 
Technology with support, research, and development, including long-term 
research, into cybersecurity issues with a particular focus on 
preventing and responding to large-scale, high-impact attacks.
  This bill would require the Under Secretary to coordinate their 
activities with the Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity and three 
other named agencies: NSF, DARPA, and NIST. My amendment would bring to 
the table one agency in addition, which would be the National Security 
Agency, or NSA. NSA is most well known for its signals intelligence and 
interception of messages. However, NSA has a long and distinguished 
history of working in the field of information assistance. Indeed, NSA 
is responsible for safeguarding the privacy and security of military 
communications as well as many other civilian communications of our 
government.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman and ranking member of the 
committee for working with me on this amendment, and I would urge my 
colleagues to accept the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9 
printed in part B of House Report 109-84.


                Amendment No. 9 Offered by Ms. Slaughter

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

       Part B amendment No. 9 offered by Ms. Slaughter:
       Page 69, after line 13, insert the following (and amend the 
     table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 405. IMPROVING SENTRI, FAST, AND NEXUS PRE-ENROLLMENT 
                   PROGRAMS.

       (a) Creation of Remote Enrollment Centers.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall create a minimum of 4 
     remote enrollment centers for the programs described in 
     paragraph (2). Such remote enrollment centers shall be 
     established away from the borders of the United States and in 
     population centers where there is a demand for such a 
     service.
       (2) Programs.--The programs described in paragraph (1) are 
     the following:
       (A) The Free and Secure Trade, or ``FAST'', program 
     authorized under subpart B of title IV of the Tariff Act of 
     1930 (19 U.S.C 1411 et seq).
       (B) The Secure Electronic Network for Travelers Rapid 
     Inspection, or ``SENTRI'', program authorized under section 
     286(q) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1356(q)).
       (C) The ``NEXUS'' program authorized under section 286(q) 
     of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1356(q)).
       (b) Customer Service Phone Number.--The Secretary shall 
     create a customer service telephone number for the programs 
     described in subsection (a)(2).
       (c) Merging Requirements of NEXUS Land and Air Cards.--The 
     Secretary of Homeland Security shall merge the requirements 
     of the land and air cards issued under the ``NEXUS'' program 
     authorized under section 286(q) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1356(q)) into one uniform card that 
     will work for land and air crossings.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Tightening security along our vast northern border is one of the most 
important steps we have taken to defend

[[Page H3485]]

our homeland since September 11. New security measures have had 
unintended consequences of stifling trade and tourism with our Canadian 
neighbors. Traffic congestion at the border continues to be a 
longstanding problem for local Canadian and New York residents who rely 
upon it for their business and personal lives. It is not uncommon for 
travelers at the Peace Bridge in Buffalo to experience 3- to 4-hour 
delays trying to cross the border.
  Beyond the local impact on our constituents, border-crossing delays 
cost the entire Nation dearly. According to a new report by the Ontario 
Chamber of Commerce, the U.S. economy absorbs 40 percent of the current 
cost of the border delays, and that means that the U.S. losses are 
$4.13 billion a year, or $471,000 an hour, due to the border 
congestion. If action is not taken, we stand to lose 17,000 jobs by 
2020 and 91,000 by 2030.
  And we want to alleviate that by expanding the pre-clearance programs 
like NEXUS, FAST, and SENTRI. These programs, which are joint ventures 
between the U.S., Canadian, and Mexican governments, are designed to 
simplify the border crossings for pre-approved, low-risk travelers and 
businesses.
  Right now constituents along the border complain that registration is 
overly burdensome and complex, and it is. It is unacceptable that 
American citizens must travel to Canada to enroll in the NEXUS program. 
So to expand and make pre-clearance easier to navigate, my amendment 
would authorize the creation of at least four enrollment centers in the 
United States and would establish a customer phone service number. As 
it stands now, there is no phone to reach NEXUS.
  Finally, the amendment would create one consistent NEXUS card for 
land and air travelers. NEXUS cards currently require a retinal scan, 
while NEXUS land cards use fingerprints; and we would merge these two 
and use one security feature for both air and land crossings.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment has the support of the United States 
Chamber of Commerce and the border mayors in western New York. Losing 
nearly half a million dollars an hour from border delays, the cost of 
pre-clearance upgrades would easily pay for themselves.
  I am most grateful to the chairman of the committee and the vice 
chairman of the committee and urge adoption of this amendment. And I 
thank them for working with me on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10 
printed in part B of House Report 109-84.


                 Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Souder

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

       Part B amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Souder:
       At the end of title IV of the amendment, add the following 
     (and conform the table of contents of the bill accordingly):

     SEC. 405. LEAD AGENCY FOR CERTAIN AIRSPACE SECURITY.

       (a) Lead Agency for National Capital Region.--The Office of 
     Air and Marine Operations of the Bureau of Customs and Border 
     Protection of the Department of Homeland Security shall be 
     the lead agency in the Department responsible for the 
     planning and execution of the airspace security in the 
     special use airspace that surrounds the National Capital 
     region.
       (b) Lead Agency for Special Events of National 
     Significance.--The Office of Air and Marine Operations shall 
     be the lead agency in the Department responsible for the 
     planning and execution of airspace security for those special 
     events of national significance, as determined by the 
     President, that require specialized security of the airspace 
     surrounding the event.
       (c) Duties of Lead Agency.--As the lead agency in the 
     Department of Homeland Security for airspace security for any 
     airspace under this section, the Office of Air and Marine 
     Operations shall take such actions as may be necessary to 
     facilitate the coordination, within the Department and 
     between the Department and the Departments of Transportation, 
     Justice, and Defense and appropriate State and local 
     government agencies that have jurisdiction over an area that 
     is within the boundaries of such airspace, of airspace 
     security activities for such airspace and of law enforcement 
     responses to violations of such airspace security.
       (d) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     shall prepare and submit to Congress a report that identifies 
     the facility, asset, and personnel requirements necessary to 
     carry out the airspace security responsibilities of the 
     Office of Air and Marine Operations under this section.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  After the first attacks on 9/11, the Secret Service was given 
responsibility for the airspace in the National Capital region. During 
the final 6 months of the Department of Defense working with the Secret 
Service, there were 182 intrusions into the 15-mile security ring. In 
December, 2000, DoD was tasked into finding a more optimal solution 
because one of the problems, which we saw just a couple weeks ago here 
at the Capitol building, is when we have a plane going 85 knots, 93 
miles an hour, and all of a sudden an F-16 comes on going at 300 miles 
an hour, there is no escorting of the plane, there is no ability to 
talk to the plane. So the Air and Marine division, AMO, of the Customs 
and Border Protection agency inside DHS, has the smaller planes, the 
Citation, the Black Hawks with which to do this.
  Just last week my staff and other staff in the Senate and the House 
learned on Friday that inside the Department of Homeland Security there 
is no designee who is the lead, and we have to work it out between DHS 
and the Department of Defense; but it is just appalling that inside the 
Department of Homeland Security we do not have a lead as to who is in 
charge in the air.
  A couple of basic things that we need to understand here. That plane 
got within 2 minutes. It was a small plane that might have bounced off, 
but what we have seen throughout the world in a number of terrorist 
incidents now, planes exactly like that one loaded with C-4 blow up the 
place. We did not get our warning to get out of this building and clear 
the area. I got to 1st St. at approximately the time the plane was 
being landed. In other words, we could barely get out of the cloakroom 
before the plane would have hit.
  So unless we can control that airspace, unless we have a lead 
designee like the Air and Marine division inside DHS, which is a start, 
and then to work with DoD, we are dead here. There is no way to stop a 
plane. Even if they had shot down the plane, it would have hit us 
coming on in unless it completely disintegrated, and at 93 miles an 
hour, it was a tough call.
  So I believe this amendment addresses a great need.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to engage in a colloquy, if I might, with my colleague from 
Indiana and begin by sharing with him my support for his objectives and 
also my shared concern with this issue, which he has clearly 
identified, of overlapping jurisdictions.
  Before the Congress takes the next step of designating a single 
agency to be the lead on airspace security, it is my view that we need 
our full Committee on Homeland Security through hearings and oversight 
to take an in-depth look at the capabilities of each of the agencies 
involved. Additionally, Secretary Chertoff is just days away from 
presenting to us the results of his 90-day top-to-bottom review of the 
Department, and I expect that the results of that review will include 
issues of mission overlap and also areas needing improved coordination.
  So I would be glad to work with the gentleman on this precise issue 
and to

[[Page H3486]]

move with alacrity if he would be willing to withdraw his amendment so 
that we can consider this in the committee. If that is agreeable to 
him, I would be happy to make that commitment at this time.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COX. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, my concern is that, as he knows, I had two 
other amendments that I withdrew because we had jurisdictional 
questions. Clearly, the Parliamentarian has ruled in this case that 
this amendment is germane to this bill, is in the jurisdiction of this 
committee, and is in the primary and actually sole jurisdiction of this 
committee or it would not be in this committee. This is only inside the 
Department of Homeland Security. It does not have anything to do with 
the Department of Defense.
  So my question is that, if I withdraw my amendment, are we guaranteed 
that, in fact, it will come back through our committee and be in the 
sole jurisdiction of our committee?
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I believe the gentleman 
has very clearly and accurately stated the jurisdictional question on 
this amendment. It has been determined that it falls within the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Homeland Security. For that reason I 
would propose that the Committee on Homeland Security take up this 
issue and use its jurisdiction to help solve this problem.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COX. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I agree that we have not had hearings. I 
believe that the urgency is great and that we fight so much over 
jurisdiction in this body that literally this Congress and this city 
could have been theoretically blown off the face of the Earth while we 
argue over jurisdiction.
  So I hope this would be done with alacrity. I would hope that there 
will not be jurisdictional battles, that it has to go through three 
committees, so that we can get something back to this floor as soon as 
possible because it was demonstrated last week that our lives may 
depend on this.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  We are all aware of the aircraft incursion in the National Capital 
Region airspace last week. I believe that the response to that event 
demonstrates that coordination and communication between the various 
Federal agencies works well.
  Each agency, including the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the 
Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the Department of Defense 
(DOD), and the Customs and Border Protection, Air and Marine Operations 
(AMO) had the same information, communication and coordination was 
excellent, and each agency fulfilled their role as expected.
  It has been my understanding that each agency, including AMO, has a 
specific role to play.
  The FAA is the lead and has sole authority over airspace management 
and control at all times.
  The TSA handles airspace security policy within the Department of 
Homeland Security.
  AMO handles tracking and intercepting aircraft in violation of FAA 
airspace rules and orders in the National Capital Region, and handles 
other law enforcement operations.
  Finally, the DOD is in charge of airspace defense.
  These rules have been long established and are not in question.
  Therefore, I am unsure why there is a perceived need for a lead 
agency within the Department of Homeland Security in these situations 
even more, I am unsure if AMO is the proper entity to fulfill that 
role.
  Nevertheless, I believe strongly that FAA must retain airspace 
management and control at all times . . . before, during and after an 
event, terrorist or otherwise.
  Without a doubt, aviation safety is of paramount importance, even 
during an incursion event, and the FAA is the proper authority and lead 
in this regard.
  I must remind my colleagues that the incursion last week turned out 
not to be a terrorist event and it is the FAA who is pursuing punitive 
action against the pilot in question.
  Since this is most often the case, it seems strange to give AMO, a 
law enforcement agency within Customs and Border Protection, the lead 
in airspace security.
  If one thing went right last week it was communication, coordination 
and each Federal agency understanding and fulfilling their role.
  If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Souder 
amendment.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment (No. 10) offered 
by Mr. Souder, the chairman of the Government Reform Subcommittee on 
Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, with whom I serve as 
Ranking Minority Member.
  The amendment would extend through FY 2006 the authorization of the 
Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement within the Department of 
Homeland Security (DHS). The amendment would authorize the office at a 
level of $6 million annually--the same amount authorized by Congress, 
but not funded by the Administration, in FY 2005.
  Our government's response to the attacks of 9/11 has been to take the 
fight to the terrorists militarily and to take steps to insulate our 
people and infrastructure from threats to our national security at 
home.
  Congress created the Department of Homeland Security with the stark 
realization that gaps in security at our borders and ports of entry 
provide an open door not only to illegal immigration and dangerous 
illegal drugs, but also to terrorist threats.
  Investigations into the 9/11 attacks also led to a greater 
understanding of the extent to which drug proceeds are the lifeblood of 
international criminal and terrorist organizations that threaten U.S. 
security.
  Congress's recognition of the importance of stemming the flow of 
drugs into the United States is reflected in the mission statement of 
the Department of Homeland Security. Codified in the original 
authorizing statute, that statement directs the Secretary of DHS to 
explore links between terrorists and drug trafficking organizations and 
otherwise pursue drug interdiction.
  The gentleman from Indiana and I share the view that we must not 
allow the threat of singular catastrophic events to detract from 
domestic efforts to stop the daily onslaught of illegal drugs that 
gradually turns American lives to waste and local communities into war 
zones.
  Let us not forget, Mr. Chairman, that domestic consumption of illegal 
drugs claims roughly 20,000 thousand American lives each year--nearly 
seven times the number of Americans who perished in the 9/11 attacks.
  Thousands more Americans go to jail or prison for drug-related crimes 
or become a victim of drug-related violence or property crime. An 
estimated $150 billion in economic productivity is lost annually due to 
drugs.
  That is why I co-authored with Chairman Souder a provision in the 
Homeland Security Act of 2002 that created within the Department of 
Homeland Security the position of Counternarcotics Officer, or ``CNO.''

  It was our purpose in proposing the CNO provision to create a high-
level position within DHS that would maintain a high profile and 
priority for counternarcotics missions. The CNO was tasked with 
ensuring that DHS drug interdiction, investigation, and enforcement 
efforts would be coordinated internally and also meshed with the 
efforts of other Federal agencies to maximize the efficiency and 
effectiveness of anti-drug efforts throughout the government.
  Three years later, the Homeland Security Department is up and 
running, but the record shows that the Administration has stood in the 
way of our efforts to support and improve coordination of counter-drug 
enforcement efforts.
  Last year, in response to the Administration's failure to prioritize 
anti-drug efforts with DHS, we replaced the CNO position with the 
Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement, authorizing $6 million for the 
office in FY 2005. Unfortunately, President Bush ignored the will of 
Congress and chose not to fund the office. The Administration's budget 
request includes nothing for the office in FY 2006 and further seeks to 
undermine drug enforcement by proposing deep cuts in major anti-drug 
programs including HIDTA, Byrne Grants and the COPS program.
  Mr. Chairman, the Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement deserves to 
be reauthorized and to be funded at a level adequate for it to fulfill 
its mission.
  By extending the authorization of this office, we can help to ensure 
that the war on drugs and the war on terror both can be fought with 
maximum vigor, efficiency, and effectiveness.
  We need to show a real commitment to our Nation's counternarcotics 
efforts--extend the reauthorization of the CNO and give the office 
permanent funding and personnel.
  I thank the gentleman for offering his amendment, I urge the 
Committee to make the amendment in order, and I support the gentleman 
in his efforts to secure funding for the office as the DHS 
appropriations bill goes to conference.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11

[[Page H3487]]

printed in part B of House Report 109-84.


                  Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Wamp

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

       Part B amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Wamp:
       In title V, add at the end the following new section:

     SEC. 509. CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE.

       Section 308(b)(2) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 
     U.S.C. 188(b)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subparagraph:
       ``(F) A center under this paragraph may include 
     participation of a Department of Energy laboratory, including 
     in the preparation of a proposal.''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman I would like to thank the gentleman from California 
(Chairman Dreier) and the Committee on Rules for making my amendment in 
order and the gentleman from California (Chairman Cox) and the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thomas), ranking member, as well as 
their staffs, for their good work on this bill and for working with me 
on this important issue.
  My amendment would permit the Department of Energy laboratories to 
team with a university or consortium of universities when competing for 
Department of Homeland Security's Centers of Excellence. Currently, the 
DHS Science and Technology Directorate prohibits DOE laboratories from 
contributing to university proposals for Centers of Excellence 
solicitations.

                              {time}  1500

  My amendment would allow DOE labs to participate as partners with 
universities in preparation of Centers of Excellence proposals. This is 
only if the university or universities want the DOE lab to participate. 
It is not my intention to take anything away from universities or have 
Centers of Excellence located anywhere but at the universities. Under 
my amendment, universities will remain the lead on the Centers of 
Excellence proposals.
  As a member of the Subcommittee on Homeland Securities of the 
Committee on Appropriations, I want to state that I fully support the 
Centers of Excellence program and have advocated for increased funding 
every year.
  My concern arises from a faulty policy decision by the Science and 
Technology Directorate to prohibit DOE labs from partnering with 
universities to bring their expertise to complement university 
proposals.
  I have heard that the Department of Homeland Security opposes my 
amendment. That is unfortunate, but I know that we are on the right 
track for six reasons.
  First, DOE labs, even the ones that are intramural, are not and have 
not been involved in strategic planning and program development of 
Centers of Excellence and university programs.
  Second, these labs are only intramural to those DOE legacy programs 
under the Office of Research and Development mostly dealing with 
chemical, radiological, biological, and nuclear threats within the 
funding that comes to Office of Research and Development for those 
missions. This funding is all done at national laboratories where the 
classified nature of the research needs to happen at a secure Federal 
research facility.
  Third, to say that an intramural DOE lab has insider information on 
the Centers of Excellence program is simply not accurate.
  Fourth, why do DOE labs have the ability to be eligible to partner 
with universities post award if requested by the university? What is 
the difference between pre award versus post award? How do universities 
write a proposal? The Department accepts it, makes the award to the 
university, and then after it is awarded, the university changes the 
proposal to add a DOE national lab that was barred from contributing in 
the first place. That makes no sense.
  Fifth, it is my understanding that these Centers of Excellence are 
eligible for renewal, so there is a question that is still not clear. 
If a university that wins the Center of Excellence picks the Oak Ridge 
National Laboratory, for instance, to partner post award, would that 
preclude Science and Technology from considering that university from 
competing again or getting a renewal contract?
  Finally, what happens when a university has a contractor at a DOE 
national laboratory such as the University of Tennessee and Battelle, 
which manage the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, or the University of 
California that manages Lawrence Livermore, does that not preclude 
these universities from ever being considered for Centers of Excellence 
proposals?
  When we created the Department of Homeland Security Science and Tech 
Directorate, this was not the intended result. The Federal Government 
should encourage our excellence in academia to partner with our 
excellence at our national labs.
  The Science and Tech Directorate's use of the national labs is still 
unclear. Congress needs to work together on this and challenge these 
decisions by making DHS more accountable so their decisions are made 
with good, common sense. We need these changes in this authorization 
bill, and I urge the adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bonner). Does any Member rise in opposition 
to the gentleman's amendment? There being no one, the Chair recognizes 
the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
  Mr. WAMP. Well, then, I appreciate that. Maybe we have worked these 
things out. That is great news, and I will just go ahead and yield back 
the balance of my time and move the adoption of the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 12 
printed in Part B of House report 109-84 offered by the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).


                Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Thompson

  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman from Mississippi the designee 
of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez)?
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Yes, Mr. Chairman
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part B amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Thompson of 
     Mississippi:
       At the end of title V add the following:

     SEC. __. REPORT ON PROTECTING INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE AREA OF 
                   PORT ELIZABETH AND NEWARK INTERNATIONAL 
                   AIRPORT, NEW JERSEY.

       Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit a 
     report to the Congress describing the measures necessary to 
     coordinate and protect the various infrastructure in the area 
     comprised of Port Elizabeth and Newark International Airport, 
     New Jersey, and the area located generally between such 
     facilities. The report shall include--
       (1) an identification of the resources required to fully 
     implement homeland security efforts for this area;
       (2) an assessment of the progress made in implementing 
     homeland security efforts for this area; and
       (3) recommendations of additional resources needed to fully 
     implement homeland security efforts for this area.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, the gentleman 
from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  I rise in support of this amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
  Terrorism experts have called the area between Port Elizabeth and 
Newark International Airport in New Jersey ``the most dangerous two 
miles in America,'' an area that includes dozens of vulnerable chemical 
plants, oil storage tanks, refineries, and other critical 
infrastructure systems within close proximity of Manhattan and the 
densely populated cities of northern New Jersey.

[[Page H3488]]

  Experts estimate that a terrorist attack in this area could pose a 
potentially lethal threat to 12 million people living within a 14-mile 
radius. The Menendez amendment would require the Secretary of the 
Department of Homeland Security to report to Congress on how to 
coordinate and protect the people and infrastructure in this 
particularly vulnerable region.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the 
time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the author of the 
amendment.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  First of all, I want to thank the distinguished ranking member for 
offering this, since I was at an event with our colleagues in the 
Senate and with the Democratic Caucus, so I appreciate him offering 
this on my behalf. It is my intention, based on a conversation with the 
gentleman from California (Chairman Cox), and I believe the ranking 
member as well, to withdraw the amendment, with an understanding, and I 
will get to that in a moment.
  My effort here is to basically take, not that I have said this, but 
that the FBI and law enforcement and a congressional study has said 
that the most dangerous two miles in America when it comes to 
terrorism, according to the FBI and others, which is that area between 
Port Elizabeth, the megaport of the East Coast, and Newark 
International Airport, and since we have a critical challenge with this 
dangerous two miles that I think would replicate many other areas of 
the country that have chemical facilities next to transportation 
infrastructure, next to airports, next to seaports, and a whole host of 
other critical infrastructure, that what can the Department of Homeland 
Security do to look at this most dangerous two miles and tell us what 
has been done, what needs to be done, what should be done so that we 
can achieve the success that we want in protecting not just a part of 
my congressional district or of the people of New Jersey, but as the 
New York Times recently wrote, the Nation's most enticing environment 
for terrorists, providing a convenient way to cripple the economy by 
disrupting major portions of the country's rail lines, oil storage and 
refineries, pipelines, air traffic, communicate networks, and highway 
systems.
  Now, if you are one of the 12 million people who live in this 14-mile 
radius with more than 100 potential terrorist targets, you would 
understandably be concerned. But as the New York Times mentioned, this 
is more about more than the safety and security of my constituents; it 
is an attack of this area to cripple our Nation's economy.
  Very simply, an attack within these two miles would be an attack felt 
around the world, since the largest seaport on the East Coast, one of 
the busiest airports in the country, Interstate 95, the main corridor 
along the Eastern Seaboard, are all located within this area.
  For example, just by one example, in 2002, 15 percent of Nebraska's 
container exports were shipped through this port, and, like that, it is 
so true for so many points of the country. If you are wearing it, 
driving it, or eating it, it likely came through the megaport of the 
East Coast.
  So while my amendment does not authorize any new funding or any 
additional resources, it does look in the context of limited 
environment, of limited resources, but unlimited risks. How do we 
become careful stewards not only of the taxpayers' money, but also of 
the security of our people?
  Now, my understanding is that the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) 
will be willing, by me withdrawing this amendment and by working with 
the ranking member, to secure that the Department of Homeland Security 
would provide such a report, and I would like to yield to him to see if 
my understanding is correct.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's understanding is correct. If 
the gentleman is willing to withdraw his amendment, the Committee on 
Homeland Security, through its chairman and ranking member, would 
formally request this information from the Department of Homeland 
Security.
  As the gentleman knows, the Department of Homeland Security and its 
Infrastructure Protection Directorate is currently focusing heavily on 
this part of the country and, as a result, the identification of 
critical assets, high-risk facilities, the implementation of security 
measures, and the recommendation of additional mitigation strategies 
for this region is something that the committee should hear on and, as 
a result, I would propose, with the ranking member, that we seek the 
information in this way.
  My only concern with the amendment as drafted is that it would set 
the precedent of establishing a national legislation requirement for IP 
mandates for specific regions within the States, rather than a national 
infrastructure strategy.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the 
chairman's offer, and I would hope, however, seeing that many reports 
that have been requested by the committee have not come forward, that 
in fact we would be vigorous in making sure that the report would 
actually be issued.
  Mr. COX. The gentleman has my commitment on that subject.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
extend the debate by 2 minutes on each side.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Mississippi?
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would like to 
claim the time in opposition to the Menendez amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Under the pending proposal, the gentleman from 
California would have another 2 minutes and the gentleman from 
Mississippi would have another 2 minutes.
  Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Mississippi?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield back 2 minutes of my time, and I yield 
the remaining 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
Thompson), and I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, there are approximately 70,000 different 
chemicals that have been defined. Fifteen to 20 of them could be 
lethal, are lethal, toxic, and in this two-mile stretch that the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) has brought to our attention, 
these are the most dangerous two miles in America.
  The chemical plants, the oil storage tanks, the refineries, and 
critical infrastructure systems are targets. In fact, if there is a 
terrorist attack in this area, it could pose a terribly lethal threat 
to 12 million people. That is within a 14-mile radius. This is serious 
business, and we on the Committee on Homeland Security look at this 
seriously on both sides of the aisle.
  So through the ranking member and the chairman, we have their 
commitment that we will work this out, because I know that my 
colleagues understand the seriousness of this area. And since we are in 
the business of risk, the problem of risk and taking that into regard 
with our formula, then I think that this certainly reaches the top of 
the priority.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Pascrell) for yielding me the time. And just let me add this is 
not just a New Jersey issue, but it is a New York City issue, as a 
Representative of Staten Island, just a couple of miles away.
  I applaud the gentleman's efforts. And I thank the chairman for 
agreeing with that.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) and others have indicated the position that the 
minority supports.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bonner). Is there objection to the request 
of the gentleman from New Jersey that the amendment offered by the

[[Page H3489]]

gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) be withdrawn?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13 
printed in part B of House Report 109-84.


                 Amendment No. 13 Offered by Ms. Hooley

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

       Part B amendment No. 13 offered by Ms. Hooley:
       At the end of title V, insert the following:

     SEC. 509. PROHIBITION AGAINST INCREASE IN SECURITY SERVICE 
                   FEES.

       None of the funds authorized under this Act may be derived 
     from an increase in security service fees established under 
     section 44940 of title 49, United States Code.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, the 
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
  Ms. HOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment I offer today is very simple. It would 
prevent any of the money in this bill from coming from increases in 
airline ticket taxes. This is an amendment to protect consumers, to 
protect our struggling aviation industry.
  Earlier this year, the President's budget included a $1.5 billion 
increase in the aviation security passenger fee, using this to largely 
offset his $2.2 billion homeland security increase.
  This increase, if enacted, would represent over a 50 percent increase 
in airline fees. Federal taxes and fees already account for as much as 
40 percent of the price that consumers pay for their domestic ticket.
  Given the current state of our aviation industry in this country, we 
should not further punish them with higher taxes. Our homeland security 
is our national security, and we should not foist the bill off on just 
a few people or single industry.
  While the bill before us does not include language increasing the 
aviation security passenger fee, it does authorize the same level of 
funding as the President's budget, and there is no offset for the 
additional spending.
  Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that increasing the aviation security 
passenger fee will negatively impact consumers and will saddle a 
struggling industry that is already in trouble with an additional $1.5 
billion in taxes.
  I encourage my colleagues to support my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I 
yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, this is not a good amendment. I am 
surprised that this amendment was even considered by the Rules 
Committee. The administration proposed a $3 increase in security fees.
  Why did they propose that? They proposed that because yesterday we 
passed $4.6 billion just for passenger screening, of which the current 
fee of $2.50, a maximum of $5 per one way, even if you have more 
segments, security fee, which we imposed after September 11 to fund the 
TSA, falls $2 billion short.
  So we are taking out of the general fund another $2 billion to fund 
this very expensive system that does not work very well. This is a 
report of the Inspector General, and it is a secret report, I cannot 
discuss this, but I tell you, the system fails.
  Before the other body, Richard Skinner, acting Inspector General of 
the Homeland Security Department January 26, 2005 said; ``The ability 
of TSA screeners to stop prohibited items from being carried through 
the sterile areas of airports fared no better than the performance of 
screeners prior to September 11, 2001.''
  Now, what is wrong? We do not have the technology. We do not have the 
technology. And I have proposed that we double the fee, and that we put 
it on technology that will do a better job. Not only will it do a 
better job, the GAO has said that we can decrease personnel by 78 
percent for those that screen the baggage by hand now behind these 
counters, that use an army, almost half of the 45,000 personnel.
  So we are paying more, getting less. This proposal would reduce $1 
billion a year that cost to the taxpayers. This is a bad amendment. The 
airlines may like this amendment, but let me tell you what they will 
do.
  If we do not correct and reform this system, we will have another 9/
11 because this expensive structure that we have in place does not 
work. It needs to be changed out with technology. These reports say it. 
As chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, I am telling you that we need 
it. And the only way to fund it, and do not tell me we have not helped 
the airlines. I stood up here and fought for $5 billion for them after 
9/11. We gave them another $3 billion on top of that for security 
improvements. Then they got away with the absconding with 4 months of 
the revenue that they never passed on to the Federal Government and we 
never said anything.
  We are right now financing 21 percent of FAA and the air traffic 
control system out of the general treasury. And some little guy from 
Oregon who is making $7 an hour, you are going to ask him to pay that 
security fee. He never gets on a plane, he is probably making minimum 
wage and is going to now pay to underwrite a failed system because the 
airlines will not step forward.
  I even offered them a half a billion. They promised me that they 
would pay us a billion dollars when we assumed this responsibility. 
Last year they paid us $315 million, $700 hundred million short. Shame 
on them. Shame on them for even pushing this amendment.
  This is a disgrace. We should be putting in place the best equipment 
to do away with the system that has failed. This says it failed. I 
challenge every Member to go and read those classified reports. We are 
not playing games here; we are dealing with the safety, security, and 
the economic future of this Nation.
  So I urge the defeat of this amendment. I urge the reform of TSA that 
does not work, that costs us a lot of money; and those that use it 
should pay for it, not some poor guy from Oregon or Florida that is 
getting left holding the bag and paying the bill.
  The user pays. That is what we do here. We are down now and we are 
subsidizing the expenses of FAA and air traffic control by half a 
billion dollars a year because the 7.5 cent excise tax on the tickets 
does not raise enough money. So it is coming out of the pockets of 
people who do not even fly.
  This is a user-based system. Let us fix this system. Correct this 
bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. HOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, with all respect to my colleague, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), I could not disagree more strongly.
  The Constitution of the United States gives to our national 
government the responsibility to provide for the common defense. When 
al Qaeda turned airliners into missiles, hundreds of passengers aboard 
those aircraft were killed, but thousands of people in the World Trade 
Center Towers and in the Pentagon were also killed. And none of them 
was an airline passenger.
  Neither were the millions of Americans who suffered the economic 
damage of billions of dollars inflicted by al Qaeda as a result of 
those attacks. Homeland security, in my view, is the essence of 
national security.
  And this amendment puts that question to the test. Is homeland 
security merely the correlation of national security, or is it the core 
of what we are seeking to establish when we provide for the common 
defense and protecting the territory and the population of the United 
States?
  If every time the Pentagon needed a new weapons system they had to 
find a user fee in order to pay for it, we would have a third-world 
national defense. But, in fact, Mr. Chairman, as Democrats and 
Republicans on the Homeland Security Committee have determined, 
homeland security is all about providing for the common defense, and 
funding it is a national responsibility.
  For those reasons, I strongly support the amendment offered by 
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
  Ms. HOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).

[[Page H3490]]

  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I rise and express strong 
support for the amendment of the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley). 
It sends a strong and simple message to Congress: do not raise aviation 
passenger fees.
  I strongly believe that raising fees will place an additional burden 
on the flying public and could weaken the economic strength of domestic 
commercial aviation.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Hooley amendment and urge my 
colleagues in the House to vote in favor of this important amendment.
  Ms. HOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, just in closing let me say, homeland security, we all 
want to make sure that our country is as safe as possible. Homeland 
security is a responsibility of all of our citizens.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes have it.
  Ms. HOOLEY. 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 gentlewoman from Oregon 
(Ms. Hooley) will be postponed.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 14 
printed in part B of House Report 109-84.


                 Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Cardin

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

       Part B amendment No. 14 offered by Mr. Cardin:
       Page 78, insert after line 22 the following (and 
     redesignate the succeeding provision and conform the table of 
     contents accordingly):

     SEC. 508. STUDY OF MODIFICATION OF AREA OF JURISDICTION OF 
                   OFFICE OF NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION COORDINATION.

       (a) Study.--The Secretary of Homeland Security, acting 
     through the Director of the Office of National Capital Region 
     Coordination, shall conduct a study of the feasibility and 
     desirability of modifying the definition of ``National 
     Capital Region'' applicable under section 882 of the Homeland 
     Security Act of 2002 to update the geographic area under the 
     jurisdiction of the Office of National Capital Region 
     Coordination.
       (b) Factors.--In conducting the study under subsection (a), 
     the Secretary shall analyze whether modifying the geographic 
     area under the jurisdiction of the Office of National Region 
     Coordination will--
       (1) improve coordination among State and local governments 
     within the Region, including regional governing bodies, and 
     coordination of the efforts of first responders; and
       (2) enhance the ability of such State and local governments 
     and the Federal Government to prevent and respond to a 
     terrorist attack within the Region.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit a report to 
     Congress on the study conducted under subsection (a), and 
     shall include in the report such recommendations (including 
     recommendations for legislation to amend section 882 of the 
     Homeland Security Act of 2002) as the Secretary considers 
     appropriate.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin.)
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman and ranking member 
for working with me on this amendment to improve it.
  Today, I am offering an amendment to H.R. 1817, the Department of 
Homeland Security Authorization Bill for fiscal year 2006, that would 
require DHS to conduct a study of the feasibility and desirability of 
modifying and updating the existing boundaries of the National Capital 
Region of DHS.
  My amendment would require DHS to issue a report within 6 months to 
Congress on whether modifying the National Capital Region would, one, 
improve coordination among State and local governments within the 
region, including regional governing bodies, and coordination of the 
efforts of first responders; and, two, enhance the ability of State and 
local governments and the Federal Government to prevent and respond to 
a terrorist attack within the National Capital Region.
  We passed nearly an identical amendment in October 2004 when the 
House considered the 9/11 Commission recommendations bill. This 
amendment clarifies that DHS will ultimately make a recommendation on 
whether to make any changes in the NCR subject to the approval by 
Congress.
  The National Capital Region was defined by Congress in a statute in 
1952 as part of an effort to coordinate a comprehensive planning 
responsibility for the national capital and surrounding areas. The 1952 
act, the National Capital Planning Act, created the National Capital 
Planning Commission and defined the NCR to include the District of 
Columbia; Montgomery and Prince Georges' counties in Maryland; 
Arlington, Fairfax, Loudon, and Prince William counties in Virginia.
  The NCR also includes all cities within these counties. 
Unfortunately, when Congress created the new Department of Homeland 
Security in 2002, it simply referred to the 1952 definition of NCR. It 
is clear to me that in order to effectively prepare our capital region 
for first responders, for the terrorist threats of the 21 century, we 
need to have a 21-century definition of the National Capital Region, 
not a definition based on a post-World War II and early Cold War 
America.
  Washington, D.C. remains the highest-profile target for terrorists 
who successfully attacked the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, and 
failed to complete their attack against the White House or the U.S. 
Capitol.
  Therefore, we need to take extraordinary steps to improve the 
coordination between governments and first responders in Washington 
D.C., Virginia, and Maryland in order to prevent and respond to attacks 
in the National Capital Region.
  In the event of a terrorist attack in Washington, D.C., for example, 
local and State and government officials in Maryland and Virginia would 
be expected to provide immediate resources to assist in the recovery.
  Maryland and Virginia would be asked to help in the evacuation of 
thousands or even over a million people from the Washington, D.C. metro 
region in certain circumstances.
  Such an event would place an extraordinary strain on our existing 
first responder community and may overwhelm the ability of local, 
regional, State, Federal, military, public health, and non-profit 
agencies and personnel.
  So this amendment simply asks that we do the study to see what is the 
appropriate definition for the purposes of homeland security. I want to 
thank my colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), for his 
leadership on this issue.
  Again, I want to thank the chairman and ranking member for working 
with me on this amendment in order to make it an effective study for 
Congress.

                              {time}  1530

  I would urge my colleagues to accept this amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mrs. Capito). Does any Member seek time in 
opposition to the gentleman's amendment? If not, the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin) is recognized.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 15 
printed in Part B of House Report 109-84.


               Amendment No. 15 Offered by Ms. Slaughter

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

       Part B amendment No. 15 offered by Ms. Slaughter:
       Page 79, after line 6, add the following:

     SEC. 509. REPORT TO CONGRESS ON UNIFORM AND IDENTIFICATION 
                   SECURITY.

       (a) Definition.--For the purpose of this section, the term 
     ``forms of Homeland Security identification'' means any 
     uniform,

[[Page H3491]]

     badge, identification card, or other apparel or insignia of 
     the design prescribed by the Department of Homeland Security 
     for use by any officer or employee of such Department.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     shall prepare and submit to Congress a report--
       (1) describing the efforts taken by the Department of 
     Homeland Security--
       (A) to curtail the production of imitation forms of 
     Homeland Security identification, including efforts to 
     improve the design of the various forms of Homeland Security 
     identification to prevent unauthorized replication; and
       (B) to increase public awareness of the existence of 
     imitation forms of Homeland Security identification, and 
     educate the public about means by which to identify bona fide 
     forms of Homeland Security identification;
       (2) assessing the effectiveness of the efforts described in 
     paragraph (1); and
       (3) recommending any legislation or administrative actions 
     necessary to achieve the objectives described in 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively, of paragraph (1).

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  My amendment would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to 
report to Congress on the agency's efforts to reduce the replication of 
its badges, uniforms and other insignia. In addition, the Secretary 
would be directed to report on the agency's efforts to increase public 
awareness of counterfeit badges and uniforms, and to teach Americans to 
identify authentic identification of a DHS official.
  Two years ago, a man wearing an FBI jacket and carrying a badge 
attempted to rob the Xerox employee credit union in my district. The 
would-be robber killed one man and shot another, and that murderer is 
still at large.
  Last week, the Department of Homeland Security arrested a man in New 
York City who was in the possession of over 1,300 fake badges and IDs 
from over 35 law enforcement agencies, along with two NYPD police 
uniforms. In addition, DHS agents found a Glock 9-millimeter handgun, a 
Beretta semiautomatic rifle, a Winchester shotgun and used casings from 
a shoulder-fired missile.
  I think everyone would agree that this man posed a legitimate threat 
to his community based on his weapons stash alone, and knowing he had a 
gun and an FBI badge, or a CBP badge, or a police uniform, makes me 
even more frightened of the trouble he might have caused. The 
availability of counterfeit badges is an ongoing problem in this 
country, and it has gone unchecked for too long.
  I am disturbed that the identification and clothing of our public 
officials is so easily reproduced. When I think about all the different 
efforts we have made and the technology we have employed to ensure that 
someone cannot counterfeit a $20 bill, I am shocked that ensuring the 
integrity of the badges and identification of public officials has not 
been made a similar priority.
  DHS badges, uniforms and IDs are indicative of authority, and the 
bearers are granted access to restricted areas and to sensitive 
information. We trust that people who have those badges and wear those 
uniforms of the Department of Homeland Security are, in fact, officers 
of that agency, and we teach our children to trust people who show 
official badges and wear the official uniforms. How terrifying is it to 
think about someone's lost child walking up to someone wearing a DHS 
uniform only to have that person really be a criminal.
  This amendment is an important first step in improving the integrity 
of the DHS badges, uniforms, and IDs. Next week, I plan on taking our 
efforts to protect the integrity of our public IDs one step further by 
introducing legislation that will expand the current Federal criminal 
ban on fake police badges and the misuse of authentic badges to include 
uniforms, identification, and all other insignia of public officials, 
because we must be able to trust those who said that they are public 
officials.
  I appreciate very much being able to present this amendment and ask 
for its adoption.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any Member rise in opposition to the 
gentlewoman's amendment? If not, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter) is recognized.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Chairman, I thank very much the chairman of the 
committee and the ranking member of the committee, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 16 
printed in Part B of House Report 109-84.


          Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota

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

       Part B amendment No. 16 offered by Mr. Kennedy of 
     Minnesota:
       Page 79, after line 6, insert the following (and amend the 
     table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 509. BORDER SURVEILLANCE.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     shall submit to the President and the appropriate committees 
     of Congress a comprehensive plan for the systematic 
     surveillance of the northern border of the United States by 
     remotely piloted aircraft.
       (b) Contents.--The plan submitted under subsection (a) 
     shall include--
       (1) recommendations for establishing command and control 
     centers, operations sites, infrastructure, maintenance, and 
     procurement;
       (2) cost estimates for the implementation of the plan and 
     ongoing operations;
       (3) recommendations for the appropriate agent within the 
     Department of Homeland Security to be the executive agency 
     for remotely piloted aircraft operations;
       (4) the number of remotely piloted aircraft required for 
     the plan;
       (5) the types of missions the plan would undertake, 
     including--
       (A) protecting the lives of people seeking illegal entry 
     into the United States;
       (B) interdicting illegal movement of people, weapons, and 
     other contraband across the border;
       (C) providing investigative support to assist in the 
     dismantling of smuggling and criminal networks along the 
     border;
       (D) using remotely piloted aircraft to serve as platforms 
     for the collection of intelligence against smugglers and 
     criminal networks along the border; and
       (E) further validating and testing of remotely piloted 
     aircraft for airspace security missions;
       (6) the equipment necessary to carry out the plan; and
       (7) a recommendation regarding whether to expand the pilot 
     program along the entire northern border.
       (c) Implementation.--The Secretary of Homeland Security 
     shall implement the plan submitted under subsection (a) as a 
     pilot program as soon as sufficient funds are appropriated 
     and available for this purpose.

     SEC. 510. ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY NORTHER BORDER SECURITY PILOT 
                   PROGRAM.

       Section 5101 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
     Prevention Act of 2004 (8 U.S.C. 1712 note) is amended by 
     striking ``The Secretary of Homeland Security may carry out'' 
     and inserting ``To the extent funds are provided in advance 
     in appropriations Acts, the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     shall carry out''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I rise today to offer an 
amendment because I am deeply concerned that the Department is not 
paying sufficient attention to the northern border of the United 
States.
  My amendment today is very simple, and I want to take this 
opportunity to thank the gentleman from California and his staff for 
their great work in helping me to draft this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 contained 
important provisions dealing with improving border surveillance on the 
northern border.
  Congress intended for the Secretary of Homeland Security to carry out 
a pilot program to test advanced technologies for border security along 
the northern border. Yet, to date, DHS has not carried out this 
program.
  The intelligence reform bill also provided that the Secretary of 
Homeland

[[Page H3492]]

Security must develop and submit to Congress and to the President a 
comprehensive plan for systematic surveillance of the southwest border 
by remotely piloted aircraft.
  As I mentioned yesterday when I spoke on this subject, many Members 
may not realize that the U.S.-Canadian border is over 4,000 miles long, 
and it consists of more than 430 official and nonofficial points of 
entry. That is double the length of the U.S.-Mexico border, and even 
with recent staffing moves, DHS has only 1,000 Border Patrol agents 
along the northern border, compared to over 10,000 along the smaller 
southern border.
  Some might think the southern border is more dangerous, but I would 
remind my colleagues that terrorists and drug traffickers trying to 
bring in poison like methamphetamines will try to get to us at the path 
of least resistance.
  The lack of substantial resource and staffing along the northern 
border poses a real security threat. In fact, due to the shortage, DHS 
has looked for new ways to monitor the Canadian border, such as a new 
proposed requirement for passports to get back and forth over the 
border. But for a border as long as ours with Canada, so many unmanned 
access points, it is simply impractical to think having Border Patrol 
agents check passports will stop determined terrorists.
  Do we expect al Qaeda or drug dealers to wait an hour at the border 
for someone to show up to check their passport? Or will they cross at 
some unknown spot along this vast border?
  We need to adopt a more rigorous standard of protecting our northern 
border that makes wise use of our manpower and employs the same 
sophisticated technology as we use on our southern border.
  By requiring the Department to comprehensively study the use of 
remotely piloted aircraft, AKA unmanned aerial vehicles, on the 
northern border and by requiring the Secretary to actually perform the 
pilot program created in the National Intelligence Reform Act, my 
amendment makes a significant step forward to securing this vast 
border.
  Madam Chairman, the time has come to make our northern border just as 
safe and secure as the southern border. I urge all our Members to 
support this important amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does anyone rise in opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment? The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I would just ask the 
Members to vote in favor of this amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 17 
printed in Part B of House Report 109-84.


          Amendment No. 17 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part B amendment No. 17 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of 
     Texas:
       Page 79, after line 6, insert the following (and amend the 
     table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 509. GAO STUDY OF PROPOSALS TO INCREASE TEMPORARY 
                   PROTECTED STATUS REGISTRATION FEE.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall 
     complete a study of, and report to Congress on, the likely 
     consequences of increasing the fee described in section 
     244(c)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1254(a)(c)(1)(B)).
       (b) Elements of Study.--The study described in subsection 
     (a) shall--
       (1) calculate the number of applicants for relief under 
     section 244 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1254(a)) who have sought a waiver, been granted a waiver, or 
     been denied a waiver from such fees due to their inability to 
     pay such fees, since the enactment of such section;
       (2) project the cost at which such fee would be set if it 
     were calculated consistent with the manner in which the 
     Department of Homeland Security calculates fees under section 
     286(m) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1356(m));
       (3) taking into account the countries of nationality of the 
     current population of beneficiaries of section 244 and the 
     lack of work authorization that such beneficiaries have while 
     awaiting the outcome of an adjudication, assess the ability 
     of the current population of beneficiaries under section 244 
     to pay such fee if it were increased to the level projected 
     pursuant to paragraph (2);
       (4) estimate the number of requests for fee waivers that 
     would likely have to be adjudicated per 1,000 applications 
     should such fee be increased to the level projected pursuant 
     to paragraph (2);
       (5) estimate the cost and number of man hours that would be 
     required to be expended in order to adjudicate the fee waiver 
     requests described in such paragraph; and
       (6) estimate the cost differential between the current cost 
     of adjudicating applications and the statutory fee, on a per-
     application and an aggregate basis.

     SEC. 510. GAO STUDY OF CONSEQUENCES OF EXPANDING USE OF 
                   PREMIUM SERVICE FOR IMMIGRATION BENEFIT 
                   APPLICATIONS AND PETITIONS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall 
     complete a study of, and report to Congress on, the 
     Department of Homeland Security's proposal to expand the use 
     of premium fees for employment-based petitions and 
     applications under section 286(u) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1356(u)) to other applications and 
     petitions.
       (b) Elements of Study.--In performing the study required 
     under subsection (a), the Comptroller General--
       (1) shall consider and assess--
       (A) all factors that help quantify and assess the current 
     impact of premium processing on immigration benefits 
     adjudications of employment-based applications and petitions; 
     and
       (B) the degree to which the use of premium processing for 
     employment-based applications and petitions has negatively or 
     positively impacted the length of time that it takes to 
     adjudicate employment-based applications and petitions that 
     are eligible for treatment under section 286(u) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act but for which no premium fee 
     is paid; and
       (2) shall assess--
       (A) whether expansion of section 286(u) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act to family-based immigration petitions and 
     applications would increase or decrease the length of time it 
     takes to adjudicate family-based petitions and applications 
     in cases where the applicant cannot afford to make use of the 
     premium service;
       (B) all other likely future impacts of an expansion of 
     premium processing to family-based immigration benefits 
     applications and petitions;
       (C) the number of additional adjudicators needed to process 
     premium processing applications;
       (D) the impact of premium processing on the number and 
     assignment of adjudicators; and
       (E) the number of individual applicants who would opt to 
     use premium processing under this expanded program annually.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chairman, again I thank the chairman 
of the full committee and the ranking member of the full committee for 
working with all of us as we try to construct a real definitive 
homeland security policy. I am always reminded that we always seemingly 
receive wake-up calls, and certainly, last week a little Cessna gave 
America a wake-up call.
  I have argued extensively that homeland security is beyond the 
Beltway, if you will, in the neighborhoods and suburbs and rural areas 
of America. At the same time, our responsibilities deals with the 
documentation of the individuals in this country.
  I have always said that we need real immigration reform, and I have 
joined my colleagues in supporting efforts for enhanced border 
security, understanding the violence at the border, making sure we have 
more border security patrol agents, more ICE officers, more benefit 
funding to ensure that those who are in the legal line for citizenship 
are not delayed by years and months.
  I come with this amendment, which is a simple proposition, to make 
immigration access fair, disregards the temporary protection status, 
and I am joined in this amendment by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers), the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary. I would 
at this point submit in the Record a letter from the Homeland Security 
Department.


[[Page H3493]]


                                                U.S. Department of


                                            Homeland Security,

                                   Washington, DC, April 19, 2005.
     Hon. John Conyers, Jr.,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Judiciary,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Conyers: I am pleased to provide these 
     proposed legislative amendments that U.S. Citizenship and 
     Immigration Services (USCIS) requests to modify fee 
     collections for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and Premium 
     Processing Fee authority.
       Section 244(c)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
     as amended, 8 U.S.C. 1254a(c)(1)(B) established the fee for 
     adjudicating an application for TPS and capped this fee at 
     $50 since 1990. This limitation is inconsistent with the fee 
     structure for other immigration benefit applications which is 
     based on the recovery of full processing costs. This 
     amendment would permit appropriate adjustment of the TSP fee 
     structure according to processing costs and inflation, per 
     the regulatory process. The amendment removes the sentence 
     ``The amount of such fee shall not exceed $50.''
       Subsection 286(u) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
     (INA) authorizes a $1,000 premium processing fee to be 
     charged for employment-based immigration petitions and 
     applications. Under this authority as implemented by 
     regulation (8 C.F.R. Sec. 103.2(f)), USCIS offers a premium 
     processing service under which employers filing USCIS Forms 
     I-129 seeking to sponsor aliens for certain immigrant or 
     nonimmigrant classifications can obtain 15-day processing of 
     their petitions by submitting the additional fee. The 
     proposed amendment would authorize the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security to establish premium processing fees for other 
     applications or petitions, such as non-employment based 
     immigration petitions and applications, employment 
     authorization applications, or applications to change or 
     extend nonimmigrant status. The determination whether to 
     implement premium processing service for any specific 
     adjudication, the terms of service, and the applicable 
     premium fee, would be within the Secretary's discretion, but 
     the fee could not exceed the $1,000 charged for employment-
     based premium processing. Premium processing fees would be 
     deposited, as are other adjudication fees, into the 
     Immigration Examinations Fee Account in order to enhance 
     USCIS customer service as well as provide the premium service 
     itself. In order to provide the Secretary with flexibility to 
     adjust the fees as needed, the amendment clarifies that APA 
     rulemaking and Federal Register publication requirements do 
     not apply. Rather, availability and terms of premium 
     processing would be publicized through the USCIS web site. 
     The amendment also authorizes premium fees in excess of 
     $1,000 for employment-based adjudications relating to the 
     investor visa (EB-5) program for investors of at least 
     $500,000 in job-creating enterprises, including regional 
     centers, for which the current $1,000 cap does not justify 
     the cost-effective provision of premium service.
       Enclosed is detailed justification for each of the actions 
     proposed in this notification.
       I appreciate your interest in the Department of Homeland 
     Security, and I look forward to working with you on future 
     homeland security issues. If I may be of further assistance, 
     please contact the Office of Legislative Affairs at (202) 
     205-4412.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Pamela J. Turner,
                      Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs.

  This letter indicates that the Homeland Security is considering 
raising the fees on temporary protective status. Let me tell my 
colleagues what that means.
  Temporary protective status is generally given to those who are 
fleeing persecution in their countries; women who are fleeing domestic 
violence who happen to be immigrants; immigrants such as those fleeing 
from Bosnia or Kosovo during the time of war; immigrants who may be 
fleeing or may have fled from Iraq at the time of persecution from 
Saddam Hussein; those who are fleeing from Liberia, suffering from 
persecution over the years; those who are fleeing from Sudan, where we 
know there is much brutality and mutilation of men and women in that 
area. But the Homeland Security Department is proposing to raise the 
fees twofold.
  These are the most vulnerable that come to our country. Many of them 
come to our country as the Statue of Liberty has said, give us your 
poor, your helpless and your persecuted.
  I would ask the question that we would prefer, and I think the most 
important aspect of temporary protective status, it gives those who are 
fleeing persecution a legal status to stay in this country until the 
crisis has passed in their particular country.
  Many of those who receive temporary protective status actually leave, 
and so it is not a question that they are seeking, if you will, 
permanent immigration status. It is a temporary status.
  For those who may ultimately seek a permanent status, we already have 
sizeable fees for securing legal permanent residence; sizeable fees for 
individuals who want to use certain visas, such as family 
reunification; sizeable fees for workforce visas and J-1 visas and 
nurses visas. Those individuals are able and working to provide or to 
pay those kinds of fees.
  We also have sizeable fees for citizenship, and I think that is 
right. The citizenship of the United States pays for the services that 
are rendered, and likewise, in a bill that I am offering, the Save 
America Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, those same fees will help 
protect American jobs and provide Americans with training.
  But the temporary protective status is for the vulnerable, and I 
believe that this amendment will ask the GAO to study the negative 
impact that it will make on those seeking temporary protective status 
and give guidance to the Homeland Security Department so that they can 
reconsider the suggestion that is being made to double the fees on 
these most vulnerable that are here in this country.
  I would ask my colleagues to consider the vulnerability of these 
individuals and to support an amendment that asks the question why we 
must put a premium fee on those who are barely here and surviving 
because they had to flee to survive and to save their lives. I know 
that we are a just country and that we can do better, and I would ask 
my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I rise with the distinguished Ranking Member of the 
Judiciary Committee from Michigan to offer Amendment No. 82, the 
``Jackson Lee/Conyers GAO Study Amendment.'' To summarize this 
amendment, it would instruct the General Accounting Office (GAO) to 
conduct a study examining the impact of an increase in Temporary 
Protected Status (TPS) application fees on the nationals of countries 
for which TPS is available and the differential in cost between the 
current statutory fee and the cost-based fee proposed by Customs and 
Immigration Services (CIS). In addition, this amendment instructs GAG 
to conduct a study on the premium processing fee system and its 
possible application to individuals and families.
  To further simplify the operative provisions of this amendment, it 
has two prongs: Prong One relates to the United States Citizenship and 
Immigration Services bureau (USCIS) fee increase for processIng 
applications for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) relief. USCIS would 
like to remove the cap limiting the amount of fees that can be 
collected for processing an application for TPS. The application fee 
for TPS has been fixed by statute at $50 since 1990. USCIS would like 
to raise the fee according to processing costs and inflation, following 
the existing regulatory process. USCIS argues that the $50 limit is 
inconsistent with the fee structure for other immigration benefit 
applications that are based on recovery of full processing costs.
  TPS is an immigration category that allows non-citizens of designated 
countries to remain in the U.S following political strife or natural 
disasters in their native countries. TPS applicants are eligible for 
work authorization while their applications are pending. USCIS says 
that many of them have been working here for years when a disaster 
strikes their home country and they become eligible for TPS--thus they 
are able to pay increased fees, or can they seek a waiver for economic 
hardship. However, many TPS beneficiaries come from impoverished 
countries and are often in the U.S. visiting relatives or are here for 
other brief stays. It may not be the best policy to raise fees for TPS 
beneficiaries when they have no practical alternative but to remain in 
the United States.

  If the fees were raised to the ridiculously high levels that other 
fees have been raised to over the last several years, DHS would likely 
wind up fielding many more fee waiver requests than they currently have 
to field.
  Prong two relates to the USCIS proposal to expand Premium Processing 
Fees to individuals. USCIS wants to expand the authority of the 
Secretary of Homeland Security to establish premium processing fees for 
non-employment based immigration petitions and applications. Currently, 
premium processing is only available to employers seeking to hire an 
immigrant: It allows employers to pay a $1,000 fee to expedite 
employer-based immigration. Under the new amendment, any immigrant 
would be able to expedite their immigration paperwork if they could 
provide the additional $1,000 fee. Funds collected from this fee would 
be deposited in the Immigration Examinations Fee Account, with other 
adjudication fees, to support USCIS customer service.
  USCIS says that they expect 10 million expedited applications in the 
first year and they requested funds to hire additional adjudicators to 
assist with this work.
  Many immigration experts report serious problems with the use of 
premium fees in the employment-based context. They claim that

[[Page H3494]]

other employment-based applications and petitions are slowed down 
because DHS places more of its resources into adjudicating the premium 
requests.
  Even if the premium fee was working well in the employment-based 
arena, it may not apply well in the family-based arena. Businesses can 
pass their costs on to consumers (or even compensate for those fees in 
the salary and benefits that they pay the workers), and so they do not 
necessarily care so much about the increased costs. Family-based 
applicants often cannot pass on increased costs to another payer.
  This amendment calls on the GAO to examine the use of the premium fee 
in the employment-based arena before the practice is extended into the 
family-based arena. The study will look at the efficacy of the practice 
in the employment-based arena and whether it has slowed down 
adjudications for those who do not pay the premium. It also will look 
at the differences between family-based applicants and employment-based 
applicants and how their differences might result in different 
experiences.
  The GAO should also study the proposal to exempt DHS from the 
Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and examine the questionable 
suggestion of tying application fees.
  Madam Chairman, I ask that my colleagues support Mr. Conyers and me 
on this amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does anyone rise in opposition to the 
gentlewoman's amendment? The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chairman, I ask my colleagues to 
support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Jackson Lee/
Conyers amendment to H.R. 1817, which would direct the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct a study of two Administration 
proposals to increase fees paid by applicants and petitioners for 
immigration services.
  The administration's fiscal year 2006 budget submission proposed that 
Congress enact legislation to authorize the United States Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) component of the Department of 
Homeland Security to increase the fee paid by applicants for Temporary 
Protected Status (TPS) above the statutory limit of $50.
  The administration also has proposed that Congress enact legislation 
to extend a provision that permits USCIS to charge an extra fee for 
providing faster services to some employment-based immigration 
applicants and petitioners. The administration wants Congress to extend 
this program so that the extra fee can also be charged to family-based 
applicants and petitioners, as well.
  The Jackson Lee/Conyers amendment would require that the Government 
Accountability Office conduct studies of each of these proposals so 
that Congress can have an opportunity to assess their consequences and 
impact before acting.
  TPS Fee--When Congress enacted the TPS statute in 1990, it had the 
option of permitting the then-Immigration and Naturalization Service 
(INS) to set the fee at whatever level was necessary in order to pay 
for the cost of adjudicating an applicant's application. Instead, in 
recognition of the special circumstances faced by TPS beneficiaries, 
Congress opted to cap the TPS fee at $50.
  By statutory definition, Mr. Chairman, TPS beneficiaries come from 
countries where there has been a natural disaster or an ongoing armed 
conflict and the foreign state is unable to handle their return. While 
it is certainly true that TPS applicants can get work authorization 
pending their requests, they would first have to pay the fee in order 
to be considered for work authorization and TPS status. Many TPS 
beneficiaries, Mr. Chairman, come from impoverished countries and are 
often in the U.S. visiting relatives or are here for other brief stays. 
It may not be the best policy to raising fees for TPS beneficiaries 
when they have no practical alternative but to remain in the United 
States.
  If the fees for TPS are raised to the outrageous levels that other 
fees have been raised to in recent years, it could result in two 
unacceptable consequences. It could either drive would-be beneficiaries 
underground because they cannot afford to pay the fee. Or it could 
result in an exponential increase in requests for fee waivers, an 
outcome that would slow down adjudications for all other applications 
or immigration benefits. My amendment request that the GAO examine 
these potential consequences.

  Premium Service Fee--Nearly five years ago, Congress enacted 
legislation giving the Administration the authority to charge a $1,000 
premium fee for businesses that wish to expedite the adjudication of 
their employment-based immigration applications and petitions. The 
Administration has asked Congress to give it the authority to charge a 
similar fee to family-based applicants and petitions.
  The accounts are mixed, Mr. Chairman, on how well the premium service 
fee for employment-based applications and petitions has worked. We have 
heard from some, for instance, that implementation of this diversion 
has resulted in a slowing down of adjudications for those businesses 
who decline to pay the extra $1,000. At a minimum, an impartial body 
should study how the premium service program is working in the business 
arena before extending it to family-based applications and petitions.
  Moreover, Mr. Speaker, there are vast differences between the 
resources available to employment-based and family-based petitioners 
and applicants. Businesses often can pass on the costs of a premium fee 
to their customers or adjust the wages and benefits of the prospective 
employee to recover the extra cost. These options are not available to 
families, on the other hand.
  If reports are true that implementation of the program in the 
employment arena has slowed down adjudications for those businesses 
that decline to pay the fee, expansion of the program to the family-
based arena could have disastrous, unintended consequences for those 
families that cannot afford to pay an additional $1,000 for each 
application or petitions.
  Conclusion--Mr. Chairman, the studies and reports that my amendment 
would mandate do not seek to prejudice the question of whether the 
administration should be given the new fee authorities that it has 
requested. Instead, my amendment would see the advice of impartial 
experts at the Government Accountability Office before Congress acts. I 
urge the adoption of this amendment.

                              {time}  1545

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mrs. Capito). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 18 
printed in part B of House Report 109-84.


                Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Norwood

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

       Part B amendment No. 18 offered by Mr. Norwood:
       Page 79, after line 6, insert the following (and amend the 
     table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 509. FEDERAL AFFIRMATION OF ASSISTANCE IN IMMIGRATION 
                   LAW ENFORCEMENT BY STATES AND POLITICAL 
                   SUBDIVISIONS.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law and reaffirming 
     the existing general authority, law enforcement personnel of 
     a State or a political subdivision of a State are fully 
     authorized to apprehend, detain, or remove aliens in the 
     United States (including the transportation of such aliens 
     across State lines to detention centers), for the purposes of 
     assisting in the enforcement of the immigration laws of the 
     United States in the course of carrying out routine duties. 
     This State authority has never been displaced or preempted by 
     the Congress.

     SEC. 510. TRAINING OF STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT 
                   PERSONNEL IN ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAWS.

       (a) Training and Pocket Guide.--
       (1) Establishment.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     shall establish--
       (A) a training manual for law enforcement personnel of a 
     State or political subdivision of a State to train such 
     personnel in the investigation, identification, apprehension, 
     arrest, detention, and transfer to Federal custody of aliens 
     in the United States (including the transportation of such 
     aliens across State lines to detention centers and 
     identification of fraudulent documents); and
       (B) an immigration enforcement pocket guide for law 
     enforcement personnel of a State or political subdivision of 
     a State to provide a quick reference for such personnel in 
     the course of duty.
       (2) Availability.--The training manual and pocket guide 
     established in accordance with paragraph (1) shall be made 
     available to all State and local law enforcement personnel.
       (3) Applicability.--Nothing in this subsection shall be 
     construed to require State or local law enforcement personnel 
     to carry the training manual or pocket guide established in 
     accordance with paragraph (1) with them while on duty.
       (4) Costs.--The Department of Homeland Security shall be 
     responsible for any costs incurred in establishing the 
     training manual and pocket guide under this subsection.
       (b) Training Flexibility.--
       (1) In general.--The Department of Homeland Security shall 
     make training of State and local law enforcement officers 
     available

[[Page H3495]]

     through as many means as possible, including residential 
     training at Federal facilities, onsite training held at State 
     or local police agencies or facilities, online training 
     courses by computer, teleconferencing, and videotape, or the 
     digital video display (DVD) of a training course or courses.
       (2) Federal personnel training.--The training of State and 
     local law enforcement personnel under this section shall not 
     displace or otherwise adversely affect the training of 
     Federal personnel.
       (c) Clarification.--Nothing in this Act or any other 
     provision of law shall be construed as making any 
     immigration-related training a requirement for, or 
     prerequisite to, any State or local law enforcement officer 
     exercising that officer's inherent authority to assist in the 
     apprehension, arrest, detention, or transfer to Federal 
     custody illegal aliens during the normal course of carrying 
     out their law enforcement duties.
       (d) Training Limitation.--Section 287(g) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1357(g)) is amended--
       (1) by striking `Attorney General' each place that term 
     appears and inserting ``Secretary of Homeland Security''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2), by adding at the end the following: 
     ``Such training shall not exceed 14 days or 80 hours, 
     whichever is longer.''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House resolution 283, the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).


  Request For Modification to Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Norwood

  Mr. NORWOOD. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify my 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Modification offered by Mr. Norwood to Amendment No. 18 
     printed in H. Rept. No. 109-84:
       On page 1 of the amendment, strike out ``or remove'' in 
     line 7.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the modification offered 
by the gentleman from Georgia?
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Reserving the right to object, Madam 
Chairman, I would just say to my colleague that we have not been made 
aware of this amendment, and if for no other reason than we have not 
seen it.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Madam Chairman, I actually did not know who to come to 
talk to because we did not know who would be leading against this 
amendment.
  If I may, it is a very, very simple drafting error in the bill on 
line 7 where we are saying that law enforcement personnel of a State or 
political subdivision of a State are fully authorized to apprehend and 
detain. Then it goes on to say ``or remove.'' ``Or remove'' should not 
have been in there.
  And so we are just asking unanimous consent at this point to take 
that out and it will help the bill, and we are going to get it out 
somewhere anyway.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Reclaiming my time, Madam Chairman, I 
object to the change.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Madam Chairman, the Norwood amendment would definitely 
clarify the existing authority, existing authority of State and local 
law enforcement personnel in assisting in the apprehension, detention, 
and transport of illegal aliens in the routine course of their daily 
duties. This last phrase, ``in the routine course of duty,'' is 
critical because the language ensures that law enforcement has 
certainty when they come in contact with illegal aliens that are 
breaking our laws.
  My amendment also would require DHS to establish a training manual 
and pocket guide for law enforcement and set forth simple guidelines 
for making training available.
  Madam Chairman, I need to make this perfectly clear. This authority 
for State and local law enforcement already exists, though there is 
some confusion. But law enforcement officers and agencies need some 
assurance from us that they can take appropriate action with authority 
when the laws are broken. Any confusion about what to do when law 
enforcement meets with lawbreakers needs to end.
  Some will argue law enforcement does not have adequate resources. 
That is clearly just not the case. We passed yesterday over $4.5 
billion for homeland security, including $690 million for custody 
management, funds to dramatically increase detention bed space, $88 
million for the Institutional Removal Program, there is $211 million 
for transportation and removal of undocumented aliens, and a good 
amendment today authorizes another $40 million to help willing States 
and local law enforcement. There is also $6 billion in the pipeline for 
first responders, and many of them are from law enforcement.
  Imagine if a State or local law enforcement did not enforce Federal 
drug laws, or if a highway patrolman was confused about the speed 
limits on Federal interstates. Would Congress allow States and local 
law enforcement to not enforce Federal laws on bank robbers or 
kidnappings or fraud? In the wake of the 9/11 terror, porous borders 
are a major security concern.
  Madam Chairman, I sponsored a bill with nearly identical language 
last Congress, so this is not just thought up today. It was endorsed by 
the National Sheriffs Association, the Law Enforcement Alliance of 
America, the Southern States Police Benevolent Association, and the 9/
11 Families For a Secure America.
  In addition, endorsements came from chiefs of police in Illinois, 
Iowa, Georgia, Indiana; and sheriffs from a slew of States endorsed 
similar language previously, including California, Michigan, Tennessee, 
North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Texas, Washington, South Carolina, 
Oklahoma, Oregon, and in nearly a dozen more.
  Colleagues, the only area of law that State and local law enforcement 
are not enforcing because they are unsure about what can be done is the 
immigration law. That should change. It must change. And this is the 
right time and the right bill to correct this critical matter.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
this amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chairman, I encourage Members to vote ``no'' on the Norwood 
amendment. The Norwood amendment seeks to clarify the inherent 
authority of State and local law enforcement to apprehend, detain, 
remove, and transport illegal aliens in the routine course of duty. 
That is not what it does.
  State and local police already have authority to report criminals who 
are foreign nationals to the Department of Homeland Security and to 
assist the Federal Government in criminal investigations. But current 
law does not allow law enforcement to pick up immigrants and deport 
them unilaterally. That is essentially what this amendment allows.
  Do you want to give a local law enforcement officer the authority to 
remove people who they may suspect are in this country illegally; or 
would you prefer to have the Department of Homeland Security do that? 
Section 287(g) of INA, which provides for local law enforcement to 
enter into agreements with ICE, does not allow local law enforcement to 
remove an alien.
  This amendment is also frightening because it allows a local police 
officer who receives no training at all on immigration law to deport 
someone. How does this police officer know that it is someone who 
should be deported? What documents should he ask for? What law has he 
violated?
  This is a terrible amendment, Madam Chairman. Countless State and 
local police agencies have expressed concern about undermining public 
safety when ordinary immigrants start seeing them as agents of the 
Federal immigration service. We have comments from the chief of police 
in Nashville; chief of police in Hamtramck, Michigan; the sheriff and 
assistant sheriff in Orange County; along with Chief William Finney of 
the St. Paul Police Department, who all have expressed real concern 
about the apprehension, detaining, and deportation of illegal 
immigrants.
  Instead of focusing on training State and locals to do the job of our 
fellow law enforcement officers, we need to do more to train and 
provide Federal law enforcement with the resources it needs to fully 
carry out the responsibilities of the Department to enforce immigration 
and Customs violations.
  DHS already faces challenges in cross-training its own personnel and

[[Page H3496]]

integrating the various components into a cohesive unit and, thus, 
would face challenges in developing a cross-training manual for State 
and local law enforcement personnel.
  Madam Chairman, this is why I am requesting that Members vote ``no'' 
on this amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds and would 
point out there is no intention in this bill for local law enforcement 
to be able to deport anybody. In fact, if you had not objected to our 
amendment, that would have been clarified easily in this bill. And at 
the end of the day, that is simply not going to be the case.
  Also, this bill is asking for training to help local law enforcement. 
I would simply say to my colleague that if he thinks local law 
enforcement ought not to help with this law because they do not know 
what they are doing, then maybe we ought to ask them not to help with 
any drug enforcement law because they do not know what they are doing. 
We are in that every day helping them.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Westmoreland).
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Chairman, I thank my colleague from Georgia 
for yielding me this time to talk about an issue that is extremely 
pressing to the citizens of the 8th district, and I rise in support of 
the Norwood amendment.
  Illegal immigration is a difficult issue, but it is one that Congress 
must address and address it now. We have seen the ineffectiveness of 
border security and how the addition of more eyes can make a 
difference. There are now more ropes in the net helping stop our porous 
borders.
  During my most recent time in my district, nearly all the questions I 
received related to the issues of immigration. It is extremely 
important. Right now it does not make sense to prevent law enforcement 
officers from protecting the people of the United States. There are 
about 700,000 State and local police officers, compared with only about 
2,000 Immigration and Customs enforcement officers.
  Our ICE agents are wonderful, but simply do not have the physical 
ability to be in every place to work on enforcement all throughout the 
interior of our country. In contrast, our police officers encounter 
illegal immigrants every day, whether it be through a traffic stop or 
serving a warrant. It does not make sense to stop them from helping 
enforce our immigration laws.
  This amendment takes a baby step toward the goal of better interior 
enforcement by clarifying the legal authority of local officers and 
giving them some real training on the issue. It simply does not make 
sense for us to ignore the eyes and ears of hundreds of thousands of 
local officers.
  Madam Chairman, I urge the adoption of the Norwood amendment.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  As I indicated earlier, Madam Chairman, the gentleman sought to 
clarify his amendment without providing us with the opportunity to see 
it and, for that reason, we objected. But even with the clarification, 
it still would have been problematic for our side. So for that reason, 
Madam Chairman, I continue to object and to oppose the amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds just to remind 
the gentleman that if there are chiefs of police or State patrols in 
any particular State that do not want to be bothered by helping their 
Nation rid itself of terrorists, this is all voluntary. The gentleman 
can write them back and say we have passed a law, but you do not have 
to be involved.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).
  Ms. HART. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I rise in support of his amendment. I am a cosponsor of his 
legislation, and very proud to be. The gentleman has a commonsense 
solution to help us deal with the problem of illegal immigration.
  In my area, as in other areas of the United States, we were built on 
immigration. We are not opposed to immigration. Our concern here is the 
enforcement of our laws. Today, many people arrive illegally and the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service estimated that in January of 
2000 there were 7 million illegal aliens living in the United States, a 
number that is estimated to be growing by a half million a year.
  Included in this total are more than 300,000 criminal aliens living 
in the United States. More importantly in that estimate, about 78,000 
of them are from countries that are of special concern to us in the war 
on terror.

                              {time}  1600

  With only 2,000 interior immigration enforcement officers working in 
the United States, we need all of the help we can get to enforce our 
immigration and criminal laws. This problem became very clear in my 
district and a story that is common around the country. During a 
routine traffic stop, it was discovered there were a number of illegal 
aliens traveling across the State. When the local police called the 
local immigration office inquiring what they should do, they were told 
to release them. That is right, law enforcement, knowing these people 
were illegal aliens, were instructed to release them. That is common, 
unfortunately, because our local law enforcement has not gotten the 
assistance to help enforce immigration laws.
  This incident builds upon a number of highly publicized cases where 
illegal immigrants were released from custody only to commit serious, 
heinous crimes such as rape and murder, further complicating the job of 
local law enforcement.
  The Norwood amendment is a commonsense and carefully crafted solution 
to this problem. All we ask is when these types of incidents occur, we 
can address them and we will make a change and quit undermining our 
laws. This amendment restores sanity to our law, some sense in helping 
to address the shortfall of interior immigration enforcement by having 
cooperation of law enforcement at all levels.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes 
to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chairman, let me attribute good 
intentions to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) because I think 
the gentleman's amendment is grounded in frustration, but it is the 
wrong way to go.
  We cannot allowed our State officials to be burdened by Federal 
responsibilities and authority as it relates to immigration 
responsibilities. This amendment has constitutional failings and is 
weak, if you will, or is weakened by the 10th amendment which clearly 
says certain items are left to the States and by interpretation certain 
responsibilities are left to the Federal Government. This amendment 
includes a responsibility to deport aliens. That is almost impossible 
for local law enforcement to be responsible for.
  Secondarily, the responsibilities of local law enforcement engaging 
and apprehending undocumented immigrants or others that they might 
perceive to be such puts on them the responsibilities of further 
housing these individuals without funding. The $40 million that was 
offered just a few amendments back is not sufficient for all of the 
potential detainees that will be in the Nation's local and State jails.
  This is a good-intentioned amendment but it is bad law and it cannot 
be implemented. I ask my colleagues to recognize the fact that again 
this will damper public safety. I would much rather local law 
enforcement be looking for the kidnapped child or the child that may be 
subjected to child abuse or child violence because of some tragedy that 
has happened in a local community. We have seen a wave of child 
kidnappings and a number of lives lost because of child predators.
  There are so many issues that local law enforcement must engage in, 
this puts an unfunded burden on their particular obligations.
  In addition, Madam Chairman, beyond this question of 
irresponsibility, this ends or it puts a block, if you will, to local 
law enforcement solving problems and crimes in the community. In our 
communities, all of the folk that live there are the neighbors. The 
neighbors have information. They may not be documented or they may be 
documented, but crime is not a respecter of

[[Page H3497]]

citizenship status. Local law enforcement's responsibility is bringing 
down the crime where they live, and no one wants to hear ``I could not 
get information because I could not talk to the immigrant community.''
  Unfortunately, this amendment is something that I believe is blocked 
by the Constitution and the 10th amendment, and should be defeated.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment designated as 
No. 59, offered by the gentleman from Georgia. The gentleman, in 2003, 
introduced the Clear Law Enforcement for Criminal Alien Removal (CLEAR) 
Act (H.R. 2671), and a companion measure was introduced in the other 
body entitled ``the Homeland Security Enhancement Act (S. 1906).'' 
These bills require police to enforce Federal immigration laws, or lose 
certain Federal funds. If this amendment, based on these bills, is 
enacted, it would put a muzzle on immigrant crime victims and 
witnesses, trading their safety for fear, at the expense of everyone 
who lives near, works with, and is related to the individuals targeted 
under this legislation.


              the proposal would jeopardize public safety

  The Norwood amendment would strike a direct blow at the efforts of 
police to win the trust and confidence of the communities they serve. 
If police become immigration agents, word will spread like wildfire 
among newcomers that any contact with police could mean deportation for 
themselves or their family members. Immigrants will decline to report 
crimes or suspicious activity, and criminals will see them as easy 
prey, making our streets less safe as a result. Experience shows that 
this fear will extend not only to contact with police, but also to the 
fire department, hospitals, and the public school system.


             the proposal would undermine national security

  Security experts and law enforcement agree that good intelligence and 
strong relationships are the keys to keeping our Nation and our streets 
safe. Under Amendment No. 59, foreign nationals who might otherwise be 
helpful to security investigations will be reluctant to come forward, 
for fear of immigration consequences. If immigrant communities are 
alienated rather than embraced, local law enforcement loses important 
relationships that can lead to information they might not otherwise 
have access to.


   the Norwood amendment would weaken an important criminal database

  Law enforcement agencies now rely upon the FBI's National Crime 
Information Center (NCIC) database to give them timely and accurate 
information on criminals and dangerous people. This legislation would 
undermine the usefulness of the NCIC by loading it with information 
about millions of people with minor immigration violations. Poor data 
management at the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) 
has resulted in numerous inaccurate records, further complicating 
matters for police who rely on the integrity of the NCIC. Even if the 
data was correct upon entry, case statuses often change and would have 
to somehow be updated in the FBI's database. This misguided proposal 
would lead to many false ``hits'' and unlawful detentions and arrests, 
wasting precious law enforcement resources.


 amendment No. 59 purports but in effect will not operate to apprehend 
                               Criminals

  Proponents of this amendment would say that it is necessary to help 
police deal with the ``criminal alien crisis.'' They ignore the fact 
that police already have the authority to arrest criminals, both in 
enforcing State or local laws and assisting the Federal Government. It 
is absurd to suggest that foreign nationals are somehow immune from our 
criminal laws unless this legislation passes, or that police are unable 
to detain criminals who are also immigration law violators.
  Police also help the Federal Government deport criminals who are 
removable because of their offenses. Those areas of the country that 
have policies ensuring the confidentiality of crime victims' and 
witnesses' immigration status are also those who call the Federal 
Government most often to check the immigration status of crime 
perpetrators. These are often areas with large immigrant populations, 
so they understand the most effective policing strategies for these 
communities. They distinguish between enforcing criminal laws and 
enforcing civil immigration laws--a mandate best left to the Federal 
agencies who do not also have local crime-fighting responsibilities.


       the norwood amendment leaves police unequipped for the job

  Federal immigration law is even more complex than the U.S. tax code 
and is constantly changing. Immigration agents undergo 17 weeks of 
intensive training before they are allowed ``on the beat,'' and they 
have unfettered access to case history data maintained by the Federal 
Government that helps them do their jobs. This amendment requires no 
training of local law enforcement and does not cover the full cost of 
training for those responsible departments who insist on it.
  I have an amendment, Jackson-Lee No. 75, that seeks to require 
studies by the General Accountability Office (GAO) as to the genesis 
and degree of border violence at our Nation's borders. Similar to the 
State and local law enforcement agencies subject to the Norwood 
amendment, the Minuteman Project volunteers who have patrolled the 
Arizona border were untrained and lacked official support. 
Comprehensive training--which costs money, and Federal Government 
accountability, are required in order to ensure that the job of 
enforcing immigration law is done properly and in accordance with U.S. 
Constitutional principles.


   the amendment will impose new bureaucratic requirements on under-
                        staffed public agencies

  This amendment will also impose significant new reporting 
requirements on critically under-staffed and under-funded local law 
enforcement agencies. The responsibilities of State and local police 
have increased dramatically since the September 11th terrorist attacks, 
and police simply do not have extra time on their hands to take on what 
is rightly a Federal duty.


      the amendment will become another unfunded mandate on states

  The amendment would shift what has always been a Federal duty, 
immigration law enforcement, onto the States. It purports to give some 
additional resources to police who enforce immigration laws, while 
imposing monetary penalties on those departments that decline. But if 
the yearly battles for just a portion of reimbursements owed under the 
State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) are any indication, 
very little of the new money will actually make it into the coffers of 
local police departments. Not only will local governments be stuck 
footing the bill once again, but they risk loss of critical Federal 
dollars already earmarked for criminal law enforcement if they refuse 
to take on these new duties.
  The Senate bill on which the amendment is based goes further by 
removing many of the monetary incentives promised in the House bill and 
imposing national standards on driver's licenses issued to foreign 
nationals. Once again, implementing these complicated standards comes 
with no new money attached, but with the threat of losing Federal 
highway safety funds for those States who do not comply.


provisions in current law exist for agencies that wish to help enforce 
                            immigration law

  For those few State or local police agencies who do want to assist 
the Federal Government in enforcing immigration laws, a mechanism is 
available for them to do so. Section 287(g) of the immigration code 
outlines a process whereby State and local governments can enter into 
agreements with the Federal Government (MOUs, or memorandums of 
understanding) that permit them to receive training and enforce Federal 
immigration laws. MOUs are currently in place in Florida and Alabama.


         The Amendment Skews Federal Law Enforcement Priorities

  When police identify immigration violators, they will have to call 
the Federal Government to take over. Law enforcement resources at the 
Federal level are also limited, which is why the Bureau of Immigration 
and Customs Enforcement (ICE) prioritizes searches for criminals and 
terrorists over immigrants with civil status violations. Will ICE 
agents come to collect every undocumented immigrant identified by local 
police? Amendment No. 59 tries to force them by permitting States and 
localities to seek funds for every undocumented immigrant the Federal 
Government fails to pick up. This means ICE has to put the same amount 
of resources into picking up undocumented workers as suspected 
terrorists. With 8,000,000 undocumented workers in the United States 
and an infinitely smaller cohort of foreign-born criminals and 
terrorists, this is hardly the right prioritization of Department of 
Homeland Security resources.


     Making Every Immigration Violation a Crime Has Enormous Costs

  Many Federal immigration law violations are currently civil in 
nature. This amendment would classify all immigration status violations 
as Federal crimes, dramatically increasing the number of people who 
could be prosecuted, receive court-appointed attorneys, and end up 
incarcerated through the Federal criminal justice system. The costs 
would be enormous, and flooding the criminal system with civil 
violators would further delay justice for victims of real crimes.


  The Amendment Forgets That You Can't Tell By Looking Whether One is 
                              Legal or Not

  There are nearly 11,000,000 naturalized U.S. citizens, and more than 
25,000,000 native-born Americans of Latin American and Asian descent. 
In this free Nation we are not required to carry ``papers'' to prove 
our citizenship, and few of us do. Because police are not equipped to 
determine who has violated an immigration law, some will inevitably 
stop and question people of certain ethnic backgrounds, who speak 
foreign languages, or who have

[[Page H3498]]

accents in English. This ill-conceived amendment essentially encourages 
race- and ethnicity-based profiling.


                Amendment No. 59 Threatens Civil Rights

  Anticipating the likelihood of civil rights lawsuits spawned by this 
legislation, the bills purport to grant immunity from civil suits for 
officers who enforce immigration laws. This sends the wrong message if 
we are serious about eradicating racial profiling from U.S. law 
enforcement. Ultimately, police departments and localities gambling on 
this Congressional gesture would find themselves in court anyway, when 
the anti-civil rights provisions are challenged.
  Mr. Chairman, clearly, there are far too many areas of contention 
with this amendment that, if passed, would prove potentially injurious 
to citizens and aliens alike. For the reasons stated above, I strongly 
oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to join me.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  In response to the last speaker, number one, had the gentlewoman been 
here earlier, the gentlewoman would have heard about why this is not an 
unfunded mandate.
  Number two, if the gentlewoman believes local law enforcement should 
not help the Federal Government find terrorists in this Nation, which 
people who cross our borders illegally they are amongst, I ask the 
gentlewoman to drop a bill so that local law enforcement does not help 
the Federal Government in bank robberies and murders and drug 
enforcement and everything else that local law enforcement helps the 
Federal Government do.
  It is ridiculous to say that the 750,000 local law enforcement people 
should not be involved in this Nation trying to find some of the people 
who, for example, committed terror in this country on 9/11.
  Yesterday we passed over $4.5 billion for homeland security, 
including $690 million for custody management, funds to dramatically 
increase detention bed space, $88 million for an institutional removal 
program, $211 million for transportation and removal of undocumented 
aliens, and an earlier amendment today authorized another $40 million 
to help willing State and local law enforcement. There is also $6 
billion in the pipeline for first responders. Many of them are local 
law enforcement. And this is voluntary. If the City of Houston does not 
want to play, they do not have to. But the rest of us need our law 
enforcement people to help us get these terrorists out of this country, 
and there are somewhere between 10 and 15 million that have come across 
our borders because we have failed to do anything about it for 
nonsensical reasons. It is time for this to come to an end.
  If Members are for correcting immigration in this country, vote for 
this. If Members are against immigration corrections and do not think 
it needs reform and want an open border, vote against it.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  I would like to say to my colleague every immigrant is not a 
terrorist. I would assume that was an error in the gentleman's comment. 
Clearly we have to be very careful. That is a Federal responsibility. 
What we are doing is passing that responsibility to State and local law 
enforcement and not funding the Department that ought to be having the 
responsibility for immigration.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chairman, I thank the ranking member, 
and I have to associate myself with the gentleman's argument.
  More importantly the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) has made, 
if you will, my very point. Although we disagree, the point is not 
ridiculous. What we are saying is that he is suggesting that law 
enforcement massively go to the border and begin to arrest and deport 
individuals they perceive to be illegal aliens. There lies my angst and 
opposition to this massively confusing amendment.
  The gentleman has in his amendment that local law enforcement, 
constables and sheriffs, will be responsible for deporting aliens. They 
do not even have the Federal jurisdiction to do so. By the way, 
deportation requires Federal intervention because there are proceedings 
which you have to go before. Unfortunately, we have short changed that 
side of the formula.
  This is an unworkable amendment. It violates the 10th amendment of 
the Constitution. It violates the idea of protecting our national 
security. I ask my colleagues to defeat this amendment and help us do 
real immigration reform through the Federal Government.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds, and say just 
because you say something is so does not mean it is so. This is a 
voluntary bill in which nobody is massing anywhere, nor does it imply 
that anywhere in this bill. It is totally voluntary, and local law 
enforcement are asked to work in line of duty.
  Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cox) to close the debate for this side.
  Mr. COX. Madam Chairman, I think we need to return to the amendment 
that is before us. There has been a lot of heat and light generated in 
this debate, but the amendment itself is exceptionally simple.
  It begins from the fact that current law provides for the training of 
State and local law enforcement officials to enforce Federal 
immigration laws. That is a voluntary program. There is no unfunded 
mandate in current law because there is no mandate. It is completely 
voluntary, and only those State and local law enforcement officials, 
those first responders who are seeking to partner with the Department 
of Homeland Security in obtaining this Federal training to enforce 
immigration laws, actually do so.
  Second, in an amendment that was adopted earlier by voice vote, we 
provided $40 million in Federal funding to reimburse any costs incurred 
by State and local volunteers, that is State and local governments who 
volunteer for this training, in obtaining the training. So it is not 
unfunded either. It is a funded, voluntary program.
  Lastly, what this amendment adds to existing law is simply to provide 
a training guide for this training that already exists and training 
flexibility to make sure that it meets the needs of State and local law 
enforcement officers.
  The last thing it does is it corrects existing law, section 287(g) of 
the INA to substitute ``the Secretary of Homeland Security'' for the 
words ``Attorney General.'' This is something that we did in the 
technical corrections bill that was unanimously passed by the Select 
Committee on Homeland Security in the last Congress.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the 
balance of my time.
  This amendment, although well intended, crosses the line from my 
standpoint because it moves us away from a Federal responsibility to a 
State responsibility. This amendment tries to clarify the existing 
authority of State and local law enforcement personnel to apprehend, 
detain, remove and transport illegal aliens in the routine course of 
duty.
  Additionally, this amendment requires DHS to establish a training 
manual on this matter and set forth simple guidelines for making that 
training available. State and local police already authorize and train 
to notify Federal law enforcement officials, are already highly 
qualified, and are fully trained to identify foreign nationals in 
custody.
  Additionally, training in immigration law is not a simple task. A 
manual is simply not sufficient to train officers in the complexity of 
immigration law.
  For example, DHS already faces challenges in cross-training its 
personnel and integrating the various components into a cohesive unit; 
and, thus, would face challenges in developing a cross-training manual 
for State and local law enforcement personnel.
  So for these reasons, I am in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Madam Chairman, I simply ask the gentleman to reconsider 
our unanimous consent to remove two words that would, I think, make an 
amendment that is going to pass better in your mind.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. I do not consent.
  Mr. FARR. Madam Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this 
amendment offered by Mr.

[[Page H3499]]

Norwood. This amendment would essentially force local law enforcement 
agencies to enforce federal immigration laws.
  The enactment of this amendment would strain already scarce state and 
local resources by creating an unfunded mandate, in addition to 
dividing communities around the country.
  Coercing state and local police into becoming federal immigration 
agents does not benefit anyone involved. In addition to their other 
duties, local law enforcement officials and local and state 
administrators would be bogged down by determining criminal's 
immigration status. Community members will be hesitant to cooperate 
with local law enforcement for fear of ramifications against them and 
their family.
  According to the Department of Justice statistics, violent and 
property crime rates have been falling steadily for at least the last 
10 years. I have no doubt that this is largely due to community 
policing. This amendment would take away that idea. Our communities are 
better served by a police force that focuses on robbers, murderers and 
terrorists, as opposed to immigration status.
  I do not support illegal immigration and believe that anyone who 
enters the U.S. in violation of U.S. immigration laws should be 
penalized. But that doesn't mean police who should be arresting drug 
dealers and breaking up gang activities should now be federally 
mandated to track down illegal aliens.
  To me, this amendment is another example of the desperate need for an 
honest and comprehensive debate on immigration law in this country. 
Piecemeal ideas, such as this one, are detrimental to our communities 
at a microlevel. Our country is in need of an immigration policy that 
accounts for the fears 9/11 instilled, in addition to the hope that 
immigrants bring to our nation.
  This amendment is ineffective and unnecessary policy and I urge my 
colleagues to cast a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mrs. Capito). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam 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 Georgia (Mr. 
Norwood) will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 19 printed in part B of 
House Report 109-84.
  There is no designee for amendment No. 19.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 20 printed in part B of 
House Report 109-84.

                              {time}  1615


          Amendment No. 20 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mrs. Capito). The Clerk will designate the 
amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part B amendment No. 20 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of 
     Texas:
       Page 82, after line 4, add the following:

     SEC. 407. REPORT ON BORDER VIOLENCE.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 6 months after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     shall submit a report to the Congress on the number and type 
     of border violence activities that have occurred in the 5-
     year period preceding such date.
       (b) Contents.--The report shall include the following:
       (1) The number of such activities that have been 
     documented.
       (2) The types of activities involved.
       (3) A description of the categories of victims.
       (4) The risk of future activities.
       (5) A description of the steps the Department is taking, 
     and any plan the Department has formulated, to prevent such 
     activities.
       (c) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``border violence activity'' means any activity that--
       (1) involves the unlawful use of, or the threat unlawfully 
     to use, physical force with the intent to harm a person or 
     property;
       (2) occurs in the United States, not further than 25 miles 
     from a United States border with Mexico or Canada; and
       (3) occurs as part of an attempt to deter, retaliate 
     against, or enable the entry of any person into the United 
     States.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Hayworth) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Let me describe the simplicity of my amendment. It is simply to ask 
the Secretary of Homeland Security not later than 6 months after the 
date of the enactment of this act, the Secretary of Homeland Security 
shall submit a report to Congress on the number and type of border 
violence activities that have occurred in the 5-year period preceding 
such date.
  The report would include the number of such activities that have been 
documented; the types of activities involved; a description of the 
categories of victims; the risk of future activities; and a description 
of the steps the Department is taking, and any plan the Department has 
formulated to prevent such activities.
  This is a straightforward amendment that clearly again reaffirms the 
ongoing theme of the homeland security authorization bill, that the 
responsibility of homeland security falls in the arms of the Federal 
Government, and we must not fail the American people.
  We have seen citizens take up arms. They have first been in our 
neighboring State, in Arizona, a broad, desert-like area. There is now 
an intention for such citizen groups, unauthorized militia, to come 
into the States of Texas and California, New Mexico and who knows where 
else this amendment might be.
  I am delighted to say that in the Committee on Homeland Security, we 
do have a consensus at least around the idea that we must understand 
the issues of border violence. I would like to thank the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) 
for working with me on the general issue.
  I also raise for my colleagues our concern for the northern border 
and to remind them of the potential tragedy that was, if you will, 
inhibited or prohibited at the turn of the present century, 2000, when 
an individual was poised and walked across the northern border in order 
to do havoc, if you will, in Los Angeles. We know the borders are 
dangerous, and we want to have the kind of trained professional 
personnel to ensure the safety of the borders.
  But we must also recognize the distinctiveness of the borders. I will 
use Texas as an example. It is heavily populated. It is a dense area. 
There is a lot of private land. Thereby, those who are in volunteer 
efforts may subject themselves to potential violence or incur violence. 
And so it is important that we have an understanding by the Department 
of Homeland Security to take charge of that, to understand the variety, 
if you will, the variety and the types of activities that could 
possibly happen.
  I want to cite for my colleagues the incidences that may occur at the 
border and particularly from the individual who heads the Minuteman 
Project, indicated that the Texas border might be far more difficult 
than they might have expected. There may be a little danger going on. 
They might have to be a little careful. That is why this study and this 
report by the Department of Homeland Security is extremely important, 
the Secretary of Homeland Security. We must work in partnership to be 
able to protect the violence that may take place at the border.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
California (Mr. Berman), a senior member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. BERMAN. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding 
time. The point she raises now brings to mind a point I wanted to make 
about what is really an unbelievably reckless amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) regarding empowering local police 
to detain and remove people based on illegal immigration status without 
checking or verifying that status with INS or the Federal agencies.
  A group of people with no training in this particular effort will 
have the ability to pick up people, assume, or come to the conclusion 
that person is not here in legal status and, without checking with the 
Federal Government or the INS, to deport and remove that person from 
this country. That person may be an asylee, having a well-founded fear 
of persecution. The person may

[[Page H3500]]

not have the right documents on him but be a naturalized citizen or be 
here under some kind of temporary visa that he cannot show the police. 
It will all of a sudden give thousands and thousands of law enforcement 
officials an ability to do something.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).
  Mr. NORWOOD. Madam Chairman, I just want to point out to the ranking 
member that I started this debate off saying there was a drafting error 
and we wanted to remove two words: ``or remove.'' Your side would not 
allow that to be removed. That would have solved the problem. We are 
going to get it solved even if it is in conference. We are going to get 
it done despite you, but we gave you the opportunity to do something 
about it.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 3\1/4\ minutes.
  I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by my colleague 
from Texas. As you heard in her opening remarks, sadly, this amendment 
is an attempt to discredit worthy, nonviolent volunteers who dedicated 
their time and their energy to protect our Nation's borders last month. 
The Minuteman Project, Madam Chairman, is simply an outgrowth of the 
public's frustration with the Federal Government's failure to secure 
our borders. Indeed, what the Minutemen did was follow a time-honored 
tradition of petitioning our government for legitimate redress of 
grievance.
  It is true that in terms of the political landscape, the ACLU and the 
Government of Mexico protested the group even before the patrol began; 
but the Minutemen effectively shut down a 20-mile stretch of border 
without a single credible report of violence committed by those citizen 
volunteers.
  With reference to the notion of a study, Madam Chairman, I would 
simply say this: the records are intact. I will make them a part of the 
record right now. Attacks on border patrol agents by alien and drug 
smugglers are on the rise. In the Tucson sector alone during the first 
6 months of this fiscal year, there were reported 132 assaults on 
agents, 14 more than all of last year. That is in the first 6 months of 
the fiscal year. Border patrol agents in Arizona are attacked once 
every 2 days, 64 times in a recent 3-month period.
  Six border patrol agents assigned to the Tucson sector have been 
killed in the line of duty, including a 27-year-old agent fatally shot 
in June of 1998 near Nogales as he sought to arrest four men hauling 
marijuana into the United States. When I had occasion to visit with 
border patrol agents in March, they told me how snipers from the 
Mexican side of the border will actually shoot border patrol vehicle 
windshields out if the Mexican snipers deem these vehicles are parked 
too close to the border.
  In 2004, border patrol agents arrested over 650 suspected terrorists. 
Madam Chairman, let me repeat that. In 2004, border patrol agents 
arrested over 650 suspected terrorists from countries of national 
security interest trying to cross our southern border. They expect the 
number will rise this year. In January of this year, border patrol in 
the Tucson sector impounded 557 smuggling vehicles, almost 35,000 
pounds of marijuana, and 35,704 illegal aliens.
  This amendment fails to address the violent attacks on our border 
patrol agents. It implies that citizens of the United States seeking 
redress and putting an end to the influx of terrorists and the illegal 
invasion of this country are wrong. The committees on Homeland Security 
and the Judiciary oppose this amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote 
``no'' on the Jackson-Lee amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Goode).
  Mr. GOODE. Madam Chairman, illegal immigration costs this Nation $68 
billion per year. That is not million; that is billion. This study 
changes the focus of the Department of Homeland Security. The 
Department of Homeland Security needs to be focusing on keeping those 
illegally in the country out. Citizen groups such as the Minutemen who 
performed a tremendous neighborhood watch function on our southern 
borders need to be commended and not slapped by an amendment like this.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time 
to make this point to my colleagues. I am sure it is not the intent of 
my colleague from Texas to try and imply that citizens engaged in 
lawful protest are somehow attempting to inspire violent acts. I know 
that is not the intent of my colleague. However, that would be the 
perverse result if this House would support that amendment. This House 
would then be on record saying that the lawful rights of citizens 
should be abridged to accommodate illegal acts by noncitizens. That is 
something this House and this government and the citizens of this 
Nation will not countenance.
  Therefore, because of that, I would ask all my colleagues to join me 
in opposition to the Jackson-Lee amendment. Vote ``no.''
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  The slap in the face is to the hardworking border patrol agents who 
now are subjected to more jeopardy because volunteers are there, 
unauthorized, untrained, and the very words of the Minutemen who said 
that they fear going to Texas because most of the land is privately 
owned and security becomes a serious issue, said by the leader of the 
Minutemen. But I am not concerned about the Minutemen. I am concerned 
about saving lives.
  If you want to save lives, vote for the Jackson-Lee amendment that 
helps to save lives by giving money to the border patrol agents and 
protecting those volunteers by telling them that they cannot be at the 
border unsafe, unsecured, untrained. We need the Department of Homeland 
Security to take charge.
  Vote for the Jackson-Lee amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I rise to bring a very important issue before the 
Committee of the Whole by way of an amendment designated as ``Jackson 
Lee #75.'' I would like to once again thank the distinguished Chairman 
of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security and the Ranking 
Member for showing their awareness of the issue of border violence as 
one that rises to a level that requires Federal oversight by agreeing 
to the amendment that I offered yesterday during House consideration of 
the appropriations measure, H.R. 2360. I also thank the Chairman of the 
Committee on Homeland Security for his showing of commitment to 
addressing this issue by agreeing to collaborate with the Ranking 
Member from Mississippi and me to craft a bipartisan letter to the 
Department of Homeland Security to request the collection of data on 
this matter.
  ``Jackson Lee #75'' is based on the same premise of that amendment, 
and given that the appropriations measure has placed spending 
limitations with respect to national border patrol, it would only be 
logical and prudent for the authorization measure to emphasize the 
legislative intent to clearly define, monitor, and control this issue 
before it becomes an expenditure.
  The purpose of this amendment is to put the American people on notice 
that the ``Minuteman Project'' has proposed to enter multiple borders 
in order to monitor for illegal border crossings.
  American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) Local No. 3332 and 
the Association for Residency and Citizenship of America (ARCA) support 
this important amendment that will prevent impediment to DHS's border 
security functions as well as the development of negative issues if 
groups such as the Minutemen attempt to enforce immigration law.
  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 its 
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,

[[Page H3501]]

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 we 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.
  Several differences between the United States-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 are more dense 
and provide 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.'
  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.
  The Jackson-Lee amendment seeks to prevent liability ``powder kegs'' 
from propagating nationally.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask that my colleagues support this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee) will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 21 printed in part B of 
House Report 109-84.


                Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Manzullo

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

       Part B amendment No. 21 offered by Mr. Manzullo:
       At the end of title V, add the following new section:

     SEC. 509. BUY AMERICAN REQUIREMENT FOR PROCUREMENTS OF GOODS 
                   CONTAINING COMPONENTS.

       (a) Requirement.--Notwithstanding any agreement described 
     in subsection (b), more than 50 percent of the components in 
     any end product procured by the Department of Homeland 
     Security that contains components shall be mined, produced, 
     or manufactured inside the United States.
       (b) Agreements Described.--An agreement referred to in 
     subsection (a) is any of the following:
       (1) Any reciprocal procurement memorandum of understanding 
     between the United States and a foreign country pursuant to 
     which the Secretary of Homeland Security has prospectively 
     waived the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 10a et seq.) for 
     certain products in that country.
       (2) Any international agreement to which the United States 
     is a party.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom 
Davis) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).
  Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  My amendment strengthens the Buy American Act and restores the 
original intent that more than 50 percent of the components in end 
products purchased by the Department of Homeland Security shall be 
mined, produced, or manufactured inside the U.S.
  The Buy American Act originally passed Congress during the Great 
Depression. The intent of Congress was that to qualify under the Buy 
American Act, a company had to have substantially all of a product 
made, grown, or mined in the U.S. However, regulations implementing the 
Buy American Act have subsequently redefined ``substantially all'' to 
mean simply greater than 50 percent.
  Yet even that regulation has been weakened even further over the 
years. The Pentagon has used the public interest exception to waive the 
Buy American Act to treat the purchase of some foreign goods as if they 
were made in America. The original intent of the Buy American Act has 
been undermined by procurement memoranda of understanding among the 
U.S. and various foreign countries that permit the substitution of 
foreign components for components mined, produced, or manufactured 
inside the United States. These are not treaties or trade agreements 
approved by Congress. These were executive branch agreements not 
subject to review by Congress.
  Thus, the Buy American laws are basically worthless. There are so 
many holes in that law that it means nothing when a company says they 
comply with the Buy American Act. The exception, and it is a big one, 
is that the domestic content requirement does not have to be met if the 
items are procured from certain designated foreign countries.
  The Pentagon has memoranda of understanding with 21 developed 
countries that waive the Buy American Act because the Defense 
Department has determined that for these countries complying with the 
Buy American Act is ``inconsistent with the public interest.''

                              {time}  1630

  Basically, a company getting an award from the Pentagon can claim 
compliance with the Buy American Act without having to actually make 
anything in the United States as long as the components come from one 
of those 21 countries. Because the Department of Homeland Security has 
a very similar mission to the Department of Defense, protecting the 
territory of the U.S. from every possible enemy attack, we should not 
allow the DHS to waive the Buy American Act like the Pentagon has done 
without an affirmative vote by Congress.
  The intent of Congress is to maintain the vibrant industrial base so 
that we may remain the strongest Nation on Earth. Even the founder of 
modern-day capitalism and free trade, Adam Smith, recognized the need 
for a nation to be able to depend upon its own industrial and 
agricultural base and not rely on foreign sources for its defense 
needs. We cannot maintain our role as global leader on a pure services-
based economy.
  It is also important to remember that this amendment does not 
increase the share of the Buy American Act. It simply codifies the 
content percentage of what is an existing regulation.
  Madam Chairman, I urge adoption of this amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Madam Chairman, this amendment would radically change the current 
application of the Buy American Act, and it could place the United 
States in violation of most international trade agreements in which we 
are signatories, including the World Trade Organization's Government 
Procurement Agreement, something, by the way, we are working to get 
China to sign right now because of some of the restrictions they are 
putting on their procurement policy; the North American Free Trade 
Agreement; the U.S.-Israel Free Trade

[[Page H3502]]

Agreement; and the U.S.-Australia Free Trade agreement.
  This restriction would have a devastating effect on the Department of 
Homeland Security's ability to buy the most high-tech and sophisticated 
products at a reasonable price to support our critical anti-terror 
efforts. We should be able to get the best high-technology goods at the 
lowest cost for the American taxpayer so that we can fight this war on 
terrorism in a cost-effective manner.
  For instance, this amendment would sweep away the current $175,000 
ceiling for the Buy American Act required for the application with the 
Trade Agreements Act of 1979. This is the basis for our participation 
in the Government Procurement Agreement.
  The restriction would cause Customs and border protection problems in 
purchasing the best aircraft, the best camera equipment, the best 
surveillance equipment from the world market to protect our borders. 
Further, the amendment would interfere with critical research and 
development agreements we currently have with the United Kingdom. 
BlackBerrys, something that most Members use and are used widely 
throughout the government, are a Canadian product. Thirty, 40 percent 
of its components are made and manufactured in the United States, but 
they would be subject to restrictions put on by this amendment.
  The United States is already challenged to compete in a global 
marketplace. We do not always have a competitive advantage. But 
dismantling the regime of free trade agreements that help create and 
support the vibrant world marketplace in the end only hurts American 
workers.
  Besides violating our trade agreements, this provision will require 
the Department to pay an artificially high price for products it needs 
to protect us against terror. Homeland Security dollars are already 
scarce. We should not be wasting our Homeland Security dollars when 
U.S. citizens are volunteering their personal time to protect the 
southern border.
  Under this amendment, businesses are required to certify compliance 
with the Buy American Act, potentially exposing American businesses to 
civil false claims and other sanctions even if they have made good-
faith efforts to comply with the government-unique requirements. In a 
global marketplace where components are assembled throughout the world, 
it is often difficult to ascertain what that 50 percent margin is. This 
creates significant financial and legal burdens for industry, given 
that more and more information technology so critical for the fight 
against terror is being sourced in our global economy from around the 
world.
  Some companies have responded to Buy American Act restrictions by 
establishing costly labor-intensive product-tracking systems that are 
not needed in their commercial business to ensure that products being 
sold to the government meet the government-unique requirements. But 
small businesses in particular often cannot afford to establish special 
systems for that kind of compliance. So this hurts small businesses 
trying to sell to the government in a global economy.
  Some companies have simply stopped selling certain products in the 
Federal marketplace, denying us access to some of the latest, most 
cost-effective products. Further, this decrease in sales is 
disproportionately devastating to small businesses.
  This radical, in my opinion, Buy American Act provision will impose 
financial and legal burdens on commercial companies that sell to our 
government. It may well prevent the Department of Homeland Security 
from obtaining the best technology to protect our Nation.
  Again, BlackBerrys would be subject to this, something that most 
Members and most government workers use, because they are from a 
Canadian company. This increased restriction on the Department's 
ability to obtain needed technology from the world market is a Cold War 
anachronism. Given the Department of Homeland Security's growing 
reliance on information technology and other advanced products and the 
current global nature of the industry, the Department's ability to 
fulfill its critical anti-terror mission will be crippled by this 
restrictive provision.
  I hope that Members have the sense to vote against this, and I urge 
that we defeat this amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
  Mr. STUPAK. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  I rise in support of his amendment.
  As to the last speaker, let me tell the Members what is going on 
here. In the Department of Homeland Security, they are not allowed to 
buy civilian aircraft. What happened just recently was Eurocopter, 
which is subsidized by the French and German governments, that is a 
subsidy. That is in violation of the trade agreements, and no one is 
enforcing it. As a result, in my district Enstrom Helicopter lost a 
contract to build civilian helicopters for the Department of Homeland 
Security, and the cost for the French/German conglomerate was like $23 
million more; so it is costing the taxpayers more money.
  I think we have to make a decision in this Nation. Are we going to 
continue in these trade agreements that are not enforced? There are 
other countries that are subsidizing their workers, and we sit here and 
we develop contracts and say because of this treaty or this agreement, 
we cannot do it; but yet we do not enforce the provisions of it. And 
what we are really doing is telling the Department of Homeland 
Security, at least in the helicopter industry, that we will buy 
European helicopters as opposed to U.S. helicopters.
  We can no longer continue this. Please support the Manzullo 
amendment.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Let me just say that what this amendment will require us to do with 
precious Homeland Security dollars is pay up to 50 percent more for 
goods that bear the American label and in many cases cost us access to 
the best high-technology surveillance equipment, lab equipment, 
equipment and cameras to protect our borders. I just do not think it 
makes any sense in this environment of a global economy, and I urge its 
defeat.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) argues that the best 
technology is outside the United States. The whole purpose of this 
amendment is to try to do something about the 3 million manufacturing 
jobs we have lost in the past several years. This simply says whenever 
anybody agrees to abide by the Buy American Act, at least buy 50 
percent of the content from America. The existing Buy American Act says 
they have to buy zero. Congress passed a law that says buy everything 
from America. The Department of Defense and other agencies say that 
only means 50 percent. Now there is a memorandum of understanding from 
the White House that says, by the way, if they buy from the 21 
countries, they do not even need to meet the 50 percent.
  This is very simple. It says if we want to keep technology in the 
United States, then buy the technology that is here. If a particular 
item has to be purchased and it is not made in the United States, then 
the Buy American Act simply does not apply.
  This is a commonsense amendment. I am going to be offering it to 
every single authorization bill that I can, and I would urge Members to 
vote ``aye'' on this.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mrs. Capito). All time for debate has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 22 
printed in part B of House Report 109-84.


                 Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Putnam

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

       Part B amendment No. 22 offered by Mr. Putnam:


[[Page H3503]]


       At the end of title V, add the following (and conform the 
     table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 509. DISASTER ASSISTANCE FOR FUNERAL EXPENSES.

       Section 408(e)(1) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief 
     and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5174(e)(1)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following: ``The President 
     may provide assistance for funeral expenses under this 
     paragraph only if a medical examiner determines that the 
     death was caused by the major disaster.''.

         Modification to Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Putnam

  Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be modified in the form at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification to amendment No. 22 offered by Mr. Putnam:
       In lieu of the matter proposed to be added by the amendment 
     add the following:
       At the end of title V, add the following (and conform the 
     table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 509. DISASTER ASSISTANCE FOR FUNERAL EXPENSES.

       Not later than 90 days after the enactment of this Act, the 
     Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency shall--
       (1) develop criteria and guidelines for determining if a 
     death is disaster-related; and
       (2) require staff to provide for analysis of each request 
     for funeral expense assistance in order to support approval 
     or disapproval of such assistance.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the modification offered 
by the gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Putnam) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam).
  Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, I am delighted to be here to talk about what is an 
important issue for the whole country, but it came to light in the 
aftermath of the hurricanes in Florida.
  Immediately after Hurricanes Charley, Frances, Ivan, and Jeanne 
ravaged the Sunshine State, with the help of this Congress hurricane 
disaster relief assistance was provided to help our State recover from 
those devastating storms. And while many of those who suffered damage 
are still waiting for FEMA recovery payments, there were a number of 
questionable payments that have been made as it related to funeral 
expenses for hurricane-related deaths.
  For example, the instance in Pensacola of a recovering alcoholic with 
cirrhosis of the liver, after Hurricane Ivan blew through town on 
September 16, the gentleman went on a binge ``due to misery,'' his 
widow told the Miami Herald. He never fully recovered and died of 
respiratory failure. His funeral expenses were paid by the American 
taxpayer.
  A gentleman from Palm Bay, Florida, died of lung cancer 6 days before 
Hurricane Frances made landfall. The gentleman was buried before the 
hurricane made landfall. His widow said that FEMA damage inspectors 
came to her home and suggested she might qualify for funeral expenses. 
She said that she did not think her husband's death was related to 
Hurricane Frances. She had her husband's funeral paid for by the 
American taxpayers.
  The Inspector General in the Department of Homeland Security with a 
report that came out today echoed these concerns and called for two 
specific changes: a change that the Department should develop specific 
criteria and guidelines for determining if a death is disaster related, 
and a specific requirement that staff of FEMA provide for an analysis 
of each request and document the rationale for approval or disapproval 
of funeral-related assistance. This is an issue that is hugely 
important to Florida as we try to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse and 
allow FEMA's limited resources to go to those who are truly in need.
  We had offered a different approach to this as it related to medical 
examiners. With the work of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman 
Shuster), we were able to come to a resolution on the appropriate 
legislative language that solves this issue, and I am grateful to him 
for his leadership.
  Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
  Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's working 
with us to modify language on his amendment. I think all of us know and 
I know specifically as I travel to Florida to review some of the damage 
and some of the problems that occurred during those hurricanes and with 
FEMA coming down there and things they did and did not do, I know 
firsthand that there are problems and we need to make these types of 
corrections.
  I think the gentleman's amendment, by modifying it, has strengthened 
the language and put into law not just a process or a regulation by 
FEMA but these are going to be standards that FEMA is going to need to 
adhere to when they are determining whom to pay funeral expenses to, 
those who deserve and those who do not deserve. And we heard of cases, 
a couple of hundred of them in Florida where there was fraud, abuse, 
and they got funds to pay for funeral expenses; and I think this 
language is going to go a long way to making sure that that does not 
happen, not only in Florida but across this country.

                              {time}  1645

  On the subcommittee that I chair, the Subcommittee on Economic 
Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management, we are 
committed to working with my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Putnam), to talking to the FEMA folks and making sure they are 
reviewing these cases in the past, but also going forward.
  So the gentleman has my commitment, and we will sit down and, as I 
said, talk to the folks from FEMA to see that we clear up this matter.
  I thank the gentleman, and I appreciate him working with us.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mrs. Capito). Does any Member rise in opposition 
to this amendment?
  Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Chairman, how much time remains?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Chairman, I want to just take that remaining time 
then to thank our delegation chairman, the gentleman from Fort 
Lauderdale (Mr. Shaw) for his efforts on this, and all of the other 
related FEMA issues; and thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Shuster). This is an important issue for the taxpayers, and it is 
important to make sure that people who are truly in need are assisted 
by FEMA and those who are not are not able to game the system. I 
appreciate the leadership of my colleagues.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment, as modified, 
offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam).


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  May 18, 2005--On Page H 3503 the following appeared: The Acting 
CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida.
  
  The online version should be corrected to read: The Acting 
CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment as modified, offered by 
the gentleman from Florida.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  May 18, 2005--On Page H 3503 the following appeared: The 
amendment was agreed to.
  
  The online version should be corrected to read: The amendment, 
as modified, was agreed to.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 23 
printed in Part B of House report 109-84.


                 Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Souder

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

       Part B amendment No. 23 offered by Mr. Souder:
       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR 
                   OFFICE OF COUNTERNARCOTICS ENFORCEMENT AT 
                   DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY.

       Section 7407(c) of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
     Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-458; 118 Stat. 3853) 
     is amended by striking ``2005, there is authorized up to 
     $6,000,000'' and inserting ``2005 or 2006, there is 
     authorized up to $6,000,000 for each such fiscal year''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Madam Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. It merely extends 
the authorized appropriation for the Department of Homeland Security 
Office

[[Page H3504]]

of Counternarcotics Enforcement for one year for fiscal year 2006. In 
other words, it just inserts 2006 after 2005.
  This office was created structurally as part of the Intelligence 
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act in December of 2004. We realized 
that in narcotics, almost all the major interdiction agencies, Coast 
Guard, Border Patrol, and Legacy Customs, are inside Homeland Security. 
When you are pursuing international terrorists, you are going to pick 
up a share of narcotics as you control the border as much as we can, 
and as we move forward we have been picking up narcotics. But it cannot 
just be an afterthought.
  Twenty-four thousand Americans die each year of drugs. We have had 
basically 3,300 roughly die of international terrorism since 2001 and, 
in that same time period, nearly 100,000 of narcotics deaths. So we 
need to stay focused. We need to do both things simultaneously. 
Furthermore, the terrorists are increasingly funded by narcotics.
  The administration has been reluctant to adopt this. It is not a 
question of whether the individuals at the Department of Homeland 
Security are committed to counternarcotics; the question is, is there a 
structure in place that puts somebody at the table to make sure that 
they never forget that narcotics is part of the Department of Homeland 
Security's commission and what they are supposed to do. It is not just 
international terrorism, it is also home terrorism and the narcotics 
front.
  So I appreciate the leadership of the gentleman from Illinois 
(Speaker Hastert) and the cooperation of the Senate as we have created 
this office, and we have $6 million in authorized appropriations. If 
people followed the Homeland Security appropriations debate yesterday, 
they see the problem is that this office has all detailees in it. Even 
the head of this office is a detailee. We need full time, paid 
employees in this office.
  Yesterday, when I withdrew my amendment to set aside this money, it 
was said that this comes out of the Office of the Secretary. That is 
the way the Department of Homeland Security would like to make it; but, 
in fact, our authorizing bill says that $6 million is to be assigned to 
the Office of Narcotics.
  Now, many of us, including me, have detailees. Detailees are 
wonderful, but detailees come and go. They have multiple missions. The 
question is if you are really going to have a counternarcotics office, 
if this administration is going to stay focused on this, there has to 
be an office with some real staff, not people who come and go out of 
the office, and especially not a head who has to beg and borrow for 
detailees, and people who are assigned for short periods who may or may 
not know the issue, and a head of the office who is not even paid by 
the Department of Homeland Security.
  It shows that this is a continual battle in multiple bills to make 
sure that narcotics is part of the structural part of the Department of 
Homeland Security, and that narcoterrorism is part of international 
terrorism. This amendment merely extends what we have already passed in 
this House for last year's authorization to the next year's 
authorization that says that up to $6 million can be spent in this 
office.
  I am looking forward to the commitment from the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) to make sure some of this money is, in fact, 
expended.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any Member rise in opposition to this 
amendment?
  Mr. SOUDER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, I believe this is a noncontroversial amendment. I 
know the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the ranking member of 
my subcommittee, has been very supportive of this also. We have worked 
together in a bipartisan way to make sure that this office is a real 
office, it has a real voice, it has real money, and I look forward to 
working with the appropriators to help make this happen.
  Madam Chairman, this amendment would simply extend the authorized 
appropriation for the Department of Homeland Security Office of 
Counternarcotics Enforcement (OCNE) for fiscal year 2006. The Office 
was created by Congress in December 2004, as part of the Intelligence 
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (P.L. 108-458). The Office is 
tasked with oversight of all of DHS' drug interdiction activities, with 
reporting to Congress on the adequacy and success of those activities, 
and with facilitating the coordination of those activities. Section 
7407(c) of the Intelligence Reform Act authorized up to $6 million of 
the Department's appropriation for departmental management and 
operations for fiscal year 2005 to be expended for the Office.
  Despite this clear statement of Congressional intent, the President's 
overall budget, ONDCP's Drug Strategy Report, and ONDCP's Drug Budget 
summary make no mention of the OCNE. This raises the question of 
whether the Administration and DHS intend to establish OCNE and drug 
control as a priority.
  The mission of the office remains just as important this year as last 
year. My amendment would therefore extend the current authorization of 
appropriations for the Office (contained in Section 7407(c) of the 
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, P.L. 108-458) 
through fiscal year 2006.
  Madam Chairman, I believe that if we are going to reauthorize DHS for 
fiscal year 2006, we should reauthorize the appropriation for this 
vital DHS component as well. It is my understanding that Chairman Cox 
agrees with me, and is supporting this amendment. I hope that the other 
members of the House will join me in supporting this amendment, and 
H.R. 1817.


   background on the department of homeland security (dhs) office of 
                  counternarcotics enforcement (ocne)

  To assist DHS in meeting its vital counterdrug responsibilities, 
Congress originally created the Counternarcotics Officer (CNO) 
position. Unfortunately, the original law did not clearly define how 
the CNO was to fulfill those duties, nor did it give the CNO adequate 
status or resources to fulfill them.
  In order to correct these problems, Congress passed the 9/11 
Commission recommendations legislation in 2004 that replaced the CNO 
with a new Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement (OCNE).
  Responsibilities of the Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement:
  The Director of the Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement shall have 
oversight responsibility for any programs administered by the DHS that 
coordinate anti-drug activities within the Department or between the 
Department and other agencies.
  The Director of the Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement shall 
represent the Department on all interagency coordinating committees, 
task forces, or other bodies intended to foster coordination and 
cooperation on anti-drug issues.
  The Director of the Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement shall send 
reports to Congress concerning the Department's counternarcotics 
responsibilities.
  The legislation authorized up to $6 million of the Department's 
management funds to be used for the new Office's budget for fiscal year 
2005.


    Why the Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement (OCNE) is Needed

               A. Connections Between Drugs and Terrorism

  The huge profits created by drug trafficking have financed and will 
continue to finance terrorism throughout the world.
  As President Bush noted in December 2001, just a few months after the 
9/11 attacks, ``[T]he traffic in drugs finances the work of terror, 
sustaining terrorists . . . terrorists use drug profits to fund their 
cells to commit acts of murder.''
  Furthermore, as the U.S. steps up its efforts against more legitimate 
sources of funding, terrorist organizations will increasingly turn to 
drugs and similar illegal sources. As the 9/11 Commission has noted, 
the federal government, including DHS, must be able to adapt to these 
shifting strategies of the terrorists.

                      B. DHS and Drug Interdiction

  Strong DHS action against drug trafficking is vital to our overall 
efforts to stop the financing of terrorist activities. It was for this 
reason that Congress specifically provided that the primary mission of 
the Department included the responsibility to ``monitor connections 
between illegal drug trafficking and terrorism, coordinate efforts to 
sever such connections, and otherwise contribute to efforts to 
interdict illegal drug trafficking'' (6 U.S.C. 111(b)(1)(G))
  DHS combines all of our main drug interdiction agencies: the Coast 
Guard, legacy Customs Service, and the Border Patrol. No other 
department has so many of the nation's ``ground troops'' who patrol our 
borders for drugs.
  While many divisions of DHS have a vital counternarcotics mission, 
none of them is exclusively focused on counternarcotics. In a 
department whose reason for creation is counterterrorism, there is a 
risk that the anti-drug mission will be neglected.
  The Director of the Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement (OCNE) 
will help keep DHS subdivisions focused on counternarcotics. He is the 
only official at DHS whose primary duty is counternarcotics.

[[Page H3505]]

       C. Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) and OCNE

  Despite clear Congressional intent, the President's overall FY 2006 
budget, ONDCP's FY 2006 Drug Strategy Report and ONDCP's FY 2005 Drug 
Budget summary make no mention of the OCNE.
  This raises the question of whether the Administration and DHS intend 
to establish OCNE and drug control as a priority.


                WHAT THE SOUDER ``OCNE'' AMMENDMENT DOES

  My amendment would extend the current authorization of appropriations 
for the Officer (contained in Section 7407(c) of the Intelligence 
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, P.L. 108-458) through 
fiscal year 2006.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 24 
printed in Part B of House report 109-84.


Amendment No. 24 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Thompson 
                             of Mississippi

  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment in 
the nature of a substitute made in order under the rule.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Part B amendment No. 24 in the Nature of a Substitute 
     offered by Mr. Thompson of Mississippi:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Complete Homeland Security 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.

                TITLE I--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Sec. 101. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 102. Departmental management and operations.
Sec. 103. Information analysis and infrastructure protection.
Sec. 104. Science and technology.
Sec. 105. Security enforcement and investigations.
Sec. 106. Emergency preparedness and response.
Sec. 107. Office of the Inspector General.

               TITLE II--9/11 REFORM BILL ACCOUNTABILITY

Sec. 201. Report on budget request for programs authorized by Public 
              Law 108-458.

 TITLE III--SECURING OUR ENTIRE BORDER ALL THE TIME, EVERY DAY OF THE 
                                  WEEK

                 Subtitle A--Securing our land borders

Sec. 301. Land border security strategy.
Sec. 302. Deployment of surveillance systems along U.S.-Mexico border.
Sec. 303. Creation of northern and southern border coordinators.
Sec. 304. Smart border accord implementation.
Sec. 305. Requiring a vulnerability assessment of land ports of entry.
Sec. 306. Study to determine appropriate level and allocation of 
              personnel at ports of entry and border patrol sectors.
Sec. 307. Assessment of study by Comptroller General.
Sec. 308. Authorization of appropriations for increase in full-time 
              Border Patrol agents.
Sec. 309. Border Patrol unit for Virgin Islands.
Sec. 310. Requiring report on the ``One Face at the Border 
              Initiative''.

                     Subtitle B--CIS workflow study

Sec. 311. CIS workflow, technology, and staffing assessment.

                 Subtitle C--Report on border violence

Sec. 321. Studies related to feasibility and cost of locating and 
              removing eight million undocumented aliens from United 
              States.

          Subtitle D--Center of Excellence on Border Security

Sec. 331. Center of Excellence on Border Security.

  TITLE IV--SECURING CHEMICAL PLANTS AND OTHER CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

               Subtitle A--Chemical Security Improvement

Sec. 411. Short title.
Sec. 412. Definitions.
Sec. 413. Vulnerability assessments and site security plans.
Sec. 414. Whistleblower protection.
Sec. 415. Alternative approaches.
Sec. 416. Enforcement.
Sec. 417. Interagency technical support and cooperation.
Sec. 418. Penalties.
Sec. 419. Protection of information.
Sec. 420. No effect on requirements under other law.

           Subtitle B--Critical infrastructure prioritization

Sec. 421. Critical infrastructure.
Sec. 422. Security review.
Sec. 423. Implementation report.

           TITLE V--SECURING AIRPORTS, BAGGAGE, AND AIR CARGO

   Subtitle A--Prohibition against increase in security service fees

Sec. 501. Prohibition against increase in security service fees.

                     Subtitle B--Aviation security

Sec. 511. Federal flight deck officers.
Sec. 512. Letters of intent.
Sec. 513. Aviation security capital fund.
Sec. 514. Airport checkpoint screening explosive detection.
Sec. 515. Flight communications.
Sec. 516. Airport Site Access and Perimeter Security.
Sec. 517. MANPAD countermeasure research.
Sec. 518. Air charter and general aviation operations at Ronald Reagan 
              Washington National Airport.
Sec. 519. Inspection of cargo carried aboard commercial aircraft.

                TITLE VI--SECURING TRAINS ACROSS AMERICA

                  Subtitle A--Public Transit Security

Sec. 601. Short title.
Sec. 602. Homeland security public transportation grants.
Sec. 603. Training exercises.
Sec. 604. Security best practices.
Sec. 605. Public awareness.
Sec. 606. National Transportation Security Centers.
Sec. 607. Whistleblower protections.
Sec. 608. Definition.
Sec. 609. Memorandum of agreement.

                       Subtitle B--Rail Security

Sec. 611. Short title.

                      Chapter 1--Railroad Security

Sec. 621. Railroad transportation security.
Sec. 622. Freight and passenger rail security upgrades.
Sec. 623. Fire and life-safety improvements.
Sec. 624. Rail security research and development program.
Sec. 625. Rail worker security training program.
Sec. 626. Whistleblower protection.
Sec. 627. Public outreach.
Sec. 628. Passenger, baggage, and cargo screening.
Sec. 629. Emergency responder training standards.
Sec. 630. Information for first responders.
Sec. 631. TSA personnel limitations.
Sec. 632. Rail safety regulations.
Sec. 633. Rail police officers.
Sec. 634. Definitions.

            Chapter 2--Assistance to Families of Passengers

Sec. 641. Assistance by national transportation safety board to 
              families of passengers involved in rail passenger 
              accidents.
Sec. 642. Rail passenger carrier plans to address needs of families of 
              passengers involved in rail passenger accidents.
Sec. 643. Establishment of task force.

              TITLE VII--SECURING CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

Sec. 701. Critical infrastructure.
Sec. 702. Security review.
Sec. 703. Implementation report.

               TITLE VIII--PREVENTING A BIOLOGICAL ATTACK

Sec. 801. GAO Report of Department biological terrorism programs.
Sec. 802. Report on bio-countermeasures.

                  TITLE IX--PROTECTION OF AGRICULTURE

Sec. 901. Report to Congress on implementation of recommendations 
              regarding protection of agriculture.

             TITLE X--OPTIMIZING OUR SCREENING CAPABILITIES

  Subtitle A--U.S. visitor and immigrant status indicator technology 
                                database

Sec. 1001. Interoperability of data for United States Visitor and 
              Immigrant Status Indicator Technology.

   Subtitle B--Studies to improve border management and immigration 
                                security

Sec. 1011. Study on biometrics.
Sec. 1012. Study on digitizing immigration benefit applications.
Sec. 1013. Study on elimination of arrival/departure paper forms.
Sec. 1014. Cataloguing immigration applications by biometric.

  TITLE XI--SECURING CYBERSPACE AND HARNESSING TECHNOLOGY TO PREVENT 
                                DISASTER

 Subtitle A--Department of Homeland Security Cybersecurity Enhancement

Sec. 1101. Short title.
Sec. 1102. Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity.
Sec. 1103. Cybersecurity training programs and equipment.
Sec. 1104. Cybersecurity research and development.

      Subtitle B--Coordination with National Intelligence Director

Sec. 1111. Identification and implementation of technologies that 
              improve sharing of information with the National 
              Intelligence Director.

[[Page H3506]]

                   Subtitle C--Cybersecurity research

Sec. 1121. Support of basic cybersecurity research.

            Subtitle D--Cybersecurity training and equipment

Sec. 1131. Cybersecurity training programs and equipment.

         TITLE XII--HELPING FIRST RESPONDERS GET THEIR JOB DONE

              Subtitle A--Communications interoperability

Sec. 1201. Interoperable communications technology grant program.
Sec. 1202. Study reviewing communication equipment interoperability.
Sec. 1203. Prevention of delay in reassignment of dedicated spectrum 
              for public safety purposes.

           Subtitle B--Homeland security terrorism exercises

Sec. 1211. Short title.
Sec. 1212. National terrorism exercise program.

                  Subtitle C--Citizenship Preparedness

Sec. 1221. Findings.
Sec. 1222. Purposes.
Sec. 1223. Citizens Corps; Private sector preparedness.

                 Subtitle D--Emergency medical services

Sec. 1231. Emergency Medical Services Administration.
Sec. 1232. Sense of Congress.

         Subtitle E--Lessons learned information sharing system

Sec. 1241. Lessons learned, best practices, and corrective action.

             Subtitle F--Technology transfer clearinghouse

Sec. 1251. Short title.
Sec. 1252. Technology development and transfer.

            Subtitle G--Metropolitan medical response system

Sec. 1261. Metropolitan Medical Response System; authorization of 
              appropriations.

                TITLE XIII--FIGHTING DOMESTIC TERRORISM

Sec. 1301. Advisory Committee on Domestic Terrorist Organizations.

  TITLE XIV--CREATING A DIVERSE AND MANAGEABLE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 
                                SECURITY

               Subtitle A--Authorities of Privacy Officer

Sec. 1401. Authorities of Privacy Officer.

   Subtitle B--Ensuring diversity in Department of Homeland Security 
                                programs

Sec. 1411. Annual reports relating to employment of covered persons.
Sec. 1412. Procurement.
Sec. 1413. Centers of Excellence Program.

           Subtitle C--Protection of certain employee rights

Sec. 1421. Provisions to protect certain employee rights.

                 Subtitle D--Whistleblower protections

Sec. 1431. Whistleblower protections.

           Subtitle E--Authority of Chief Information Officer

Sec. 1441. Authority of Chief Information Officer.

       Subtitle F--Authorization for Office of Inspector General

Sec. 1451.  Authorization for Office of Inspector General.

                      Subtitle G--Regional office

Sec. 1461. Colocated regional offices.

               Subtitle H--DHS terrorism prevention plan

Sec. 1471. Short title.
Sec. 1472. Department of Homeland Security Terrorism Prevention Plan.
Sec. 1473. Annual crosscutting analysis of proposed funding for 
              Department of Homeland Security programs.

                      Subtitle I--Tribal security

Sec. 1481. Office of Tribal Security.

   TITLE XV--SECURING OUR PORTS AND COASTLINES FROM TERRORIST ATTACK

Sec. 1501. Security of maritime cargo containers.
Sec. 1502. Study on port risks.

             TITLE XVI--AUTHORITY OF OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES

Sec. 1601. Authority of other Federal agencies unaffected.

                TITLE I--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

     SEC. 101. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There is authorized to be appropriated for the Department 
     of Homeland Security $41,036,180,000 for fiscal year 2006.

     SEC. 102. DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS.

       Of the amount authorized under section 101, there is 
     authorized for departmental management and operations, 
     including management and operations of the Office for State 
     and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness, 
     $6,463,000,000.

     SEC. 103. INFORMATION ANALYSIS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION.

       Of the amount authorized under section 101, there is 
     authorized for information analysis and infrastructure 
     protection programs and activities $873,245,000.

     SEC. 104. SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY.

       Of the amount authorized under section 101, there is 
     authorized for science and technology programs and activities 
     $1,827,400,000, of which $418,000,000 shall be appropriated 
     for aviation-security-related research and development, 
     $115,000,000 shall be appropriated for the Man-Portable Air 
     Defense Systems, and $35.4 million will be appropriated for 
     biological countermeasures and agricultural defense.

     SEC. 105. SECURITY ENFORCEMENT AND INVESTIGATIONS.

       Of the amount authorized under section 101, there is 
     authorized for expenses related to border and transportation 
     security, immigration, and other security and related 
     functions, $28,414,000,000, of which $380,000,000 shall be 
     appropriated for the hiring of 2,000 new border patrol 
     agents.

     SEC. 106. EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE.

       Of the amount authorized under section 101, there is 
     authorized for emergency preparedness and response programs 
     and activities, $3,258,531,000.

     SEC. 107. OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.

       Of the amount authorized under section 101, there is 
     authorized for the Office of the Inspector General, 
     $200,000,000.

               TITLE II--9/11 REFORM BILL ACCOUNTABILITY

     SEC. 201. REPORT ON BUDGET REQUEST FOR PROGRAMS AUTHORIZED BY 
                   PUBLIC LAW 108-458.

       (a) Explanation of Homeland Security Funding Shortfall.--
       (1) Initial report.--Not later than 30 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this section, the President shall submit 
     to Congress a report that explains each homeland security 
     funding shortfall included in the budget submitted to 
     Congress for fiscal year 2006 under section 1105(a) of title 
     31, United States Code, including the rationale for 
     requesting less than the authorized level of funding for each 
     such funding shortfall.
       (2) Annual reports.--Not later than 15 days after the 
     President submits to Congress the budget for a fiscal year 
     under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, the 
     President shall submit to Congress a report that explains 
     each homeland security funding shortfall included in the 
     budget for the fiscal year, including the rationale for 
     requesting less than the authorized level of funding for each 
     such funding shortfall.
       (b) Definition of Homeland Security Funding Shortfall.--In 
     this section, the term ``homeland security funding 
     shortfall'' means a program authorized by Public Law 108-458 
     for which the amount of authorization of appropriation for a 
     fiscal year--
       (1) is specified under such Act, and the President does not 
     request under such budget the maximum amount authorized by 
     such Act for such fiscal year; or
       (2) is not specified under such Act, and the President does 
     not request under such budget an amount sufficient to operate 
     the program as required by such Act.

 TITLE III--SECURING OUR ENTIRE BORDER ALL THE TIME, EVERY DAY OF THE 
                                  WEEK

                 Subtitle A--Securing Our Land Borders

     SEC. 301. LAND BORDER SECURITY STRATEGY.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security, in 
     consultation with the heads of all other Federal agencies 
     with border-related functions or with facilities or lands on 
     or along the border, shall submit to the appropriate 
     congressional committees (as defined in section 2 of the 
     Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101)) unclassified 
     and classified versions of a unified, comprehensive strategy 
     to secure the land borders of the United States not later 
     than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act. 
     The submission should include a description of the actions 
     already taken to implement the strategy.
       (b) Contents.--The report shall cover the following areas:
       (1) Personnel.
       (2) Infrastructure.
       (3) Technology.
       (4) Coordination of intelligence among agencies.
       (5) Legal responsibilities and jurisdictional divisions.
       (6) Apprehension.
       (7) Budgetary impact.
       (8) Flow of commerce and economic impact.
       (c) Consultation.--In creating the strategy described in 
     subsection (a), the Federal agencies described in such 
     subsection shall consult private sector organizations and 
     nongovernmental organizations with national security, 
     privacy, agriculture, immigration, customs, transportation, 
     technology, legal, and business expertise.
       (d) Implementation.--The Secretary shall implement the 
     strategy not later than 12 months after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (e) Evaluation.--The Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall track, monitor, and evaluate such strategy to 
     secure our borders to determine its efficacy.
       (f) Report.--Not later than 15 months after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, and every year thereafter for the 
     succeeding 5 years, the Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall submit a report to the Congress on the results 
     of the activities undertaken under subsection (a) during the 
     previous year. Each such report shall include an analysis of 
     the degree to which the border security strategy has been 
     effective in securing our borders. Each such report shall 
     include a collection and systematic analysis of data, 
     including workload indicators, related to activities to 
     improve and increase border security.

[[Page H3507]]

     SEC. 302. DEPLOYMENT OF SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS ALONG U.S.-
                   MEXICO BORDER.

       (a) Initial Threat Assessment.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     conduct an assessment of the threat of penetration of the 
     land borders of the United States, between the ports of 
     entry, by terrorists and criminals, and the threat to of such 
     areas to terrorist attack. In carrying out the threat 
     assessments under this paragraph, the Secretary shall 
     categorize the vulnerability of each land border corridor as 
     ``high'', ``medium'', or ``low'' and shall prioritize the 
     vulnerability of each land border corridor within each such 
     category. In conducting the threat assessment, the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security shall consult with appropriate Federal, 
     tribal, State, local, and private sector representatives.
       (2) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall prepare and submit 
     to the Committee on Homeland Security of the United States 
     House of Representatives a report that contains--
       (A) the results of the threat assessments conducted under 
     paragraph (1);
       (B) with respect to each land border corridor categorized 
     under paragraph (1) as either a ``high'', ``medium'' or 
     ``low'' land border corridor, descriptions of--
       (i) infrastructure and technology improvement projects 
     required for each land border corridor in order to reduce its 
     vulnerability; and
       (ii) the resources required to make such improvements; and
       (C) a description of how the funds will be used to 
     implement technology and infrastructure improvement projects.
       (b) Follow-Up Threat Assessments.--The Secretary of 
     Homeland Security shall conduct follow-up threat assessments 
     of the land border between the ports of entry every 2 years 
     and shall submit such reports to the Committee on Homeland 
     Security of the House of Representatives.
       (c) Plan.--Not later than December 31, 2005, the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security shall develop a comprehensive plan to 
     fully deploy technological surveillance systems along the 
     United States land borders between the ports of entry. 
     Surveillance systems included in the deployment plan must--
       (1) ensure continuous monitoring of every mile of such 
     borders; and
       (2) to the extent practicable, be fully interoperable with 
     existing surveillance systems and mission systems, such as 
     the Integrated Surveillance Intelligence Systems already in 
     use by the Department of Homeland Security.

     SEC. 303. CREATION OF NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN BORDER 
                   COORDINATORS.

       (a) In General.--Title IV of the Homeland Security Act of 
     2002 (6 U.S.C. 201 seq.) is amended--
       (1) in section 402, by redesignating paragraph (8) as 
     paragraph (9) and by inserting after paragraph (7) the 
     following:
       ``(8) Increasing the security of the United States at the 
     ports of entry located along the northern and southern 
     borders, and improving the coordination among the agencies 
     responsible for maintaining that security.''; and
       (2) in subtitle C, by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 431. BORDER COORDINATORS.

       ``(a) In General.--There shall be within the Directorate of 
     Border and Transportation Security the positions of Northern 
     Border Coordinator and Southern Border Coordinator, who shall 
     be appointed by the Secretary and who shall report directly 
     to the Under Secretary for Border and Transportation 
     Security.
       ``(b) Responsibilities.--The Northern Border Coordinator 
     and the Southern Border Coordinator shall undertake the 
     following responsibilities along the northern and southern 
     borders, respectively--
       ``(1) serve as the primary official of the Department 
     responsible for coordinating all Federal security activities 
     along the border, especially at land border ports of entry;
       ``(2) provide enhanced communication and data-sharing 
     between Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies on law 
     enforcement, emergency response, or security-related 
     responsibilities for areas on or adjacent to the borders of 
     the United States with Canada or Mexico;
       ``(3) work to improve the communications systems within the 
     Department to facilitate the integration of communications of 
     matters relating to border security;
       ``(4) oversee the implementation of the pertinent bilateral 
     agreement (the United States-Canada `Smart Border' 
     Declaration applicable to the northern border and the United 
     States-Mexico Partnership Agreement applicable to the 
     southern border) to improve border functions, ensure 
     security, and promote trade and tourism;
       ``(5) consistent with section 5, assess all land border 
     ports of entry along the appropriate border and develop a 
     list of infrastructure and technology improvement projects 
     for submission to the Secretary based on the ability of a 
     project to fulfill immediate security requirements and 
     facilitate trade across the borders of the United States; and
       ``(6) serve as a liaison to the foreign agencies with 
     responsibility for their respective border with the United 
     States.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--Section 1(b) of such Act is 
     amended in the table of contents by inserting after the item 
     relating to section 430 the following:

``431. Border coordinators.''.

     SEC. 304. SMART BORDER ACCORD IMPLEMENTATION.

       The President shall submit to the appropriate congressional 
     committees (as defined in section 2 of the Homeland Security 
     Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101)) information about the ongoing 
     progress on implementation of the Smart Border Accords 
     through quarterly reports on meetings of the Smart Border 
     Working Group.

     SEC. 305. REQUIRING A VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT OF LAND PORTS 
                   OF ENTRY.

       (a) Initial Assessment.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     conduct an assessment of the vulnerability of each United 
     States land port of entry to penetration by terrorists and 
     criminals or terrorist attack. In carrying out assessments 
     under this paragraph, the Secretary shall categorize the 
     vulnerability of each port of entry as ``high'', ``medium'', 
     or ``low'' and shall prioritize the vulnerability of each 
     port of entry within each such category. In conducting the 
     assessment, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall consult 
     with appropriate State, local, tribal, and private sector 
     representatives.
       (2) Report.--Not later than one year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall prepare and submit 
     to the appropriate congressional committees (as that term is 
     defined in section 2 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 
     U.S.C. 101)) a report that contains--
       (A) the results of the assessment conducted under paragraph 
     (1);
       (B) with respect to each port of entry categorized under 
     paragraph (1) as either a ``high'' or ``medium'' 
     vulnerability port of entry, descriptions of--
       (i) infrastructure and technology improvement projects 
     required for the port of entry in order to reduce its 
     vulnerability; and
       (ii) the resources required to make such improvements; and
       (C) a description of how the funds will be used to 
     implement technology and infrastructure improvement projects.
       (b) Follow-Up Assessments.--The Secretary of Homeland 
     Security shall conduct follow-up assessments of land border 
     ports of entry every 2 years and shall submit such reports to 
     the appropriate congressional committees (as defined in 
     section 2 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 
     101)).

     SEC. 306. STUDY TO DETERMINE APPROPRIATE LEVEL AND ALLOCATION 
                   OF PERSONNEL AT PORTS OF ENTRY AND BORDER 
                   PATROL SECTORS.

       (a) Study.--The Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs and 
     Border Protection of the Department of Homeland Security 
     shall conduct a study to determine the necessary level and 
     allocation of personnel of the Bureau (including support 
     staff) at United States ports of entry and between ports of 
     entry in order to fully carry out the functions of the Bureau 
     at such ports and locations. The Commissioner shall update 
     and revise the study on an annual basis as appropriate.
       (b) Requirements.--
       (1) In general.--In conducting the study pursuant to 
     subsection (a), the Commissioner shall take into account the 
     following:
       (A) The most recent staffing assessment from each port 
     director and the head of each border patrol sector, as 
     required under paragraph (2).
       (B) The most recent relevant information, analyses, and 
     vulnerability assessments relating to ports of entry and 
     areas between ports of entry, as described in paragraph (3) 
     of section 201(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, and 
     made available to the Commissioner in accordance with 
     paragraph (18) of such section.
       (C) Any requests for additional personnel, if needed, from 
     each port director and the head of each border patrol sector, 
     including a description of whether the additional personnel 
     should be assigned on a temporary or permanent basis.
       (D) An analysis of the impact of new available technology 
     on staffing requirements of the Bureau.
       (E) An analysis of traffic volume and wait times at ports 
     of entry.
       (F) An analysis of the training regimen for new officers of 
     the Bureau and inspectors from the former Customs Service and 
     the former Immigration and Naturalization Service and the 
     extent to which the creation of the Bureau's Officer position 
     has changed the personnel needs of the Department.
       (2) Additional requirement.--Each port director and the 
     head of each border patrol sector shall complete and submit 
     to the Commissioner on an annual basis an assessment of the 
     level and allocation of personnel necessary to carry out the 
     responsibilities of such port director or the head of such 
     border patrol sector, as the case may be.
       (c) Reports.--
       (1) Initial report.--Not later than 120 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the Commissioner shall prepare 
     and submit to the Comptroller General and Congress a report 
     that contains the results of the study conducted pursuant to 
     subsection (a).
       (2) Subsequent reports.--The Commissioner shall prepare and 
     submit to the Comptroller General and Congress on not less 
     than an annual basis a report that contains each updated or 
     revised study.

     SEC. 307. ASSESSMENT OF STUDY BY COMPTROLLER GENERAL.

       (a) Assessment.--The Comptroller General shall conduct an 
     assessment of the study conducted by the Bureau of Customs 
     and

[[Page H3508]]

     Border Protection under section 306 and shall conduct an 
     assessment of each update or revision to the study. In 
     conducting the assessment, the Comptroller General is 
     authorized to solicit input from any personnel of the Bureau.
       (b) Report.--The Comptroller General shall prepare and 
     submit to Congress a report that contains the results of each 
     assessment conducted pursuant to subsection (a), including 
     any recommendations thereto that the Comptroller General 
     determines to be appropriate.

     SEC. 308. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR INCREASE IN 
                   FULL-TIME BORDER PATROL AGENTS.

       (a) Increase.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     the Secretary of Homeland Security $300,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 2006 to increase by not less than 2,000 the number of 
     positions for full-time active-duty Border Patrol agents 
     within the Department of Homeland Security above the number 
     of such positions for which funds were allotted for fiscal 
     year 2005.
       (b) Associated Costs.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     $80,000,000 for fiscal year 2006 to pay the costs associated 
     with the new hires described in subsection (a), including--
       (1) costs to increase by 166 of the number of support staff 
     positions;
       (2) costs to increase by 1333 in the number of vehicles; 
     and
       (3) costs to train the new hires described in subsection 
     (a) under an agreement with a Department training facility 
     other than the Artesia Border Patrol Academy.
       (c) Facilities Impact Assessment.--The Secretary of 
     Homeland Security shall conduct a facilities impact 
     assessment and report findings from such assessment, with 
     detailed estimates and costs. to the Committee on Homeland 
     Security of the United States House of Representatives.

     SEC. 309. BORDER PATROL UNIT FOR VIRGIN ISLANDS.

        Not later than September 30, 2006, the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security shall establish at least one Border Patrol 
     unit for the Virgin Islands of the United States.

     SEC. 310. REQUIRING REPORT ON THE ``ONE FACE AT THE BORDER 
                   INITIATIVE''.

       (a) In General.--Not later than September 30 of each of the 
     calendar years 2005, 2006, and 2007, the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security shall prepare and submit to the Congress a 
     report--
       (1) describing and analyzing the goals, success, and 
     shortfalls of the One Face at the Border Initiative at 
     enhancing security and facilitating travel;
       (2) providing a breakdown of the number of personnel of the 
     Bureau of Customs and Border Protection that were personnel 
     of the United States Customs Service prior to the 
     establishment of the Department of Homeland Security, that 
     were personnel of the Immigration and Naturalization Service 
     prior to the establishment of the Department of Homeland 
     Security, and that were hired after the establishment of the 
     Department of Homeland Security;
       (3) describing the training time provided to each employee 
     on an annual basis for the various training components of the 
     One Face at the Border Initiative;
       (4) outlining the steps taken by the Bureau of Customs and 
     Border Protection to ensure that expertise is retained with 
     respect to customs, immigration, and agriculture inspection 
     functions under the One Face at the Border Initiative; and
       (5) reviewing whether the missions of customs, agriculture, 
     and immigration are appropriately and adequately addressed.
       (b) Assessment of Report.--The Comptroller General of the 
     United States shall the review the reports submitted under 
     subsection (a) and shall provide an assessment to the 
     appropriate congressional committees (as defined in section 2 
     of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101)) 
     regarding the effectiveness of the One Face at the Border 
     Initiative.

                     Subtitle B--CIS Workflow Study

     SEC. 311. CIS WORKFLOW, TECHNOLOGY, AND STAFFING ASSESSMENT.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     conduct a comprehensive assessment of the Bureau of 
     Citizenship and Immigration Services (otherwise know as 
     ``U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services'') within the 
     Department of Homeland Security. Such assessment shall 
     include study of personnel, administrative and technical 
     support positions, technology, training, and facilities.
       (b) Workflow.--As part of the study, the Secretary shall 
     examine all elements of such entity's workflow, in order to 
     determine the most efficient way to handle its work without 
     compromising security. Any bottlenecks associated with 
     security matters should be identified and recommendations 
     should be made on ways to minimize such bottlenecks without 
     compromising security. The Secretary should assess the 
     division of work, adequacy of infrastructure (particularly 
     information technology), as well as personnel needs.
       (c) Interactions With Other Organizations.--As part of the 
     study, the Secretary shall examine such entity's interactions 
     with other government organizations. Specifically, the 
     Secretary shall determine whether existing memoranda of 
     understanding and divisions of responsibility, especially any 
     which pre-date the establishment of the Department of 
     Homeland Security, need to be revised in order to improve 
     service delivery.
       (d) Backlog Cost.--As part of the study, the Secretary 
     shall assess the current cost of maintaining the backlog (as 
     defined in section 203 of the Immigration Services and 
     Infrastructure Improvements Act of 2000 (8 U.S.C. 1572)).
       (e) Information Technology.--Aspects of this study related 
     to information technology should be coordinated with the 
     Chief Information Officer for the Department of Homeland 
     Security and should build on the findings of the task force 
     established by section 3 of the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service Data Management Improvement Act of 
     2000 (Public Law 106-215).
       (f) Submission.--The study should be completed not later 
     than January 1, 2006, and shall be submitted to the Committee 
     on Homeland Security of the United States House of 
     Representatives. It shall include recommendations for 
     resource allocation.

                 Subtitle C--Report on Border Violence

     SEC. 321. STUDIES RELATED TO FEASIBILITY AND COST OF LOCATING 
                   AND REMOVING EIGHT MILLION UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS 
                   FROM UNITED STATES.

       (a) Feasibility Study.--Commencing not later than 30 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller 
     General of the United States shall conduct a study to 
     evaluate--
       (1) the ability of the Department of Homeland Security to 
     develop and implement a program to locate and initiate 
     removal proceedings on the 8,000,000 undocumented immigrants 
     who are presently residing in the United States;
       (2) an estimate of the additional personnel and other 
     additional resources such a project would require for the 
     Department and the Executive Office for Immigration Review;
       (3) the amount of time that such development and 
     implementation would require;
       (4) the total cost to develop and implement this program;
       (5) the ability of State and local police departments to 
     assist the Department in implementing this program;
       (6) an estimate of the additional personnel and other 
     additional resources the State and local police departments 
     would need if they participate with the Department in 
     implementing this program;
       (7) the amount of time away from other State and local 
     police work that would be required of State and local police 
     departments to participate in this program; and
       (8) the total cost to State and local governments of such 
     participation.
       (b) Study on Consequences of Locating and Removing Eight 
     Million Undocumented Aliens.--Commencing not later than 30 
     days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a 
     study on the adverse consequences that could result from 
     locating and removing 8,000,000 undocumented aliens from the 
     United States.

          Subtitle D--Center of Excellence on Border Security

     SEC. 331. CENTER OF EXCELLENCE ON BORDER SECURITY.

       The Secretary shall establish a university-based Center for 
     Border Security following the merit-review processes and 
     procedures that have been established for selecting 
     University Programs Centers of Excellence. The Center shall 
     conduct research, examine existing and emerging border 
     security technology and systems, and provide education, 
     technical, and analytical assistance for the Department of 
     Homeland Security to effectively secure the Nation's borders.

  TITLE IV--SECURING CHEMICAL PLANTS AND OTHER CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

               Subtitle A--Chemical Security Improvement

     SEC. 411. SHORT TITLE.

       This subtitle may be cited as the ``Chemical Security 
     Improvement Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 412. DEFINITIONS.

       In this subtitle:
       (1) Alternative approaches.--The term ``alternative 
     approach'' means an approach that significantly reduces or 
     eliminates the threat or consequences of a terrorist release 
     from a chemical source, including an approach that--
       (A) uses smaller quantities, nonhazardous forms, or less 
     hazardous forms of dangerous substances;
       (B) replaces a dangerous substance with a nonhazardous or 
     less hazardous substance; or
       (C) uses nonhazardous or less hazardous conditions or 
     processes.
       (2) Chemical source.--The term ``chemical source'' means a 
     facility listed by the Secretary under section 413(e) as a 
     chemical source; and--
       (3) Dangerous substance.--The term ``dangerous substance'' 
     means a substance present at a chemical source that--
       (A) can cause death, injury, or serious adverse effects to 
     human health or the environment; or
       (B) could harm critical infrastructure or national 
     security.
       (4) Department.--The term ``Department'' means the 
     Department of Homeland Security.
       (5) Environment.--The term ``environment'' means--
       (A) the navigable waters, the waters of the contiguous 
     zone, and the ocean waters of which the natural resources are 
     under the exclusive management authority of the United 
     States; and
       (B) any other surface water, ground water, drinking water 
     supply, land surface or subsurface strata, or ambient air 
     within the

[[Page H3509]]

     United States or under the jurisdiction of the United States.
       (6) Owner or operator.--The term ``owner or operator'' 
     means any person who owns, leases, operates, controls, or 
     supervises a chemical source.
       (7) Release.--The term ``release'' means any spilling, 
     leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, discharging, 
     injecting, escaping, leaching, dumping, or disposing into the 
     environment (including the abandonment or discarding of 
     barrels, containers, and other closed receptacles containing 
     any hazardous substance or pollutant or contaminant), but 
     excludes--
       (A) any release which results in exposure to persons solely 
     within a workplace, with respect to a claim which such 
     persons may assert against the employer of such persons;
       (B) emissions from the engine exhaust of a motor vehicle, 
     rolling stock, aircraft, vessel, or pipeline pumping station 
     engine; or
       (C) the normal application of fertilizer or pesticide.
       (8) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security.
       (9) Security measure.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``security measure'' means an 
     action carried out to ensure or enhance the security of a 
     chemical source.
       (B) Inclusions.--The term ``security measure'', with 
     respect to a chemical source, includes measures such as--
       (i) employee training and background checks;
       (ii) the limitation and prevention of access to controls of 
     the chemical source;
       (iii) the protection of the perimeter of the chemical 
     source, including the deployment of armed physical security 
     personnel;
       (iv) the installation and operation of intrusion detection 
     sensors;
       (v) the implementation of measures to increase computer or 
     computer network security;
       (vi) the installation of measures to protect against long-
     range weapons;
       (vii) the installation of measures and controls to protect 
     against or reduce the consequences of a terrorist attack; and
       (viii) the implementation of any other security-related 
     measures or the conduct of any similar security-related 
     activity, as determined by the Secretary.
       (10) Terrorism.--The term ``terrorism'' has the meaning 
     given to that term in section 2 of the Homeland Security Act 
     of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101).
       (11) Terrorist release.--The term ``terrorist release'' 
     means--
       (A) a release from a chemical source into the environment 
     of a dangerous substance that is caused by an act of 
     terrorism; and
       (B) the theft of a dangerous substance by a person for off-
     site release in furtherance of an act of terrorism.

     SEC. 413. VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND SITE SECURITY PLANS.

       (a) Requirement.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     the enactment of this subtitle, the Secretary shall 
     promulgate regulations that--
       (A) require the owner or operator of each chemical source 
     included on the list described in subsection (e)(1)--
       (i) to conduct an assessment of the vulnerability of the 
     chemical source to a terrorist release; and
       (ii) to prepare and implement a site security plan that 
     addresses the results of the vulnerability assessment; and
       (B) establish procedures, protocols, and standards for 
     vulnerability assessments and site security plans.
       (2) Contents of vulnerability assessment.--A vulnerability 
     assessment required under the regulations promulgated under 
     paragraph (1) or any assessment determined substantially 
     equivalent by the Secretary under subsection (c) shall 
     include the identification and evaluation of--
       (A) critical assets and infrastructures;
       (B) hazards that may result from a terrorist release; and
       (C) weaknesses in--
       (i) physical security;
       (ii) structural integrity of containment, processing, and 
     other critical infrastructure;
       (iii) protection systems;
       (iv) procedural and employment policies;
       (v) communication systems;
       (vi) transportation infrastructure in the proximity of the 
     chemical source;
       (vii) utilities;
       (viii) contingency response; and
       (ix) other areas as determined by the Secretary.
       (3) Contents of site security plan.--A site security plan 
     required under the regulations promulgated under paragraph 
     (1) or any plan submitted to the Secretary under subsection 
     (c)--
       (A) shall include security measures to significantly reduce 
     the vulnerability of the chemical source covered by the plan 
     to a terrorist release;
       (B) shall describe, at a minimum, particular equipment, 
     plans, and procedures that could be implemented or used by or 
     at the chemical source in the event of a terrorist release;
       (C) shall provide for the assessment and, as applicable, 
     implementation of alternative approaches in accordance with 
     section 415; and
       (D) shall be developed in consultation with local law 
     enforcement, first responders, employees, and local emergency 
     planning committees, as established pursuant to section 
     301(c) of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know 
     Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C. 11001(c)).
       (4) Security exercises.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     date of the enactment of this subtitle, the Secretary shall 
     promulgate regulations establishing procedures, protocols, 
     and standards for the conduct of security exercises, 
     including--
       (A) the performance of force-on-force exercises that--
       (i) involve physical security personnel employed by the 
     owner or operator of the chemical source to act as the force 
     designated to defend the facility;
       (ii) involve personnel designated by the Secretary to act 
     as the force designated to simulate a terrorist attempt to 
     attack the chemical source to cause a terrorist release;
       (iii) are designed, overseen, and evaluated by the 
     Department; and
       (iv) are conducted at least once every 3 years; and
       (B) the performance of all other such exercises at periodic 
     intervals necessary to ensure the optimal performance of 
     security measures.
       (5) Guidance to small businesses.--Not later than 1 year 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary 
     shall publish guidance to assist small businesses in 
     complying with paragraphs (2) and (3).
       (6) Threat information.--To the maximum extent practicable 
     under applicable authority and in the interests of national 
     security, the Secretary shall provide to an owner or operator 
     of a chemical source required to prepare a vulnerability 
     assessment and site security plan threat information that is 
     relevant to the chemical source.
       (7) Coordinated assessments and plans.--The regulations 
     promulgated under paragraph (1) shall permit the development 
     and implementation of coordinated vulnerability assessments 
     and site security plans in any case in which more than 1 
     chemical source is operating at a single location or at 
     contiguous locations, including cases in which a chemical 
     source is under the control of more than 1 owner or operator.
       (b) Certification and Submission.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in subsection (c), each 
     owner or operator of a chemical source shall certify in 
     writing to the Secretary that the owner or operator has 
     completed a vulnerability assessment and has developed and 
     implemented (or is implementing) a site security plan in 
     accordance with this subtitle, including--
       (A) regulations promulgated under subsection (a)(1); and
       (B) any existing vulnerability assessment or security plan 
     endorsed by the Secretary under subsection (c)(1).
       (2) Submission.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     the promulgation of regulations under subsection (a)(1), an 
     owner or operator of a chemical source shall provide to the 
     Secretary copies of the vulnerability assessment and site 
     security plan of the chemical source for review.
       (B) Certification.--
       (i) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date on 
     which the Secretary receives copies of the vulnerability 
     assessment and site security plan of a chemical source under 
     subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall determine whether the 
     chemical source is in compliance with the requirements of 
     this Act, including--

       (I) paragraph (1);
       (II) regulations promulgated under subsections (a)(1) and 
     (a)(3); and
       (III) any existing vulnerability assessment or site 
     security plan endorsed by the Secretary under subsection 
     (c)(1).

       (ii) Certificate.--If the Secretary determines that the 
     chemical source is in compliance with the requirements of 
     this Act, the Secretary shall provide to the chemical source 
     and make available for public inspection a certificate of 
     approval that contains the following statement (in which 
     statement the bracketed space shall be the name of the 
     chemical source): ``[______] is in compliance with the 
     Chemical Security Improvement Act of 2005.''
       (iii) Determination of noncompliance.--If the Secretary 
     determines under clause (i) that a chemical source is not in 
     compliance with the requirements of this Act, the Secretary 
     shall exercise the authority provided in section 416.
       (iv) Report to congress.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     promulgation of regulations in subsection (a)(1) and for 
     every year afterwards, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Congress a report outlining the number of facilities that 
     have provided vulnerability assessments and site security 
     plans to the Secretary, what portion of these submissions 
     have been reviewed by the Secretary, and what portion of 
     these submissions are in compliance with clause (i).
       (3) Oversight.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall, at such times and 
     places as the Secretary determines to be appropriate, conduct 
     or require the conduct of vulnerability assessments and other 
     activities (including qualified third-party audits) to ensure 
     and evaluate compliance with this subtitle (including 
     regulations promulgated under subsection (a)(1) and (c)(1)).
       (B) Right of entry.--In carrying out this subtitle, the 
     Secretary (or a designee), on presentation of credentials, 
     shall have a right of entry to, on, or through any premises 
     of an owner or operator of a chemical source.
       (C) Requests for records.--In carrying out this subtitle, 
     the Secretary (or a designee) may require the submission of, 
     or, on

[[Page H3510]]

     presentation of credentials, may at reasonable times seek 
     access to and copy any documentation necessary for--
       (i) review or analysis of a vulnerability assessment or 
     site security plan; or
       (ii) implementation of a site security plan.
       (D) Compliance.--If the Secretary determines that an owner 
     or operator of a chemical source is not maintaining, 
     producing, or permitting access to the premises of a chemical 
     source or records as required by this paragraph, the 
     Secretary may issue an order requiring compliance with the 
     relevant provisions of this section.
       (E) Qualified third-party audits.--The Secretary shall 
     establish standards as to the qualifications of third-party 
     auditors. Such standards shall ensure the qualifications of 
     the third-party auditor provide sufficient expertise in--
       (i) chemical site security vulnerabilities;
       (ii) chemical site security measures;
       (iii) alternative approaches; and
       (iv) such other areas as the Secretary determines to be 
     appropriate and necessary.
       (4) Submission of changes.--The owner or operator of a 
     chemical source shall provide to the Secretary a description 
     of any significant change that is made to the vulnerability 
     assessment or site security plan required for the chemical 
     source under this section, not later than 90 days after the 
     date the change is made.
       (c) Existing Vulnerability Assessments and Security 
     Plans.--Upon submission of a petition by an owner or operator 
     of a chemical source to the Secretary in conjunction with a 
     submission under subsection (b)(2)(A), the Secretary--
       (1) may endorse any vulnerability assessment or security 
     plan--
       (A) that was conducted, developed, or required by--
       (i) industry;
       (ii) State or local authorities; or
       (iii) other applicable law; and
       (B) that was conducted before, on, or after the date of 
     enactment of this subtitle; and
       (C) the contents of which the Secretary determines meet the 
     standards established under the requirements of subsections 
     (a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3);
       (2) may make an endorsement of an existing vulnerability 
     assessment or security plan under paragraph (1) contingent on 
     modification of the vulnerability assessment or security plan 
     to address--
       (A) a particular threat or type of threat; or
       (B) a requirement under (a)(2) or (a)(3).
       (d) Regulatory Criteria.--In exercising the authority under 
     subsections (a), (b), (c), or (e) with respect to a chemical 
     source, the Secretary shall consider--
       (1) the likelihood that a chemical source will be the 
     target of terrorism;
       (2) the potential extent of death, injury, or serious 
     adverse effects to human health or the environment that would 
     result from a terrorist release;
       (3) the potential harm to critical infrastructure and 
     national security from a terrorist release; and
       (4) such other security-related factors as the Secretary 
     determines to be appropriate and necessary to protect the 
     public health and welfare, critical infrastructure, and 
     national security.
       (e) List of Chemical Sources.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this subtitle, the Secretary shall develop a 
     list of chemical sources in existence as of that date.
       (2) Considerations.--In developing the list under paragraph 
     (1), the Secretary shall take into consideration the criteria 
     specified in subsection (d).
       (3) Prioritization.--In developing the list under paragraph 
     (1), the Secretary shall determine the potential extent of 
     death, injury, or severe adverse effects to human health that 
     would result from a terrorist release of dangerous substances 
     from a chemical source.
       (4) Scope.--In developing the list under paragraph (1), the 
     Secretary shall include at least those facilities that pose a 
     risk of potential death, injury, or severe adverse effects to 
     not fewer than 15,000 individuals.
       (5) Future determinations.--Not later than 3 years after 
     the date of the promulgation of regulations under subsection 
     (a)(1), and every 3 years thereafter, the Secretary shall, 
     after considering the criteria described in subsection (d)--
       (A) determine whether additional facilities (including, as 
     of the date of the determination, facilities that are 
     operational and facilities that will become operational in 
     the future) shall be considered to be a chemical source under 
     this subtitle;
       (B) determine whether any chemical source identified on the 
     most recent list under paragraph (1) no longer presents a 
     risk sufficient to justify retention of classification as a 
     chemical source under this subtitle; and
       (C) update the list as appropriate.
       (f) 5-Year Review.--Not later than 5 years after the date 
     of the certification of a vulnerability assessment and a site 
     security plan under subsection (b)(1), and not less often 
     than every 5 years thereafter (or on such a schedule as the 
     Secretary may establish by regulation), the owner or operator 
     of the chemical source covered by the vulnerability 
     assessment or site security plan shall--
       (1) ensure the vulnerability assessment and site security 
     plan meet the most recent regulatory standards issues under 
     subsection (a)(1);
       (2)(A) certify to the Secretary that the chemical source 
     has completed the review and implemented any modifications to 
     the site security plan; and
       (B) submit to the Secretary a description of any changes to 
     the vulnerability assessment or site security plan; and
       (3) submit to the Secretary a new assessment of alternative 
     approaches.
       (g) Protection of Information.--
       (1) Critical infrastructure information.--Except with 
     respect to certifications specified in subsections (b)(1) and 
     (f)(2)(A), vulnerability assessments and site security plans 
     obtained in accordance with this subtitle, and all 
     information derived from those vulnerability assessments and 
     site security plans that could pose a risk to a particular 
     chemical source, shall be deemed critical infrastructure 
     information as defined in section 212 of the Homeland 
     Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 131), and subject to all 
     protections under sections 213 and 214 of that Act.
       (2) Exceptions to penalties.--Section 214(f) of the 
     Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 133(f)) shall not 
     apply to a person described in that section that discloses 
     information described in paragraph (1)--
       (A) for use in any administrative or judicial proceeding to 
     impose a penalty for failure to comply with a requirement of 
     this subtitle; or
       (B) for the purpose of making a disclosure evidencing 
     government, owner or operator, or employee activities that 
     threaten the security of a chemical source or are 
     inconsistent with the requirements of this subtitle.
       (3) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection shall 
     be construed to authorize the withholding of information from 
     members of Congress acting in their official capacity.

     SEC. 414. WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION.

       (a) In General.--No person employed at a chemical source 
     may be discharged, demoted, suspended, threatened, harassed, 
     or in any other manner discriminated against because of any 
     lawful act done by the person--
       (1) to provide information, cause information to be 
     provided, or otherwise assist in an investigation regarding 
     any conduct which the person reasonably believes constitutes 
     a violation of any law, rule or regulation related to the 
     security of the chemical source, or any other threat to the 
     security of the chemical source, when the information or 
     assistance is provided to or the investigation is conducted 
     by--
       (A) a Federal regulatory or law enforcement agency;
       (B) any member or committee of the Congress; or
       (C) a person with supervisory authority over the person (or 
     such other person who has the authority to investigate, 
     discover, or terminate misconduct); or
       (2) to file, cause to be filed, testify, participate in, or 
     otherwise assist in a proceeding or action filed or about to 
     be filed relating to a violation of any law, rule, or 
     regulation related to the security of a chemical source or 
     any other threat to the security of a chemical source; or
       (3) to refuse to violate or assist in the violation of any 
     law, rule, or regulation related to the security of chemical 
     sources.
       (b) Enforcement Action.--
       (1) In general.--A person who alleges discharge or other 
     discrimination by any person in violation of subsection (a) 
     may seek relief under subsection (c), by--
       (A) filing a complaint with the Secretary of Labor; or
       (B) if the Secretary of Labor has not issued a final 
     decision within 180 days of the filing of the complaint and 
     there is no showing that such delay is due to the bad faith 
     of the claimant, bringing an action at law or equity for de 
     novo review in the appropriate district court of the United 
     States, which shall have jurisdiction over such an action 
     without regard to the amount in controversy.
       (2) Procedure.--
       (A) In general.--An action under paragraph (1)(A) shall be 
     governed under the rules and procedures set forth in section 
     42121(b) of title 49, United States Code.
       (B) Exception.--Notification made under section 42121(b)(1) 
     of title 49, United States Code, shall be made to the person 
     named in the complaint and to the person's employer.
       (C) Burdens of proof.--An action brought under paragraph 
     (1)(B) shall be governed by the legal burdens of proof set 
     forth in section 42121(b) of title 49, United States Code.
       (D) Statute of limitations.--An action under paragraph (1) 
     shall be commenced not later than 90 days after the date on 
     which the violation occurs.
       (c) Remedies.--
       (1) In general.--A person prevailing in any action under 
     subsection (b)(1) shall be entitled to all relief necessary 
     to make the person whole.
       (2) Compensatory damages.--Relief for any action under 
     paragraph (1) shall include--
       (A) reinstatement with the same seniority status that the 
     person would have had, but for the discrimination;
       (B) the amount of back pay, with interest; and
       (C) compensation for any special damages sustained as a 
     result of the discrimination, including litigation costs, 
     expert witness fees, and reasonable attorney fees.
       (d) Rights Retained by Person.--Nothing in this section 
     shall be deemed to diminish

[[Page H3511]]

     the rights, privileges, or remedies of any person under any 
     Federal or State law, or under any collective bargaining 
     agreement.

     SEC. 415. ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES.

       (a) Assessment.--
       (1) In general.--A site security plan under section 
     413(a)(1) shall provide for the conduct of an assessment of 
     alternative approaches.
       (2) Inclusions.--An assessment under this subsection shall 
     include information on--
       (A) the nature of each alternative approach considered, 
     such as--
       (i) the quantity of each dangerous substance considered for 
     reduction;
       (ii) the form of any dangerous substance considered for 
     replacement and the form of potential replacements 
     considered;
       (iii) any dangerous substance considered for replacement 
     and a description of any potential replacements considered; 
     and
       (iv) any process or conditions considered for modification 
     and a description of the potential modification;
       (B) the degree to which each alternative approach 
     considered could potentially reduce the threat or consequence 
     of a terrorist release; and
       (C) specific considerations that led to the implementation 
     or rejection of each alternative approach, including--
       (i) requirements under this subtitle;
       (ii) cost;
       (iii) cost savings;
       (iv) availability of replacement or modification technology 
     or technical expertise;
       (v) the applicability of existing replacement or 
     modification technology to the chemical source; and
       (vi) any other factor that the owner of operator of the 
     chemical source considered in judging the practicability of 
     each alternative approach.
       (b) Implementation.--
       (1) In general.--A chemical source described in paragraph 
     (2) shall implement options to significantly reduce or 
     eliminate the threat or consequences of a terrorist release 
     through the use of alternative approaches that would not 
     create an equal or greater risk to human health or the 
     environment.
       (2) Applicability.--This subsection applies to a chemical 
     source if--
       (A) the chemical source poses a potential of harm to more 
     than 15,000 people, unless the owner or operator of the 
     chemical source can demonstrate to the Secretary through an 
     assessment of alternative approaches that available 
     alternative approaches--
       (i) would not significantly reduce the number of people at 
     risk of death, injury, or serious adverse effects resulting 
     from a terrorist release;
       (ii) cannot feasibly be incorporated into the operation of 
     the chemical source; or
       (iii) would significantly and demonstrably impair the 
     ability of the owner or operator of the chemical source to 
     continue its business; or
       (B)(i) the chemical source poses a potential of harm to 
     fewer than 15,000 people; and
       (ii) implementation of options to significantly reduce the 
     threat or consequence of a terrorist release through the use 
     of alternative approaches if practicable in the judgment of 
     the owner or operator of the chemical source.
       (c) Alternative Approaches Clearinghouse.--
       (1) Authority.--The Secretary shall establish a publicly 
     available clearinghouse to compile and disseminate 
     information on the use and availability of alternative 
     approaches.
       (2) Inclusions.--The clearinghouse shall include 
     information on--
       (A) general and specific types of alternative approaches;
       (B) combinations of chemical sources, substances of 
     concern, and hazardous processes or conditions for which 
     alternative approaches could be appropriate;
       (C) the scope of current use and availability of specific 
     alternative approaches;
       (D) the costs and cost savings resulting from alternative 
     approaches;
       (E) technological transfer;
       (F) the availability of technical assistance;
       (G) current users of alternative approaches; and
       (H) such other information as the Administrator deems 
     appropriate.
       (3) Collection of information.--The Secretary shall collect 
     information for the clearinghouse--
       (A) from documents submitted by owners or operators 
     pursuant to this Act;
       (B) by surveying owners or operators who have registered 
     their facilities pursuant to part 68 of title 40 Code of 
     Federal Regulations (or successor regulations); or
       (C) through such other methods as the Secretary deems 
     appropriate.
       (4) Public availability.--Information available publicly 
     through the clearinghouse shall not allow the identification 
     of any specific facility or violate the exemptions of section 
     552(b)(4) of title 5, United States Code.
       (5) Study of alternative and inherently safer approaches to 
     chemical safety and security.--
       (A) Study.--Not later than 6 months after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall enter into an 
     arrangement with the National Academy of Sciences to provide 
     for a comprehensive study of--
       (i) the currently available chemical technologies, 
     practices, strategies, and other methods for improving the 
     inherent safety and security of United States chemical 
     manufacturing, transportation, and usage sites and 
     infrastructure against the threat of terrorism;
       (ii) methods for assessing the degree of inherent safety of 
     chemical technologies, practices, strategies, and other 
     means;
       (iii) methods for integrating inherently safer chemical 
     technologies, practices, strategies, and other means into 
     risk management for critical infrastructure protection; and
       (iv) progress and directions in research in chemical 
     sciences and technology that may provide new chemical 
     technologies, practices, strategies, and other means to 
     improve inherent safety and security.
       (B) Report.--
       (i) In general.--The arrangement entered into under 
     subparagraph (A) shall provide that the National Academy of 
     Sciences shall submit to the Secretary a final report on the 
     study conducted under subparagraph (A) by no later than 18 
     months after a contract for the arrangement is signed.
       (ii) Recommendations.--The report under this subparagraph 
     shall include such recommendations regarding government and 
     private sector practices to encourage the adoption of 
     currently available inherently safer and more secure chemical 
     technologies and strategies to reduce the vulnerabilities of 
     existing and future chemical manufacturing, transportation, 
     and usage sites and infrastructure, and regarding research 
     directions in green chemistry and chemical engineering that 
     would lead to inherently more secure, safer, and economically 
     viable chemical products, processes, and procedures, as the 
     Academy determines appropriate.
       (C) Transmission to congress.--The Secretary shall promptly 
     transmit a copy of the report under this subparagraph to the 
     Congress and make the report available to the public.

     SEC. 416. ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) Failure to Comply.--If an owner or operator of a non-
     Federal chemical source fails to certify or submit a 
     vulnerability assessment or site security plan in accordance 
     with this subtitle, the Secretary may issue an order 
     requiring the certification and submission of a vulnerability 
     assessment or site security plan in accordance with section 
     413(b).
       (b) Disapproval.--The Secretary may disapprove under 
     subsection (a) a vulnerability assessment or site security 
     plan submitted under section 413(b) or (c) if the Secretary 
     determines that--
       (1) the vulnerability assessment or site security plan does 
     not comply with regulations promulgated under section 
     413(a)(1), or the procedure, protocol, or standard endorsed 
     or recognized under section 413(c); or
       (2) the site security plan, or the implementation of the 
     site security plan, is insufficient to address--
       (A) the results of a vulnerability assessment of a chemical 
     source; or
       (B) a threat of a terrorist release.
       (c) Compliance.--If the Secretary disapproves a 
     vulnerability assessment or site security plan of a chemical 
     source under subsection (b), the Secretary shall--
       (1) provide the owner or operator of the chemical source a 
     written notification of the determination that includes a 
     clear explanation of deficiencies in the vulnerability 
     assessment, site security plan, or implementation of the 
     assessment or plan;
       (2) consult with the owner or operator of the chemical 
     source to identify appropriate steps to achieve compliance; 
     and
       (3) if, following that consultation, the owner or operator 
     of the chemical source does not achieve compliance by such 
     date as the Secretary determines to be appropriate under the 
     circumstances, issue an order requiring the owner or operator 
     to correct specified deficiencies.
       (d) Protection of Information.--Any determination of 
     disapproval or order made or issued under this section shall 
     be exempt from disclosure--
       (1) under section 552 of title 5, United States Code;
       (2) under any State or local law providing for public 
     access to information; and
       (3) except as provided in section 413(g)(2), in any Federal 
     or State civil or administrative proceeding.

     SEC. 417. INTERAGENCY TECHNICAL SUPPORT AND COOPERATION.

        The Secretary--
       (1) in addition to such consultation as is required in this 
     subtitle, shall consult with Federal agencies with relevant 
     expertise, and may request those Federal agencies to provide 
     technical and analytical support, in implementing this 
     subtitle; and
       (2) may provide reimbursement for such technical and 
     analytical support received as the Secretary determines to be 
     appropriate.

     SEC. 418. PENALTIES.

       (a) Judicial Relief.--In a civil action brought in United 
     States district court, any owner or operator of a chemical 
     source that violates or fails to comply with any order issued 
     by the Secretary under this subtitle or a site security plan 
     submitted to the Secretary under this subtitle or recognized 
     by the Secretary, for each day on which the violation occurs 
     or the failure to comply continues, may be subject to--
       (1) an order for injunctive relief; and
       (2) a civil penalty of not more than $50,000.
       (b) Administrative Penalties.--
       (1) Penalty orders.--The Secretary may issue an 
     administrative penalty of not more than $250,000 for failure 
     to comply with an order issued by the Secretary under this 
     subtitle.

[[Page H3512]]

       (2) Notice and hearing.--Before issuing an order described 
     in paragraph (1), the Secretary shall provide to the person 
     against whom the penalty is to be assessed--
       (A) written notice of the proposed order; and
       (B) the opportunity to request, not later than 30 days 
     after the date on which the person receives the notice, a 
     hearing on the proposed order.
       (3) Procedures.--The Secretary may promulgate regulations 
     outlining the procedures for administrative hearings and 
     appropriate review under this subsection, including necessary 
     deadlines.

     SEC. 419. PROTECTION OF INFORMATION.

       (a) Definition of Protected Information.--
       (1) In general.--In this section, the term ``protected 
     information'' means--
       (A) a vulnerability assessment or site security plan 
     required by subsection (a) or (b) of section 413;
       (B) any study, analysis, or other document generated by the 
     owner or operator of a chemical source primarily for the 
     purpose of preparing a vulnerability assessment or site 
     security plan (including any alternative approach analysis); 
     or
       (C) any other information provided to or obtained or 
     obtainable by the Secretary solely for the purposes of this 
     subtitle from the owner or operator of a chemical source 
     that, if released, is reasonably likely to increase the 
     probability or consequences of a terrorist release.
       (2) Other obligations unaffected.--Nothing in this section 
     affects--
       (A) the handling, treatment, or disclosure of information 
     obtained from a chemical source under any other law;
       (B) any obligation of the owner or operator of a chemical 
     source to submit or make available information to a Federal, 
     State, or local government agency under, or otherwise to 
     comply with, any other law; or
       (C) the public disclosure of information derived from 
     protected information, so long as the information disclosed--
       (i) would not divulge methods or processes entitled to 
     protection as trade secrets in accordance with the purposes 
     of section 1905 of title 18, United States Code;
       (ii) does not identify any particular chemical source; and
       (iii) is not reasonably likely to increase the probability 
     or consequences of a terrorist release, even if the same 
     information is also contained in a document referred to in 
     paragraph (1).
       (b) Disclosure Exemption.--Protected information shall be 
     exempt from disclosure under--
       (1) section 552 of title 5, United States Code; and
       (2) any State or local law providing for public access to 
     information.
       (c) Rule of Construction.--Subsection (b) shall not be 
     construed to apply to a certificate of compliance or a 
     determination of noncompliance under clause (ii) or (iii), 
     respectively, of section 413(b)(2)(B).

     SEC. 420. NO EFFECT ON REQUIREMENTS UNDER OTHER LAW.

       Nothing in this subtitle affects any duty or other 
     requirement imposed under any other Federal or State law.

           Subtitle B--Critical Infrastructure Prioritization

     SEC. 421. CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE.

       (a) Completion of Prioritization.--Not later than 90 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security shall complete the prioritization of the 
     Nation's critical infrastructure according to all of the 
     following criteria:
       (1) The threat of terrorist attack, based on threat 
     information received and analyzed by the Office of 
     Information Analysis of the Department regarding the 
     intentions and capabilities of terrorist groups and other 
     potential threats to the Nation's critical infrastructure.
       (2) The likelihood that an attack would cause the 
     destruction or significant disruption of such infrastructure.
       (3) The likelihood that an attack would result in 
     substantial numbers of deaths and serious bodily injuries, a 
     substantial adverse impact on the national economy, or a 
     substantial adverse impact on national security.
       (b) Cooperation.--Such prioritization shall be developed in 
     cooperation with other relevant Federal agencies, State, 
     local, and tribal governments, and the private sector, as 
     appropriate.

     SEC. 422. SECURITY REVIEW.

       (a) Requirement.--Not later than 9 months after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in coordination 
     with other relevant Federal agencies, State, local, and 
     tribal governments, and the private sector, as appropriate, 
     shall--
       (1) review existing Federal, State, local, tribal, and 
     private sector plans for securing the critical infrastructure 
     included in the prioritization developed under section 421;
       (2) recommend changes to existing plans for securing such 
     infrastructure, as the Secretary determines necessary; and
       (3) coordinate and contribute to protective efforts of 
     other Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies and the 
     private sector, as appropriate, as directed in Homeland 
     Security Presidential Directive 7.
       (b) Contents of Plans.--The recommendations made under 
     subsection (a)(2) shall include--
       (1) necessary protective measures to secure such 
     infrastructure, including milestones and timeframes for 
     implementation; and
       (2) to the extent practicable, performance metrics to 
     evaluate the benefits to both national security and the 
     Nation's economy from the implementation of such protective 
     measures.

     SEC. 423. IMPLEMENTATION REPORT.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 15 months after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit a 
     report to the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and 
     Governmental Affairs of the Senate on the implementation of 
     section 422. Such report shall detail--
       (1) the Secretary's review and coordination of security 
     plans under section 422; and
       (2) the Secretary's oversight of the execution and 
     effectiveness of such plans.
       (b) Update.--Not later than 1 year after the submission of 
     the report under subsection (a), the Secretary shall provide 
     an update of such report to the congressional committees 
     described in subsection (a).

           TITLE V--SECURING AIRPORTS, BAGGAGE, AND AIR CARGO

   Subtitle A--Prohibition Against Increase in Security Service Fees

     SEC. 501. PROHIBITION AGAINST INCREASE IN SECURITY SERVICE 
                   FEES.

       None of the funds authorized under this Act may be derived 
     from an increase in security service fees established under 
     section 44940 of title 49, United States Code.

                     Subtitle B--Aviation Security

     SEC. 511. FEDERAL FLIGHT DECK OFFICERS.

       (a) Training, Supervision, and Equipment.--Section 44921(c) 
     of title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(3) Dates of training.--The Secretary shall ensure that a 
     pilot who is eligible to receive Federal flight deck officer 
     training is offered a choice of training dates and is 
     provided at least 30 days advance notice of the dates.
       ``(4) Travel to training facilities.--The Secretary shall 
     establish a program to improve travel access to Federal 
     flight deck officer training facilities through the use of 
     charter flights or improved scheduled air carrier service.
       ``(5) Requalification and recurrent training.--
       ``(A) Standards.--The Secretary shall establish 
     qualification standards for facilities where Federal flight 
     deck officers can receive requalification and recurrent 
     training.
       ``(B) Locations.--The Secretary shall provide for 
     requalification and recurrent training at geographically 
     diverse facilities, including military facilities, Federal, 
     State, and local law enforcement facilities, and private 
     training facilities that meet the qualification standards 
     established under subparagraph (A).
       ``(6) Costs of training.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall provide Federal 
     flight deck officer training, requalification training, and 
     recurrent training to eligible pilots at no cost to the 
     pilots or the air carriers that employ the pilots.
       ``(B) Transportation and expenses.--The Secretary may 
     provide travel expenses to a pilot receiving Federal flight 
     deck officer training, requalification training, or recurrent 
     training.
       ``(7) Issuance of badges.--Not later than 180 days after 
     the date of enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary shall 
     issue badges to Federal flight deck officers.''.
       (b) Revocation of Deputization of Pilot as Federal Flight 
     Deck Officer.--Section 44921(d)(4) of title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(4) Revocation.--
       ``(A) Orders.--The Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security 
     (Transportation Security Administration) may issue, for good 
     cause, an order revoking the deputization of a Federal flight 
     deck officer under this section. The order shall include the 
     specific reasons for the revocation.
       ``(B) Hearings.--An individual who is adversely affected by 
     an order of the Assistant Secretary under subparagraph (A) is 
     entitled to a hearing on the record. When conducting a 
     hearing under this section, the administrative law judge 
     shall not be bound by findings of fact or interpretations of 
     laws and regulations of the Assistant Secretary.
       ``(C) Appeals.--An appeal from a decision of an 
     administrative law judge as a result of a hearing under 
     subparagraph (B) shall be made to the Secretary or the 
     Secretary's designee.
       ``(D) Judicial review of a final order.--The determination 
     and order of the Secretary revoking the deputization of a 
     Federal flight deck officer under this section shall be final 
     and conclusive unless the individual against whom such an 
     order is issued files an application for judicial review, not 
     later than 60 days following the date of entry of such order, 
     in the appropriate United States court of appeals.''.
       (c) Federal Flight Deck Officer Firearm Carriage Pilot 
     Program.--Section 44921(f) of title 49, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Pilot program.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary shall implement a 
     pilot program to allow pilots participating in the Federal 
     flight deck officer program to transport their firearms on 
     their persons. The Secretary may prescribe any training, 
     equipment, or procedures that the Secretary determines 
     necessary to ensure safety and maximize weapon retention.

[[Page H3513]]

       ``(B) Review.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     initiation of the pilot program, the Secretary shall conduct 
     a review of the safety record of the pilot program and 
     transmit a report on the results of the review to Congress.
       ``(C) Option.--If the Secretary as part of the review under 
     subparagraph (B) determines that the safety level obtained 
     under the pilot program is comparable to the safety level 
     determined under existing methods of pilots carrying firearms 
     on aircraft, the Secretary shall allow all pilots 
     participating in the Federal flight deck officer program the 
     option of carrying their firearm on their person subject to 
     such requirements as the Secretary determines appropriate.''.
       (d) References to Under Secretary.--Section 44921 of title 
     49, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a) by striking ``Under Secretary of 
     Transportation for Security'' and inserting ``Secretary of 
     Homeland Security'';
       (2) by striking ``Under Secretary'' each place it appears 
     and inserting ``Secretary''; and
       (3) by striking ``Under Secretary's'' each place it appears 
     and inserting ``Secretary's''.

     SEC. 512. LETTERS OF INTENT.

       (a) Installation of Eds Systems.--Section 44923(d) of title 
     49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(7) Installation of eds systems.--Upon the request of a 
     sponsor for an airport, the Assistant Secretary for Homeland 
     Security (Transportation Security Administration) shall 
     revise a letter of intent issued under this subsection to 
     provide for reimbursement of such additional costs as may be 
     necessary to achieve complete in-line explosive detection 
     system installation at the airport.''.
       (b) Federal Share.--Section 44923(e) of title 49, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Deadline for revisions.--The Assistant Secretary for 
     Homeland Security (Transportation Security Administration) 
     shall revise letters of intent referred to in paragraph (2) 
     not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this 
     paragraph.
       ``(4) Extension of reimbursement schedules.--If the 
     Assistant Secretary considers it necessary and appropriate 
     due to fiscal constraints in any fiscal year, the Assistant 
     Secretary, for purposes of ensuring reimbursement of the 
     Federal share as provided in paragraph (1), may revise a 
     letter of intent issued under this section to extend the 
     reimbursement schedule for one or more fiscal years.''.

     SEC. 513. AVIATION SECURITY CAPITAL FUND.

       (a) In General.--Section 44923(h)(1) of title 49, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in the second sentence by striking ``in each of fiscal 
     years 2004 through 2007'' and inserting ``in each of fiscal 
     years 2004 and 2005, and $650,000,000 in each of fiscal years 
     2006 and 2007,''; and
       (2) in the third sentence by striking ``at least 
     $250,000,000 in each of such fiscal years'' and inserting 
     ``at least $250,000,000 in each of fiscal years 2004 and 
     2005, and at least $650,000,000 in each of fiscal years 2006 
     and 2007,'' .
       (b) Discretionary Grants.--Section 44923(h)(3) of such 
     title is amended by striking ``for a fiscal year, 
     $125,000,000'' and inserting ``, $125,000,000 for each of 
     fiscal years 2004 and 2005, and $525,000,000 for each of 
     fiscal years 2006 and 2007,''.

     SEC. 514. AIRPORT CHECKPOINT SCREENING EXPLOSIVE DETECTION.

        Section 44940 of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (d)(4) by inserting ``, other than 
     subsection (i),'' before ``except to''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) Checkpoint Screening Security Fund.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--There is established in the 
     Department of Homeland Security a fund to be known as the 
     `Checkpoint Screening Security Fund'.
       ``(2) Deposits.--In fiscal year 2006, after amounts are 
     made available under section 44923(h), the next $250,000,000 
     derived from fees received under subsection (a)(1) shall be 
     available to be deposited in the Fund.
       ``(3) Fees.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     impose the fee authorized by subsection (a)(1) so as to 
     collect at least $250,000,000 in fiscal year 2006 for deposit 
     into the Fund.
       ``(4) Availability of amounts.--Amounts in the Fund shall 
     be available until expended for the purchase, deployment, and 
     installation of equipment to improve the ability of security 
     screening personnel at screening checkpoints to detect 
     explosives.''.

     SEC. 515. FLIGHT COMMUNICATIONS.

       Section 4021 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
     Prevention Act of 2004 (118 Stat. 3723) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(d) Flight Communication.--
       ``(1) Study.--To expand the purposes of the study under 
     subsection (a), the Assistant Secretary shall conduct a study 
     on the viability of devices to enable discreet, wireless 
     communications between flight attendants, pilots, Federal air 
     marshals, and ground-based personnel during a passenger 
     commercial aircraft flight to improve coordination of 
     planning and activities in the event of an act of terrorism.
       ``(2) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this subsection, the Assistant Secretary shall 
     transmit to Congress a report on the results of the study 
     conducted under this subsection.''.

     SEC. 516. AIRPORT SITE ACCESS AND PERIMETER SECURITY.

       (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the security directives issued by the Acting Administrator of 
     the Transportation Security Administration on July 6, 2004, 
     regarding security measures concerning access to sensitive 
     airport areas constitute an improvement over current practice 
     but are not sufficient to provide adequate airport access 
     controls.
       (b) Access to Sterile Areas.--Not later than 6 months after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security shall require airport personnel including 
     individuals employed in positions such as aircraft 
     maintenance, catering personnel, aircraft cargo handlers, 
     aircraft workers with access to an aircraft ramp, aircraft 
     support facilities personnel, and personnel of airport 
     vendors, accessing airport sterile areas from unrestricted 
     areas to undergo security screening equivalent to screening 
     of passengers and carry-on baggage each time any of these 
     airport personnel enter a sterile area from an unrestricted 
     area. The Secretary may issue a waiver of this provision on 
     an airport-by-airport basis, subject to the following 
     requirements:
       (1) The Secretary shall promptly notify Congress of any 
     waivers granted under this section, the purpose for which 
     such waivers were granted, and the duration of the waiver.
       (2) Under no circumstances shall a waiver be granted for 
     more than 7 days, although the Secretary may issue as many 
     waivers to an airport as is deemed appropriate by the 
     Secretary. In the event of multiple waivers, the Secretary 
     shall provide to Congress an estimate of when the airport 
     will be in compliance with this subsection.
       (c) Background Checks for Workers.--The Secretary shall 
     ensure that all unescorted airport personnel accessing 
     airport sterile and secured areas have successfully undergone 
     a background check. The background checks required under this 
     section shall include, at a minimum:
       (1) A fingerprint-based criminal history records check, or, 
     if such a check is not possible, a check of the National 
     Criminal Information Center.
       (2) A local criminal history check.
       (3) Verification of previous employment.
       (4) Verification of identity, to include, but not be 
     limited to, social security number.
       (5) A check of all terrorist watch lists operated by the 
     Federal Government, or upon certification by the Secretary 
     that it is suitably comprehensive, the terrorist watch list 
     operated by the Terrorist Screening Center.
     This subsection shall apply to all airport personnel hired 
     more than 3 months after the date of enactment of this Act 
     and for all airport personnel, regardless of the date on 
     which they were hired, no more than one year after such date 
     of enactment.
       (d) Report.--The Administrator of the Transportation 
     Security Administration shall submit to Congress, no later 
     than January 31, 2005, a report that contains a description 
     of ongoing efforts and projected timelines for--
       (1) developing and implementing uniform screening standards 
     for airport personnel with access to sterile areas;
       (2) completing an assessment of available technologies that 
     are applicable to securing airport perimeters and making this 
     information available to airport operators; and
       (3) developing and implementing a standardized approach to 
     conducting airport vulnerability assessments and compliance 
     inspections.
       (e) Limitation on Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this 
     section shall be construed to provide passengers, airport 
     workers, or other personnel not granted regular access to 
     secure areas before the date of enactment of this Act 
     authority to do so, regardless of whether such person has 
     undergone security screening.
       (f) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       (1) Sterile area.--The term ``sterile area'' means any part 
     of an airport that is regularly accessible to passengers 
     after having cleared a passenger security screening 
     checkpoint.
       (2) Secure area.--The term ``secure area'' means parts of 
     an airport complex not typically accessible to passengers, 
     including areas outside of terminal buildings, baggage 
     handling and loading areas, parked aircraft, runways, air 
     control towers, and similar areas.
       (3) Airport personnel.--The term ``airport personnel'' 
     shall mean those persons, whether employed by the airport, 
     air carriers, or by companies that conduct business in 
     airports.
       (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--Of the amount 
     authorized under section 901, there is authorized to be 
     appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this 
     section. Except as provided in the preceding sentence, this 
     section shall have no force or affect.

     SEC. 517. MANPAD COUNTERMEASURE RESEARCH.

       (a) In General.--In addition to research on air-based 
     MANPAD countermeasures, the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     shall conduct research on alternate technologies, including 
     ground-based countermeasures.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated $115,000,000 for fiscal year 2006 to carry 
     out this section.

[[Page H3514]]

     SEC. 518. AIR CHARTER AND GENERAL AVIATION OPERATIONS AT 
                   RONALD REAGAN WASHINGTON NATIONAL AIRPORT.

       Notwithstanding any law, regulation, or agency policy or 
     directive that has the effect of generally prohibiting 
     general aviation aircraft from landing at Ronald Reagan 
     Washington National Airport, not later than 60 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Transportation, acting through the Federal Aviation 
     Administration, in consultation with the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security, shall permit the resumption of 
     nonscheduled, commercial air carrier air charter and general 
     aviation operations at Ronald Reagan Washington National 
     Airport. In complying with the requirements of this section, 
     the Secretary of Transportation shall consult with the 
     general aviation industry.

     SEC. 519. INSPECTION OF CARGO CARRIED ABOARD COMMERCIAL 
                   AIRCRAFT.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     shall implement a system that uses equipment, technology, 
     personnel, and other means to inspect 35 percent of cargo 
     transported in passenger aircraft operated by an air carrier 
     or foreign air carrier in air transportation or intrastate 
     transportation. At a minimum, this system shall meet the same 
     standards as those established by the Secretary for 
     equipment, technology, and personnel used to screen passenger 
     baggage. Within 2 years after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary shall use this system to inspect at 
     least 65 percent of cargo transported in passenger aircraft. 
     Not later than three years after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary shall use this system to inspect at 
     least 100 percent of cargo transported in passenger 
     aircraft. 
       (b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to the 
     Congress a report describing the system established under 
     subsection (a).

                TITLE VI--SECURING TRAINS ACROSS AMERICA

                  Subtitle A--Public Transit Security

     SEC. 601. SHORT TITLE.

       This subtitle may be cited as the ``Safe Transit and Rail 
     Awareness and Investments for National Security Act of 2005'' 
     or the ``Safe TRAINS Act''.

     SEC. 602. HOMELAND SECURITY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION GRANTS.

       (a) Authorization.--The Secretary of Homeland Security is 
     authorized to make grants for the purpose of improving the 
     security of public transportation systems against acts of 
     terrorism. The grant program shall be administered by the 
     Director of the Office of Domestic Preparedness to ensure 
     that the program is consistent with other Department of 
     Homeland Security grant programs.
       (b) Considerations.--Among the considerations on which 
     grants shall be awarded under this section are the following:
       (1) Risk of terrorism, including threat assessment, 
     vulnerabilities of public transportation systems, potential 
     effects of acts of terrorism against public transportation 
     systems, and past acts of terrorism against modes of 
     transportation.
       (2) Merits of the proposed projects to increase national 
     security, based on a consideration of--
       (A) threats;
       (B) vulnerabilities;
       (C) consequences, including human casualties and economic 
     impacts;
       (D) consequence management;
       (E) the likelihood that such projects would have been 
     pursued in the normal course of business and in the absence 
     of national security considerations; and
       (F) feasibility, based on the technical and operational 
     merits of the projects.
       (c) Allowable Use of Funds.--Grants made under this section 
     shall be used for the purposes of--
       (1) support for increased capital investments in cameras, 
     close-circuit television, and other surveillance systems;
       (2) increased capital investment in command, control, and 
     communications systems, including investments for redundancy 
     and interoperability and for improved situational awareness, 
     such as emergency call boxes and vehicle locator systems;
       (3) increased training, including for carrying out 
     exercises under section 603, and technical support for public 
     transportation employees, especially for security awareness, 
     prevention, and emergency response, including evacuation and 
     decontamination;
       (4) expanded deployment of equipment and other measures, 
     including canine detection teams, for the detection of 
     explosives and chemical, biological, radiological, and 
     nuclear agents;
       (5) capital improvements and operating activities, 
     including personnel expenditures, to increase the physical 
     security of stations, vehicles, bridges, and tunnels;
       (6) capital improvements and operating activities to 
     improve passenger survivability in the event of an attack, 
     including improvements in ventilation, drainage, fire safety 
     technology, emergency communications systems, lighting 
     systems, passenger egress, and accessibility by emergency 
     response personnel;
       (7) acquisition of emergency response and support 
     equipment, including fire suppression and decontamination 
     equipment; and
       (8) expansion of employee education and public awareness 
     campaigns regarding security on public transportation 
     systems.
       (d) Eligible Recipients.--Grants shall be made available 
     under this section directly to owners, operators, and 
     providers of public transportation systems. Owners, 
     operators, and providers of infrastructure over which public 
     transportation operates, but which is not primarily used for 
     public transportation, may also be eligible for grants at the 
     discretion of the Secretary.
       (e) Accountability.--The Secretary shall adopt necessary 
     procedures, including audits, to ensure that grants made 
     under this section are expended in accordance with the 
     purposes of this subtitle and the priorities and other 
     criteria developed by the Secretary. If the Secretary 
     determines that a recipient has used any portion of the grant 
     funds received under this section for a purpose other than 
     the allowable uses specified for that grant under this 
     section, the grantee shall return any amount so used to the 
     Treasury of the United States.
       (f) Procedures for Grant Award.--The Secretary shall 
     prescribe procedures and schedules for the awarding of grants 
     under this section, including application and qualification 
     procedures, and a record of decision on applicant 
     eligibility. The Secretary shall issue a final rule 
     establishing the procedures not later than 90 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
       (g) Cost Share.--Grants made under this section shall 
     account for no more than--
       (1) 85 percent for fiscal year 2006;
       (2) 80 percent for fiscal year 2007; and
       (3) 75 percent for fiscal year 2008,
     of the expense of the purposes for which the grants are used.
       (h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out the purposes 
     of this section--
       (1) $1,200,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
       (2) $900,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
       (3) $700,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.
     Amounts appropriated pursuant to this subsection shall remain 
     available until expended.

     SEC. 603. TRAINING EXERCISES.

       (a) Guidelines.--Not later than 4 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     shall publish guidelines for the conduct by recipients of 
     grants under section 602 of appropriate exercises for 
     emergency response and public transportation employee 
     training purposes.
       (b) Plans.--Not later than 6 months after receipt of a 
     grant under section 602, the recipient of such grant shall 
     transmit to the Secretary its emergency response plan as well 
     as a plan for conducting exercises for emergency response and 
     public transportation employee training purposes pursuant to 
     the guidelines published under subsection (a).
       (c) Exercises.--
       (1) Requirement.--Not later than 1 year after receipt of a 
     grant under section 602, the recipient of such grant shall 
     conduct an exercise pursuant to the plan for conducting 
     exercises transmitted under subsection (b).
       (2) Exemptions.--The Secretary may exempt a grant recipient 
     from the requirement under paragraph (1) if the recipient has 
     recently conducted an equivalent exercise.
       (3) Notice and report.--Not later than 30 days after 
     conducting an exercise under paragraph (1) or as described in 
     paragraph (2), the recipient shall notify the Secretary that 
     such exercise has been completed, including a description of 
     the results of the exercise and findings and lessons learned 
     from the exercise, and shall make recommendations for 
     changes, if necessary, to existing emergency response plans. 
     If the recipient revises an emergency response plan as a 
     result of an exercise under this subsection, the recipient 
     shall transmit the revised plan to the Secretary not later 
     than 6 months after the date of the exercise.
       (d) Technical Assistance.--The Secretary shall provide 
     technical assistance in the design, preparation for, and 
     conduct of emergency response exercises.
       (e) Use of Plans.--The Secretary shall ensure that 
     information submitted to the Secretary under this section is 
     protected from any form of disclosure that might compromise 
     public transportation security or trade secrets. 
     Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, the Secretary may use 
     such information, on a nonattributed basis unless otherwise 
     agreed to by the source of the information, to aid in 
     developing recommendations, best practices, and materials for 
     use by public transportation authorities to improve security 
     practices and emergency response capabilities.

     SEC. 604. SECURITY BEST PRACTICES.

       Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall develop, 
     disseminate to appropriate owners, operators, and providers 
     of public transportation systems, public transportation 
     employees and employee representatives, and Federal, State, 
     and local officials, and transmit to Congress, a report 
     containing best practices for the security of public 
     transportation systems. In developing best practices, the 
     Secretary shall be responsible for consulting with and 
     collecting input from owners, operators, and providers of 
     public transportation systems, public transportation employee 
     representatives, first responders, industry associations, 
     private sector experts, academic experts, and appropriate 
     Federal, State, and local officials.

     SEC. 605. PUBLIC AWARENESS.

       Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall develop a 
     national plan

[[Page H3515]]

     for public outreach and awareness. Such plan shall be 
     designed to increase awareness of measures that the general 
     public, public transportation passengers, and public 
     transportation employees can take to increase public 
     transportation system security. Such plan shall also provide 
     outreach to owners, operators, providers, and employees of 
     public transportation systems to improve their awareness of 
     available technologies, ongoing research and development 
     efforts, and available Federal funding sources to improve 
     public transportation security. Not later than 9 months after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall 
     implement the plan developed under this section.

     SEC. 606. NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SECURITY CENTERS.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Homeland Security, 
     working jointly with the Secretary of Transportation, shall 
     establish more than 1 but not more than 4 National 
     Transportation Security Centers at institutions of higher 
     education to assist in carrying out this subtitle, to conduct 
     research and education activities, and to develop or provide 
     professional training, including the training of public 
     transportation employees and public transportation-related 
     professionals, with emphasis on utilization of intelligent 
     transportation systems, technologies, and architectures.
       (b) Criteria.--The Secretary shall designate the Centers 
     according to the following selection criteria:
       (1) The demonstrated commitment of the institution to 
     transportation security issues.
       (2) The use of and experience with partnerships with other 
     institutions of higher education, Federal laboratories, or 
     other nonprofit laboratories.
       (3) Capability to conduct both practical and theoretical 
     research and technical systems analysis.
       (4) Utilization of intelligent transportation system 
     technologies and architectures.
       (5) Ability to develop professional training programs.
       (6) Capability and willingness to conduct education of 
     transportation security professionals.
       (7) Such other criteria as the Secretary may designate.
       (c) Funding.--The Secretary shall provide such funding as 
     is necessary to the National Transportation Security Centers 
     established under subsection (a) to carry out this section.

     SEC. 607. WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTIONS.

       (a) In General.--No covered individual may be discharged, 
     demoted, suspended, threatened, harassed, reprimanded, 
     investigated, or in any other manner discriminated against 
     (including by a denial, suspension, or revocation of a 
     security clearance or by any other security access 
     determination) if such discrimination is due, in whole or in 
     part, to any lawful act done, perceived to have been done, or 
     intended to be done by the covered individual--
       (1) to provide information, cause information to be 
     provided, or otherwise assist in an investigation regarding 
     any conduct which the covered individual reasonably believes 
     constitutes a violation of any law, rule or regulation 
     relating to national or homeland security, which the covered 
     individual reasonably believes constitutes a threat to 
     national or homeland security, or which the covered 
     individual reasonably believes constitutes fraud, waste or 
     mismanagement of Government funds intended to be used for 
     national or homeland security, when the information or 
     assistance is provided to or the investigation is conducted 
     by--
       (A) a Federal, State or local regulatory or law enforcement 
     agency (including an office of Inspector General under the 
     Inspector General Act of 1978);
       (B) any Member of Congress, any committee of Congress, or 
     the Government Accountability Office; or
       (C) a person with supervisory authority over the covered 
     individual (or such other person who has the authority to 
     investigate, discover, or terminate misconduct);
       (2) to file, cause to be filed, testify, participate in, or 
     otherwise assist in a proceeding or action filed or about to 
     be filed relating to an alleged violation of any law, rule or 
     regulation relating to national or homeland security; or
       (3) to refuse to violate or assist in the violation of any 
     law, rule, or regulation relating to national or homeland 
     security.
       (b) Enforcement Action.--
       (1) In general.--A covered individual who alleges discharge 
     or other discrimination by any person in violation of 
     subsection (a) may seek relief under subsection (c) by--
       (A) filing a complaint with the Secretary of Labor; or
       (B) if the Secretary has not issued a final decision within 
     180 days after the filing of the complaint and there is no 
     showing that such delay is due to the bad faith of the 
     claimant, bringing an action at law or equity for de novo 
     review in the appropriate district court of the United 
     States, which shall have jurisdiction over such an action 
     without regard to the amount in controversy.
       (2) Procedure.--
       (A) In general.--An action under paragraph (1)(A) shall be 
     governed under the rules and procedures set forth in section 
     42121(b) of title 49, United States Code.
       (B) Exception.--Notification made under section 42121(b)(1) 
     of title 49, United States Code, shall be made to the person 
     named in the complaint and to the person's employer.
       (C) Burdens of proof.--An action brought under paragraph 
     (1)(B) shall be governed by the legal burdens of proof set 
     forth in section 42121(b) of title 49, United States Code.
       (D) Statute of limitations.--An action under paragraph (1) 
     shall be commenced not later than 1 year after the date on 
     which the violation occurs.
       (c) Remedies.--
       (1) In general.--A covered individual prevailing in any 
     action under subsection (b)(1) shall be entitled to all 
     relief necessary to make the covered individual whole.
       (2) Damages.--Relief for any action under paragraph (1) 
     shall include--
       (A) reinstatement with the same seniority status that the 
     covered individual would have had, but for the 
     discrimination;
       (B) the amount of any back pay, with interest;
       (C) compensation for any special damages sustained as a 
     result of the discrimination, including litigation costs, 
     expert witness fees, and reasonable attorney fees; and
       (D) punitive damages in an amount not to exceed the greater 
     of 3 times the amount of any compensatory damages awarded 
     under this section or $5,000,000.
       (d) State Secrets Privilege.--If, in any action brought 
     under subsection (b)(1)(B), the Government asserts as a 
     defense the privilege commonly referred to as the ``state 
     secrets privilege'' and the assertion of such privilege 
     prevents the plaintiff from establishing a prima facie case 
     in support of the plaintiff's claim, the court shall enter 
     judgment for the plaintiff and shall determine the relief to 
     be granted.
       (e) Criminal Penalties.--
       (1) In general.--It shall be unlawful for any person 
     employing a covered individual to commit an act prohibited by 
     subsection (a). Any person violating this paragraph shall be 
     fined under title 18 of the United States Code, imprisoned 
     not more than 10 years, or both.
       (2) Reporting requirement.--The Department of Justice shall 
     submit to Congress an annual report on the enforcement of 
     paragraph (1). Each such report shall (A) identify each case 
     in which formal charges under paragraph (1) were brought, (B) 
     describe the status or disposition of each such case, and (C) 
     in any actions under subsection (b)(1)(B) in which the 
     covered individual was the prevailing party or the 
     substantially prevailing party, indicate whether or not any 
     formal charges under paragraph (1) have been brought and, if 
     not, the reasons therefor.
       (f) Rights Retained by Covered Individual.--Nothing in this 
     section shall be deemed to diminish the rights, privileges, 
     or remedies of any covered individual under any Federal or 
     State law, or under any collective bargaining agreement. The 
     rights and remedies in this section may not be waived by any 
     agreement, policy, form, or condition of employment.
       (g) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       (1) the term ``covered individual'' means an employee of--
       (A) the Department of Homeland Security (which, for 
     purposes of this section, includes the Transportation 
     Security Administration);
       (B) a Federal contractor or subcontractor; and
       (C) an employer within the meaning of section 701(b) of the 
     Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e(b));
       (2) the term ``lawful'' means not specifically prohibited 
     by law, except that, in the case of any information the 
     disclosure of which is specifically prohibited by law or 
     specifically required by Executive order to be kept secret in 
     the interest of national defense or the conduct of foreign 
     affairs, any disclosure of such information to any Member of 
     Congress, committee of Congress, or other recipient 
     authorized to receive such information, shall be deemed 
     lawful;
       (3) the term ``Federal contractor'' means a person who has 
     entered into a contract with the Department of Homeland 
     Security;
       (4) the term ``employee'' means--
       (A) with respect to an employer referred to in paragraph 
     (1)(A), an employee as defined by section 2105 of title 5, 
     United States Code; and
       (B) with respect to an employer referred to in subparagraph 
     (A) or (B) of paragraph (1), any officer, partner, employee, 
     or agent;
       (5) the term ``subcontractor''--
       (A) means any person, other than the Federal contractor, 
     who offers to furnish or furnishes any supplies, materials, 
     equipment, or services of any kind under a contract with the 
     Department of Homeland Security or a subcontract entered into 
     in connection with such a contract; and
       (B) includes any person who offers to furnish or furnishes 
     general supplies to the Federal contractor or a higher tier 
     subcontractor; and
       (6) the term ``person'' means a corporation, partnership, 
     State entity, business association of any kind, trust, joint-
     stock company, or individual.
       (h) Terms and Conditions.--A grant under this subtitle 
     shall be subject to terms and conditions of section 5333 of 
     title 49, United States Code.
       (i) Authorization of Funds.--Of the amounts authorized 
     under section 101, there is authorized to be appropriated 
     amounts necessary for carrying out this section. Except as 
     provided in the preceding sentence, this section shall have 
     no force or effect.

     SEC. 608. DEFINITION.

       In this subtitle, the following definitions apply:

[[Page H3516]]

       (1) Public transportation employees.--The term ``public 
     transportation employees'' means security personnel, 
     dispatchers, vehicle and vessel operators, other onboard 
     employees, maintenance and support personnel, and other 
     appropriate employees of owners, operators, and providers of 
     public transportation systems.
       (2) Public transportation systems.--The term ``public 
     transportation systems'' means passenger, commuter, and light 
     rail, including subways, buses, commuter ferries, and other 
     modes of public transit.

     SEC. 609. MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT.

       (a) Requirement to Work Jointly.--The Secretary of Homeland 
     Security shall work jointly with the Secretary of 
     Transportation in carrying out this subtitle.
       (b) Memorandum.--Within 60 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security and 
     the Secretary of Transportation shall execute a memorandum of 
     agreement governing the roles and responsibilities of the 
     Department of Homeland Security and the Department of 
     Transportation, respectively in addressing public 
     transportation security matters, including the process their 
     department will follow to carry out this subtitle and promote 
     communications, efficiency, and nonduplication of effort.

                       Subtitle B--Rail Security

     SEC. 611. SHORT TITLE.

       This subtitle may be cited as the ``Rail Security Act of 
     2005''.

                      CHAPTER 1--RAILROAD SECURITY

     SEC. 621. RAILROAD TRANSPORTATION SECURITY.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Requirements.--The Secretary shall develop, prepare, 
     implement, and update--
       (A) a railroad security assessment under subsection (b)(1);
       (B) a railroad security plan under subsection (b)(2);
       (C) prioritized recommendations for improving railroad 
     security under subsection (d);
       (D) guidance for the rail worker security training program 
     as authorized by section 624; and
       (E) a national plan for public outreach and awareness for 
     improving railroad security as authorized by section 627.
       (2) Role of secretary of transportation.--The Secretary 
     shall work jointly with the Secretary of Transportation, in 
     developing, preparing, revising, implementing, and updating 
     the documents required by paragraph (1).
       (3) Memorandum of agreement.--Within 60 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Secretary and the Secretary of 
     Transportation shall execute a memorandum of agreement 
     governing the roles and responsibilities of the Department of 
     Homeland Security and the Department of Transportation, 
     respectively, in addressing railroad transportation security 
     matters, including the processes the departments will follow 
     to carry out this chapter and promote communications, 
     efficiency, and nonduplication of effort.
       (b) Security Assessment.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall complete the 
     security assessment of railroad transportation required under 
     subsection (a)(1). The security assessment shall include--
       (A) identification and evaluation of critical railroad 
     assets and infrastructures;
       (B) identification of threats to those assets and 
     infrastructures;
       (C) identification of vulnerabilities that are specific to 
     the transportation of hazardous materials by railroad;
       (D) identification of redundant and backup systems required 
     to ensure the continued operation of critical elements of the 
     railroad system in the event of an attack or other incident, 
     including disruption of commercial electric power or 
     communications networks; and
       (E) identification of security weaknesses in passenger and 
     cargo security, transportation infrastructure, protection 
     systems (including passenger and cargo screening), procedural 
     policies, communications systems, employee training, 
     emergency response planning, and any other area identified by 
     the assessment.
       (2) Security plan.--The Secretary shall use the security 
     assessment completed under paragraph (1) to develop a 
     transportation modal security plan under section 114(t)(1)(B) 
     of title 49, United States Code, for the security of the 
     Nation's railroads. The plan shall--
       (A) establish a strategy for minimizing terrorist threats 
     to railroad transportation systems;
       (B) establish a strategy for maximizing the efforts of 
     railroads to mitigate damage from terrorist attacks;
       (C) require the Federal Government to provide increased 
     security support at high or severe threat levels of alert;
       (D) set forth procedures for establishing and maintaining 
     permanent and comprehensive consultative relations among the 
     parties described in subsection (c);
       (E) include a contingency plan to ensure the continued 
     movement of freight and passengers in the event of an attack 
     affecting the railroad system, which shall contemplate--
       (i) the possibility of rerouting traffic due to the loss of 
     critical infrastructure, such as a bridge, tunnel, yard, or 
     station; and
       (ii) methods of continuing railroad service in the 
     Northeast Corridor in the event of a commercial power loss, 
     or catastrophe affecting a critical bridge, tunnel, yard, or 
     station; and
       (F) account for actions taken or planned by both public and 
     private entities to address security issues identified under 
     paragraph (1) and assess the effective integration of such 
     actions.
       (c) Consultation.--In developing the plan under subsection 
     (b)(2) and the recommendations under subsection (d), the 
     Secretary and the Secretary of Transportation shall consult 
     with the freight and passenger railroad carriers, nonprofit 
     employee organizations representing rail workers, nonprofit 
     employee organizations representing emergency responders, 
     owners or lessors of rail cars used to transport hazardous 
     materials, shippers of hazardous materials, manufacturers of 
     rail tank cars, State Departments of Transportation, public 
     safety officials, and other relevant parties.
       (d) Recommendations.--The Secretary shall develop 
     prioritized recommendations for improving railroad security, 
     including recommendations for--
       (1) improving the security of rail tunnels, rail bridges, 
     rail switching and car storage areas, other rail 
     infrastructure and facilities, information systems, and other 
     areas identified as posing significant railroad-related risks 
     to public safety and the movement of interstate commerce, 
     taking into account the impact that any proposed security 
     measure might have on the provision of railroad service;
       (2) deploying surveillance equipment;
       (3) deploying equipment to detect explosives and hazardous 
     chemical, biological, and radioactive substances, and any 
     appropriate countermeasures;
       (4) installing redundant and backup systems to ensure the 
     continued operation of critical elements of the railroad 
     system in the event of an attack or other incident, including 
     disruption of commercial electric power or communications 
     networks;
       (5) conducting public outreach campaigns on passenger 
     railroads; and
       (6) identifying the immediate and long-term costs of 
     measures that may be required to address those risks.
       (e) Report.--
       (1) Contents.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the 
     Committee on Homeland Security of the House of 
     Representatives and to the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
     and Transportation of the Senate a report containing the 
     security assessment, plan, and prioritized recommendations 
     required by this section, along with an estimate of the cost 
     to implement such recommendations.
       (2) Format.--The report may be submitted in a classified 
     format if the Secretary determines that such action is 
     necessary.
       (f) Periodic Updates.--The Secretary shall update the 
     railroad security assessment, security plan, and prioritized 
     recommendations for improving railroad security under 
     subsection (a), and the guidance for a railroad worker 
     security training program under section 105, every 2 years 
     and submit a report, which may be submitted in both 
     classified and redacted formats, to the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on 
     Homeland Security of the House of Representatives and to the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate not less frequently than April 1 of each even-numbered 
     year.
       (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary $10,000,000 for the 
     purpose of carrying out this section.

     SEC. 622. FREIGHT AND PASSENGER RAIL SECURITY UPGRADES.

       (a) Security Improvement Grants.--The Secretary, in 
     coordination with the Secretary of Transportation, is 
     authorized to make grants to freight and passenger railroad 
     carriers, nonprofit employee organizations that represent 
     rail workers, shippers of hazardous materials by rail, owners 
     of rail cars used in the transportation of hazardous 
     materials, manufacturers of rail tank cars, and State and 
     local governments, for costs incurred in the conduct of 
     activities to prevent or respond to acts of terrorism or 
     sabotage against railroads, or other railroad security 
     threats, including--
       (1) perimeter protection systems, including access control, 
     installation of better lighting, fencing, and barricades at 
     railroad facilities;
       (2) structural modification or replacement of rail cars 
     transporting hazardous materials to improve their resistance 
     to acts of terrorism;
       (3) technologies for reduction of tank car vulnerability;
       (4) security improvements to passenger railroad stations, 
     trains, and infrastructure;
       (5) tunnel protection systems;
       (6) evacuation improvements;
       (7) inspection technologies, including verified visual 
     inspection technologies using hand-held readers and discs;
       (8) security and redundancy for critical communications, 
     computer, and train control systems essential for secure 
     railroad operations or to continue railroad operations after 
     an attack impacting railroad operations;
       (9) train tracking and interoperable communications 
     systems;
       (10) chemical, biological, radiological, or explosive 
     detection systems and devices;
       (11) surveillance equipment;
       (12) additional police and security officers, including 
     canine units;

[[Page H3517]]

       (13) accommodation of cargo or passenger screening 
     equipment;
       (14) employee security awareness, preparedness, and 
     response training (including compliance with section 625);
       (15) public security awareness campaigns;
       (16) emergency response equipment, including fire 
     suppression and decontamination equipment; and
       (17) other improvements recommended by the report required 
     by section 621, including infrastructure, facilities, and 
     equipment upgrades.
       (b) Conditions.--The Secretary shall require recipients of 
     funds for construction under this section and section 623 of 
     this Act to apply the standards of section 24312 of title 49, 
     United States Code, as in effect on September 1, 2004, with 
     respect to the construction in the same manner as Amtrak is 
     required to comply with such standards for construction work 
     financed under an agreement made under section 24308(a) of 
     such title 49.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary $600,000,000 to carry out 
     the purposes of this section, of which $100,000,000 shall be 
     used by the Secretary for making grants to Amtrak, in 
     accordance with this section. Amounts appropriated pursuant 
     to this subsection shall remain available until expended.

     SEC. 623. FIRE AND LIFE-SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS.

       (a) Life-Safety Needs.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to Amtrak for the purposes of carrying out this 
     section the following amounts:
       (1) For the 6 new york tunnels to provide ventilation, 
     electrical, and fire safety technology upgrades, emergency 
     communication and lighting systems, and emergency access and 
     egress for passengers--
       (A) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
       (B) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
       (C) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;
       (D) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2009; and
       (E) $170,000,000 for fiscal year 2010.
       (2) For the baltimore & potomac tunnel and the union 
     tunnel, together, to provide adequate drainage, ventilation, 
     communication, lighting, and passenger egress upgrades--
       (A) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
       (B) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
       (C) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;
       (D) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2009; and
       (E) $17,000,000 for fiscal year 2010.
       (3) For the washington, district of columbia, union station 
     tunnels to improve ventilation, communication, lighting, and 
     passenger egress upgrades--
       (A) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
       (B) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
       (C) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;
       (D) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2009; and
       (E) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2010.
       (b) Availability of Appropriated Funds.--Amounts 
     appropriated pursuant to this section shall remain available 
     until expended.

     SEC. 624. RAIL SECURITY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.

       (a) Establishment of Research and Development Program.--The 
     Secretary shall carry out a research and development program 
     for the purpose of improving railroad security that may 
     include research and development projects to--
       (1) reduce the vulnerability of passenger trains, stations, 
     and equipment to explosives and hazardous chemical, 
     biological, and radioactive substances;
       (2) test new emergency response techniques and 
     technologies;
       (3) develop improved freight technologies, including--
       (A) technologies for sealing rail cars;
       (B) automatic inspection of rail cars; and
       (C) communication-based train controls;
       (4) test wayside detectors that can detect tampering with 
     railroad equipment;
       (5) support enhanced security for the transportation of 
     hazardous materials by rail, including--
       (A) technologies to detect a breach in a tank car and 
     transmit information about the integrity of tank cars to the 
     train crew;
       (B) research to improve tank car integrity; and
       (C) techniques to transfer hazardous materials from rail 
     cars that are damaged or otherwise represent an unreasonable 
     risk to human life or public safety; and
       (6) other projects recommended in the report required by 
     section 621.
       (b) Coordination With Other Research Initiatives.--The 
     Secretary shall ensure that the research and development 
     program authorized by this section is coordinated with other 
     research and development initiatives at the Department of 
     Homeland Security, the Department of Transportation, and 
     other Federal agencies.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary $50,000,000 in each of 
     fiscal years 2006 and 2007 to carry out the purposes of this 
     section. Amounts appropriated pursuant to this subsection 
     shall remain available until expended.

     SEC. 625. RAIL WORKER SECURITY TRAINING PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation with 
     appropriate law enforcement, security, and terrorism experts, 
     representatives of railroad carriers, and nonprofit employee 
     organizations that represent rail workers, shall develop and 
     issue detailed guidance for a rail worker security training 
     program to prepare rail workers for potential threat 
     conditions.
       (b) Program Elements.--The guidance developed under 
     subsection (a) shall require such a program to include, at a 
     minimum, elements that address the following:
       (1) Determination of the seriousness of any occurrence.
       (2) Crew and passenger communication and coordination.
       (3) Appropriate responses to defend oneself.
       (4) Use of protective devices.
       (5) Evacuation procedures.
       (6) Live situational training exercises regarding various 
     threat conditions, including tunnel evacuation procedures.
       (7) Any other subject the Secretary considers appropriate.
       (c) Railroad Carrier Programs.--Not later than 60 days 
     after the Secretary issues guidance under subsection (a) in 
     final form, each railroad carrier shall develop a rail worker 
     security training program in accordance with that guidance 
     and submit it to the Secretary for approval. Not later than 
     60 days after receiving a railroad carrier's program under 
     this subsection, the Secretary shall review the program and 
     approve it or require the railroad carrier to make any 
     revisions the Secretary considers necessary for the program 
     to meet the guidance requirements.
       (d) Training.--Not later than 1 year after the Secretary 
     approves the training program developed by a railroad carrier 
     under this section, the railroad carrier shall complete the 
     training of all rail workers in accordance with that program.
       (e) Updates.--The Secretary shall update the training 
     guidance issued under subsection (a) from time to time to 
     reflect new or different security threats, and require 
     railroad carriers to revise their programs accordingly and 
     provide additional training to their rail workers.

     SEC. 626. WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 201 of title 49, 
     is amended by inserting after section 20115 the following:

     ``Sec. 20116. Whistleblower protection for railroad security 
       matters

       ``(a) Discrimination Against Employee.--No railroad carrier 
     engaged in interstate or foreign commerce may discharge a 
     railroad employee or otherwise discriminate against a 
     railroad employee because the employee (or any person acting 
     pursuant to a request of the employee)
       ``(1) provided, caused to be provided, or is about to 
     provide or cause to be provided, to the employer or the 
     Federal Government information relating to a perceived threat 
     to security;
       ``(2) provided, caused to be provided, or is about to 
     provide or cause to be provided, testimony before Congress or 
     at any Federal or State proceeding regarding a perceived 
     threat to security;
       ``(3) has assisted or participated, or is about to assist 
     or participate, in any manner in a proceeding or any other 
     action to enhance railroad security; or
       ``(4) refused to violate or assist in the violation of any 
     law, rule, or regulation related to railroad security.
       ``(b) Enforcement Action.--
       ``(1) In general.--A person who alleges discharge or other 
     discrimination by any person in violation of subsection (a) 
     may seek relief under subsection (c) by
       ``(A) filing a complaint with the Secretary of Labor; or
       ``(B) if the Secretary of Labor has not issued a final 
     decision within 180 days of the filing of the complaint and 
     there is no showing that such delay is due to the bad faith 
     of the claimant, bringing an action at law or equity for de 
     novo review in the appropriate district court of the United 
     States, which shall have jurisdiction over such an action 
     without regard to the amount in controversy.
       ``(2) Procedure.--
       ``(A) In general.--An action under paragraph (1)(A) shall 
     be governed under the rules and procedures set forth in 
     section 42121(b) of this title.
       ``(B) Exception.--Notification made under section 
     42121(b)(1) of this title, shall be made to the person named 
     in the complaint and to the employer.
       ``(C) Burdens of proof.--An action brought under paragraph 
     (1)(B) shall be governed by the legal burdens of proof set 
     forth in section 42121(b) this title.
       ``(D) Statute of limitations.--An action under paragraph 
     (1)(A) shall be commenced not later than 90 days after the 
     date on which the violation occurs.
       ``(c) Remedies.--
       ``(1) In general.--An employee prevailing in any action 
     under subsection (b)(1) shall be entitled to all relief 
     necessary to make the employee whole.
       ``(2) Compensatory damages.--Relief for any action under 
     paragraph (1) shall include
       ``(A) reinstatement with the same seniority status that the 
     employee would have had, but for the discrimination;
       ``(B) the amount of back pay, with interest; and
       ``(C) compensation for any special damages sustained as a 
     result of the discrimination, including litigation costs, 
     expert witness fees, and reasonable attorney fees.
       ``(d) Rights Retained by Employee.--Except as provided in 
     subsection (e), nothing in this section shall be deemed to 
     diminish the rights, privileges, or remedies of any employee 
     under any Federal or State law, or under any collective 
     bargaining agreement.
       ``(e) Election of Remedies.--An employee of a railroad 
     carrier may not seek protection

[[Page H3518]]

     under both this section and another provision of law for the 
     same allegedly unlawful act of the railroad carrier.
       ``(f) Disclosure of Identity.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
     without the written consent of the employee, the Secretary of 
     Labor may not disclose the name of an employee of a railroad 
     carrier who has provided information about an alleged 
     violation of this section.
       ``(2) Exception.--The Secretary of Labor shall disclose to 
     the Attorney General the name of an employee described in 
     paragraph (1) of this subsection if the matter is referred to 
     the Attorney General for enforcement.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for 
     chapter 201 of title 49, is amended by inserting after the 
     item relating to section 20115 the following:

``20116. Whistleblower protection for railroad security matters.''.''

     SEC. 627. PUBLIC OUTREACH.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary shall develop a national plan for public 
     outreach and awareness. Such plan shall be designed to 
     increase awareness of measures that the general public, 
     railroad passengers, and railroad employees can take to 
     increase railroad system security. Such plan shall also 
     provide outreach to railroad carriers and their employees to 
     improve their awareness of available technologies, ongoing 
     research and development efforts, and available Federal 
     funding sources to improve railroad security. Not later than 
     9 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary shall implement the plan developed under this 
     section.

     SEC. 628. PASSENGER, BAGGAGE, AND CARGO SCREENING.

       The Secretary shall--
       (1) analyze the cost and feasibility of requiring security 
     screening for passengers, baggage, and cargo on passenger 
     trains; and
       (2) report the results of the study, together with any 
     recommendations that the Secretary may have for implementing 
     a rail security screening program to the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on 
     Homeland Security of the House of Representatives and to the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.

     SEC. 629. EMERGENCY RESPONDER TRAINING STANDARDS.

       Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall issue training 
     standards for persons responsible for responding to emergency 
     situations occurring during transportation of hazardous 
     materials by rail, in accordance with existing regulations, 
     to ensure their ability to protect nearby persons, property, 
     or the environment from the effects of accidents involving 
     hazardous materials.

     SEC. 630. INFORMATION FOR FIRST RESPONDERS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Transportation shall 
     provide grants to Operation Respond Institute for the purpose 
     of
       (1) deploying and expanding the Operation Respond Emergency 
     Information System software;
       (2) developing, implementing, and maintaining a railroad 
     infrastructure mapping program that correlates railroad 
     right-of-way information with highway grid maps and overhead 
     imagery of traffic routes, hazardous materials routes, and 
     commuter rail lines; and
       (3) establishing an alert and messaging capability for use 
     during emergencies involving freight and passenger railroads.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary of Transportation to 
     carry out this section $2,500,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2005, 2006, and 2007. Amounts appropriated pursuant to this 
     subsection shall remain available until expended.

     SEC. 631. TSA PERSONNEL LIMITATIONS.

       Any statutory limitation on the number of employees in the 
     Transportation Security Administration, before or after its 
     transfer to the Department of Homeland Security, does not 
     apply to the extent that any such employees are responsible 
     for implementing the provisions of this title.

     SEC. 632. RAIL SAFETY REGULATIONS.

       Section 20103(a) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``safety'' the first place it appears, 
     and inserting ``safety, including security''.

     SEC. 633. RAIL POLICE OFFICERS.

       Section 28101 of title 49, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking ``the rail carrier'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``any rail carrier''.

     SEC. 634. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this chapter--
       (1) the terms ``railroad'' and ``railroad carrier'' have 
     the meaning given those terms in section 20102 of title 49, 
     United States Code; and
       (2) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security, acting through the Under Secretary of Homeland 
     Security for Border and Transportation Security.

            CHAPTER 2--ASSISTANCE TO FAMILIES OF PASSENGERS

     SEC. 641. ASSISTANCE BY NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD 
                   TO FAMILIES OF PASSENGERS INVOLVED IN RAIL 
                   PASSENGER ACCIDENTS.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter III of chapter 11 of title 49, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 1138. Assistance to families of passengers involved in 
       rail passenger accidents

       ``(a) In General.--As soon as practicable after being 
     notified of a rail passenger accident within the United 
     States involving a rail passenger carrier and resulting in a 
     major loss of life, the Chairman of the National 
     Transportation Safety Board shall
       ``(1) designate and publicize the name and phone number of 
     a director of family support services who shall be an 
     employee of the Board and shall be responsible for acting as 
     a point of contact within the Federal Government for the 
     families of passengers involved in the accident and a liaison 
     between the rail passenger carrier and the families; and
       ``(2) designate an independent nonprofit organization, with 
     experience in disasters and posttrauma communication with 
     families, which shall have primary responsibility for 
     coordinating the emotional care and support of the families 
     of passengers involved in the accident.
       ``(b) Responsibilities of the Board.--The Board shall have 
     primary Federal responsibility for
       ``(1) facilitating the recovery and identification of 
     fatally injured passengers involved in an accident described 
     in subsection (a); and
       ``(2) Communicating with the families of passengers 
     involved in the accident as to the roles of.--
       ``(A) the organization designated for an accident under 
     subsection (a)(2);
       ``(B) Government agencies; and
       ``(C) the rail passenger carrier involved,
     with respect to the accident and the post-accident 
     activities.
       ``(c) Responsibilities of Designated Organization.--The 
     organization designated for an accident under subsection 
     (a)(2) shall have the following responsibilities with respect 
     to the families of passengers involved in the accident:
       ``(1) To provide mental health and counseling services, in 
     coordination with the disaster response team of the rail 
     passenger carrier involved.
       ``(2) To take such actions as may be necessary to provide 
     an environment in which the families may grieve in private.
       ``(3) To meet with the families who have traveled to the 
     location of the accident, to contact the families unable to 
     travel to such location, and to contact all affected families 
     periodically thereafter until such time as the organization, 
     in consultation with the director of family support services 
     designated for the accident under subsection (a)(1), 
     determines that further assistance is no longer needed.
       ``(4) To arrange a suitable memorial service, in 
     consultation with the families.
       ``(d) Passenger Lists.--
       ``(1) Requests for passenger lists.--
       ``(A) Requests by director of family support services.--It 
     shall be the responsibility of the director of family support 
     services designated for an accident under subsection (a)(1) 
     to request, as soon as practicable, from the rail passenger 
     carrier involved in the accident a list, which is based on 
     the best available information at the time of the request, of 
     the names of the passengers that were aboard the rail 
     passenger carrier's train involved in the accident. A rail 
     passenger carrier shall use reasonable efforts, with respect 
     to its unreserved trains, and passengers not holding 
     reservations on its other trains, to ascertain the names of 
     passengers aboard a train involved in an accident.
       ``(B) Requests by designated organization.--The 
     organization designated for an accident under subsection 
     (a)(2) may request from the rail passenger carrier involved 
     in the accident a list described in subparagraph (A).
       ``(2) Use of information.--The director of family support 
     services and the organization may not release to any person 
     information on a list obtained under paragraph (1) but may 
     provide information on the list about a passenger to the 
     family of the passenger to the extent that the director of 
     family support services or the organization considers 
     appropriate.
       ``(e) Continuing Responsibilities of the Board.--In the 
     course of its investigation of an accident described in 
     subsection (a), the Board shall, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, ensure that the families of passengers involved 
     in the accident
       ``(1) are briefed, prior to any public briefing, about the 
     accident and any other findings from the investigation; and
       ``(2) are individually informed of and allowed to attend 
     any public hearings and meetings of the Board about the 
     accident.
       ``(f) Use of Rail Passenger Carrier Resources.--To the 
     extent practicable, the organization designated for an 
     accident under subsection (a)(2) shall coordinate its 
     activities with the rail passenger carrier involved in the 
     accident to facilitate the reasonable use of the resources of 
     the carrier.
       ``(g) Prohibited Actions.--
       ``(1) Actions to impede the board.--No person (including a 
     State or political subdivision) may impede the ability of the 
     Board (including the director of family support services 
     designated for an accident under subsection (a)(1)), or an 
     organization designated for an accident under subsection 
     (a)(2), to carry out its responsibilities under this section 
     or the ability of the families of passengers involved in the 
     accident to have contact with one another.
       ``(2) Unsolicited communications.--No unsolicited 
     communication concerning a potential action for personal 
     injury or wrongful

[[Page H3519]]

     death may be made by an attorney (including any associate, 
     agent, employee, or other representative of an attorney) or 
     any potential party to the litigation to an individual (other 
     than an employee of the rail passenger carrier) injured in 
     the accident, or to a relative of an individual involved in 
     the accident, before the 45th day following the date of the 
     accident.
       ``(3) Prohibition on actions to prevent mental health and 
     counseling services.--No State or political subdivision may 
     prevent the employees, agents, or volunteers of an 
     organization designated for an accident under subsection 
     (a)(2) from providing mental health and counseling services 
     under subsection (c)(1) in the 30-day period beginning on the 
     date of the accident. The director of family support services 
     designated for the accident under subsection (a)(1) may 
     extend such period for not to exceed an additional 30 days if 
     the director determines that the extension is necessary to 
     meet the needs of the families and if State and local 
     authorities are notified of the determination.
       ``(h) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       ``(1) Rail passenger accident.--The term `rail passenger 
     accident' means any rail passenger disaster occurring in the 
     provision of
       ``(A) interstate intercity rail passenger transportation 
     (as such term is defined in section 24102); or
       ``(B) interstate or intrastate high-speed rail (as such 
     term is defined in section 26105) transportation,
     regardless of its cause or suspected cause.
       ``(2) Rail passenger carrier.--The term `rail passenger 
     carrier' means a rail carrier providing
       ``(A) interstate intercity rail passenger transportation 
     (as such term is defined in section 24102); or
       ``(B) interstate or intrastate high-speed rail (as such 
     term is defined in section 26105) transportation,
     except that such term shall not include a tourist, historic, 
     scenic, or excursion rail carrier.
       ``(3) Passenger.--The term `passenger' includes
       ``(A) an employee of a rail passenger carrier aboard a 
     train;
       ``(B) any other person aboard the train without regard to 
     whether the person paid for the transportation, occupied a 
     seat, or held a reservation for the rail transportation; and
       ``(C) any other person injured or killed in the accident.
       ``(i) Limitation on statutory construction.--Nothing in 
     this section may be construed as limiting the actions that a 
     rail passenger carrier may take, or the obligations that a 
     rail passenger carrier may have, in providing assistance to 
     the families of passengers involved in a rail passenger 
     accident.
       ``(i) Relinquishment of Investigative Priority.--
       ``(1) General rule.--This section (other than subsection 
     (g)) shall not apply to a railroad accident if the Board has 
     relinquished investigative priority under section 
     1131(a)(2)(B) and the Federal agency to which the Board 
     relinquished investigative priority is willing and able to 
     provide assistance to the victims and families of the 
     passengers involved in the accident.
       ``(2) Board assistance.--If this section does not apply to 
     a railroad accident because the Board has relinquished 
     investigative priority with respect to the accident, the 
     Board shall assist, to the maximum extent possible, the 
     agency to which the Board has relinquished investigative 
     priority in assisting families with respect to the 
     accident.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for such 
     chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to 
     section 1137 the following:

``1138. Assistance to families of passengers invoolved in rail 
              passenger accidents.''.

     SEC. 642. RAIL PASSENGER CARRIER PLANS TO ADDRESS NEEDS OF 
                   FAMILIES OF PASSENGERS INVOLVED IN RAIL 
                   PASSENGER ACCIDENTS.

       (a) In General.--Part C of subtitle V of title 49, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new chapter:

                    ``CHAPTER 251--FAMILY ASSISTANCE

``Sec.
``25101. Plans to address needs of families of passengers involved in 
              rail passenger accidents.

     ``Sec. 25101. Plans to address needs of families of 
       passengers involved in rail passenger accidents

       ``(a) Submission of Plans.--Not later than 180 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this section, each rail 
     passenger carrier shall submit to the Secretary of 
     Transportation and the Chairman of the National 
     Transportation Safety Board a plan for addressing the needs 
     of the families of passengers involved in any rail passenger 
     accident involving a train of the rail passenger carrier and 
     resulting in a major loss of life.
       ``(b) Contents of Plans.--A plan to be submitted by a rail 
     passenger carrier under subsection (a) shall include, at a 
     minimum, the following:
       ``(1) A plan for publicizing a reliable, toll-free 
     telephone number, and for providing staff, to handle calls 
     from the families of the passengers.
       ``(2) A process for notifying the families of the 
     passengers, before providing any public notice of the names 
     of the passengers, either by utilizing the services of the 
     organization designated for the accident under section 
     1138(a)(2) of this title or the services of other suitably 
     trained individuals.
       ``(3) An assurance that the notice described in paragraph 
     (2) will be provided to the family of a passenger as soon as 
     the rail passenger carrier has verified that the passenger 
     was aboard the train (whether or not the names of all of the 
     passengers have been verified) and, to the extent 
     practicable, in person.
       ``(4) An assurance that the rail passenger carrier will 
     provide to the director of family support services designated 
     for the accident under section 1138(a)(1) of this title, and 
     to the organization designated for the accident under section 
     1138(a)(2) of this title, immediately upon request, a list 
     (which is based on the best available information at the time 
     of the request) of the names of the passengers aboard the 
     train (whether or not such names have been verified), and 
     will periodically update the list. The plan shall include a 
     procedure, with respect to unreserved trains and passengers 
     not holding reservations on other trains, for the rail 
     passenger carrier to use reasonable efforts to ascertain the 
     names of passengers aboard a train involved in an accident.
       ``(5) An assurance that the family of each passenger will 
     be consulted about the disposition of all remains and 
     personal effects of the passenger within the control of the 
     rail passenger carrier.
       ``(6) An assurance that if requested by the family of a 
     passenger, any possession of the passenger within the control 
     of the rail passenger carrier (regardless of its condition) 
     will be returned to the family unless the possession is 
     needed for the accident investigation or any criminal 
     investigation.
       ``(7) An assurance that any unclaimed possession of a 
     passenger within the control of the rail passenger carrier 
     will be retained by the rail passenger carrier for at least 
     18 months.
       ``(8) An assurance that the family of each passenger or 
     other person killed in the accident will be consulted about 
     construction by the rail passenger carrier of any monument to 
     the passengers, including any inscription on the monument.
       ``(9) An assurance that the treatment of the families of 
     nonrevenue passengers will be the same as the treatment of 
     the families of revenue passengers.
       ``(10) An assurance that the rail passenger carrier will 
     work with any organization designated under section 
     1138(a)(2) of this title on an ongoing basis to ensure that 
     families of passengers receive an appropriate level of 
     services and assistance following each accident.
       ``(11) An assurance that the rail passenger carrier will 
     provide reasonable compensation to any organization 
     designated under section 1138(a)(2) of this title for 
     services provided by the organization.
       ``(12) An assurance that the rail passenger carrier will 
     assist the family of a passenger in traveling to the location 
     of the accident and provide for the physical care of the 
     family while the family is staying at such location.
       ``(13) An assurance that the rail passenger carrier will 
     commit sufficient resources to carry out the plan.
       ``(14) An assurance that the rail passenger carrier will 
     provide adequate training to the employees and agents of the 
     carrier to meet the needs of survivors and family members 
     following an accident.
       ``(15) An assurance that, upon request of the family of a 
     passenger, the rail passenger carrier will inform the family 
     of whether the passenger's name appeared on any preliminary 
     passenger manifest for the train involved in the accident.
       ``(c) Limitation on Liability.--A rail passenger carrier 
     shall not be liable for damages in any action brought in a 
     Federal or State court arising out of the performance of the 
     rail passenger carrier in preparing or providing a passenger 
     list, or in providing information concerning a train 
     reservation, pursuant to a plan submitted by the rail 
     passenger carrier under subsection (b), unless such liability 
     was caused by conduct of the rail passenger carrier which was 
     grossly negligent or which constituted intentional 
     misconduct.
       ``(d) Definitions.--In this section--
       ``(1) the terms `rail passenger accident' and `rail 
     passenger carrier' have the meanings such terms have in 
     section 1138 of this title; and
       ``(2) the term `passenger' means a person aboard a rail 
     passenger carrier's train that is involved in a rail 
     passenger accident.
       ``(e) Limitation on Statutory Construction.--Nothing in 
     this section may be construed as limiting the actions that a 
     rail passenger carrier may take, or the obligations that a 
     rail passenger carrier may have, in providing assistance to 
     the families of passengers involved in a rail passenger 
     accident.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of chapters for 
     subtitle V of title 49, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding after the item relating to chapter 249 the following 
     new item:

``251. FAMILY ASSISTANCE.......................................25101''.

     SEC. 643. ESTABLISHMENT OF TASK FORCE.

       (a) Establishment.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation, in 
     coordination with the National Transportation Safety Board, 
     organizations potentially designated under section 1138(a)(2) 
     of title 49, United States Code, rail passenger carriers,

[[Page H3520]]

     and families which have been involved in rail accidents, 
     shall establish a task force consisting of representatives of 
     such entities and families, representatives of passenger rail 
     carrier employees, and representatives of such other entities 
     as the Secretary considers appropriate.
       (b) Model Plan and Recommendations.--The task force 
     established pursuant to subsection (a) shall develop--
       (1) a model plan to assist passenger rail carriers in 
     responding to passenger rail accidents;
       (2) recommendations on methods to improve the timeliness of 
     the notification provided by passenger rail carriers to the 
     families of passengers involved in a passenger rail accident;
       (3) recommendations on methods to ensure that the families 
     of passengers involved in a passenger rail accident who are 
     not citizens of the United States receive appropriate 
     assistance; and
       (4) recommendations on methods to ensure that emergency 
     services personnel have as immediate and accurate a count of 
     the number of passengers onboard the train as possible.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
     and Transportation of the Senate a report containing the 
     model plan and recommendations developed by the task force 
     under subsection (b).

              TITLE VII--SECURING CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

     SEC. 701. CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE.

       (a) Completion of Prioritization.--Not later than 90 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security shall complete the prioritization of the 
     Nation's critical infrastructure according to all of the 
     following criteria:
       (1) The threat of terrorist attack, based on threat 
     information received and analyzed by the Office of 
     Information Analysis of the Department regarding the 
     intentions and capabilities of terrorist groups and other 
     potential threats to the Nation's critical infrastructure.
       (2) The likelihood that an attack would cause the 
     destruction or significant disruption of such infrastructure.
       (3) The likelihood that an attack would result in 
     substantial numbers of deaths and serious bodily injuries, a 
     substantial adverse impact on the national economy, or a 
     substantial adverse impact on national security.
       (b) Cooperation.--Such prioritization shall be developed in 
     cooperation with other relevant Federal agencies, State, 
     local, and tribal governments, and the private sector, as 
     appropriate.

     SEC. 702. SECURITY REVIEW.

       (a) Requirement.--Not later than 9 months after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in coordination 
     with other relevant Federal agencies, State, local, and 
     tribal governments, and the private sector, as appropriate, 
     shall--
       (1) review existing Federal, State, local, tribal, and 
     private sector plans for securing the critical infrastructure 
     included in the prioritization developed under section 701;
       (2) recommend changes to existing plans for securing such 
     infrastructure, as the Secretary determines necessary; and
       (3) coordinate and contribute to protective efforts of 
     other Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies and the 
     private sector, as appropriate, as directed in Homeland 
     Security Presidential Directive 7.
       (b) Contents of Plans.--The recommendations made under 
     subsection (a)(2) shall include--
       (1) necessary protective measures to secure such 
     infrastructure, including milestones and timeframes for 
     implementation; and
       (2) to the extent practicable, performance metrics to 
     evaluate the benefits to both national security and the 
     Nation's economy from the implementation of such protective 
     measures.

     SEC. 703. IMPLEMENTATION REPORT.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 15 months after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit a 
     report to the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and 
     Governmental Affairs of the Senate on the implementation of 
     section 702. Such report shall detail--
       (1) the Secretary's review and coordination of security 
     plans under section 702; and
       (2) the Secretary's oversight of the execution and 
     effectiveness of such plans.
       (b) Update.--Not later than 1 year after the submission of 
     the report under subsection (a), the Secretary shall provide 
     an update of such report to the congressional committees 
     described in subsection (a).

               TITLE VIII--PREVENTING A BIOLOGICAL ATTACK

     SEC. 801. GAO REPORT OF DEPARTMENT BIOLOGICAL TERRORISM 
                   PROGRAMS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall submit a report to the Committee on Homeland 
     Security of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
     Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate 
     assessing the full history of Department of Homeland Security 
     activities with regard to biological terrorism and 
     recommending which Department of the Government should 
     administer such activities.
       (b) Included Contents.--The report shall consider and 
     discuss--
       (1) progress made in implementing the BioShield program;
       (2) how effectively the Department of Health and Human 
     Services is administering the BioShield program;
       (3) whether the Department of Health and Human Services has 
     the administrative capability necessary to fully implement 
     the BioShield program; and
       (4) the legislative history of the BioShield program, 
     including the legislation that established the program as it 
     was introduced in the Congress and considered and reported by 
     the Select Committee on Homeland Security of the House of 
     Representatives.

     SEC. 802. REPORT ON BIO-COUNTERMEASURES.

       Not later than 12 months after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security in consultation 
     with the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall 
     transmit to the Congress a report with recommendations, on--
       (1) the feasibility of supplying first responders, not 
     limited to law enforcement, firefighters and emergency 
     medical service personnel, with biological and chemical agent 
     countermeasures or vaccinations when necessary;
       (2) the appropriate levels and types of biological and 
     chemical agents, industrial materials and other hazardous 
     substances that first responders should be protected against; 
     and
       (3) the system and appropriate means of accessing, 
     delivering, storing and dispersing countermeasures to first 
     responder personnel.

                  TITLE IX--PROTECTION OF AGRICULTURE

     SEC. 901. REPORT TO CONGRESS ON IMPLEMENTATION OF 
                   RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING PROTECTION OF 
                   AGRICULTURE.

       The Secretary of Homeland Security shall report to the 
     Committee on Homeland Security of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and 
     Governmental Affairs of the Senate by no later than 120 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act regarding how the 
     Department of Homeland Security will implement the applicable 
     recommendations from the Government Accountability Office 
     report entitled ``Homeland Security: Much is Being Done to 
     Protect Agriculture from a Terrorist Attack, but Important 
     Challenges Remain'' (GAO-05-214).

             TITLE X--OPTIMIZING OUR SCREENING CAPABILITIES

  Subtitle A--U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology 
                                Database

     SEC. 1001. INTEROPERABILITY OF DATA FOR UNITED STATES VISITOR 
                   AND IMMIGRANT STATUS INDICATOR TECHNOLOGY.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds as follows:
       (1) The Congress is troubled by the security gap on the 
     Nation's borders caused by delays in linking fingerprint data 
     in IDENT with criminal history data contained in IAFIS.
       (2) The Congress expected that, by the end of 2004, such 
     interoperability would be in place at airports, seaports, and 
     the largest and busiest Border Patrol stations and land 
     border ports of entry, but this will not be completed until 
     December 31, 2005.
       (3) With implementation of a new visa tracking system, and 
     enrollment of millions of visitors in US-VISIT, it is 
     essential that the Directorate of Border and Transportation 
     Security collaborate with the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigations to ensure that IDENT can retrieve, in real 
     time, biometric information containing in IAFIS, and that 
     IAFIS can retrieve, in real time, biometric information 
     contained in IDENT.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     shall prepare, and submit to the Committee on Homeland 
     Security of the United States House of Representatives, a 
     report that details the status of the effort to achieve real-
     time interoperability of IAFIS and IDENT, including the 
     following:
       (1) The steps the Department will take to achieve this 
     goal, the funds needed to achieve this goal, and a timetable 
     to achieve this goal.
       (2) A description of the effort being made to address the 
     recommendations in the March, 2004, Department of Justice 
     Inspector General report and subsequent December, 2004, 
     report, which documented the need to integrate existing 
     biometric databases; and
       (3) The plan for maintaining the interoperability of IAFIS 
     and IDENT, once achieved.
       (c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
       (1) The term ``IAFIS'' means the Integrated Automated 
     Fingerprint Identification System maintained by the Federal 
     Bureau of Investigation of the Department of Justice.
       (2) The term ``IDENT'' means the Automated Biometrics 
     Identification System maintained by the Bureau of Customs and 
     Border Protection of the Department of Homeland Security.
       (3) The term ``US-VISIT'' means the United States Visitor 
     and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology maintained by the 
     Bureau of Customs and Border Protection of the Department of 
     Homeland Security.

   Subtitle B--Studies to Improve Border Management and Immigration 
                                Security

     SEC. 1011. STUDY ON BIOMETRICS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security, in 
     consultation with the Director of the National Institute of 
     Standards and Technology, shall conduct a comprehensive study 
     of all biometric identifiers that

[[Page H3521]]

     might be collected for purposes of processing and 
     adjudicating applications and petitions for immigration 
     benefits, and shall determine which among these identifiers 
     would be most appropriate for the purposes described in 
     subsection (b). The Secretary shall provide the resources 
     necessary to properly conduct the study.
       (b) Uses.--In carrying out subsection (a), the Secretary 
     shall consider the use of a biometric identifier--
       (1) to register or catalogue a petition or application for 
     an immigration benefit upon submission to the appropriate 
     Federal agency;
       (2) to check the petitioner or applicant against watch 
     lists;
       (3) as part of the integrated entry and exit data system 
     required under section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform 
     and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1365a); 
     and
       (4) to conduct background checks with Federal intelligence 
     agencies.
       (c) Factors.--The Secretary shall consider the following 
     factors in making the determination under subsection (a):
       (1) Accuracy
       (2) The technology available.
       (3) Economic considerations.
       (4) Storage.
       (5) Efficiency.
       (6) Feasibility.
       (d) Submission.--The study should be completed not later 
     than January 1, 2006, and shall be submitted to the Committee 
     on Homeland Security of the United States House of 
     Representatives.

     SEC. 1012. STUDY ON DIGITIZING IMMIGRATION BENEFIT 
                   APPLICATIONS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     conduct a comprehensive study on digitizing all applications 
     and petitions for an immigration benefit, including digital 
     storage, cataloguing, and the ability to apply for all types 
     of immigration benefits through digital means. The study 
     should consider costs for both the Federal Government and the 
     applicant or petitioner, as well as the feasibility for all 
     types of persons to apply by digital means.
       (b) Submission.--The study should be completed not later 
     than January 1, 2006, and shall be submitted to the Committee 
     on Homeland Security of the United States House of 
     Representatives.

     SEC. 1013. STUDY ON ELIMINATION OF ARRIVAL/DEPARTURE PAPER 
                   FORMS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     conduct a comprehensive study on replacing Department of 
     Homeland Security paper Form Number I-94 (Arrival/Departure 
     Record) and Form Number I-94W (NIV Waiver Arrival/Departure 
     Record) with procedures that ensure that the functions served 
     by such forms are being carried out by electronic or 
     digitized means. The study should consider the costs and 
     savings to the Federal Government of such replacement.
       (b) Submission.--The study should be completed not later 
     than January 1, 2006, and shall be submitted to the Committee 
     on Homeland Security of the United States House of 
     Representatives.

     SEC. 1014. CATALOGUING IMMIGRATION APPLICATIONS BY BIOMETRIC.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     conduct a comprehensive study on whether all applications and 
     petitions for an immigration benefit shall be registered or 
     catalogued by the receiving agency using a biometric 
     identifier. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall study 
     one or more alternative biometric identifiers to be used for 
     such purposes.
       (b) Submission.--The study should be completed not later 
     than January 1, 2006, and shall be submitted to the Committee 
     on Homeland Security of the United States House of 
     Representatives. It shall include recommendations for 
     resource allocation.

  TITLE XI--SECURING CYBERSPACE AND HARNESSING TECHNOLOGY TO PREVENT 
                                DISASTER

 Subtitle A--Department of Homeland Security Cybersecurity Enhancement

     SEC. 1101. SHORT TITLE.

       This subtitle may be cited as the ``Department of Homeland 
     Security Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 1102. ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR CYBERSECURITY.

       Section 201(b) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 
     U.S.C. 121(b)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(3) Assistant secretary for cybersecurity.--There shall 
     be in the Department an Assistant Secretary for 
     Cybersecurity, who shall be appointed by the President.''; 
     and
       (3) in paragraph (4), as redesignated by subparagraph (A) 
     of this paragraph--
       (A) by striking ``Analysis and the'' and inserting 
     ``Analysis, the''; and
       (B) by striking ``Protection shall'' and inserting 
     ``Protection, and the Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity 
     shall''.

     SEC. 1103. CYBERSECURITY TRAINING PROGRAMS AND EQUIPMENT.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security, acting 
     through the Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity, may 
     establish, in conjunction with the National Science 
     Foundation, a program to award grants to institutions of 
     higher education (and consortia thereof) for--
       (1) the establishment or expansion of cybersecurity 
     professional development programs;
       (2) the establishment or expansion of associate degree 
     programs in cybersecurity; and
       (3) the purchase of equipment to provide training in 
     cybersecurity for either professional development programs or 
     degree programs.
       (b) Roles.--
       (1) Department of homeland security.--The Secretary, acting 
     through the Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity and in 
     consultation with the Director of the National Science 
     Foundation, shall establish the goals for the program 
     established under this section and the criteria for awarding 
     grants under the program.
       (2) National science foundation.--The Director of the 
     National Science Foundation shall operate the program 
     established under this section consistent with the goals and 
     criteria established under paragraph (1), including 
     soliciting applicants, reviewing applications, and making and 
     administering grant awards. The Director may consult with the 
     Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity in selecting awardees.
       (3) Funding.--The Secretary shall transfer to the National 
     Science Foundation the funds necessary to carry out this 
     section.
       (c) Grant Awards.--
       (1) Peer review.--All grant awards under this section shall 
     be made on a competitive, merit-reviewed basis.
       (2) Focus.--In making grant awards under this section, the 
     Director shall, to the extent practicable, ensure geographic 
     diversity and the participation of women and underrepresented 
     minorities.
       (3) Preference.--In making grant awards under this section, 
     the Director shall give preference to applications submitted 
     by consortia of institutions to encourage as many students 
     and professionals as possible to benefit from this program.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--Of the amount 
     authorized under section 101, there is authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary for carrying out this section 
     $3,700,000 for fiscal year 2006.
       (e) Definitions.--In this section, the term ``institution 
     of higher education'' has the meaning given that term in 
     section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     1001(a)).

     SEC. 1104. CYBERSECURITY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.

       Title III of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 
     181 et. seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new section:

     ``SEC. 314. CYBERSECURITY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.

       ``(a) In General.--The Under Secretary for Science and 
     Technology shall support research and development, including 
     fundamental, long-term research, in cybersecurity to improve 
     the ability of the United States to prevent, protect against, 
     detect, respond to, and recover from cyber attacks, with 
     emphasis on research and development relevant to large-scale, 
     high-impact attacks.
       ``(b) Activities.--The research and development supported 
     under subsection (a), shall include work to--
       ``(1) advance the development and accelerate the deployment 
     of more secure versions of fundamental Internet protocols and 
     architectures, including for the domain name system and 
     routing protocols;
       ``(2) improve and create technologies for detecting attacks 
     or intrusions, including monitoring technologies;
       ``(3) improve and create mitigation and recovery 
     methodologies, including techniques for containment of 
     attacks and development of resilient networks and systems 
     that degrade gracefully; and
       ``(4) develop and support infrastructure and tools to 
     support cybersecurity research and development efforts, 
     including modeling, testbeds, and data sets for assessment of 
     new cybersecurity technologies.
       ``(c) Coordination.--In carrying out this section, the 
     Under Secretary for Science and Technology shall coordinate 
     activities with--
       ``(1) the Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity; and
       ``(2) other Federal agencies, including the National 
     Science Foundation, the Defense Advanced Research Projects 
     Agency, and the National Institute of Standards and 
     Technology, to identify unmet needs and cooperatively support 
     activities, as appropriate.
       ``(d) Nature of Research.--Activities under this section 
     shall be carried out in accordance with section 306(a) of 
     this Act.''.

      Subtitle B--Coordination With National Intelligence Director

     SEC. 1111. IDENTIFICATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGIES 
                   THAT IMPROVE SHARING OF INFORMATION WITH THE 
                   NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE DIRECTOR.

       Section 201(d)(8) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 
     U.S.C. 121(d)) is amended by inserting ``, including 
     identifying and implementing technologies that improve 
     sharing of information with the National Intelligence 
     Director,'' after ``within the Federal Government''.

                   Subtitle C--Cybersecurity Research

     SEC. 1121. SUPPORT OF BASIC CYBERSECURITY RESEARCH.

       (a) In General.--Title III of the Homeland Security Act of 
     2002 (Public Law 107-296; 6 U.S.C. 121 et seq.) is amended by 
     adding the following:

     ``SEC. 314. SUPPORT OF BASIC CYBERSECURITY RESEARCH.

       ``The Secretary, through the Directorate of the Department 
     of Science and Technology

[[Page H3522]]

     and subject to the availability of appropriations, shall fund 
     basic cybersecurity research, including the following:
       ``(1) Development of information technology design 
     protocols, methodologies, and applications to improve the 
     integration of security control and protocols into next-
     generation-networks, mobile and wireless networks, and 
     computing devices and applications.
       ``(2) Development of network-based control mechanisms for 
     improving the capability of operators and service providers 
     to disable malicious action by hostile actors.
       ``(3) Development of mechanisms for improving international 
     network responsiveness to cybersecurity threats, including 
     predictive modeling, communication mechanisms and information 
     sharing systems.
       ``(4) Modeling of the cyber vulnerabilities of the Nation's 
     critical infrastructures, including Supervisory Control and 
     Data Acquisition (SCADA) and Digital Control Systems (DCS).
       ``(5) Mapping of key interdependences, choke-points, and 
     single points-of-failure within the Nation's cyber critical 
     infrastructure and the development of remediation programs.
       ``(6) Development of technologies, methodologies, and 
     applications to mitigate the most common cyber 
     vulnerabilities affecting networks, including viruses, worms, 
     and denial-of-service attacks.
       ``(7) Identification of emerging cybersecurity threats and 
     vulnerabilities affecting next-generation networks and mobile 
     and wireless networks.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section 
     1(b) of such Act is amended by adding at the end of the items 
     relating to title III the following:

``Sec. 314. Support of basic cybersecurity research.''.

            Subtitle D--Cybersecurity Training and Equipment

     SEC. 1131. CYBERSECURITY TRAINING PROGRAMS AND EQUIPMENT.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security, acting 
     through the Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity, may 
     establish, in conjunction with the National Science 
     Foundation, a program to award grants to institutions of 
     higher education (and consortia thereof) for--
       (1) the establishment or expansion of cybersecurity 
     professional development programs;
       (2) the establishment or expansion of associate degree 
     programs in cybersecurity; and
       (3) the purchase of equipment to provide training in 
     cybersecurity for either professional development programs or 
     degree programs.
       (b) Roles.--
       (1) Department of homeland security.--The Secretary, acting 
     through the Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity and in 
     consultation with the Director of the National Science 
     Foundation, shall establish the goals for the program 
     established under this section and the criteria for awarding 
     grants under the program.
       (2) National science foundation.--The Director of the 
     National Science Foundation shall operate the program 
     established under this section consistent with the goals and 
     criteria established under paragraph (1), including 
     soliciting applicants, reviewing applications, and making and 
     administering grant awards. The Director may consult with the 
     Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity in selecting awardees.
       (3) Funding.--The Secretary shall transfer to the National 
     Science Foundation the funds necessary to carry out this 
     section.
       (c) Grant Awards.--
       (1) Peer review.--All grant awards under this section shall 
     be made on a competitive, merit-reviewed basis.
       (2) Focus.--In making grant awards under this section, the 
     Director shall, to the extent practicable, ensure geographic 
     diversity and the participation of women and underrepresented 
     minorities.
       (3) Preference.--In making grant awards under this section, 
     the Director shall give preference to applications submitted 
     by consortia of institutions to encourage as many students 
     and professionals as possible to benefit from this program.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary for carrying out this 
     section $3,700,000 for fiscal year 2006.
       (e) Definitions.--In this section, the term ``institution 
     of higher education'' has the meaning given that term in 
     section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     1001(a)).

         TITLE XII--HELPING FIRST RESPONDERS GET THEIR JOB DONE

              Subtitle A--Communications Interoperability

     SEC. 1201. INTEROPERABLE COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY GRANT 
                   PROGRAM.

       Section 430 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 
     238) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Interoperable Communications Grants.--
       ``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection, the following 
     definitions shall apply:
       ``(A) Communications interoperability.--The term 
     `communications interoperability' means the ability of public 
     safety service and support providers, including emergency 
     response providers, to communicate with other responding 
     agencies and Federal agencies if necessary, through 
     information technology systems and radio communications 
     systems, and to exchange voice, data, or video with one 
     another on demand, in real time, as necessary.
       ``(B) Eligible state.--The term `eligible State' means a 
     State that--
       ``(i) has submitted a plan under paragraph (4); and
       ``(ii) the Secretary determines has not achieved adequate 
     statewide communications interoperability.
       ``(C) Public safety agencies.--The term `public safety 
     agencies' includes emergency response providers and any other 
     persons that the Secretary determines must communicate 
     effectively with one another to respond to emergencies.
       ``(2) In general.--The Secretary shall--
       ``(A) make grants on a competitive basis directly to local 
     governments (including a consortium of local governments) and 
     public safety agencies within eligible States, in 
     consultation with the chief executives of the State or 
     States, for the purpose of assisting in the development of 
     interoperable communications systems at any stage, 
     including--
       ``(i) planning, system design, and engineering;
       ``(ii) procurement and installation of equipment;
       ``(iii) operations and maintenance of equipment; and
       ``(iv) testing and technology development; and
       ``(B) make grants to eligible States for initiatives 
     necessary to achieve communications interoperability within 
     each State, including--
       ``(i) statewide communications planning;
       ``(ii) system design and engineering;
       ``(iii) procurement and installation of equipment;
       ``(iv) operations and maintenance of equipment; and
       ``(v) testing and technology development initiatives.
       ``(3) Coordination.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall ensure that grants 
     administered under this subsection are coordinated with the 
     activities of other entities of the Department and other 
     Federal entities so that grants awarded under this 
     subsection, and other grant programs related to homeland 
     security, facilitate the achievement of the strategy 
     developed under section 6 of the Faster and Smarter Funding 
     for First Responders Act of 2005.
       ``(B) Relationship to existing grant programs.--Nothing in 
     this Act shall provide for the combination of grant funds 
     among the grant program established under this subsection and 
     any other grant programs administered by the Department of 
     Homeland Security, including the State Homeland Security 
     Grant Program of the Department, or any successor to such 
     grant program, and the Urban Area Security Initiative of the 
     Department, or any successor to such grant program.
       ``(4) Eligibility.--
       ``(A) Submission of plan.--To be eligible to receive a 
     grant under this subsection, each eligible State, or local 
     governments or public safety agencies within an eligible 
     State or States, shall submit a communications 
     interoperability plan to the Secretary that--
       ``(i) addresses any stage of the development of 
     interoperable communications systems, including planning, 
     system design and engineering, procurement and installation, 
     operations and maintenance, and testing and technology 
     development;
       ``(ii) if the applicant is not a State, includes a 
     description of how the applicant addresses the goals 
     specified in any applicable State plan or plans submitted 
     under this section; and
       ``(iii) is approved by the Secretary.
       ``(B) Incorporation and consistency.--A plan submitted 
     under subparagraph (A) may be part of, and shall be 
     consistent with, any other homeland security plans required 
     of the submitting party by the Department.
       ``(5) Award of grants.--
       ``(A) Considerations.--In approving plans and awarding 
     grants under this subsection, the Secretary shall consider--
       ``(i) the nature of the threat to the eligible State or 
     local jurisdiction;
       ``(ii) the location, risk, or vulnerability of critical 
     infrastructure and key national assets;
       ``(iii) the number, as well as the density, of persons who 
     will be served by interoperable communications systems;
       ``(iv) the extent of the partnerships, existing or planned, 
     established between local jurisdictions and agencies 
     participating in the development of interoperable 
     communications systems, and their coordination with Federal 
     and State agencies;
       ``(v) the level of communications interoperability already 
     achieved by the jurisdictions;
       ``(vi) the extent to which the communications 
     interoperability plan submitted under paragraph (4) 
     adequately addresses steps necessary to implement short-term 
     or long-term solutions to communications interoperability;
       ``(vii) the extent to which eligible States and local 
     governments, in light of their financial capability, 
     demonstrate their commitment to expeditiously achieving 
     communications interoperability by supplementing Federal 
     funds with non-Federal funds;
       ``(viii) the extent to which grants will expedite the 
     achievement of interoperability in the relevant jurisdiction 
     with Federal, State, and local agencies; and

[[Page H3523]]

       ``(ix) the extent to which grants will be utilized to 
     implement advanced communications technologies to promote 
     interoperability.
       ``(B) Cost sharing.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Federal share of the costs of an 
     activity carried out with a grant to an applicant awarded 
     under this section shall not exceed 75 percent.
       ``(ii) In-kind matching.--Each recipient of a covered grant 
     may meet the matching requirement under clause (i) by making 
     in-kind contributions of goods or services that are directly 
     linked with the purpose for which the grant is made, 
     including personnel overtime, contractor services, 
     administrative costs, equipment fuel and maintenance, and 
     rental space.
       ``(6) Reimbursement.--
       ``(A) In general.--Unless otherwise requested by the 
     recipient of a grant under this subsection, grants shall not 
     be awarded to reimburse the recipient for prior expenditures 
     related to achieving communications interoperability.
       ``(B) Exception.--The Secretary shall reimburse public 
     safety agencies directly for costs incurred for expenditures 
     related to achieving communications interoperability, if--
       ``(i) the public safety agency expended funds after 
     September 11, 2001, and before the date of enactment of this 
     subsection; and
       ``(ii) such expenditures are consistent with and supportive 
     of the communications interoperability plan approved by the 
     Secretary under paragraph (4)(A)(iii).
       ``(C) Termination of authority.--The authority of the 
     Secretary under subparagraph (B) shall terminate one year 
     after the date on which the Department of Homeland Security 
     first allocates grant funds for this program.
       ``(7) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary $500,000,000 
     for fiscal year 2006, $750,000,000 for fiscal year 2007, 
     $1,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, $1,250,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2009, $1,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2010, and 
     such sums as are necessary each fiscal year thereafter, to 
     carry out the purposes of this subsection.''.

     SEC. 1202. STUDY REVIEWING COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT 
                   INTEROPERABILITY.

       (a) Study.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     conduct a study reviewing communication equipment 
     interoperability and the viability of an acquisition strategy 
     that requires all agencies to purchase equipment made by 
     manufacturers that have committed to allow their products to 
     be reverse engineered, so that interoperability can be 
     assured regardless of manufacturer.
       (b) Report.--The Secretary shall submit to the Congress a 
     report on the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of 
     the study by not later than 6 months after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 1203. PREVENTION OF DELAY IN REASSIGNMENT OF DEDICATED 
                   SPECTRUM FOR PUBLIC SAFETY PURPOSES.

       It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) communications interoperability is a critical problem 
     faced by our Nation's first responders;
       (2) permanently correcting this problem requires broadcast 
     spectrum dedicated for use by first responders; and
       (3) Congress supports prompt action to make certain 
     dedicated spectrum is available for use by first responders.

           Subtitle B--Homeland Security Terrorism Exercises

     SEC. 1211. SHORT TITLE.

       This subtitle may be cited as the ``Homeland Security 
     Terrorism Exercises Act of 2005.''

     SEC. 1212. NATIONAL TERRORISM EXERCISE PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Section 430 of the Homeland Security Act 
     of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 238) is amended by striking ``and'' after 
     the semicolon at the end of paragraph (8), by striking the 
     period at the end of paragraph (9) and inserting ``; and'', 
     and by adding at the end the following:
       ``(10) designing, developing, performing, and evaluating 
     exercises at the National, State, territorial, regional, 
     local, and tribal levels of government that incorporate 
     government officials, emergency response providers, public 
     safety agencies, the private sector, international 
     governments and organizations, and other appropriate entities 
     to test the Nation's capability to prevent, prepare for, 
     respond to, and recover from threatened or actual acts of 
     terrorism.''.
       (b) National Terrorism Exercise Program.--
       (1) Establishment of program.--Title VIII of the Homeland 
     Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subtitle:

             ``Subtitle J--Terrorism Preparedness Exercises

     ``SEC. 899A. NATIONAL TERRORISM EXERCISE PROGRAM.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary, through the Office for 
     Domestic Preparedness, shall establish a National Terrorism 
     Exercise Program for the purpose of testing and evaluating 
     the Nation's capabilities to prevent, prepare for, respond 
     to, and recover from threatened or actual acts of terrorism 
     that--
       ``(1) enhances coordination for terrorism preparedness 
     between all levels of government, emergency response 
     providers, international governments and organizations, and 
     the private sector;
       ``(2) is--
       ``(A) multidisciplinary in nature, including, as 
     appropriate, information analysis and cybersecurity 
     components;
       ``(B) as realistic as practicable and based on current risk 
     assessments, including credible threats, vulnerabilities, and 
     consequences;
       ``(C) carried out with the minimum degree of notice to 
     involved parties regarding the timing and details of such 
     exercises, consistent with safety considerations;
       ``(D) evaluated against performance measures and followed 
     by corrective action to solve identified deficiencies; and
       ``(E) assessed to learn best practices, which shall be 
     shared with appropriate Federal, State, territorial, 
     regional, local, and tribal personnel, authorities, and 
     training institutions for emergency response providers; and
       ``(3) assists State, territorial, local, and tribal 
     governments with the design, implementation, and evaluation 
     of exercises that--
       ``(A) conform to the requirements of paragraph (2); and
       ``(B) are consistent with any applicable State homeland 
     security strategy or plan.
       ``(b) National Level Exercises.--The Secretary, through the 
     National Terrorism Exercise Program, shall perform on a 
     periodic basis national terrorism preparedness exercises for 
     the purposes of--
       ``(1) involving top officials from Federal, State, 
     territorial, local, tribal, and international governments, as 
     the Secretary considers appropriate;
       ``(2) testing and evaluating the Nation's capability to 
     detect, disrupt, and prevent threatened or actual 
     catastrophic acts of terrorism, especially those involving 
     weapons of mass destruction; and
       ``(3) testing and evaluating the Nation's readiness to 
     respond to and recover from catastrophic acts of terrorism, 
     especially those involving weapons of mass destruction.''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of contents in section 
     1(b) of such Act is amended by adding at the end of the items 
     relating to title VIII the following:

             ``Subtitle J--Terrorism Preparedness Exercises

``Sec. 899a. National terrorism exercise program.''.

                  Subtitle C--Citizenship Preparedness

     SEC. 1221. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that individual citizens must be a 
     significant part of our overall approach to the Nation's 
     security because--
       (1) September 11, 2001, confirmed that all Americans have 
     responsibility for homeland security;
       (2) the United States will not be secure until the hometown 
     is secure and the ``publicity and the vigilance of ordinary 
     Americans make a difference'' in their communities' abilities 
     to prepare for, to train for, and to respond to disasters of 
     all kinds; and
       (3) emergency responders can become overwhelmed in a 
     catastrophic event and citizens must be prepared and trained 
     to take care of themselves and others.

     SEC. 1222. PURPOSES.

       The purpose of this title is to to provide an orderly and 
     continuing means of assistance by the Federal Government to 
     State, local, and tribal governments in carrying out their 
     responsibilities to engage all Americans in homeland security 
     to provide an orderly and continuing means of assistance by 
     the Federal Government to State, local, and tribal 
     governments in carrying out their responsibilities to engage 
     all Americans in homeland security by--
       (1) achieving greater coordination among citizens, the 
     private sector, non-governmental organizations, and all 
     emergency responder disciplines through Citizen Corps 
     Councils;
       (2) encouraging individuals and communities to prepare for 
     all hazards and threats;
       (3) providing Federal assistance to establish, to build, 
     and to sustain Citizen Corps Councils, which foster a 
     comprehensive partnership among all emergency responder 
     disciplines, government officials, the private sector, 
     community and faith-based organizations to develop a local, 
     risk-based strategy plan to engage citizens in hometown 
     security through accurate preparedness information through 
     public education and outreach; timely event-based 
     information, including alerts and warnings; training in 
     preparedness, prevention, and emergency response skills; and 
     opportunities for collaboration with local emergency 
     responders through volunteer programs, exercises, community 
     outreach, and other coordinated efforts to promote citizen 
     preparedness;
       (4) focusing on how both to include people with 
     disabilities and special needs in emergency preparedness and 
     response training and collaboration opportunities and to 
     ensure that emergency responders are better preparedness to 
     meet the needs of this segment of society; and
       (5) endorsing homeland security plans and strategies that 
     integrate citizen/volunteer resources and participation and 
     task force/advisory council memberships that include 
     advocates for increased citizen participation.

     SEC. 1223. CITIZENS CORPS; PRIVATE SECTOR PREPAREDNESS.

       Title I of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101 
     et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 104. CITIZEN CORPS AUTHORIZATION.

       ``(a) Administration and Supervision.--Citizen Corps and 
     other community preparedness programs in the Department of 
     Homeland Security shall be administered by the Executive 
     Director of the Office of State

[[Page H3524]]

     and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness under the 
     supervision and direction of the Secretary.
       ``(b) Executive Director.--The Executive Director---
       ``(1) shall serve as Chair of the National Citizen Corps 
     Council;
       ``(2) shall convene meetings of the National Citizen Corps 
     Council at his own discretion or at the direction of the 
     Secretary;
       ``(3) shall coordinate with State, local, and tribal 
     government personnel, agencies, and authorities, and with the 
     private sector, to ensure adequate planning, equipment, 
     training, and exercise activities to fulfill the mission of 
     engaging citizens in homeland security; and
       ``(4) shall provide periodic reports on the status of 
     Citizen Corps and citizen preparedness to the Homeland 
     Security Council through the Secretary.
       ``(c) Uses of Funds.--Funds made available under this title 
     shall be used for the following:
       ``(1) Activities related to the component programs of 
     Citizen Corps, including but not limited to Community 
     Emergency Response Teams, Fire Corps, Volunteers in Police 
     Service, USA on Watch, and Medical Reserve Corps.
       ``(2) To provide funding to States in accordance with 
     Public Law 107-296, except that States must pass through at 
     least 80 percent of funds received under this title to local 
     Citizen Corps Councils.
       ``(3) State and local Citizen Corps councils may purchase 
     educational materials for use in elementary and secondary 
     schools for emergency preparedness education programs.
       ``(d) Coordination With Other Federal Entities.--The 
     Executive Director--
       ``(1) shall support the coordination among all Federal 
     entities to develop and sustain Citizen Corps and citizen 
     preparedness and participation, especially the Departments of 
     Health and Human Services, Justice, Commerce, Education, the 
     Environmental Protection Agency, and Corporation for National 
     and Community Service; and
       ``(2) shall have the authority to make contracts, grants, 
     and cooperative agreements, and to enter into agreements with 
     other executive agencies, as may be necessary and proper to 
     carry out the Executive Director's responsibilities under 
     this title or otherwise provided by law.
       ``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary 
     to carry out the provisions of this title--
       ``(1) for fiscal year 2006, $50 million;
       ``(2) for fiscal year 2007, $55 million;
       ``(3) for fiscal year 2008, $60 million;
       ``(4) for fiscal year 2009, $65 million; and
       ``(5) for fiscal year 2010, $70 million.

     ``SEC. 105. PRIVATE SECTOR EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Preparedness Program.--Not later than 90 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this title, the Secretary shall 
     develop and implement a program to enhance private sector 
     preparedness for emergencies and disasters, including 
     emergencies resulting from acts of terrorism.
       ``(b) Program Elements.--In carrying out the program, the 
     Secretary shall develop guidance and identify best practices 
     to assist or foster action by the private sector in--
       ``(1) identifying hazards and assessing risks and impacts;
       ``(2) mitigating the impacts of a wide variety of hazards, 
     including weapons of mass destruction;
       ``(3) managing necessary emergency preparedness and 
     response resources;
       ``(4) developing mutual aid agreements;
       ``(5) developing and maintaining emergency preparedness and 
     response plans, as well as associated operational procedures;
       ``(6) developing and maintaining communications and warning 
     systems;
       ``(7) developing and conducting training and exercises to 
     support and evaluate emergency preparedness and response 
     plans and operational procedures;
       ``(8) developing and conducting training programs for 
     security guards to implement emergency preparedness and 
     response plans and operations procedures; and
       ``(9) developing procedures to respond to external requests 
     for information from the media and the public.
       ``(c) Standards.--
       ``(1) In general.-- The Secretary shall support the 
     development of, promulgate, and regularly update as necessary 
     national voluntary consensus standards for private sector 
     emergency preparedness that will enable private sector 
     organizations to achieve optimal levels of emergency 
     preparedness as soon as practicable. Such standards include 
     the National Fire Protection Association 1600 Standard on 
     Disaster/Emergency Management and Business Continuity 
     Programs.
       ``(2) Consultation.--The Secretary shall carry out 
     paragraph (1) in consultation with the Under Secretary for 
     Emergency Preparedness and Response, the Under Secretary for 
     Science and Technology, the Under Secretary for Information 
     Analysis and Infrastructure Protection, and the Special 
     Assistant to the Secretary for the Private Sector.
       ``(d) Coordination.--The Secretary shall coordinate the 
     program with, and utilize to the maximum extent practicable--
       ``(1) the voluntary standards for disaster and emergency 
     management and business continuity programs developed by the 
     American National Standards Institute and the National Fire 
     Protection Association; and
       ``(2) any existing private sector emergency preparedness 
     guidance or best practices developed by private sector 
     industry associations or other organizations.''.

                 Subtitle D--Emergency Medical Services

     SEC. 1231. EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION.

       (a) Establishment.--Title V of the Homeland Security Act of 
     2002 (Public Law 107-296) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 510. EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION.

       ``(a) Establishment.--There is established, within the 
     Directorate of Emergency Preparedness and Response, an 
     Emergency Medical Services Administration to oversee and 
     coordinate government efforts related to emergency medical 
     services response to incidents of terrorism, including 
     governmental and nongovernmental emergency medical services.
       ``(b) Responsibilities.--The head of the Emergency Medical 
     Services Administration shall--
       ``(1) coordinate activities related to emergency medical 
     services and homeland security;
       ``(2) serve as liaison to the emergency medical services 
     community;
       ``(3) evaluate training programs and standards for 
     emergency medical services personnel;
       ``(4) conduct periodic assessments into the needs and 
     capabilities of emergency medical services providers, 
     including governmental and nongovernmental providers;
       ``(5) conduct periodic research into the number of 
     emergency medical services personnel, including governmental 
     and nongovernmental emergency medical services, as well 
     emergency medical services providers that are associated with 
     fire departments or hospital-based.
       ``(c) Nationwide Needs Assessment.--The head of the 
     Emergency Medical Services Administration shall conduct 
     nationwide needs assessment of emergency medical services 
     capabilities and needs related to equipment, training, and 
     personnel.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section 
     1(b) of such Act is amended by adding at the end of the items 
     related to title V the following:

``Sec. 510. Emergency Medical Services Administration.''.

     SEC. 1232. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security should 
     review the current system for distributing Emergency 
     Management Performance Grants and consider distributing grant 
     funds to State emergency managers rather than to State 
     homeland security directors.

         Subtitle E--Lessons Learned Information Sharing System

     SEC. 1241. LESSONS LEARNED, BEST PRACTICES, AND CORRECTIVE 
                   ACTION.

       (a) In General.--In conjunction with the National Memorial 
     Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism (MIPT) in Oklahoma 
     City, Oklahoma, the Secretary shall support the continued 
     growth and operation of the Lessons Learned Information 
     Sharing (LLIS.gov) system to promote the generation and 
     dissemination of peer-validated lessons learned, best 
     practices, and corrective actions across the entire range of 
     emergency response and homeland security disciplines for all 
     local, state, tribal, and national jurisdictions. Lessons 
     Learned Information Sharing is the recognized national 
     collaborative network to enhance preparedness and prevention 
     capabilities throughout the country. In supporting Lessons 
     Learned Information Sharing, the Secretary shall ensure the 
     following:
       (1) that the National Memorial Institute for the Prevention 
     Terrorism (MIPT), in its unique role as an independent and 
     honest broker of lessons learned, best practices, and 
     corrective action, remain the Department's official steward 
     of Lessons Learned Information Sharing;
       (2) that the Lessons Learned Information Sharing system be 
     expanded to include research and analysis on all primary, 
     secondary, and tertiary emergency response and homeland 
     security disciplines;
       (3) that the successful model of the Lessons Learned 
     Information Sharing system be applied to address the lessons 
     learned and best practices needs of both the private sector 
     and the American public at large;
       (4) that the Lessons Learned Information Sharing system be 
     expanded and made available to the emergency responders and 
     domestic security officials of our international allies, as 
     deemed appropriate by the Secretary, to include the 
     collection and accommodation of international lessons learned 
     and best practices;
       (5) that the Lessons Learned Information Sharing system 
     serve as the host platform and parent system for the 
     Department's Corrective Action and Improvement Program that 
     supports the Homeland Security National Exercise Program, 
     Senior Officials Exercises, and Top Officials (TopOff) 
     exercises, in accordance with the Department's Homeland 
     Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP);
       (6) that the Lessons Learned Information Sharing system 
     support the continued analysis and implementation of the 
     National Preparedness Goal and National Preparedness Guidance 
     as required by Homeland Security Presidential Decision 
     Directive Eight;
       (7) that the Lessons Learned Information Sharing System 
     shall study the feasibility of developing a non-secure 
     section for non-confidential and non-sensitive information;

[[Page H3525]]

       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--The Secretary is 
     authorized to be appropriated $17,000,000 for the fiscal year 
     2006 to carry out the above requirements.

             Subtitle F--Technology Transfer Clearinghouse

     SEC. 1251. SHORT TITLE.

       This subtitle may be cited as the ``Department of Homeland 
     Security Technology Development and Transfer Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 1252. TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSFER.

       (a) Establishment of Technology Clearinghouse.--Not later 
     than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary shall complete the establishment of the Technology 
     Clearinghouse under Section 313 of the Homeland Security Act 
     of 2002.
       (b) Transfer Program.--Section 313 of the Homeland Security 
     Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 193) is amended--
       (1) by adding at the end of subsection (b) the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(6) The establishment of a homeland security technology 
     transfer program to facilitate the identification, 
     modification, and commercialization of technology and 
     equipment for use by Federal, State, and local governmental 
     agencies, emergency response providers, and the private 
     sector to prevent, prepare for, or respond to acts of 
     terrorism.'';
       (2) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
       (3) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(c) Technology Transfer Program.--In developing the 
     program described in subsection (b)(6), the Secretary, acting 
     through the Under Secretary for Science and Technology, 
     shall--
       ``(1) in consultation with the other Undersecretaries of 
     the Department and the Director of the Office for Domestic 
     Preparedness, on an ongoing basis--
       ``(A) conduct surveys and reviews of available appropriate 
     technologies that have been, or are in the process of being 
     developed or demonstrated by the Department, other Federal 
     agencies, or the private sector or foreign governments and 
     international organizations and that may be useful in 
     assisting Federal, State, and local governmental agencies, 
     emergency response providers, or the private sector to 
     prevent, prepare for, or respond to acts of terrorism;
       ``(B) conduct or support research and development as 
     appropriate of technologies identified under subparagraph 
     (A), including any necessary modifications to such 
     technologies for anti-terrorism use;
       ``(C) communicate to Federal, State, and local governmental 
     agencies, emergency response providers, or the private sector 
     the availability of such technologies for anti-terrorism use, 
     as well as the technology's specifications, satisfaction of 
     appropriate standards, and the appropriate grants available 
     from the Department to purchase such technologies;
       ``(D) coordinate the selection and administration of all 
     technology transfer activities of the Science and Technology 
     Directorate, including projects and grants awarded to the 
     private sector and academia; and
       ``(E) identify priorities based on current risk assessments 
     within the Department of Homeland Security for identifying, 
     researching, developing, modifying, and fielding existing 
     technologies for anti-terrorism purposes; and
       ``(2) in support of the activities described in paragraph 
     (1)--
       ``(A) consult with Federal, State, and local emergency 
     response providers;
       ``(B) consult with government and nationally recognized 
     standards organizations as appropriate;
       ``(C) enter into agreements and coordinate with other 
     Federal agencies and foreign governments and international 
     organizations as the Secretary determines appropriate, in 
     order to maximize the effectiveness of such technologies or 
     to facilitate commercialization of such technologies; and
       ``(D) consult with existing technology transfer programs 
     and Federal and State training centers that research, 
     develop, and transfer military and other technologies for use 
     by emergency response providers.''.
       (c) Report.--Not later than one year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Under Secretary for Science and 
     Technology shall transmit to the Congress a description of 
     the progress the Department has made in implementing the 
     provisions of section 313 of the Homeland Security Act of 
     2002, as amended by this Act, including a description of the 
     process used to review unsolicited proposals received as 
     described in subsection (b)(3) of such section.
       (d) Savings Clause.--Nothing in this section (including the 
     amendments made by this section) shall be construed to alter 
     or diminish the effect of the limitation on the authority of 
     the Secretary of Homeland Security under section 302(4) of 
     the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 182(4)) with 
     respect to human health-related research and development 
     activities.

            Subtitle G--Metropolitan Medical Response System

     SEC. 1261. METROPOLITAN MEDICAL RESPONSE SYSTEM; 
                   AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Authorizations of Appropriations.--For the Metropolitan 
     Medical Response System within the Department of Homeland 
     Security, there is authorized to be appropriated $50,000,000 
     for each of the fiscal years 2006 through 2008.
       (b) Reservation of Amounts for Local Responsibilities.--Of 
     the amounts appropriated under subsection (a) for a fiscal 
     year, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall reserve not 
     less than 90 percent to provide funds to the appropriate 
     local entities for carrying out local responsibilities with 
     respect to the Metropolitan Medical Response System.

                TITLE XIII--FIGHTING DOMESTIC TERRORISM

     SEC. 1301. ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON DOMESTIC TERRORIST 
                   ORGANIZATIONS.

       (a) Requirement To Establish.--Title I of the Homeland 
     Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 104. ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON DOMESTIC TERRORIST 
                   ORGANIZATIONS.

       ``(a) Establishment.--To assist the Secretary in 
     identifying the threat posed by domestic terrorist 
     organizations, the Secretary shall establish an advisory body 
     pursuant to section 871(a) by not later than 60 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this section, which shall be 
     known as the Advisory Committee on Domestic Terrorist 
     Organizations.
       ``(b) Report.--The advisory committee shall submit to the 
     Secretary, by not later than 6 months after its establishment 
     by the Secretary under subsection (a) and not later than 
     every 1 year thereafter, a report on the threat posed by 
     domestic terrorist organizations. Each report shall--
       ``(1) include an assessment of the nature and scope of 
     domestic terrorist organization threats to the homeland;
       ``(2) detect and identify threats of domestic terrorist 
     organizations against the United States;
       ``(3) assess the Department's performance in detecting, 
     identifying, and countering domestic terrorist organizations 
     and their threat to the homeland; and
       ``(4) suggest improvements in the Department's efforts to 
     detect, identify, and counter domestic terrorist 
     organizations and their threat to the homeland.
       ``(c) Advise on Particular Threats.--At the Secretary's 
     discretion, the Advisory Committee may also advise the 
     Secretary on particular threats posed by domestic terrorist 
     organizations.
       ``(d) Membership.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Advisory Committee shall consist of 
     representatives of 15 organizations that have long-standing 
     experience in monitoring domestic terrorist organizations and 
     assessing their danger, and shall include a representative of 
     each of--
       ``(A) the Southern Poverty Law Center;
       ``(B) the Simon Wiesenthal Center;
       ``(C) the Anti-Defamation League;
       ``(D) the National Association for the Advancement of 
     Colored People;
       ``(E) the Arab American Institute;
       ``(F) the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee;
       ``(G) the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs; and
       ``(H) the National Abortion Federation.
       ``(2) Ex officio members.--The Secretary shall designate 
     one or more officers of the Department to serve as ex officio 
     members of the Advisory Committee. One of such ex officio 
     members from the Department shall be the designated officer 
     of the Federal Government for purposes of subsection (e) of 
     section 10 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 App. 
     U.S.C.).
       ``(e) Applicability of Federal Advisory Committee Act.--
     Notwithstanding section 871(a), the Federal Advisory 
     Committee Act (5 App. U.S.C.), including subsections (a), 
     (b), and (d) of section 10 of such Act, and section 552b(c) 
     of title 5, Untied States Code, shall apply to the Task 
     Force.
       ``(f) Terrorist Organization Defined.--In this section, the 
     term `domestic terrorist organization' means an organization 
     that is based primarily in the United States and that engages 
     in domestic terrorism (as that term is defined in section 
     2331 of title 18, United States Code) or that has the 
     capability and intent to engage in domestic terrorism.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section 
     1(b) of such Act is amended by adding at the end of the items 
     relating to title I the following:

``Sec. 104. Advisory Committee on Domestic Terrorist Organizations.''.

  TITLE XIV--CREATING A DIVERSE AND MANAGEABLE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 
                                SECURITY

               Subtitle A--Authorities of Privacy Officer

     SEC. 1401. AUTHORITIES OF PRIVACY OFFICER.

       Section 222 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 
     142) is amended--
       (1) by inserting before the first sentence the following: 
     ``(a) Appointment and Responsibilities.--'';
       (2) in subsection (a) (as designated by the amendment made 
     by paragraph (1) of this section) by striking ``to assume'' 
     and inserting ``as the Privacy Officer of the Department. The 
     Privacy Officer shall have''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Authority To Investigate.--The Privacy Officer shall 
     have the same authority as the Inspector General of the 
     Department to require employees of the Department to produce 
     documents and answer questions, with respect to any matter 
     within the authority of the senior official under subsection 
     (a).
       ``(c) Term of Office.--The term of appointment of an 
     individual as Privacy Officer shall be 5 years.
       ``(d) Reports to Congress.--The Privacy Officer shall 
     submit reports directly to the

[[Page H3526]]

     Congress regarding any matter within the authority of the 
     Privacy Officer under this section, without any prior comment 
     or amendment from the Secretary, Deputy Secretary, or any 
     other officer or employee of the Department or the Office of 
     Management and Budget.''.

   Subtitle B--Ensuring Diversity in Department of Homeland Security 
                                Programs

     SEC. 1411. ANNUAL REPORTS RELATING TO EMPLOYMENT OF COVERED 
                   PERSONS.

       (a) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       (1) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security;
       (2) the term ``Department'' means the Department of 
     Homeland Security;
       (3) the term ``covered persons'' means--
       (A) racial and ethnic minorities;
       (B) women; and
       (C) individuals with disabilities;
       (4) the term ``category'', as used with respect to covered 
     persons, refers to the categories of persons identified in 
     subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C), respectively, of paragraph 
     (3); and
       (5) the term ``element'', as used with respect to the 
     Department, means a directorate of the Department and the 
     office of the Secretary.
       (b) Annual Reports.--Not later than February 1 of each 
     year, the Secretary shall prepare and transmit to each House 
     of Congress a report on the employment of covered persons by 
     the Department during the preceding fiscal year. Each such 
     report shall include, for each element of the Department, the 
     following:
       (1) The total number of individuals holding positions 
     within such element as of the end of such fiscal year and, of 
     that number, the percentage (in the aggregate and by 
     category) that covered persons comprised.
       (2) For each pay grade, pay band, or other pay 
     classification of each pay schedule and for every other rate 
     of pay--
       (A) the total number of individuals holding positions 
     within such element as of the end of such fiscal year who 
     were subject to each such pay classification or rate; and
       (B) of the respective numbers under subparagraph (A), the 
     percentage (in the aggregate and by category) that covered 
     persons comprised.
       (3) The total number of individuals appointed to positions 
     within such element during such fiscal year and, of that 
     number, the percentage (in the aggregate and by category) 
     that covered persons comprised.
       (c) Unclassified Form.--Each report under this section 
     shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a 
     classified annex if the Secretary considers one to be 
     necessary.

     SEC. 1412. PROCUREMENT.

       (a) Report.--Not later than 360 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Chief Procurement Officer of the 
     Department of Homeland Security shall submit to the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security, the Committee on Homeland Security of 
     the House of Representatives, and the Committee on Homeland 
     Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate a report 
     that--
       (1) identifies each program of the Department for which the 
     aggregate value of contracts awarded in fiscal year 2005 
     under the program to persons that are small disadvantaged 
     business, women-owned small businesses, or historically 
     underutilized business zones (popularly known as ``HUBZones'' 
     ) was less than 5 percent of the total value of all contracts 
     awarded under the program in that fiscal year; and
       (2) identifies and describes any barriers to achieving a 
     goal of awarding to such persons each fiscal year contracts 
     having an aggregate value of at least 5 percent of the total 
     value of all contracts awarded under the program in the 
     fiscal year.
       (b) Action Plan.--
       (1) Action plan required.--Not later than 90 days after the 
     date of the submission of the report required under 
     subsection (a), the Chief Procurement Officer, in 
     consultation with Office of Small and Disadvantaged 
     Businesses Utilization of the Department, shall develop , 
     submit to the Committees referred to in subsection (a), and 
     begin implementing for each program identified under 
     subsection (a)(1) an action plan for achieving the goal 
     described in subsection (a)(2).
       (2) Performance measures and timetable.--Each action plan 
     shall include performance measures and a timetable for 
     compliance and achievement of the goal described in 
     subsection (a)(2).

     SEC. 1413. CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE PROGRAM.

       In selecting the first institution of higher education 
     selected after the date of the enactment of this Act under 
     the Department of Homeland Security Centers of Excellence 
     program, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall select an 
     otherwise eligible applicant that is an historically black 
     college or university that receives assistance under part B 
     of title III of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C 
     106 et seq), an hispanic-serving institution (as that term is 
     defined in section 502 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 1101a), or a tribally controlled college or 
     university (as that term is defined in section 2 of the 
     Tribally Controlled College or University Assistance Act of 
     1978 (25 U.S.C. 1801).

           Subtitle C--Protection of Certain Employee Rights

     SEC. 1421. PROVISIONS TO PROTECT CERTAIN EMPLOYEE RIGHTS.

       (a) Collective Bargaining, Appeals, Etc.--
       (1) In general.--Section 9701(c) of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``(F),'' after ``(E),''; 
     and
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``59, 72, 73, and 79,'' 
     and inserting ``and 59,''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 9701(f) of title 5, 
     United States Code, is repealed.
       (b) Rates of Pay.--Section 9701(d) of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``or'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (2) in paragraph (3), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; or''; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
       ``(4) to fix the pay for any position at a rate that is 
     less than--
       ``(A) in the case of a position that (if this chapter had 
     not been enacted) would have been subject to the provisions 
     of this title relating to the General Schedule, the rate 
     determined under such provisions; or
       ``(B) in the case of any other position, the rate 
     determined under such provisions for the position that is 
     most similar in its duties and responsibilities to those of 
     such other position (as determined under regulations) and 
     that is subject to such provisions.''.
       (c) Effective Dates.--
       (1) Subsection (a).--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the 
     Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296; 6 U.S.C. 
     101 note).
       (2) Subsection (b).--The amendments made by subsection (b) 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act 
     and shall apply with respect to pay for service performed in 
     any pay period beginning on or after such date.

                 Subtitle D--Whistleblower Protections

     SEC. 1431. WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTIONS.

       (a) In General.--No covered individual may be discharged, 
     demoted, suspended, threatened, harassed, reprimanded, 
     investigated, or in any other manner discriminated against 
     (including by a denial, suspension, or revocation of a 
     security clearance or by any other security access 
     determination) if such discrimination is due, in whole or in 
     part, to any lawful act done, perceived to have been done, or 
     intended to be done by the covered individual--
       (1) to provide information, cause information to be 
     provided, or otherwise assist in an investigation regarding 
     any conduct which the covered individual reasonably believes 
     constitutes a violation of any law, rule or regulation 
     relating to national or homeland security, which the covered 
     individual reasonably believes constitutes a threat to 
     national or homeland security, or which the covered 
     individual reasonably believes constitutes fraud, waste or 
     mismanagement of Government funds intended to be used for 
     national or homeland security, when the information or 
     assistance is provided to or the investigation is conducted 
     by--
       (A) a Federal, State or local regulatory or law enforcement 
     agency (including an office of Inspector General under the 
     Inspector General Act of 1978);
       (B) any Member of Congress, any committee of Congress, or 
     the Government Accountability Office; or
       (C) a person with supervisory authority over the covered 
     individual (or such other person who has the authority to 
     investigate, discover, or terminate misconduct);
       (2) to file, cause to be filed, testify, participate in, or 
     otherwise assist in a proceeding or action filed or about to 
     be filed relating to an alleged violation of any law, rule or 
     regulation relating to national or homeland security; or
       (3) to refuse to violate or assist in the violation of any 
     law, rule, or regulation relating to national or homeland 
     security.
       (b) Enforcement Action.--
       (1) In general.--A covered individual who alleges discharge 
     or other discrimination by any person in violation of 
     subsection (a) may seek relief under subsection (c) by--
       (A) filing a complaint with the Secretary of Labor; or
       (B) if the Secretary has not issued a final decision within 
     180 days after the filing of the complaint and there is no 
     showing that such delay is due to the bad faith of the 
     claimant, bringing an action at law or equity for de novo 
     review in the appropriate district court of the United 
     States, which shall have jurisdiction over such an action 
     without regard to the amount in controversy.
       (2) Procedure.--
       (A) In general.--An action under paragraph (1)(A) shall be 
     governed under the rules and procedures set forth in section 
     42121(b) of title 49, United States Code.
       (B) Exception.--Notification made under section 42121(b)(1) 
     of title 49, United States Code, shall be made to the person 
     named in the complaint and to the person's employer.
       (C) Burdens of proof.--An action brought under paragraph 
     (1)(B) shall be governed by the legal burdens of proof set 
     forth in section 42121(b) of title 49, United States Code.
       (D) Statute of limitations.--An action under paragraph (1) 
     shall be commenced not later than 1 year after the date on 
     which the violation occurs.
       (c) Remedies.--
       (1) In general.--A covered individual prevailing in any 
     action under subsection (b)(1) shall be entitled to all 
     relief necessary to make the covered individual whole.
       (2) Damages.--Relief for any action under paragraph (1) 
     shall include--

[[Page H3527]]

       (A) reinstatement with the same seniority status that the 
     covered individual would have had, but for the 
     discrimination;
       (B) the amount of any back pay, with interest;
       (C) compensation for any special damages sustained as a 
     result of the discrimination, including litigation costs, 
     expert witness fees, and reasonable attorney fees; and
       (D) punitive damages in an amount not to exceed the greater 
     of 3 times the amount of any compensatory damages awarded 
     under this section or $5,000,000.
       (d) State Secrets Privilege.--If, in any action brought 
     under subsection (b)(1)(B), the Government asserts as a 
     defense the privilege commonly referred to as the ``state 
     secrets privilege'' and the assertion of such privilege 
     prevents the plaintiff from establishing a prima facie case 
     in support of the plaintiff's claim, the court shall enter 
     judgment for the plaintiff and shall determine the relief to 
     be granted.
       (e) Criminal Penalties.--
       (1) In general.--It shall be unlawful for any person 
     employing a covered individual to commit an act prohibited by 
     subsection (a). Any person violating this paragraph shall be 
     fined under title 18 of the United States Code, imprisoned 
     not more than 10 years, or both.
       (2) Reporting requirement.--The Department of Justice shall 
     submit to Congress an annual report on the enforcement of 
     paragraph (1). Each such report shall (A) identify each case 
     in which formal charges under paragraph (1) were brought, (B) 
     describe the status or disposition of each such case, and (C) 
     in any actions under subsection (b)(1)(B) in which the 
     covered individual was the prevailing party or the 
     substantially prevailing party, indicate whether or not any 
     formal charges under paragraph (1) have been brought and, if 
     not, the reasons therefor.
       (f) Rights Retained by Covered Individual.--Nothing in this 
     section shall be deemed to diminish the rights, privileges, 
     or remedies of any covered individual under any Federal or 
     State law, or under any collective bargaining agreement. The 
     rights and remedies in this section may not be waived by any 
     agreement, policy, form, or condition of employment.
       (g) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       (1) the term ``covered individual'' means an employee of--
       (A) the Department of Homeland Security (which, for 
     purposes of this section, includes the Transportation 
     Security Administration);
       (B) a Federal contractor or subcontractor; and
       (C) an employer within the meaning of section 701(b) of the 
     Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e(b));
       (2) the term ``lawful'' means not specifically prohibited 
     by law, except that, in the case of any information the 
     disclosure of which is specifically prohibited by law or 
     specifically required by Executive order to be kept secret in 
     the interest of national defense or the conduct of foreign 
     affairs, any disclosure of such information to any Member of 
     Congress, committee of Congress, or other recipient 
     authorized to receive such information, shall be deemed 
     lawful;
       (3) the term ``Federal contractor'' means a person who has 
     entered into a contract with the Department of Homeland 
     Security;
       (4) the term ``employee'' means--
       (A) with respect to an employer referred to in paragraph 
     (1)(A), an employee as defined by section 2105 of title 5, 
     United States Code; and
       (B) with respect to an employer referred to in subparagraph 
     (A) or (B) of paragraph (1), any officer, partner, employee, 
     or agent;
       (5) the term ``subcontractor''--
       (A) means any person, other than the Federal contractor, 
     who offers to furnish or furnishes any supplies, materials, 
     equipment, or services of any kind under a contract with the 
     Department of Homeland Security or a subcontract entered into 
     in connection with such a contract; and
       (B) includes any person who offers to furnish or furnishes 
     general supplies to the Federal contractor or a higher tier 
     subcontractor; and
       (6) the term ``person'' means a corporation, partnership, 
     State entity, business association of any kind, trust, joint-
     stock company, or individual.
       (h) Authorization of Funds.--Of the amounts authorized 
     under section 101, there is authorized to be appropriated 
     amounts necessary for carrying out this section. Except as 
     provided in the preceding sentence, this section shall have 
     no force or effect.

           Subtitle E--Authority of Chief Information Officer

     SEC. 1441. AUTHORITY OF CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER.

       Section 703 of the Department of Homeland Security Act of 
     2002 (6 U.S.C. 343) is amended by inserting ``(a) In 
     General.--'' before the first sentence, and by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(b) Line Authority.--The Secretary shall delegate to the 
     Chief Information Officer direct line authority to oversee 
     all chief information officers of the agencies of the 
     Department, and other key information technology personnel of 
     the Department, with respect to their responsibilities to 
     oversee, integrate, and protect information technology 
     systems of the Department. The Chief Information Officer 
     shall report directly to the Secretary.''.

       Subtitle F--Authorization for Office of Inspector General

     SEC. 1451. AUTHORIZATION FOR OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL.

       In lieu of any amount otherwise authorized for the Office 
     of the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland 
     Security, there is authorized to be appropriated for such 
     office $200,000,000 for fiscal year 2006.

                      Subtitle G--Regional Office

     SEC. 1461. COLOCATED REGIONAL OFFICES.

       Not later than 45 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall develop 
     and implement a plan for establishing consolidated and 
     colocated regional offices for the Department of Homeland 
     Security in accordance with section 706 of the Homeland 
     Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 346), that will--
       (1) enable a rapid, robust, and coordinated Federal 
     response to threats and incidents;
       (2) enhance all-hazards preparedness across the United 
     States with respect to terrorism, natural disasters, other 
     emergencies;
       (3) provide integrated capabilities among the Department of 
     Homeland Security, other Federal agencies, and Stated and 
     local governments; and
       (4) maximize cost savings and efficiencies through 
     establishment of regional offices at current DHS agency 
     regional structures with contiguous multi-State operations.

               Subtitle H--DHS Terrorism Prevention Plan

     SEC. 1471. SHORT TITLE.

       This subtitle may be cited as the ``Department of Homeland 
     Security Terrorism Prevention Plan Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 1472. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY TERRORISM 
                   PREVENTION PLAN.

       (a) Requirements.--Not later than one year after the date 
     of enactment of the Act, and on a regular basis thereafter, 
     the Secretary of Homeland Security shall prepare and submit 
     to the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and 
     Governmental Affairs of the Senate a Department of Homeland 
     Security Terrorism Prevention Plan. The Plan shall be a 
     comprehensive and integrated plan that includes the goals, 
     objectives, milestones, and key initiatives of the Department 
     of Homeland Security to prevent acts of terrorism on the 
     United States, including its territories and interests.
       (b) Contents.--The Secretary shall include in the Plan the 
     following elements:
       (1) Identification and prioritization of groups and 
     subgroups that pose the most significant threat of committing 
     acts of terrorism on the United States and its interests.
       (2) Identification of the most significant current, 
     evolving, and long term terrorist threats to the United 
     States and its interests, including an evaluation of--
       (A) the materials that may be used to carry out a potential 
     attack;
       (B) the methods that may be used to carry out a potential 
     attack; and
       (C) the outcome the perpetrators of acts of terrorism aim 
     to achieve.
       (3) A prioritization of the threats identified under 
     paragraph (2), based on an assessment of probability and 
     consequence of such attacks.
       (4) A description of processes and procedures that the 
     Secretary shall establish to institutionalize close 
     coordination between the Department of Homeland Security and 
     the National Counter Terrorism Center and other appropriate 
     United States intelligence agencies.
       (5) The policies and procedures the Secretary shall 
     establish to ensure the Department gathers real time 
     information from the National Counter Terrorism Center; 
     disseminates this information throughout the Department, as 
     appropriate; utilizes this information to support the 
     Department's counter terrorism responsibilities; integrates 
     the Departments information collection and analysis 
     functions; and disseminates this information to its 
     operational units, as appropriate.
       (6) A description of the specific actions the Secretary 
     shall take to identify threats of terrorism on the United 
     States and its interests, and to coordinate activities within 
     the Department to prevent acts of terrorism, with special 
     emphasis on prevention of terrorist access to and use of 
     weapons of mass destruction.
       (7) A description of initiatives the Secretary shall take 
     to share critical terrorism prevention information with, and 
     provide terrorism prevention support to, State and local 
     governments and the private sector.
       (8) A timeline, with goals and milestones, for implementing 
     the Homeland Security Information Network, the Homeland 
     Security Secure Data Network, and other departmental 
     information initiatives to prevent acts of terrorism on the 
     United States and its interests, including integration of 
     these initiatives in the operations of the Homeland Security 
     Operations Center.
       (9) Such other terrorism prevention-related elements as the 
     Secretary considers appropriate.
       (c) Consultation.--In formulating the Plan the Secretary 
     shall consult with--
       (1) the Director of National Intelligence;
       (2) the Director of the National Counter Terrorism Center;
       (3) the Attorney General;
       (4) the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation;
       (5) the Secretary of Defense;
       (6) the Secretary of State;

[[Page H3528]]

       (7) the Secretary of Energy;
       (8) the Secretary of the Treasury; and
       (9) the heads of other Federal agencies and State, county, 
     and local law enforcement agencies as the Secretary considers 
     appropriate.
       (d) Classification.--The Secretary shall prepare the Plan 
     in both classified and nonclassified forms.

     SEC. 1473. ANNUAL CROSSCUTTING ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED FUNDING 
                   FOR DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY PROGRAMS.

       (a) Requirement To Submit Analysis.--The Secretary of 
     Homeland Security shall submit to the Congress, concurrently 
     with the submission of the President's budget for each fiscal 
     year, a detailed, crosscutting analysis of the budget 
     proposed for the Department of Homeland Security, by budget 
     function, by agency, and by initiative area, identifying the 
     requested amounts of gross and net appropriations or 
     obligational authority and outlays for programs and 
     activities of the Department for each of the following 
     mission areas:
       (1) To prevent terrorist attacks within the United States.
       (2) To reduce the vulnerability of the United States to 
     terrorism.
       (3) To minimize the damage, and assist in the recovery, 
     from terrorist attacks that do occur within the United 
     States.
       (4) To carry out all functions of the agencies and 
     subdivisions within the Department that are not related 
     directly to homeland security.
       (b) Funding Analysis of Multipurpose Functions.--The 
     analysis required under subsection (a) for functions that are 
     both related directly and not related directly to homeland 
     security shall include a detailed allocation of funding for 
     each specific mission area within those functions, including 
     an allocation of funding among mission support functions, 
     such as agency overhead, capital assets, and human capital.
       (c) Included Terrorism Prevention Activities.--The analysis 
     required under subsection (a)(1) shall include the following 
     activities (among others) of the Department:
       (1) Collection and effective use of intelligence and law 
     enforcement operations that screen for and target individuals 
     who plan or intend to carry out acts of terrorism.
       (2) Investigative, intelligence, and law enforcement 
     operations that identify and disrupt plans for acts of 
     terrorism or reduce the ability of groups or individuals to 
     commit acts of terrorism.
       (3) Investigative activities and intelligence operations to 
     detect and prevent the introduction of weapons of mass 
     destruction into the United States.
       (4) Initiatives to detect potential, or the early stages of 
     actual, biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear 
     attacks.
       (5) Screening passengers against terrorist watch lists.
       (6) Screening cargo to identify and segregate high-risk 
     shipments.
       (7) Specific utilization of information sharing and 
     intelligence, both horizontally (within the Federal 
     Government) and vertically (among Federal, State, and local 
     governments), to detect or prevent acts of terrorism.
       (8) Initiatives, including law enforcement and intelligence 
     operations, to preempt, disrupt, and deter acts of terrorism 
     overseas intended to strike the United States.
       (9) Investments in technology, research and development, 
     training, and communications systems that are designed to 
     improve the performance of the Department and its agencies 
     with respect to each of the activities listed in paragraphs 
     (1) through (8).
       (d) Separate Displays for Mandatory and Discretionary 
     Amounts.--Each analysis under subsection (a) shall include 
     separate displays for proposed mandatory appropriations and 
     proposed discretionary appropriations.

                      Subtitle I--Tribal Security

     SEC. 1481. OFFICE OF TRIBAL SECURITY.

       The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296) is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting after section 801 the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC. 802. OFFICE OF TRIBAL SECURITY.

       ``(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the 
     `Tribal Homeland Security Act'.
       ``(b) Establishment.--There is established within the 
     Department of Homeland Security the Office of Tribal 
     Security.
       ``(c) Director.--The Office of Tribal Security shall be 
     administered by a Director, who shall be appointed by the 
     President and confirmed by the Senate. The Director shall 
     report to the Secretary of Homeland Security.
       ``(d) Duties.--The Director shall be responsible for 
     coordinating relations between the Federal Government and 
     federally recognized Indian tribes on issues relating to 
     homeland security, which shall include the following duties:
       ``(1) Providing a point of contact within Department of 
     Homeland Security which shall be responsible for--
       ``(A) meeting the broad and complex Federal 
     responsibilities owed to federally recognized Indian tribes 
     by the Department of Homeland Security; and
       ``(B) soliciting and, where appropriate, addressing the 
     homeland security concerns of federally recognized Indian 
     tribes and other parties interested in Indian affairs.
       ``(2) Communicating relevant policies of the Department of 
     Homeland Security to federally recognized Indian tribes and 
     the public.
       ``(3) Promoting internal uniformity of Department of 
     Homeland Security policies relating to Indian country (as 
     defined in section 1151 of title 18, United States Code).
       ``(4) Coordinating with the Directorate of Border and 
     Transportation Security and tribal governments to develop a 
     comprehensive border security policy that addresses law 
     enforcement, personnel, and funding issues in Indian country 
     (as defined in section 1151 of title 18, United States Code) 
     on the United States borders with Canada and with Mexico.
       ``(5) Coordinating with the Directorate for Information 
     Analysis and Infrastructure Protection and tribal governments 
     to develop appropriate policies for infrastructure protection 
     on Indian lands, as well as information sharing mechanisms 
     with tribal governments.
       ``(6) Coordinating with the Directorate of Emergency 
     Preparedness and Response and the Office of State and Local 
     Government Coordination and Preparedness to help ensure that 
     tribal governments are fully informed of, have access to, and 
     may apply for all Department of Homeland Security grant 
     opportunities for emergency response providers, and to 
     develop and achieve preparedness goals for tribal governments 
     that are consistent with national goals for terrorism 
     preparedness, as determined by the Department.
       ``(7) Coordinating with the Director of Science and 
     Technology to identify opportunities to conduct research and 
     development of homeland security technologies or scientific 
     understanding for tribal universities or private sector 
     entities.
       ``(8) Coordinating with the Office of Citizenship and 
     Immigration Services and other relevant offices within the 
     Department of Homeland Security with immigration service and 
     enforcement related functions to develop policies on issues 
     related to citizenship and the movement of members of 
     federally recognized Indian tribes across the United States 
     border, taking into consideration the unique characteristics 
     of certain federally recognized Indian tribes with 
     jurisdiction over lands adjacent to the Canadian and Mexican 
     borders.
       ``(9) Coordinating with other offices within the Department 
     of Homeland Security to develop and implement sound policies 
     regarding Indian country (as defined in section 1151 of title 
     18, United States Code) and tribal governments.''; and
       (2) in the table of sections, by inserting after the item 
     relating to section 801 the following new item:

``Sec. 802. Office of Tribal Security.''.

   TITLE XV--SECURING OUR PORTS AND COASTLINES FROM TERRORIST ATTACK

     SEC. 1501. SECURITY OF MARITIME CARGO CONTAINERS.

       (a) Regulations.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     shall issue regulations for the security of maritime cargo 
     containers moving within the intermodal transportation system 
     in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (2).
       (2) Requirements.--The regulations issued pursuant to 
     paragraph (1) shall be in accordance with recommendations of 
     the Maritime Transportation Security Act Subcommittee of the 
     Advisory Committee on Commercial Operations of the Department 
     of Homeland Security, including recommendations relating to 
     obligation to seal, recording of seal changes, modal changes, 
     seal placement, ocean carrier seal verification, and 
     addressing seal anomalies.
       (b) International Agreements.--The Secretary shall seek to 
     enter into agreements with foreign countries and 
     international organizations to establish standards for the 
     security of maritime cargo containers moving within the 
     intermodal transportation system that, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, meet the requirements of subsection (a)(2).
       (c) Container Targeting Strategy.--
       (1) Strategy.--The Secretary shall develop a strategy to 
     improve the ability of the Department of Homeland Security to 
     use information contained in shipping bills of lading to 
     identify and provide additional review of anomalies in such 
     bills of lading. The strategy shall include a method of 
     contacting shippers in a timely fashion to verify or explain 
     any anomalies in shipping bills of lading.
       (2) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     appropriate congressional committees a report on the 
     implementation of this subsection, including information on 
     any data searching technologies that will be used to 
     implement the strategy.
       (d) Container Security Demonstration Program.--
       (1) Program.--The Secretary is authorized to establish and 
     carry out a demonstration program that integrates non-
     intrusive inspection equipment, including radiation detection 
     equipment and gamma ray inspection equipment, at an 
     appropriate United States seaport, as determined by the 
     Secretary.
       (2) Requirement.--The demonstration program shall also 
     evaluate automatic identification methods for containers and 
     vehicles and a data sharing network capable of transmitting 
     inspection data between ports and appropriate entities within 
     the Department of Homeland Security.

[[Page H3529]]

       (3) Report.--Upon completion of the demonstration program, 
     the Secretary shall submit to the appropriate congressional 
     committees a report on the implementation of this subsection.
       (e) Consolidation of Container Security Programs.--The 
     Secretary shall consolidate all programs of the Department of 
     Homeland Security relating to the security of maritime cargo 
     containers, including the demonstration program established 
     pursuant to subsection (d), to achieve enhanced coordination 
     and efficiency.
       (f) Port Security Grant Funding.--Section 70107(h) of title 
     46, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out subsections 
     (a) through (g) $400,000,000 for fiscal years 2006 through 
     2012.''.
       (g) Definition.--In this section, the term ``appropriate 
     congressional committees'' means--
       (1) the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of 
     Representatives; and
       (2) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
     Affairs of the Senate.

     SEC. 1502. STUDY ON PORT RISKS.

       The Secretary of Homeland Security shall complete a study 
     evaluating the terrorism risk factors associated with the 
     port of Miami and ports along the Gulf of Mexico and in the 
     Carribean, including the United States Virgin Islands. This 
     study should include: whether these ports are more at risk of 
     terrorist attack considering the larger trade volume with 
     Central American countries than other coastal ports, whether 
     these ports are currently receiving the grants that are 
     needed to ensure their safety, considering the studied risks 
     and what are the vulnerabilities of these Gulf ports.

             TITLE XVI--AUTHORITY OF OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES

     SEC. 1601. AUTHORITY OF OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES UNAFFECTED.

       Nothing in this Act affects the authority under statute, 
     regulation, or Executive order of other Federal agencies than 
     the Department of Homeland Security.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, the gentleman 
from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) and a Member opposed each will control 
20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Madam Chairman, I appreciate the work of the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cox) to include many Democratic suggestions in this 
bill, and I want to say that most of the provisions in his bill are 
good ones.
  But the truth is that this bill does not address a large number of 
dangerous security gaps. For example, this bill does not close serious 
security gaps in chemical plants, aviation, railroads, passenger trains 
and railroads, buses, border security, the ability of first responders 
to communicate in an emergency, the importance of protecting privacy, 
and a whole host of other areas where we must improve security. This 
bill does not even mention chemical plants or airports. How can we call 
this an authorization bill?
  My substitute, Madam Chairman, addresses all of these areas, and 
more. First, the substitute makes funding for homeland security a 
priority. The President's budget and this bill does not fulfill the 
commitment we made in the 9/11 Act the President signed into law in 
December, but this substitute meets those challenges.
  For example, for just a mere $92 million called for in the 9/11 Act, 
we could install radiation portal monitors in every port of entry in 
this country. My substitute offers solutions where the bill does not 
give the answers. For example, it protects our borders by requiring DHS 
to put technology in place to ensure that every mile of the border is 
monitored 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. It protects our ports by 
authorizing new port security grants. It protects airlines and prevents 
hijackings by installing new, in-line baggage screening systems that 
work better and faster. And, in an area where I strongly disagree with 
the chairman, we fully sponsor the development of research on how to 
counter shoulder-fired missiles that terrorists can use to shoot down a 
plane.
  My substitute also strengthens security requirements for chemical 
plants, which the GAO recently found must have security standards.
  Finally, my substitute also recognizes that DHS is a new agency and 
is not perfect. We provide new authority to protect privacy, sponsor 
diversity, and create a stronger Inspector General. In the end, if we 
are going to call something an authorization bill, let us use it to 
close genuine security gaps. My substitute will do that; this bill will 
not.
  There can be no more wasted time. We must do what it takes now to 
make America secure.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COX. Madam Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to 
the substitute amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  If my colleague from Mississippi would indulge me for a moment, I 
would like to yield the first portion of my time for purposes of a 
colloquy to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons), and I yield 
to him 1 minute.
  Mr. SIMMONS. Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman and the gentleman 
from Mississippi for all the hard work that they have done to bring 
this authorization bill to the floor. I fully intend to support the 
bill as I did in committee, but I would like to take a moment at this 
time to discuss a concern that Members have, like myself, the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
King), and ask for the chairman's commitment that the committee will 
pursue these issues.
  We have heard from the Department of Homeland Security employees and 
their representatives regarding their concerns with the final personnel 
regulations that the Department issued in February. Some of these 
provisions in the regulations are troubling. They limit collective 
bargaining rights, and they appear to reduce due process standards for 
employees of the Department. Both of these issues were specifically 
addressed in the Homeland Security Act that created the Department, and 
my concern is that the regulations promulgated following that act do 
not adhere to the requirements of the act to maintain collective 
bargaining rights.
  I would ask that the committee provide its members with the 
opportunity to question appropriate administration officials about 
these regulations, as well as to provide employees and their 
representatives the opportunity to give us their views.
  Mr. Chairman, I would also ask that if we find these regulations do 
not follow the mandate of the original law or do not promote fairness 
and efficiency, that the committee will review these regulations and 
consider making appropriate changes to the regulations.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman from 
Connecticut raises an important issue. I thank the gentleman for his 
leadership, not only on this issue, but across the board as an 
outstanding member and chairman of the Committee on homeland security.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. LaHood). The time of the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Simmons) has expired.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Section 841 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 authorized the 
Department of Homeland Security to establish a 21st century human 
resources management system. That new system, referred to as MAX HR, is 
designed to allow the Department to respond quickly to homeland 
security threats, while supporting the Department's employees with 
modern human resources principles.
  I will ensure that the committee conducts a review of the new 
personnel regulations with special attention, I say to the gentleman, 
to the concerns that he raised, and I commit to working with him on any 
appropriate changes to those regulations, in close coordination with 
the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Davis) of the Committee on 
Government Reform, which developed the underlying legislation in this 
area.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).
  (Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) and the gentleman from 
California (Chairman Cox) for their work and leadership on this bill, 
but I would also especially like to compliment the

[[Page H3530]]

ranking member for his work on this substitute. There is much in the 
bill that is good; the substitute is even better, for the reasons 
outlined by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).
  However, there is one provision that is the same in both the bill and 
the substitute and equally good in both cases, and that is the 
provisions regarding cyber security.
  As Members know, in the 108th Congress there was a Subcommittee on 
Cyber Security within the Select Committee on Homeland Security. The 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) was the chairman and I was the 
ranking member, and we worked very hard together to craft the provision 
that is incorporated in the bill and in the substitute. We held over 17 
hearings and further briefings, and we heard from the private sector.
  I think that is why the following people support our provision: The 
Business Software Alliance, the Computer and Communications Industry 
Association, the Cyber Security Industrial Alliance, the Financial 
Services Roundtable, the Higher Education and Information Technology 
Alliance, the Information Technology Association of America, the 
Information Technology Industry Council, the National Association of 
State Chief Information Officers, the Software and Information Industry 
Association, Tech Net, and the Association of American Universities, 
the Association of Research Libraries, the National Association of 
College and University Business Officers, and the list goes on and on.

                              {time}  1700

  The bill does something, and the substitute does something that is 
very important, and that is, to elevate the attention paid to 
cybersecurity within the Department.
  You know, several years ago when the strategy for cybersecurity was 
adopted, we had a cyberperson in the White House who drafted that plan 
and had the attention of the White House.
  Since that time, this position has devolved to one that really does 
not have direct access to decision-makers. In fact, the last person to 
hold the job, Amit Yoran, from Silicon Valley, quit 1 year to the day 
after he took the job; and we do not have a permanent replacement for 
him to this day.
  We have got contractors. In fact, the current contractor is not even 
on the payroll. It is a Carnegie Mellon employee. We need to have 
attention at the highest level for cybersecurity. Let me be clear. The 
job of securing cyberspace at DHS is just not getting done.
  Recently, Berkley professor Shankar Sastry warned of the possibility 
of what he called a digital Pearl Harbor. He urged that the Nation act 
before it is too late. We in Congress must not stand by while our 
cyberinfrastructure remains vulnerable and so little is accomplished in 
the Department of Homeland Security.
  Securing cyberspace must be a national priority. The substitute and 
the bill do it. And I thank the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
Thompson) for including it.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Mike Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment. As chairman of the Management Integration Oversight 
Subcommittee, I have concerns about some of the management changes 
proposed today.
  In my analysis, this amendment would create several conflicting 
changes. It would modify the roles and responsibilities of several key 
officials within the Department. It would also limit the Secretary's 
flexibility in making organizational decisions.
  And, finally, it seems the amendment contains several duplicating and 
premature measures. For example, this amendment would require the chief 
information officer to report directly to the Secretary. In the 
process, it would also give the CIO direct line authority over other 
chief information officers in agencies throughout the Department.
  Now, I agree with my colleague, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
Thompson), that it is important we address the reporting and line 
authority issues. In fact, just last month we held a hearing with these 
officials to explore ways to improve information sharing within the 
DHS.
  However, we also found other improvements to consider. The chief 
financial officer, the chief procurement officer, and the chief human 
capital officer, for example, may also need additional authorities.
  So in regards to this amendment, while I agree we need to reassess 
the internal management issues, I believe they should not be addressed 
in this type of piecemeal fashion.
  Secretary Chertoff has begun a 90-day review of the Department's 
programs, policies and operations. Until we hear the results of the 
Secretary's review at the end of this month, I believe we should hold 
off on making these types of changes.
  Mr. Chairman, I would also like to point out that the amendment adds 
$7 billion in unauthorized spending above the bill's proposed funding 
level. In contrast, the bipartisan Homeland Security Committee bill, as 
written, provides the Secretary the needed flexibility during this top-
to-bottom review while ensuring our limited resources are spent wisely.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose the pending amendment.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, James Carafano, who is a homeland 
security researcher, said recently that technology is not a substitute 
for strategy.
  And we know, as has been earlier reported this month by Eric Lipton, 
and he wrote the following, ``After spending more than $4.5 billion on 
screening devices to monitor the Nation's ports and borders and 
airports and mail and air, the Federal Government is moving to replace 
or alter much of the antiterrorism equipment, concluding that it is 
ineffective, unreliable, or too expensive to operate.''
  He went on to say: ``Each of those areas where we have missed the 
mark.'' That is why I think this substitute should be given great 
consideration by all of us, not only those that serve on the Homeland 
Security Committee.
  We have a unity of effort here. Do not translate, do not interpret 
this substitute as breaking that commitment that we have made to that 
unity of purpose. And I want to commend my good friend, the gentleman 
from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), who stood shoulder to shoulder with 
the gentleman from California (Chairman Cox) through all of these 
hearings that we have been having.
  But, the ranking member, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
Thompson), your steady leadership on our committee is going to go a 
long way beyond our vote today. I applaud you for offering a 
substitute.
  The Department of Homeland Security was formed because of the 
catastrophic terrorist attack on September 11. Our joint mission now is 
to help prevent and respond to any potential future assault.
  Nothing that we do here in Washington is more important. Nothing. The 
critical duty with which we are charged warrants legislative proposals 
that are as comprehensive and judicious as possible. The substitute 
succeeds in this regard. It makes America safer.
  For example, the substitute requires a comprehensive border 
protection plan. We all agree on that. It puts technology in place to 
monitor the entire border all the time, not some of the time.
  Secures the chemical plants. We have even had an amendment to that 
effect. Makes vital port and transit security improvements and creates 
necessary structural changes at the Department of Homeland Security. We 
all agree on that.
  We know that the State and local governments need as much help as 
possible to meet their urgent security needs. We note that first 
responders require an array of assistance to help them achieve even a 
baseline level of readiness. The substitute addresses this. For 
example, we authorize $500 million in grants for interoperability 
communications equipment to our men and women on the frontlines.
  As the 9/11 report states, again, we go back to what we consider to 
be the dictionary for us to look at: ``Compatible and adequate 
communications among public safety organizations at the local, State 
and Federal levels remains an important problem.''

[[Page H3531]]

  Our legislation should reflect what is in the 9/11 report and nothing 
less and nothing more. Yet the Congress has done nothing to address 
this. Indeed, many provisions signed into law by last year's 9/11 Act, 
a bipartisan measure as you recall, have gone unfunded and forgotten by 
this administration. We voted on it. Where is the power of both bodies 
involved in our unity of purpose?
  What is the use if we vote, both sides of the aisle, and the 
administration does not follow through? This substitute attempts to 
remedy this situation. We authorize additional border agents. We 
mandate risk assessment for chemical and nuclear plants, and we assure 
that port and rail are adequately secured. We all agree on these 
things.
  We know that there can be no more wasted time. We must do what it 
takes now to make our country safe, stronger, and more secure. This 
substitute does that, Mr. Chairman. I implore my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle to vote ``aye.''
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons).
  Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank our ranking member, the gentleman 
from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), for being such a great leader on this 
new committee, for being bipartisan, and for being an advocate for a 
safe and secure America.
  Unfortunately, I rise in option to this amendment, the Thompson 
substitute, not so much because of what it does, but because of what it 
fails to do.
  My reading of the amendment suggests that it does not incorporate 
many of the provisions of the Homeland Security Authorization Act that 
passed unamended and by voice vote in the Subcommittee on Intelligence, 
Information Sharing and Terrorism Risk Assessment, of which I am the 
chairman.
  For example, personnel flexibility, such as bonuses for the 
Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate, so we 
can attract the best and brightest young people into this Department to 
engage in good productive intelligence activities, you cannot have good 
intelligence activities without good people. And those personnel 
flexibilities are lacking. I do not see any provision requiring that 
the office of information analysis receive all terrorist threat 
information from components within DHS, which goes to the heart of 
information sharing.
  One of the great tragedies of 9/11 is that so many components of our 
government did not share information; and perhaps if they had, we could 
have avoided that tragedy.
  I do not see any recommendations with regard to the color-coded 
homeland security advisory system, which so many of us feel is 
confusing to the American people, and which we recommended be more 
risk-based, regional, and focused so that people have a legitimate 
picture of what the risks may be on any particular day when there is an 
alert.
  All of the work on open-source intelligence, which I believe is so 
critical to strengthening our intelligence capabilities nationally, I 
do not see them in there. And so it does not appear to me to address 
some very fundamental issues relative to the intelligence piece of the 
Department of Homeland Security which we are trying to build.
  On this basis, Mr. Chairman, I would like to reluctantly urge my 
colleagues to vote against the substitute.
  (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks at this point in the Record.)
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this legislation 
and the Democratic Substitute being offered by the gentleman from 
Mississippi. I would like to commend the Chairman and Ranking Member of 
the Committee on Homeland Security for bringing this bill to the 
floor--the first authorizing bill for the Department of Homeland 
Security since the Department was created.
  This bill does many good things. It authorizes additional funding to 
cover the full cost of hiring an additional two thousand border patrol 
agents in order to meet the first year target established in the 
Intelligence Reform bill last year. Regrettably, the appropriations 
bill that passed the House yesterday fell short of actually finding 
these critically needed personnel by 500. But that does not diminish 
this accomplishment in the bill. This bill contains several important 
provisions that will help to fix the Directorate for Intelligence 
Analysis and Infrastructure Protection, which, in my judgment, has 
struggled the most to find its direction in the new department. And the 
bill raises the level of our government's top cybersecurity official to 
an Assistant Secretary within IAIP, something that should have been 
done when the Department was created.

  This bill makes progress in some key areas, and I intend to support 
it, but I regret that it falls short in a number of critical areas, 
leaving us terribly vulnerable on many fronts.
  Cargo security, both in the air and on the sea, have not been 
adequately addressed in this legislation. Our Nation's plan to secure 
cargo containers, I believe, makes sense; but it relies entirely on 
knowing--and trusting--the people that are packing the containers 
overseas. Customs and Border Protection is way behind in certifying 
participants in the C-T PAT program, and this bill does not authorize 
adequate funding to accelerate the process of validating the 
applications of those who are already gaining the benefits. My friend 
from California, Ms. Sanchez, sought to propose an amendment to address 
this problem, but the rule did not allow for its consideration, a 
serious oversight.
  And there is absolutely no excuse for permitting unscreened cargo 
onto passenger aircraft. This is a problem we have known about since 
Pan Am Flight 103 was destroyed by a terrorist's bomb over Lockerbie, 
Scotland killing over 270 people. My good friend from Massachusetts, 
Mr. Markey, wanted to offer an amendment to the bill that would require 
this cargo to be screened, and it is long overdue. A similar amendment 
had been approved previously by the House, but the leadership has 
refused to allow its consideration today.
  This bill also fails to take sufficient steps to meet other critical 
needs that we have been talking about here in the House since 9/11. The 
installation of in-line explosive detection systems at all of our 
Nation's passenger airports is one of the top technological solutions 
to improving the performance of our TSA screener force. Given what 
terrorist were able to perpetrate in Madrid, providing funding for real 
rail and transit security must become a higher priority. And we must 
work harder to improve security at our Nation's chemical plants--
especially those that are located in heavily populated areas. Some of 
my Democratic colleagues offered amendments to accomplish these goals, 
but each has been blocked from consideration by the Majority.
  But we now have an opportunity to vote on these items en bloc. The 
Democratic substitute, proposed by Mr. Thompson, addresses all of these 
issues, and is a much more complete blueprint for combating terrorism 
than the underlying document. The House must move aggressively to fill 
the gaps that we see everyday in the operations of the Department of 
Homeland Security. We do our constituents a grave disservice if we do 
not.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
  (Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of Ranking 
Member Thompson's substitute amendment.
  While H.R. 1817 takes important steps in improving our security and 
preparedness, it simply does not go far enough.
  Now, the Thompson substitute contains the critical provisions that I 
believe must be in any comprehensive, effective DHS authorization. Now, 
all told this amendment would provide about $41 billion for our 
homeland security needs, nearly $7 billion more than requested by the 
President.
  This substitute would provide additional grant funds for continuing 
needs, in port, rail, transit and bus security, communications 
interoperability and firefighter hiring and preparedness. It also 
enhances air security by requiring that 100 percent of air cargo be 
screened within 3 years, tightening restrictions on access to sensitive 
airport areas, and providing flight crews the training and 
communications tools to effectively respond in an emergency.
  Furthermore, the Thompson amendment ensures that we fulfill 
commitments made in the intelligence reform bill to implement the 9/11 
Commission's recommendations.
  It authorizes funding for nearly 2,000 new border patrol agents and 
provides resources to install explosive detection systems to baggage 
screening at airports, which is a critical unmet need at T.F. Green 
Airport in Rhode Island.
  Now, as ranking member of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Nuclear 
and Biological Threats, I am particularly pleased to note that the 
Democratic substitute would provide for the

[[Page H3532]]

installation of radiation portal monitors at all ports of entry. This 
is a key step in our efforts to keep dangerous materials out of our 
borders.
  Finally, this substitute makes significant progress in addressing 
critical infrastructure protection. It provides funding for an 
assessment of risks to nuclear and chemical plants and requires that 
chemical plants capable of threatening a large number of people in the 
worst-case situation take steps to increase security, implement safer 
technologies when feasible.
  Just as importantly, the amendment sets deadlines for completion of a 
list of high-priority critical infrastructure assets. Now, this list 
should be the very basis for our Nation's security plans and funding 
decisions, and there is no excuse for the continuing delays in its 
completion.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. Speaker, while we are indeed safer today than we were on 
September 11, the truth is that there still remains a significant 
security gap that must be filled.
  The Thompson substitute takes a comprehensive approach to addressing 
these vulnerabilities, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder).
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me time, 
and I rise in opposition to the Thompson substitute.
  As the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Nuclear and 
Biological Attack, I want to point out that the minority's substitute 
proposal is not, contrary to its billing, complete, especially in the 
area of nuclear terrorism.
  Mr. Chairman, while some consider the probability of nuclear attack 
to be low, I fear that this lax position could have devastating 
consequences on the United States. If a terrorist organization were to 
smuggle and detonate a 10-kiloton nuclear device, which is not 
unreasonable for a basic terrorist bomb, in downtown Manhattan, it 
would immediately kill more than half a million people. The 
consequences, however, would not stop with the tragic loss of life.
  The New York Stock Exchange could lose trillions in business 
transactions alone and the world's financial markets would be 
immediately crippled. Cleaning up the radioactive mess could cost 
billions, if not trillions, of dollars and take years to complete. We 
could, in essence, witness a total economic meltdown in the United 
States.
  The Thompson substitute does little to prevent such a catastrophe. 
H.R. 1817 does.
  Section 105 of H.R. 1817, for example, authorizes funding for a 
Nuclear Detection Office within the Department to coordinate and 
advance weapons of mass destruction detection efforts domestically as 
well as abroad. The Thompson substitute does not.
  In addition, section 213 of H.R. 1817 revises the 2002 Homeland 
Security Act to ensure that the appropriate analytical expertise is 
employed by the Directorate of Information Analysis and Infrastructure 
Protection in the Department to discern specific threats involving use 
of nuclear weapons or biological agents to inflict mass casualties. The 
Thompson substitute does not.
  Furthermore, section 214 of H.R. 1817 establishes an entity within 
the Department that will be responsible for alternative analysis of 
threats to ensure that the government's efforts at our borders and at 
foreign ports to prevent the importation and subsequent use of nuclear 
weapons or biological agents are actually effective. The Thompson 
substitute does not.
  Mr. Speaker, I cannot imagine a scenario whereby this government has 
to answer the question of how we failed to prevent an attack by 
terrorists using a weapon of mass destruction on the American people. 
Such an attack is much too important and too critical for our national 
security to simply include it as a footnote in a 220-page substitute. I 
can assure my colleagues that my subcommittee will, in the coming 
months, vigorously work to produce legislation that focuses on the 
Department's attention on preventing such catastrophic terrorist 
events.
  H.R. 1817 is not the final word on this issue, but it is an important 
first step, and as such, I encourage my colleagues to join me in 
opposing the Thompson substitute and supporting H.R. 1817.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
Thompson) for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, despite the expenditure of billions of dollars on 
homeland security since September 11, the reality is that America's 
ports, chemical facilities, transportation systems and critical 
infrastructure are still to this day vulnerable to attack.
  Are we better off? Yes. Are we where we need to be? No.
  As Stephen Flynn, the former U.S. Coast Guard Commander and a 
foremost expert on homeland security, stated a few months ago on Meet 
the Press, ``The measures we have been cobbling together are hardly fit 
to deter amateur thieves, vandals and hackers, never mind determined 
terrorists.''
  This Congress can and must, Mr. Chairman, do more to protect our 
citizens from attack at home, even as we take the fight to our enemies 
abroad.
  That is what the Thompson substitute does.
  It provides $6.9 billion more than the Republican bill, including 
funding to fulfill our homeland security commitments in the 
Intelligence Reform Act.
  It includes $1 billion for grants for port, rail, transit and bus 
security, critical priorities; $380 million to hire 2,000 new border 
agents; and $500 million to ensure that first responders can 
communicate with one another.
  It requires a plan to ensure that all air cargo on passenger planes 
is screened, giving sufficient time to develop the requisite 
technologies, and it sets deadlines for establishing security plans for 
critical infrastructures.
  Republicans will and are objecting to the funding level in our 
substitute, but let us put it in perspective, Mr. Chairman.
  This additional funding is nearly $2 billion less than the funding 
the Bush administration has failed to account for, some $8.8 billion, 
in Iraq. Mr. Chairman, if the Bush administration can lose track of 
nearly $9 billion in Iraq, I submit that we ought to be able to find 
$6.9 billion to make this Nation, its people, its communities and its 
families safer and more secure.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Thompson substitute.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), but before I yield, Mr. Chairman, 
can the Chair tell me how much time remains on our side?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cox) has 11 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the 
gentleman for yielding me time.
  Once again, I want to thank both the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
Thompson), the ranking member, and the chairman of our committee for 
the fine work they did in producing the bipartisan base bill, but I 
rise in opposition to the ranking member's substitute amendment.
  This 221-page substitute amendment offered in the nature of a 
substitute to the 40-some page base bill that we have is obviously more 
extensive than what was presented on the floor, and the explanation has 
been presented on both sides as to why this is the case. However, I 
would like to refer specifically to the comments of the gentleman from 
Maryland about the additional cost involved in the substitute, nearly 
$7 billion.
  The American people have told us they do want us to do what is 
necessary for homeland security, but they have also said they want us 
to spend our money wisely. Press reports, as well as our own 
examination, has shown that there is in the pipeline in homeland 
security approximately $7 billion that is unspent. The answer is not to 
come in here and, therefore, increase the base bill by $7 billion, 
which is $7 billion over the President's budget, $7 billion over the 
House-passed badge budget, which, therefore, somehow tries to make a 
statement that more money spent is obviously going to make us safer.
  We need to make sure that the Department of Homeland Security is 
setting the priorities that are necessary,

[[Page H3533]]

is spending the money in the appropriate ways and answers the question 
why money is stuck in the pipeline.
  I would suggest the way to do that is not to give them an additional 
$7 billion somehow as some sort of attraction for them to tell us how 
they have not spent that $7 billion, that extra $7 billion that is out 
there.
  Let me just say that the provisions in this substitute constitute 
sweeping changes, sweeping comprehensive changes in the responsibility, 
mission and funding for the Department over and above what our 
bipartisan committee presented in the base bill. Such changes cannot be 
made, I would suggest, in this type of setting without full debate, 
certainly more than 40 minutes, and consideration of a possible 
alternatives and consequences.
  There are important questions here. How do we provide security in the 
area of the chemical industry? The chemical security portion of this 
amendment requires broad and sweeping regulation of the chemical 
industry by the Department of Homeland Security. Maybe that is 
appropriate, maybe it is not. I do not think we have the basis to make 
a judgment on this. I would also suggest it is counterproductive to 
improving our chemical infrastructure security. It places unnecessary 
burdens on potentially thousands of sites that may or may not be the 
sites at risk that we should be focusing on. Again, it is a question of 
priority.
  It ignores the concept of examining high risk to effectively target 
our security resources. One of the things I thought we had done as a 
bipartisan committee was come to the conclusion that we really have to 
be very careful and demand that we set proper priorities, that we 
cannot go out and try and protect everything; we have to protect those 
things that are most vulnerable, those things that have the greatest 
threat, those things that have the worst consequences. I would suggest 
that this substitute does not do that.
  I thank the gentleman for the time that he extended to me.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, right now in the Republican bill there is 
no protection added for the single greatest problem that we know still 
exists, which is the protection of chemical facilities in the United 
States of America. Whether it be on land or in rail cars, both of these 
chemical-type storage areas are still wide open.
  Secondly, whistleblowers, if they turn in a shareholder scandal at 
Enron, get more protection than a nuclear power plant guard or a TSA 
guard who, as a latter day homeland security Paul Revere comes forward 
to warn the public that there is danger, the Republicans do not protect 
these whistleblowers. The Democratic bill does.
  Finally, the cargo which goes onto planes in America, passenger 
planes, is not screened. Something this size, not screened. Something 
this size, which is cargo, which goes on to passenger planes next to 
our bags, is not screened. The Republican bill says this to those 
people: Warning, cargo on this plane has not been screened for 
explosives for your children.
  Vote for the substitute if my colleagues want to protect the children 
and families of this country.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Subcommittee on Emergency 
Preparedness, Science, and Technology, I rise in opposition to the 
EPS&T provisions in the Thompson substitute.
  The base bill presents well-thought-out solutions to real terrorist 
threats by prioritizing and maximizing how U.S. tax dollars are spent. 
The Thompson substitute does not prioritize spending. It does not 
recognize that not all threats are created equal. It does not exercise 
any fiscal restraint whatsoever. It just throws a lot of money at 
problems. Such an approach does not enhance our Nation's security or 
provide adequate support for our dedicated first responders.
  The emergency preparedness, science, and technology, EPS&T, 
provisions in the Thompson substitute address important issues, but are 
ill-conceived and fraught with unintended consequences.
  For example, subtitle A of title VII would establish a new, separate 
grant interoperability program. It is ill-advised. A new program will 
encourage inconsistencies in communication systems purchased with 
Federal grants and, unfortunately, dilute funding for other critical 
grant programs.
  This program is also not needed. Indeed, in fiscal year 2004, grant 
recipients obligated over $925 million for interoperability projects 
through existing programs, the single largest use of grant funding with 
more than $6 billion in the pipeline, it is unspent and unobligated, to 
State and local government available for first responders.
  Subtitle D of title VII would establish a parallel EMS bureaucracy 
within the Department's Emergency Preparedness and Response, EP&R, 
Directorate. Such a new bureaucracy will not enhance terrorism 
preparedness. EMS entities already exist within the Department of 
Transportation and the U.S. Fire Administration of the EP&R 
Directorate. This provision is also premature and will undercut the 
Department's efforts to implement organizational reform.
  Subtitle G of title VII would authorize the Metropolitan Medical 
Response System. Yet, MMRS, which provides funding to U.S. cities to 
develop plans and capabilities for coping with the medical consequences 
of a terrorist attack involving weapons of mass destruction is nearly 
complete. Since its inception in 1997, the program has assisted 124 
cities in establishing such plans and capabilities.
  There is simply no need to maintain MMRS as a separate grant program. 
Indeed, the funds provided under other existing grant programs, such as 
the State Homeland Security Grant Program and the Urban Area Security 
Initiative, may be used for such purposes.
  For these and other reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote against the 
Thompson substitute.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).
  (Mrs. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)

                              {time}  1730

  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Thompson substitute, and I commend him for his leadership and hard work 
in crafting this amendment, which fills many of the security gaps we 
were not able to do in the underlying bill.
  I also congratulate our chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cox), for fulfilling his promise to establish an annual legislative 
review of the Department and for his leadership.
  Mr. Chairman, included in the Thompson substitute is an amendment I 
sponsored during the markup to provide for a border patrol unit in the 
Virgin Islands, a number one priority of all law enforcement in my 
district, the single most important missing ingredient in the defense 
of the territory, and one more weak link in the protection of our 
Nation.
  With over 175 miles of unprotected and open borders, the Virgin 
Islands is increasingly becoming a gateway of choice to the U.S. for 
human smugglers. Because of the lack of such a unit, the Immigration 
and Customs Enforcement, our local police, Fish and Wildlife, and the 
National Park Service have to utilize their stretched resources and 
personnel to respond and to assist.
  I want to thank Chairman Cox for including language in the report to 
have the Department station some of the additional border patrol units 
in the Virgin Islands and for also including tribal coordination in the 
Office of State and Local Coordination in recognition of the sovereign 
nature of the tribal nations.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1817 is a good bill; but, nonetheless, the 
substitute makes significant improvements in many areas, and I urge my 
colleagues to support the Thompson substitute.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Thompson Substitute and 
I urge my colleagues to support its adoption. I commend the gentleman 
from Mississippi for his hard work in crafting an amendment which seeks 
to fill many of the security gaps that were not able to be addressed in 
the underlying bill.
  I want to begin though, Mr. Chairman, by congratulating the Chairman 
of the Home-

[[Page H3534]]

land Security, my friend Chris Cox for fulfilling his promise to 
establish an annual legislative review of the Department of Homeland 
Security. It has been an honor and a distinct pleasure to serve with 
Chairman Cox, first as a member of the Select Committee on Homeland 
Security in the last Congress and again in this Congress on the 
permanent Committee.
  Over the past nearly two and a half years, our committee has traveled 
across the country meeting with the men and women on the front lines of 
defending our homeland. The bill before us today as well as the Faster 
and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act which we debated and 
passed last week are largely the product of those efforts.
  Included in the Thompson substitute, Mr. Chairman, is an amendment I 
sponsored during the markup of H.R. 1817 in committee, to provide for a 
border patrol unit in the Virgin Islands--the number one priority of 
all of the law enforcement first responders in my district and the 
single most important missing ingredient in the defense of the 
Territory and yet another weak link in the protection of our Nation.
  With over 175 miles of unprotected and open borders, the Virgin 
Islands is today the gateway to the U.S. and our Nation's southern most 
border. It is also increasingly becoming the gateway of choice to the 
U.S. for human smugglers.
  Since 1998 hundreds of Chinese nationals have entered the U.S. Virgin 
Islands, but there are many more from other countries of the Caribbean 
and South America and the Middle East as well.
  Those dropping the aliens ashore have identified the Virgin Islands 
as an area from which illegals can try to travel undetected to the U.S. 
mainland. In fact, the Coast Guard, this past February 29th, detained 
72 illegal immigrants on St. Thomas.
  Because of the lack of a Border Patrol Unit in the territory other 
federal agencies such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have 
to spend a significant amount of man-hours apprehending, processing, 
detaining and watching aliens in custody.
  ICE has to use between 6 and 8 agents in every landing of 12 to 15 
aliens. At a rate of on average 3 to 4 landing per month more than 80 
hours are spent processing these aliens. Time which could be used to 
investigate conspiracies, smuggling organizations and dismantling 
rings.
  In addition, our local Police Department, Fish and Wildlife, and the 
National Park Service also have to utilize their stretched resources 
and personnel to respond and assist.
  Mr. Chairman, having a Border Patrol Unit assigned to the Virgin 
Islands would also enable us to deal with the other serious problem we 
face which is drug smuggling. ICE has identified several trafficking 
organizations that use the USVI to conduct drug smuggling operations, 
with marihuana, cocaine and heroin being shipped to the territory on a 
weekly basis. And we know, Mr. Chairman, of the connection and 
relationship between drugs and terrorism.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Cox for agreeing to include 
language in the report of H.R. 1817, to encourage DHS to station some 
of the additional 2000 Boarder Patrol agents called for in the bill in 
the Virgin Islands. I also want to thank him for amending the title of 
the Office of State and Local Coordination to the Office of State, 
Local and Tribal Coordination in response to another amendment I 
offered in committee in recognition of the sovereign nature of our 
Tribal Nations.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1817 is a good bill. I am proud to have been a 
part of its development as a member of the Homeland Security Committee. 
I would nonetheless urge my colleagues to support the substitute 
offered by Ranking Member Bennie Thompson because it makes significant 
improvements in key areas including fulfilling our commitments in the 
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism prevention, as well as new security 
measures for rail and public transit biometrics and other screening 
measures.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Thompson substitute.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time remains on 
the other side.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cox) has 5 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
Thompson) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the ranking member and the other 
members of the committee right in the teeth of this debate about the 
differences between the base bill and the Democratic substitute simply 
to remind us what we agree about. We agree about the base bill. And 
what we are talking about doing in the Democratic substitute is, in 
some part, restating the base bill and, in some part, adding money to 
it to go further.
  One of the principles that I hope we can establish in this annual 
authorization process is that when we bring a bipartisan DHS 
authorization bill to the floor, that that bill is within the House-
passed budget; it bears a close connection to the appropriations 
process, and this year we have a unique circumstance where we are on 
the floor literally 1 day after the homeland security appropriation 
bill has passed, so we know exactly what kind of money we are dealing 
with so that when we impose national security priorities on the 
executive branch and we provide policy guidance to the Department of 
Homeland Security, we are doing so in the real world, not in a fantasy 
world with pretend numbers and budget resources that simply do not 
exist.
  The only real objection that I have to the Democratic substitute, 
because I agree with a great deal of the policy, is that it takes $7 
billion from thin air and adds it on top of, not in substitute for, the 
provisions of the base bill. As a result, it is not about setting 
priorities; it is merely a wish list without any sense of priority.
  I would say that it abdicates the responsibility of the authorizing 
committee and places all the burden on the appropriators were it not 
for the fact that we just voted on the appropriation bill yesterday. So 
every single Member knows that this is not a real $7 billion we are 
playing with here.
  Rather than being called the Complete Homeland Security Act, it might 
be called the Death By Report Act because it does not help the 
Department of Homeland Security to run down terrorists; it instead 
sends them off on a mission to fill out reports. This substitute, in 
one of its key differences from the base text, is very heavy on reports 
and on plans and on studies and on assessments. It includes no fewer 
than 61 new initial reports, annual reports, follow-up reports, plans, 
strategies, studies, and reviews. That is not congressional direction; 
it is congressional misdirection.
  There has got to be a focus on preventing terrorism, on doing the 
job, this most important, fundamental national security mission that we 
have assigned to the Department to do, rather than filling out 
paperwork. The substitute itself is 221 pages long, and in some 
respects it is not ready for action by the full House because its 
provisions have not yet been vetted even in hearings in subcommittee or 
full committee before the Department.
  I daresay that some of those things, such as port security, chemical 
plant security, and so on, are policies with which I would agree. They 
are things that we intend to do as a committee this year. I have stated 
over and over, as recently as yesterday before the Committee on Rules, 
that because this is the first authorization bill for a Department 
which itself has existed for only 2 years, and which was thoroughly 
authorized in a charter written from top to bottom by this Congress 
just a few years ago, this bill is smaller this year than it will ever 
be in future years.
  Moreover, because the Secretary is in the midst of his 90-day review 
of the Department's operation top to bottom as he takes the helm of 
what for him is a brand-new responsibility, we are trying to give him a 
few days more, he is due to report to us in June, to give us his 
roadmap. And that means we will be back on this floor with more 
authorizing legislation on the very subjects covered by the substitute 
amendment.
  For all those reasons, I respectfully, but strongly, oppose this 
amendment.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  The Thompson substitute is necessary. It fills great holes in our 
major bill. There is not one dollar in this bill for the transportation 
that America

[[Page H3535]]

uses to go to work: rail, light rail, buses, subways, ferries. Yet even 
after Madrid, we are not dealing with the al Qaeda favorite. One-third 
of all the attacks has been on public transportation.
  Cargo within four blocks of the Capitol. Explosives. One car, 14 
miles. If one attack occurred, 100,000 people dead in a half-hour. How 
can we reauthorize or authorize the first homeland security bill 
without having any section in that bill on rail security? I do not 
think we can.
  The American people deserve better. The Thompson substitute is 
clearly superior.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support certainly of H.R. 1817, 
but it is not enough. It is not good enough.
  This administration claims to make fighting terrorism its top 
priority, and that is why we set up the Department of Homeland 
Security. You are not supposed to tell us from homeland security what 
it is we cannot do, but what we can do.
  I agree that maybe Secretary Ridge did not have enough information, 
did not have enough at his disposal, so he told us about the alerts; 
the yellow lights, the orange and the red and all of that; told us to 
go out and buy flashlights, duct tape, water, and plastic sheeting. But 
it is time to get serious.
  Homeland security should not be a sound bite or a reelection 
strategy. We have got to do something about the border. This President 
promised us 2,000 border agents. We have citizens who have taken it 
upon themselves to protect our border, and here we are talking about we 
do not have enough money to fund 2,000 agents when we are giving a 
bonus to Halliburton. Give me a break.
  We need money for first responders. We need money for our ports and 
our containers. This substitute will help to fill that gap. It is time 
we put our money where our mouths are.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) 
has 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Mississippi.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Mississippi has 1 minute.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, immediate action should have been taken on 
chemical plant security after the wake-up call we got from the 9/11 
attacks. I have introduced the Chemical Security Act in the past two 
Congresses, but the House has never considered my legislation.
  Across the country, the EPA has identified 123 facilities where a 
toxic gas release due to a terrorist attack could injure or kill more 
than 1 million people. The Thompson substitute would give the problem 
of chemical security plants and their security the attention it needs, 
and I would urge the House to adopt the Thompson substitute for that 
provision and all the other reasons that have been given here today.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. I yield to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say to the gentleman from New 
Jersey that the point he raises about chemical security is an extremely 
important one, and I wanted to make sure that all the Members knew that 
on June 14 the Committee on Homeland Security will be having a hearing 
on that very topic. We intend, in the balance of this year, to go very 
deeply into our responsibilities for chemical plant security.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a substitute that is complete. If you look at 
it, it addresses all the vulnerabilities of our country; and I ask the 
body to support it.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I spoke just a moment ago about some of the provisions 
in this bill that, in my view, do not belong there, most notably the $7 
billion that has no offset and, therefore, breaks the House-passed 
budget and is completely out of sync with the homeland security 
appropriation bill for which we had a large, nearly unanimous 
bipartisan vote yesterday.
  But I would like to talk in the remaining seconds available about 
what this bill, the Thompson substitute, does not do. It does not 
incorporate, inexplicably, many of the bipartisan provisions that we 
have already agreed upon in the base bill. I have to believe that that 
was a drafting oversight; but were we to substitute for the base bill, 
we would lose the provisions that give, for example, flexibilities to 
the Information Analysis Office in the Department of Homeland Security 
to hire more intelligence agencies, something that has been a big 
priority of our committee for 3 years now. We would lose the reforms of 
the color-coded Homeland Security Advisory System, which both 
Republicans and Democrats have agreed upon.
  As a result, we would be far better off to stick with the bipartisan 
provisions that are in the bill, rather than in the partisan provisions 
that appear in the Thompson substitute. I urge Members to reject the 
substitute.
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, as so many of you know, I represent a border 
district and am a former law enforcement officer. For the last year, I 
have been talking to a number of you about my concerns about border 
security, based on things I am hearing from border law enforcement 
officers.
  I rise in support of the gentleman from Mississippi's substitute, 
which contains the amendment the Rules Committee yesterday disallowed 
from consideration by the House. Mr. Thompson's substitute draws from 
some ideas included in a border security bill I introduced earlier this 
year.
  So many of my constituents--and our colleagues here in Congress--are 
profoundly frustrated with the budget-driven nature of our border 
security. This amendment requires the Department of Homeland Security 
to develop and implement a Comprehensive Border Strategy to secure U.S. 
borders--one that focuses on the needs of our national and border 
security rather than on the cost.
  This amendment seeks a comprehensive approach that considers: 
staffing, infrastructure, technology, coordination of intelligence 
among agencies, legal responsibilities, jurisdictional issues, 
apprehension statistics, budgetary consequences, and the impact on the 
flow of commerce and legitimate travelers. It also requires 
implementation of the ``American Shield Initiative'' to address 
vulnerabilities between the ports-of-entry, which remains largely 
unaddressed since 9-11.
  I urge all of us to focus our attention on a comprehensive border 
security policy by both authorizing and appropriating the funds 
necessary to secure our borders. The men and women who protect our 
border do an extraordinary job.
  We owe them full funding of the security initiatives we determine are 
necessary for the protection of the people and places that we hold dear 
in the United States. It is simply not enough to talk about border 
security, it is an urgent matter for us to put our money where our 
mouth is when it comes to protecting our borders and our Nation.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment--and I thank Mr. 
Thompson, Mr. Stupak and Mr. Reyes for their leadership on this issue.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
the amendment in Nature of a Substitute as offered by the distinguished 
Ranking Member of the Homeland Security Committee, the gentleman from 
Mississippi. It provides for $6.9 billion more in funding than the base 
bill (or the President's budget), including the funding needed to 
fulfill the homeland security commitments in the Intelligence Reform 
and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 and to meet other priorities.
  Of the priorities that it proposes to meet is $380 million to hire 
2,000 new border agents. As the Ranking Democrat of the Judiciary 
Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims, I understand 
the gravity of this allocation and how irresponsible it would be to 
omit it from the base bill. First Responder communications is funded 
under the Amendment in the amount of $500 million. As a major proponent 
of the Citizen Corps Council model that was created by President Bush 
himself but not funded, I appreciate the value of this level of funding 
for better communications systems for our front line personnel.
  In addition, the Thompson substitute would provide $1 billion in 
grants for port, rail, transit, and bus security. These aspects of our 
transportation system have been given inadequate attention by the 
underlying bill. Again, with respect to aiding our first responders, 
the Thompson substitute would allocate $150 million to restore funding 
for FIRE Act grants.

[[Page H3536]]

  Amidst the contentious debate about aviation security and the 
question as to the adequacy of our screening processes, Ranking Member 
Thompson seeks to attack the root of the issue by providing $418 
million for aviation security research.
  In terms of overall policy provisions, the Amendment calls for a 
comprehensive border strategy and technology that would monitor the 
entire border 24/7; new authority to ensure chemical plants are 
secured; a 3-year plan to ensure all air cargo on passenger planes is 
screened maritime cargo container security standards; new security 
measures for rail and public transit deadlines for establishing 
security plans for all critical infrastructure improvements in 
biometrics and other screening technology a new DHS council to monitor 
domestic terrorism; creation of an Assistant Secretary of 
Cybersecurity; and changes to DHS to ensure its operations are diverse 
and manageable.
  Mr. Chairman, the Thompson substitute is a prudent, comprehensive, 
and responsible alternative to that offered by the Chairman of the 
Homeland Security Committee. I support it fully and ask that my 
colleagues join me.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Thompson 
amendment in the nature of a substitute. This amendment sets forth a 
comprehensive, integrated policy to promote homeland security. This 
amendment is a true substitute amendment and covers important areas 
where Federal security plans are sorely needed--such as rail and 
transit transportation--that are omitted from the underlying bill. 
Frankly, the Thompson amendment demonstrates that the Democrats in this 
body have the better plan for securing our Nation.
  I'd like to thank the Ranking Member of the Committee on Homeland 
Security, Congressman Thompson, for actively working with me to develop 
this comprehensive amendment. In particular, I'd like to thank him for 
recognizing the important role that the Department of Transportation 
(DOT) has in devising and implementing transportation security 
regulations. DOT has extensive experience in security and has the 
primary responsibility for the efficiency and safety of transportation. 
For transportation security to work well, it is imperative that the 
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and DOT work on security plans in 
tandem. The transportation provisions in this amendment insure that the 
Department of Homeland Security and Department of Transportation will 
work together to ensure that this Nation has the strongest, smartest 
homeland security procedures, which do not unnecessarily undermine 
efficiency or compromise safety.
  I'd like to highlight some of these provisions. Section 518 of the 
amendment is the language from H.R. 1496, a bipartisan bill which I 
cosponsored and which was reported by the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee in April, to allow general aviation to return 
to National Airport. Opening National Airport to general aviation is 
long overdue.
  In Vision 100, reported by the Transportation Committee and passed by 
Congress in 2003, Congress mandated that National Airport be open to 
general aviation after a security plan is established. To date, this 
Administration has not taken action to comply with this directive. I am 
disappointed that the Administration has avoided reopening general 
aviation at National Airport for this long, and this legislation is 
necessary to fully restore our transportation system, and our economy.
  Further, I strongly support Title VI of the Thompson amendment. This 
title provides for transit security and passenger and freight rail 
security. Again, rail and transit security are areas where DOT and DHS 
must work together. This amendment would provide for that.
  Subtitle B is taken directly from H.R. 2351, the ``Rail Security Act 
of 2005,'' which I introduced earlier this month. It requires that 
within 180 days of enactment, the Secretary of Homeland Security and 
the Secretary of Transportation shall develop and implement a railroad 
security assessment, a railroad security plan, and prioritized 
recommendations for improving railroad security. The amendment also 
requires the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of 
Transportation to execute a memorandum of agreement governing the roles 
and responsibilities of their Departments in addressing railroad 
transportation security matters.
  Moreover, the amendment focuses on an issue that security bills often 
ignore: the importance of ensuring that key workers have the support 
and training required to protect our rail system, whether those workers 
are railroad employees or emergency responders. Rail workers are truly 
the eyes and ears of the rail industry. They greet passengers, sell 
tickets, operate trains, maintain track and signal systems, dispatch 
trains, operate bridges, and repair cars. They are in the most direct 
position to spot security risks and potential threats. This bill 
requires rail carriers to provide security training to these workers to 
ensure that they are prepared to take appropriate action against threat 
conditions.
  While I do support most of these provisions in the Thompson 
amendment, I have serious concerns about one particular section. 
Section 519 would mandate that 100 percent of air cargo on passenger 
planes be physically inspected. While ensuring the security of air 
cargo is a laudable goal, this mandate is not the best way to 
accomplish that goal. The effect of this amendment would be to force 
air carriers to remove all cargo from passenger aircraft, jeopardizing 
27,000 direct jobs and $4 billion in annual revenue.
  No available technology exists today to efficiently and effectively 
screen all air cargo for explosives. Most of the cargo screening 
technologies referenced by those in favor of this amendment are basic 
or high energy x-ray systems, which currently are not certified 
explosive detection systems (EDS) for cargo. U.S. airlines have 
implemented significant cargo inspection and screening measures 
mandated by Congress and enforced by TSA. First, only known shippers 
(shippers who are part of the Known Shipper database) may ship cargo on 
passenger aircraft. Second, all cargo is subject to random inspection. 
In addition, U.S. airlines have collaborated with TSA and the U.S. 
Postal Service to develop and implement a canine mail-screening program 
for mail carried on passenger airlines. The airlines continue to assist 
TSA in programs to evaluate the utility of explosive detection systems 
(EDS) and canines for cargo screening. These programs are the best 
methods available for ensuring cargo security.
  However, Mr. Chairman, my concerns about the cargo security provision 
are outweighed by the many good security provisions in the amendment. I 
support the Thompson amendment. It is a comprehensive approach to 
providing the best security for our Nation. I urge its passage.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
offered by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) will be postponed.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The Acting 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. 1 printed in part B offered by the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Meek), amendment No. 13 printed in part B offered by the 
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley), amendment No. 18 printed in part 
B offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), amendment No. 20 
printed in part B offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee), and amendment No. 24 printed in part B offered by the gentleman 
from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic votes 
after the first vote in this series.


             Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Meek of Florida

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on amendment No. 1 offered by the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Meek) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 184, 
noes 244, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 183]

                               AYES--184

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio

[[Page H3537]]


     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (MS)
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--244

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

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Larson (CT)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lucas
     Millender-McDonald
     Tancredo

                              {time}  1812

  Messrs. McHUGH, HEFLEY, COSTA, GOODE, Ms. BEAN, Ms. GRANGER, Mr. 
STEARNS and Mrs. MYRICK changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. DeFAZIO, Ms. HOOLEY, Mr. BOYD and Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee changed 
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 13 Offered by Ms. Hooley

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. LaHood). The pending business is the demand 
for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
Oregon (Ms. Hooley) 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 Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 363, 
noes 65, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 184]

                               AYES--363

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     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
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     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
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry

[[Page H3538]]


     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--65

     Baird
     Bartlett (MD)
     Berry
     Blunt
     Bonilla
     Boustany
     Buyer
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Cole (OK)
     Cooper
     Costa
     Davis (FL)
     Ehlers
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Gillmor
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hayes
     Hensarling
     Hoekstra
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     LaTourette
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Marchant
     Mica
     Miller (MI)
     Moran (KS)
     Nadler
     Ney
     Obey
     Otter
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Platts
     Price (GA)
     Radanovich
     Rohrabacher
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shays
     Shuster
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Taylor (MS)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tierney
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Larson (CT)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lucas
     Millender-McDonald
     Tancredo

                              {time}  1823

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


                Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Norwood

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. LaHood). The pending business is the demand 
for a recorded vote on amendment No. 18 offered by the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Norwood) 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 Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 242, 
noes 185, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 185]

                               AYES--242

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Dent
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Higgins
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--185

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Taylor (NC)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Larson (CT)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lucas
     Millender-McDonald
     Sullivan
     Tancredo

                              {time}  1831

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


          Amendment No. 20 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. LaHood). The pending business is the demand 
for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) on which further proceedings were postponed and 
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 182, 
noes 245, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 186]

                               AYES--182

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah

[[Page H3539]]


     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     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
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thompson (MS)
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--245

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

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Larson (CT)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lucas
     Millender-McDonald
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)

                              {time}  1840

  Ms. BEAN changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


Amendment No. 24 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Thompson 
                             of Mississippi

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment No. 24 in the nature of a substitute 
offered by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) on which 
further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by 
voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment in the nature of a substitute.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 196, 
noes 230, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 187]

                               AYES--196

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     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
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--230

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cox
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Gene
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick

[[Page H3540]]


     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Taylor (MS)
     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
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Kaptur
     Larson (CT)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lucas
     McDermott
     Millender-McDonald
     Tancredo

                              {time}  1847

  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. LaHood). Are there further amendments to the 
bill?
  There being no other amendments, the question is on the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed 
to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Hastings of Washington) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaHood, Acting 
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. 1817) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2006 for the 
Department of Homeland Security, and for other purposes, pursuant to 
House Resolution 283, he reported the bill back to the House with an 
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the Whole? If not, 
the question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was 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.


       Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Thompson of Mississippi

  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Mr. Thompson of Mississippi moves to recommit the bill H.R. 
     1817 to the Committee on Homeland Security with instructions 
     to report the same back to the House forthwith with the 
     following amendment:

       At the end of the bill, add the following:

         TITLE VI--ADDITIONAL AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS

     SEC. 601. AVIATION SECURITY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.

       To carry out section 4011(b) of the Intelligence Reform and 
     Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (118 Stat. 3714), there is 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security for the use of the Transportation Security 
     Administration $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2006 for research 
     and development of advanced biometric technology applications 
     to aviation security, including mass identification 
     technology.

     SEC. 602. BIOMETRIC CENTER OF EXCELLENCE.

       To carry out section 4011(d) of the Intelligence Reform and 
     Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (118 Stat. 3714), there is 
     authorized to be appropriated $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2006 
     for the establishment by the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     of a competitive center of excellence that will develop and 
     expedite the Federal Government's use of biometric 
     identifiers.

     SEC. 603. PORTAL DETECTION SYSTEMS.

       To carry out section 44925 of title 49, United States Code, 
     there is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security for the use of the Transportation Security 
     Administration $250,000,000 for fiscal year 2006 for 
     research, development, and installation of detection systems 
     and other devices for the detection of biological, chemical, 
     radiological, and explosive materials.

     SEC. 604. IN-LINE CHECKED BAGGAGE SCREENING.

       To carry out section 4019 of the Intelligence Reform and 
     Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (49 U.S.C. 44901 note; 118 
     Stat. 3721), there is authorized to be appropriated for 
     fiscal year 2006 $400,000,000 to carry out the in-line 
     checked baggage screening system installations required by 
     section 44901 of title 49, United States Code.

     SEC. 605. CHECKED BAGGAGE SCREENING AREA MONITORING.

       To carry out section 4020 of the Intelligence Reform and 
     Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (49 U.S.C. 44901 note; 118 
     Stat. 3722), there is authorized to be appropriated to the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security for the use of the Under 
     Secretary for Border and Transportation Security such sums as 
     may be necessary for fiscal year 2006 to provide assistance 
     to airports at which screening is required by section 44901 
     of title 49, United States Code, and that have checked 
     baggage screening areas that are not open to public view, in 
     the acquisition and installation of security monitoring 
     cameras for surveillance of such areas in order to deter 
     theft from checked baggage and to aid in the speedy 
     resolution of liability claims against the Transportation 
     Security Administration.

     SEC. 606. IMPROVED EXPLOSIVE DETECTION SYSTEMS.

       To carry out section 4024 of the Intelligence Reform and 
     Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (49 U.S.C. 44913 note; 118 
     Stat. 3724), there is authorized to be appropriated to the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security for the use of the 
     Transportation Security Administration $100,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2006 for the purpose of research and development 
     of improved explosive detection systems for aviation security 
     under section 44913 of title 49, United States Code.

     SEC. 607. MAN-PORTABLE AIR DEFENSE SYSTEMS (MANPADS).

       To carry out section 4026 of the Intelligence Reform and 
     Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (22 U.S.C. 2751 note; 118 
     Stat. 3724), there is authorized to be appropriated such sums 
     as may be necessary for fiscal year 2006.

     SEC. 608. PILOT PROGRAM TO EVALUATE USE OF BLAST RESISTANT 
                   CARGO AND BAGGAGE CONTAINERS.

       To carry out subsections (a) and (b) of section 4051 of the 
     Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (49 
     U.S.C. 44901 note; 118 Stat. 3728), there is authorized to be 
     appropriated $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2006. Such sums shall 
     remain available until expended.

     SEC. 609. AIR CARGO SECURITY.

       To carry out section 4052(a) of the Intelligence Reform and 
     Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (49 U.S.C. 44901 note; 118 
     Stat. 3728), there is authorized to be appropriated to the 
     Secretary $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2006 for research and 
     development related to enhanced air cargo security 
     technology, as well as for deployment and installation of 
     enhanced air cargo security technology. Such sums shall 
     remain available until expended.

     SEC. 610. FEDERAL AIR MARSHALS.

       To carry out section 4016 of the Intelligence Reform and 
     Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (49 U.S.C. 44917 note; 118 
     Stat. 3720), there is authorized to be appropriated to the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security for the use of the Bureau of 
     Immigration and Customs Enforcement $83,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 2006 for the deployment of Federal air marshals under 
     section 44917 of title 49, United States Code. Such sums 
     shall remain available until expended.

     SEC. 611. INCREASE IN FULL-TIME IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS 
                   ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATORS.

       To carry out section 5203 of the Intelligence Reform and 
     Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (118 stat. 3734), there is 
     authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary 
     in fiscal year 2006 for the Secretary of Homeland Security to 
     increase by not less than 800 the number of positions for 
     full-time active duty investigators within the Department of 
     Homeland Security investigating violations of immigration 
     laws (as defined in section 101(a)(17) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(17)) in fiscal year 2006 
     above the number of such positions for which funds were made 
     available during the preceding fiscal year.

     SEC. 612. INCREASE IN DETENTION IN DETENTION BED SPACE.

       To carry out section 5204 of the Intelligence Reform and 
     Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (118 Stat. 3734), there is 
     authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary 
     in fiscal year 2006 for the Secretary of Homeland Security to 
     increase by not less than 8,000 the number of beds available 
     for immigration detention and removal operations of the 
     Department of Homeland Security above the number for which 
     funds were allotted for the preceding fiscal year.

     SEC. 613. BORDER SECURITY TECHNOLOGIES FOR USE BETWEEN PORTS 
                   OF ENTRY.

       To carry out subtitle A of title V of the Intelligence 
     Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (118 Stat. 3732), there 
     is authorized to be appropriated $25,000,000 for fiscal year 
     2006 for the formulation of a research and development 
     program to test various advanced technologies to improve 
     border security between ports of entry as established in 
     sections 5101, 5102, 5103, and 5104 of the Intelligence 
     Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. 

[[Page H3541]]

     SEC. 614. INCREASE IN FULL-TIME BORDER PATROL AGENTS.

       To carry out section 5202 of the Intelligence Reform and 
     Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (118 Stat. 3734), there is 
     authorized to be appropriated $380,000,000 for the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security to increase by not less than 2,000 the 
     number of positions for full-time, active-duty border patrol 
     agents within the Department of Homeland Security, in fiscal 
     year 2006, above the number of such positions for which funds 
     were allotted for the preceding fiscal year.

     SEC. 615. IMMIGRATION SECURITY INITIATIVE.

       To carry out section 7206 of the Intelligence Reform and 
     Terrorism Prevention Act (118 Stat. 3817), there are 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security to carry out the amendments made by subsection (a) 
     $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2006.

                      TITLE VII--CARGO INSPECTION

     SEC. 701. INSPECTION OF CARGO CARRIED ABOARD COMMERCIAL 
                   AIRCRAFT.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     shall implement a system that uses equipment, technology, 
     personnel, and other means to inspect 35 percent of cargo 
     transported in passenger aircraft operated by an air carrier 
     or foreign air carrier in air transportation or intrastate 
     transportation. At a minimum, this system shall meet the same 
     standards as those established by the Secretary for 
     equipment, technology, and personnel used to screen passenger 
     baggage. Within 2 years after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary shall use this system to inspect at 
     least 65 percent of cargo transported in passenger aircraft. 
     Not later than three years after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary shall use this system to inspect at 
     least 100 percent of cargo transported in passenger 
     aircraft. 
       (b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to the 
     Congress a report describing the system established under 
     subsection (a).

  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent that the motion to recommit be considered as read and 
printed in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Mississippi?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of 
his motion.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, last year we passed the 
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, which included 
significant funding boosts for homeland security programs.
  When the President signed the 9/11 bill, he made a commitment to our 
law enforcement personnel. He said, ``We will continue to work with 
Congress to make sure they have got the resources necessary to do their 
jobs.''
  However, when the President's budget came out in January, it failed 
to fully fund the programs in the 9/11 Act. Frontline officers tell us 
that they do not have the resources they need to get the job done. The 
Immigrations and Customs Enforcement Service has been in a hiring 
freeze since late last year. The border patrol simply does not have the 
manpower or the support staff to be able to effectively do its job.
  Simply signing a bill is not enough. You have got to do what you 
promised to do. What we have been asking for today, in introducing this 
bill, is for the President to explain why it is not necessary to fully 
fund the 9/11 Act to better secure our Nation.
  Accountability is the key to homeland security. If the President is 
not going to make sure that homeland security increases are identified 
as being needed and are in the budget, then the American people deserve 
to know why.
  Additionally, this motion to recommit addresses a major threat in 
aviation security. The Rules Committee blocked consideration of this 
important measure, Mr. Speaker. Every day the TSA fails to inspect the 
millions of tons of cargo shipped in the belly of passenger planes is 
yet another day American lives are put at risk.
  I urge my colleagues to join me and approve this motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, in this recommitment motion, you will get a 
chance, on the majority side, to vote on whether or not you want to 
screen cargo that is on passenger planes.
  We take off our shoes. Americans take off their shoes, families 
putting their children on flights to head on vacation or go to school. 
They all take off their shoes.
  But underneath, in the cargo bay of those passenger planes, almost 
none of the cargo which sits right next to those bags is screened. If 
something is this size, 16 ounces, no paperwork. Nothing.
  If it is the same size as the bag your children and you have, it does 
not get screened. It is going on right next to your bags. And so what 
our amendment says is, you got a warning. The cargo on this plane has 
not been screened for explosives. That is the Republican bill.
  The Democratic substitute says that 100 percent of all baggage, all 
cargo as well, on passenger planes is screened. If you care about your 
families, if you care about implementing one of the key recommendations 
in the 9/11 report, then vote for the Democratic recommittal motion. 
This is the only chance you are going to have to vote on this issue. 
Vote ``yes'' on the recommittal motion.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of the time.
  Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit would authorize full funding for 
all of the homeland security measures called for in the Intelligence 
Reform Act adopted last year: aviation security research and 
development, full detection systems, biological, chemical, radiation 
and explosive materials, passenger baggage screening equipment, air 
cargo security, Federal air marshals and border security measures.
  It also includes a requirement that within 3 years all air cargo on 
passenger planes be screened.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask for a ``yes'' vote on this motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to draw our attention to what is actually in the 
motion to recommit. It consists of 15 sequential sections that do 
nothing more than authorize monies, and a final section, which my 
colleague from Massachusetts just spoke about, concerning air cargo 
which contains no reference to money, whatsoever, but which, according 
to the Department of Homeland Security, would effectively double the 
budget of the TSA.
  Let me read to you the dollar amounts in each of the sections, 
because I want to draw Members' attention to the fact that there are no 
offsets. There are no sources of funding for these provisions.
  Section 601 adds $20 million without any funding source; section 602, 
$1 million; section 603, a quarter billion dollars; section 604, $400 
million dollars and so on.
  I mention this because we are here on the floor for the first time 
considering the Department of Homeland Security authorization bill in 
an annual process that is beginning now, but which will go on for the 
indefinite future. And we are seeking to establish a precedent.
  And that precedent is that just as with other national security 
authorize legislation that we bring to the floor, in this bill, it is 
real money. In this bill, we are authorizing funding within the House-
passed budget and consistent with amounts that we actually intend to 
appropriate.
  Now, we have a unique opportunity this year because the order of 
consideration of the appropriations bill and the authorization bill was 
reversed. Just yesterday on the floor of this House, Members voted on 
the appropriations bill so we actually know real dollar numbers that 
Secretary Chertoff and the Department of Homeland Security will have to 
work with. And virtually every Member on this floor just voted for that 
bill yesterday.

                              {time}  1900

  So, if we are to come to the floor today and vote for funding figures 
which are different from what we know will actually happen, we will be 
placing priorities before the Department of Homeland Security and 
mandates on the Department of Homeland Security that we know it cannot 
meet.
  There are some other anomalies with the funding provisions in the 
motion to recommit that I am certain must be drafting mistakes.
  I do not doubt for a moment the passion of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts when it comes to the question of screening air cargo, but 
I have to draw Members' attention to the fact that

[[Page H3542]]

the dollar figure that is authorized for the Department of Homeland 
Security for air cargo in the motion to recommit is $100 million. That 
would be a $15 million cut from the actual number that we appropriated 
last year and a $28 million cut from what we just voted for air cargo 
screening in yesterday's appropriations bill. I do not know why we 
would do that.
  The same thing is true for air marshals. This House is very 
interested in putting air marshals on airplanes to protect the flying 
public. The motion to recommit sets the authorized funding level for 
air marshals at $83 million. The appropriations bill that we just voted 
for yesterday would give the Department of Homeland Security $700 
million, not $83 million for air marshals. Why would we cut air 
marshals, unless it is a drafting mistake in the motion to recommit?
  As I said, this is an historic moment on the floor of this House, and 
I want to draw our attention to what we are about to do, as soon as we 
finish the motion to recommit. We are about to vote on what will be the 
first of an annual authorization for the Department of Homeland 
Security.
  That bill is bipartisan. Both sides agree on everything that is in 
it. It fully funds 2,000 new Border Patrol agents. It establishes a top 
level new Assistant Secretary for Cyber Security within the Department 
of Homeland Security. It beefs up the intelligence capability at the 
Department of Homeland Security. It reforms the threat warning system. 
It establishes the Homeland Security Information Network that will link 
thousands of local agencies across the country in real-time to the 
Department. It does all of this and much more within the House-passed 
budget and within the confines of the appropriations bill that we just 
passed yesterday.
  This is exactly the norm that is set for us in the authorizing 
legislation that comes from the Committee on Armed Services to fund the 
Pentagon and that comes to us from the House Permanent Select Committee 
on Intelligence to fund the intelligence community. Those authorization 
bills all live within the budget. So, too, must we in this homeland 
security authorization bill this year and every year hereafter.
  To my colleagues on the Democratic side, I understand what they are 
doing in this motion, seeking to draw attention to critical issues such 
as cargo security and chemical plant security that are not yet the 
subject of authorizing language on the floor of this House. I commit to 
my colleagues that this bill on which we agree is a beginning and that 
our new committee will use its jurisdiction to develop bipartisan 
legislation on these subjects, just as we have on first responders, 
just as we did last week on the floor of this House, and just as we 
have on this historic $34 billion authorization for the Department of 
Homeland Security.
  Mr. Speaker, if I may in conclusion say that I am thoroughly 
impressed with the effort and the work that has been put forth on both 
sides of the aisle on this bill, with the performance and the 
leadership of the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), my 
colleague. May I say that there has not been 1 day since September 11 
when any Member of this House has forgotten the lesson of homeland 
security that we learned on that day, chief among which is that we must 
always put the security of this country ahead of partisan politics.
  The bill that we will vote on in a moment, the homeland security 
authorization bill, does that, and I look forward to standing shoulder-
to-shoulder with the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), with 
all the members of the committee, and with, I believe, all the Members 
of this House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Without 
objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 199, 
noes 228, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 188]

                               AYES--199

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     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
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     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)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     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
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--228

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baird
     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)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cox
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson

[[Page H3543]]


     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     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
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Feeney
     Larson (CT)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lucas
     Millender-McDonald
     Tancredo


                Announcement by The Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington) (during the 
vote). There are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1920

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 424, 
noes 4, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 189]

                               AYES--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 (PA)
     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
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     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
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     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
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     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
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     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)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     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
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--4

     Gutierrez
     Markey
     Obey
     Paul

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Larson (CT)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lucas
     Millender-McDonald
     Tancredo


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1927

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

                          ____________________