Congressional Record, Volume 152 Issue 67 (Thursday, May 25, 2006)

[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 67 (Thursday, May 25, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H3311-H3329]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page H3311]]

House of Representatives

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007--Continued
{time} 1800

When first responders cannot communicate with one another lives are
lost, including theirs.
We need this additional $10.3 million so that it can be properly
staffed to address a critical homeland security function: the ability
for our first responders to communicate in real time, when needed and
when authorized.
The offset from this will come from the $10.3 million reduction to
the Transportation Security Administration Aviation Security account. I
support TSA, but we do not need more money to contract out for private
screeners. We do not accept this, on either side of the aisle.
So let us build on the success of SAFECOM. It is time for Congress to
act and help the State and local emergency management personnel to do
their job preparing our Nation and to ensure that our first responders
have all the support that they need.
The amendment is supported again, Mr. Chairman, I cannot emphasize
this enough, by the National Emergency Management Association and the
International Association of Emergency Managers. They were just here a
short time ago in Washington.
Again, I will end with an appeal to both the chair and the ranking
member who have been most courteous today in our going through the
tedious task of going through this.
National Emergency

Management Association,

May 25, 2006.
Hon. Bill Pascrell,
Ranking Member, House Homeland Security Subcommittee on
Emergency Preparedness, Science, and Technology, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Ranking Member Pascrell: On behalf of the National
Emergency Management Association (NEMA), I would like to
thank you for your efforts to enhance preparedness of state
and local emergency management through your amendment to the
FY 2007 Homeland Security Appropriations Bill (H.R. 5441) to
add an additional $40 million to the Emergency Management
Performance Grants (EMPG) program. We strongly support this
amendment as the increase would enable state and local
emergency management to address additional federal
requirements such as updating and adopting plans for the
National Response Plan and the National Incident Management
System, conducting training on these plans and systems, and
addressing the requirements of the National Preparedness
Goal.
The most important and critical component for strengthening
our national preparedness and response to disasters is
federal funding. After modest increases, EMPG's growth rate
has not kept pace with inflation or increased federal
requirements. This year, of all years, the Administration is
proposing to cut EMPG by $13.1 million, despite the $260
million shortfall identified by NEMA in a 2004 study. While
last week the House of Representatives proposed to address
this year's EMPG funds with a $3 million increase over the FY
2006 level, significant resources must be allocated to this
vital program to ensure our nation's preparedness levels.
NEMA is appreciative of Congress's recognition of the EMPG
program, but this year we respectfully ask that Congress
aggressively address the program's shortfalls. This amendment
builds on this essential need and makes a significant down-
payment to address the shortfall.
EMPG is the only source of funding to assist state and
local governments with planning and preparedness/readiness
activities associated with natural disasters. EMPG is the
backbone of the nation's all-hazards emergency management
system and the only source of direct federal funding to state
and local governments for emergency management capacity
building. EMPG is used for personnel, planning, training, and
exercises at both the state and local levels. EMPG is
primarily used to support state and local emergency
management personnel who are responsible for writing plans,
conducting training, exercises and corrective action,
educating the public on disaster readiness and maintaining
the nation's emergency response system. EMPG is being used to
help states create and update plans for receiving and
distribution plans for commodities and ice after a disaster,
debris removal plans, and plans for receiving or evacuating
people--all of these critical issues identified in the
aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
EMPG is the only program in the Preparedness account within
the Department of Homeland Security that requires a match at
the state and local level. The match is evidence of the
commitment by state and local governments to address the
urgent need for all-hazards emergency planning, to include
terrorism. EMPG requires a match of 50 percent from the state
or local governments.
We appreciate your efforts to ensure adequate support for
emergency management and look forward to continuing to work
with you.
Sincerely,

Bruce P. Baughman,

President and Director, Alabama
Emergency Management Agency.
____

International Association

of Emergency Managers,

May 25, 2006.
Hon. Bill Pascrell, Jr.,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Pascrell: I've recently been informed of your
amendment to H.R. 5441 which would increase the appropriation
for the Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) by an
additional $40 million beyond the current mark-up of $186
million. The International Association of Emergency Managers
(IAEM) is certainly in favor of any measure that would
increase funding for this critically important program. As I
stated in recent written testimony to the Appropriations
Committee, we believe it is the single most effective use of
federal funds in providing emergency management capacity to
state and local governments. No other source of homeland
security funding is based on a consensus building process
determining outcomes and specific deliverables backstopped by
a quarterly accountability process.
This program provides funding for the emergency managers
who perform the role of the ``honest broker'' at the state
and local level and who establish the emergency management
framework for preparedness, response, recovery and
mitigation. EMPG funding provides the people who are legally
responsible for creating a ``culture of preparedness'' at the
state and local level.
EMPG funding has assumed a greater importance in light of
recent catastrophic events and the responses to those events.
For

[[Page H3312]]

example, the President and the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) have tasked state and local government
emergency managers with the responsibility to review their
Emergency Operations Plans regarding the issue of evacuation.
EMPG supports the people who have had the added
responsibility of administering homeland security funding
programs and additional planning efforts since 2001. Without
more funding and people we can't reach the level of
preparedness our nation deserves and our citizens demand.
Your recognition of this need and your willingness to propose
additional funding are supported and deeply appreciated.
Sincerely,
Michael D. Selves, CEM,
First Vice President.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
The amendment would increase funding for the emergency management
performance grants by $40 million and $10.3 million for SAFECOM, and
the offset would be, guess what, the poor old Under Secretary for
Management. We have tried to dip into that well today 15 times, and
every time we have said no because it would stop the Department's
operations.
The committee already has in the bill $186 million for these grants.
That is $16 million more than the President asked of us, and it is $2.8
million more than what we have in it right now.
So, you know, we have done well by this grant program. I cannot
imagine somebody complaining about it.
Then you are taking the money out of the Under Secretary for
Management, and that would either zero out or substantially decrease
funding for absolutely critical programs that are designed to bring
these 22 agencies into a single program, and so I would strongly oppose
this amendment.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I rise in strong support of this amendment which would provide much-
needed funding for interoperability.
Amazingly, we have made so little progress in solving the
communications problems that plagued first responders on September 11
and in every other emergency in the last 15 years. SAFECOM, which has
been tasked as the lead Federal agency for first responder
communication issues, has only five employees and less than 1/100th of
1 percent of the Department of Homeland Security budget.
Due to its lack of resources, SAFECOM is just not meeting its
objective. It has not adopted a single equipment standard. There is no
long-term strategy to solve the interoperability problem. We are not
prepared to effectively respond to any emergency unless our first
responders on the ground are able to communicate with one another.
I ask my colleagues to let us move this amendment, let us support
this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey will be
postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Markey

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Markey:
Page 3, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $14.7 million)''.
Page 28, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $14.7 million)''.
Page 31, line 1, after the dollar amount insert:
``(increased by $14.7 million)''.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I hope everyone who has been watching this
debate appreciates this free, online parliamentary lesson that we are
conducting out here on the floor. My amendment has been redrafted in a
way, working with the Parliamentarians, which I think is now completely
in conformance with the rules of the House.
But what I have decided to do during the time that we have been
actually working on the parliamentary questions is to change the
amendment by reducing the amount that I am going to ask to be
transferred over to the metropolitan medical response systems in the
country. That decision rested upon kind of a suggestion that I take the
money that we really need out of the Max HR program, this program which
the unions of America are in opposition to, the National Treasury
Employees Union, the American Federation of Government Employees. We
have the Fire Chiefs of the United States who have endorsed my
amendment.
Just to restate for those who were not listening earlier, the point
of this is that we have learned a lot since this time last year when we
were appropriating the last time; $30 million was inserted. And I want
to congratulate the gentleman from Kentucky and the gentleman from
Minnesota.
Again, the White House recommended no money. But we all know the
critical role which the local police, the local fire, the local medical
personnel are going to play in the event that, God forbid, there is
ever a catastrophic event in a community.
We have also learned from this time last year of the inadequacy of
local preparedness. Hurricane Katrina showed us how locally unprepared
we are in our community. The Avian flu has only appeared as a major
pandemic threat to our country since this time last year. We did not
have that as part of our discussion.
What have we heard from the local level? We have heard that there is
no capacity for just about any community in America to respond to the
level of catastrophe that a terrorist attack, nuclear, biological or
chemical; a hurricane of a magnitude of a three or higher; or an avian
flu type of pandemic would present to a community.
So here in this amendment, what I am doing is increasing by $14.7
million the funding that will go out to these 125 largest of all
metropolitan areas in the United States, so that at the State level and
local level they can coordinate with the Federal Government and their
police, fire and medical resources, so that there is a strategy to
respond in the event of one of those catastrophes.
The money, again, will be coming out of the Max HR program. It is one
that has already been tapped in this process. It is one that deals with
the program which has come under assault from the unions of our country
as being an assault upon their workplace.
So to the Members, I urge them to support this amendment. It will
provide for those local heroes the help that they are going to need,
the reinforcements that they are going to need in the event, and we
know that no one community has an inevitable catastrophe, but we know
that across the country, in any one year, it is inevitable that someone
will be hit. This is a way of giving us that extra insurance policy so
that the planning can be in place.
I urge an ``aye'' vote on the Markey amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman wish to be heard on his point of
order?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. No, Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the reservation.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman withdraws his reservation.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman, as I understand
his amendment, would take $14.7 million out of the Office of the Under
Secretary for Management and provide that money to the metropolitan
medical response teams.
Mr. Chairman, we have already provided $30 million in the bill for
these teams. The budget request that came to us asked for zero, and the
subcommittee and the committee decided these were worthwhile programs,
doing great work, and we provided $30 million in the bill that we had
to find from somewhere else.
Now, Mr. Markey wants to take another slug of money from the Office
of the Under Secretary for Management. The poor guy's out of money.
With the amendments that have been offered so far, there is no more
money left in the Under Secretary For Management's account if those
amendments pass, Mr. Chairman. So we have hit bottom and the Under
Secretary for Management

[[Page H3313]]

and the management of the Department of Homeland Security, if these
amendments pass, will go out of business.
So I urge a rejection of this amendment. I cannot see how the extra
money would be used by the teams because we have already got $30
million in their account, and the offset would wreck the Department.
I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Massachusetts to speak again on the amendment?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I will not object at this point
in time. I am serving notice, however, that this is the last time
during the consideration of this bill that I will not object.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Massachusetts is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that, and I appreciate the
gentleman not objecting at this time.
What I did was, to be honest with you, I truncated my statement when
I rose this second time, that is, on this second iteration of the
amendment, and I realize that many people an hour ago probably were not
listening. So when the gentleman from Kentucky said that $30 million
was in the budget, that was true and it remains true, and I do not
contest that except in my earlier statement I made clear that, one, I
praised him for putting in $30 million because the Bush administration
wanted zero, but second, the $30 million number is the same number that
was in last year's budget before Katrina, before the avian flu threat
became clear, before all the lessons that this country has learned
unfortunately through real life experience.
That is why I believe that we have to increase this budget by this
near $15 million. That is what the fire chiefs are asking us for. That
is what the unions are asking us for. In other words, the local police,
the local fire, the employees in the hospitals all across the country,
they are all saying: We are not prepared. Our emergency rooms will be
overrun. We do not have the capacity to respond to a nuclear or
chemical or biological event. We will be paralyzed in the first one
hour. We need better metropolitan planning so that no one hospital, no
one neighborhood is devastated.
So I am asking for the increase because of what we have learned over
the last year, what we are seeing ourselves as Americans, horrified
last Labor Day weekend, saw these people looking up, looking for help,
and realizing there was no metropolitan medical response plan. We have
learned in audits of plans across the whole country that there is still
not in existence plans of a way that would adequately deal with this
issue.
So, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for not objecting, and I urge
the Members to support my amendment.

{time} 1815

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts will be
postponed.

Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed, in the following order:
Amendment by Mr. Kucinich of Ohio.
Amendment by Mr. Brown of Ohio.
Amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas.
Amendment by Mr. Langevin of Rhode Island.
Amendment by Mr. Stupak of Michigan.
Amendment by Mr. Lynch of Massachusetts.
Amendment by Mr. Pascrell of New Jersey.
Amendment by Mr. Markey of Massachusetts.
Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the Chair will reduce to
2 minutes the time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this
series.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Kucinich

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) 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 CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 170,
noes 251, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 211]

AYES--170

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
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
Doggett
Doyle
Emanuel
Engel
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gordon
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pomeroy
Rahall
Rangel
Ross
Rothman
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Shays
Sherman
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--251

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dingell
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Etheridge
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Gene
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
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
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Matheson
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary

[[Page H3314]]

Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--11

DeLay
Eshoo
Evans
Flake
Jones (OH)
Kennedy (RI)
Mollohan
Paul
Pelosi
Snyder
Wilson (SC)

{time} 1841

Messrs. GINGREY, LEWIS of California, PRICE of Georgia, BEAUPREZ,
SERRANO, and Mrs. CUBIN changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. CUELLAR and Mr. OBERSTAR changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio

The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Poe). The pending business is the demand for
a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Brown) 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 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 167,
noes 255, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 212]

AYES--167

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Becerra
Berkley
Berry
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Chandler
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Emanuel
Engel
Etheridge
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Goode
Gordon
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore (WI)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pombo
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
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Tancredo
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu

NOES--255

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Berman
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
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 (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Cleaver
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (AL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Farr
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Gene
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Matheson
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Meeks (NY)
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
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
Schmidt
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Strickland
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Towns
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--10

DeLay
Eshoo
Evans
Flake
Jones (OH)
Kennedy (RI)
Mollohan
Paul
Snyder
Wilson (SC)

{time} 1846

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

Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

The Acting CHAIRMAN. 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

[Roll No. 213]

AYES--173

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Dingell
Doggett
Emanuel
Engel
Etheridge
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gerlach
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)

[[Page H3315]]

Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--249

Aderholt
Alexander
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Farr
Feeney
Ferguson
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Olver
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
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)
Sabo
Salazar
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--10

Akin
DeLay
Eshoo
Evans
Flake
Kennedy (RI)
Mollohan
Paul
Snyder
Wilson (SC)

{time} 1852

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

Amendment Offered by Mr. Langevin

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr.
Langevin) 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 CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 205,
noes 216, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 214]

AYES--205

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
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 (KY)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Emanuel
Engel
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Ford
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Gerlach
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kennedy (MN)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kirk
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Shays
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--216

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Diaz-Balart, L.
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Poe
Pombo
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Saxton

[[Page H3316]]

Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--11

DeLay
Diaz-Balart, M.
Eshoo
Evans
Flake
Kennedy (RI)
Mollohan
Ney
Paul
Snyder
Wilson (SC)

{time} 1855

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

Amendment Offered by Mr. Stupak

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

[Roll No. 215]

AYES--348

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop (NY)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cole (OK)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Drake
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
Etheridge
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Harman
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McMorris
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Sodrel
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--74

Alexander
Baker
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brown (SC)
Buyer
Calvert
Cantor
Carter
Coble
Conaway
Crenshaw
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
English (PA)
Frelinghuysen
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Granger
Hall
Harris
Hastings (WA)
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hyde
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Latham
Linder
Manzullo
Marchant
McCrery
Miller (FL)
Murtha
Neugebauer
Ney
Nunes
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pitts
Radanovich
Rehberg
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Simpson
Sullivan
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Walsh
Wamp
Wicker
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--10

DeLay
Eshoo
Evans
Flake
Kennedy (RI)
Lewis (CA)
Mollohan
Paul
Snyder
Wilson (SC)

Announcement by the Chairman

The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there is 1 minute
remaining in this vote.

{time} 1859

Mr. SHAYS, Mr. WELLER, and Ms. FOXX changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Lynch

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

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 216]

AYES--225

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Bradley (NH)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Butterfield
Camp (MI)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Castle
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Emanuel
Engel
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey

[[Page H3317]]

Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Ney
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Platts
Pomeroy
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Simmons
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--197

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

NOT VOTING--10

DeLay
Eshoo
Evans
Flake
Kennedy (RI)
Mollohan
Murtha
Paul
Snyder
Wilson (SC)

Announcement by the Chairman

The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). One minute remains in this vote.

{time} 1903

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

Amendment Offered by Mr. Pascrell

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

[Roll No. 217]

AYES--188

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonner
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Costa
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan
Emanuel
Engel
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Obey
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pickering
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Ramstad
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Rothman
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (VA)
Shays
Sherman
Shuster
Simmons
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wynn

NOES--227

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kaptur
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McMorris
Meeks (NY)
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Olver
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Poe
Pombo
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiberi
Turner
Udall (NM)
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

[[Page H3318]]

NOT VOTING--17

Bachus
DeLay
Eshoo
Evans
Flake
Hunter
Istook
Keller
Kennedy (RI)
McKeon
Mollohan
Murtha
Paul
Rogers (AL)
Snyder
Tiahrt
Wilson (SC)

Announcement by the Chairman

The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). One minute remains in this vote.

{time} 1906

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

Amendment Offered by Mr. Markey

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

[Roll No. 218]

AYES--198

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Emanuel
Engel
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
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)
Ramstad
Rangel
Reichert
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
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
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
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--224

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

NOT VOTING--10

DeLay
Eshoo
Evans
Flake
Kennedy (RI)
Mollohan
Paul
Radanovich
Snyder
Wilson (SC)

{time} 1916

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, the Department of Homeland Security is
currently in the process of consolidating its data center as part of
its infrastructure transformation program.
The bill includes $41 million to establish services for a mirror data
center to provide sufficient back-up and redundancy for the Department
of Homeland Security data operations.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend from
Virginia who shares my concerns.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, as the Department proceeds with
the site selection for the mirror data services center, we feel it is
important that all appropriate GSA site selection procedures be
followed and that an RFP be issued clearly stating objective criteria
for the site.
We seek your assistance in ensuring these procedures are used and
that a proper RFP is issued.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. You have my assurances proper site selection
procedures will be used.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Amendment Offered by Mr. DeFazio

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

Amendment offered by Mr. DeFazio:
Page 3, line 15, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(reduced by $15,000,000)''.
Page 5, line 19, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(increased by $11,500,000)''.

Mr. DeFAZIO (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Oregon?
There was no objection.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, this is a modified version of the
amendment I offered earlier to bring the pay-out rates to sync. So I
have reduced the additional funding for the Office of Inspector General
to $11,500,000.
Now, at that level, that is way below the $1 recovery for $1
expenditure level for that office. If we put that additional funding in
there, the taxpayers will save far in excess of that.
As I said earlier, 3,622 allegations are still pending and have not
yet been investigated because of the backlog of that office. Quite
simply, to respond to the chairman's concerns earlier, I

[[Page H3319]]

would see that this money could come from the what they call plus-up or
that is, an increase of $3.4 million in the Chief of Staff's Office.
The gentleman mentioned Office of the Under Secretary for Management
earlier; that woman has resigned, and the office is vacant.
And then if we took the $7 million from the limousine account, we
would have more than $11,500,000. I would recommend this as a good
investment for the taxpayers of America.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The committee bill already provides $96 million plus for the
Inspector General. That is an increase of $14 million over the current
level. And of that increase, $11 million is to continue and expand
audits and investigations related to the gulf coast hurricanes.
So we have already increased funding for the inspector general by 17
percent over current levels. And again, this money would come out of
the Under Secretary of Management's Office. We have already cut $70
million from that office.
We are going to shut it down, and the Department will not be able to
operate. So I urge a no vote.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon will be
postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Marshall

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Marshall:
Page 3, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $20,000,000)''.
Page 39, line 6, after the first dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $20,000,000)''.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky reserves a point of order.
Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Chairman, Chairman Rogers will be happy to know
that the target of this amendment is also the Under Secretary of
Management's budget, which still has money in it after our last series
of votes.
Mr. Chairman, in the 1980s, we gave amnesty and told the American
people that the flow of illegal immigrants from Mexico was going to
stop. It has not. And one of the main problems that employers have
right now is their ability to quickly and reliably identify whether or
not a proposed employee is a legal resident of the United States.
In the President's budget, the President requested $110 million for
the Employment Eligibility Verification Program. The committee has
provided $90 million. Mrs. Miller of Michigan and I have joined
together to submit this amendment which would add $20 million to the
Employment Eligibility Verification Program, which would bring it up to
the level that the President has requested.
The moneys that are necessary to offset come from the Office of the
Under Secretary For Management.

Point of Order

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes to amend
portions of the bill not yet read. The amendment may not be considered
en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule XXI, because the amendment proposes
to increase the level of outlays in the bill.
Mr Chairman, I ask for a ruling.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further Members wishing to be heard on the
point of order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to make an inquiry if I could. Mr.
Chairman, we have a CBO scoring.
Apparently, Mr. Chairman, I apologize, the amendment which has been
provided and which is at the desk and which was announced is not the
amendment that we have submitted.
What we would ask is permission to withdraw the amendment which has
been submitted and actually submit the one that is supposed to have
been submitted.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that was read is
what we are relying upon here.
Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Chairman, we have an amendment that proposes to cut
$20 million, pardon me, cut $24 million from the Office of the Under
Secretary of Management and add $20 million to the employment
verification program.
CBO has scored it. We have been told that that is the appropriate
amount to reduce the management budget by. I thought this amendment was
at the desk. I am not somebody who delivered it for the purposes of
this.
But we should have an amendment at the desk that provides to reduce
by $24 million the management budget, and increase by $20 million the
budget for the Employment Eligibility Verification Program. CBO says
that is the appropriate scoring.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to withdrawal of the current
amendment?
There was no objection.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Marshall

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Marshall:
Page 3, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $24,000,000)''.
Page 39, line 6, after the first dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $20,000,000)''.

Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to take a whole bunch of
additional time repeating what I have previously said.
Right now we have a very difficult time where illegal immigration is
concerned, and employers tell all of us that the system we have in
place right now for identifying whether or not a proposed employee is a
legal resident is broken. It simply does not work. The President has
asked for $110 million to work on this problem. We propose in this
budget to give him $90 million.
Mr. Chairman, I know the chairman supports the concept. The chairman
and the committee chose not to give full funding. We simply recommend
full funding, and we take the funds that are necessary from the Office
of the Under Secretary of Management.
Mrs. Miller of Michigan joins me in this request.
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I certainly want to thank the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Marshall) for offering this amendment, which I am proud to
cosponsor.
Very simply, Mr. Chairman, this amendment would increase funding for
the Employment Eligibility Verification Program. It is a very important
program. It requires employers to verify the employment eligibility and
identity documents presented to the employer and record the document
information.
This program is a very important piece in our efforts to get control
of our borders. One of the primary reasons so many immigrants, of
course, come here illegally is to find work. That incentive only exists
if jobs are available.
The vast majority of businesses do want to comply with the law and
hire only those in the country legally. But because of a lack of a
reliable verification system, they are unable to be certain that those
that they seek to hire are actually here legally.
There are still other businesses that knowingly break the law in
order to exploit cheap labor, and that has to be stopped. We are a
Nation of laws, and the American people expect those laws to be
followed. They have had enough of the current broken system, and we
need to take action to ensure that only those that are in our country
legally are able to find work.
This program is key to ensuring that businesses are complying with
the labor and immigration laws of our Nation. The President has
requested $110 million for this program in his fiscal year 2007 budget
proposal.
As it stands, the legislation only provides for $90 million. And
while I certainly understand and appreciate the chairman and the
committee having very, very difficult decisions to make, I do believe
the funding for this program is one of the most important things that
we can do to cut down on

[[Page H3320]]

the flood of immigrants who are here illegally crossing our border.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is absolutely essential that we get control
of our borders, and increased funding for employment eligibility
verification will help us to do this.

{time} 1930

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The committee included 160 million dollars in the bill for USCIS
salaries and expenses which is $115 million above the 2006 level. Their
request included $110 million for the Employment Eligibility
Verification program, mainly to fund development of new systems and
intelligence communications, to support employer requests for
confirmation of immigration status of their employees.
The bill provides $90 million. The reason that we did not fully fund
that program is because they do not need that much money. This $90
million will be enough to begin the work needed to start defining
systems needs and begin the design and procurement process. That is all
they need for this. If we give them more, it will not be spent. They
cannot spend more.
We could certainly use that money. Certainly the Under Secretary for
Management can use that money. If we continue to dip into his account,
he will not exist and that is very, very important to manage the whole
Department. I understand the gentleman and the gentlewoman's point on
this; however, when you think that this amount of money will be all
that they can use to get the program up and running, I think you will
be satisfied with it. I urge defeat of the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Marshall).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will be
postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Office of the Chief Financial Officer

For necessary expenses of the Office of the Chief Financial
Officer, as authorized by section 103 of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 113), $43,480,000, of which
$18,000,000 is for the eMerge²Program: Provided,
That $10,000,000 shall be withheld from obligation until the
Office of the Chief Financial Officer submits monthly budget
execution reports to the Committees on Appropriations of the
Senate and the House of Representatives as required by
section 529 of this Act.

Office of the Chief Information Officer

For necessary expenses of the Office of the Chief
Information Officer, as authorized by section 103 of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 113), and Department-
wide technology investments, $364,765,000; of which
$79,521,000 shall be available for salaries and expenses; and
of which $285,244,000 shall be available for development and
acquisition of information technology equipment, software,
services, and related activities for the Department of
Homeland Security, and for the costs of conversion to
narrowband communications, including the cost for operation
of the land mobile radio legacy systems, to remain available
until expended: Provided, That none of the funds appropriated
shall be used to support or supplement the appropriations
provided for the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status
Indicator Technology project or the Automated Commercial
Environment.

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Poe

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

Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Poe:
Page 4, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $41,000,000)''.
Page 4, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $41,000,000)''.
Page 14, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $41,000,000)''.
Page 14, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $41,000,000)''.

Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment today because the
Federal Government has failed to protect our Nation's interiors from
illegals. We allow thousands a day to enter illegally in this country
and do not know where they are or why they are coming here. It is a
common understanding among illegals that once they get past the Border
Patrols, which only patrols the first inner 30 miles of our borders,
and get into the United States, they are home free in America. There
are not enough interior officers to capture illegals.
What this shows us is we need a new approach, one centered on
enforcing the Nation's interior. We send a mixed message when we say we
are serious about border protection but give a wink and a nod to those
who make it into the interior of this country. They know they will not
be captured.
With the other Chamber passing sweeping immigration changes today
that will undoubtedly place more of a burden on our Border Patrol, and
even allow more illegal aliens to settle into the community, it is
incumbent on this body to give communities more resources to clean up
Federal failures. Increasingly, more of the burden of illegal
immigration is falling on the shoulders of State and local governments
to absorb the populations into their communities. The problem is
particularly troubling in border communities and major trafficking
routes in the Southwest. I know because I have been there and I have
seen it.
Mr. Chairman, the first duty of government is to protect the
citizens. The 287(g) program fulfills this duty. This program is a
voluntary program that gives State and local enforcement, at their
choosing, immigration enforcement training so they can protect their
communities. The Nation has 750,000 State and local law enforcement,
and they can be an effective force in assisting Federal authorities.
The program is voluntary to local police if they choose to help enforce
immigration laws.
For example, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, the first in
the Nation to enter into a 287(g) agreement, used trained officers to
fight terrorism. Alabama has used these agreements to go after a
growing human trafficking problem because the Federal ICE presence in
Alabama was limited in their State to only three officers.
Los Angeles County is looking at the program to help identify and
remove criminal aliens from their jails before they are released. This
is a major problem as ICE estimates there are a half million criminal
aliens in U.S. jails and prisons, and they have not been identified for
removal to their countries. Without adequate action, many of these
criminals could be released back into the community rather than being
deported. A 287 agreement between ICE and local officials could result
in more criminal aliens being identified and removed from the United
States before they are released from jail and have to be rearrested.
Mr. Chairman, as a co-chair of the Congressional Victims Right
Caucus, crimes committed by people who have no right to be here in the
first place are especially troubling to me, especially if we have
already had them in custody once.
Take into account the following cases: in Lake Worth, Florida, an
illegal alien from the Bahamas named Milagro Cunningham took an 8-year-
old girl to a nearby landfill where he proceeded to sexually assault
her, choke her and leave her for dead in a rock-filled trash bin.
Cunningham had been arrested three times by Palm Beach County Sheriff's
Department prior to the incident and not once was his immigration
investigated. If Palm Beach County Sheriff's Department had the
authority under 287(g) and an agreement been in place, his status could
have been verified and then turned over to Federal immigration for his
removal from this country.
Angel Resendez, the notorious railroad killer, who sits now on Texas
death row for 14 murders he committed in the United States, he came to
this country illegally from Mexico. And during his killings, Resendez
crossed the U.S. southern border with Mexico at will and managed to
slip in and out of the hands of local law enforcement many times. Just
think if 287(g) was enforced, we could have spared the lives of 14
people had local law enforcement had the training and authority to
inquire into his legal status instead of letting him go.
The 287(g) programs can be expanded and modeled for any need, whether
it is a task force investigating alien gangs such as the MS-13 or the
document fraud rings or human smuggling.

[[Page H3321]]

While these examples show the great promise of 287(g) programs, the
reality is Congress hasn't provided the funds to see how effective this
program can really be. The authority has been available for 10 years,
but since 2001 only funding has been allowed for 159 State and local
officers. The fact of the matter is local law enforcement is going to
come in contact with criminal aliens like Cunningham and Resendez
during the course of their daily duties. Now, what are we going to do
about that?
Today we have a choice. We can sit idly by and let these criminals
slip through law enforcement's hands, or we can give our country's
finest local and State in uniform the resources they need to protect
and serve. We have the ability today to send a strong message that the
lawlessness will not stand and we will preserve our first duty of
government to protect the citizens.
This amendment today seeks to increase the 287(g) program by $41
million by removing the $41 million that is even above the President's
request for the bureaucrat backup information technology center under
the Chief Information Officer of the DHS. There is a growing need to
expand these and I ask adoption of this amendment.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Poe amendment. Although I
have some concerns about the intended use of the $41 million that is
the subject of this amendment, I want to focus tonight on the offset.
My colleague from Texas proposes to offset the cost of his amendment
with an equivalent reduction to the Office of Chief Information
Officer, specifically targeting funds that the committee has included
to cover the establishment of a mirror, or back-up, data center.
It has been 4 years now since the creation of the Department of
Homeland Security, and we are still at least months away from
consolidating and securing data that is essential to protecting the
homeland. Agreeing to the Poe amendment would strip funds intended for
the establishment of this second data center which we should be
accelerating, not delaying.
To take on face value that this funding is not important because it
was not part of the President's budget request is to abandon this
institution's responsibility and authority. We are responsible for
overseeing the Department's budget and operations, and this additional
funding is the result of our subcommittee's best judgment.
Having a mirror data center for the Department of Homeland Security
is not only desirable; it is essential. If last hurricane season taught
us anything, it is that we need to be fully prepared for the next
disaster. The Poe amendment would compromise that preparedness. I urge
colleagues to reject it.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
I want to identify with the remarks just made by the gentleman from
North Carolina. It is urgent, in my judgment, that Mr. Poe secures more
money for the 287(g) program. I think that is an essential matter that
needs to be taken care of, to get State and local law enforcement
assistance in the enforcement of the immigration laws. We will never be
able to get enough border control to completely handle the problem in
my judgment, unless we get the active assistance of State and local law
enforcement, as authorized and funded.
In the bill we provided $5.4 million for training of local law
enforcement officers in participation in 287(g) and the President's
border supplemental proposes a $50 million increase. So we are going to
get that money that Mr. Poe would like for us to have; we are just
going to get it from another source.
I agree with the gentleman from North Carolina on the need to keep
the money in the Chief Information Officer's account for the data
center. And it will assist, those data centers will assist the border
effort to be sure that we keep out people that should not be in the
country. We cannot do it without a coordinated data collection center,
and that is what this bill includes $41 billion for.
Currently, the Department has 17 of these centers scattered all over
the country, largely a legacy of consolidating multiple agencies when
we formed the Department. Running those multiple data floors is
expensive. It hinders information sharing. It creates security
vulnerabilities. The Department estimates that consolidation to twin
facilities as the bill proposes will save $50 million each year,
starting in 2009, with two mirror sites.
The current information silos scattered across the Department will be
done away with, allowing a consolidated view of information, a critical
element of information sharing. Having information at twin sites allows
it to be under one security umbrella, leaving fewer opportunities to
compromise secure information.
The first center is being built in Stennis, Mississippi. The
Department plans to release a request for information to begin the
competitive process to locate a surface for a second mirror facility
this year. Without a redundant data center, should something happen to
this Stennis facility, DHS would not be able to operate. People could
not cross the border. Travelers would stop at airports. Coast Guard
data would be lost.
So I urge the Members to reject this amendment so that we can have
the data centers that are absolutely vital to the successful operation
of the Department and the battle to keep illegals out of the country.
I would point out again to Mr. Poe that when the President's border
supplemental passes, you will get not just the $41 million you seek,
but $50 million dollars. So we are with you. We are just doing it a
different way. I urge a defeat of the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).
The amendment was rejected.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Analysis and Operations

For necessary expenses for information analysis and
operations coordination activities, as authorized by title II
of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 121 et seq.),
$298,663,000, to remain available until September 30, 2008,
of which not to exceed $5,000 shall be for official reception
and representation expenses.

Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding

For necessary expenses of the Office of the Federal
Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding, $3,000,000: Provided,
That $1,000,000 shall not be available for obligation until
the Federal Coordinator submits to the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives a report
related to Federal rebuilding efforts.

Office of Inspector General

For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.), $96,185,000, of which not to exceed
$100,000 may be used for certain confidential operational
expenses, including the payment of informants, to be expended
at the direction of the Inspector General.

TITLE II--SECURITY, ENFORCEMENT, AND INVESTIGATIONS

United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology

For necessary expenses for the development of the United
States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology
project, as authorized by section 110 of the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
(8 U.S.C. 1365a), $362,494,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That of the total amount made available
under this heading, $312,494,000 may not be obligated for the
United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator
Technology project until the Committees on Appropriations of
the Senate and the House of Representatives receive and
approve a plan for expenditure prepared by the Secretary of
Homeland Security that--
(1) meets the capital planning and investment control
review requirements established by the Office of Management
and Budget, including Circular A-11, part 7;
(2) complies with the Department of Homeland Security
information systems enterprise architecture;
(3) complies with the acquisition rules, requirements,
guidelines, and systems acquisition management practices of
the Federal Government;
(4) includes a certification by the Chief Information
Officer of the Department of Homeland Security that an
independent verification and validation agent is currently
under contract for the project;
(5) is reviewed and approved by the Department of Homeland
Security Investment Review Board, the Secretary of Homeland
Security, and the Office of Management and Budget; and
(6) is reviewed by the Government Accountability Office.

[[Page H3322]]

Customs and Border Protection

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses for enforcement of laws relating to
border security, immigration, customs, and agricultural
inspections and regulatory activities related to plant and
animal imports; purchase and lease of up to 4,500 (3,500 for
replacement only) police-type vehicles; and contracting with
individuals for personal services abroad; $5,435,310,000; of
which $3,026,000 shall be derived from the Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund for administrative expenses related to the
collection of the Harbor Maintenance Fee pursuant to section
9505(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C.
9505(c)(3)) and notwithstanding section 1511(e)(1) of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 551(e)(1)); of which
not to exceed $45,000 shall be for official reception and
representation expenses; of which not less than $162,976,000
shall be for Air and Marine Operations; of which such sums as
become available in the Customs User Fee Account, except sums
subject to section 13031(f)(3) of the Consolidated Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(f)(3)),
shall be derived from that account; of which not to exceed
$150,000 shall be available for payment for rental space in
connection with preclearance operations; and of which not to
exceed $1,000,000 shall be for awards of compensation to
informants, to be accounted for solely under the certificate
of the Secretary of Homeland Security: Provided, That for
fiscal year 2007, the overtime limitation prescribed in
section 5(c)(1) of the Act of February 13, 1911 (19 U.S.C.
267(c)(1)) shall be $35,000; and notwithstanding any other
provision of law, none of the funds appropriated by this Act
may be available to compensate any employee of the Bureau of
Customs and Border Protection for overtime, from whatever
source, in an amount that exceeds such limitation, except in
individual cases determined by the Secretary of Homeland
Security, or the designee of the Secretary, to be necessary
for national security purposes, to prevent excessive costs,
or in cases of immigration emergencies: Provided further,
That no funds shall be available for the site acquisition,
design, or construction of any Border Patrol checkpoint in
the Tucson sector: Provided further, That the Border Patrol
shall relocate its checkpoints in the Tucson sector at least
once every seven days in a manner designed to prevent persons
subject to inspection from predicting the location of any
such checkpoint: Provided further, That of the total amount
made available under this heading, $115,000,000 shall be for
the Secure Border Initiative Technology and Tactical
Infrastructure (SBInet) program, project, and activity, to
remain available until expended, of which $25,000,000 shall
not be available for obligation until the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives
receive and approve a plan for expenditure prepared by the
Secretary of Homeland Security that--
(1) defines activities, milestones, and costs for
implementing the program;
(2) demonstrates how activities will further the goals and
objectives of the SBI, as defined in the SBI multi-year
strategic plan;
(3) identifies funding and the organizational staffing
(including full-time employee equivalents, contractors, and
detailees) requirements by activity;
(4) reports on costs incurred, the activities completed,
and the progress made by the program;
(5) includes a certification by the Chief Procurement
Officer of the Department of Homeland Security that
procedures to prevent conflicts of interest between the prime
integrator and major subcontractors are established and that
an independent verification and validation agent is currently
under contract for the project;
(6) is reviewed and approved by the Department of Homeland
Security Investment Review Board, the Secretary of Homeland
Security, and the Office of Management and Budget;
(7) complies with the capital planning and investment
control review requirements established by the Office of
Management and Budget, including Circular A-11, part 7;
(8) complies with all applicable acquisition rules,
requirements, guidelines, and best systems acquisition
management practices of the Federal Government; and
(9) is reviewed by the Government Accountability Office.

{time} 1945

Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. King of Iowa:
Page 7, line 23, after the first dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $2,000,000)''.
Page 14, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer the King-Shadegg-
Souder amendment. It is an amendment that transfers $2 million for the
Shadow Wolves. They are a unique organization that takes the funding
from Customs and Border Patrol and shifts it over to ICE, and the
intention is to transfer Shadow Wolves over to ICE, that $2 million.
That would take care of the salaries and expenses and the
appropriations accordingly. The intent is to make sure that this
specialized unit called the Shadow Wolves, who have shown so much
efficiency with their border patrol and their drug interdiction and the
unique skills that they have, can be protected and enhanced and
encouraged and their unique culture can be expanded.
They now work within the Tohono O'odham Reservation in southern
Arizona. They control 76 miles of that border which is 2.8 million
acres. Their record has been astonishing, Mr. Chairman, and I have been
down there to review their work and gotten to know some of them. We
tried to work out a solution here by which they can be encouraged and
enhanced.
One of the people who has a great voice for Native Americans all
across this country is the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) to whom I
would be happy to yield.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KING of Iowa. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this
important amendment that will aid the outstanding work of the Shadow
Wolves.
The Shadow Wolves, who were recognized by Congress in 1972, patrol
the international land border within the Tohono O'odham Indian Nation
in the State of Arizona. The Shadow Wolves' officers are Native
Americans who combine modern technology and traditional Native American
tracking techniques. Their unit includes the Blackfoot, Cheyenne and
Pima tribes. Their motto is: ``In brightest day, in darkest night, no
evil shall escape my sight, for I am the Shadow Wolf.''
Mr. Chairman, these agents, numbering only 16, have combined to seize
an average of over 100,000 pounds of illegal narcotics annually. In
some years, they intercept as much as a third of all the marijuana
stopped by Customs officials in Arizona.
This commonsense amendment is budget neutral. It will merely transfer
the Shadow Wolves' unit funding from Customs and Border Patrol to
Immigration and Customs enforcement.
Funding for the Shadow Wolves should not be held hostage by internal
power struggles within the Department of Homeland Security. Instead,
they should be funded and allowed to operate to their fullest
potential.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Iowa for bringing this
excellent amendment to the floor.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the
gentleman.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KING of Iowa. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana, the chairman
of the Government Reform Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy
and Human Resources.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I want to thank
Chairman Rogers and the committee for being willing to hopefully
support this amendment and continue to work in conference.
This is a major breakthrough. This is something we have been working
towards for years to keep this unit together.
I want to thank Julie Miers and Deb Spiro of the CBP and the ICE
assistant secretary, Chairman King and Chairman Lungren and the
Homeland Security authorizing committee.
This is something that is finally happening, and it is an exciting
time for one of the most critical drug trafficking organizations in the
sense of they break the drug trafficking, they break the smuggling and
trafficking inside of the Native American reservation. It is something
we ought to be working to preserve, and I want to thank the committee
for working with us and all the others, as well as the agencies.
This is a historic night that we have been working towards for 4 to 6
years. I thank you very much.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KING of Iowa. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman has
offered a very helpful amendment, and I congratulate him on that and
those who are supporting the amendment, and the committee would like to
accept it.

[[Page H3323]]

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and I am
grateful for his work on all of our security in this Nation, and I am
hopeful that as we go forward to conference we could have a better look
at the finances required to keep the Shadow Wolves as vital as we can.
With that, I encourage support of the amendment, the King-Souder-
Shadegg amendment, and I thank the chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Reyes

Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair notes that the amendment addresses a portion
of the bill not yet read for amendment.
Is there objection to consideration of the amendment at this time?
Without objection, the Clerk will report the amendment.
There was no objection.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Reyes:
Page 7, line 23, after the first dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $1,950,000,000)''.
Page 11, line 2, strike the period at the end and insert a
colon.
Page 11, after line 2, insert the following:
Provided further, That, of the total amount provided,
$1,700,000,000 shall be for an additional 10,000 Border
Patrol agents: Provided further, That, of the total amount
provided, $250,000,000 shall be for expanding the Border
Patrol Training Academy to accommodate training for such
additional Border Patrol agents.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on
the gentleman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky reserves a point of order.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, before being elected to Congress, I served
for 26\1/2\ years in the United States Border Patrol, including 13 of
those as sector chief in McAllen and El Paso, Texas. I have years of
experience patrolling the desert of the U.S.-Mexico border region,
supervising thousands of hardworking, dedicated Border Patrol agents
and doing anything within my power to strengthen our borders and to
reduce illegal immigration.
However, Mr. Chairman, it does not take that kind of experience to
know that this bill fails to provide the funding required to hire and
train the Border Patrol agents that we need to secure our Nation's
borders.
Instead of funding the 2,000 new Border Patrol agents authorized
under the 9/11 Commission legislation passed by this very Congress in
2004, the bill before us today provides only enough money for 1,200 new
agents.
Mr. Chairman, I ask you, what kind of logic is it to spend $1.9
billion to deploy our already overburdened National Guard troops to the
U.S.-Mexico border on a supposedly temporary basis but then fail to
provide the resources necessary to hire and train an adequate number of
Border Patrol agents who are charged with securing our Nation's
borders? From my perspective, Mr. Chairman, it is flawed logic, and it
is also bad policy.
That is why I am offering this amendment with my friend and colleague
from Texas, Representative Solomon Ortiz, who also has many years of
law enforcement experience as a sheriff in the border region and today
represents a border district.
Our amendment would provide the funds necessary to hire and train
10,000 new Border Patrol agents, which is in line with what Congress
authorized in the 9/11 Commission bill. It would also about double the
current size of the U.S. Border Patrol, which is about what we need to
do in my opinion before we can reassess whether or not we have achieved
operational control of our borders.
Mr. Chairman, many of my congressional colleagues talk a great deal
about border security. Yet, when it comes time to actually fund
additional Border Patrol agents or other necessary security personnel,
equipment and technology, we always come up very short. From my
perspective, I guess this bill is no different. What is it going to
take for us to start putting our money where our mouth is?
With that, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Point of Order

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman insist on his point of order?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I do make a point of order
against the amendment because it is in violation of section 302(f) of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
The Committee on Appropriations filed a suballocation of budget
totals for fiscal year 2007 on May 18. The adoption of this amendment
would cause the subcommittee suballocation for budget authority made
under section 302(b) to be exceeded and is not permitted under section
302(f) of the Act.
I ask for a ruling.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any Members who wish to be heard further on
the point of order?
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I believe that we are long overdue in taking
the proper action to fund our United States Border Patrol. I have heard
a number of my colleagues come on this floor and criticize them,
because they get erroneous information, I might add, from members of
the Minutemen project. The Minutemen project came about because of the
frustration that the general population was feeling at our inability to
control this Nation's borders.
If, in fact, this amendment is ruled out of order, and in fact we
cannot come up with the $1.9 billion that are necessary to fund the
Border Patrol so they can control the border, then why is it that we
spend so much time talking tough about border enforcement, talking
tough about stopping an invasion, talking tough about securing the
border at a time when we are at war with terrorists?
All of the talk in the world does not translate to resources for the
United States Border Patrol. All the talk in the world does not stop
terrorists from coming into this country, but what we do need to do is
recognize that the Border Patrol needs additional staffing. They need
additional equipment. They need additional technology. The President
went on national TV to make that point.
The CHAIRMAN. If the gentleman would suspend, the Chair is
constrained to point out that remarks need to be directed to the point
of order as opposed to the merits of the amendment. Does the gentleman
wish to be heard on the point of order raised by the gentleman from
Kentucky?
Mr. REYES. No, thank you.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further Members wishing to speak on the point
of order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair is authoritatively guided under section 312 of the Budget
Act by an estimate of the Committee on the Budget that an amendment
providing any net increase in new discretionary budget authority would
cause a breach of the pertinent allocation of such authority. The
amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas would increase the level
of new discretionary budget authority in the bill and, as such, the
amendment violates section 302(f) of the Budget Act. The point of order
is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

automation modernization

For expenses for customs and border protection automated
systems, $451,440,000, to remain available until expended, of
which not less than $316,800,000 shall be for the development
of the Automated Commercial Environment: Provided, That of
the total amount made available under this heading,
$216,800,000 may not be obligated for the Automated
Commercial Environment until the Committees on Appropriations
of the Senate and the House of Representatives receive and
approve a plan for expenditure prepared by the Secretary of
Homeland Security that--
(1) meets the capital planning and investment control
review requirements established by the Office of Management
and Budget, including Circular A-11, part 7;
(2) complies with the Department of Homeland Security
information systems enterprise architecture;
(3) complies with the acquisition rules, requirements,
guidelines, and systems acquisition management practices of
the Federal Government;
(4) includes a certification by the Chief Information
Officer of the Department of Homeland Security that an
independent verification and validation agent is currently
under contract for the project;
(5) is reviewed and approved by the Department of Homeland
Security Investment Review Board, the Secretary of Homeland
Security, and the Office of Management and Budget; and
(6) is reviewed by the Government Accountability Office.

[[Page H3324]]

cbp air and marine interdiction, operations, maintenance, and
procurement

For necessary expenses for the operations, maintenance, and
procurement of marine vessels, aircraft, unmanned aerial
vehicles, and other related equipment of the air and marine
program, including operational training and mission-related
travel, and rental payments for facilities occupied by the
air or marine interdiction and demand reduction programs, the
operations of which include the following: the interdiction
of narcotics and other goods; the provision of support to
Federal, State, and local agencies in the enforcement or
administration of laws enforced by the Department of Homeland
Security; and at the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland
Security, the provision of assistance to Federal, State, and
local agencies in other law enforcement and emergency
humanitarian efforts, $373,199,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That no aircraft or other related
equipment, with the exception of aircraft that are one of a
kind and have been identified as excess to the Bureau of
Customs and Border Protection requirements and aircraft that
have been damaged beyond repair, shall be transferred to any
other Federal agency, department, or office outside of the
Department of Homeland Security during fiscal year 2007
without the prior approval of the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives: Provided further, That of the total amount
made available under this heading, $6,800,000 shall not be
available for obligation until the Committee on
Appropriations and the Committee on Homeland Security of the
House of Representatives receive a report on the April 25,
2006, unmanned aerial vehicle mishap.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Mica

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Mica:
Page 13, lines 13 and 14, after ``the Committee on
Appropriations'' insert ``, the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure,''.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate consideration of my amendment by
the subcommittee.
This amendment adds the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
to the list of committees to receive a report on the April 25, 2006,
unmanned aerial vehicle mishap.
The operation of Customs and Border Protection unmanned aerial
vehicles sometimes occurs and has occurred in our National Airspace
System, and that is also taking place along our Nation's southern
border, and perhaps eventually that will also occur on the northern
border.
All Customs and Border Protection UAV operations are conducted now in
compliance with the Federal Aviation Administration with an FAA-issued
Certificate of Authorization. It sets forth various restrictions and
conditions of operation.
Operations will take place within an FAA-established Temporary Flight
Restriction area.

{time} 2000

The operations of UAVs outside the restricted airspace, in the
integrated airspace with manned vehicles, poses some unique safety
issues for the FAA. Information indicates that the unmanned aerial
system accident rate is two to three orders of magnitude greater than
it is for manned systems. That is why it is important that the Customs
and Border Protection UAV, which was involved in a mishap on April 25,
2006, and operating again within this space and under an FAA-issued
certificate of authorization, should also be under the jurisdiction or
at least the concern of this report provided to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure. This accident is being investigated
by the National Safety Transportation Board with the assistance of the
FAA.
The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee of the House has
great interest in learning about this accident, particularly as the FAA
is developing regulations and procedures for the integration of these
UAV vehicles into our National Air System for the future.
It is a minor amendment, but it does recognize some of the
jurisdictional interests of our committee, and I ask for its
consideration.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MICA. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman has
offered a very helpful amendment and certainly should be accepted.
The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Aviation
Subcommittee, which the gentleman chairs, has a very direct interest in
the flights of the UAVs as it relates to commercial aviation
especially.
So I thank the gentleman for the amendment.
Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman for his consideration and also for
his acceptance of this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

construction

For necessary expenses to plan, construct, renovate, equip,
and maintain buildings and facilities necessary for the
administration and enforcement of the laws relating to
customs and immigration, $175,154,000, to remain available
until expended.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses for enforcement of immigration and
customs laws, detention and removals, and investigations; and
purchase and lease of up to 2,740 (2,000 for replacement
only) police-type vehicles, $3,843,257,000, of which not to
exceed $7,500,000 shall be available until expended for
conducting special operations pursuant to section 3131 of the
Customs Enforcement Act of 1986 (19 U.S.C. 2081); of which
not to exceed $15,000 shall be for official reception and
representation expenses; of which not to exceed $1,000,000
shall be for awards of compensation to informants, to be
accounted for solely under the certificate of the Secretary
of Homeland Security; of which not less than $102,000 shall
be for promotion of public awareness of the child pornography
tipline; of which not less than $203,000 shall be for Project
Alert; of which not less than $5,400,000 may be used to
facilitate agreements consistent with section 287(g) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1357(g)); and of
which not to exceed $11,216,000 shall be available to fund or
reimburse other Federal agencies for the costs associated
with the care, maintenance, and repatriation of smuggled
illegal aliens: Provided, That none of the funds made
available under this heading shall be available to compensate
any employee for overtime in an annual amount in excess of
$35,000, except that the Secretary of Homeland Security, or
the designee of the Secretary, may waive that amount as
necessary for national security purposes and in cases of
immigration emergencies: Provided further, That of the total
amount provided, $15,770,000 shall be for activities to
enforce laws against forced child labor in fiscal year 2007,
of which not to exceed $6,000,000 shall remain available
until expended.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Reyes

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Reyes:
Page 14, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $2,050,000,000)''.

Page 15, line 9, insert before the period at the end the
following:

: Provided further, That, of the total amount provided,
$2,050,000,000 shall be for necessary detention bed space,
personnel, and removal costs to end ``catch and release''

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I rise today as a Member who represents a
border community who has always been concerned about our national
security and our border security. Today, still, our border security is
driven by money not policy, and certainly not in the best interest of
our security. This amendment gives DHS the necessary funds, $2.05
billion, to fund the 35,000 beds they have stated they need to
eliminate the budget-driven catch-and-release policy.
What has appalled so many of us is that DHS is catching and releasing
thousands of illegal immigrants into the general population of the
United States because they simply do not have the detention space to
hold them. These illegal immigrants, also referred to as OTMs, or other
than Mexicans, are given what they refer to as ``walking papers'' and
are released on their own recognizance with an order to appear
voluntarily at a deportation hearing weeks after their release. In
fact, Mr. Chairman, they are asked where they are traveling to in order
to give them a hearing near their final destination. Of those released,
about 5 percent actually return for this hearing. But that number is
probably high, in my opinion.
This is hurting the morale of our U.S. Border Patrol agents and is a
misguided process. Because of catch-and-release, the number of
immigrants who have come across our borders has significantly
increased. According to the

[[Page H3325]]

April 2006 DHS Inspector General report, here is what underfunding
border security means to this country: 774,112 illegal immigrants were
apprehended during the past 3 years. Of those, 280,987, or
approximately 36 percent, were released largely due to lack of
personnel, bed space, and funding.
The report also says that the number of illegal immigrants
apprehended in the U.S. is increasing, while personnel and bed space
levels are declining. In the 2 years just after 9/11, illegal
immigrants captured in the U.S. rose some 19 percent, from 231,000 to
about 275,000.
This remains a prominent national security risk. And I am including
for the Record a news story about how the deportations work. These OTMs
include aliens from countries whose governments support state-sponsored
terrorism as well as those from countries of special interest who
promote, produce or protect terrorist organizations and their members.
They also include aliens who should be identified, detained, and
removed under the DHS's Criminal Alien Removal Program, but who are not
included in that program because there is no funding.
The 9/11 Commission recognized this national security risk and
recommended to us in Congress that we fund 8,000 detention beds each
year for the next 5 years, for a total of 40,000 beds. We passed these
recommendations into law in December of 2004, yet this Congress has not
funded those very recommendations. In fact, the homeland security
appropriations bill that we have before us today includes funding for
only about 4,800 detention beds. That is approximately 3,100 less than
what the 9/11 Commission said was the minimum that we should be doing
to increase our security. Last year, the Congress funded only 4,250
detention beds. That is 3,700 short of what the 9/11 Commission
recommended.
Our willful neglect of our border security has angered our fellow
citizens. As a political gesture, this administration and this Congress
want to build walls and militarize the border as a response. That is
not what we need. We need to keep our promises to the American people
and fund those promises that we have made. We must send a clear message
that when you cross our borders illegally, you will be caught and
detained.
Believe me, Mr. Chairman, I, as well as every Member in this House,
understand the fiscal situation that we are in. However, time after
time we seem to find money for other things. Why can't we find the
money for our detention space which we desperately need and which is
directly related to the security of this country? Compromising border
security is not the way to trim our deficit.
We are long past the point of an emergency and must include this
money to protect our borders, to protect our country, and to get us out
of this crisis that we have worked our way into.

Point of Order

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Kentucky insist upon his point
of order?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I do, Mr. Chairman.
I make a point of order against the amendment because it is in
violation of section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
The Committee on Appropriations filed a suballocation of budget
totals for fiscal year 2007 on May 18. The adoption of this amendment
would cause the subcommittee's suballocation for budget authority made
under section 302(b) to be exceeded, and is not permitted under section
302(f) of the act.
I ask for a ruling.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any Members wishing to speak on the point of
order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
For the reasons stated in the Chair's ruling on the prior amendment
by the gentleman from Texas, the point of order is sustained, and the
amendment is not in order.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

federal protective service

The revenues and collections of security fees credited to
this account, not to exceed $516,011,000, shall be available
until expended for necessary expenses related to the
protection of federally-owned and leased buildings and for
the operations of the Federal Protective Service.

construction

Transportation Security Administration

aviation security

For necessary expenses of the Transportation Security
Administration related to providing civil aviation security
services pursuant to the Aviation and Transportation Security
Act (Public Law 107-71; 115 Stat. 597; 49 U.S.C. 40101 note),
$4,704,414,000, to remain available until September 30, 2008,
of which not to exceed $3,000 shall be for official reception
and representation expenses: Provided, That of the total
amount made available under this heading, not to exceed
$3,740,866,000 shall be for screening operations, of which
$136,000,000 shall be available only for procurement of
checked baggage explosive detection systems and $94,000,000
shall be available only for installation of checked baggage
explosive detection systems; and not to exceed $963,548,000
shall be for aviation security direction and enforcement:
Provided further, That security service fees authorized under
section 44940 of title 49, United States Code, shall be
credited to this appropriation as offsetting collections and
shall be available only for aviation security: Provided
further, That the sum herein appropriated from the General
Fund shall be reduced on a dollar-for-dollar basis as such
offsetting collections are received during fiscal year 2007,
so as to result in a final fiscal year appropriation from the
General Fund estimated at not more than $2,284,414,000:
Provided further, That any security service fees collected in
excess of the amount made available under this heading shall
become available during fiscal year 2008: Provided further,
That notwithstanding section 44923 of title 49, United States
Code, the share of the cost of the Federal Government for a
project under any letter of intent shall be 75 percent for
any medium or large hub airport and not more than 90 percent
for any other airport, and all funding provided by section
44923(h) of title 49, United States Code, or from
appropriations authorized under section 44923(i)(1) of title
49, United States Code, may be distributed in any manner
deemed necessary to ensure aviation security and to fulfill
the Government's planned cost share under existing letters of
intent: Provided further, That no funding may be obligated
for air cargo security, other than that for air cargo
inspectors, canines, and screeners, until a detailed air
cargo security action plan addressing each of the
recommendations contained in the 2005 Government
Accountability Office Report (GAO-06-76) on domestic air
cargo security is provided to the Committee on Appropriations
and Committee on Homeland Security of the House of
Representatives: Provided further, That beginning in fiscal
year 2007 and thereafter, reimbursement for security services
and related equipment and supplies provided in support of
general aviation access to the Ronald Reagan Washington
National Airport shall be credited to this appropriation and
shall be available until expended solely for those purposes:
Provided further, That none of the funds in this Act shall be
used to recruit or hire personnel into the Transportation
Security Administration which would cause the agency to
exceed a staffing level of 45,000 full-time equivalent
screeners.

surface transportation security

For necessary expenses of the Transportation Security
Administration related to providing surface transportation
security activities, $37,200,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2008.

transportation threat assessment and credentialing

For necessary expenses for the development and
implementation of screening programs of the Office of
Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing,
$74,700,000, to remain available until September 30, 2008.

transportation security support

For necessary expenses of the Transportation Security
Administration related to providing transportation security
support and intelligence pursuant to the Aviation and
Transportation Security Act (Public Law 107-71; 115 Stat.
597; 49 U.S.C. 40101 note), $523,283,000, to remain available
until September 30, 2008: Provided, That of the funds
appropriated under this heading, $5,000,000 may not be
obligated until the Secretary of Homeland Security submits to
the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House
of Representatives a detailed expenditure plan for explosive
detection systems refurbishment, procurement, and
installations on an airport-by-airport basis for fiscal year
2007: Provided further, That this plan shall be submitted no
later than 60 days from the date of enactment of this Act.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Fossella

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Fossella:
Page 18, line 22, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $20,000,000)''.
Page 28, line 23, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $20,000,000)''.
Page 29, line 15, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $20,000,000)''.
Page 29, line 18, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $20,000,000)''.

[[Page H3326]]

Mr. FOSSELLA (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Fossella-Crowley
amendment, and I first want to thank Chairman Rogers for the tough task
he has of putting together a good bill.
My amendment would increase by $20 million the High Density Urban
Area Program by transferring that same amount from the TSA
Transportation Security Support appropriation of $523 million. The
President's budget funded the High Density Urban Area Grant Program,
also known as UASI grants, at $838 million. The underlying legislation
funds it at $750 million, an $88 million shortfall.
In short, Mr. Chairman, we are here in large part because of what
happened on September 11. It happened in 2001 and it happened in New
York City. So it is a grim reminder of what needs to be done in
protecting our homeland. Just yesterday, a Pakistani man was convicted
for plotting to plant a bomb at the Herald Square subway station in
midtown Manhattan.
It is clear that New York City, like other major cities, still
remains exhibit A, and this grant program helps cities combat
terrorism. New York City alone dedicates $200 million and 1,000 police
officers to combat terrorism, and they are still $263 million short to
do that for the people of New York City and those who tour.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of this amendment.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FOSSELLA. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the
gentleman. This is an excellent amendment. It increases the funding for
the UASI program for the cities the Department has determined are at
greatest risk.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, I join proudly with my colleagues, Mr. Fossella and Mr.
Crowley from just across the river, on introducing this very important
amendment.
The Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, has stated that
the administration will continue to champion funding based on risk and
needs in order to ``ensure that our finite resources are allocated and
prioritized successfully.''
UASI recipients are determined through a robust risk formula that
considers three primary variables: consequences, vulnerability, and
threats. Factors such as the presence of international borders,
population and population density, the location of critical
infrastructures, formal mutual aid cooperation, law enforcement
investigations, and enforcement activities are also considered in
correlation with the risk formula developed under this.
These risk factors are precisely the kind of factors that should be
the ones that govern more of our homeland security spending. Simply
put, money needs to go where the threat is. Places like New York City
and northern New Jersey are those risk areas. Our police departments,
our fire departments, our emergency management officials, all these men
and women are doing their best to prevent terrorist attacks and prepare
for worst-case scenarios. So we here in Congress should do our best to
see that those in the most risky areas get the tools they need to keep
America safe.
Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. FOSSELLA. I just would like to thank my colleague from New York
as well, Mr. Crowley, for being supportive; and perhaps the gentleman
from New Jersey would yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Crowley).
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I would be glad to yield.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York and
the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding. I also want to thank the
chairman for allowing this discussion here this evening, as well as the
ranking member, and for their agreeing to this amendment.
This $20 million to this much-needed fund will not only support New
York City and New Jersey but other major metropolises around the
country, high-threat, high-risk areas. I thank you again for your
support for this amendment, in particular my cosponsor of the
amendment, Mr. Fossella.
Mr. Chairman, first, after talks with the Majority and Minority, I
understand this amendment will be accepted by the Chair and Ranking
Member, and I thank you for that.
I understand the Committee may have some concerns about this
program--but it has proven itself for our major urban areas.
Working in a bipartisan manner, Representative Serrano,
Representative Bill Young, Representative Fossella and myself sat down
and crafted this program for the FY 2003 Omnibus, recognizing a gaping
hole in homeland security funds for our major urban areas--those high
target areas, like New York City, Houston, Washington, DC or Chicago,
among other major cities.
The gaping hole was our government's ignoring the unique and most
pressing needs of our major urban areas, therefore, the birth of the
High Threat, High Density Urban Area Program.
This program is the only homeland security program specifically
targeted towards those municipalities with the greatest threat and
vulnerability for terror attacks.
With skewed homeland security formulas distributing a portion of all
funds equally to all states--ignoring basic security realities--this
program is a breath of fresh air, providing funds to those areas deemed
at greatest risk of attack.
This program has been extremely successful over the years and has
provided resources to those communities at greatest risk of attack.
Unfortunately, and not due to the hard work of Chairman Rogers or
Ranking Member Sabo, this year's Homeland Security bill reduces the
funding for this important high threat high density program by over $7
million below last year's enacted amount.
This amendment increases this urban area account by $20 million--or
an increase of $12.7 million over last year and $20 million greater
then in this original bill. We offset this funding from TSA--
Headquarters Administration.
As Representative Fossella stated our offset is aimed at the $292
million in the bill allocated for funding their Headquarters
Administration at TSA--not for the intelligence or intelligence
technology under the TSA title.
This offset does not threaten air safety or national security. In
fact, our amendment will increase the security of Americans. This urban
area program is the front line program to fund first responders,
firefighters, EMT's and others who are on the front line defending our
cities everyday from terrorist threats.
I was recently in 81. Louis with my colleague Russ Carnahan who
invited me to the Arch Way, to talk about the pressing needs of first
responders and how our Federal Government continues to underfund the
frontline in the war on terror.
We need to send a message to the firefighters, police officers, EMT's
and others that we will as a Congress stand behind these everyday
heroes to ensure that they receive the assistance they need to do their
job.
I am pleased that this amendment will be accepted and, I thank the
Chair and Ranking Member.

{time} 2015

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
We are making good progress on the bill. I would encourage Members
who have amendments who want to be heard to come to the floor to be
available to offer their amendments so we can move through this process
as quickly as possible. I would hope Members would be here to offer
their amendments.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

federal air marshals

For necessary expenses of the Federal Air Marshals,
$699,294,000.

United States Coast Guard

operating expenses

For necessary expenses for the operation and maintenance of
the United States Coast Guard not otherwise provided for;
purchase or lease of not to exceed 25 passenger motor
vehicles, which shall be for replacement only; payments
pursuant to section 156 of Public Law 97-377 (42 U.S.C. 402
note); and recreation and welfare; $5,481,643,000, of which
$340,000,000 shall be for defense-related activities; of
which $24,255,000 shall be derived from the Oil Spill
Liability Trust Fund

[[Page H3327]]

to carry out the purposes of section 1012(a)(5) of the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2712(a)(5)); and of which
not to exceed $3,000 shall be for official reception and
representation expenses: Provided, That none of the funds
made available by this or any other Act shall be available
for administrative expenses in connection with shipping
commissioners in the United States: Provided further, That
none of the funds made available by this Act shall be for
expenses incurred for yacht documentation under section 12109
of title 46, United States Code, except to the extent fees
are collected from yacht owners and credited to this
appropriation.

environmental compliance and restoration

For necessary expenses to carry out the environmental
compliance and restoration functions of the United States
Coast Guard under chapter 19 of title 14, United States Code,
$11,880,000, to remain available until expended.

reserve training

For necessary expenses of the Coast Guard Reserve, as
authorized by law; operations and maintenance of the reserve
program; personnel and training costs; and equipment and
services; $122,348,000.

acquisition, construction, and improvements

For necessary expenses of acquisition, construction,
renovation, and improvement of aids to navigation, shore
facilities, vessels, and aircraft, including equipment
related thereto; and maintenance, rehabilitation, lease and
operation of facilities and equipment, as authorized by law;
$1,139,663,000, of which $19,800,000 shall be derived from
the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to carry out the purposes
of section 1012(a)(5) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33
U.S.C. 2712(a)(5)); of which $24,750,000 shall be available
until September 30, 2011, to acquire, repair, renovate, or
improve vessels, small boats, and related equipment; of which
$15,000,000 shall be available until September 30, 2011, to
increase aviation capability; of which $101,823,000 shall be
available until September 30, 2009, for other equipment; of
which $24,450,000 shall be available until September 30,
2009, for shore facilities and aids to navigation facilities;
of which $81,000,000 shall be available for personnel
compensation and benefits and related costs; and of which
$892,640,000 shall be available until September 30, 2011, for
the Integrated Deepwater Systems program: Provided, That the
Commandant of the Coast Guard is authorized to dispose of
surplus real property, by sale or lease, and the proceeds
shall be credited to this appropriation as offsetting
collections and shall be available until September 30, 2009:
Provided further, That the Secretary of Homeland Security
shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations of the
Senate and the House of Representatives, in conjunction with
the President's fiscal year 2008 budget, a review of the
Revised Deepwater Implementation Plan that identifies any
changes to the plan for the fiscal year; an annual
performance comparison of Deepwater assets to pre-Deepwater
legacy assets; a status report of legacy assets; a
description of the competitive process conducted in all
contracts and subcontracts exceeding $5,000,000 within the
Deepwater program; and the earned value management system
gold card data for each Deepwater asset: Provided further,
That the Secretary shall submit to the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives
a comprehensive review of the Revised Deepwater
Implementation Plan every five years, beginning in fiscal
year 2011, that includes a complete projection of the
acquisition costs and schedule for the duration of the plan
through fiscal year 2027: Provided further, That the
Secretary shall annually submit to the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives, at the time that the President's budget is
submitted under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States
Code, a future-years capital investment plan for the Coast
Guard that identifies for each capital budget line item--
(1) the proposed appropriation included in that budget;
(2) the total estimated cost of completion;
(3) projected funding levels for each fiscal year for the
next five fiscal years or until project completion, whichever
is earlier;
(4) an estimated completion date at the projected funding
levels; and
(5) changes, if any, in the total estimated cost of
completion or estimated completion date from previous future-
years capital investment plans submitted to the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives:

Provided further, That the Secretary shall ensure that
amounts specified in the future-years capital investment plan
are consistent to the maximum extent practicable with
proposed appropriations necessary to support the programs,
projects, and activities of the Coast Guard in the
President's budget as submitted under section 1105(a) of
title 31, United States Code, for that fiscal year: Provided
further, That any inconsistencies between the capital
investment plan and proposed appropriations shall be
identified and justified: Provided further, That no funding
may be obligated for the Rescue 21 vessel subsystem until a
vessel solution has been provided to the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives.

alteration of bridges

For necessary expenses for alteration or removal of
obstructive bridges, as authorized by section 6 of the
Truman-Hobbs Act (33 U.S.C. 516), $17,000,000, to remain
available until expended.

Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation

For necessary expenses for applied scientific research,
development, test, and evaluation; and for maintenance,
rehabilitation, lease, and operation of facilities and
equipment; as authorized by law; $13,860,000, to remain
available until expended, of which $495,000 shall be derived
from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to carry out the
purposes of section 1012(a)(5) of the Oil Pollution Act of
1990 (33 U.S.C. 2712(a)(5)): Provided, That there may be
credited to and used for the purposes of this appropriation
funds received from State and local governments, other public
authorities, private sources, and foreign countries for
expenses incurred for research, development, testing, and
evaluation.

retired pay

For retired pay, including the payment of obligations
otherwise chargeable to lapsed appropriations for this
purpose, payments under the Retired Serviceman's Family
Protection and Survivor Benefits Plans, payment for career
status bonuses, concurrent receipts and combat-related
special compensation under the National Defense Authorization
Act, and payments for medical care of retired personnel and
their dependents under chapter 55 of title 10, United States
Code, $1,063,323,000.

United States Secret Service

protection, administration, and training

For necessary expenses of the United States Secret Service,
including purchase of not to exceed 755 vehicles for police-
type use, of which 624 shall be for replacement only, and
hire of passenger motor vehicles; purchase of American-made
motorcycles; hire of aircraft; services of expert witnesses
at such rates as may be determined by the Director of the
Secret Service; rental of buildings in the District of
Columbia, and fencing, lighting, guard booths, and other
facilities on private or other property not in Government
ownership or control, as may be necessary to perform
protective functions; payment of per diem or subsistence
allowances to employees where a protective assignment during
the actual day or days of the visit of a protectee requires
an employee to work 16 hours per day or to remain overnight
at a post of duty; conduct of and participation in firearms
matches; presentation of awards; travel of United States
Secret Service employees on protective missions without
regard to the limitations on such expenditures in this or any
other Act if approval is obtained in advance from the
Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives; research and development; grants to conduct
behavioral research in support of protective research and
operations; and payment in advance for commercial
accommodations as may be necessary to perform protective
functions; $954,399,000, of which not to exceed $25,000 shall
be for official reception and representation expenses:
Provided, That up to $18,000,000 provided for protective
travel shall remain available until September 30, 2008:
Provided further, That of the total amount provided under
this heading, $2,000,000 shall not be available for
obligation until the Director of the Secret Service submits a
comprehensive workload re-balancing report to the Committees
on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives that includes funding and position
requirements for current investigative and protective
operations: Provided further, That the United States Secret
Service is authorized to obligate funds in anticipation of
reimbursements from Executive agencies and entities, as
defined in section 105 of title 5, United States Code,
receiving training sponsored by the James J. Rowley Training
Center, except that total obligations at the end of the
fiscal year shall not exceed total budgetary resources
available under this heading at the end of the fiscal year.

investigations and field operations

For necessary expenses for investigations and field
operations of the United States Secret Service, not otherwise
provided for, including costs related to office space and
services of expert witnesses at such rates as may be
determined by the Director of the Secret Service,
$312,499,000, of which not to exceed $100,000 shall be to
provide technical assistance and equipment to foreign law
enforcement organizations in counterfeit investigations; of
which $2,366,000 shall be for forensic and related support of
investigations of missing and exploited children; and of
which $5,445,000 shall be a grant for activities related to
the investigations of missing and exploited children and
shall remain available until expended.

Special Event Fund

For necessary expenses of the United States Secret Service
to perform protective functions related to special events,
$20,900,000, to remain available until expended, of which
$18,400,000 shall be for protection activities related to
presidential campaigns in the United States, and of which
$2,500,000 shall be for extraordinary costs of National
Special Security Events.

acquisition, construction, improvements, and related expenses

For necessary expenses for acquisition, construction,
repair, alteration, and improvement of facilities,
$3,725,000, to remain

[[Page H3328]]

available until expended: Provided further, That of the total
amount provided under this heading, $1,000,000 shall not be
available for obligation until the Director of the Secret
Service submits a revised master plan to the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives
for the James J. Rowley Training Center.

TITLE III--PREPAREDNESS AND RECOVERY

Preparedness

Under Secretary for Preparedness

For salaries and expenses of the Office of the Under
Secretary for Preparedness, the Office of the Chief Medical
Officer, and the Office of National Capital Region
Coordination, $39,468,000, of which $15,000,000 shall be for
the National Preparedness Integration Program: Provided, That
not to exceed $7,000 shall be for official reception and
representation expenses: Provided further, That of the
amounts appropriated under this heading, $4,400,000 shall not
be available for obligation until the Secretary of Homeland
Security submits to the Committees on Appropriations of the
Senate and the House of Representatives the final National
Preparedness Goal.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Jindal

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Jindal:
Page 28, line 9, after the first dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $9,000,000) (reduced by
$9,000,000)''.

Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to enhance the real-
time capabilities assessments. The events of Hurricanes Katrina and
Rita highlighted serious flaws and deficiencies in our national
response plan, the National Incident Management System, and State and
local regional responses that were caused by a lack of valid, real-time
data related to resident capabilities.
For example, one Texas community had an overflow of special needs
residents that were using dance studios, abandoned shopping centers
even though it was determined later there were over 10,000 special
needs beds available within 100 miles.
The city of New Orleans had an emergency excavation plan, but it
couldn't be executed as written because assumed capabilities not
functional and prior coordination of assets were not implemented.
Response plans called for the utilization of National Guard troops even
though at the time of Hurricane Katrina one of the designated units was
deployed to Iraq.
Hundreds of thousands of hours were spent on phone calls and e-mails
to obtain real-time capability information, finding suitable
replacements or options, or to redirecting assets from locations with
excess capabilities to those with critical needs.
The underlying bill takes important steps to build upon the existing
Department of Homeland Security requirements to build a national
assessment and reporting system by September 30, 2006.
The intent of my amendment is to further direct the Department to
develop a system that verifies and validates in real-time what
qualified assets are available in order to meet emergent or anticipated
events, even when the information supplied is coming from disparate or
incompatible databases.
These technologies are already being used by the Department of
Defense and should be applied toward DHS preparedness goals.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. JINDAL. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. The gentleman has offered an excellent
amendment, and we accept it.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I intended to offer and withdraw an amendment tonight
in order to make the point that over the last generation, Congress has
created barriers to keeping and creating jobs in America.
One of those barriers is excessive regulations, and I was trying to
make the point that whenever this government makes regulations, they
should take into consideration that the competitiveness of America is
very important, not only for today and today's economy, but for the
next economy.
Many countries are preparing for the future economy, and this country
seems to be trying to erect new barriers to making us more competitive.
In deference to the Members' time tonight, I know the hour is getting
late and we have much work to accomplish, I will not be offering the
amendment. But I do want to leave the House with this point, that we
must look forward to the next economy and remove barriers that have
been created so we can bring jobs back to America and create more jobs.
Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIRMAN. At what point in the bill is your amendment?
Mr. JINDAL. It is in title III, page 34.
The CHAIRMAN. The reading has not progressed to that point yet.
Without objection, we will proceed to that point in the bill.
There was no objection.
The text of the bill through page 35, line 13 is as follows:

Office of Grants and Training

state and local programs

For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other
activities, including grants to State and local governments
for terrorism prevention activities, notwithstanding any
other provision of law, $2,524,000,000, which shall be
allocated as follows:
(1) $545,000,000 for formula-based grants and $400,000,000
for law enforcement terrorism prevention grants pursuant to
section 1014 of the USA PATRIOT ACT (42 U.S.C. 3714):
Provided, That the application for grants shall be made
available to States within 45 days from the date of enactment
of this Act; States shall submit applications within 90 days
after the grant announcement; and the Office of Grants and
Training shall act within 90 days after receipt of an
application: Provided further, That no less than 80 percent
of any grant under this paragraph to a State shall be made
available by the State to local governments within 60 days
after the receipt of the funds.
(2) $1,165,000,000 for discretionary grants, as determined
by the Secretary of Homeland Security, of which--
(A) $750,000,000 shall be for use in high-threat, high-
density urban areas;
(B) $200,000,000 shall be for port security grants pursuant
to the purposes of section 70107(a) through (h) of title 46,
United States Code, which shall be awarded based on risk and
threat notwithstanding subsection (a), for eligible costs as
described in subsections (b)(2) through (4);
(C) $5,000,000 shall be for trucking industry security
grants;
(D) $10,000,000 shall be for intercity bus security grants;
(E) $150,000,000 shall be for intercity rail passenger
transportation (as defined in section 24102 of title 49,
United States Code), freight rail, and transit security
grants; and
(F) $50,000,000 shall be for buffer zone protection grants:

Provided, That for grants under subparagraph (A), the
application for grants shall be made available to States
within 45 days after the date of enactment of this Act;
States shall submit applications within 90 days after the
grant announcement; and the Office of Grants and Training
shall act within 90 days after receipt of an application:
Provided further, That no less than 80 percent of any grant
under this paragraph to a State shall be made available by
the State to local governments within 60 days after the
receipt of the funds.
(3) $75,000,000 shall be available for the Commercial
Equipment Direct Assistance Program.
(4) $339,000,000 for training, exercises, technical
assistance, and other programs:

Provided, That none of the grants provided under this heading
shall be used for the construction or renovation of
facilities, except for a minor perimeter security project,
not to exceed $1,000,000, as determined necessary by the
Secretary of Homeland Security: Provided further, That the
preceding proviso shall not apply to grants under
subparagraphs (B), (E), and (F) of paragraph (2) of this
heading: Provided further, That grantees shall provide
additional reports on their use of funds, as determined
necessary by the Secretary of Homeland Security: Provided
further, That funds appropriated for law enforcement
terrorism prevention grants under paragraph (1) of this
heading and discretionary grants under paragraph (2)(A) of
this heading shall be available for operational costs, to
include personnel overtime and overtime associated with the
Office of Grants and Training certified training, as needed.

firefighter assistance grants

For necessary expenses for programs authorized by the
Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C.
2201 et seq.), $540,000,000, of which $500,000,000 shall be
available to carry out section 33 of such Act (15 U.S.C.
2229) and $40,000,000 shall be available to carry out section
34 of such Act (15 U.S.C. 2229a), to remain available until
September 30, 2008: Provided, That not to exceed 5 percent of
this amount shall be available for program administration.

emergency management performance grants

For necessary expenses for emergency management performance
grants, as authorized by the National Flood Insurance Act of

[[Page H3329]]

1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.), the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121
et seq.), the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42
U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), and Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978
(5 U.S.C. App.), $186,000,000: Provided, That total
administrative costs shall not exceed 3 percent of the total
appropriation.

Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program

The aggregate charges assessed during fiscal year 2007, as
authorized in title III of the Departments of Veterans
Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent
Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (42 U.S.C. 5196e), shall
not be less than 100 percent of the amounts anticipated by
the Department of Homeland Security to be necessary for its
radiological emergency preparedness program for such fiscal
year: Provided, That the methodology for assessment and
collection of fees shall be fair and equitable and shall
reflect costs of providing such services, including
administrative costs of collecting such fees: Provided
further, That fees received under this heading shall be
deposited in this account as offsetting collections and will
become available for authorized purposes on October 1, 2007,
and remain available until expended.

United States Fire Administration and Training

For necessary expenses of the United States Fire
Administration and for other purposes, as authorized by the
Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C.
2201 et seq.) and the Homeland security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C.
101 et seq.), $46,849,000.

Infrastructure Protection and Information Security

For necessary expenses for infrastructure protection and
information security programs and activities, as authorized
by title II of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C.
121 et seq.), $549,140,000, of which $464,490,000 shall
remain available until September 30, 2008: Provided, That of
the amount made available under this heading, $10,000,000
shall not be available for obligation for management and
administration until the Department of Homeland Security has
released the National Infrastructure Protection Plan:
Provided further, That of the amount made available under
this heading, $10,000,000 shall not be available for
obligation for management and administration until the
Department has submitted its national security strategy for
the chemical sector report.

Federal Emergency Management Agency

administrative and regional operations

For necessary expenses for administrative and regional
operations, $254,499,000, including activities authorized by
the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et
seq.), the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), the Earthquake
Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), the
Defense Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2061 et seq.),
sections 107 and 303 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50
U.S.C. 404, 405), Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978 (5 U.S.C.
App.), and the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101 et
seq.): Provided, That not to exceed $3,000 shall be for
official reception and representation expenses.

readiness, mitigation, response, and recovery

For necessary expenses for readiness, mitigation, response,
and recovery activities, $238,199,000, including activities
authorized by the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42
U.S.C. 4001 et seq.), the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), the
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7701 et
seq.), the Defense Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App.
2061 et seq.), sections 107 and 303 of the National Security
Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 404, 405), Reorganization Plan No. 3
of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.), and the Homeland Security Act of
2002 (6 U.S.C. 101 et seq.): Provided, That of the total
amount made available under this heading, $20,000,000 shall
be for Urban Search and Rescue Teams, of which not to exceed
$1,600,000 may be made available for administrative costs:
Provided further, That of the amounts appropriated under this
heading, $20,000,000 shall not be available for obligation
until the Secretary of Homeland Security submits to the
Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives a catastrophic planning expenditure plan.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Jindal

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Jindal:
Page 34, line 20, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $1,000,000) (reduced by $1,000,000)''.

Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to reduce FEMA waste,
fraud, and abuse.
In the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, FEMA provided $2,000 in
individual and household program payments to affected households.
Individuals could apply for disaster assistance using the Internet or
telephone.
As of mid-December, such payments totaled $5.4 billion with almost
half of that, $2.3 billion, in the form of expedited assistance.
According to Social Security Administration data, FEMA made millions
of dollars in payments to thousands of registrants who submitted false
Social Security numbers. According to a GAO study, 165 of 248 sampled
registrations contained false Social Security numbers, and 80 of 200
alleged disaster addresses were false.
This amendment says that FEMA should implement a fully tested process
that can provide real-time access to data required to validate
identities and addresses for those seeking disaster assistance.
While FEMA has taken certain steps to curtail waste, fraud and abuse
within its program, more needs to be done.
The intent of my amendment is to direct FEMA to implement an identity
verification system that assures disaster assistance payments are made
only to qualified individuals. In a statement I will submit for the
Record, I have some specific criteria that will be used.
The intent of my amendment is to allocate $1 million to FEMA to
implement an identity verification system that assures disaster
assistance payments are made only to qualified individuals.
Specifically by (1) establishing detailed criteria for registration
and provide clear instructions to registrants on the identification
information required, (2) creating a field within registration that
asks registrants to provide their name exactly as it appears on their
Social Security Card in order to prevent name and social security
mismatches, (3) fully field testing the identity verification process
prior to implementation, (4) ensuring that call center employees give
real-time feedback to registrants on whether their identities have been
validated, and (5) establishing a process that uses alternative means
of identity verification to expeditiously handle legitimate applicants
that are rejected by identity verification controls.
I want to thank the chairman and ranking member for their work on
this bill and their consideration of my amendment.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. JINDAL. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. The gentleman has offered another excellent
amendment, and we are happy to accept it.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do
now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Jindal) having assumed the chair, Mr. Gillmor, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 5441)
making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes, had come
to no resolution thereon.

____________________