[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 67 (Thursday, May 25, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H3330-H3339]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 836 and rule

[[Page H3331]]

XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 5441.

                              {time}  2035


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
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, with Mr. Gillmor in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, the 
amendment by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal) had been 
disposed of.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, no further amendments to 
the bill may be offered except those specified in the previous order of 
the House of today, which is at the desk.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                         public health programs

       For necessary expenses for countering potential biological, 
     disease, and chemical threats to civilian populations, 
     $33,885,000.


                            disaster relief

       For necessary expenses in carrying out the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), $1,662,891,000, to remain available 
     until expended.


            disaster assistance direct loan program account

       For administrative expenses to carry out the direct loan 
     program, as authorized by section 319 of the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5162), $569,000: Provided, That gross obligations for 
     the principal amount of direct loans shall not exceed 
     $25,000,000: Provided further, That the cost of modifying 
     such loans shall be as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 661a).

                      flood map modernization fund

       For necessary expenses pursuant to section 1360 of the 
     National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4101), 
     $198,980,000, and such additional sums as may be provided by 
     State and local governments or other political subdivisions 
     for cost-shared mapping activities under section 1360(f)(2) 
     of such Act, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That total administrative costs shall not exceed 3 percent of 
     the total appropriation.

                     national flood insurance fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For activities under the National Flood Insurance Act of 
     1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.) and the Flood Disaster 
     Protection Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.), 
     $128,588,000, which shall be available as follows: (1) not to 
     exceed $38,230,000 for salaries and expenses associated with 
     flood mitigation and flood insurance operations; and (2) not 
     to exceed $90,358,000 for flood hazard mitigation, which 
     shall be derived from offsetting collections assessed and 
     collected pursuant to section 1307 of the National Flood 
     Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4014), to remain available 
     until September 30, 2008, including up to $31,000,000 for 
     flood mitigation expenses under section 1366 of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. 4104c), which amount shall be available for transfer 
     to the National Flood Mitigation Fund until September 30, 
     2008: Provided, That in fiscal year 2007, no funds shall be 
     available from the National Flood Insurance Fund in excess 
     of: (1) $70,000,000 for operating expenses; (2) $692,999,000 
     for commissions and taxes of agents; (3) such sums as are 
     necessary for interest on Treasury borrowings; and (4) 
     $50,000,000 for flood mitigation actions with respect to 
     severe repetitive loss properties under section 1361A of such 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 4102a) and repetitive insurance claims 
     properties under section 1323 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 4030), 
     which shall remain available until expended: Provided 
     further, That total administrative costs shall not exceed 3 
     percent of the total appropriation.

                     national flood mitigation fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Notwithstanding subparagraphs (B) and (C) of subsection 
     (b)(3), and subsection (f), of section 1366 of the National 
     Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4104c), $31,000,000, 
     to remain available until September 30, 2008, for activities 
     designed to reduce the risk of flood damage to structures 
     pursuant to such Act, of which $31,000,000 shall be derived 
     from the National Flood Insurance Fund.

                 national pre-disaster mitigation fund

       For a predisaster mitigation grant program under title II 
     of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
     Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5131 et seq.), $100,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That grants made 
     for predisaster mitigation shall be awarded on a competitive 
     basis subject to the criteria in section 203(g) of such Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 5133(g)), and notwithstanding section 203(f) of 
     such Act, shall be made without reference to State 
     allocations, quotas, or other formula-based allocation of 
     funds: Provided further, That total administrative costs 
     shall not exceed 3 percent of the total appropriation.

                       emergency food and shelter

       To carry out an emergency food and shelter program pursuant 
     to title III of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 11331 et seq.), $151,470,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That total administrative costs 
     shall not exceed 3.5 percent of the total appropriation.

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

           United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

       For necessary expenses for citizenship and immigration 
     services, $161,990,000: Provided, That $47,000,000 may not be 
     obligated until the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     Senate and the House of Representatives receive and approve a 
     strategic transformation plan for United States Citizenship 
     and Immigration Services that has been reviewed and approved 
     by the Secretary of Homeland Security and reviewed by the 
     Government Accountability Office.

                Federal Law Enforcement Training Center

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Law Enforcement 
     Training Center, including materials and support costs of 
     Federal law enforcement basic training; purchase of not to 
     exceed 117 vehicles for police-type use and hire of passenger 
     motor vehicles; expenses for student athletic and related 
     activities; the conduct of and participation in firearms 
     matches and presentation of awards; public awareness and 
     enhancement of community support of law enforcement training; 
     room and board for student interns; a flat monthly 
     reimbursement to employees authorized to use personal mobile 
     phones for official duties; and services as authorized by 
     section 3109 of title 5, United States Code; $210,507,000, of 
     which up to $43,910,000 for materials and support costs of 
     Federal law enforcement basic training shall remain available 
     until September 30, 2008; of which $300,000 shall remain 
     available until expended for Federal law enforcement agencies 
     participating in training accreditation, to be distributed as 
     determined by the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center for 
     the needs of participating agencies; and of which not to 
     exceed $12,000 shall be for official reception and 
     representation expenses: Provided, That the Center is 
     authorized to obligate funds in anticipation of 
     reimbursements from agencies receiving training sponsored by 
     the Center, except that total obligations at the end of the 
     fiscal year shall not exceed total budgetary resources 
     available at the end of the fiscal year: Provided further, 
     That section 1202(a) of Public Law 107-206 (42 U.S.C. 3771 
     note) is amended by striking ``5 years after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act'' and inserting ``December 31, 2009'', 
     and by striking ``250'' and inserting ``350''.

     acquisitions, construction, improvements, and related expenses

       For acquisition of necessary additional real property and 
     facilities, construction, and ongoing maintenance, facility 
     improvements, and related expenses of the Federal Law 
     Enforcement Training Center, $42,246,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That the Center is authorized to 
     accept reimbursement to this appropriation from government 
     agencies requesting the construction of special use 
     facilities.

                         Science and Technology


                     management and administration

       For salaries and expenses of the Office of the Under 
     Secretary for Science and Technology and for management and 
     administration of programs and activities, as authorized by 
     title III of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 181 
     et seq.), $180,901,000: Provided, That not to exceed $3,000 
     shall be for official reception and representation expenses: 
     Provided further, That of the amounts made available under 
     this heading, $98,000,000 may not be obligated until the 
     Under Secretary submits a detailed expenditure plan for 
     fiscal year 2007 programs and operations to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives.


           research, development, acquisition, and operations

       For necessary expenses for science and technology research, 
     including advanced research projects; development; test and 
     evaluation; acquisition; and operations; as authorized by 
     title III of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 181 
     et seq.); and the purchase or lease of not to exceed 5 
     vehicles, $775,370,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That of the amounts made available under this 
     heading, $400,000,000 may not be obligated until the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives receive and approve a report prepared by the 
     Under Secretary that describes Science and Technology's 
     progress to address financial management deficiencies; 
     improve its management controls; and implement performance 
     measures and evaluations.

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 42, line 
11, be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment 
at any point.

[[Page H3332]]

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any points of order to that portion of the 
bill?


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the 
paragraph.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the 
phrase beginning with the comma on page 38, line 11, through ``funds'' 
on line 14.
  This provision violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes existing law 
and therefore constitutes legislating on an appropriation bill in 
violation of the House rules.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any Members wishing to be heard on the point 
of order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that this provision explicitly supersedes existing 
law. The provision therefore constitutes legislation in violation of 
clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained, and the provision is stricken from 
the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                   Domestic Nuclear Detection Office

       For necessary expenses of the Domestic Nuclear Detection 
     Office, including nuclear detection research, development, 
     testing and evaluation, acquisition, operations, management 
     and administration, $500,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which not to exceed $178,000,000 shall be for 
     the purchase and deployment of radiation detection equipment 
     in accordance with the global nuclear detection architecture; 
     and of which not to exceed $85,200,000 shall be for 
     radiological and nuclear transformational research and 
     development; and of which not to exceed $30,468,000 shall be 
     for the management and administration of these programs and 
     activities: Provided, That no funds provided in this Act 
     shall be used to create a Sodium-Iodide Manufacturing Program 
     until the Office demonstrates that Advanced Spectroscopic 
     Portal monitors will significantly speed commerce, reduce the 
     costs of secondary inspection, or significantly increase 
     sensitivity over current generation Radiation Portal 
     Monitors.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Nadler

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Nadler:
       Page 42, line 24, through page 43, line 5, strike ``: 
     Provided,'' and all that follows though ``Radiation Portal 
     Monitors.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to ensure the rapid 
deployment of the ``next generation'' Radiation Portal Monitors at our 
Nation's ports. This bill prohibits the agency from spending funds on 
this critical port security program. My amendment would strike that 
prohibition.
  Earlier this month the House passed the SAFE Port Act to enhance 
security at United States ports. During consideration of that bill, I 
tried to offer an amendment to require that every single container be 
scanned for radiation and density before it is loaded onto a ship bound 
for the United States. The Republican leadership opposed that effort. 
One of the main claims made by my friends on the other side of the 
aisle was that the technology did not exist to adequately scan 
containers and that current radiation portal monitors create too many 
false alarms.
  Imagine my surprise to discover that the Domestic Nuclear Detection 
Office at the Department of Homeland Security has, in fact, already 
developed the ``next generation'' Radiation Portal Monitors. These new 
Advanced Spectroscopic Portal, ASP, monitors use sodium-iodide crystals 
to detect the unique signature of materials inside a container. They 
give us more accurate information about what is in the box. They can 
tell us exactly what is causing the radiation alarm to go off, whether 
it is a false alarm or not. Port security officials can know if 
radiation is coming from kitty litter or from construction material or 
from a real threat, and they will not have to shut down the entire port 
of New York or Long Beach whenever an alarm goes off.
  But there is a catch. Only one company, a French company, currently 
produces sodium-iodide crystals. So DHS plans to spend about $20 
million to encourage more companies to increase domestic production of 
these crystals. This makes perfects sense. DHS needs to do this to 
assure that full-scale production of ASP monitors can begin next year 
and to get them installed at our ports as quickly as possible, and we 
should not be beholden in any event to one foreign company for a 
product that is so critical to our national security.
  Shockingly, however, this bill contains language prohibiting DHS from 
taking steps to increase the domestic production of sodium-iodide 
crystals until the agency can prove that ASP monitors meet certain 
criteria, certain extraneous criteria. This delay makes no sense.
  The Republicans in particular should love these ASP monitors. They 
were developed by the Bush administration. They reduce false alarms. 
And if they are really concerned about the cost of these scanners, they 
should support increasing domestic production of sodium-iodide crystals 
so that the one French company that makes this material cannot control 
the cost.
  We are, after all, at war with the terrorists. We have serious 
loopholes in our port security system, and we know that terrorists 
could use shipping containers to bring nuclear bombs into American 
cities. We must act with urgency to get better container scanning 
equipment in place, and we must stop creating roadblocks to scanning 
the containers.
  Democrats have consistently supported scanning every container to 
make sure that terrorists do not use them to bring nuclear bombs into 
American cities. We have tried on several occasions to force the Bush 
administration and the Republicans in Congress to scan every container. 
The Republicans claim the technology didn't exist. That is untrue. DHS 
now says they have the technology. This provision that my amendment 
would eliminate would stop DHS from deploying the best container 
scanning equipment to port security officials around the country.
  We must not tolerate and we must not create any delays in protecting 
the American people from a terrorist attack. So I urge my colleagues to 
vote for this amendment that would permit the spending of the money to 
deploy the sodium-iodide crystals and the scanning equipment so that we 
can get this container scanning equipment to our ports as fast as 
possible.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in 
opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I, too, am a great proponent of the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office 
and believe we need to get the best radiation detection systems to our 
borders as quickly as possible.
  That said, I still believe money should be spent wisely. GAO points 
out that there is no evidence the Advanced Spectroscopic Portal 
Monitors are any better than the RPMs going into place today, but they 
cost four times as much. If the less expensive RPMs work just as well, 
let us buy them. However, I understand DNDO is completing a cost-
benefit analysis that will tell us if the investment in the more 
expensive ASP systems is wise. If they are a wise investment, this 
provision will harm no one. If they are a poor investment, it will slow 
down the crystal production program, and it should. Just because we 
like a program does not mean that we should not provide sound oversight 
or to waste taxpayers' dollars.
  I urge Members to reject this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

[[Page H3333]]

  Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not require DHS to deploy this 
equipment. If it is not better, I wonder why we spend half a billion 
dollars developing it. This lets the DHS make the decision. If they 
decide this equipment is better, they can deploy it. If they decide it 
is not better, they do not have to.
  All this says is that we are not going to put language in the bill 
that will prevent DHS from using its own judgment to deploy it until 
they can demonstrate that it would significantly speed commerce and do 
various other things. If this will significantly improve the protection 
of our people, we ought to deploy it, but my amendment would leave that 
decision to the Bush administration.
  Do they not trust the Bush administration to make the best decision 
on this? Why should we tie their hands? That is what this amendment 
says.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. NADLER. 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 York will be 
postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                      TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 501. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 502. Subject to the requirements of section 503 of 
     this Act, the unexpended balances of prior appropriations 
     provided for activities in this Act may be transferred to 
     appropriation accounts for such activities established 
     pursuant to this Act: Provided, That balances so transferred 
     may be merged with funds in the applicable established 
     accounts and thereafter may be accounted for as one fund for 
     the same time period as originally enacted.
       Sec. 503. (a) None of the funds provided by this Act, 
     provided by previous appropriations Acts to the agencies in 
     or transferred to the Department of Homeland Security that 
     remain available for obligation or expenditure in fiscal year 
     2007, or provided from any accounts in the Treasury of the 
     United States derived by the collection of fees available to 
     the agencies funded by this Act, shall be available for 
     obligation or expenditure through a reprogramming of funds 
     that: (1) creates a new program; (2) eliminates a program, 
     project, or activity; (3) increases funds for any program, 
     project, or activity for which funds have been denied or 
     restricted by the Congress; (4) proposes to use funds 
     directed for a specific activity by either of the Committees 
     on Appropriations of the Senate or House of Representatives 
     for a different purpose; or (5) contracts out any functions 
     or activities for which funds have been appropriated for 
     Federal full-time equivalent positions; unless the Committees 
     on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives are notified 15 days in advance of such 
     reprogramming of funds.
       (b) None of the funds provided by this Act, provided by 
     previous appropriations Acts to the agencies in or 
     transferred to the Department of Homeland Security that 
     remain available for obligation or expenditure in fiscal year 
     2007, or provided from any accounts in the Treasury of the 
     United States derived by the collection of fees available to 
     the agencies funded by this Act, shall be available for 
     obligation or expenditure for programs, projects, or 
     activities through a reprogramming of funds in excess of 
     $5,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less, that: (1) 
     augments existing programs, projects, or activities; (2) 
     reduces by 10 percent funding for any existing program, 
     project, or activity, or numbers of personnel by 10 percent 
     as approved by the Congress; or (3) results from any general 
     savings from a reduction in personnel that would result in a 
     change in existing programs, projects, or activities as 
     approved by the Congress; unless the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
     are notified 15 days in advance of such reprogramming of 
     funds.
       (c) Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made 
     available for the current fiscal year for the Department of 
     Homeland Security by this Act or provided by previous 
     appropriations Acts may be transferred between such 
     appropriations, but no such appropriations, except as 
     otherwise specifically provided, shall be increased by more 
     than 10 percent by such transfers: Provided, That any 
     transfer under this section shall be treated as a 
     reprogramming of funds under subsection (b) of this section 
     and shall not be available for obligation unless the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives are notified 15 days in advance of such 
     transfer.
       (d) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b), and (c) of this 
     section, no funds shall be reprogrammed within or transferred 
     between appropriations after June 30, except in extraordinary 
     circumstances which imminently threaten the safety of human 
     life or the protection of property.
       Sec. 504. Except as otherwise specifically provided by law, 
     not to exceed 50 percent of unobligated balances remaining 
     available at the end of fiscal year 2007 from appropriations 
     for salaries and expenses for fiscal year 2007 in this Act 
     shall remain available through September 30, 2008, in the 
     account and for the purposes for which the appropriations 
     were provided: Provided, That prior to the obligation of such 
     funds, a request shall be submitted to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
     for approval in accordance with section 503 of this Act.
       Sec. 505. Funds made available by this Act for intelligence 
     activities are deemed to be specifically authorized by the 
     Congress for purposes of section 504 of the National Security 
     Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 414) during fiscal year 2007 until the 
     enactment of an Act authorizing intelligence activities for 
     fiscal year 2007.
       Sec. 506. The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center shall 
     lead the Federal law enforcement training accreditation 
     process, including representatives from the Federal law 
     enforcement community and non-Federal accreditation experts 
     involved in law enforcement training, to continue the 
     implementation of measuring and assessing the quality and 
     effectiveness of Federal law enforcement training programs, 
     facilities, and instructors.
       Sec. 507. None of the funds in this Act may be used to make 
     a grant allocation, discretionary grant award, discretionary 
     contract award, or to issue a letter of intent totaling in 
     excess of $1,000,000, or to announce publicly the intention 
     to make such an award, unless the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security notifies the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     Senate and the House of Representatives at least 3 full 
     business days in advance: Provided, That no notification 
     shall involve funds that are not available for obligation.
       Sec. 508. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
     agency shall purchase, construct, or lease any additional 
     facilities, except within or contiguous to existing 
     locations, to be used for the purpose of conducting Federal 
     law enforcement training without the advance approval of the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives, except that the Federal Law Enforcement 
     Training Center is authorized to obtain the temporary use of 
     additional facilities by lease, contract, or other agreement 
     for training which cannot be accommodated in existing Center 
     facilities.
       Sec. 509. The Director of the Federal Law Enforcement 
     Training Center shall schedule basic and/or advanced law 
     enforcement training at all four training facilities under 
     the control of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center to 
     ensure that these training centers are operated at the 
     highest capacity throughout the fiscal year.
       Sec. 510. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used for expenses of any 
     construction, repair, alteration, or acquisition project for 
     which a prospectus, if required by chapter 33 of title 40, 
     United States Code, has not been approved, except that 
     necessary funds may be expended for each project for required 
     expenses for the development of a proposed prospectus.
       Sec. 511. None of the funds in this Act may be used in 
     contravention of the applicable provisions of the Buy 
     American Act (41 U.S.C. 10a et seq.).
       Sec. 512. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     authority of the Office of Personnel Management to conduct 
     personnel security and suitability background investigations, 
     update investigations, and periodic reinvestigations of 
     applicants for, or appointees in, positions in the Office of 
     the Secretary and Executive Management, the Office of the 
     Under Secretary for Management, Analysis and Operations, 
     Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Directorate for 
     Preparedness, and the Directorate of Science and Technology 
     of the Department of Homeland Security is transferred to the 
     Department of Homeland Security: Provided, That on request of 
     the Department of Homeland Security, the Office of Personnel 
     Management shall cooperate with and assist the Department in 
     any investigation or reinvestigation under this section: 
     Provided further, That this section shall cease to be 
     effective at such time as the President has selected a single 
     agency to conduct security clearance investigations pursuant 
     to section 3001(c) of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
     Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-458; 50 U.S.C. 
     435b(c)) and the entity selected under section 3001(b) of 
     such Act has reported to the Congress that the agency 
     selected pursuant to such section 3001(c) is capable of 
     conducting all necessary investigations in a timely manner or 
     has authorized the entities within the Department of Homeland 
     Security covered by this section to conduct their own 
     investigations pursuant to section 3001 of such Act.
       Sec. 513. (a) None of the funds provided by this or 
     previous appropriations Acts may be obligated for deployment 
     or implementation, on other than a test basis, of the Secure 
     Flight program or any other follow on or successor passenger 
     prescreening program, until the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security certifies, and the Government Accountability Office 
     reports, to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate 
     and the House

[[Page H3334]]

     of Representatives, that all ten of the elements contained in 
     paragraphs (1) through (10) of section 522(a) of Public Law 
     108-334 (118 Stat. 1319) have been successfully met.
       (b) The report required by subsection (a) shall be 
     submitted within 90 days after the Secretary provides the 
     requisite certification, and periodically thereafter, if 
     necessary, until the Government Accountability Office 
     confirms that all ten elements have been successfully met.
       (c) Within 90 days of enactment of this Act, the Secretary 
     shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     Senate and House of Representatives a detailed plan that 
     describes (1) the dates for achieving key milestones, 
     including the date or timeframes that the Secretary will 
     certify the program under subsection (a); and (2) the 
     methodology to be followed to support the Secretary's 
     certification, as required under subsection (a).
       (d) During the testing phase permitted by subsection (a), 
     no information gathered from passengers, foreign or domestic 
     air carriers, or reservation systems may be used to screen 
     aviation passengers, or delay or deny boarding to such 
     passengers, except in instances where passenger names are 
     matched to a Government watch list.
       (e) None of the funds provided in this or previous 
     appropriations Acts may be utilized to develop or test 
     algorithms assigning risk to passengers whose names are not 
     on Government watch lists.
       (f) None of the funds provided in this or previous 
     appropriations Acts may be utilized for data or a database 
     that is obtained from or remains under the control of a non-
     Federal entity: Provided, That this restriction shall not 
     apply to Passenger Name Record data obtained from air 
     carriers.
       Sec. 514. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to amend the oath of allegiance required by section 
     337 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1448).
       Sec. 515. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     used to process or approve a competition under Office of 
     Management and Budget Circular A-76 for services provided as 
     of June 1, 2004, by employees (including employees serving on 
     a temporary or term basis) of United States Citizenship and 
     Immigration Services of the Department of Homeland Security 
     who are known as of that date as Immigration Information 
     Officers, Contact Representatives, or Investigative 
     Assistants.
       Sec. 516. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall 
     be available to maintain the United States Secret Service as 
     anything but a distinct entity within the Department of 
     Homeland Security and shall not be used to merge the United 
     States Secret Service with any other department function, 
     cause any personnel and operational elements of the United 
     States Secret Service to report to an individual other than 
     the Director of the United States Secret Service, or cause 
     the Director to report directly to any individual other than 
     the Secretary of Homeland Security.
       Sec. 517. None of the funds appropriated to the United 
     States Secret Service by this Act or by previous 
     appropriations Acts may be made available for the protection 
     of the head of a Federal agency other than the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security: Provided, That the Director of the United 
     States Secret Service may enter into an agreement to perform 
     such service on a fully reimbursable basis.
       Sec. 518. The Secretary of Homeland Security, in 
     consultation with industry stakeholders, shall develop 
     standards and protocols for increasing the use of explosive 
     detection equipment to screen air cargo when appropriate.
       Sec. 519. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) 
     shall utilize existing checked baggage explosive detection 
     equipment and screeners to screen cargo carried on passenger 
     aircraft to the greatest extent practicable at each airport: 
     Provided, That TSA shall report air cargo inspection 
     statistics quarterly to the Committee on Appropriations of 
     the House of Representatives, by airport and air carrier, 
     within 45 days after the end of the quarter: Provided 
     further, That the appropriation for ``Aviation Security'' in 
     this Act is reduced by $100,000 for each day beyond such 
     deadline that such quarterly report is not provided.
       Sec. 520. None of the funds available for obligation for 
     the transportation worker identification credential program 
     shall be used to develop a personalization system that is 
     decentralized or a card production capability that does not 
     utilize an existing government card production facility.
       Sec. 521. (a) Rescission.--From the unexpended balances of 
     the United States Coast Guard ``Acquisition, Construction, 
     and Improvements'' account specifically identified in the 
     Joint Explanatory Statement (House Report 109-241) 
     accompanying Public Law 109-90 for the Fast Response Cutter, 
     the service life extension program of the current 110-foot 
     Island Class patrol boat fleet, and accelerated design and 
     production of the Fast Response Cutter, $79,347,002 are 
     rescinded.
       (b) Additional Appropriation.--For necessary expenses of 
     the United States Coast Guard for ``Acquisition, 
     Construction, and Improvements'', there is appropriated an 
     additional $79,347,002, to remain available until September 
     30, 2009, for the service life extension program of the 
     current 110-foot Island Class patrol boat fleet and the 
     acquisition of traditional patrol boats (``parent craft'').
       Sec. 522. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by any person other than the privacy officer 
     appointed pursuant to section 222 of the Homeland Security 
     Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 142) to alter, direct that changes be 
     made to, delay, or prohibit the transmission to the Congress 
     of any report prepared pursuant to paragraph (6) of such 
     section.
       Sec. 523. No funding provided by this or previous 
     appropriation Acts shall be available to pay the salary of 
     any employee serving as a contracting officer's technical 
     representative (COTR), or anyone acting in a similar or like 
     capacity, who has not received COTR training.
       Sec. 524. Except as provided in section 44945 of title 49, 
     United States Code, funds appropriated or transferred to 
     Transportation Security Administration ``Aviation Security'' 
     and ``Administration'' for fiscal years 2004, 2005, and 2006 
     that are recovered or deobligated shall be available only for 
     procurement and installation of explosive detection systems 
     for air cargo, baggage, and checkpoint screening systems: 
     Provided, That these funds shall be subject to section 503 of 
     this Act.
       Sec. 525. Using funds made available in this Act, and 
     within 60 days of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the 
     Department of Homeland Security shall revise DHS MD 11056 to 
     include the following: (1) that information that is three 
     years old and not incorporated in a current, active 
     transportation security directive or security plan shall be 
     determined automatically to be releaseable unless, for each 
     specific document, the Secretary makes a written 
     determination that identifies a compelling reason why the 
     information must remain SSI; (2) incorporation of common and 
     extensive examples of the individual categories of SSI 
     information cited under 49 CFR 1520(b)(1) through (16) in 
     order to minimize and standardize judgment by covered persons 
     in the application of SSI marking; and (3) that in all 
     judicial proceedings where the judge overseeing the 
     proceeding has adjudicated that a party needs to have access 
     to SSI information, the party shall be deemed a DHS Covered 
     Person for purposes of access to the SSI information at issue 
     in the case unless TSA or DHS demonstrates a compelling 
     reason why the specific individual presents a risk of harm to 
     the nation.
       Sec. 526. The Department of Homeland Security Working 
     Capital Fund, established, pursuant to  section 403 of Public 
     Law 103-356 (31 U.S.C. 501 note), shall continue operations 
     during fiscal year 2007.
       Sec. 527. Rescission.--Of the unobligated balances from 
     prior year appropriations made available for the 
     ``Counterterrorism Fund'', $16,000,000 are rescinded.
       Sec. 528. The weekly report required by Public Law 109-62 
     detailing the allocation and obligation of funds for 
     ``Disaster Relief'' shall include: (1) detailed information 
     on each allocation, obligation, or expenditure that totals 
     more than $50,000,000, categorized by increments of not 
     larger than $50,000,000; (2) the amount of credit card 
     purchases by agency and mission assignment; (3) obligations, 
     allocations, and expenditures, categorized by agency, by 
     State, for New Orleans, and by purpose and mission 
     assignment; (4) status of the Disaster Relief Fund; and (5) 
     specific reasons for all waivers granted and a description of 
     each waiver: Provided, That the detailed information required 
     by paragraph (1) shall include the purpose of each 
     allocation, obligation, or expenditure; whether the work will 
     be performed by a governmental agency or a contractor; and, 
     if the work is to be performed by a contractor, the name of 
     the contractor, the type of contract, and whether the 
     contract is sole-source, full and open competition, or 
     limited competition.
       Sec. 529. Within 45 days after the close of each month, the 
     Chief Financial Officer of the Department of Homeland 
     Security shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations of 
     the Senate and the House of Representatives a monthly budget 
     execution report that sets forth the total obligational 
     authority appropriated (new budget authority plus unobligated 
     carryover), undistributed obligational authority, amount 
     allotted, current year obligations, unobligated authority 
     (the difference between total obligational authority and 
     current year obligations), beginning unexpended obligations, 
     year-to-date costs, and year end unexpended obligations, of 
     the Department of Homeland Security: Provided, That such 
     information shall be provided for each Departmental component 
     and the Working Capital Fund at the level of detail shown in 
     the table of detailed funding recommendations displayed at 
     the end of the report accompanying this Act.
       Sec. 530. (a) United States Secret Service Use of Proceeds 
     Derived From Criminal Investigations.--During fiscal years 
     2007 through 2009, with respect to any undercover 
     investigative operation of the United States Secret Service 
     (hereafter referred to in this section as the ``Secret 
     Service'') that is necessary for the detection and 
     prosecution of crimes against the United States--
       (1) sums appropriated for the Secret Service, including 
     unobligated balances available from prior fiscal years, may 
     be used for purchasing property, buildings, and other 
     facilities, and for leasing space, within the United States, 
     the District of Columbia, and the territories and possessions 
     of the United States, without regard to sections 1341 and 
     3324 of title 31, United States Code, section 8141 of title 
     40, United States Code, sections 3732(a) and 3741 of the 
     Revised Statutes of the United States (41 U.S.C. 11(a) and 
     22), and

[[Page H3335]]

     sections 304(a) and 305 of the Federal Property and 
     Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C 254(a) and 
     255);
       (2) sums appropriated for the Secret Service, including 
     unobligated balances available from prior fiscal years, may 
     be used to establish or to acquire proprietary corporations 
     or business entities as part of such undercover operation, 
     and to operate such corporations or business entities on a 
     commercial basis, without regard to sections 9102 and 9103 of 
     title 31, United States Code;
       (3) sums appropriated for the Secret Service, including 
     unobligated balances available from prior fiscal years and 
     the proceeds from such undercover operation, may be deposited 
     in banks or other financial institutions, without regard to 
     section 648 of title 18, and section 3302 of title 31, United 
     States Code; and
       (4) proceeds from such undercover operation may be used to 
     offset necessary and reasonable expenses incurred in such 
     operation, without regard to section 3302 of title 31, United 
     States Code.
       (b) Written Certification.--The authority set forth in 
     subsection (a) may be exercised only upon the written 
     certification of the Director of the Secret Service or 
     designee that any action authorized by any paragraph of such 
     subsection is necessary for the conduct of an undercover 
     investigative operation. Such certification shall continue in 
     effect for the duration of such operation, without regard to 
     fiscal years.
       (c) Deposit of Proceeds in Treasury.--As soon as 
     practicable after the proceeds from an undercover 
     investigative operation with respect to which an action is 
     authorized and carried out under paragraphs (3) and (4) of 
     subsection (a) are no longer necessary for the conduct of 
     such operation, such proceeds or the balance of such proceeds 
     remaining at the time shall be deposited in the Treasury of 
     the United States as miscellaneous receipts.
       (d) Reporting and Deposit of Proceeds Upon Disposition of 
     Certain Business Entities.--If a corporation or business 
     entity established or acquired as part of an undercover 
     investigative operation under paragraph (2) of subsection (a) 
     with a net value of over $50,000 is to be liquidated, sold, 
     or otherwise disposed of, the Secret Service, as much in 
     advance as the Director or designee determines is 
     practicable, shall report the circumstance to the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security. The proceeds of the liquidation, sale, 
     or other disposition, after obligations are met, shall be 
     deposited in the Treasury of the United States as 
     miscellaneous receipts.
       (e) Financial Audits and Reports.--
       (1) The Secret Service shall conduct detailed financial 
     audits of closed undercover investigative operations for 
     which a written certification was made pursuant to subsection 
     (b) on a quarterly basis and shall report the results of the 
     audits in writing to the Secretary of Homeland Security.
       (2) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall annually 
     submit to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and 
     House of Representatives, at the time that the President's 
     budget is submitted under section 1105(a) of title 31, a 
     summary of such audits.
       Sec. 531. The Director of the Domestic Nuclear Detection 
     Office shall operate extramural and intramural research, 
     development, demonstrations, testing and evaluation programs 
     so as to distribute funding through grants, cooperative 
     agreements, other transactions and contracts.
       Sec. 532. None of the funds made available in this Act for 
     United States Customs and Border Protection may be used to 
     prevent an individual not in the business of importing a 
     prescription drug (within the meaning of section 801(g) of 
     the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) from importing a 
     prescription drug that complies with sections 501, 502, and 
     505 of such Act.
       Sec. 533. From the unobligated balances of Transportation 
     Security Administration ``Aviation Security'' and 
     ``Headquarters Administration'', $4,776,000 are rescinded.
       Sec. 534. Notwithstanding the requirements of section 
     404(b)(2)(B) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
     Emergency Assistance Act, the Army Corps of Engineers may use 
     Lot 19, Block 1 of the Meadowview Acres Addition and Lot 8, 
     Block 5 of the Meadowview Acres Addition in Augusta, Kansas, 
     for building portions of the flood-control levee.
       Sec. 535. Notwithstanding any time limitation established 
     for a grant awarded under title I, chapter 6, Public Law 106-
     31, in the item relating to Federal Emergency Management 
     Agency--Disaster Assistance for Unmet Needs, the City of 
     Cuero, Texas, may use funds received under such grant program 
     until June 30, 2007.
       Sec. 536. (a) Not later than six months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     shall hereafter issue interim final regulations that 
     establish homeland security requirements, including minimum 
     standards and required submission of facility security plans 
     to the Secretary, for chemical facilities that the Secretary 
     determines present the greatest security risk and that are 
     not currently regulated under Federal law for homeland 
     security purposes.
       (b) Interim regulations under this section shall apply to a 
     chemical facility until the effective date of final 
     regulations issued under other laws by the Secretary, that 
     establish requirements and standards referred to in 
     subsection (a) that apply with respect to that facility.
       (c) Any person that violates an interim regulation issued 
     under this section shall be liable for a civil penalty under 
     section 70117 of title 46, United States Code.

                              {time}  2045


                             Point of Order

  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of 
order against section 536.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of 
order against section 536, page 62, lines 1 through 17. This provision 
violates House rule XXI, clause 2, which prohibits legislation in a 
general appropriations bill.
  Section 536 requires the Department of Homeland Security to issue 
security requirements for chemical facilities that the Department deems 
highest risk within 6 months of enactment of the bill. This constitutes 
legislation on an appropriations bill and is therefore in violation of 
clause 2, rule XXI.
  The Committee on Homeland Security is actively engaged in developing 
comprehensive legislation to address the issue of chemical site 
security, and section 536 would undermine the committee's efforts to 
provide commonsense risk-based solutions to the problem.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that the point of order is raised. 
This provision does not undercut the ability of the committee to act. 
As a matter of fact, it encourages them to act. We have waited for 
years without any action on giving the Secretary the power to regulate 
some chemical facilities in this country that are prime targets for 
terrorists.
  Mr. Chairman, I have to concede that this is legislation in an 
appropriations bill. I would hope that the authorizing committees can 
pass legislation to deal with this real problem. I just hope a year 
from now when somebody else stands in this chair, we don't have another 
similar amendment because the authorizing committees in the House and 
the Senate have failed to act again.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair finds that this 
section includes language imparting direction. The section therefore 
constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained, and the section is stricken from the 
bill.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Mica

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Mica:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds in this Act shall be used to 
     recruit, hire, or employ nonscreener personnel into the 
     Transportation Security Administration's Federal Security 
     Director office at each airport participating in the security 
     partnership program under section 44920 of title 49, United 
     States Code, whose job title and job description would 
     duplicate those of nonscreener personnel employed by the 
     screening company that is under contract with the 
     Transportation Security Administration to provide security 
     screening services at the airport.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that we have made great progress on this 
important bill dealing with homeland security which is so essential for 
our Nation, particularly at this time in history and the challenges 
that we face.
  The amendment that I am proposing tonight is a simple limit on some 
of the funding for non-screener Transportation Security Administration 
personnel, that is, TSA administrative personnel. What we would like to 
do is put some limits on those positions in some of the airports that 
are participating in our Screening Partnership Program.
  We have had five demonstration projects in airports in varying sizes

[[Page H3336]]

across the country, and we have had private screening companies under 
Federal supervision. Unfortunately, what has happened is we have an 
additional layer of bureaucracy imposed by TSA and duplicate positions 
of the private screening companies.
  For example, and I will submit for the Record a complete list of 
these numbers of personnel, but in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, we have 
18 administrative personnel; in Kansas City we have some 39; in San 
Francisco, 42; and in Rochester, New York, 18.
  Now, it is important that we do have TSA management, we have TSA 
oversight, we have TSA controlling these programs. But the duplicative 
administrative costs and burden is what this amendment deals with. Most 
of these positions are in excess of $100,000.
  We can save money, we can put more people on line in screening 
positions and cut some of the administrative costs out.
  Mr. Chairman, that is the purpose of the amendment.
  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 fine amendment, and I would like to say that the 
committee accepts it.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I appreciate his staff 
and the subcommittee working with us. I think this will make us run 
better, more cost-effective, put more people online and less people in 
the TSA bureaucracy that has been created.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does anyone claim the time in opposition?
  Mr. MICA. I yield back the balance of my time, and urge approval of 
the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).
  The amendment was agreed to.


             Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

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

       Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by the Department of Homeland Security prior to 
     December 31, 2006, to terminate financial assistance for 
     housing authorized by section 408 of the Robert T. Stafford 
     Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5174) 
     to any Hurricane Katrina evacuee, who previously has been 
     determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to be 
     eligible to receive such assistance.

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this is one of America's Achilles' heels, 
because it concerns the most catastrophic, tragic, natural disaster 
that we have faced in America. Although no one denies the horrific 
nature of 9/11, certainly we will be reminded through the centuries of 
Hurricane Katrina. So I bring this amendment simply to bring attention 
to the vast numbers of Katrina survivors and evacuees who will soon be 
left ineligible for any resources at all.
  My amendment specifically indicates that no funds can be used to 
terminate financial assistance for housing authorized by section 408 of 
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act.
  Let me share with you the words of one of our pastors in Houston, one 
of the cities that has felt the major impact of evacuees. We do 
consider them our neighbors, our brothers and sisters, and we are in no 
way burdened by their presence. But we think it is important for 
America to understand, as Pastor D.Z. Cofield said, ``This is not a 
sprint, my friends, it is a marathon,'' and it really is a test case 
for the United States for its security, for its response to natural 
disaster.
  We realize that we failed in the initial recovery. We failed in being 
prepared. We failed in having pre-deployment of resources and 
personnel. We only have to look at the stories of the Superdome; we 
only have to look at the stories of bodies floating in water to realize 
we failed.
  But now in the city of Houston and around America, there are some 
12,000 who are still in need. The extent of the evacuees' needs is 
shown in a March survey of housing voucher recipients conducted for the 
city by Zogby International.

                              {time}  2100

  It showed that more than half of the evacuees surveyed earned less 
than $15,000 a year. Most are women with school-aged children, and 58 
percent want to remain in Houston.
  Only 15 percent have found jobs. Almost half have no health 
insurance. Separately, each of these things might be an obstacle when 
receiving settlers from another community, but en masse they pose 
stunning challenges for the host city, the Zagby report said.
  This falls, I am sure, in cities throughout America. And this simple 
amendment simply exposes the problem and asks FEMA to begin to work to 
solve the problem. Now let me first of all acknowledge that they are 
working on this problem.
  I do want to acknowledge the Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security 
and the director of FEMA, the acting director, for their sensitivity to 
this issue. But I thought it was important for my colleagues to 
understand that there is a need, that FEMA does need the resources to 
extend this relief for those individuals who are still in a host city.
  And it is important for this legislation that oversees FEMA to 
understand that no funds should be utilized to hinder FEMA from 
protecting these evacuees.
  We are in the process, I hope, of a successful pathway to assisting 
them. We are in the process of establishing a task force that can look 
and each and every one of these who have been eligible before but may 
be ineligible now.
  I do not see how, in one of the most catastrophic disasters that we 
have ever had, that we should cut off the very lifeline of these 
remaining evacuees in the host city. Many of them may be senior 
citizens. Many of them may be single parents with children who are 
homebound. Many of them may be disabled or, at this point in time, 
unable in this market to find a job.
  This is the substance by which they survive for housing and for other 
support services that they might need. The only way that the social 
service system can address this is for them to have a place to live
  Otherwise, they fall upon the social service system in the host city 
to the extent that they become homeless. I know that our county and 
city officials have been doing everything that they can. I hope that 
this will urge FEMA to move more quickly and that we can work together 
to ensure that these evacuees are not left without any hope and any 
basis, if you will, of surviving.
  So I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. I certainly hope 
that the point of order would be withdrawn.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is intended to ensure that FEMA does not 
terminate the financial housing assistance received by Hurricane 
Katrina evacuees in Harris County prior to December 31, 2006. FEMA 
previously announced its intention to terminate such direct financial 
assistance effective June 30, 2006.
  In particular, this amendment limits the ability of the Department of 
Homeland Security to terminate financial assistance for housing 
authorized by section 408 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5174) to any Hurricane Katrina 
evacuee located in Harris County, Texas, who previously has been 
determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to be eligible to 
receive such assistance.
  Houston arranged for housing for approximately 34,000 households 
immediately following Hurricane Katrina. The overwhelming majority of 
these households were African American, retired or working poor, and 
from areas of New Orleans that were flooded and damaged.
  FEMA has decided that one-fourth of Houston's voucher households, 
representing 20,000 people, are ineligible for further assistance.

[[Page H3337]]

  FEMA should not punish the evacuees for its own administrative flubs: 
FEMA issues multiple validated FEMA identification numbers; FEMA 
encouraged households to split up in an effort to encourage use of 
available apartment units.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman insist upon his point of order?
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman withdraws the point of order.
  Does anyone claim the 5 minutes in opposition?
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  Mr. Chairman, I am opposed. FEMA is transitioning all apartment 
residents from apartments paid for under the emergency protective 
measures under the Stafford Act to the Individual and Households 
Assistance Program.
  Under the Stafford Act, apartment coverage is provided only during 
the emergency period; 20,000 evacuees in Houston have already been 
successfully transitioned from the apartments to the Individual and 
Households Program which offers cash assistance; 5,000 evacuees are 
still in apartments in Houston. This remaining group of 5,000 Katrina 
victims will be eligible for up to 18 months or $26,200 of assistance, 
whichever threshold is met first.
  FEMA is working with those not eligible for cash assistance and is 
helping them find more appropriate housing solutions, either through 
FEMA, HUD or other agency volunteer agency resources. No one is being 
thrown out.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  The amendment was rejected.


                Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Tancredo

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

       Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Tancredo:
       Page 62, after line 17, insert the following:
       Sec. 537. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to administer any extension of designation made under 
     section 244(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act before 
     the date of the enactment of this Act with respect to 
     Guatemala, Honduras, or Nicaragua.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would prevent the recent 
extensions of temporary protective status designation for Guatemala, 
Honduras and Nicaragua.
  Mr. Chairman, I have strong concerns regarding a pattern of abuse of 
the Temporary Protective Status Program. Congress has granted formerly 
the Attorney General and now the Secretary of Homeland Security the 
authority to grant temporary refugee to aliens, usually illegal aliens, 
from particular countries under temporary protected status. If there is 
an ongoing armed conflict in the country and the return of nationals 
would pose a threat to their security or if there has been a natural 
disaster in the country resulting in a substantial but temporary 
disruption of living conditions, TPS status can be granted.
  It has become all too apparent that the administration is utilizing 
TPS as a de facto amnesty for illegal aliens from certain Central 
American countries. For instance, TPS status was granted to Honduran 
and Nicaraguan nationals at the end of 1998 following Hurricane Mitch.
  The administration recently extended TPS for the sixth time. 
Temporary dislocations caused by Hurricane Mitch have long since ended.
  TPS status for Salvadoran nationals was granted early in 2001 as a 
result of earthquakes hitting the region. The administration has 
extended TPS now four times, again, long after any temporary 
dislocations caused by earthquakes have ended.
  These extensions cover approximately 225,000 Salvadorians, 75,000 
Hondurans and 4,000 Nicaraguans. Last December, several Members 
including Chairman Sensenbrenner urged the administration to reject 
Guatemala's request for yet another extension of TPS for its nationals 
present in the United States. The administration ignored this 
reasonable request.
  To be clear, I am not opposed to having the ability to grant TPS, but 
I hope you will support my amendment to defund these specific abuses of 
this important designation tool, which is meant to serve important 
legitimate temporary needs, not act as a rolling amnesty.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I am in opposition. I 
completely agree with gentleman that the Department should work to 
determine whether TPS status remains relevant for many who come from 
the countries that no longer fit the original purpose of TPS.
  Clearly, many could return without the fear for physical safety that 
justified the TPS designation in the first place. However, we are 
talking about hundreds of thousands of Central Americans who live and 
work here, and who have been here for some time.
  It may not be appropriate to suddenly change their status in a way 
that will generate significant confusion in communities and suddenly 
create large populations who are out of immigration status, and thus 
the subject for enforcement actions by DHS and the Department of 
Justice.
  I fully understand the gentleman's concerns and agree that there 
should be a permanent resolution of the TPS situation. But that is a 
matter for authorizers, and those who can plan a smooth, manageable 
transition. What the gentleman proposes would be disruptive and burden 
our already stressed immigration enforcement agencies and should be 
handled by the authorizing committee.
  So I ask our colleagues to reject this amendment.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. SABO. I thank the chairman for his comments. I would share his 
opinion and ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, if we do nothing, these extensions of TPS designations 
will expire September 9, 2007 for El Salvador, Honduras, July 5, and 
Nicaragua at the same time.
  It is interesting to note that the countries of El Salvador and 
Nicaragua are presently advertising on their Web sites for tourism, 
encouraging people to come to the countries, of course, because there 
is nothing wrong, there are no dislocations, and there is no reason for 
the continued TPS status.
  Many members of MS-13, which we all know to be a very violent gang, 
have benefited from the Salvadorian TPS. Unfortunately, under current 
law, alien gang members who have been granted TPS status generally 
cannot be returned to their native countries without having first been 
convicted of a felony or other specific criminal offenses.
  It is not enough just to be affiliated with a federally identified 
gang. It makes absolutely no sense to allow gang members, many of whom 
are here illegally, to be free from deportation until they have 
committed another crime. Gang members who are shielded from deportation 
by TPS are a significant problem.
  The exact number of gang members protected by TPS is unknown. But in 
an April 13, 2005, Immigration Subcommittee hearing, the Department of 
Homeland Security stated that of the 5,000 gang members detained under 
Operation Community Shield, approximately 350 had been granted TPS.
  That means that, because of TPS, we now know there are 350 gang 
members who will be back on our streets terrorizing our communities and 
neighborhoods. We do not know, however, how many gang members who are 
protected

[[Page H3338]]

by TPS we would find if we examined the 800,000 gang members the 
Department of Justice suggests are currently within our borders, 
instead of only the 5,000 detained under Operation Community Shield.
  As I say, it can be a good program. It can be a good designation. If 
we use it correctly, it is beneficial. It is interesting also to note 
that countries like Pakistan that suffered enormous damage, countries 
all over Southeast Asia that were swamped by the tsunami, they were not 
granted TPS. Nobody here was granted TPS for those conditions.
  It is apparent that this is a political problem that should be 
settled here. And so I would ask for support of my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. TANCREDO. 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 Colorado will be 
postponed.


          Amendment En Bloc Offered by Mr. Rogers of Kentucky

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

       Amendment en bloc offered by Mr. Rogers of Kentucky:
       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following new sections:
       Sec. 536. None of the funds made available by this Act 
     shall be used in contravention of the Federal buildings 
     performance and reporting requirements of Executive Order 
     13123, part 3 of title V of the National Energy Conservation 
     Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 8251 et seq.), or subtitle A of title I 
     of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (including the amendments 
     made thereby).
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used in contravention of section 303 of the Energy Policy 
     Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13212).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I offer these amendments on 
behalf of Mr. Gordon and Mr. Engel. They have been agreed to by both 
sides. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member seek time on the amendment?
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, despite the high cost of energy and 
existing laws enforcing conservation, Federal agencies still do not 
give energy efficiency a priority and continually fall short of meeting 
their requirements.
  Our estimates are that the Federal Government wasted almost half a 
billion dollars in the last two years by not meeting its requirements--
or roughly equivalent to 8200 barrels of oil every day--a total of 6 
million barrels over the last two years.
  This happens because the laws already on the books are not taken 
seriously enough. The National Energy Conservation Policy Act (NECPA), 
last year's Energy Bill (EPACT), and a related Executive Order all 
clearly state that agencies shall meet aggressive but reasonable energy 
efficiency goals and standards and to prepare reports to the Department 
of Energy, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Congress and on 
the agencies' performance. Yet the Federal Regulations that govern new 
building construction are 17 years out of date and the reports reach 
the Congress months or years after the data is available.
  The amendment I am offering today would increase the incentive for 
agencies receiving appropriations under the Agriculture Appropriations 
bill to comply with the law by tying Federal buildings performance to 
appropriations.
  This amendment simply states that none of the funds made available by 
this Act shall be used in contravention of Federal buildings 
performance requirements. Therefore, agencies must adhere to existing 
law when constructing, leasing or refurbishing any building with money 
appropriated under this act.
  These relatively simple steps in designing new buildings in 
conformance with current law, measuring building performance, and 
procurement of energy efficient products will contribute to substantial 
energy savings in the federal sector--lessons that have already been 
learned outside the Federal Government.
  Increased energy conservation in the Federal sector means cleaner 
air, cleaner water, and in a time of soaring energy costs, keeping 
money in taxpayers pockets.
  How can we expect consumers and industry to make sacrifices and 
commit to energy conservation when the Federal Government fails to make 
it a priority for itself?
  Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment en bloc offered by the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).
  The amendment en bloc was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Tierney

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Tierney:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title) add the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used for the approval of any application for a deepwater 
     port for natural gas with respect to which Massachusetts is 
     designated as an adjacent coastal State under the Deepwater 
     Port Act of 1974 (33 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) until the 
     Commandant of the Coast Guard--
       (1) receives from the appropriate Federal agencies and 
     submits to Congress a report assessing New England's 
     documented energy needs and proposing a regional strategy for 
     approving natural gas facilities based on such documented 
     needs; and
       (2) conducts, completes, and submits to Congress a report 
     on a study of the anticipated costs of providing security for 
     proposed deepwater ports in New England.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to spur a rational 
process for the siting of liquefied natural gas facilities in the 
northeast region. That region does need additional energy sources. That 
is not in dispute. But our homes and businesses depend on an adequate 
supply.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I didn't hear the Clerk 
designate the amendment. I would like to reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman was on his feet.
  A point of order is reserved.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts may proceed.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I regret that the point of order was 
raised. As I was mentioning, the purpose is for spurring a rational 
process for siting liquid natural gas facilities in the northeast 
region.
  That the region needs additional energy resources is not in dispute. 
Our homes and our businesses depend on adequate supplies to maintain 
our quality of life, but our quality of life also depends on having a 
rational process for determining how many facilities are reasonably 
needed in the region and where any new facilities will locate.
  Current policy only calls for evaluation and approval of new liquid 
natural gas facilities as they are proposed, independent of all other 
applications and without any regulation concern for overcapacity or 
overbuilding in any particular area.
  Important fishing, shipping, security and conservation interests are 
impacted by the sitings, particularly by multiple sitings. Yet the 
current law does not account for this. Already there are two proposals 
in one area known as block 125 off the Massachusetts coast.
  There are a total of 16 proposals that could be built along the 
northeast area. Those are all pending.

                              {time}  2115

  Some people just say that the marketplace will sort it out, but in 
fact it is the responsibility of public policy officials to provide for 
a much more rational approach.
  Past energy construction situations that operated on the premises 
that the market would sort it out, for instance, that some applicants 
would eventually

[[Page H3339]]

blink and not continue with their building, have proved out not to be 
true. Overcapacity and the attendant problems resulted from that.
  We can prevent an arbitrary intrusion into some of our Nation's most 
productive fishing grounds if we can prevent the unnecessary 
degradation of valuable ocean treasures. We can present the potential 
navigational problems and the possible excessive security costs if we 
plan, if we get it right, if we forego this ad hoc approach. In the end 
if we follow a rational and regional siting process, it will expedite 
the introduction of new energy in the area. Public support will be much 
more likely. Litigation will be less likely. And legislative 
intervention or administrative interruption may be obviated.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, there are significant security concerns and 
risks that are associated with liquid natural gas offshore sites. The 
Coast Guard has informed us that no comprehensive assessment of 
security costs for LNG deep-water ports has been conducted. So what 
will it cost to protect one? What will it cost to protect 16? What will 
it cost to protect the related ships and crews, and who is going to pay 
or reimburse the taxpayers for all of this protection on the for-profit 
enterprise?
  Companies indicate that they have not ever been approached about 
this, nor have they broached the subject. It is our duty as 
policymakers to address these issues to ensure that the right 
facilities are built as they are needed, that precious resources are 
reasonably protected, and that the cost of security be known and 
properly assessed.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope that the point of order is not sustained so we 
can have these proper assessments of New England's energy needs and 
siting demands; and that we can also evaluate and apportion the cost of 
securing LNG facilities that are operating.


                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Kentucky insist on his point of 
order?
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I do, Mr. Chairman. I make a point of order 
against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and 
constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill and, therefore, 
violates clause 2 of rule XXI which states in pertinent part: ``An 
amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if 
changing existing law.''
  The amendment imposes additional duties and, therefore, violates the 
rule.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that this amendment requires new duties. The 
amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 
of XXI.
  The point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in order.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Doolittle).
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, expedited removal is an important tool which should be 
used on all illegal aliens, and that is why I am proposing in my 
legislation H.R. 5457, to overturn something known as the Orantes 
injunction. I cannot offer that as an amendment to this bill. It would 
be legislating on an appropriations bill, but I would like to briefly 
explain the injunction.
  In 1988 in the midst of a 12-year civil war, the Federal District 
Court of Los Angeles issued an injunction which prohibited Salvadorans 
from being deported without a hearing before an immigration judge. This 
injunction is known as the Orantes injunction.
  The civil war on El Salvador has long since ended; however, the 
Orantes injunction issued nearly 20 years ago has not been overturned 
and remains the practice today. Expansion of expedited removal has 
resulted in significant declines in the amount of apprehensions of 
other nationalities. However, due to the special treatment afforded to 
Salvadorans, their apprehensions have continued to rise.
  This injunction is no longer warranted. El Salvador has been a 
country at peace since 1992. Under current expedited removal process, 
aliens are not automatically entitled to such a hearing and are 
immediately placed in the removal proceedings. In 2005, over 39,000 
Salvadorans were apprehended, and current estimates suggest out of 
every one caught, four to five Salvadoran illegals penetrate our 
borders.
  Mr. Tancredo referred to the terrible problem with the MS-13 gangs, 
which are basically the Salvadoran gangs. It is a serious problem. 
Secretary Chertoff, the Homeland Security Secretary, has voiced his 
concern over this practice and he has indicated, ``We have one big step 
left in order to complete this job and that is to get rid of a 20-year 
court order that is hampering our ability to use expedited removal with 
respect to people from El Salvador.''
  The Department of Homeland Security is subject to a number of such 
court-ordered permanent injunctions beyond Orantes issued in 
immigration cases as long as 30 years ago, and these long-standing 
injunctions severely impact the enforcement of the immigration laws.
  My colleague, Representative Bonilla, is also sponsoring legislation 
that deals with these various injunctions, including Orantes, and his 
legislation should be supported as well.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Pickering

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Pickering:
       Page 62, after line 17, insert the following:
       Sec. 503. None of the funds made available in this 2 Act 
     may be used to award any contract for major disaster or 
     emergency assistance activities under the Robert T. Stafford 
     Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act except in 
     accordance with section 307 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 5150).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi.
  Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief.
  This amendment simply makes sure that the local companies and local 
communities in hurricane regions will lead the way in the preparation, 
cleanup, recovery and building for the next storm season.
  I want to thank the chairman for working with me on this amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PICKERING. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. The gentleman has offered a very good 
amendment. It is a needed improvement, and I congratulate and thank the 
gentleman for being thoughtful and helpful in this regard.
  Mr. PICKERING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PICKERING. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. SABO. I concur in the chairman's comments. You have a good 
amendment, and I am glad to support it.
  Mr. PICKERING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering).
  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. 
Kuhl of New York) 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.

                          ____________________