[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.
____________________