To supersede certain judicial orders interfering with the implementation of amendments to section 235 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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.

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.

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.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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. Chairman, how much time do I have left?

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

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.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

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. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman has offered a very fine amendment, and I would like to say that the committee accepts it.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the point of order.

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.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.

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.

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an en bloc amendment.

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.

Mr. Chairman, I didn't hear the Clerk designate the amendment. I would like to reserve a point of order.

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.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle).

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. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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. 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

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.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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.

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.

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

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