Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

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.

This amendment prescribes a policy. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

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. I ask for a ruling.

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

Mr. Chairman, first, let me say that, as written, this amendment does not accomplish what the gentleman, I think, has described, but I do understand the intent of the amendment, and I agree with the gentleman's concerns about the various allegations that have been made about this service.

However, I would like to point out that the Inspector General's office is investigating this 5-year contract to see if there is any impropriety. If there is, the contract will be terminated.

The intent of this amendment is to bar DHS employees from using ``limousine services.'' But it does not define what that means. It could have some wide-ranging impacts if it is not defined.

For example, with no definition, it could be perhaps used to stop FEMA crews from contracting buses to get to disaster areas. It could shut down bus shuttle service between the various DHS campuses in the D.C. area. And it could prevent employees from taking taxis from airports while they are on official travel. These are very impractical limitations for a department we expect to act quickly in time of emergency.

So I would hope at some point in time, if this amendment passes, that there could be some way to define what is prohibited. But even with these concerns and these reservations, I am willing to accept the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Now that pretty much everything is said and done on this appropriations bill, according to CBO scoring, the bill is now under its section 302(b) allocation by $4 million. My amendment simply takes that $4 million and makes modest funding adjustments to two accounts: FEMA's Readiness Mitigation Response and Recovery program and the U.S. Secret Services Protection Administration and Training program.

Mr. Chairman, the FEMA dollars will be used to continue work to upgrade the National Response Plan. For the Secret Service, funds will be used to support critical protective operations.

This amendment has been cleared by both sides of the aisle, and I ask that it be agreed to.

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

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

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and yield to the gentleman from New York for a colloquy.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

I thank the gentleman for his comments. I understand the concerns of both gentlemen from New York, both very valued, hardworking members of the subcommittee, I might add.

I agree that the subcommittee should hold further hearings into this matter. We will be working to set up a closed briefing because we are dealing with classified material here. We will work with the gentlemen to set up a closed hearing to further look into the matter.

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

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, do pass.

Madam Speaker, I make a point of order against the motion to recommit because it violates clause 2(c) of rule

Madam Speaker, regular order. The gentleman needs to speak to the point of order.

Madam Speaker, I move to lay the appeal on the table.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 5441, the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections and conforming changes to the bill.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend

their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 5441, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be here to present the fiscal year 2007 Homeland Security Appropriations Bill. The bill provides just over $32 billion in discretionary funds for the upcoming fiscal year, that is $1.8 billion above the current year, providing ample resources to fund the Department's operations in 2007.

After 3 years, the Department of Homeland Security has made enormous progress, but much work remains. The past year has been challenging. We have seen military-like incursions at the border, learned of potential vulnerabilities within port security and witnessed a massive failure in our Nation's preparedness and response during Hurricane Katrina. It has not been an easy year.

I have watched the Department tackle these challenges, and have been forthcoming in both my criticisms and praise, and they deserve both. Now, in its fourth year of existence, DHS is still struggling to merge its 22 legacy agencies.

Basic business systems are not yet established. And there is a constant shuffling of responsibilities and positions. From one day to the next, it is hard to determine who is in charge of what effort. On top of the mundane job of simply managing a large bureaucracy of over 180,000 employees, the Department is often focused on managing the crisis of the day. Part of this is necessary. Katrina's aftermath certainly required the attention of DHS leadership.

But I do not think the Department should lose sight of its long range goals and diverse legacy missions, to deal exclusively with the latest crisis. Nor, do I think that we as a Congress can afford to be so caught up in today's crisis that we fail to provide balance, stability and aggressive oversight within the Department's operations.

The President's budget put a strong emphasis on two areas, borders and immigration security, and nuclear detection. These are certainly homeland security priorities which I support. But increases in these areas came at the expense of everything else, resulting in reduced funding for first responders, port security and legacy agencies such as the Secret Service.

The bill before you shifts some of these resources and provides a balance among all of the Homeland Security priorities. It gives the Department the tools, assets and direction it needs to prepare our Nation for both terrorist attacks and natural disasters.

Since September 11, we have provided $217.6 billion for homeland security, including $116.9 billion for the Department itself. This does not include emergency appropriations for Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma.

For the past 3 years, we have provided funds to get the Department up and running. But this year marks a turning point for the Department. It is 3 years old. It is already up and running. We now expect results. No longer will we tolerate excuses and delays due to reorganizations, personnel shortages and poor financial management. Those days are over. We need to have confidence that this money is making a difference and that as a Nation we are safer and better prepared.

The bill includes a number of initiatives designed to compel the Department to develop strategies and milestones for performance. To eliminate any ambiguity of Congressional intent, the bill fences funds until certain actions are performed. In fact, a total of $1.3 billion is withheld until we have strategic plans, expenditure plans, and better financial data throughout the Department.

The bill also balances funding across all programs, not just a select few. But there are some caveats. We give money to the Department, but we also require results. For port security, cargo security and container security, we include $4.185 billion, a significant sum of money, but not without strings.

There are stringent performance requirements, such as doubling the amount of cargo inspected, 100 percent screening of all cargo and the establishment of minimum security standards for all cargo containers.

It also requires that DHS double the amount of cargo screened for radiation. These requirements are in line with the recently considered SAFE Port Act, which overwhelming passed this House on May 4.

For border security and immigration enforcement, the bill is also generous. We provide $19.6 billion, including almost $4 billion for the Secure Border Initiative. Again, these funds do not come without strings. Strategic and expenditure plans must be submitted for this effort. Unless the Department can show us exactly what we are buying, we will not fund it. Since 1995, spending on border security has quadrupled from $5.1 billion to over $17.9 billion.

And the number of Border Patrol agents has more than doubled from 5,000 to 12,319. However, during this same period, the number of illegal immigrants has jumped from 5 million to an estimated 12 million people. The policy of more money and no results is no longer in effect.

We will not fund programs with false expectations. The American taxpayer deserves more. We learned many lessons, Mr. Chairman, from Hurricane Katrina. The Department has taken a number of steps to prepare for the start of the 2006 Hurricane season on June 1, including improvements to communications, logistics management, victim registration and debris removal.

However, much work remains. And we provide $493 million to build FEMA's operational capabilities, including 200 new staff to improve incident and logistics management, evacuations and debris removal.

The bill includes $3.2 billion for our first responders. This is in addition to the $5.1 billion that is still in the pipeline waiting to be spent, moneys from previous years. Here, too, we require results. And we put pressure on DHS to measure progress in preparing our first responders.

Since September 11, we have given the first responders, we have provided $37.4 billion. The question is, are they better trained? Are they better prepared? Are they better equipped? We do not know the answer to that, but we should. The bill includes a provision requiring DHS to develop a preparedness strategy and to measure the performance of first responders.

The bill provides $6.4 billion for the Transportation Security Administration and the air marshals, including $497 million for explosive detection systems, and $55 million for air cargo security. It also continues to cap the number of screeners at 45,000, ensuring that TSA will not rely exclusively on people to secure aviation but rather use smart technologies to screen for explosives and other contraband.

We must get out of the cycle of simply giving more money for people when technology in many cases provides a better answer. The bill includes $500 million for the domestic nuclear detection office. Much work has been done in this area over the past year, and the office has made significant progress in the areas of detection technologies and

coordinating Federal efforts. This work deserves our continued support.

Finally, I would like to point out that the bill includes $1.3 billion for the Secret Service. I continue to believe the administration sometimes ignores the resource requirements of that agency. Despite dramatic increases in their workload for both protection and investigations, dollars have not been forthcoming.

This is a good example of where I think the administration is not paying enough attention to legacy missions, because they are so focused on bigger, more visible challenges.

This legislation, Mr. Chairman, supports our most critical Homeland Security priorities, keeps the Department on track to produce results and continues the committee's tradition of strict accountability. The recommendations in this bill reflect a balance among programs and operations, and I urge my colleagues to support the measure.

Mr. Chairman, this is the last year that my distinguished colleague, Mr. Sabo, will be serving in the U.S. House. He has chosen to retire to his home in Minnesota. I want to pay him the highest compliment that I can. He has been an able soldier. He has been a good work mate on this subcommittee. A good part of this bill is his handiwork. He is easy to work with. He reminds me a lot of that old adage that still water runs deep. He does not yell and scream. And yet he is extremely competent.

So I wish him well in his next life. I want him to know that we have enjoyed working with him. He has done a great service for his country. And we want to thank him for his distinguished service.

So, Mr. Sabo, thank you for being a great partner.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25MY06.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25MY06.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25MY06.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25MY06.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25MY06.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25MY06.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25MY06.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25MY06.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25MY06.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25MY06.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25MY06.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25MY06.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25MY06.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25MY06.014

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments, especially about the staff. We would not be here obviously without the hard work that they have put into this bill. You and I are just sort of front people for the real work that goes on behind the scenes by staff.

So we do have, I think, the best staff in the business on both sides of the aisle. I join you in complimenting the staff. You may notice that all of the staff is wearing some form of purple in their clothing at some point in time. And there is a reason for that.

Purple is the favorite color of Michelle Mrdeza, who as we all know is retiring after this year from her labors. And so we are paying tribute to Michelle with purple. We wish Michelle well in her next life as well.

She has rendered tremendous service to her country. In trying to stand up this brand-new Department, the biggest reorganization in the government at least since 1948, in standing up this Department it has been real labor, toils and snares all along the way and they continue until this today. But Michelle and the staff of the subcommittee on both sides have just been marvelous in this labor of love of trying to stand up this huge agency, that we owe them more than we can ever tell them about. But that goes for the ranking member, too.

He has been a marvelous help-mate as we struggled along trying to find our way through a thicket to try to stand up this brand-new Department. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), the distinguished chairman of the authorizing Committee on Homeland Security in the House.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to thank the gentleman for his efforts to work with our subcommittee and commend him for his leadership in the Committee on Homeland Security. I also appreciate the opportunity to work with the gentleman on legislative provisions contained in the homeland security bill.

As this bill moves forward towards conference, I want to assure the gentleman that I am committed to retaining the key oversight provisions included in this bill. I also look forward to working with the gentleman to ensure that measures consistent with the legislative agenda of the Committee on Homeland Security, particularly in the areas of border, immigration and port security, emergency preparedness and chemical site security. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the kind words of the gentleman from Texas, and I share his concerns and am committed to improving our border security and immigration enforcement programs. I know the needs of Laredo are great, but I also know that if we do not address the issue of border security comprehensively, we will continue to throw money at a problem without making measurable gains.

As I have said many times, if our approach is only to build a 20-foot fence, all we end up doing is increasing the demand for 21-foot ladders. We have to have a plan for addressing this very complex and challenging issue.

I will continue to work with the gentleman on his concerns and push the department to plan its work and work its plan.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the language in the Homeland Security Appropriations report is intended to support, not change or contradict, the SAFE Port Act's requirements and controls pertaining to third party validators. I share my colleague's concern that C-TPAT is only as good as its participants are credible. We must ensure that all C-TPAT members are validated to have a program that provides real security. That is why our bill aligns with the SAFE Port Act by requiring the validation of all certified participants.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), a very hardworking member of our subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman makes an awfully good case. The firefighters, of course, are extremely important in our Nation's efforts to defend itself, and this funding is vital. The gentleman and all the gentlemen make a good point, and I am prepared to accept the amendment. I would hope that we could conserve some time by doing that, but I thank the gentleman for yielding.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have grave concerns about directing FEMA to predict over the next 20 years the effects of global warming on disasters and on FEMA's disaster relief services. FEMA's efforts should be focused on improving their capabilities to coordinate the Federal response to major domestic disasters and emergencies of all types.

According to the Department of Homeland Security, neither the Department nor FEMA has the personnel nor the expertise to conduct such a study. Global warming is not a homeland security priority, and we should not expect FEMA to take on that tremendous responsibility.

So I urge Members to vote against this amendment.

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

I understand the gentleman's concern, but would point out that such determinations are the work of the U.S. Trade Representative. This amendment would have more value if considered in the context of a bill that authorizes or funds the U.S. Trade Representative or the Department of State. As these activities are outside the jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security, that would require a new authorization.

Finally, the Department is still focusing on its primary responsibilities of protecting the homeland and has little expertise in making determinations about liability or trade activities.

For those reasons, I urge Members to vote against the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

This bill provides significant resources for border security programs and is currently balanced among the many competing homeland security priorities. This amendment significantly upsets that balance and undermines the Department's ability to effectively integrate its business systems.

I have grave concerns about the offsets contained in this amendment, offsets that decimate DHS's management. Taking $40 million, almost half of the Secretary's budget, would effectively shut down all planning and management from DHS leadership.

We have already reallocated $50 million from the Office of Under Secretary to operational agencies in the bill itself. A $61 million reduction to this office would stop all work on the new personnel and payroll systems that are under development.

The subcommittee carefully reviewed the President's request and made significant modifications in order to ensure all mission areas had sufficient resources.

What this amendment does is unravel over 5 months of committee oversight. We have held 11 hearings this year, digging deep into the resource requirements of the Department and examining the most ominous threats facing the Nation. Almost without exception, all of the programs funded in this bill are critical. But what we can't afford to do is fund one program at the expense of all others.

This bill provides significant border security resources, administers tough oversight, drives DHS to properly plan its work and improve our border security and immigration enforcement programs. I would hope that we would turn down this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, Citizen Corps was originally established to create the Citizens Preparedness Guidebook to give Americans guidance on how to prepare in their homes, neighborhoods, workplaces, and public spaces. That work has been done.

Citizen Corps Councils are redundant. Work is being performed by State and local homeland security emergency preparedness offices. State offices are now robust enough after 9/11 to assess threats, help with community planning, evacuation and the like. These are government functions, not volunteer functions.

Citizen Corps functions are funded through other sources. Money comes to them from the Department of Justice through its Neighborhood Watch programs, its volunteers and police service programs, and the Department of Health and Human Services through its medical reserve program.

The subcommittee's 302(b) allocation could not accommodate all of the President's requests. The allocation of $32 billion does not fully adjust for the proposed increase in aviation passenger fees generating $1.3 billion in new revenue. Therefore, the committee has had to make some very tough choices, and this is one of them.

So I urge my colleagues to oppose the gentlewoman's amendment.

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

Mr. Sabo, here we go again, another amendment to take money from the Office of Secretary and Executive Management and the Office of the Under Secretary for Management. As Mr. Sabo has pointed out earlier, if we keep cutting this office, there will not be any office.

The gentleman's amendment would want to increase funding for DNDO by $36 million. Our bill already provides, Mr. Chairman, a 59 percent increase for this office above the current level. The committee reduced funding for DNDO below the budget request because we had concerns with two specific programs, Surge, s-u-r-g-e and transformational research. The Surge program is an effort to purchase and restore equipment for use in times of need, a good idea for a more mature program.

But at this point, resources are needed for detectors on the front lines. Transformational Research, though trimmed, is still an increase of 50 percent over last year. I think we are doing the best we can do by this office at this time.

I oppose the amendment.

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

Here we go again, cutting the Secretary and the Secretary for Management's office. If we keep doing this, we are not going to have an office. So I have grave concerns. The Office of the Secretary has already been reduced from 2006 by $30 million and the President's budget request by $2 million because of vacancies within the office. Further reductions would cut into critical funding to hire for the management and oversight of the Secure Border Initiative and to ensure that the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., known as CFIUS, is adequately staffed to fully monitor possible foreign investment in critical infrastructure.

Border security and CFIUS issues span multiple agencies within the Department. Both of these issues have been in the news, of course, repeatedly, and the Department has been severely criticized for its lack of expertise and breadth of knowledge in these areas. If there is no one to work on the issues within the Office of the Secretary, I can assure you they will not be adequately addressed. Each DHS agency will work separately and independently from each other, keeping the stovepipes in place and ensuring that these criticisms continue.

I completely agree with the gentleman that the work being carried out by ICE's child exploitation unit, known as C3, is critical. This amendment would effectively double the operating budget of the C3. We have already increased funding for the center in our base bill. The bill we have presented to this body balances and reflects 5 months of careful oversight and review. The resources provided to C3, $5 million, are sufficient for the pending year. Additional funding is not necessary and could not be used.

So while I applaud the gentleman's priorities here, I find the increase not practical nor needed and ask our colleagues to reject this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.

The amendment proposes to amend portions of the bill not yet read. The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule XXI because the amendment proposes to increase the level of outlays in the bill by $3.5 million.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I ask for a ruling from the Chair. The amendment amends two portions of the bill, one taking from one section and giving back to another.

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

Mr. Chairman, the bill is currently balanced among the many competing homeland security priorities. This amendment significantly upsets that balance and undermines the Department's ability to effectively integrate its business systems.

The subcommittee carefully reviewed the President's request. We made significant modifications in order to ensure all mission areas had sufficient resources, including restoration of funds for all first responder grants by adding $500 million; restoration of funds for critical law enforcement functions, such as the CPB air and marine operations, and the Secret Service. We increased funding for critical explosive

detection systems, significant funding and oversight for all aspects of border security and immigration reform.

What this amendment would do, Mr. Chairman, is unravel over 5 months of committee oversight, 11 hearings, digging deep into the resource requirements of the Department, facing the most ominous threats facing our Nation. The fact is, almost without exception, all of the programs funded in this bill are critical.

But what we cannot afford to do is fund one program at the expense of all of the others. I have grave concerns about a $50 million reduction in the Office of the Under Secretary For Management. We have talked about this all day today.

This office is already $8 million below funding for the current year. Assuming that the under secretary of management would not lay off its current personnel, key projects would have to be terminated in order to absorb the $50 million reduction in this office.

The under secretary for management is responsible for consolidating the 22 agencies that formed DHS in 2003, 180,000 employees, 18 different personnel and payroll systems, and numerous financial management systems. We have made some progress. More is needed.

But a $50 million reduction in this office would ensure that the under secretary would have to stop all work on the new personnel and payroll systems that are under development now.

Because of the size of this offset, the under secretary would be prevented from the hiring of 25 new procurement employees that we provided for him. The Department has been unable to receive a clean financial audit in the first 2 years of its existence and has repeatedly been in the news for poor procurement decisions and inadequate contract management.

The 25 new procurement employees were requested to help the Department receive a clean financial audit, get a better handle on the Department's contracts.

As far as the proposed increase for rail and transit security, the responsibility of securing our Nation's rail and mass transit systems is shared between the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of transportation, and in partnership with the public and private entities that own and operate the Nation's transit and rail systems.

Since DHS was created, $436 million has been appropriated for rail security. With $150 million in this bill, we will have provided a total of $603 million for rail security in the last 3 years.

The Department of Transportation, Mr. Chairman, has also provided funding for rail and transit security, averaging about $40 to $50 million per year. That funding, coupled with the funding that we provide, equals the total amount contained in the amendment of the gentleman. We are giving you the money from two different places. So I think we have satisfied the gentleman's financial request, and I would hope that we would oppose and vote against this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

I do, Mr. Chairman. The amendment proposes to amend portions of the bill not yet read. The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule XXI because the amendment proposes to increase the level of outlays in the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.

The amendment would increase funding for the emergency management performance grants by $40 million and $10.3 million for SAFECOM, and the offset would be, guess what, the poor old Under Secretary for Management. We have tried to dip into that well today 15 times, and every time we have said no because it would stop the Department's operations.

The committee already has in the bill $186 million for these grants. That is $16 million more than the President asked of us, and it is $2.8 million more than what we have in it right now.

So, you know, we have done well by this grant program. I cannot imagine somebody complaining about it.

Then you are taking the money out of the Under Secretary for Management, and that would either zero out or substantially decrease funding for absolutely critical programs that are designed to bring these 22 agencies into a single program, and so I would strongly oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

No, Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the reservation.

Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman, as I understand his amendment, would take $14.7 million out of the Office of the Under Secretary for Management and provide that money to the metropolitan medical response teams.

Mr. Chairman, we have already provided $30 million in the bill for these teams. The budget request that came to us asked for zero, and the subcommittee and the committee decided these were worthwhile programs, doing great work, and we provided $30 million in the bill that we had to find from somewhere else.

Now, Mr. Markey wants to take another slug of money from the Office of the Under Secretary for Management. The poor guy's out of money. With the amendments that have been offered so far, there is no more money left in the Under Secretary For Management's account if those amendments pass, Mr. Chairman. So we have hit bottom and the Under Secretary for Management

and the management of the Department of Homeland Security, if these amendments pass, will go out of business.

So I urge a rejection of this amendment. I cannot see how the extra money would be used by the teams because we have already got $30 million in their account, and the offset would wreck the Department.

I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Chairman, I will not object at this point in time. I am serving notice, however, that this is the last time during the consideration of this bill that I will not object.

The gentleman is correct.

You have my assurances proper site selection procedures will be used.

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

The committee bill already provides $96 million plus for the Inspector General. That is an increase of $14 million over the current level. And of that increase, $11 million is to continue and expand audits and investigations related to the gulf coast hurricanes.

So we have already increased funding for the inspector general by 17 percent over current levels. And again, this money would come out of the Under Secretary of Management's Office. We have already cut $70 million from that office.

We are going to shut it down, and the Department will not be able to operate. So I urge a no vote.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes to amend portions of the bill not yet read. The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule XXI, because the amendment proposes to increase the level of outlays in the bill.

Mr Chairman, I ask for a ruling.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment that was read is what we are relying upon here.

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

The committee included 160 million dollars in the bill for USCIS salaries and expenses which is $115 million above the 2006 level. Their request included $110 million for the Employment Eligibility Verification program, mainly to fund development of new systems and intelligence communications, to support employer requests for confirmation of immigration status of their employees.

The bill provides $90 million. The reason that we did not fully fund that program is because they do not need that much money. This $90 million will be enough to begin the work needed to start defining systems needs and begin the design and procurement process. That is all they need for this. If we give them more, it will not be spent. They cannot spend more.

We could certainly use that money. Certainly the Under Secretary for Management can use that money. If we continue to dip into his account, he will not exist and that is very, very important to manage the whole Department. I understand the gentleman and the gentlewoman's point on this; however, when you think that this amount of money will be all that they can use to get the program up and running, I think you will be satisfied with it. I urge defeat of the amendment.

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

I want to identify with the remarks just made by the gentleman from North Carolina. It is urgent, in my judgment, that Mr. Poe secures more money for the 287(g) program. I think that is an essential matter that needs to be taken care of, to get State and local law enforcement assistance in the enforcement of the immigration laws. We will never be able to get enough border control to completely handle the problem in my judgment, unless we get the active assistance of State and local law enforcement, as authorized and funded.

In the bill we provided $5.4 million for training of local law enforcement officers in participation in 287(g) and the President's border supplemental proposes a $50 million increase. So we are going to get that money that Mr. Poe would like for us to have; we are just going to get it from another source.

I agree with the gentleman from North Carolina on the need to keep the money in the Chief Information Officer's account for the data center. And it will assist, those data centers will assist the border effort to be sure that we keep out people that should not be in the country. We cannot do it without a coordinated data collection center, and that is what this bill includes $41 billion for.

Currently, the Department has 17 of these centers scattered all over the country, largely a legacy of consolidating multiple agencies when we formed the Department. Running those multiple data floors is expensive. It hinders information sharing. It creates security vulnerabilities. The Department estimates that consolidation to twin facilities as the bill proposes will save $50 million each year, starting in 2009, with two mirror sites.

The current information silos scattered across the Department will be done away with, allowing a consolidated view of information, a critical element of information sharing. Having information at twin sites allows it to be under one security umbrella, leaving fewer opportunities to compromise secure information.

The first center is being built in Stennis, Mississippi. The Department plans to release a request for information to begin the competitive process to locate a surface for a second mirror facility this year. Without a redundant data center, should something happen to this Stennis facility, DHS would not be able to operate. People could not cross the border. Travelers would stop at airports. Coast Guard data would be lost.

So I urge the Members to reject this amendment so that we can have the data centers that are absolutely vital to the successful operation of the Department and the battle to keep illegals out of the country.

I would point out again to Mr. Poe that when the President's border supplemental passes, you will get not just the $41 million you seek, but $50 million dollars. So we are with you. We are just doing it a different way. I urge a defeat of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman has offered a very helpful amendment, and I congratulate him on that and those who are supporting the amendment, and the committee would like to accept it.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I do make a point of order against the amendment because it is in violation of section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

The Committee on Appropriations filed a suballocation of budget totals for fiscal year 2007 on May 18. The adoption of this amendment would cause the subcommittee suballocation for budget authority made under section 302(b) to be exceeded and is not permitted under section 302(f) of the Act.

I ask for a ruling.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman has offered a very helpful amendment and certainly should be accepted.

The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Aviation Subcommittee, which the gentleman chairs, has a very direct interest in the flights of the UAVs as it relates to commercial aviation especially.

So I thank the gentleman for the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

I do, Mr. Chairman.

I make a point of order against the amendment because it is in violation of section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

The Committee on Appropriations filed a suballocation of budget totals for fiscal year 2007 on May 18. The adoption of this amendment would cause the subcommittee's suballocation for budget authority made under section 302(b) to be exceeded, and is not permitted under section 302(f) of the act.

I ask for a ruling.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentleman. This is an excellent amendment. It increases the funding for the UASI program for the cities the Department has determined are at greatest risk.

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

We are making good progress on the bill. I would encourage Members who have amendments who want to be heard to come to the floor to be available to offer their amendments so we can move through this process as quickly as possible. I would hope Members would be here to offer their amendments.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

The gentleman has offered an excellent amendment, and we accept it.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

The gentleman has offered another excellent amendment, and we are happy to accept it.

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

Mr. Speaker, the majority leader has announced that we will conclude the business of the House this evening with votes no later than 10, and so with that in mind, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during further consideration of H.R. 5441 in the Committee of the Whole pursuant to House Resolution 836, notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no further amendment to the bill may be offered except:

Pro forma amendments offered at any point in the reading by the chairman or ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees for the purpose of debate;

The additional amendments specified in this order; and

Amendments en bloc specified in this order;

It shall be in order at any time for the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations or a designee, after consultation with the ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations, to offer amendments en bloc as follows:

Amendments en bloc shall consist of amendments that may be offered under this order;

Such amendments en bloc shall be considered as read, except that modifications shall be reported, shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole;

All points of order against such amendments en bloc are waived;

The original proponent of an amendment included in such amendments en bloc may insert a statement in the Congressional Record immediately before the disposition of the amendments en bloc;

The additional amendments specified in this order are as follows:

An amendment by Mr. Nadler striking language on sodium-iodide;

An amendment by Mr. Gordon regarding funding limitation on energy efficiency in Federal buildings;

An amendment by Mr. Obey regarding funding levels and tax cuts;

An amendment by Mr. Doolittle regarding funding limitation on expedited removal;

An amendment by Mr. Campbell of California regarding funding limitations on 642(a) of the IIAIRA;

An amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas regarding funding limitation on DHS closures in Texas;

An amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas regarding funding limitation on termination of FEMA financial assistance;

An amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas regarding funding limitation on lawsuits against FEMA;

An amendment by Mr. Markey regarding funding limitation on air cargo security;

An amendment by Mr. Filner regarding funding limitation on USIA grants;

An amendment by Mr. Deal of Georgia regarding funding limitation on birthright citizenship;

An amendment by Mr. Poe regarding funding limitation on Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative;

An amendment by Mr. Engel regarding funding limitation on alternative fuel vehicles;

An amendment by Mr. Tancredo regarding funding limitation on temporary protective status for certain Central Americans;

An amendment by Mr. Kingston regarding funding limitation on volunteer surveillance on the border;

An amendment by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey regarding funding limitation on adult entertainment, clown and puppet shows, and other activities;

An amendment by Mr. Pickering regarding funding limitation on certain FEMA contracts;

An amendment by Mr. Tancredo regarding funding limitation on diversity visa program;

An amendment by Ms. Foxx regarding funding limitation on Louis Vuitton handbags;

An amendment by Mr. Bishop of New York regarding funding limitation on reimbursement of attorneys fees;

An amendment by Ms. Berkley regarding funding limitation on threat assessments related to certain populations;

An amendment by Mr. Mica regarding funding limitation on personnel at opt-out airports;

An amendment by Mr. Tierney regarding funding limitation on LNG;

An amendment by Mr. Culberson regarding funding limitation on CIS benefits and background checks;

An amendment by Mr. Kuhl of New York regarding limousine service and fire protection funding; and

An amendment or amendments by Mr. Rogers of Kentucky regarding funding levels.

Each additional amendment may be offered only by the Member named in this request or a designee, except as otherwise specified, shall be considered as read, shall not be subject to amendment except that the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations and the Subcommittee on Homeland Security each may offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of debate; and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.

Except as otherwise specified, each additional amendment shall be debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. An amendment shall be considered to fit the description stated in this request if it addresses in whole or in part the object described.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, my understanding from the majority leader's office is that the votes would be concluded by that time.

If the gentleman would yield, her rights are protected. She does not have to offer it.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Appropriations have until midnight, June 2, 2006, to file a privileged report, making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Appropriations have until midnight, June 5, 2006, to file a privileged report, making appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes.

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).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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. Speaker, I rise today to commend the staff of the Prestonsburg Social Security Office for their strong, effective, and compassionate service to the people of Kentucky.

Social Security plays an important role in the lives of more Americans than any other federal program. Whether providing a Social Security number for a newborn baby, mailing a check to a retired worker, or helping a disabled individual receive benefits, the Social Security Administration touches the lives of just about everyone.

The field office in Prestonsburg, Kentucky, is a shining example for this massive federal agency. The Prestonsburg staff consistently goes beyond the call of duty to provide valuable benefits to the people of Kentucky. Because of this unwavering commitment to helping others, the Social Security Administration recognized the Prestonsburg Office as the Best Level I Field Office in the Atlanta Region for fiscal year 2005.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, I want to thank the staff at the Prestonsburg Social Security Office for their hard work and dedication to serving the people of Kentucky. These fine Americans are an inspiration to us all, and I salute them for their commitment to helping others.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment, well-intentioned as it is, is absolute overkill. In total, this amendment would add $1.225 billion for a variety of programs in the Department of Homeland Security, which is nearly 5 percent of the annual appropriations. I may agree with him on some of the needs, but most of what he is asking for should be dealt with in regular order, not in an emergency supplemental bill.

I recognize the importance of many of the appropriations contained in the amendment, but we have already substantially increased funding, Mr. Chairman, for Customs and Border Protection, Coast Guard, and FEMA over the last 3 years.

This supplemental is about the Global War on Terror and Gulf Coast recovery, not about the regular budgets of these Departments, of these agencies, which we are dealing with right now as we appropriate for 2007.

Now, in Customs and Border Protection, in this bill already we increase funding by $17.7 million. We have aggressively supported radiation detection and cargo inspection technology, appropriating some $700 million over the last three years. An additional $400 million in this amendment, well-intended, is completely arbitrary and unneeded. There is no rationale for this number. The new Domestic Nuclear Detection Office is developing new technologies, even as I speak, and a framework for their deployment.

The gentleman also increases Customs and Border protection, international port security programs, the Container Security Initiative, and the Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism by $300 million. Since 2004, these programs have received, at the hands of the Congress, over $430 million. This has fully funded the Container Security Initiative which will expand in 58 foreign ports by the end of fiscal 2007. Through those 58 ports come 90 percent of the containers that come to this country and C-TPAT has expanded to 5,636 certified trade partners that send us container vessels every day.

Mr. Chairman, we simply cannot grow these programs any faster. Money is not the problem. An expansion of this program is more about obtaining diplomatic clearances than money. These countries simply will not take more of our personnel until we negotiate diplomatically with them.

As for the Coast Guard operating expenses, in this bill the Chairman of the full committee, Mr. Lewis, has already included an additional $14.3 million. The gentleman's amendment would add another $125 million. Mr. Chairman, over the last 5 years, we have doubled funding for the Coast Guard's operating expenses, doubled, from $2.8 billion in fiscal 2001 to $5.5 billion in the current year, and while we have increased their responsibilities, they have funding in their base and in this supplemental for operating expenses sufficient to carry out their duties for the remainder of the year, including overhauling equipment, additional fuel, port security, inspections and the like. So the Coast Guard is taken care of. In fact, they have roughly half of their operating expenses for this fiscal year laying there waiting to be spent. So they do not need the extra funds.

Now then, on FEMA, we include in this bill already increases to FEMA of $70 million in the supplemental emergency bill. The gentleman would increase their funding for administrative and regional operations by $300 million, but it is unclear how that $300 million

figure is derived. The President requested $70 million for emergency communications, primarily for Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama, although some of the funds are also targeted to Texas and Florida.

The Sabo amendment adds $300 million for ``three other locations.'' We do not know where those locations are or why it is an emergency that they be equipped, and there is a huge difference in the cost estimates. Seventy million will take care of the three principal States of Katrina, but he is asking $300 million for these three other locations. Wherever they are, I do not know, and what they need the money for we still do not know.

The $70 million that Chairman Lewis included in the bill that is before us fully prepares the Gulf Coast for the upcoming hurricane season, putting in place the necessary communications infrastructure for warning and communicating with the public during these natural disasters. It may be appropriate to position the technology in other locations, but there is no reason to consider an expansion of this effort as part of this emergency appropriations bill. These are decisions that can and will be considered as part of the regular appropriations cycle, which we are having hearings on right now.

The gentleman seeks to add $100 million for preparedness activities at FEMA. We also increase in preparedness this bill by $10 million. The gentleman states we are not spending enough on simulation exercises; but in fiscal 2006, the National Exercise Program is funded at $52 million. That supports local, State, and national exercises.

The gentleman also seeks to restart a program called Project Impact, funded in the previous administration to simulate predisaster mitigation efforts. That program has not been funded for 5 years. Nothing is known about it, we do not know that it works, and yet we are asked to plop down another big chunk of money. Who will administer it? what will it do? and so on--we do not know.

So, Mr. Chairman, it is not a matter of more money. It is a matter of spending the money that we already have stashed away in these programs wisely, based on a sound strategy and a rationale to improve our homeland security. While the gentleman's amendment is well-intended, it is overkill.

This supplemental is focused on immediate needs, not budgetary items for next year. Many of the areas being addressed in this amendment are funded in this supplemental, not just to the arbitrary levels being proposed by the gentleman's amendment. Throwing huge sums of money at these programs is not a responsible way to conduct our Nation's business.

I urge a defeat of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire of the time remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. First, this amendment throws money at a problem where money is not the problem. There are literally billions of dollars that we have appropriated in the pipeline for the various grant programs in the Department of Homeland Security, including grant monies for port security. In fact, the Department, in the next couple of weeks will be releasing port security applications for various ports around the country to apply for funding. Money is in the pipeline waiting to be spent.

As I have said before, the Department will be in 58 foreign ports the end of the fiscal year 2007. Ninety percent, nine out of 10 of the containers coming into the country come through those 58 ports around the world. We are there x-raying the containers, manually searching containers, classifying and targeting containers, finding those that are susceptible to suspicion and then searching them.

It is not perfect, obviously. But money is not the problem. We simply cannot send more agents into those countries than they will take, unless we can diplomatically make arrangements. But that is a job of the State Department, not DHS.

Second, this is an emergency supplemental bill. We can deal with most of the problems that the gentleman outlines in his amendment in the regular process. And in the regular process, I will probably support a number of the proposals that he is bringing forth in this emergency bill. But this is not the time or the place.

So I would urge a ``no'' vote. These dollars are emergency spending. They are not offset. And the gentleman is asking us to add another $1.225 billion of nonoffset spending. I would hope the body would recognize that, reject this amendment, and let us deal with these issues in the regular process of the 2007 bill.

I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Chairman, I know the motivation of the offerer of the amendment, and I sympathize with his general premise. However, I am obligated to speak against the amendment because the amendment would eliminate the money for FEMA. Under this proposal, FEMA would run out of money in May. The $9.55 billion in the bill for the operations in the Gulf Coast would be eliminated. Housing assistance would stop; debris removal would stop. There would be no emergency communications in place for the upcoming hurricane season, which is only two months away. And $13.5 million for the Inspector General would be cut, almost ensuring fraud, waste and abuse of the $35 billion in supplemental funds we have appropriated so far for the Gulf Coast.

So I would urge a ``no'' vote. Although I understand the gentleman's motivation to try to separate out the disaster funding from the military funding, that would ruin the disaster assistance for the Gulf Coast. I urge a ``no'' vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is just not necessary. FEMA has money and the authorization to go ahead and buy election equipment already, and they are already doing it. This amendment would actually earmark Disaster Relief Funds, which we have never done before. We don't earmark. This is not an account out of which you earmark monies for things you like. These are Disaster Relief Funds that are administered by the government where it is needed.

Now, the Stafford Act authorizes the use of Federal money to repair or replace damaged public infrastructure. That is what it is for, including election equipment. FEMA has already spent over $1.7 million on election equipment in Louisiana and Mississippi. Specifically, Louisiana has received $1,200,100 from FEMA to replace polling booths, computers, voting machines, office supplies, and storage facilities. Mississippi has received $724,000 from FEMA for voting machines, equipment, and election commission furniture. So FEMA is already doing it. I don't know why we need to earmark monies, which I oppose in general; but it is unnecessary here because it is already being done.

There is plenty of money in FEMA's account to replace the election equipment. They are already doing it. So I don't see the need for us to pass this sort of an amendment and set a precedent, Mr. Chairman, for earmarking out of the Disaster Relief Fund for somebody's whim on the floor. We have passed the Stafford Act. That is what governs how FEMA monies are being spent. This would be a violation, in my judgment, of the principle of the Stafford Act.

FEMA is in the process of helping remove debris from the Gulf Coast. Roads are still closed in the area. As has been described innumerable times, it is an absolute mess down there. And while election equipment is important, it is just simply, in my judgment, premature to purchase this equipment, first of all, when there are no structures in place to house the equipment and no roads open to deliver it. When the time is right, FEMA has both the authority and the money to assist with the upcoming election and the equipment requirements. There is simply no need for this amendment and no need to earmark out of disaster funds.

Including the funds in this bill, we will have given $44.5 billion to the Disaster Relief Fund in supplemental appropriations during 2005 and 2006. That is a huge sum. But it reflects the commitment of this body to helping rebuild the devastated Gulf Coast region.

Now is the time for sound management of this money. Arbitrarily carving out specific amounts from the disaster fund would open a floodgate seemingly without end for many, many needs.

We recognize and support the need to repair election facilities. It is critical that we allow those affected by Hurricane Katrina to participate in the most important civic duty, and that is voting. With this bill, the disaster relief monies involved in the bill are in place to do just that and are being spent for that purpose already. So I would urge a rejection of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in opposition to this amendment which would prohibit FEMA from terminating its hotel and motel emergency sheltering program. This language is overly restrictive. At its peak, FEMA had more than 85,000 hotel rooms rented per night. The current subsidized hotel-room population is 3,780 households with the vast majority being in Louisiana.

FEMA is now in the process of transitioning these remaining hotel/ motel residents into more appropriate housing. We do not want families living in motels. We all want to see those families in a better environment, longer term housing solutions such as apartments and the like.

This transition will occur over the coming weeks. To date, over 2,500 have already been matched up against not-yet-ready temporary housing, trailers, apartments and the like. The remainders include hard-to-place individuals, the disabled and people like that; and FEMA will continue to provide hotel/motel assistance to those people until a suitable temporary housing solution is identified and prepared.

Members should be assured that people are not being thrown out in the streets. FEMA is working with families to place them in appropriate housing solutions. This amendment would keep in place a program in the long term that is not good for the recipients or anyone else. So I urge Members to vote against the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, it is not true that the time is up. Eligible Hurricane Katrina victims with no other housing means may be eligible for 3 months' worth of housing assistance. And the deadline application for individual assistance has been extended until April 11. So I would urge defeat of this amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that the Community Development Block Grant Program needs more funding, however, this amendment would take $2 billion out of the Disaster Relief Fund, which is severely underfunded as it is, of the more than $35 billion in supplemental funds that we have provided to the Disaster Relief Fund for the recovery from Katrina, Rita and Wilma. As of March 8, only $3.7 million of that remains unallocated; and long term recovery, of course, is just getting underway.

The disaster fund is very volatile. Over the last month, weekly obligations have varied from $250 million to $1.1 billion. That is per week. The administration estimates the current balance of $3.7 billion in the disaster fund will only last us through the end of May as it is. If you take $2 billion out of that, there is not much left to last us in the disaster fund.

Now, if you take those monies out of the disaster fund, many of the authorized activities for which the States are expecting funding cannot be funded. And I am talking about the Stafford Act Recovery Programs in the gulf coast States' ability to respond to new disasters if they should occur. During the months ahead, funds are needed

primarily for the public assistance and mitigation programs in the gulf coast area.

Also, funding for the disaster fund, if it is less than $9.5 billion, would mean deferring or postponing, at least stopping momentarily, at least, public assistance projects like repairing roads, repairing water control facilities, public buildings and equipment, public utilities, park, recreational facilities and the like, all of that would have to stop.

So, Mr. Chairman, I urge that Members vote against this amendment. Not to say that the Community Development Block Grant Program does not need funds but this ain't the place to get it. So I urge a ``no'' vote.

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

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition.

Could I propose a question to the offeror of the amendment? Are you proposing with this amendment to just simply add $1.9 billion to the Disaster Relief Fund?

I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Reclaiming my time, as I understand it then, you propose to take $1.7 billion.

$1.9 of the 3.7 that has not yet been allocated out of the disaster fund?

For the Community Development Block Grant Program?

So it is essentially like the last amendment but in different form?

Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).

Reclaiming my time, I also oppose the gentleman's amendment for the same reason that I said on the earlier amendment.

If you take these monies out of the Disaster Relief Fund, then you are saying to the gulf coast States that we will not have money to continue the Stafford Act Recovery Programs, which are vital to that region. You are saying there are not monies there for the public assistance and mitigation programs in the gulf coast area. You are saying that we will have to postpone the projects like repairing roads and water control facilities and public buildings and equipment, public utilities, parks, recreational facilities and the like.

So as much as I understand the gentleman's concern to get more money in the Community Development Block Grant Program, this would be, to coin a phrase, disastrous for the gulf coast region to take it away from the Disaster Relief Fund.

I oppose the amendment.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding the time and, more importantly, for ushering out this important bill in short time and in good order, and I urge my colleagues to support this supplemental appropriations for the global war on terror and hurricane recovery.

Mr. Chairman, without a doubt, Hurricane Katrina was the worst natural disaster the Nation has ever seen, covering more than 93,000 square miles, claiming over 1,300 lives. Nearly 7 months after landfall, Hurricane Katrina continues to consume us as a Nation, both with recovery and rebuilding, as well as questioning what went wrong and why.

The bill before us today fully funds the ongoing work of FEMA. Since Katrina made landfall, and including the $9.5 billion in this bill, the Congress has provided more than $44.5 billion in supplemental funds for Gulf coast recovery just through the Disaster Relief Fund. That is a staggering sum of money, Mr. Chairman, and one that reflects our commitment to help our Nation recover from the devastation of the 2005 hurricane season.

Mr. Chairman, we are a little more than 2 months away from the 2006 hurricane season. I do not think that is a particularly welcome observation for those still recovering from the 2005 season.

I am pleased that this bill includes several important programs that will help us prepare. One of the lessons learned, Mr. Chairman, in Katrina was the importance of early warning and communications. The bill before us today includes $70 million to allow FEMA to improve public alert, warning and communications systems.

The Bipartisan Committee on Hurricane Katrina and the White House's ``Lessons Learned'' identified critical failures in FEMA's ability to manage its workload. To address some of those concerns, this bill includes $5 million to hire additional personnel for logistics management, inventory management, and contract management. With these additional staff on board before the 2006 hurricane season begins, FEMA will be better prepared to position critical assets, as well as plan for short-term recovery operations such as debris removal and housing.

Katrina also showed us that much work remains on both the national response plan and the national incident management system. This bill includes $5 million to immediately begin a review of those two important documents.

Mr. Chairman, I am also pleased this bill includes funds for ongoing work of the Coast Guard as it relates to the war on terror and addresses an unexpected shortfall within the Secret Service based on increased protective operations driven by the latest terrorist tactics and the current threat environment.

As reported by the full committee, this bill is free of extraneous matters, and I believe it is important that we maintain that clean bill of health. I suspect there will be attempts to add additional funds to areas deemed critical such as port security, border and immigration security, nuclear non-proliferation, first responders and aviation security. I would remind my colleagues that the 2007 appropriations cycle is already upon us. I believe debate on these very important issues should be reserved and considered within the context of the regular appropriations cycle in which we are engaged even now.

I also understand there may be attempts to take funds from the Disaster Relief Fund and use them for other purposes. I would urge my colleagues to oppose those attempts.

I urge, Mr. Chairman, all of us to support this bill.