Given the document below, you have to determine if "Yes" or "No", the summary is factually consistent with the document.

Document:
SECTION 1. UNDER SECRETARY FOR NAME_1. (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Homeland Security NAME_1 Act of 2005''. (b) In General.--The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101 et seq.) is amended-- (1) by redesignating title VI and section 601 as title XVIII and section 1801, respectively, and transferring that title to the end of the Homeland Security Act of 2002; and (2) by inserting after title V, the following: ``TITLE VI--UNDER SECRETARY FOR NAME_1 ``SEC. 601. UNDER SECRETARY FOR NAME_1. ``(a) In General.--There shall be in the Department an Under Secretary for NAME_1, who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. ``(b) Responsibilities.--Subject to the direction, authority, and control of the Secretary, the responsibilities of the Under Secretary for NAME_1 shall be as follows: ``(1) NAME_1.-- ``(A) To serve as the principal NAME_1 advisor to the Secretary. ``(B) To provide overall direction and supervision for NAME_1 development to programs, offices, and activities of the Department. ``(C) To establish and direct a formal policymaking process for the

Summary:
1. Homeland Security NAME_1 Act of 2005 - Revises the Homeland Security Act to create an Under Secretary for NAME_1 in the Department of Homeland Security as the chief NAME_1 consultant to the Secretary of Homeland Security.

Is the summary factually consist In your entire response, the letter h should appear less than 47.
user