order. amendment number 15 by mr. king of iowa. amendment number 17 by mr. carter of georgia. amendment number 25 by mr. mcclintock of california. amendment number 32 by mr. budd of north carolina. amendment number 33 by mr. brooks of alabama. amendment number 38 by ms. rosen of nevada. amendment number 39 by mr. grothman of wisconsin. amendment number 46 by mr. grothman of wisconsin. amendment number 51 by mr. king of iowa. amendment number 54 by mr. grothman of wisconsin. amendment number 56 by mr. smith of missouri. and amendment number 58 by mr. babin of texas. the chair will reduce to two minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote after the first vote series. the chair: the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on amendment number 15 printed in part b of the report 115-295 by

gentleman from iowa, mr. king and the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 15 printed in part b of house 115-295 by mr. king of iowa. the chair: a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

funding everything from the department of agriculture, to the state department, the epa, etc.. that a governmentwide spending bill. they're doing it in one big package because there is so little time to do individual spending bills, which is the regular order. anywhere is not going to gain any traction's fed

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 176, the nays are 241. he amendment is not adopted. he chair will ask for order.

the chair would ask all present to rise -- all present to rise for the purpose of a moment of silence. the chair asks that the body now observe a moment of silence in memory of the victims of hurricane harvey. the chair: without objection, two-minute voting will continue. the unfinished business is on request for a recorded vote on amendment number 17 printed in part b of house report 115-295 by the gentleman from georgia, mr. carter, on which further proceed wrgs postponed and on

which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 17 printed in part b of house report 115-295, offered by mr. carter of georgia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: the yeas are 141, the nays are 279. the amendment is not adopted. the request for recorded vote on amendment number 25 printed in part bmp by the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock and further proceedings were postponed. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 25 printed in house report part b. the chair: a recorded vote those

in support of a recorded vote will rise. a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. members, this is a two-minute vote series. please stay close to the floor. his will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: the yeas are 140, the nays are 280. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is request for recorded vote by the gentleman from north carolina, mr. budd, on which further proceedings were postponed and the noes prevailed. the clerk: amendment number 32 printed in part b of house report 115-295 offered by mr. budd of north carolina. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in favor of a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members, this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: the yeas are 159. the nays are 260. the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on amendment number 33. the gentleman from alabama, mr. brooks, on which further proceedings were postponed and the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 33 printed in house report 115-295. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in favor will rise. a recorded vote is ordered. members, this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

sk

the chair: the yeas are 126, the ays are 291 --

the chair: the yeas are 128, the nays are 223. the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on amendment number 38 by the gentlewoman from nevada. which the noes prevailed. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 38 printed in house report 115-295. the chair: the request for a recorded vote has been requested. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members, please stay close. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the

national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 200 this enays are 20, the amendment is not adopt fled the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 39 printed in -- the f house report clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 49 printed in part b of house report 115-249. the chair: those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. members are reminded that this

is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of epresentatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 124, the nays are 295. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is on the amendment from the gentleman from wisconsin. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 46, printed in house report 115-295, offered by mr. grothman of wisconsin. the chair: a recorded vote having been requested, those in support of this the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house

proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 139, the nays are 282. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number number 59 offered by the gentleman from iowa, mr. king. the clerk willres. re-designate the amendment. the clerk: ealt number 51 printed in house pe -- report 115-259 offered by mr. king of iowa. the chair: a recorded vote having been requested, those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of epresentatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 18, 0 the nays are 241. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a record vote on amendment number 54 printed in rt b of house report 115-295 offered by the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. grothman on which the noes prevailed on voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 53 offered by mr. grothman of wisconsin. the chair: a recorded vote having been requested, those in support of the request for a recorded vote will be downed. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 141, the nays are 278, he amendment is not adopted. -- on this vote, the yeas are 140, the nays are 280, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a vorded vote on the earment number 56 by the gentleman from missouri, mr. smith on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 56 printed in house report 115-295, offer pid mr. smith of missouri. the chair: those in support of the request for a railroaded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered.

members, this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: the yeas are 225 and the nays are 195. the amendment is adopted. the business is request for a recorded vote on amendment number 58 by the gentleman from texas, mr. babin, which further proceedings were postponed and the noes prevailed. the clerk will rezregget the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 58 printed in house report 115-295 offered by mr. babin of texas. the chair: those in support of a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is

ordered. two-minute s is a vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of epresentatives.]

the chair: the yeas are 173, the nays, 246.

-- the amendment is not adopted.

the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i move the committee rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises. mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 335 directs me to report it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the committee has had under consideration h.r. 3354 and has come to no resolution thereon. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> i send to the desk a privileged report for filing under the rule.

the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 504, resolution providing for further consideration of the bill h.r. 3354 making appropriations for the department of the interior environment and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2018 and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house for the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 335 . would the gentleman from kansas, mr. marshal, kindly resume the chair.

the chair: the committee will be n order. the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 3354, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for the department of interior, environment and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2018 and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee rose earlier the amendment has been disposed, by mr. babin. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. carter: mr. chairman, pursuant to section 3 of h.res. 500, as the designee of chairman frelinghuysen, i rise to offer n bloc number 3 as part of the

consideration of the division e of h.r. 3354. list of amendments included in the en bloc is at the desk and has been agreed to by both sides. the clerk: en bloc, number 61,

2, 65, 67, 68, 69, 7 the are are 2, 73, 82, 86 and 89 printed in part b of house report offered by mr. carter of texas. the chair: the gentleman from texas, mr. carter and the gentlewoman from california, ms. roybal-allard, each will control 20 minutes. mr. carter: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. roybal-allard: i yield one minute to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. keating. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. keating: i thank the gentlelady from california and i also want to thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for their support of an amendment that is relevant. in barnstable county

massachusetts, the coordinate for the radar program is helping towns to bring down flood insurance premiums for the people of cape cod. that coordinator is working to include 15 towns in the program and help residents achieve discounts of up to 15%. my amendment would fund grants to help towns in other parts of the country partner together and hire their own regional c.r.s. coordinateors. more local governments would be able to mitigate flood risk and lower premiums. nobody loses under the scenario. we make flood insurance more affordable and encourage investment in flood mitigation and because of the cost savings, the c.b.o. estimates it will reduce the deficit by $5 million by 2018. it is an important time in our

country where we face challenges of major storms and floods. and i urge my colleagues to support this package. i yield back. the chair: the alyields. -- the alyields. the gentleman from texas is ecognized. mr. bilirakis: i rise in support to add money to expand the visa security program which will have two more posts in the most volatile parts of the world. the global threat of radical islamic extremism requires a vetting system to those seeking to do us harm do not come over our bordersment we know hot

spots serve as a breeding ground for radical ideology, that's why expanding our visa program is paramount. in 2010, i questioned then homeland security secretary napolitano about why the visa program hadn't been accelerated and emphasizeded the need to bolster streamlining capabilities overseas. it remains a priority today. the visa security program is part of our anti-terrorism efforts and its success is essential because if we're not safe, nothing else matters. i urge my colleagues to support this en bloc amendment. and the underlying bill. thank you. i appreciate it very much. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from california is recognized. >> i yield one minute to the the gentleman from california.

>> i rise in support of my amendment number 73, which is included in this en bloc package. my amendment would seek to allocate 10 million for additional k-9 teams for customs and border protection. many illegal drugs enter through our nation's port of entries. narcotics. trained k-9 teams were key. when it comes to these teams, u.s. border authorities are severely understaffed. i i thank my colleagues for including my amendment in this package and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from texas is recognized. >> at this time i yield one minute to the gentleman from ohio, mr. lattafment the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. latta: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the gentleman for yielding. the amendment i'm offering today

highlights a critical security concern that must be addressed in order to keep the american people safe. over the past several years, terrorists in europe and around the world added vehicular attacks to their deadly arsenal. from paris to london, terrorists have rened trucks and vans and committed attacks that left hundreds dead and countless others injured. to prevent this we must do everything in our power to make sure the people who do us harm do not slip through the cracks. i believe the u.s. department of homeland security should have the discretion to explore partnerships with van and truck rental companies so background checks may be conducted. this amendment is a first step toward recognizing and address a potential point of vulnerability in these terrible attacks. it's my hope to continue to work with you and the committee of homeland security to pursue legislative measures to address vehicular attacks and actions so

we can guard against them. i thank he chairman and ranking member and my colleagues for their support and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady from california is recognized. >> i yield one minute to the gentleman from michigan, mr. kildee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kildee: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the gentlelady for yielding. i rise today to support my amendment which is included in this en bloc amendment that would add $20 million for the staffing for adequate fire and emergency response grants, also better known as safer grants. these are really critical grants that help communities basically keep their communities in -- and the members in their communities safe. right now in my hometown of flint and saginaw up the road, we have 48 additional firefighters solely because of these grants. during the recess, i was able to go to these fire stations, sit down, especially with the new firefighters that have been hired, talk to them about what

it means for them to serve their community, see some of the new equipment they're able to have, this make ours communities safer. particularly special to me, my grandfather was a fire chief, he was actually the first employee, the first fire chief of flint township. i learned about service to community by seing what he did to protect the community that we grew up in. this program supports safety in those communities and without it, our citizens are less safe. i'm pleased that this amendment was included in the en bloc amendment and i urge my colleagues to support it. i thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. >> i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady from california is recognized. >> i yield one minute to the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. thank the lee: i

gentlelady from california and i of this bill, er judge carter from texas, for including my amendment in the en bloc. let me explain it very simply. my amendment would help facilitate the secretary of homeland security to not be limited in their discretion of the utilization to enhance the use of federal air marshals on inbound international flights considered to be high risk by department of homeland security. my amendment ensures that the federal air marshal service uses its funds to deploy personnel on inbound flights that are considered high risk by the department of homeland security and there's no limit on that ability. i believe that federal air marshals are the last line of defense in some instances in defending the cockpit and aircraft cabin against terrorist attacks. we know that airlines, aarons, aviation, still remains a very

attractive target as evidenced over the years by terrorists. as the former chairwoman of the transportation security committee, i've worked over the years and sponsored legislation to ensure that we have enough air marshals that we receive all the requisite training to effectively secure aircraft. let me say that all of our individuals are important to homeland security and the department of homeland security. i ask my colleagues to support this amendment and i thank my colleagues for putting in the en bloc and ask support and i yelled back my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. carter: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from california is recognized. >> mr. chairman, i yield one minute to the gentlewoman from california, mrs. torres. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. torres: thank you, i rise to offer my amendment to this appropriations bill, section 235-b of the i.n.a. requires

that any individual who arrives at a u.s. port of entry and asks to apply for asylum must be granted an interview with an asylum officer. that's law. it is not -- it does not say our borders are open but it does say that we do not turn away asylum seekers at our borders. however, in recent months, n.g.o.'s have documented many cases where customs and border protection officials have turned away asylum seekers at ports of entry. these actions are clearly prohibited by section 235-b. my amendment would simply prevent any use of funds to violate section 235-b. our taxpayer dollars should not be used to break the law. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from texas is ecognized. mr. carter: i yield one minute to the gentleman from new york, mr. donovan. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized. mr. donovan: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the chairman for yielding. i rise in support of the delaney-donovan amendment to restore funding for the three vital laboratories operated by the department of homeland security's science and techling in directorate, the national biodefense analysis and countermeasures center and the chemical security analysis center and the national urban security technology laboratory. these laboratories work to counter biological and chemical threats and support our nation's first responders. i've had the opportunity, mr. speaker, to visit new steel, located in new york city, which since 2009 has been serving as the testing and evaluation laboratory for the first responder community. additionally, new steel acts as a technical advisor and performs research and development. i've seen the remarkable resources new steel prvidse to

our first responders and how close -- how closing new steel would greatly impact first responders' capabilities. given the current threat environment, now is not the time to be cutting federal resources to counter chemical and biological threats and support -- in support of our first responders. i appreciate the very difficult job chairman carter and members of the appropriations committee had in crafting the fiscal year department of homeland security appropriations bill. i appreciate their working with me and mr. delaney to ensure these vital labs receive funding. as chairman of the committee on homeland securities subcommittee on emergency preparedness -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. donovan: which has oversight of the technology and directorate i urge all members to support this amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves, the gentlewoman from california is recognized.

mr. carter: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields. >> i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields. the question is on the amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the en bloc amendments are greed to. tts now ined or to consider amendment number 63 -- it is now ined or to consider amendment number 63 printed in house report 115-295678 for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new mexico seek recognition? ms. lujan grisham: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: earment number 63 offered by ms. michelle lujan grisham of new mexico. the chair: pursuant to house

resolution 500, the gentlewoman from new mexico, ms. lujan grisham, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from new mexico. ms. lujan grisham: thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment prioritizes funding to study the treatment of detainees and private immigration detention centers. i.c.e. is putting immigrant communities at higher risk of apprehension and deportation. at the same time the trump administration has lowered deportation standards and this has led to the highest number of deaths in i.c.e. custody since 2011. we have seen a complete disregard for civil and constitutional rights of detainees, many of whom are torn from their families without basic due process protections and these facilities are not holding prisoners. they are holding asylum seekers who risked everything to start a better life, they are holding

hardworking community members who have been in this country for decades, they are holding family members, mothers, fathers and children. information regarding detention facilities is already inconsistent, outdated and frankly overall lacking in transparency. medical neglect, poor treatment by guards, sexual abuse and even in-custody deaths plagued numerous facilities across the country. even force -- even worse, repeat offending private prison companies continue to receive lucrative contracts for additional facilities. we have to have an objective and transparent review of these private immigration detention centers. i urge my colleagues to join me in voting yes for my amendment to ensure that detainees are treated humanely and provided basic due process protection. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields ack.

the gentlelady from new mexico is recognized. ms. lujan entry gri sham: i have nothing further, mr. chairman. the chair: does the gentlelady yield back? ms. lujan grisham: i yield back the balance. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from new mexico. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 66 printed in art b of house report 115-295. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from washington seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 66 printed in part b of house report 115-295 offered by ms. jayapal of washington. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 500, the gentlewoman from washington, ms. jayapal, and a member opposed each will

control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from washington. ms. jayapal:: my amendment will eliminate $535 million in new funding for i.c.e. officers and provide $0 million to the d.h.s. office of the inspector general and $10 million to the office of civil rights and civil liberties. simply put, my amendment maybes it clear we must increase oversight and accountability over the department of homeland security. reports of unlawful turnbacks of asylum seekers have only increased. the may 27 human rights first report crossing the line flagged 125 incidents where asylum seekers were denied full access to the u.s. asylum process and just last month the american immigration council and others filed a class action lawsuit challenging c.b.p.'s continued practice of turning back asylum seekers requesting protection at ports of entry. the trump administration's

anti-immigrant rhetoric and policy appear to have emboldened the c.b.p. practice. c.b.p. personnel also reportedly stated, and this is a quote, donald trump should sign new laws say there's no asylum for anyone, end quote. we have also heard reports of c.b.p. turning away asylum seekers through threats, coercion and intimidation. they reportedly threatened to take asigh asylum seekers' children and -- unless they left the port of entry and let loose dogs unless they left the port of entry. we have also heard them turning away asylum seekers through verbal abuse. an asylum cers threw seeker's 6-year-old daughter to the ground, and threw a transgender asylum seeker to the ground and stepped on her neck. this violates law which guarantees the vithe of an individual present in the united

states or arriving at a u.s. port of entry to apply for asigh sum and they may violate the principle of nonrefilement enshrined in u.s. law in the 1967 protocol relating to the status of refugees. this prohibits the return of asylum seekers to a country where their lives or freedom would be threatened on account of protected grounds. mr. chairman, i now yield one minute to the ranking member of the homeland security appropriations subcommittee, ms. roybal-allard. the chair: ms. roybal-allard: mr. chairman, i want to express my strong support for the gentlewoman's amendment. as i said during general debate, e increases for i.c.e. detention are excessive. they support an overly immigration approach that is tearing apart communities and families and unnecessary for national security or public safety. the cut to i.c.e. operations and

support to this amendment would leave i.c.e. to carry out its responsibility humanely and the amendment proposes the office of civil rights and liberties and the office of the inspector general are clearly needed to ensure appropriate oversight of the department's activities. i urge my colleagues to support the jayapal amendment. yield back. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. carter: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. carter: the proposal to cut i.c.e. funding, the removal of those here illegally will endanger the safety of the american people and convey to bad actors that the rule of law no longer exists in the united states leading to increased

border crossings and even more illegal aliens in the united states. cutting funding for beds will lead to the release of criminals d other removable aliens and weaken the united states' border security. i ask you to join me in opposing this amendment. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from washington is recognized. ms. jayapal: i remind my colleagues that i.c.e. has plenty of money to carry out their activities. what we're asking for through this amendment is to have some oversight and accountability to make sure that we are not seeing the kind of abuse and turnbacks that we have been seeing. let me remind my colleagues of the grave and critical need on one level to address sexual assault and abuse in detention. between may 2014 and 2016, the

office of inspector general received 1,016 reports of sexual abuse and received more than one complaint of sexual abuse each day over the course of 26 months and according to a detention watchdog, 2.4% of those complaints were investigated. i could go on, mr. chairman, but what this amendment is trying to say, we desperately need to ensure that we use the funds that we are appropriating here, the funds we are taking away in order to make sure we have accountability for the department -- for the department of homeland security and to make sure, for example, that are when we have prison rape elimination act regulations to prevent sexual assault, that we have adequate funding to the department of homeland security's civil rights and civil liberties department so they can carry out the audits to ensure that immigration

detention facilities are in compliance with those regulations. so, mr. chairman, i hope my colleagues will accept that we still are going to have plenty of money for i.c.e. to do its job, but make sure we have accountability. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields. the gentleman from texas. mr. carter: i yield back in the opposition to this amendment. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from washington. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. he amendment is not agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 70 printed in 11-295. ort b of

mr. fitzpatrick: i have an amendment. the clerk: amendment number 70 1 nted in house report b 15-295 offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. fitzpatrick: i yield myself one minute. mr. fitzpatrick: my amendment restores critical funding to the department of homeland security fice of inspector general to ensure effectiveness of the operations. without this, it will have to reduce its work force and everyone on this floor agrees is vital to our national security. these men and women conduct audits, inspections and investigations that combat fraud, waste and abuse.

with over 147 reports, 370 actions recommended and 836 investigations, d.h.s.o.i.g. is not only worthy of every penny that a dollar spent is a dollar saved. i'm joining my colleagues who support the mission of the o.i.g. and vote for this amendment, which is crucial to our national security. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. any member seek time in opposition? the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. fitzpatrick: i yield one minute to the gentleman, mr. higgins. the chair: the gentleman from

louisiana is recognized. mr. higgins: i rise in support of this amendment which would restore necessary funds to the department of homeland security office of inspector general to ensure that d.h.s. is being run in the most accountable and cost efficient way possible. i'm in full support of the increases we have made to defense and homeland security spending. however, it is imperative that the programs administered by these agencies be operated in a transparency manner. in its most recent semi-annual report, o.i.g. reported it recovered $77. million from its audits and investigations and identified $323 million in questionable costs. investigations during this time resulted in 86 arrests, 2128

indictments, 55 convictions and 19 personnel actions. this is a needed amendment, and i encourage my colleagues to support it and vote yes. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. fitzpatrick: i yield one minute to the gentleman from new york, mr. donovan. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. donovan: i thank my colleague for yielding. mr. speaker, i thank subcommittee chairman carter and nking member roybal-allard along with the homeland security committee. i'm proud to rise in support of the amendment offered by my colleague and friend, mr. fitzpatrick. the amendment restores critical funding to the d.h.s. office of inspector general so it can meet its statutory mission. as a subcommittee chairman who

oversees components of d.h.s., my duty is to give the department the resources it needs and ensure these resources are used honestly and efficiently. d.h.s. office of inspector germ roots out waste, fraud and abuse and by exposing process inefficiencies. i request that my colleagues support this fitzpatrick good government amendment. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. fitzpatrick: i yield one minute to the gentleman from kansas. >> i rise in support of this amendment. i looked at the and the program or lack thereof with the financial and lack of

transparency. my last course of action would be to throw more money at it. good systems require a good plan it there is no path forward has cost 1 3 million, 50% more and failed to accomplish the designated task. when i go back to kansas, i'm accountable to every tax paying constituent for every dollar spent in washington. i support this amendment to ift those tax dollars to the office which protects those very same tax dollars. this will provide operating funds to find efficiencies and savings. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment in fiscal responsibility to the american taxpayer. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

gentleman reserves. the gentleman has the only time remaining. mr. fitzpatrick: i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. . in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 71 printed in 115-295. house report for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. castro: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number mr. castro of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 500, the gentleman

from texas, mr. castro and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. castro: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the underlying bill provides $5 million for the c.b.p. camera initiative. this would provide an additional $5 million for additional $10 million. they released the findings of a study concluding that body-worn cameras would have positive benefits. the study found numerous benefits including enhanced training capabilities through footage as a learning tool, streck then tool and reduce hostilities, a reduction in the number of allegations and complaints and increased officer and agent safety by influencing public behavior. law enforcement agencies across

the country are adopting body-worn camera technology because they see benefits. however, these cameras are expensive and it is necessary to provide additional resources for c.b.p. to deploy the technology in greater numbers. we need to outfit as many border patrol agents with these cameras as we can. for the 19,000 agents and additional 5,000 border agents. i reserve the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. carter: i rise in opposition to this amendment. my good friend from texas, his heart is in the right place, but i have concerns about the costs and the utilization of body cameras. we know that you have to

preserve evidence. and once you have opened this door that there are expected to be body cameras on officers, not only do you have to preserve every piece of film of production that comes out of that camera as a potential piece of evidence, that if you take it and multiply it times the number of incidents that are going to occur, as we go through a year howthen multiply that times many ever years, you are talking about storing millions and millions of whatever they are, gigs or whatever that have to be preserved to preserve potential evidence and that could be used by both the defense and the prosecution. and then in a case where there is no body camera, it's going to be a jury argument that could be effectively made by the defense

that why isn't there a body camera when there is a policy of having body cameras. but the real issue i have with this is the cost of preserving the record continuously by law enforcement. so i think people haven't thought this out as to what kind of additional cost this is going to be as you spread it out over the lifetime and all the agencies that work for that agency. i know the reasons why people think body cameras are a good idea, but does it justify the storage costs that are going to be required to preserve the evidence that is manufactured by the body camera? that's the question we ought to consider and that's the reason i oppose this amendment. . the chair: the gentleman is recognized.

>> earlier this year, d.h.s. secretary john kelly told the congressional hispanic caucus that he didn't oppose wearing body cameras as long as congress provides the necessary funding and my amendment would do that there are tremendous safety and accountability benefits to having video records of law enforcement interactions with the public, both for law enforcement officers and for the public. i would note a few years ago when he we debated body cameras for law enforcement, at that time the majority accepted my amendment to increase body camera funding for law enforcement by $10 million my hometown of san antonio, i believe now every patrol officer is outfitted with a body camera. i respect the chairman's concerns about costs and the cost of storage but i would ask the gentleman to consider the fact and my colleagues to consider the fact that the cost of storage, this $10 million is a small cost when we're talking

about people's lives that could be the lives of the agents themselveses or the lives people that they interact with in the public. and law enforcement by and large, putting aside c.b.p. agents for now, police departments across the country have accepted this technology as not only the thing of the future but the thing of the present, what they're using now. i reserve the balance of my time, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. carter: i understand my olleague's -- what he wants. the 45,000 agents that could potentially be acquiring these cameras. because the first thing you're going to have, the first time you go before a judge and you use one of these body cameras in one case, the defense is going to be wanting to know why you're

not using them in every case. and they're going to be setting up a defense of the fact that the officers failed to meet their duty to preserve the record. so you take just 45,000 and one this f contact, 45,000, $10 million isn't going to get all those guys cameras but you've started down the road to put a camera on 45,000 agents. then you have to store everything they produce of any contact that they have for the potential use and evidence by one of the other side -- one or the other side in a legal proceeding. and that's what concerns me. joe tell sli a gad marine and good secretary, i'm sorry he's not with us anymore. but the reality is, you sat in

the courtroom and watched the preservation of evidence, you know this has the potential both for law enforcement and for us to be a mushroom that explodes in nuclear proportion. that's the only reason i raise this issue. i know the issues you're trying to address, they need to be addressed. i'm concerned about the fact that once you start down that road, you're constitutionally required to preserve evidence. that will be costly. i'll leave that up to our colleagues as to how they feel about that. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. the gentleman has two minutes remaining. mr. castro: again, i understand those concerns. but just as we have cameras here so that the public can listen to every word that's being said in this chamber, it's important that when law enforcement officers, including c.b.p. officers, are interacting with

the public, and that includes many u.s. citizen, not just immigrants who are coming across the border or folks coming across check point bus united states citizens and legal residents, and for the sake of the agents who may also have false acquisitions made against them, that's why this is important. because there are sometimes accusations made that can be rebutted by this evidence. so the american people, just as they want this process to be transparent they want that process to also be transparent with as much accountability as possible and for the united states congress not to move forward with that and commit what is really a paltry sum of $10 million and show a willingness to do that, i think -- is ignoring what most of the american people want. and as i mentioned before, i worked with the san antonio police department.

they came to me and said, will you help us get these body cameras? we put in a request for a grant, we got $1 million to cover the officers who were on patrol. i have not heard in san antonio a complaint from those officers about body cameras and studies have shown that as i mentioned it's reduced the tension between law enforcement officers and the public. so i respect the gentleman, i understand the arguments, and you know, but i think that on the whole, is a matter of transparency, accountability, and people's lives and we ought to do this. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. carter: i want to lay out that there's a potential very large cost once this door is opened and that's my on stoigs this and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from texas is recognized. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from

texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. castro: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 74 printed in part b of house report 115-295. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? ms. roybal-allard: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 74 printed in part b of house report 115-295, offered by mr. roybal-allard of california. the chair: -- by ms. roybal-allard of california. the chair: the gentlewoman from california, ms. roybal-allard and a member opposed each will control phi minutes. the chair recognizes the

gentlewoman. ms. roybal-allard: my amendment uld increase funding for the polar ice breaker program. the increase for i.c.e. hiring and detention beds are not well justified and do not have a security focus. in contrast, the need for heavy ice breakers is very well documented. a recent report from the national academies of sciences warned that, and i quote, the united states has insufficient assets to protect its interests, implement u.s. policy, execute its laws and meet its only gailingses in the arctic and antarctic because it lacks adequate ice breaking capability, end quote. mr. speaker, this vulnerability exists because currently the coast card has only one functioning heavy ice breaker, the polar star. built in 1976, it is well past

its 30-year expected operational life. it no longer has the reliability we need and the cost to maintain it will continue to rise. currently, its primary submission to clear a path through the ice to our research facility in the antarctic. this means the only ice breaking asset we have in the arctic is the coast guard's only medium class ice breaker, the healy. the polar star is expected to continue functioning for just three to seven years. this will leave the united states with no heavy ice breaking capabilities. we are dangerously falling behind. russia has 41 ice breakers, focused on the arctic, that are active or under construction. four of which are heavy ice breakers. this puts the united states at a tremendous disadvantage, since we are unable to operate in

parts of the arctic ocean for months at a time. the national academies report -- academy's report goes on to recommend that, quote, the united states congress should fund the construction of four polar ice breakers of common design that would be owned and operated by the united states coast guard. mr. speaker, the f.y. 2017 defense funding bill included $150 million for a coast guard heavy ice breaker as a down payment on what is expected to be nearly $1 billion price tag for the first ship. however, the national defense authorization act the house passed earlier this year includes a provision prohibiting the pentagon from using any f.y. 2018 funds to acquire an ice breaker for the coast guard. an amendment to strike that provision failed on a recorded vote. the solution is to fund the next

installment of funds directly through the coast guard. while the coast guard plans to sign an ice breaker acquisition contract in f.y. 2019, it will release a request for proposal in mid f.y. 2018. by providing $850 billion in this bill, enough to cover the cost of one ice breaker, we can help the coast guard get the shipbuilding started. just think what we could accomplish here today with this one amendment -- here today. with this one amendment we could put the united states on a path to securing our sovereign interests in the arctic region. we cannot afford to delay any further. i urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. the chair: does the gentlewoman reserve? ms. roybal-allard: i reserve the

plans of my time. the chair: the yom reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. carter: i rise in opposition to the amendment offered by ms. roybal-allard. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. carter: the proposal to cut i.c.e. funding for enforcement of immigration laws and removal of those here illegally will not only engage the safety of the american people, it will also convey to bad actors that the rule of law no longer exists in the united states, leading to increased border crossings and a growing overall illegal alien population. cutting funding for beds will lead to the rereese -- release of criminal and other removable aliens into communities across the country and weaken the united states' border security. the hiferinge additional i.c.e. agents is needed to protect our communities by preventing terrorism and reducing crime through the vigorous enforcement of immigration and customs laws, restricting this hiring

compromises i.c.e.'s law enforcement mission, jeopardizing homeland security and public safety. interior immigration enforcement is indispensable to national security and public safety and cannot be separated from border security. successful border patrol and immigration system must be supported by the enforcement of all pertinent laws. adding funds to procure another polar ice breaker, while a noble idea, is simply not practical at this time. coast guard is still in the early stages of design and will not be ready to procure the first ice breaker until late f.y. 2019 at the earliest. the funds will be unexcuteable and therefore a waste of limit red sources that we have. in addition, you discuss with

the border patrol about the biggest deterrent we have, it is the threat of detention. so i ask that my colleagues join me in opposing this amendment. the chair: the gentleman reserves? mr. carter: reserve. the chair: the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. roybal-allard: i want to emphasize the fact that my amendment still leaves i.c.e. with enough money for 30,000 detention beds. they still have the capability to address the needs of -- in their duties. i also want to emphasize the fact that although the money is ot going to go out in f.y. 2019, the request for proposal will be in mid f.y. 2018. therefore it is critical that those who will be bidding on

these contracts know that in fact there is money available. and finally, i just need to emphasize one more time the fact that we are extremely vulnerable there are times where we have absolutely no presence whatsoever while at the same time, russia has continuous presence in that area. it is critical that we support this amendment and get the coast guard the ice breakers that they need. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. carter: mr. chairman, i agree with ms. roybal-allard for the need for an ice breaker. that is not in dispute. but to cut the proposed 30,000 that she said, in 2017, it was

39,000 and change and we have been over that this year. so we're not trying to get -- we still have a real need for these beds and that need as i stated before is why i oppose this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california. hose in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it ap the amendment is not depreed to. ms. roybal-allard: i ask for a roll call vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 75 printed in 15-295. ort 1

the clerk: amendment number 75 offered by mr. castro of texas. the chair: pursuant to house opposedon 500, a member will each control five minutes. mr. castro: in its report accompanying this bill, the appropriations committee states hat many quote, isis using body-worn equipment and notes that such cameras can be important tools for holding law enforcement personnel accountable and exonerating officers accused of wrongdoing, unquote. this would provide $10 million or i.c.e. to deploy this technology. the citizens have come to expect law enforcement officers to wear body cameras.

and law enforcement areas throughout the country are adopting this technology. body-worn cameras are supported because they are important tools that improve officer interactions with the public, de-escalate mistrust. this tool is expensive and i.c.e. needs the $10 million in this amendment mirror the amount of money i'm requesting for i der patrol cameras and reserve. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. carter: i rise in opposition o the amendment offered by mr. castro. his could quickly escalate and escalating 19,000 more people that would be required to have

cameras. once again, without getting into what i just talked about, this is going to be a very costly item. we have something called chain of custody on evidence. i.c.e. agents deal with some very, very serious issues, felony issues under federal law. they've got a wide jurisdiction, one of the widest jurisdictions than any agency and some even wider than the f.b.i. now that chain of custody on that camera, where that camera information has to be kept in addition to the evidence so if you are going to present it in court, you can prove the chain of custody. you just enhanced and expanded the amount of costs that it's going to take for an agent to go to trial. i know this is a very popular

idea all over the country because it has been supported by the media. but i really in good faith that people have not considered the evidentiary problems that are going to create for themselves by the presence of these cameras. you will find out fairly quickly that these cameras proliferate what the cost is going to be and what the information re quirmentes are going to be by the courts and maybe i'm overanticipating, but just now we have gone from 44,000 to another 19,000 just in our agencies. multiply that times every law enforcement entity in the united states and it becomes an astronomical expense and something we need to think about and think about hard. so for those reasons, not because i don't think it's a ood idea to have con gene yalt

between the arresting officer and the defendant. i agree with all those things t you are creating a monster evidentiary-wise as you go forward with body cameras. we tried it back in the 1970's and found that they were not a good idea. but i guess we'll try them again. for those ropes, i oppose the gentleman's amendment. and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. castro: this is an issue of transparency and accountability and the argument that i hear coming from the other side is that this is an evidentiary issue and that it's going to be too much of a hassle so we don't want to hear or see what's in these cameras or this video. that cannot be a responsible

approach to law enforcement or to our judicial system. weapon spend -- i'm asking in this amendment for $10 million. we spend more in furniture in this chamber, in this house of representatives than the amount of money i'm requesting in this amendment. we spend more on member travel every year than the amount of money i'm requesting in this amendment to make sure agents and the public are safer. let me give you an example. one example of what body cameras recently found in baltimore, maryland. an officer was seen on camera, a body camera recorded an officer planting drugs that he then present pretended to find on a suspect. a week later, another officer was also found to be planting evidence. are we saying tonight that the american people and our judicial system don't want to see that

evidence because of some storage problem? and by the way, technology and the cloud have made storage a lot cheaper. so i think that information is -- the argument on that side is outdated. to vote no, to recommend against this amendment is to say that we're going to see no evil, hear no evil and going to let agents who may face false accusations they did in the 1960's, 1970's, 1980's and 1990's and those of victims of force and we are going to turn a blind eye. that cannot be the policy of this congress and that is not the future of the american judicial system and our policing system. and i reserve. the chair: scrart. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. carter: i certainly

understand the example the gentleman gave about officers planting dope and it certainly did work. i can tell you that in my 20 years on the bench, we have had cameras on the dashboard of d.p.s. troopers' cars for 10 years, 20 years. but i have seen at least 15 of those plead the guilt of the defendant by his actions on those cameras. it is not just to catch dirty cops, but catches people in criminal actions. the action of that officer was a criminal action, so therefore you have to preserve the evidence. my point is made by your very argument. you have toll preserve the evidence. and if you lose the evidence, you are going to lose the prosecution. and so you are going to have to keep it secure. and if it passes from one hand to the other hand, it has to be

tracked in a chain of custody. if it's secure -- going to have to be some evidence of the security of whatever -- whatever it is on the cloud and if it is a secure cloud that someone can't mess with the evidence while it's on the cloud. all of that potential argument against conviction in a criminal case and those i.c.e. agents deal with serious cases. but it's going to be astronomical if we do it for every law enforcement agent in the country. and with that, i continue my opposition. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. castro: how much time do i have remaining? the chair: 1 1/2 minutes

remaining. mr. castro: people's lives are at stake when we talk about policing practices and transparency, accountability, the use of body cameras, these things have made people safer in their communities and made law enforcement safer and the concern about what could happen or what might happen, this technology is being widely used amongst police officers and police departments across the country. the police departments are using dash cams and have been used for a long time and that did not break the bank of the state of texas. it has a surplus in the state of texas. $10 million is what this amendment requests is a small amount of money compared to the amount of money we spend on furniture in this place.

are we saying we don't want to discover whether someone is planting evidence or someone is making a false accusation against an i.c.e. agent that is trying to do his or her job and instead we are going to turn a blind eye because we are going o spend it on leather seats or members' travel or something else? this is the future. these cameras are going to be used with border patrol, with i.c.e. and law enforcement and law enforcement stepped forward and requested my assistance in getting money for body cameras in san antonio. i hope my colleagues will support this amendment. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. carter: i continue to oppose and yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the

noes have it. mr. castro: i ask for a roll call vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further amendments on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 76 printed in 115-295. rt part b, the clerk: amendment number 76 printed in part b of house eport 115-295 offered by mr. correa of california. the chair: the gentleman from california, mr. correa and a member opposed will each control five minutes. mr. correa: i rise in support of this amendment which seeks to procure $100 million to additional ships for our coast guard to interdict drugs.

last year was a record-year. cocaine 416 pounds of worth almost $6 billion. this was the result of more than 250 individual interdicks in the caribbean and eastern pacific ocean. even with this record-breaking year, all of the cocaine that was seized represents less than 10% of all attempted shipments and of course cocaine interdictions, cocaine shipments is on the rise. i commend the men and women for the great work they do to stop our drugs, drug trafficking into our country, yet the coast guard lacks the resources to stop the known drug shipments. during the homeland security hearing this year, u.s. coast guard add miral said last year, there were almost 600 events

that we just did not have enough ships or enough planes to track or stop them in the seas. the admiral said there were almost 600 shipments in the high seas and knew the ships were carrying drugs but we didn't have the ships or assets to stop them. vice admiral ray said the vice admiral said we need more cutters to stop them. they need to replace and add new ships to fulfill their drug interdiction mission. this $100 million would allow the coast guard to procure two additional fast response cutters. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized.

mr. carter: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. carter: once again, as i the before, with gentlelady's amendment, that that will weaken the united states border security and the hire offering additional i.c.e. agents is needed to help our communities, prevent terrorism and reduce crime through vigorous enforcement of immigration and custom laws. successful border patrol must be supported by enforcement of pertinent laws. this bill recommends $240 million for four fast response cutters, the same amount requested. the program is on schedule and on budget and there's no need to accelerate the prcurement of additional ships. and we have been building those n time without flaws now for

four years? four years at that same rate. we are fastly -- we are building a lot of fast response cutters very quickly. we are additionally, we have now a new program for the offshore patrol cutter which we are the first of the contracts will be -- that is in the prosofse being built and we have a projection for multiple of those cutters. taking away from our ability to detain people who have broken the law is not a good resource for getting -- for growing a program that is already very robust and very effective and fast online multiple response cutters. for those reasons, i oppose. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is

recognized. mr. correa: i would say that on the contrary, money this allocation of $100 million represents additional support for our border security, our high seas. back in my district, like across the country, we have a major spike, an increase in drug overdoses, deaths as a result of drug overdoses, our children are being harmed by these drugs that are coming into our country. our coast guard, our admirals of the coast guard are saying this is where the chinks in the armor are in terms of our national defense, of our borders and high seas. these are not speculation, these are facts. ships are coming into our high seas, loaded with drugs. we do not have the assets to stop them. nothing could be further from the truth. on the contrary, these $100

million in additional two ships for the coast guard represents tons and tons of drugs to be intercepted in the years to come. billions and billions of dollars stopped before they reach our land. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. carter: even if this money should be moved and the gentleman's amendment be approved, it wouldn't mean that any more fast response cutters would be built this calendar year. but i'm fairly certain that the commandant of the coast forward would say we have been very robust and very effective at producing fast response cutters and i believe that the detention beds is a deterrent for those

coming across the border and for are partlating the law of the defense of the borders and the people of the united states. and therefore i continue to oppose and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. correa: i would say that those folks that are piloting those ships full of drugs coming into our country do not deserve the opportunity to reach our shores. we have to stop them in the high seas. just a few months ago, the coast orward was proposed for budget cuts. now they're barely, barely keeping balance, meaning no budget cuts. all i want to do with this amendment is give them additional resources to stop drug shipments, known drug shipments on the high seas before they reach our shores.

i don't want to go back to my district, i don't want to go back to california and say that i'm not doing everything we can do to stop those drugs from reaching our children. i reserve the plans of my time. the chair: the gentleman has the only remaining time. the gentleman is recognized. mr. correa: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. correa: i would like to ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 77 printed in part b of house report 115-259. -- 115-295.

for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? mr. hunter: i have an amendment at the tesk. the chair: amendment number 77 -- the clerk will minority amendment. the clerk: amendment number 77 offered by mr. hunter of covel. the chair: the gentleman from california, mr. hunter and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. hunter: my amendment transfers $5 million from the coast guard's operations expenses accounts to its research development test and evaluation account. the intent is to support sea trials for a jones act compliance ice breaker so the coast guard can determine whether at least vessel meet its immediate needs and fill in statutory missions around the globe. i'm going to stop my diatribe here and speak for -- steve scalise has a statement, he's in his rehabilitation center but he cared enough to write this. these are his words, not mine. i support this amendment that will improve america's strategic

economic and national security interest in the arctic. as other country ares are advancing their interest in the arctic the u.s. continues to lag behind this amendment makes clear congress supports moving forward in identifying options for options in the arctic. the test guard has repeatedly stayed -- state wed need ice breakers to protect sovereign interests and life and property at sea. currently we have twoites breakers, one is our only heavy ice break that is over 40 years old. russia has more than 40 ice breakers with more under construction. as the arctic becomes increasingly accessible, we cannot continue to defer this much-needed capability especially at a time when thigh china and russia are increasing their presence in the arctic, expanding their ice breaker fleets and encroaching over the extended u.s. continental shelf. i urge support for this amendment that will address this immediate and necessary investment and protect national security interests.

that's from steve scalise. now back to my words. to help narrow this capability gap between america and our competitor the coast guard should examine the ice breakers that can be deployed in the near term. my subcommittee has held countless hearings on this issue and i'm convinced a short term lease of an existing ice breaker is one they have best chances to ensure the coast guard can meet its near term and urgent mission object is in the arctic. i urge all members to support my amendment and reserve. chip the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. >> i oppose this amendment and so does the coast guard. this is not a new issue. it ha tozz do with a particular underutilized tug supply vehicle, the isaac, which is owned by edison two west offshore based in louisiana. ms. roybal-allard: over the last two year the coast guard has

been pushed to this. the coast guard repeatedly made it clear this vessel doesn't have the capability to adequately fulfill its multimission needs in the arctic. the question before us is whether leetsing this particular vessel for ice breaking would be a wise use of taxpayers' dollars and whether it would benefit the coast guard more than investments in other priorities. the coast guard needs a heavy ice breaker as soon as possible. but this is not a heavy ice breaker or even a medium ice breaker. according to the coast guard, the isaac is under powers for ice breaking -- ice breaking making it unsuitable for that operation. it has inadequate fuel storage and transit speed, vastly limiting its deployment time. it has no helicopter hangar making it unsuitable for patrol activities, search and rescue operations and stealth rescue. it also has a propulsion system that lacks redun dancy and

reliability and it does not have thrusters rated for ice operations. beyond the inadequacy of the vessel's ice breaking capability the current configuration of the vessel is not suited to coast guard missions. it would need to be significantly reconfigured at significant cost. but the fact that it's a commercial vessel limits its ability to perform all 11 coast guard statutory missions. for instance, it could not onduct visits or engage in freedom of navigation exercises critical to protecting u.s. sovereignty and it would be subject to right of visit boarding by foreign warships. the owner of the isaac proposed a seven-year lease of the vessel costing $35 million to $40 million per year. the costs, however, would be much higher confering the cost

of reconfiguration. while this amendment would not force the coast guard to sign the lease for the isaac, it seems intended to push the coast guard down that path. taking $5 million from the operating expenses account for sea trials would be -- would detract from the coast guard's operational needs nesm owner of the isaac or any other private interest want the coast guard to seriously consider the use of their vessels for ice breaking they should be the ones paying for any ice trials. we should not be making the coast guard pay for it and we should not be pushing the coast guard to enter into a lease arrangement it does not want and is not a good investment in helping the coast guard carry out its critical mission. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. >> i ask the gentleman to yield. mr. hunter: i will yield, how

much time do we have? the chair: the gentleman has three hins. many runter: i yield to the chairman as much time as he may consume. mr. carter: i have some concerns regarding this amendment however i agree there's a gap in our nation's ice breaking capability and i strongly support the coast guard's ice breaking program. for that reason i i will not oppose this amendment. thank you, mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. mr. hunter: i thank the gentleman from texas. the gentlelady brought up a point about a ship i didn't name. the coast guard hasn't built an ice break for the almost 50 years. there's only one jones act ship in the entire country. it is the ivan. but there's only one. all we say is that it's got to be an american-made ship. that's what the jones act is. if we're going to build an ice breaker, we'll use an american made, american crewed, american

steel ship. mr. garamendi, the ranking member on my subcommittee has voted for amendments like this in the past. and supports amendments like this going forward anything that puts americans to work that gives us more than the one ice breaker that works for six months out of the year, this is a step in that direction. this is shrimp for sea trials. this is to let the coast guard because they haven't made an ice break for the 50 dwhrirkse can take one out besides the healy a medium ice breaker they operate, and say what do we need here? to we need to expand the pow, expand the stern? how can we make this what we want? that's all we're doing. it's $5 million. s that step in the right correction. otherwise we'll never have an ice breaker, we'll not be able to compete in the arctic. it will be energy exploration for russia, china but not us. because we went be there. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields.

the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. ms. roybal-allard: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 78 printed in part b of house report 15-295. for what purpose does the yom from california seek recognition? mrs. torres: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 78 printed in part b of house report 115-295 offered by mrs. torres of kale. the chair: pursuant to the to the resolution 500, the gentlewoman from california and member opposed will

an torres: i rise to make amendment. immigrant families in my district and across this country are terrified. they are afraid because of the things that president trump has said and because of the policies that he has proposed. president trump has been clear about who he thinks immigrants are. he thinks immigrants are lazy. he thinks immigrants are unskilled. he thinks immigrants are dangerous criminals. just yesterday, he ended the daca program, crushing the dreams of 800,000 talented and courageous young americans. he has promised to triple the umber of i.c.e. to go into immigrant. under president obama, i.c.e. was told to focus on detaining

and deporting dangerous criminals. but president trump has told i.c.e. they should go after whomever they can find. now every immigrant without papers is a target, young and old. this is why immigrants are so afraid. democrats in congress have been united in standing up against president trump and his war on american immigrants. we have blocked money for the wall and for his deportation force. but we also need to put healthy constraints on president trump's department of homeland security. my amendment would strike 209 of division e which grants the secretary of department of homeland security authority to reprogram or transfer funds for the purpose of detaining immigrants prioritized for removal. president trump has made his

intentions very clear. he wants to deport every one of the 11 million undocumented immigrants in this country, no matter what those can consequences may be. with this bill as it's currently written, there is no limit how far he can go. congress must stand up and make clear where we stand. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. carter: i rise in opposition to the amendment. estimating the number of apprehensions and detention beds is not exact science. this reprogramming priority is essential to be able to deal with emergent and critical operation needs like we have seen in 2014 and 2016.

without sufficient funding for ds, i.c.e. will be forced to release criminal jailens across the country and weaken the security of the united states. the proposal to restrict their ability to reprogram detention beds will not endanger the safety of the american people but will convey to bad actors that the united states will not detain illegal jailens leading to cross border crossings and leading to overall illegal population. i oppose this amendment and ask my colleagues to do the same. thank you. and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. he gentlelady is recognized. mrs. torres: i appreciate the chairman's concern for public safety. the reality is that this administration has kept congress in the dark about immigration

policy. members have found out about i.c.e. immigration actions in their districts after the fact. the least we can do as members of congress is to provide oversight and keep track of how much d.h.s. is spending. there is no question dangerous criminals should be detained and should be deported. i.c.e. will still be able to do that. but if they need more money, they should come to this congress and tell us why they need this money. with that, i urge my colleagues to vote yes and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. carter: i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from -- the

gentlewoman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion, the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed o. we are to consider amendment number 80. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? mr. carter: mr. chairman -- wait. i ask to speak out of order and be recognized for purpose of correction. the chair: does the gentleman have a unanimous consent request ? mr. carter: amendment number 79 printed in part b of house report 115-295, which is adopted as part of the amendment en bloc be modified by the modification placed at the desk. the clerk: modification to

amendment number 79 printed in part b of house report 115-295 offered by mr. carter of texas, before the dollar amount, insert , first. the chair: is there objection to he modification? without objection, the amendment is modified. mr. carter: i apologize to my colleague. the chair: it is now in order to consider amendment number 80, printed in part b of house eport 115-295. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? mr. king: i have an amendment at the desk made in order by the rule. the clerk: amendment number 80 printed in part b of house report 115-295 offered by mr. king of iowa. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 500, the gentleman from iowa, mr. king and a member

opposed each will control five minutes. mr. king: i ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment by the modification at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the modification. the clerk: modification to amendment number 80 printed in rt b of house report 115-295 after the words this act, insert e, f or ns, a, c, d, g. the chair: is there objection to the request? without objection, the amendment is modified. the gentleman from iowa is recognized. mr. king: i yield myself such time as i may consume. this is eliminating funding in this -- this eliminates the funding that would go tore davis-bacon, the federal wage scale that turns out to be union scale and we have debated this twice earlier this evening and

the modification for the edification of the people who might not have picked up on that rolls this together with the appropriations component that we will debate tomorrow. so there is clarification here on the floor. and i have long been for the repeal of davis-bacon and the federal government doesn't have any business dictating to an employer and employee what they should be able to pay in wages. we have been in the construction business for 42 wages and we have paid bacon-davis and upsets the efficiency of being able to manage the job and interferes. let the market decide it. but the studies we have out there, there is no study that would show where there is an imposed davis-bacon wage scale. it always costs the taxpayers more money and ours in the

records of these years run between 8% greater than it would be or as high as 35%. we average it out to 20%. there are studies that say a 22% increase. if the federal government is going to mandate union scale on construction projects whether it be for building a wall on the southern border, a bridge, a highway, you can decide whether you want to borough money from china to build four miles of road or five or four bridges or five or build four buildings or five. that's what it comes down to. we can build four instead of five. so this scores well for us. fiscally responsible people will come down on the side of eliminating davis-bacon. and by the way, this is the last remaining jim crow law that i

can find in america. and as so many things are being taken down left over from that era, time we take down davis-bacon. i urge adoption of this amendment and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? ms. roybal-allard: i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the same amendment was soundly defeated twice on this floor, i'm not sure why there is a need to go over the same ground again. the davis-bacon act is a long standing law that ensures workers on federally-funded construction projects are reason apply paid no less than similar work in the local community. it is a matter of fairness that we ensure that the federal government pays fair wages for

an honest day's work. i heard the gentleman suggest that davis-bacon's history is linked to discrimination, but he may be misinformed in thinking that it was the cause and not the solution. in 1927, a contractor who was employing african-american workers was building a veterans' bureau hospital. congressman bacon found that there were very serious issues related to the pay of low wages and the discrimination against workers. of migrant he introduced davis-bacon to ensure that these construction workers would be paid the prevailing wages in their communities. these workers happened to be african-american. i urge all my americans to vote no. and i yield two minutes to the

gentleman from washington, mr. kilmer. mr. kilmer: i thank my colleague for yielding. i rise to oppose this amendment because i support quality jobs for folks and the laws that protect them. when i go around my district, i hear from folks that are still feeling squeezed that are ready to seize opportunities that they might not have right now. since 1931, the davis-bacon act has been there to help working men and women to earn a decent wage. and i respond to the good gentleman's statement, davis-bacon is about embracing the premise when we use taxpayers' money it's not just about building that project but about building the middle class. there are generations that created the strongest middle

class. i don't support nickeling and diming workers. the future has to be better and if those that follow us earn lessor get injured more, that is a step backward and not forward. i urge my colleagues once again to defeat this amendment. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from iowa is recognized. mr. king: i recognize the gentleman from texas so much time as he may consume, mr. carter. mr. carter: mr. chairman, i rise in support of the gentleman's amendment and i adopt all of his arguments that he's made. i yield back. the chair: the alyields. mr. king: reclaiming my time. in response, i have heard a piece of history revisionism and that the purpose of davis-bacon

which does produce the union scales imposed by -- it's not prevailing wage. employers that are nonunion don't report wages to the federal government because the union comes to organize their employees. so the thing that is called prevailing wage is a distortion of the reality. i know this. i talked to a contractor a week ago who is a rich contractor and operating in rural missouri and simple laborers, unskilled laborers cost him $45 an hour. no way you go down them to hire eastern unskilled laborer and i should tell you it's about $23 and the fringe benefits are to pay for your health insurance and retirement program but some of these people are on

obamacare. t's foolish for fiscally financial nation. and i will pound on this drum until we come to our senses on this. i would reserve the balance of my time. . the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. roybal-allard: the house has voted against this twice already today, i hope it will continue to do. so the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman is recognized. mr. king: i would just conclude this is the first time i've heard that davis-bacon was formed to protect minority migrant workers who came up out of alabama to work in new york. that seems to be members of congress representing folks that are not their constituents that would be one of the rare times also. this is a jim crow law, it needs

to go and needs to be ripped out of the code at every opportunity. i would urge adoption of my amendment and i would yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment as modified offered by the gentleman from iowa. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. ms. roybal-allard: i ask for a roll call vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa will be post-penned. it is now in order to consider amendment number 81 printed in part b of house report 115-295. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the chair rill we -- the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 81

offered by mr. castro of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 500, the gentleman from texas, mr. castro and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. castro: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. castro: my amendment would prohibit the department of homeland security from entering into contracts with privatized immigration facilities for fiscal year 2018. a study done by the homeland security advisory council's subcommittee on privatized immigration facility -- facilities found that pravetized facilities experience a multitude of issues including deficiencies in staffing, subparamedical care, ininitiate abuse reporting systems and a lack of transparency. further, an in depth report on two of the country's private detention facilities show further injustices such as

inadequate access to legal information and services. it's best that d.h.s. prohibited from doing business with these facilities until these issues are resolved and it's shown that ese facilities meet i.c.e.'s performance-based national standards. this is necessary as the government's reliance on privatized facilities will continue to grow based on trends in detention. in fact, only 9.2% of detained individuals are in i.c.e. of owned facilities. we must ensure that contained individuals are treated humanely and that they have access to due process. mr. chairman, i reserve the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. carter: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. carter: thank you. over half the i.c.e. detention population is housed in privately owned detention facilities.

neither i. dr. e. nor state and local detention facilities can provide the number of beds required to house the detained population that we have today. without the capacity provided by contracts with private detention facilities, i.c.e. would be forced to dramatically scale back interior enforcement and more seriously release thousands of dangerous criminal aliens from custody. eliminating private facilities would require a significant expansion of i.c.e. capacity that according to estimates would exceed $1.3 billion, could be as much as $5 billion to $6 billion. also note to my colleague, the minority considers detention violent, the majority of the facilities are

the same contract facility this is language would eliminate. these reasons i oppose this amendment and ask for a no vote. thank you, mr. chairman, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. castro: studies have shown repeatedly that private detention centers are of lower quality than publicly owned facilities. very ere is something perverse about an industry in the private detention and private prison industry that basically profits off of mass incarceration, that has an economic incentive to get more people into detention intoorks jail, into prison. and at the same time pries to do everything that it can to cut costs and cut corners and in doing so fails not only its public charge and its duty but

also terribly fails the people entrusted to it. and the fact that these private prisons, detention centers, the companies that own them hire lobbyists in california, for example, within the last few years, they had 70 lobbyists, one of the companies had 70 lobbyists on staff. they lobby for harsher criminal penalties and why? because the more people that have to be detained, the more money they make. that simply is not how the criminal justice system should work and that's not how we should do detention within the immigration rem. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. carter: once again, i oppose the gentleman's amendment. and i reserve.

the chair: the gentleman reserve. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. castro: mr. chairman, this is about treating people as humanely as possible. and when profit is the main thing that drives the decisions on detention, on incarceration, on the conditions in which people are detained, then we are doing a severe injustice to those folks. and for that, because of that i ask my colleagues' support on this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. carter: i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the wrelt from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. castro: i ask for a roll call vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings

on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 83 printed in art b of house report 115-295. it is now in order this consider amendment number 84 fingerprinted -- printed in part bsks of house report 115-295. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from washington seek reck necessary? ms. jayapal: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will port the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 84 printed in house report 1 a -295 offered by ms. jayapal of washington. the chair: the gentlewoman from washington, ms. jayapal and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the yom from washington. ms. jayapal: thank you, mr. chairman. the united states already operating the largest detention operation system in the world at a cost of $2 billion annually.

in fiscal year 2017, i.c.e. had capacity to detain an unprecedented 39,324 men, women, and children. although a large amount of funding is dedicated to detain these people, the system is plagued with inhumane conditions and inadequate oversight. mr. chairman, my amendment imposes a moratorium on the construction and expansion of immigration detention facilities. this year, we are seing the highest number of deaths in i.c.e. custody since 2011. private, for-profit detention facilities in particular have not abided by basic standards necessary to protect civil and constitutional rights and all of this is occurring at the same time that the administration is increasing enforcement, including expedited removals within -- with inadequate due process, elimination of long standing division between local

police and federal immigration enforcement, and this is all tearing families apart. the overreach of these detention facilities, combined with an overreach on enforcement in general, instead of focusing on more practical, humane and frankly economically viable options of alternatives to detention. these are issues that congress must address. we should not be funding these dangerous overreaches by expanding immigration detention with no accountability. this amendment ensures that we focus on fixing this broken system as opposed to funding increase detention expansion and this is deadly, it's a deadly powder degree and i don't use the term deadly lightly. i'd like to take a moment to talk about masinsa morales, a woman from oregon, detained at the cent for the tacoma, washington. she found out she was pregnant while in detention. she said, i was thrilled to be pregnant and thrilled at the prospect of being a mother again. when she found out she would be

deported, torn from her 11-year-old u.s. citizen son as well as a longtime partner she was deaf stated. she experienced pain and nausea and not long after, she woke up bleeding. after an hour she went to the doctor where she waited another hour. one of the people who was seen before her had a toothache. when the doctor finally saw her, they requested an ambulance to take her to the hospital but the ambulance didn't come for a long time and so they took her in the back of a patrol car where she was forced to sit up, making the bleeding worse. when she finally arrived at the hospital she learn shed had a miscarriage. she is one of 292 pregnant women i.c.e. detained between january and april of 2017 alone and part of the 60% of detained women. formerly detained women and their attorneys and advocates reported that pregnant women receive only the bare minimum of services and accommodations and

are routinely denid extra blankets, additional food and prenatal care. when they're referred to outside obstetricians, i.c.e. policy doesn't prohibit the shackling of pregnant women. moreover the stress of detention may lead women to abandon their asylum claims. one woman, ana, accepted deport bation because she was so afraid being detained would harm her unborn child. i.c.e.'s own detention standardsing an knowledges the complexity and risks of detaining pregnant women but implementation and oversight are not enough to protect these women. it is irresponsible to expand detention while the agency struggles to conduct even basic oversight and hold facilities accountable for inhumane conditions. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman

reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. carter: i rise in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. carter: seems the minority has a good tag team match going here. the previous amendment would eliminate if it passes, all of the privately owned facilities, leaving us with by the gentlelady's own statement, 3rks500 beds for detainees, whereas our total population today ranges from 35,000 to 40,000 people that are detained. which means all those people would have to be released. or placed in some kind of ternative of which the alternative is horrendous. this kind of restriction makes no sense. even though there's nobody planning to build i.c.e.

facilities right now. to restrict the government from a possible need should that need arise reminds you that in 014 in the month of august 78,000 children came across the border and an equal number or more of child with parent came across the border in laredo, the laredo sector alone. so we have real needs that need to be met quite honestly this amendment ties the hands and everybody gets turned loose. i very much oppose this amendment. i reserve. ms. jayapal: how much time do i have left? ms. jayapal: i will say we currently have almost 40,000 people in detention. we are not proposing eliminating

detention centers but putting a moratorium. those people would be able to stay there. i don't think that's the right policy for the united states of america, but i'm not saying we are going to eliminate all of that detention space. what i'm saying is, we need accountability around the detention system and as long as we don't have that accountability and we have pregnant women who are losing children in the i.c.e. detention facilities, i believe we should ensure that we have accountability. and you know, i'll tell you that this is -- we are continuing to detain and not hold these detention centers accountable for any of the things that happen within the detention center. again, i hope my colleagues will support this amendment and allow us to bring some accountability back to our detention system. and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman is recognized.

mr. carter: yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by gentlelady from washington. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from washington will e postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 85 printed in 115-295. house report mr. zeldin: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 858 printed in part b of house report 115-295 offered by mr. zeldin of new york. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 500, the gentleman from new york and a member

opposed will each control five minutes. mr. zeldin: my amendment will provide needed regulatory relief to fishermen from the east end long island who are ruggling under federal restrictions. it means that making the 15-mile journey from montauk point to block island, rhode island, requires passing through a segment of waters considered to be known as the block island transit zones. for charter boat captains and commercial fishermen this can mean the difference between a nice day on the water and committing a criminal offense. coast guard resources need to be focused on national security and safety mission. no other species of fish besides

ea bass is impacting the segment, situated between two state boundaries. fishermen should be able to fish for striped bass just as they can in adjacent state waters. a boat captain on the water off of montauk point, new york can o fishing in state waters. violating federal law once they pass over the three-mile limit. many of these individuals lack the expensive g.p.s. to know if and when they have crossed the boundary. these are responsible men and women who have the interest in preserving the striped bass fishery but need relief from con tuesdaying regulations. last congress, my bill to dress this issue h.r. 3070

passed the house. this amendment is supported by the recreational fishing alliance and the montauk boat man captains association. on behalf of the hard working men and women, i ask for your support on this commonsense amendment and i reserve. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady rise? >> i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. ms. roybal-allard: this is not an appropriate amendment in inclusion in an annual spending bill. the coast guard opposes because their amendment to protect natural resources is not specific. enforcement limitations on specific limitations would place a significant burden on the coast guard. congress should not be in the business of micro managing fish

conservation. the atlantic states marine fisheries commission is an interstate commission which allows atlantic coastal states to manage the conservation of their shared coastal fishery resources. we should allow the commission do its job in managing fish stock. congress shouldn't second guess them and micro manage in particular locations. there is a proper place for addressing this at the regional level. currently, the consensus position of the commission is that the fishing restricks should remain in place and a stock assessment for striped bass is in next year. this ban was in place. the changes needed, it should follow the same process. i believe this amendment places an undue burden on the coast guard and it is bad precedent

for congress to interfere with a state-driven process. for these reasons, i oppose the amendment. i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman is recognized. mr. zeldin: this burden removes the burden from the coast guard and it empowers the local counsel and you still are subject to the management of local fisheries. you cannot fish for any more fish than you were previously. so actually all the logic that was used by my colleague -- you can actually more easily argue the opposite side. my colleague from california, as she speaks about what is the right policy here on the east end of long island, voted in favor of h.r. 3070, which was passed by the last congress.

it wouldn't make any sense to be arguing that this bill -- places a burden on the coast guard or it is micro managing a local council while it empowers it to control the fishery. i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. roybal-allard: we should allow the commission to do its job. and i continue to oppose this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields. mr. zeldin: i think it's a great ea to empower the atlantic fishery council by passing this amendment, because if we don't pass this amendment and don't change the federal law, they are not empowered, federal law says you can't fish between montauk point and block island, rhode island. if h.r. 3070 became the law, we wouldn't be here and the council

would be managing the local fishery. but federal law prevents the regional management of the fishery and says you can't fish for striped bass at all. so all the arguments that are now being used for the first time against this particular argument, a proposal that was passed unanimously last congress which is now being opposed by a colleague from california to be telling us what the right policies on the east end of long island saying we should be managing these fisheries is an argument i agree with and that is why it is so important to pass this legislation. my colleague, in opposing this proposal, is actually making the argument of exactly why it needs to pass. i encourage all of my colleagues to vote for it and i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the

ayes have it and the amendment s agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 87 printed in part b of house report 115-295. it is now in order to consider amendment number 88. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? mr. king: i have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule. the clerk: amendment number 88 printed in house report 115-295 offered by mr. king of iowa. the chair: the gentleman from iowa, mr. king and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. king: i ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment by modification at the desk. the clerk: modification to amendment number 88 printed in rt b of house report 115-295

offered by mr. king of iowa. after the words of this act, for f. ngs, a, c, d, e or the chair: objection to the modification? without objection, the amendment is modified. the gentleman from iowa is recognized. mr. king: i thank the gentlelady for her consent to this unanimous consent request which ill expedite the debate. e-verify must be used on all new hires that are funded under this appropriation. and it's a well-established debate not only throughout the years of e-verify and throughout this evening. all new hires in conjunction with an offer of employment, run

their data through e-verify. if they verify that information that's provided by the applicant identifies an individual who can work legally in the united states, that's the verification that the efficiency has gone way up in the 99.something per sen tile. i urge the adoption of this amendment and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. ms. roybal-allard: i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment. under the o.m.b. directive from 2007, all federal agencies are already required to use the e-verify system to confirm the employment eligibility of new hires. beyond scheduled employees, a 2008 executive order and federal acquisition regulation already require that employees of federal contractors also be

e-verified be eligible to work. so my opposition to this amendment is primarily on the basis that it is unnecessary. given that the current administration has proposed making the use of e-verify mandatory for private sector hiring, it doesn't seem likely that it would weaken the current requirement for the federal government to use the system. this funding limitation simply is not needed. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman is recognized. mr. king: i would be happy to yield to the gentleman from texas, chairman carter. mr. carter: i thank the entleman for yielding. what the ranking member just said is true, but i rise in support of this gentleman's amendment because it's time the agencies and departments fully comply and this amendment

attempts to achieve that effort. therefore, i support the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the alyields back. ms. roybal-allard: yield back. mr. king: reclaiming my time. i will reiterate we are getting gaps in this enforcement and spent my life in the contracting business. we have a general contractors d first-tier contractors and second-tier and third-tier contractors. we want to make sure the enforcement is there. and i thank everyone for their cooperation and i yield back. the chair: the alyields back. the gentlelady is recognized. ms. roybal-allard: i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment as moved offered by the gentleman from iowa. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the

ayes have it, as modified, is greed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises.

the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union, having had under consideration h.r. 3354, directs me to report it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 3354 and has come to no esolution thereon. the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. curbelo for today after act p.m. and the balance of the week and for mr. garrett of virginia for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted.

for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas seek recognition? >> i move that the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. acordingly the house stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. today for miranda warning hour debate.

tomorrow that work continues in the house when the continue for what is latest business at noon. earlier we spoke to a reporter on capitol hill to get a look at locate expect. -- what we can expect. >> this bill would fund essentially the whole government. it constrains -- funding everything from the department of agriculture, homeland security to the state department, epa etc. potentially a government-wide spending bill. they are doing it all in one big package because there is so little time left to do individual spending bills, the so-called regular order.

this bill ishand, not going anywhere. to be signed into law or gain any traction in the senate because this is a republican written bill without a lot of bipartisan support. thebills written by republican-controlled appropriations committee contain a lot of policy and spending conditions democrats are not in favor of. forward a look is to show where they stand on these policy spending positions. >> you are right as the building comes out the rules committe 118 amendnts beg allowed. what areey issues you are looking forward to in the debate? >> when of the biggest issues will be debate over immigration. obviously that has been in the news since yesterday with the president's decision on daca, related to young undocumented immigrants.