tv House Committee Marks Up Homeland Security Spending Bill CSPAN July 20, 2017 3:34pm-6:27pm EDT
1967 detroit riots, sunday at noon eastern. american history tv is live from the detroit free press news room. hear firsthand accounts of the riots. >> they gave the order not, don't shoot, be cool, just let it go, that was the order they gave. and word got out, word got out that suddenly there's 50,000 people on 12th street just helping themselves to everything. >> the 1967 detroit riots. live sunday starting at noon eastern on american history tv on c-span 3. >> the house appropriations committee met yesterday to debate spending for the department of homeland security. members worked on allocating money for immigration enforcement along the u.s. southern border. cyberterrorism protection and aviation security, they also considered amendments to the bill. this is about three hours.
to have it completed today. now i refer to chairman carter to present the fiscal year 2018 homeland security bill. judge carter. >> thank you, mr. chairman. before i sort it's sort of a tradition to have some kind of snipe from your home district. the most famous thing in my home district are doughnuts, the national magazines declare it the best doughnut in the world. however we can't, they're so good they don't travel well. so as a substitute, we have a large czech community in my district. swree clac we have clachis of all sorts across the hall. our czech community is very, very proud of their clachis and they're very good. i want to let you know about that a clachi, we had them here last year. they're good. >> the question is what are they? and then we're going to move on -- >> a roll with fruit on top of
them and they're good. >> judge carter is recognized. >> thank you. >> now that i've gotten the important stuff out of the way -- well i'm glad to be here to present the fiscal year 2018 department of homeland security appropriations bill to the committee. the recommendation is $42.5 billion in nondefense discretionary spending. $1.9 billion in defense spending, $6.8 billion for disaster relief. the total is $51.1 billion. which is $327 million above the president's request. and $1.8 billion above fiscal year 2017 baseline. the subcommittee's recommendations stands in sharp contrast to prior years, because the president's budget request is a major policy change in how dhs secures the border and enforces immigration laws.
consequently many of the minority are opposed to the bill. while i regret not having a unified subcommittee mark, i respect everyone's right to assert reasonable and honest dissent. moreover, i have no doubt that everyone on this committee shares the same objectives for dhs. to insure our homeland is safe, secure and resilient against terrorism and other hazards. mr. chairman and members of the committee, i realize that we're going to spend a lot of time today debating the pros and cons, of spending nearly $1.6 billion on border wall construction, and 3.2 billion for 44,000 detention beds among other items. these are significant increases in spending, and are worthy of debate. all too often the discussion veers off to heartbreaking stories of illegal migration. but that is only part of the
story. the rest is, that if illegal migrants can exploit vulnerabilities in the nation's border, so can terrorists, drug smugglers, and human trafficking organizations. this is unacceptable. the recommendation of this bill, that the bill change, that's dynamic, they enforce current structures in bills sturdy secure fencing where border patrol agents have convinced me and the committee is needed. they are invested in smart, 21st-century technologies that assist those who work on the border. they do not build a solid wall stretching from brownsville, texas to san diego, california. they are not targeted at areas like the big bend national park and the arizona forbidden desert. where mother nature secures the
border in ways man cannot enhance. critics complain that putting physical barriers on the border won't work and aren't necessary. with respect, i disagree. in 1990s, over 50,000 people were apprehended as they attempted to illegally cross the border in the san diego section. to combat these illegal crossings, cvp security infrastructure improvements, by physical year to 16, the number of apprehensions in that sector had plummeted to 25,000. from 500,000 to 25,000. similar success stories have occurred across the el centro, yuma, tucson and el paso sectors. i'm committed to bringing the same success to texas. the bill is focused on national security and law enforcement. it sends a powerful message that if you break our nation's laws, and cross the border illegally,
you'll suffer the consequences, which are apprehension and a guaranteed stay of detention. here are the additional highlights of the bill. for cvp, in addition to the wall and associated technology, the mark supports increases in the border patrol by 500 agents. for i.c.e., addition to the funds for 44,000 detention beds which is an increase of 4,676 over 2017, $18 million above the request is provided to expand decent security -- visa security program to two additional high-threat overseas locations. $186 million to increase the investigative and support staff, by 1600 people as requested. for fema. $3 billion for fema grants,
training, exercise programs. and increase of $939.7 million above the request, which includes $25 million increase for nonprofit security grant program. $7.3 billion as requested for the disaster relief fund. for secret service. $1.9 billion to insure they're paid for the work they do. for tsa, full funding for transportation security officers to support aviation security and keep wait times down low. for coast guard, $19 million as provided for heavy icebreaker to continue programs management activities and design work required to award a production contract, in fiscal year 2019. $500 million for production of
the first offshore patrol cutter, a and long lead materials for opc number 2 and $95 million for a fully-missioned c-130 j to enhance long-range surveillance capabilities. and for cybersecurity, infrastructure and infrastructure protection. $950 million is provided to secure government network and prevents cyberattacks. and $380 million for infrastructure protection programs, including the eelectrical grid and emergency communications systems. the e-verify, to enable businesses to check whether their employees are eligible to work in the united states is fully funded at $131.5 million.
colleagues, this is a good bill. i ask you to support it. i'll happy to answer any questions about this mark. before i do, our ranking member is recognized and our full committee members for any comments they would like to make. >> chairman carter. pleased to recognize the ranking member, mrs. roblrd. >> i greatry appreciate how you and your staff have been collegial, collaborative and receptive in developing this bill. we have a good partnership. in working to address the needs of the department of homeland security and its dedicated personnel. because we understand they are the ones doing the critical work of keeping our country safe. the positive aspects of this bill include restoration of fema-preparedness grants to current year levels and
increases of the nonprofit security grant program from 25, to 50 million. there are also a significant number of constructive oversight directives in the draft committee report and welcome funding levels for departmental oversight components like the office of civil rights and civil liberties. and i am grateful for the additional funding for child care subsidies for coast guard families and the continuation of the cybersecurity internship program. most alarming, however, is that because of the administration's claim that it is a matter of national security, this bill recommends a $705 million increase for u.s. interior immigration enforcement. supporting 44,000 detention beds and increase of 10,000 above last year. and the hiring of 1,000 additional i.c.e. agents and officers to focus primarily on
interior enforcement. there is certainly no disagreement, we should be removing dangerous individuals. however, i.c.e.'s interior ens forcement is targeting the parents of unaccompanied children seeking asylum, it is targeting people who have lived, worked and paid taxes in this country for years. and even decades. with no criminal infractions. as a result, i.c.e. interior arrests of noncriminals are up 157% over last year. these arrests are not required for a national security or for our public safety. and they are having tragic consequences for individuals, families and communities all over our nation. many in law enforcement tell us people are afraid to report serious crimes and are less willing to come forward, as
witnesses to crimes. teachers tell me that immigrant and united states children alike are afraid to go to school or out to play. for fear their parents will be gone when they return home. the trauma that is being inflicted on entire communities throughout this country cannot be overstated. the only solution to this problem is comprehensive immigration reform. another area of concern is the $1.6 billion for new border infrastructure. the fy17 funding bill required the secretary to submit a risk-based plan for imposing security along the border. we have yet to receive that plan. how can we support such an enormous cost without a comprehensive plan backed by a clear justification for why it should take priority over other
critical investments? for these reasons, i cannot in good conscience support the bill in its current form. instead of wasting money on an unnecessary wall and the enforcement of discriminatory policies, we should be investing our limited resources to address the real threats posed by dangerous criminal aliens and those who seek to do our country harm. this includes investing more resources in cybersecurity, human trafficking investigations and coast guard vessels and aircraft to address our vulnerabilities along the alaskan coast and to enhance our limited drug interdiction efforts. we should be investing more in new customs officers, research and technology and restoring funding for tsa's law enforcement, vipir and reenforcement agencyings. being in this country illegally
is a civil violation. we should not be spend being excessive amounts of money for civil immigration enforcement at the expense of dangerous criminal and terrorist threats. most of you in this room have family histories of immigrants who came here with little money or little more than the clothing on their backs. >> they lived with cousins or other relatives until they could get a job and eventually afford a place. if current immigration policies were in place when most american families came to this land few would have been allowed to enter the united states and many of us would not be here today. my family's history is a little different. my father, edward roybal served in this house for 30 years, he was a member of this committee and a cardinal. he was born in 1960 to the roybal family which traces back its roots in this countries eight generations, but the
jim na discriminato enter interdiction interdict n >> and in 1912, the state of new mexico. also came to my mother's family, to the part of mexico today known as san diego, california. but no matter how we became americans, the fact is that most of our families came here from somewhere else. the contributions of past newcomers helped make our country the greatest nation in the world. and today, immigrants help keep america great. that reality was recognized by our government in the 1920s. even after establishing the border patrol, setting up our first consular control system requiring visas to be obtained abroad before admission to the u.s. and putting in place numerical caps and quotas based on race and nationality, discretion was given to immigration officials to suspend deportations in meritorious cases and congress created policies allowing many european immigrants in the u.s. without proper authorization to legalize their status. these rules made it possible for millions of people, including many of our ancestors, to come and remain in the united states and have the opportunity to realize the american dream. today's immigrants deserve no less. i sincerely respect the fact that many of us have disagreements on how best to enforce our immigration laws. unfortunately, the president's malignant immigration rhetoric has poisoned the waters and made
it difficult for this congress to bridge our differences in a way that protects our homeland while still reflecting our american values. the administration has says the law is the law and we must enforce it, without discretion. mr. chairman, just as was true nearly a century ago, our immigration policies are as much a moral question as they are a legal one. just as other law enforcement agencies have discretion in how to enforce our laws, so do agencies like ice and the department of homeland security. and just as former members of congress exercise discretion -- -- members of this committee have it on how to vote on policies impacting immigrants of today. i'm not making an argument for open borders or the elimination
of our immigration laws. what i am trying to convey is my hope that, as we work together to find the right balance between legal and moral aspects of immigration enforcement, we do so guided by the same moral compass and with the same compassion for today's immigrants, many of whom are escaping the same kinds of tragic circumstances as those we welcomed in the past. how can we not take into consideration our impact on real people? who, by different policies, or of the past, or a different drawing of a border, could be you or me? mr. chairman, let me reiterate how much i appreciate the way our subcommittee does its business. even when we disagree, we do it with respect for one another and with respect for the institution
in which we are honored to serve. i hope we will continue working together so, by the end of this appropriations process, we have a final bill both sides can fully support. in closing, i would be remiss if i did not acknowledge and thank my outstanding staff -- and the majority staff -- again. thank you, mr. chairman and i yield back. >> thank the ranking member, as well as chairman carter for their remarks and i know our fathers served together and i'm so proud to be serving with you. we live in the greatest country on the face of the earth and it's good to know the ties that bind us are strong. thank you so much for your remarks.
this bill demonstrates our iron-clad commitment to safeguarding our homeland and protecting our citizens. in total it provides $44.3 billion in discretionary funding for the department of homeland security, mandated to secure our nation from many threats we face, whether that's terrorism, criminals and illegal goods crossing our borders or attacks on our cyber networks. this is 1.9 billion above fiscal year 2017 bill we recently passed, a strong investment in our nation, families, neighbors, schools and businesses. critical resources directed to customs and border protection to improve infrastructure and technology and put boots on the ground. this includes 1.6 million for physical barrier construction along the southern border and a hundred million to hire 500 new border patrol agents.
the bill also provides for immigrations & customs enforcement to ensure our laws are followed including funding for additional law enforcement officers, detention, removal programs, investigation programs that fight human trafficking, drug smuggling and cyber crimes. this xlements what the state bill did recently passed, protect our coasts and stem the flow of illegal goods into and out of the country. the bill provides 10.5 billion in funding for the coast guard. this legislation addresses over 21st century threats to our nation, as well, namely securing our cyber infrastructure against dangerous hacking and cyber attacks, investments into the national protection and program directorate will enhance security of cyberspace. it ensures our nation is ready
and able to respond to any emergencies or natural disasters fully funding fema's disaster account. -- first line of defense in our community. i'd like to thank the subcommittee chair and ranking, as well as all members and may i say the remarkable group of men and women behind us who make us look good and have worked on a very expeditious basis to bring this forward today. my pleasure to recognize miss lowey for any comments she may have. miss lowey? >> thank you, chairman. i want to thank chair ben carter and ranking member roybal-allard and the staffs on both sides of the aisle and all the members of this subcommittee for the mornt work that you have done.
with the procedural roadblocks hindering our path forward specifically no bipartisan budget agreement, one might think the majority would produce bills that could probably gain support from democrats. yet, that has not happened. the bill before us today provides some minority input on funding, including the restoration of proposed cuts to fema grants, which are vital importance to my home state of new york, and the chairman was receptive to many of the minority's requests for report langua language, a collegial process, which we appreciate. however, this bill, unacceptably provides significant increases to carry out the administration's draconian immigration enforcement targeting non-criminal
immigrants and separate families, underfunding other d.h.s. priorities. as a result the subcommittee's allocation is $1.9 billion, $1.9 billion, over the current level and nearly 250 million more than president trump's request. while other bills have been severely slashed, this bill would waste $1.6 billion the president's boondoggle of a wall along the u.s.-mexican border and, more than 700 million on you thats y thousands of new detention beds and ice enforcement officers. instead of building walls, we should build bridges to advancement by investing in research through the science actechnology directorate to help
build the department technology and equipment gaps, not cut it by 87 million. we should help protect our airports by increasing funding for the tsa's law enforcement officer reimbursement program, not eliminating it. security at airports is a shared responsibility, and this is no time for the federal government to start pulling back on its commitments. shooting incident like the one at the ft. lauderdale airport in january are a tragic reminder that we cannot afford to relax our airport security posture. instead of fulfilling donald trump's $1.6 billion concrete monument to a campaign promise, we could increase funds in other appropriation bills to give more
hard-working americans a fair shake by helping them create jobs in their small businesses, protecting pell grants, building safer, faster transportation systems or upgrading crumbling infrastructure. and the list goes on and on. democrats are eager to support bills that include appropriate spending levels and are free from misguided, politically driven policies. the sooner we can begin to do that, the sooner we can begin to enact bills that make the investments our communities truly need. thank you, mr. chairman and i look forward to working together to make sure that, at the end, we have products that we can all be proud of. thank you. >> thank you.
any further discussion on the bill? yes, chairman? >> mr. chairman, as the first chairman of this subcommittee and first six years of its life, this department is important to me personally. and i want to congratulate the chairman and the subcommittee for doing a good job this year. this is a tough, tough bill. very few bills that we have are as complicated as homeland security. when we created the subcommittee after the department was created 15 years ago, we were trying to merge together 22 different federal agencies. as varied as the secret service, tsa, the coast guard, cbp, and on and on and on.
they were like dozens of pay-scales within those formerly separate offices, 15 different unions, and the like, a network of trying to amal go mate all of these agencies into a single workable efficient one still goes on. we're not there yet. these agencies are not amalgamated as they, perhaps, were dreamt could be done. i'm not sure you ever can alma ga mate the coast guard with tsa, for example, or cbp and so forth. nevertheless, this bill goes a long way toward achieving that goal. judge, i want to congratulate you and your staff for putting this together. but, when you think about the
breadth of the responsibility of aviation security, border and immigration enforcement, customs activities, cyber terrorism, natural disaster response, smuggling of drugs and people into the u.s., disaster relief, emergency response activities through fema and the like, this is a complicated, important, vital piece of the nation's defense. and, mr. chairman, as the first chairman of this subcommittee and -- of a subcommittee that's near and dear to my heart, thank you for a good job. i yield. >> thank you, chairman rogers. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i also want to thank judge carter and miss roybal-allard for the work. it's a very difficult trying to find this balance. i do have to say that i know
this is a process and we're going to keep doing this as she says, move the process. at the end when we get a final bill we're hoping that we can all try to find some consensus. in particular as you know, i've talked to you, i don't like the wall. the wall is a 14th century solution. i think i'm the only member that lives at the border and i've lived there and drink the water and i understand that very well but again i understand this is a process that we disagree on. but, i do want to mention three things that i think you've done and miss roybal-allard have done a good job. first let me mention the custom border protection talking about bridges. i know one of the biggest challenges we have is the attrition rates we have. in fact, we've found ways to speed up the hiring of cbp officers but the attrition rate still out-paces the people we're
trying to hire. so, as we are trying to put more of the people on the bridges or at the points of entry whether the airport, the attrition is still larger so we have to continue working on it. i know there is some language there to make sure we try to hire good qualified individuals. the second thing is there is about $109 million for new non-intrusion inspection equipment. i know there is a concept pilot in lar ray do where we have 14,000 tourists a day. that, again, is an emphasis we have to look at, most of the emphasis from a lot of members here between the points of entry but i want to emphasize we got to make sure we don't forget the land points of entry, very important. thank you mr. chairman and ranking member for that money. the other thing is humanitarian relief. in 2014, as you know, we had a lot of folks that came in so the
border communities, a lot of them are very poor communities went out and out of their pocket went ahead and took care of a lot of the kids that came in. actually, was working with chairman rogers at that time, they were able to put that language and i think we've had it for three years and i'm hoping that the state of texas looks like governor abbott will allow that money but that's a reimbursement, fema reimbur reimbursement, again something i want to emphasize. again, mr. chairman and ranking member thank you so much for the effort you've done in this committee. >> thank you. gent gentleman from pennsylvania. >> thank you. i want to express my support for the over-the-road bus security program -- -- last year, $2 million was allocated for this specific program. in light of the recent terror
attacks abroad which made use of motor vehicles i think it is especially important to consider further support of this program. in fy '17 over 22 million in grant requests for the appropriated amount of a few million so certainly a demonstrated desire to improve the security of their services and protect the traveling public. i hope as we continue working through this process we can find a way to support the program which helps protect our nation's transportation infrastructure. in my district we send buses by the dozens into new york city. -- appreciate your consideration going forward. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i agree with chairman rogers. homeland security has way too many missions and a way to go but i think chairman carter and the ranking member have done a great job working together with the bipartisan committee to
protect us. we are in a dangerous time, as we know. some of the most serious threats our country has faced, nuclear weapons probably the most serious but then we have the north korea, iran, russia-china threat. i mean, it goes on. but one of the most serious threats we have are the cyber attacks. and they could really affect our homeland seriously and not only is china stealing two billion a year, we have russia in our systems, it's a serious threat and we have a long way to go to deal with it. now, cyber funding at the d.h.s. comes from defense function dollars, in the weeds a bit -- this subcommittee consistently receives a low allocation of this money. last year there was a gap over a hundred million in what homeland security needed and what they received. again, this is money that goes to protecting our country as it relates to cyber attacks, which is the mission for homeland security. this year, thanks to chairman ranking member, the gap is only
28 million. that's a good start and we thank you for closing that gap, both of you, and staff, too. there are two sides of the cyber mission at the department of homeland security one being operational and that's what protects the networks and the private sector. it should be known 80% of our network is controlled by the private sector so we must work in a partnership. the other, we also as we know are competing with russia, china, north korea, many others and have to stay ahead of that curve. they're in our complains and attacking us on a regular basis. -- believe me, many people in this country that could do the same. we are drastically cutting the important cyber security and research work that happens -- -- shifting that to fund a border wall and that really causes us so much problems between democrats and republicans, that border wall issue. the president may have promised a border wall but i explicit him
saying mexico would pay for it, not he would gut the important r & d development work at the department of homeland security to fund it. we have to realize the threat to our nation and take it seriously before we have a crisis on our hands. the threats and protection of our networks must remain a priority and i look forward to working with the chairman and ranking member and committee members to close the funding gap even further in future bills. yield back. >> further discussion, mr. price? >> mr. chairman, as a long-time member and one-time chairman of this subcommittee, i want to first thank the chairman, mr. carter, ranking member roybal-allard for the collaborative process they have exemplified in formulating this bill, both accessible and receptive to subcommittee concerns and i appreciate your ability to work in a bipartisan
manner. in particular the bill reflects minority input including rejection of the budget request misguided -- -- particularly grateful for that. however, the bill does provide significant funding increases for immigration enforcement and border infrastructure i believe go far beyond what's needed or what can be efficiently expended in one year. the additions come at a time when border apprehensions actually have declined. when ice and cbp operate at already high levels of funding. the majority's appropriated more than 1.6 billion for 75 miles of new border wall in this bill. people wouldn't know it from the president's alarmist rhetoric but they're already over 700 miles of pedestrian and vehicular fencing on our nation's southern border. i know this first hand since the majority of that fencing was built when i was chairman of this subcommittee. during that time, congress
appropriated funds to build hundreds of miles of fencing. however, we did have some requirements. we required a segment by segment analysis. we required alternative analyses of the best way to secure the border. we required studies of environmental impact and a number of required fence locations before new fencing was placed. this bill doesn't include language regarding congressional oversight before wall construction. including fiscal '18 funds no requirements to submit cost/benefit analysis or to work with congress through any modifications. i don't believe funding an unnecessary wall, especially one without appropriate congressional oversight will make us good stewards of taxpayer dollars. we simply become complicit in campaign demagoguery. in that connection, this bill
makes clear the majority intends for the american people to foot the bill on a border wall, not mexico. as the president has so often foolishly claimed. this 1.6 billion could be spent on much more important prooits that actually would improve the lives of our citizens and security of our country and i look forward to the ranking member's proposal to do just that. >> thank you. any further discussion? mr. cartwright's recognized. >> thank you, chairman. i want to thank the chairman, judge carter, ranking member roybal-allard for -- all the subcommittee and the staff and for the work you've put into this bill. an enormous amount of labor went into it, obviously. while this mark-up will likely touch on quite a number of controversial issues i want to pause first and highlight an area where the majority and the minority did come together to help ordinary americans, both
the homeland bill and the interior bill include language include -- -- to cooperate on streamlining the process of trade goods covered by environmental regulations and also prompts the agencies to bring the process online, making it simpler and easier for businesses to comply. these changes will help hard-working small businesses like my constituent martin guitar in nazareth, pennsylvania, conformed to important environmental regulations by reducing compliance costs across the board. i want to thank the subcommittee for working together to make it possible. i do hope it sets the tone for further bipartisan cooperation moving forward through the appropriations process. thank you. >> any further discussion?
mr. ceranno? thank you. >> -- my seat changed, but i didn't know my name had changed, too. [ inaudible ] >> by the way, if you want to know why i'm sitting here, don't ask me, ask the chairman. he put me here today. but i'm glad to be here. i just want to talk very briefly about the wall. it's such a waste of money. you know, people who want to get to this country as badly as they do, no wall is going to stop them. they'll find a way to get here. and while i understand that we have a border immigration issue, notice i call it an issue, i
don't call it a problem because any time you have the greatest country on earth still invite people by its behavior, by its democratic form of government, by its economy, by its way of living, still invites people to come here, that's a good thing. does it mean that we have to have it uncontrolled? no. does it mean that we can't adjust some things? no, we should. but we should never feel bad about it. it's not a terrible thing. those people are coming here the same people that -- the same way that those other people came here years and years and years before us. and in one way or another, very few of us are not immigrants or come from an immigrant family or
great-grandpain d great-grandparents or grandparents or whatever. when i hear us always talk about the wall, i keep this image in my mind. my city, new york harbor, with that majestic statue of liberty that says give me -- give me people, give me those that hurt, give me those that are hungry, give me those that are prooor, give me those that need help and a wall on the south that says, keep those out, there's something wrong with that. and it's not about who we are. so, when you think about this wall, as you stake the first steps and i was with chairman rogers on that committee on the homeland security committee when it was first formed, i remember that we were starting to do some wonderful things and then the building of a fence came into play. sort of i think ruined the whole
discussion in the committee. as you think about it, just don't pay attention to the fact that already promises have been broken. i mean, mexico was to pay for it. who really believed that? you see it in this bill? we're gonna pay for it. but, the symbol, the message it sends to the world, the message it sends to ourselves as a people. we, the united states of america, the greatest country on earth, the one whose military uniform i was proud to serve in a very lowly rank but proud to serve, this country should never build a wall to keep people out. should it deal with an immigration issue? yes. but never, ever, ever build a wall. on the contrary, build another
statue of liberty on the southern border. that's our message to the world, that statue, not the wall. and again, the wall will cost billions of dollars, it will be a waste of money, it'll provide us -- it'll divide us, our country, our rhetoric, our comments and that's what we'll become. so i ask you, please, in closing when you think about going forward with the next step to building this wall, think about what it means for our country that we, instead of saying, yes, we know you want to come here because we're the greatest country on earth, let's talk about how you get here. instead, we build a wall and say, stay out, we don't want you. that's not who we are. that's not who we should become. thank you, mr. chairman. >> further discussion? hearing none, turn to mr. chairman --
>> thank you, mr. chairman. rise to offer this bipartisan measure -- >> -- the clerk will read. >> amendment offered by mr. carter -- >> -- the amendment -- >> recognized to present your amendment. >> -- bipartisan and includes several non-controversial items to accommodate concerns several of our members of the committee unless there are any questions from the various items i urge the committee prompt adoption of the amendment. >> thank you, judge carter. >> i support the amendment. >> okay. any further discussion? >> thank you, mr. chairman. first -- i want to thank the chairman, ranking member and committee staff again for including report language that places a stay on the closure of three science and technology labs, the labs are the following, national bio defense analysis and counter measure center, the chemical security
analysis center at aberdeen proving grounds and national urban security technology laboratory in manhattan. these labs are critical to defending our nation against bio logical pathogens, chemical agents and harm to our city centers respectively. i understand the admission has outlined priorities for the following year -- -- the national boy -- the chemical security analysis center is the only 24-hour, 7 days a week center offering [ inaudible ] cape sdababcapabl. they provide first responders with immediate guidance and instructions to mitigate the damaged chemical threats. the last lab -- -- had helps bolster the security of our city centers using advanced modeling form
late the best game plan. these labs are essential to maintaining the security of our homeland. moving forward i hope we can find a suitable offset and fully fund these centers. once again i thank the committee for understanding the value of the three labs including the language of the report. >> thank you. judge carter to close for a minute? >> mr. chairman? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd thank the subcommittee chair and ranking member and staffs working with our office on some language specifically looking at report language to see if we should put our nation's election infrastructure under the definition of critical infrastructure. we know one of the companies that makes the voting machines in a majority of states attempts to hack last elections doing that definition -- -- as with our financial services and utility and others to provide the greatest
protection. so, i appreciate having that report language in the manager's amendment. >> mr. quigley is recognized. >> thank you. i want to thank the chairman and ranking member for including report language in the manager's amendment that would have d.h.s. advise the committee to address the threat on our soft targets in ways to secure these targets. thank you. >> -- recognized. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chair. i rise to support the manager's amendment. i appreciate the chair and ranking member including one of my priorities which you may be surprised to hear is in the bill related to organic imports. you've probably seen recent articles about organic sod and imported food, nearly 50 billion industry in the states right now which is why these fraud allegations are troubling to me and others who care about this issue. it is not fair to consumers who expect when they buy something labeled organic to find out it
is not or fair to the farmers who often have to use more expensive inputs or labor to produce those products but part of the problem right now we don't have sufficient tracking of organic imports making it impossible to know the total quantity and origin of imported organic products. we also have a shortage in our country of organic commodities and are not able to track how much we're bringing in from other countries to better understand how much more we could grow in the united states. so language in the manager's amendment that urges u.s. customs and border patrol to add questions to a.c.e., their new odd mated import tracking system to track products certified organic under the standards. i yield back. >> i also want to thank the ranking member and chairman and support the manager's amendment adding language to encourage tsa
to continue to move in the direction of making sure that our airports across the country are working towards developing better interoperability and communications as well as airport -- integrated airport operation centers. i'm sure all of you remember in january when my home airport -- -- had a shooter who had checked a firearm in their bag and came off and opened fire in the bag baggaj claim area killing five people and wounding 13 others. one of the items they're looking at and have been examining dealing with the public area security is making sure that there is a better coordination across our country in interoperatability and operation centers and language in the bill encourages that. >> thank the gentlewoman. the question on the amendment. the amendment's approved.
further amendments? ranking member. >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. >> clerk will read. >> an amendment offered by miss -- >> -- the gentlewoman is recognized. >> my amendment would increase funding for the coast guard's polar ice breaker program by 2.3 billion dollars. it is offset bay reduction to the funding for cbb, border infrastructure and ice interior immigration enforcement. as i noted in my opening statement, it is premature to consider the border infrastructure funding and proposed increases for ice hiring and detention bids are not well justified and do not have a security focus. in contrast, the need for heavy ice breakers is well documented. a draft report from the national academies of sciences released just last week warned and i quote, united states has insufficient assets to protect its interests, implement u.s.
policy, execute its laws and meet its obligations in the arctic and ant arctic because it lacks in adequate ice breaking capability. this is because the coast guard only has one functioning heavy ice breaker -- -- built in 1976, 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. at this point, its primary mission, to clear a path through the ice to our research facilities in ant arc ka. this means we have no heavy ice break ing asset in the arctic unlike other countries like russia. it is expected to continue fung functioning three to seven years leaving the united states with
no heavy ice breaking capability. we are dangerously falling behind. russia has 41 ice breakers on the arctic that are active or under construction, 12 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 academy's report goes on to recommend that, and i quote, 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. end quote. the fy defense funding bill included 150 million for a coast guard heavy ice breaker as a down payment on what is expected to be nearly a $1 billion price tag for the first ship. but the ndaa authorization that
passed the house last week includes a provision prohibiting the pentagon from using any fy '18 funds to acquire and 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 fy '19, it will release a request for proposal in mid-fy '18. by providing $2.3 billion in this bill, enough to cover the cost of two and maybe three heavy ice breakers, we can help the coast guard get a better price per ship. in fact, it is estimated that acquiring three ships at one time would save the government ne nearly $160 million per vessel according to the national academy's report. just think what we could
accomplish here today with this one amendment, we can 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 support this amendment. >> thank you. chairman carter? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in opposition to my frie friend, the probabamendment. -- dealing with migrants, terrorists, drug smugglers and human traffickers. this is really simple. operational control requires the ability to detect, identify, and prevent illegal crossing of the border. enabling law enforcement to respond to illegal activity and
the appropriately training equipped border patrol to conduct their missions safely and successfully. cutting funding from it would leave our border open and threaten our national security. physical barriers on the border work and are necessary as evidenced by the dramatic decline in operations after the border security infrastructure was put in place and installed in the san diego and arizona area. traffic has shifted to the rio grande valley and i'm committed to bringing the same security to texas. the proposal is to cut ice funding for enforcement of immigration laws and remove those here illegally were not only endanger the safety of the american people but also convey to the bad actors, that law no longer exists in the united states leading to increased border crossings and growing overall alien population in the united states.
cutting funding for beds will lead to the release of criminals and other aliens into communities across the country. additional ice agents needed to prevent terrorism and reducing crime through vigorous enforcement of immigration and customs laws. -- compromises their enforcement mission jeopardizing policy. interior enforcement is indispensable to national security and public policy and cannot be separated from border security. a successful border control and immigration system must be supported by enforcement of all pertinent laws. adding funds to procure a polar ice breaker while a noble idea and one i support, i support building ice breakers, no doubt about it but simply not
practical at this time. -- unexexecutable and, therefore, a waste of time, a waste of limited resources we have. i ask you to join me in opposing this amendment. >> thank you, judge carter. recognizing the ranking member. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i rise in strong support of the amendment. the coast guard fiercely defends our waters and borders everywhere, from san francisco to new york, alaska and the polar region. russia simply has us beat when it comes to ice cutting. vastly out-performing us on the construction of ice breakers and maintaining a significant presence in the polar region. our antiquated ice cutting technology is out of the water half of the time due to maintenance, leaving russia and china plenty of sea to explore
without american deterrence. this is exactly the type of investment we should be focused on. it advances american foreign policy, keeps the homeland safe, puts americans to work. and the need is well overdue. instead of making this investment, the majority has chosen to spend billions of dollars on a border wall and implement draconian immigration policies. let's stop fulfilling empty campaign promises and focus on where the real investment is needed. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in strong support of this amendment. this amendment full fills the committee's responsibility to make sure that our resources are el indicated in a responsible
manner. we heard earlier in the discussion that we are all for secure borders but we need to do it in a common-sense way. a way that not only protects, you know, criminal elements from entering our country but, also, welcomes immigrants and people who want to enter legally. we are putting up a wall telling the world we don't want anyone to join us here in the united stat states to live in hope and prosperity. as we continue this debalte on national security, i want to be clear, russia as taken full advantage of the changing environment. they have 40 ice breakers today and building more. the score is russia 40, u.s. 2. make that 1 because one is always unoperational. they are needed more than ever with arctic melt, commercial fishing and tourism moving forward and we have a
responsibility to protect alaska's border, too. so, i strongly support this amendment. this amendment does exactly what it needs to do, it redirects misplaced funding from a border wall and puts in an o proceedsing need of nal interests. yield back. >>. mice -- to adequately meet mission demands. we need to protect our national security and economic interests and we have the capability, we must have the capability to provide safe passage for marine vessels, project american presence counting russian aggression in the arctic region. unfortunately the coast guard's ice breaker inventory is reaching the end of its service life and we desperately need these construction funds. ordinary in this committee we then to the pay-for and we have
to struggle. but not in this case. not in this case. the ranking member has a pay-for that actually strengthens the bill, improves the bill. because she is removing funding for an unnecessary and harmful border wall and she's also taking some funds from the increases for ice enforcement not, mind you, the corcapacity of ice. but, the excessive ice hiring that is anticipated in this bill and the unneeded detention beds. so, the pay-for actually strengthens the bill and the bill -- the amendment itself addresses a critical national security need. i urge its adoption. >> mr. chairman i just want to repeat that the national academies of science have said that the united states has insufficient assets to protect
>> this vote the ayes are 22, the nays are 30. it is not agreed to. further amendments? recognized. >> i have an amendment at the desk. >> the clerk will read. >> unanimous consent. >> consider it read. recognized for five minutes. >> -- urge my colleagues to support it, as many of you know this is not new. it basically is one that has been passed the last several years in this committee. the purpose of the language is to simply codify the policy that ice already follows. it is not codified in statute. this deals with imnation and
dealing with anyone that is detained by ice would not be -- would not be paid -- an abortion would be paid for by the federal government. the bill already has the same exact language and it covers the federal bureau of prisons. this language has been carried many times by both democrats and republicans and, again, this is not really new language, it just simply caudifies what ice already follows and that's why we need to have it just because of the lack of not being codifi codified. >> thank you. chairman carter? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in support of this amendment. this amendment does nothing more than codify current ice policy, a policy ice followed since its creation and that is for the immigration and naturalization service followed for years.
respectbly, i ask for the adoption of this amendment and yield back. >> -- recognized. >> i rise in strong opposition to this amendment. i won't belabor the debate on this since it has become a perennial exercise. there is already a government-wide prohibition on the use of federal funds on abortion procedures and the restrictions are specifically formalitzed in part 4.4 of ice' detention standards. there are many urgent homeland security matters actually facing the department and this country. we simply don't need the distraction of this amendment, which is a solution in search of a problem. i urge my colleagues to oppose it. >> thanks. >> -- i rise in strong opposition to this amendment. this ideologically driven rider
from the majority is introduced year after year. it is particularly troubling on a homeland security spending bill. if we keep weighing down this bill with partisan riders, we do it at the detriment of first responders. terrorism prevention and the safety of our communities. most of us in this room have met with our first responders, ice agents, border patrol, other hard-working security personnel. thankfully, my friends, at no point have any of them said to me that women's reproductive rights makes their job more difficult, not one. with the serious threats facing us today is restricting women's reproductive health really a homeland security priority in this congress?! let's do the right thing and oppose this misguided amendment.
>> thank you, chairman, i rise in strong opposition to this amendment and here we are once again going through yet another unnecessary unjustifiable and unsafe amendment providing a woman's right to make her own health care decisions. once again, this amendment is unnecessary because as my colleagues know full well current guidelines provide a woman held in immigration detention facility may receive abortion care only in cases of -- -- this amendment is a painful reminder how year after year the majority is willing to so callously disregard the plight of the roughly 3,000 women held in immigration detention any given day. this is an especially cruel in light of the fact advocates estimate the numbers of girls raped on their journey to the united states 60 to 80%. this is thoroughly unjustifiable
because restricting access to safe procedures is never justifiable. once again, i don't know how i could make this more clear, women expect and deserve the right to make their own choices about their bodies and their health and notice i did not say with the guidance of their member of congress. i urge my colleagues on the committee to trust women no what's best on our own bodies and -- >> he rii rise in strong suppor this amendment. as some of you know i'm father of six children. when we first hold our children your life is forever changed. i feel the same about my grandchildren now. i think this is one of those times we stand up for those who cannot stand up for themselves. this is, more than anything -- it's not a political issue, or a legal issue, this is a moral
issue to me i think we have the responsibility to defend. as stated this amendment is not repetitive, consistent current law and continues a standard carried here more than 20 years. i understand there are exceptions and a woman's health is just as important as the child's and again the amendment includes the will second degree amendment which provides for exceptions for rape and i encourage my fellow colleagues to support the amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. of course, i rise in strong opposition to this proposed rider as i have year after year after year, inappropriate purely based in ideology. really shameful that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are introducing language to this bill that further allows politicians to interfere with a woman's personal health care decisions. just because of who she is. this language prevents immigrant women in custody from making the
best health care decisions for herself and her family. elected officials should not be playing politics with women's access to health care, period. it's wrong. it's misguided. it's cruel. and it's an immoral attack on the ability of immigrant women in their most vulnerable moment and although this harmful amendment provides and exception in the case of rape and incest and very narrow definition of life endangerment, it would still allow non-medical personnel such as detention center employees with no medical training to block access to life-saving care and information for women. let's be clear. this amendment poses a direct threat to the lives of pregnant women in detention centers. once again, politics is being put before women's health and inserting politicians into decisions that should be made by a woman and her health care professionals, this is irresponsible and has no place
in this bill and, yes, as my colleagues have said, the hyde amendment is currently in law. that doesn't mean it's right. and that does not mean it does not discriminate against certain women certain women and personally, we should take hyde off the books also. thank you. >> thank the gentlewoman. >> let me -- i ask that the reading be suspended. let me just clarify this because i think there's some miscommunication. it basically no federal funds shall be used to pay for an abortion and there is an exception, the life of the mother would be in danger. if the fetus were carried to term or in case of rape or incest regarding i.c.e. detainees so it's simply no federal funds shall be used so i wanted to clarify that for those that may be under some misunderstanding. i ask for the support of the amendment. >> the questions on the amendment. all those in favor, say aye. the aye's have it and the amendment is agreed to. seeing the requisite number of
>> this vote, the yays are 29, the nays are 21. the amendment is agreed to. further amendments? ms. lee is recognized. clerk will read. >> lee amendment number one. >> an amendment offered by ms. lee. at the end of the bill -- >> considered read and the gentlewoman is recognized. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. let me thank our ranking member and our chairman for including language which i requested to accelerate the completion of a cyber security strategy, and also for the customs and border control to submit a report on its allocation of overtime resources. so, thank you both for including this in the bill.
i am offering this amendment, but i will withdraw it, but i think we need to reflect upon what it would do, and really look at our role in aiding and abetting this muslim ban. my amendment would prohibit funds from being implemented administering or enforcing executive order 13780, which is known as the muslim ban 2.0. signed into force on march 6, 2017, this executive order is better known as the muslim ban for replacing a broader ban designated in january 2017 by another executive order. as you may recall, this first ban created chaos at airports and kept thousands stranded as the customs and border control and other law enforcement officers struggled to really interpret the broad guidelines. once the administration realized
their first muslim ban would not stand up in court because of its unconstitutionality and hateful intent, quite frankly, they issued this retooled muslim ban in march 2017. now, this continues to significantly slash the number of refugees the united states will admit and continues a broad ban on visitors from six majority muslim countries. iran, libya, somalia, sudan, syria, and yemen, and while the supreme court allowed partial enforcement of the ban just last month, our nation should be deeply concerned by the administration's interpretation that we are closing doors to muslim refugees. and i'm concerned because i've heard from many, many constituents and others that they and their families abroad are really quite afraid to travel. it's unacceptable. that's why my amendment is so critical. it would prevent funds from being used to implement this very heartless executive order, because it's just dangerous and it's un-american.
this ban forced on refugees and loved ones, it does not make america any safer. it diverts resources away from the real threats, and it weakens our leadership on the world stage. contrary to claims in this executive order, none of the 9/11 hijackers would have been affected by this ban. according to the cato institute, which is a conservative think tank, as you know, not a single person has been killed in the united states by a terrorist attack committed from the countries under this ban. more than 100 bipartisan national security experts argued that this ban endangers americans more. the fact that the united states has enacted a muslim ban is really a propaganda victory for extremist groups like isis who are already using it as a recruiting tool. more importantly, it's a hateful, unjust ban and it really does take a wrecking ball to the statue of liberty. halting refugees and immigrants
from six predominantly muslim nations is thinly veiled prejudice and islamaphobia. this is not who we are as a nation. we're a nation of immigrants who have come together to form a more perfect union. congress should not allow the president to turn us into a country that turns its back on refugees and discriminates against people based on their religion. and so, you know, and i know the argument, that we're going to hear here, that the issue is being litigated in the courts. but -- and the congress shouldn't meddle, but i tell you one thing. we, as appropriators and as americans really have a duty as a member of -- as members of this committee to continue to do the work to reflect upon our american values, and that is to ban the -- to use our resources to further address our national security in ways that are reflective of the american way. >> thank you, ms. lee.
chairman carter. >> i rise in opposition to this amendment. executive order protecting the nation from foreign terror, terrorists entering the united states are valid exercise of the president's authority under section 212 f of the immigration and nationality act. and of the president's inherent powers over foreign policy. the majority of the provisions were not challenged in court. thus, this amendment is overly broad. those who were challenged have been held to be within the president's authority or are still being litigated in front of the supreme court. for these reasons, i oppose this amendment and ask others to vote no. yield back. >> thank you, judge carter. your plan to withdraw the amendment. anyone further on the amendment? >> i do plan to withdraw the amendment.
>> okay, thank you. >> but i would just encourage members of this committee to really understand what is taking place in terms of these executive orders and in the future, we need to debate this more fully in this committee in terms of what we want to allocate and appropriate our resources for, in terms of our national security. >> thank you for the withdrawal. >> thank you for withdrawing the amendment. >> further amendments. mr. pocan is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have pocan amendment number one. >> an amendment offered by -- >> is it considered read? please proceed. >> thank you, mr. chairman. so i want to thank ms. lee for her amendment and she talked about the muslim ban, but this specifically is a very narrow approach regarding the decision around familiar -- familial relationships. i would hope that we might be able to recognize those familial relationships that include grandparents and grandchildren that would count as close family relationships, just listening to my colleague, mr. stewart, talk
about holding his grandchild, i think that's a common feeling that people have, that as a close relationship, and yet under the current language under the trump administration, those grandparents wouldn't be considered as close family relationships. the bona fide relationship that came through the supreme court decision on its preliminary ruling on the muslim ban. under the directive the trump administration made an arbitrary list of relationships that weren't an exemption from a ban. this list only included a small number of family relationships while continuing to ban grandparents and other close members of people living in the united states. the justification of the trump administration used that essentially considers the bona fide family members but doesn't consider grandparents. step-siblings count but not nieces and nephews. parent-in-laws are covered but not cousins. this arbitrary determination leaves countless people facing the humiliation of navigating a
series of arbitrary rules that devalue family relationships. in one of our colleagues, the person who i took her seat in congress, tammy baldwin, who now serves in the senate, was raised by her grandparents and that relationship is as close as any relationship that she has, and that's true for so many people. and the fact that under the current ruling, under the trump administration, they don't count doesn't make sense. so i think we have the opportunity to at least broaden that relationship to match what the courts in hawaii have decided, the u.s. district court, derek watson, and i would hope that this is something that we could support in this amendment. >> thank you, mr. pocan. chairman carter. >> i thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in opposition to the amendment. my opposition is the same talking points that i just used for ms. lee, so i'll save time and not say them over again. >> okay. ms. royal. >> mr. chairman, i rise in support of the pocan amendment.
when the supreme court misguidedly allowed the administration to go ahead with its flawed travel plan, the administration took a narrow view of the -- of who counted as close relatives. grandparents did not count. neither did grandchildren, brothers in law, sisters in law, a district court, as mr. polk said, state that had they should be counted as close relatives. this amendment would do just that and i urge my colleagues to support the amendment. >> ms. wasserman schultz is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in support of the pocan amendment. since united loving families should always be a goal, one of the greatest treasures that we have in life and something that unites all of humanity is our desire to be with our close family. and the freedom to visit these relatives is one that america cherishes. i'm sure that each and every one of us has hat some point worked on a constituent case related to the goal of allowing a close
family member of a constituent to immigrate to the united states. it is something that has a very strong pull. so, i strongly support mr. pocan's amendment to ensure that grandparents, in-laws and other close relatives can visit their u.s. relatives. this month, a federal judge ruled that president trump's temporary ban on travelers from six predominantly muslim countries should not stand in the way. the judge ruled what everyone from a large family knows, grandparents, brothers and sisters in law, aunts, uncles, nieces, cousins are bona fide relationships and should be permitted to visit u.s. relatives. in fact, the state department issued a similar directive just yesterday. despite that, confusion around this muslim ban has been rampant and congress must make clear, that's our job, that these recent rulings to respect familial relations expect the force of law. the administration has presented
no national security basis for barring these family members and i think it must be said that this muslim ban does nothing to make us safer. on the contrary, it makes us less so by diverting resources from legitimate threats. we're still at a stifling worthwhile educational exchanges and it's being used as a radical recuting tool for groups like isis. >> a minute to close. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just, you know, i know we often talk about family values in this town, and i think if we really want to respect those family values, this is an opportunity. opportunity, grandparents, grandchildren clearly are part and vparcel of family values i ourve debate half an hour ago. ifa would hope we could honor those close family memberships with this. >> all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say nay. chair, requisite number
of hands. clerk will call the roll. mr. aderholt. no. mr. aguilar, aye plchlt bishop, yes. mr. calvert, no. mr.ol carter, no. mr. cartwright? aye. miss clark? aye. mr. cole? mr. cole, no. mr. quear. mr. kulberson, no. miss deloro, aye plchlt dent, aye. mr. diaz ballard, no. mr. fleishman, no. mr. fortenberry, no. mr. friedlingheisen, no. mr. graves no. dr. harris? dr. harris, no. miss herrera butler, no. mr. jenkins? mr. jevengins, no. mr. joyce? mr. joyce? miss captore? aye.
mr. kilmer, aye. miss lee? miss lee, aye. mrs. loey? miss mccollum? aye. miss mang, aye. mr. molinar, no. mr. palazzo, no. miss pengry, aye. mr. pokan, aye. mr. price, aye. mr. quigley, aye. mrs. roby, no. rogers? miss roy balladard, aye. mr. ryan? aye. mr. [rserrano? aye. mr. simpson? mr. stewart, no. mr. taylor. mr. taylor, no. mr. valedeo, no.
>> on this vote the amendment is notmr agreed to. mr. serrano is recognized. for an amendment. >> mr. chairman, i rise to offee an amendment. i ask. that the reading be waived. >> consider it hel done. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. cost by the administration in the increase inn discrimination enforcement efforts. it would protect children and families from damaging separations by preventing i.c.e.
from removing parents of citizen children absent some serious criminality on the part of that parent. let me repeat that again. if the parent is a criminal determined by the court, this does not apply. this is a serious problem according to a 2015 report two options available are harsh. first if a child chooses to remain in the united states, they can loseco contact with thr come to rely ten on theth child welfare state, a significant costme to the state andd local government. second, if a citizen child decides to remain with their deported a parents then they ar de facto deported to a country
they arean likely unfamiliar wi and forced to abandon their country, the united states. by the way, i'm not a lawyer but would askbu those of you who ar i wonder if it's constitutional in a case like this, or any case, to deport an american citizen. and that's what you would be doing with the child. it is a lose/lose situation and should be our job to prevent it. our immigration policy should not promoteit family separation. we shouldpr be promoting family unity.as unfortunately, as with much of our immigration policy under this administration and others, these types of tragic circumstancesse are likely to re unless we take action. in the absence of comprehensive immigration reform, we are left with the appropriations process as the only vehicle to introduce some reasonableness into our immigration tsystem. thaty. is why i'm offering this amendment here today.
we should prioritize our children's best interest over mass deportation agenda. separating children of parents is no one's idea of a good immigration policy. this is our chance to stop these senseless policies against everything wesu stand for as a country. i urge support for my amendment. >> chairman carter? >> h i rise in opposition to th amendment. an unconstitutional program created by the obama administration and the usurption of congress' power over immigration, law and policy. it was authorize the main element of the program currently under injunction until the supreme court hears the case. further any immigrationen statu of aliens here illegally is at issue. judiciary committee and
beyond the jurisdiction of this committee. thereforein i oppose this amendment and ask that you vote against it. >> i rise in strong support of the meserrano amendment. when it comes to children who aree citizens of this country, e should be putting their needs first, particularly if their parents havemi not committed serious crimes and do not pose a threat to others. during the last half of 2016, dhs removed 14,161 people who are apparents of a united states citizen minor. in los angeles, where i'm from, 424 were removed. in new york city, 95 were removed. in houston, 369. el paso, 281, in chicago, 24. atlanta, 418 and the list goes on. each one represents a family torn apart and at least one u.s. child faced with either leaving
their homeland to be with their parent orr facing a life witho parent. i urge thehe adoption of this amendment. >> thank you, negentlewoman for her comments. a minute to close, mr. serrano? > right.lk the important point to keep in mind is that we'rere not talkin about giving a free pass to a criminal. who has committed a crime, serious enough for the court to consider serious would not be covered under this ruling. what i'm'm r trying to do is sa that a child who was born here, is an american citizen, should not be m deported. in many cases the child gets deported or left behind to become a ward of the state because there's no one to take care of them. there's not necessarily a family to take care of them. it's a unique situation, a difficult situation.di i think this is a simple solution to it.
no child born in this country can have a parent who is found by the courts not to have committedy a serious crime deported for any reason. thank you. >> thank you, sir. questions on the gentleman from new york's amendment. all thosean in favor, say aye. >> ayaye. >> all those opposed say nay. >> nay. >> the h chair, the nays have i. sufficient hands. clerk will call role. aderholt no. mr. aguilar, aye. mr. bishop? mr.al bishop, aye. mr. calvert? mr. carter? >> no. >> mr. carter, no. mr. cartwright? aye. miss clark, aye. mr. cole, no. mr. cuear. no. mr. dent? mr. dent no. mr. diaz ballard? no. mr. fleischman, no. mr. fortenberry, no.
mr. friedlingheisen, no. mrs. granger, no. mr. graves? no. dr. harris? dr. harris, no. miss herrera-butler? no. mr. jenkins. mr. jenkins, no. mr. joyce? no. miss captor? aye. mr. kilmer? mr. kilmer, aye. miss lee? aye. mrs. loey, aye. miss mccollum? ae. miss ang. molinar no. mr. palazzo? miss pingry, aye. mr. pokane? aye. mr. prierks aye. mr. quigly, aye. mrs. roby, no. mr. rogers, no.
mr. rooney, no. miss roy balladard, aye. mr. ryan, aye. mr. serrano, aye. mr. simpson, no. mr. stewart, no. mrs. taylor, no. mr. valededdo, no. miss wasserman-schultz. >> mr. cuear. is an aye plchlt calvert recorded no. >> mr. palazzo. >> recorded no. >> anyone further? if not, clerk will call the role. or tally.
on this vote the ayes are 22 and the nays are 30. the amendment is not agreed to. further amendments. let's see. who was in line here? mr. price, in order of seniority. >> yes. >> amendment on the desk. >> amendment offered by mr. price. >> distinction, of course. >> yes, distinction. >> staffing shortage and pay for the increase in cvp staffing by reducing the bloating funding
for i.c.e. enforcement.re this sub committee has targeted our limited forces to target people who p have committed serious crimes. that's not provided a free pass for anybody but has assumed that discretion must be exercised by authorities. something that every law enforcement agency does. secretary kelly also talk a good talk about targeting dangerous people. but their enforcement actions, in reality, are unfocused and indiscriminate.er i.c.e. atlanta field office, my home state of north carolina, nearly 700 arrests of immigrants with no criminal records from january through marched of this year compared with only 137 such arrests during the comparable period in 2016.
>> $705 billion, immigration enforcement by i.c.e., 44,000 attention beds at a time that apprehensions are actually downe and 1,000 additional i.c.e. offers.he and agents. it's tripled from fiscal '03 to fiscal '16. there's not a need for 1,000 additional hires and more than the department could properly vet and train. there is another need, though. kroniccally understaffed the bill includes no new funding for the shortage of nearly 3,500 officers today. these officers serve our country by promoting legitimate travel and trade.
preventing illegal entry of individuals and prohibitive goods. cep officer encountered over 274,000 undocumented immigrants, 600,000 pounds of illegal narcotics, 62 million in illegal currency, all the while processing over 390 million legitimate travelers and 2.2 trillion in legal imports over land, air and sea. trade and travel related job creation. ports of entry. our amendment would take a significant step toward fixing this problem, $704 million for additional increase in funding and reallocate first custom
officers. and secondly, homeland security investigations. prioritizing this investigations work will do far more to keep our communities safe and nation security, small business owner, religiousng leaders, others who have committed no other crime beyond crossing -- i urge adoption of our amendment. >> thank you, mr. price. chairman carter? >> i rise in opposition to the amendment offered by mr. price and miss captor. cutting the ons funding release ofof criminals and other removae aliens in the communities across the country. lead to increase border crossings as smugglers, rule of law no longer exists, adding funding to hire cep officers is commendable. as we all know, struggle to hire
cannot share that concern.en i have more confidence in the ability tore hire and retain custom officers than it does in its ability to hire and retain border patrolt agents, which t funds.ready i amm hopeful that improvements they've made to their hiring processes will allow it to hire additional kcustom officers mr. price is proposing to fund. ice know one thing for sure, however. if we don't provide funding for new officers, cbp will
definitely be unable to headache any progress toward its hiring goal. ien urge my colleagues to suppo the amendment. >> do you want to go first? >> i rise in strong support of the price captor amendment and said sai to my colleagues, p-o-r-t-s. if you look i at n the differen accounts, short changed for far too long. they have chronic understaffing for years. what's interesting is if you read the report itself, it says
that most foreign source illegal drugs and contraband are transported through the p-o-r-t-s p-o-r-t-s of entry.. pretty clear. i includes no new funding to address cbp's current front line staffing short anls at the p-o-r-t-s of entry. to reiterate, a longstanding existing vacancy rate of nearlyo 1,400 existing cbp officers at the port and cbp's own analytic, which means additional 2,000 need to be hired to meet the we're we're talking p-o-r-t-s officer shortage of 3,500 today. meanwhile an additional $100 million has been included in ody this bill to hire 500 more
border patrol agents for the southern border despite the reality that the committee acknowledges in this very bill their concern that attrition continues to outpace hiring of the border patrol agents.ues to further we've seen a steady rol klein in the individuals ady de attempting to cross thecl bordes as we've seen a steady uptick in violations of human rights perpetrated by the current the border patrol agents. the committee acknowledges thata current agents have gone as faro as to violate our laws, in denying asylum to refugees. the reality is the number of immigration and customs enforcement agents has nearly tripled since 2003. funding for an additional 1,000 more. we we know what will happen to children, asylum seekers and long-time residents who pose no tosk to public safety. to fund 500 more border control agents and,000 additional incht c.e. agents when our ports are
desperate and the need is desperate for inspection, we also have an economic argument in that for every 33 additional cbp officers hired the u.s. potentially gains over 1,000 hiivate sector jobs. don't you get complaints with your companies with the boats all lined up and they can't get stuff through the ports? long delays in passenger and commercial lanes as travelers and cargo wait to enter our country, resulting in economic losses to our economy. in our own region, the great owe lakes,ac p-o-r-t-s are significantly understaffed. border security and mitigating wait times at the ports of entre require adequate cbp staffing ae our ports of entry. that's why we must reprioritizen our accounts and fund agencies. i'm begging him somehow as the
bill moves toward support the price captor amendment in a workable form. >> thank you. miss loey is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in strong support of the price captor amendment. unreasonable increases to detention beds and use it more wisely, including to combat a real epidemic facing our nation, human trafficking. it will also provide support to cbp officers. their presence is widely understood to be integral to unt cross border trade. these are much worthier efforts than funding an unnecessary wall or increase funding to tear families apart. for example, listen to these
numbers. national national human trafficking hotline sooved ports of 8,042 cases of human trafficking. 35% increase from 2015.ease we must provide law enforcement trth the tools to eliminate human trafficking. human trafficking is happening everywhere, every day, affecting all nationalities, age ranges and socioeconomic statuses.stlyn to stomp it out far better use of taxpayer dollars and increased enforcement and andd increased detention beds. vote for the amendment. >> miss wasserman-schultz is >> recognized. >> i rise in strong support of mr. price's important amendment for much of the reasons that the
gentlelady for new york just went through.the reas i think it's important that we t note that this nation currently spends $2 billion a year and over $5 million a day on immigrant detention. i.c.e. is mandated to keep 34,000 detention beds occupied each day. completely arbitrary and costly bedd mandate and the majority ns seeks to increase that number even more. it is disgraceful.se tha no other law enforcement agency no subjectedd to a quota dictatd by congress. instead of spending critical taxpayer funds on this endeavor, we should be spending money to combat genuine atrocities shall such as human trafficking. human trafficking is a devastating crime and a form ofi modern day slavery, exploitation of women and children, society's most vulnerable members. that's who we need to be looking out for in the homeland security bill.in department of department of stateom estimates between 13,500 to 17,500 peoplei are trafficked in the united
states each year. under the justice for victims trafficking act, combat human trafficking and that report was completed in january of this we we talked about how horrific human trafficking is. we ordered studies and reports a and now it is time for us to act. we are we areno deeply committed to combating the scourge of human trafficking and urge my colleagues to do more than just talk about our relentless opposition to human trafficking. >> mr. price, a minute to close. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the amendment that i've offered is quite straightforward. it increases our security while simultaneously increasing the flow of people and commerce. increasing increasing the number of cbp er. officers has been a bipartisan priority for members of this committee for many years. their request dates back to the bush administration.
we now have an opportunity to act on this. nd we can do it without a single fee increase, without a single i change in thencre tax c simply by being good stewartstef taxpayer dollars. n i urge the adoption of the >> amendment. >> thank you. questions on the amendment? aml those in favor say aye. all those opposed say nay. chair, the nays have it. >> mr. aderholt, no. mr. aguilar, aye. mr. amaday, no. mr. bishop? yes. mr. mr. calvert? no. no. mr. mr. carter? no. no. mr. mr. cartwright? aye. miss miss clark, aye. mr. cole? no. mr. mr. cuear, i. miss deloro, aye. mr. dent, no.
mr. diaz ballart, no. mr. fleischman, no. mr. fortenberry, no. mr. friedlinheisen, no. mr. graves, no. dr. harris? no. miss miss herrera butler, no. mr. jenkins? no. mr. mr. joyce? mr. mr. joyce? miss miss capt aye. mr. kilmer? aye. mr. kilmer? aye. miss lee, aye. miss m police loey, aye. miss mccollum. aye. aye. miss mang, aye plchlt molinar, no. mr. mr. newhouse? no. mr. mr. palazzo, no. miss pingry, aye. mr. pokane, aye. mr. price? mr. mr. cquigly, aye. mrs. roby, no. mr. rogers?
no. mr. mr. rooney? mr. mr. rooney no. miss roy balladard, aye. mr. ruthlessburger, aye. mr. ryan? mr. ryan? mr. serrano? aye. mr. mr. simpson? no. no. mr. mr. stewart, no. mr. taylor. mr. taylor no. mr. valedello, no. miss wasserman-schultz, aye. mr. yoder, no. mr. young? mr. young? no. >> >> members who wish to record their vote? mr. ryan? >> mr. ryan is recorded as an >> aye. >> mr. joyce, how would you like to be recorded? >> mr. joyce has record a no. y >> anyoneis further voting one y
or another? if not the clerk will tally. ayes are 22, nays are 30. gree >> mr. chairman id have an >> will you amendment. >> will you consider it read by >>e clerk in time is yours, five >> minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman.tem f an item of great importance. repeated evidence over the past decade has shown -- may find this surprising.
even though a lot of these jobs offer competitiveve wages, s of agricultural types, they're lly physically demanding, outdoors. you're subject to the elements. often seasonal or transitory. w it's been aork. concern for man years.co today, today, largefo segments of the i agriculture industry in our country means a critical lack o workers. commonly commonly thought of as the guest guest worker program. just not working for all of agriculture. agriculture agriculture has changed. modern techniques.
producing greenhouses. certainly the dairy industry, which is currently excluded from utilizing the h2a program. milking cows is not seasonal. they need to be milked every two day. 365 365 days a year. most of you have dairy in your district. i know i know all of you have dairy in your state. so this is something that should be of importance to you. farms have multiple seasons condensed into their operations. my amendment is simple. it clarifies all of agriculturef may use h2a programs.
to be clear h2a would still be a temporary program, not changing the time limits that a worker employed through the program can stay in the united states.re it would just ensure that all of agriculture can utilize this invaluable program. small starting point, something we can do to provide farmers who need access to workers by just making it clear that all of ag canan utilize h2a and would ask that all of my compadres would please accept the amendment. >> i'm suread they'reres pl lis. thank you, mr. newhouse. itairman carter? >> thank you, mr. chairman.
i rise in strong support of this >> any amendment. >> any further -- you have a minute to close.e. includi anyone further? >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> miss captor? >> i would like a clarification from the chair or gentleman offering the amendment. is this considered language from an authorizing committee? including authorization language in an appropriations bill? >> happen to yield to whoever might care to address it. >> i'm informed the judiciary committee does not have any objection to this. >> our bills are being invaded by the authorizing language and although the gentleman made a very worthy proposal that's a deep concern of mine. >> thank you, miss captor. >> i'll just agree. i hear time and time again this is okay with the authorizing commit when when i first was on this
committee, what we needed to have was a letter.on thi wes literally had a letter fro the ranking member and from the chair of the committee jointly saying that they were waiving, didn't need a hearing on this. i've noticed this trend before. and i was going to say so now i'm doing the last time it came up, mr. newhouse. la i'm doing it on yourng legislation. who who has bec signed off on it? a the chairman? >> miss nd mdeloro is recognize >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. this this is a radical step that fundamentally changes.ing prich is intended to provide labor for businesses that are seasonal or temporary. h2a program is that it prevents
year-round jobs from being taken by foreign workers. employers that are trying to fill year-round jobs are going to do so by competing like other employers by raising wages and o by improving working conditions. this is clearly legislating on an appropriations bill. afl-cio. ufcw ufcw and farm worker justice just learned of this amendment and oppose both the way that this is being done. and the substance of the amendment. the the place to start. legalization of workers that art here and who are experienced. e the implications of this
amendment are not fought through and without a policy that discovers -- discourages overstay and protects u.s. rages workers that want these jobs, an this ist very misguided. we strongly urge you to oppose this amendment. i strongly urge you to oppose this amendment. and the notion that we can just, all of a sudden, come up with tt somethingha at the last minute r some reason or for someone's interest on this is in inappropriate. >> mr. inappropriate. >> mr. cuear? >> >> i respectfully disagree with my fellow colleagues here. i do support this amendment uppt because, again, i represent an area that has a lot of ag. and i've seen a lot of constituents who have been willing to pay lot$14, $15 an
more but they can't find any n't as they as they mentioned. my my father is a migrant worker. it's a hard job. if an american wants to do it, let them do it. there's no american worker that wants to do that then in order to keep our ag industry working, we need ag workers.ongly it's the right thing to do. >> thank you. do.uilar is recognized. >> i want to stand and speak in support. nearby nearby communities by allowing employers to hold the h2a program.ts struggle struggle to have the necessa necessary -- allow them to hire temporary foreign help. rural and agriculture communities continue to s >> >> i think there are some
details. allows allows us to continue to have -- >> have a minute to close. mr. newhouse? and we're going to vote. >> chairman, thank you all for your thoughtful comments on this very important issue. let me just remind you that these still will not be permanent workers. there still is an 11-month limit that these people could be in the united states and have to go back to their home country. so, it has been thought through also. implications implications of doing this hav been very well thought through. and the implications are that our agriculture industry will have the necessary workers theyy need to w continue to put food n fiber in front of the a i would ask population. i would ask support for the >>
amendment. >> thanks to the gentleman. newhouse amendment, all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say nay. opinion of the chair the ayes have it. amendment is agreed to. further amendment? >> mr. chairman i have an amendment at the desk. >> amendment offered by miss roy >> balladard. >> be considered read. >> it is considered read and the gentlewoman is recognized. >> mr. chairman, this a simple, straightforward amendment. specifically give the secretary of homeland security the authority for deferred action for childhood arrivals program v or e thedoca. although i believe the secretary implicitly has such authority today, my amendment would make it explicit. doca provides a certain way for young people brought to this it. country as children, also knowne as b dreamers, to continue liviw here in the only home they knowy or remember.
it allows them to study legally. they must have clean records when they when they first signed up for the program it was an opportunity to come out of the shadows, to put anxieties of the past behind them and focus on the future. it would be the very definition of cruelty to take that away.wo i know this committee is often i uncomfortable in authorizing appropriations bills. i think we are a little bit pregnant in this record. in general, we should avoid using authorizing language unless the circumstances are gel particularly escompelling. i can think of nothing more compelling than helping these individuals who find themselvess on such dire circumstances through no fault of their own. this amendment, as intended, have the highest, lightest possible touch to hopefully ouct
achieved a just result. while it is an authorization, it would not compel theesult. pres or the secretary to do anythingh if you have the authority to continue the program if he chooses to do so. i urge my colleagues -- no, i actually plead with my colleagues to not waste this s. opportunity and to do the right thing by these young americans. let's not turn our backs on them now. thank thank you, mr. chairman. and i ask for an aye vote. >> i rise in strong opposition to this amendment. while i understand the ranking member's concerns, this bill is not the proper place to
adjudicate this program.bill i the future status of these m. individuals should be decided by the committee of the jurisdiction and by the administration not by the juris appropriations dicommittee. therefore i pose this amendment and i urge everyone to vote against this amendment. thank you. >> discussion. >> i rise in strong support of the amendment. with the mixed messages coming out of the administration on deferred action for dreamers, families need the stability this measure provides. dreamers are brought to this a country at very young ages. they grow up with our children or grandchildren, have similar cultural experiences to our children or grandchildren and e, know america as home. we are in dire need of comprehensive immigration
reform. until until then, let's give families in our community the clarity to live productively and free fro fear. support supportla this amendment. >> gentlewoman? >> gentlewoman, mr. aguilar is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. -- authorizes the daca program into law. thr they were brought to this country to this country throughe no fault of their own consider . themselves americans, living and working, going to school in the only nation they have known.cont -- these young people actively contribute to our communities and have built lives here. daca currently upheld by and executive order -- -- with that hundreds of thousands of young people living
within our borders has been unclear. this allow the yll administration an opportunity to weigh in, authorizing the -- -- this isn't just about a thes policy. these are aboutou peoplet peop families and their live lively have been built -- -- if we want to let the promisp to dreamers crumble we threaten the future of hundreds of ttee thousands of young people living in our communities and across the country. urge the committee to do the right thing and support this amendment. >> thank you. the legislation right before thg rider -- authorizing language. this is, also, authorizing language and i would ask the chairman to consider this. i know it's difficult but it's
one of the right thing to do. there's a lot of kids brought in at a very young age.the in fact, contestants under rick perry as secretary of state we actually had a -- a -- the first dreamer one of the first dreamer legislations to allow kids to be able to go off to college. we done that in a very conservative state like texas and ought to do this. these kids, some of them don't know anything else, might not know mexico or guatemala or anot another country. they know the united states. this is where they were raised. i would ask the members we take a record vote to support this particular -- this particular rider, it's the right thing to do and we need to do this for our country.we n thank you. >> further? >> this is a very emotional issue and the emotions run rampant. it's emotional for both sides of the aisle. but, the reality is patchwork ol
top of patchwork on top of patchwork on top of patchwork is what's wrong with our immigration policy in the united states. now, many of you know that we're here i guess it would be now five years ago a group of fi republicans, very conservative republicans, and democrats very liberal democrats gathered in a room for almost two years and ls met every week. we decided if as hard-headed everybody in that room were concerned, we could -- if we could actually make progress on immigration reform, it would be something that would be supported by this conference onu both sides.thin so, we did it. and the most amazing thing about that was and as people in the room, i know he was there, a few others, the amazing thing was
the staff was included, the ones we always accuse of telling people what's going on and not one word was picked up by the press. not in the entire time we did that. if nothing else, i think that dis a devine providence putting hand positive on that action. we came up with a solution a lot of people have been discussing right here today.scus it was done the right way. we had a bill, we came out with a bill, that was supported by liberal democrats, conservatives republicans and both sides were going to have trouble selling their side what they felt like o they could do it. that's the way you fix immigration policy in the united states. what was the result?what leadership of both parties opposed it. now, that's a fact!that i it is still sitting in my
right-hand drawer..it one of these days, somebody's going to have sense enough to ask for it, although by that av time probably all the people that were on that effort will be either dead or left congress. l but theef bottom line is, that' what we need do. many times our democratic o do friends say we need immigration reform and they're right. what we need to do it, the way it was designed by our founding fathers, not by patches by regulators and people who have p cause in this appropriation committee. that's the wrong way to do it.nc right now, the president has president this is on hold. the courts are looking at this o and this is not the way to go s about doing this. and this is serious. this is affecting many, many, many thousands of lives.
i admit that. i think friends on our sides admit that. but, if we don't do it the right way then the next time we changr people in this congress, they will do it the wrong way again. and on something as serious as this, it's time for us to step back and say this is not the right way to do it and the is threat is not so real we need to do it. fear drives fear. in this country. and i would urge you, urge you, to let's try to do this through regular order in the committeese of jurisdiction and let's fights that battle there on something so serious as these young peopli that you're talking about. i want to say that in this alki process, doing it today, i oppose it and i hope you'll join me in opposing. >> thank you.
the close, mr. cerrano is recognized. >> just very briefly, uh, i don't usually like to disagree with another member because i'mh not that kind of a person but you said there are emotions on both sides, mr. chairman, and there are. and i think ionsyou, also, allu to that there was a difference of opinion. well, i did something and i've done something in the past few years that, as i watch on the other side the faces of people wondering what they're thinking when we discuss this subject, th because this subject is not as simple as other subjects, it's not as cut and dry as other subjects. i i believe, and notwithstandin what the final vote will be on voy of these amendments, there are sentimentte on on the othea of the aisle, on the republican side, for this issue to be
resolved and resolved here. listen to me closely: i honestly believe that many of you of honestly agree with us or agree with yourselves that this is tht right thing to do to take care e of these young people that knowo no or country except this one.on and so, probably the final result will be a party line or whatever people think the party line is.atev but, i don't think, in the republican party, it's clear-cut on how people feel about dreamers and about daca and about these young people. i think people understand that they fall into a different category. they came here through no choice of their own. they grew up in this country.wna you've heard it a million times, they know no other country. they don't speak english with a spanish accent. if they speak spanish, they speak it with an american spe accent. they are as american as apple ec
pie. and they should remain that way and we should not throw them tt out.way. thank you. >> thank you. gentleman a minute to close. >> i>> t wish the authorization committee had the will to do the right thing.n i wish the congress had the will to doll t the right thing. rig but, how many more years do we have to wait for that to happen? in the meantime, i'd like to believe that we are not doomed to per pet wul intransigence. i would like to think there is middle ground and common ground we can find, something that recognizes the owners of controlling our borders acknowledging the flight faced c by so many immigrant families. if we are ever to reach middle ground, we need to start somewhere and i'd like to think of no -- or i can think of no ik better or fair place than with
this amendment. my colleagues, i ask that you support this amendment so that the dreamers can continue looking forward to their future as part of this great nation, the only nation they know. thank you, mr. chairman. i ask for a vote -- >> -- questions on the >> a gentlewoman's amendment? all those in favor -- yes, seeking -- >> if i -- >> -- strike the last word, please. >> strike the last word. >> happy to recognize you. >> i have great respect for the chairman and i understand what d he was about what authorizing i appropriations bill but i'm really puzzled with that argument because, having worked on this issue, as he said so eloquently for two years, he probably understands more than most of the people in this room. we give our particular experiences. i talk about how families need
stability. i'mow just giving one example. but, there have been many about authorizing in the appropriations bill. if i'm not mistaken, on financial services, there was an 80-page bill that was included bi the financial services appropriations bill. seems to me, last time i checked, that's authorizing on an appropriations bill, sir.that so, i think, given the emotions on this issue, giving the mixed messages that are coming out of the administration on deferred action for dreamers, it seems to me families desperately need the stability that this measure es d provides. and i wantly needs t to repeat dreamers are brought to this ouh country at very young ages. they grow up with our children. they have similar cultural experiences to our children, rin
they know america as home. so, i agree with the distinguished chairman, my friend, that we need ith comprehensive immigration rehe reform. but, until then, for all of us, think carefully about we'd carf rather not include authorizations on our appropriations bills, but we've all had the experience of votine for it, most of us have. so, let's give families in our community the clarity to live productively, free from fear. this is an urgent issue. many of us in our communities understand how much pain and suffering is being caused now. so, i just plead with the chairman again, let's make airm another exception besides let financial services.ak this is important -- >> thank the gentlewoman for her comments. questions on the amendment, all those in favor say --
amendment at the desk. >> -- will read. >> -- offered by mr. aguilar. >> considered read. please proceed. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment seeks to dispel the authorization appropriation piece of the debate that we just had. my amendment simply prohibits any funds being used to eliminate the deferred action for childhood arrivals program. within this subcommittee mark, within this bill, dak ka recipients or dreamers were brought here to the united states. i wanted to run through just a few of the eligibility requirements since we've been talking about the program. children under the age of 16 at time of entry under the age of 31 by 2012 continuous residence in the united states at least five years, physical presence in the united states since 2012 at the time the request was made not in lawful immigration status, not convicted of a
felony, in school, graduated from high school, obtained general education development circ cat or honorably discharged by the united states armed forces or coast guard. this is about keeping a promise to our kids. i understand if we want to have further discussions about this process. mr. chairman, i am completely with you that we need to have this comprehensive approach. our colleagues have talked about it in their opening remarks and i could not be more supportive of those efforts. what my amendment seeks to do is say, for this year, for this fiscal year while we have those discussions, why can't we prevent the administration from eliminating these programs so we can have this discussion so we can talk about protecting our kids, so we can talk about what the future of this immigration program looks like? we're having amendments on -- -- or stuff. you mentioned password solutions and i agree but already doing
that. if we are offered patchwork solutions, why shouldn't we include these young dreamers. why shouldn't their voices be heard here? that's all i'm asking with amendment, it simply prevents the administration from ending this program in this fiscal year. not authorization, it puts this committee on record and there may be efforts to -- to remove this provision later on in the process. and i look forward to standing with those -- with those, as well. but right here, right now, why can't these kids have a voice? why can't we allow and speak for them and to say we want this program, we recognize your status, we want to do everything we can that's right by you as you fulfill the promise that you have? thank you, mr. chairman. >> chairman carter? >> mr. chairman, again, i rise in opposition to this amendment, also. the important issues we have talked about here, we're
concerned with them. they need to be addressed but this must not be done in a possible manner and this is not the place to do it. any decisions on the future of this program need to be made by the committee of jurisdiction once again. not through an amendment on this bill barring the use of funds. mr. goodlatt, chairman of the judiciary committee opposed to the language and will fight it on the floor. and the reality is this is and emotional issue as we talked about. the patch goes on if this passes today it gets ripped off by mr. goodlatt. is this a good thing for the people who we're dealing with? i say it's not. i say we know what our responsibilities are and they've been shirked in some places and this is not the place it is to be done so i strongly oppose this gentleman's agreement and i ask for a no vote. >> thank you.
>> mr. chairman, i rise in strong support of the aguilar amendment. as mr. aguilar discussed, this amendment would prohibit funding for d.h.s. to stop the daca program. let me just say anyone who on theed let me just say anyone who on theed anyone who on theed to objected to my amendment because of the language this should be an acceptable alternative. these young people brought to this country as children, sometimes infants, are under constant threat of deportation to a country they don't know and where they may not even speak the language. the daca program simply puts their cases on hold until congress gets its act together on comprehensive immigration reform. they deserve a chance to work or to continue their education in the only home they know or remember. taking this opportunity away from them now would be cruel and it would punish those young people coming forward and attempting to do the right
thing. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. >> the gentlewoman. mr. taylor recognized. >> i rise to speak to this amendment. i do believe this is neither the time or place for this argument. so as the last one i will be opposing it. however, i do think that this debate a bipartisan one is one we should have in this congress. the president has said he's going to keep the daca program in place but the overall legal standing of the program is questionable. a long-term solution has yet to be debated and acted upon. but, we should have this debate. to me, these kids grown up on our soils are just as american as i am. the child should not pay or be held accountable for the crimes or actions of their parents. i look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and the authorization committees and this one to find a compassionate, fair, and long-term solution. i yield back. >> mr. taylor. mr. quigley recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman.
i support this amendment but want to suggest that -- and i respect the words of the ranking -- chairman of the subcommittee here. i think it's fair for us to say, okay, if we're not going to authorize then nobody authorizes, right. we're not going to have any policy riders, go through the whole cycle with no policy riders. they're authorizing, right? we use broad-based concepts and rules to justify our views on a particular bill. in the final analysis, it's almost always a matter of convenience, right. one day we're federalists and one day we're not, we're anti-federalists. one day we are big on states' rights and if it doesn't pay we'll change our mind. government's role in society needs to change at the same pace. so, i appreciate the concept, but i've been here in what, no,
several terms in this committee and it we've never followed these rules, flip-flopped whenever it was convene gent to do so to support the concept of the bill we are looking at. so, i'd be glad to follow those dictates consistent across the board. thank you. >> further discussion on the aguilar amendment? mr. diaz-balart? >> first i have to tell you i've had multiple conversations with the sponsor of this amendment and i know what he's going to say. just like i know because i've dealt with the chairman of the subcommittee, i know he's been involved in these issues longer than a lot of folks have. and so, the votes that are now being protected by daca are kids that deserve our protection. those are individuals, you know, one thing that defines the united states, we're meritocacy and don't judge people for their relatives do but what they do and these folks did not make the
decisions to come to the united states and now they are in this limbo. the question is not, in my view, whether protecting the daca kids is the right thing to do. the question is, does this amendment do that? and, frankly, i'm not sure because and again the sponsor of the amendment and i have had these conversations. i know he's sincere. we've talked about potential ways forward to protect the daca kids. what's the best way to protect those kids? and by the way i will tell you i would like to do -- and i know he would like to do even more than that -- and i just don't know, mr. chairman, if this is the right way to proceed. and does this actually help or actually hurt? i yield back. >> -- recognized. >> i'll be very brief. i have respect for my good friend, mr. diaz ba-balart and chairman of the committee and i
haven't heard anyone so far in this debate saying we shouldn't be protecting these young peo e people. and i am just puzzled. we do all kinds of authorizing and all these appropriations bills. if we're all in agreement and the authorization process could take six months, a year, five years, i don't know how long it could take, let's just do this now, help these kids now. and i would like to know, mr. chairman, if there's anyone in the room that disagrees with supporting these daca kids. so, let's follow up with my good friend mr. diaz-balart with the heart-felt comments from the chair and let's do it now! this won't be the first time we've authorized. >> thank you. chairman and mr. aguilar to close. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i want to add something for informational purposes because i am sensitive to the jurisdictional issues here,
caught up in this before. this was my experience with it. my good friend the chairman of the interior and i worked last year very hard with our good friend the chairman of national resources on an issue about recognition of indian tribes. we literally thought we had an agreement and we placed that agreement in the appropriations bill. and, frankly, at the last moment, the chairman changed -- of the natural resources committee changed his mind and pulled our thing right out of the bill. and we had to go down to the floor and have a colloquy. so mr. quigley's point, we can do this if you've got the chairman on board. at the authorizing committee. that really is the deciding factor because that person has the ability to file a point of order that will break it out. in this case, i think what my good friend judge carter is telling us, he doesn't have that.
and so, given that fact, we will, as he said, put a band-aid on it and rip it right off. this really does, sometimes the -- i'll give you [ inaudible ] -- very same issue. when my good friend mr. moran was the chairman of that subcommittee he came to me and said i agree on this issue. will you offer the amendment? i said, of course i will. i actually called up mr. simpson, ranking member. i said are you going to get mad? he said, tom, that's authorizing on an appropriation bill, we never do that. until we do. but, he said, make sure you've got the approval of the authorizing committees, which mr. moran had. it was going through natural resources, our good friend mr. rahall, no longer with us, was chairman. we got it to the senate and it died over there. the point is, it really does get down on these issues where is the authorizing chairman.
i will till yell you, back in t majority under speaker [ inaudible ] or ryan -- -- having gone to the floor and embarrassed myself thinking we had the agreement, i can tell you if you don't have that authorizing chairman, it won't happen. yield back. >> -- i appreciate the discussions and robust conversations my colleagues have had. my question is, if not now, when? what is our path? and why should one individual in this body of 435 be able to hold up these daca kids from being recognized? that's what this comes down and if someone shows me a path to get on the floor and have a conversation with our colleagues, i'll withdraw this. i haven't seen that path. so, i think these kids deserve a shot. individuals like melody from the los angeles area said, this is why it's topical, it's been very typical of this administration
to give really good news and follow it with really bad news. we really don't know if they're going to change their minds the next day. melody is a daca individual from guatemala at age 9 living in los angeles, she has a master's degree from the university of southern california. this affects her. let's give them that voice. let's pass this amendment. thank you. >> thank you. the question is on the gentleman's amendment. all in favor say "aye" -- amendment not approved in sufficient number. clerk will call a roll. (roll call) (roll call)
ayes, 25, nays 27 the amendment not agreed to and we are going to recess. please come back right after our three votes, i believe. do whatever you have to do, chow down and come back prepared for more amendments and the interior bill. thank you. >> c-span recently sat down with white house deputy press secretary to talk about her new role in the trump administration. she's the daughter of the former governor and discussed why she
joined the trump for president campaign. here's a preview: >> so, walk us through a typical day for sarah huckabee sanders. >> i don't know if there is a typical day but usually starts pretty early at 5:00 a.m. i get up and try to see at least -- i only have one early riser, hawk my 3-year-old usually spend time visiting him in the morning before i leave and get to the office early enough to try to read through and catch up on any news that took place before i went to bed and then we start with a series of [ inaudible ] talking about the news of the day. pressing for what we want the message of the day to look like and responding to any stories that may be coming up and, you know, from there, every day is a little different than the one before which is one of the reasons i love what we do is that no two days are alike and every day presents new challenges and gives us a new way to be part of the administration.
>> you get home when? >> it varies but usually anywhere between, you know, could be 7:00 to 10:00 at night. >> and as you take on this job, i mean, sean spicer had made a couple of changes, skype seats among them, how do you approach the job and relations with the media in general? >> you know, i think the same way i have relations with the media the way i approach that similar to any other relationship. i grew up in the south and so being hospitalability is something i think engrained in me at an early age i try to take to the workplace an do there. even though when i disagree, i try to be diplomatic and gracious about it but sometimes we have to be pretty aggressive and push back. i try to do that in a way that, again, is polite and hospitable
but strong and not weak. >> you can watch the sbeintervi tomorrow night on c-span. -- we'll have live coverage of the president's remarks beginning at 10:10 a.m. on our companion network c-span. -- our live coverage is saturday at 10:00 a.m. eastern. the super-carrier named after our 38th president, the navy's newest nuclear-powered high-tech aircraft carrier. president trump will attend at the naval base and deliver remarks to the more than 14,000 people expected to attend. saturday at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span and c-span.org. and listen live on the free c-span radio app. >> if you look across the park now and in this community it's hard to believe this was once a
thriving and booming business district but it really was. there were stores owned by black, white, you name it. a lot of people did a lot of business here. they didn't have to leave the communities. and before you knew it, a rock was thrown, a glass was broken. looting occurred. fire started and it wasn't just black folks. it was one of the most integr e integrated incident ever in detroit. >> a live american history tv special on the 50th anniversary of the 1967 detroit riots live sunday starting at noon eastern on american history tv on c-span3. >> the liberian education minister talking about the pros and cons of these schools. this is about 90 minutes.