tv Border Security Legislation Markup - Opening Statements and Amendments CSPAN October 4, 2017 8:07pm-11:29pm EDT
the committee's meeting today for consideration the border security for america act of 2017. chair announces that any request for recorded votes may be rolls and reset the committee at any point. without objections, so ordered. they plan to acquire adequate notice and will have the court apply notees to members. i recognize myself for an opening statement. this morning our committee has gathered to markup the border security for america act. before we begin i'd like to extend my thoughts and prayers to all the victims and the family members who have lost a loved one in the horrifying tragedy in las vegas sunday night. this kind of hatred deserves no place in our society. now is the time to come together and heal as one nation. going forward we must stand united and reject this kind of senseless violence. i'd also like to take a brief
moment to recognize the curages first responderse, coast guard, national guard, fema, countless volunteers who continue to work and rebuild communities in my home state of texas, in florida, in puerto rico and the u.s. virgin islands in the wake of recent hurricanes. we're extremely thankful to their dedication. to their fellow citizens we pray everyone effected can make a full recovery. today we will be reviewing legislation that will protect our homeland by strengthening the security of our borders. the american people are threatened by international terrorists, human traffickers, drug smuglers and transnational gangs like ms 13 to try and sneak into our country, bring harm to our communities and disrupt our way of life. allowing this to continue is completely unacceptable. our southern border is roughly 2,000 miles long. we must do more to keep it
secure and this markup will allow us to begin that process. the legislation before us is a 21st century multilayered approach that authorizes $10 billion for tactical infrastructure, including the construction of a wall were practical and effective. it provides new cutting edge technology and empowers the dshs secretary to take necessary actions. while advanced technology are important parts of achieving our goal, this bill goes even further and provides an additional $5 billion to modernize ports of entree while facilitating trade, deploying the national guard on the ground to assist with intelligence operations and aviation support and it insures the identification of visa over stays with a full implication of
an exit system, something the 9/11 commission recommended that was never fulfilled. this bill also adds 5,000 officers and 5,000 border patrol agents. they're our strongest assets as they serve on the front lines of the fight to control our border. the additional resources provided in this bill will allow tuse defeat drug car tells, stop leet lething gang members from infecting our neighborhoods. under the leadership of the president we've already begun to make progress in these areas by cracking down on illegal immigration. i'd like to commend the white house for a stricter vetting process from conflict zones and nations unwilling to meet basic informationing for the purposes of minimizing the terrorist threat. in written testimony provided to
the senate last week, acting secretary elaine duke highlighted the dangers posed by transnational criminal organizations, stating that they quote provide a potential means of transferring weapons of mass destruction to terrorists or for fac facilitating terrorist entry into the united states. end of quote. the world's most dangerous terrorists are only one plane ride away and they're always testing new ways to penetrate our borders. we'll never successfully secure our homeland until we're capable of controlling who can lawfully inter our country. the issue brings out a lot of emotion and presents many challenges. going forward the best way to prevent these challenges from reoccurring is by securing our border. and while we debate and discuss these topics, we must not forget that the united states is the most welcoming country in the
world. however, we cannot allow our adversaries to exploit. we only endanger the people we are sworn to protect by ignoring the problems along our border. as a representative from texas i've seen these problems first hand. as a member of congress we all have a solemn obligation under article one of the constitution to protect our homeland and keep the american people safe from anyone who wishes to bring us harm. today we have an important opportunity to work together and to pass this commonsense bill ourt of our committee and move it to the house floor. we have been talking about border security for so many years. and now we finally have a chance to get this done. we finally have a partner in the white house who has prioritized this issue. time for congress to do its part and get this job done.
i'm proud to acknowledge this legislation has co sponsored by 70 of our colleagues and we have momentum in both chambers of congress. several outside groups have submitted letters of support for this legislation. they include the federal law enforcement association, the border patrol union, the border trade alliance, the national fraternal ord of police among others and i ask unanimous consent to enter those letters into the record without objection. so let's work to get this bill to the president's desk so we can provide the american people with the security they have long demanded and deserve. with that i now recognize the ranking member, mr. thompson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. before i share my thoughts on this bill, i'd like to express my deep condolences to the nearly 60 families that lost luvled ones and the over 500 people who were injured by a man
armed to the teeth earlier this week in las vegas. i urge my colleagues to join me and other gun owners to pass commonsense reforms to prevent further mass casualty attacks. while the fbi has found no link to isis, this is clearly a domestic terrorist attack. turning to the matter at hand, a simple promise input's campaign was that he would build a big, beautiful wall across the entire southern border and mexico would pay for it. that was a time in a not too distant past when this committee cared about farkcts, data and results. we supported them having a border strategy, presenting matrix and deploying personnel and equipment to adjust to threats. last month the department of homeland security provided
evidence that our responsible approach to border security is paying off. in a 20-page report dhs concluded available data indicates that the southwest land border is more difficult to illegally cross today than ever before. dhs found that inflow is down and as our apprehension rates t is getting harder and harder to cross and less people are trying. i ask unanimous consent to place that in the record. >> without objection, so ordered. >> we are today considering a fiscally irresponsible measure to formally authorize president from's wall at all cost. we would hear throughout the day that this is a $15 billion bill. actually the cost is much higher
and one thing is for sure. they will not be born by mexico. it will be american taxpayers, land owners, the environment and native americans that will bare these costs. i've seen estmats that construction costs for the wall would be between 20 to $70 billion and since hr 3548 does not include any mileage limitations, spesification or cost control, there's no telling how much it will actually cost to build. to date the federal government owns a third of those sections of the southwest border that do not have physical barriers. as such, to fulfill president trump's promise of a big, beautiful wall, it would trigger the most expensive federal take ins that this nation has seen. this is not my expectation.
the president made it clear he expects to pursue legal actions against ranchers and land owners and wants to hire a team of imminent domain attorneys to do it. if history is any indication when the federal government wants land to build barriers, it's ranchers and small land owners who bear the biggest cost. a decade after the secure fens fence act, there's still 93 americans waiting to get paid for land taken by the federal government. the federal government may see a quarter acre as worth a couple hundred dollars. but to a land owner whoseler had it in their family for generations, requirit's pricele. santa ana wildlife refuge and other federal lands would be cogged up.
also cogged up would be the habitat and endangered species that they protect. it would make it difficult for wildlife to move across the border, including american jaguars, and -- which have begun to return to various parts of the u.s. after a long absence. a 28-thousand member native american tribe would also pay a steep price. their tribe controls 75 miles along the u.s. mexican border and one tribe member explained the wall would cut through our ancestral lands and it divides families that have been able to go back and forth freely since before the border line was drawn. this bill has hidden costs too. on the top of page 73, it states there are authorized to be
appropriated to u.s. customs and border protection as may be necessary to increase the annual rate of basic pay for employees. mr. chairman, i believe cbt personnel should be adequately paid but the way this bill goes about it, calls into question the seriousness of that effort. the absence of offsets for the $15 billion authorization violates the general protocols issued by the republican house leadership for bills to be considered and the 115th congress. i ask unanimous consent to submit the general protocols into the record at this time. >> so ordered. >> mr. chairman, this bill would authorize trump's border wall at all cost. it is a $15 billion boon doggal that abandons past bipartisan
efforts to stop throwing money that border in favor of strategically deploying resources. i hope that after today we can have a serious conversation about the border and move forward together in a productive manner. with that i yield back. >> other committee members reminded statements may be submitted later for the record. >> mr. chairman. reserving the right to object and i will not object, would the chair please explain our agreement regarding the amendment roster? i yield to the chairman. >> i thank all committee members for agreeing to the use of the roster. we've agreed that the amend mntd and the nature of the substitute is open at any point and that we shall take up amendments in the
order listed on the roster. the chair will allow members to offer amendments listed on the roster out of order to the extent practable and in a manner not prohibited by rules. it may be considered at the conclusion of the consideration of the roster. >> i thank the chair for this explanation and withdraw my reservation. >> i recall hr 3548 the border security for america act of 2017 and discharge the subcommit canny on border and maritime for further consideration. it was circulated in advanced. >> hr 3548. >> without objection, the reading is dispensed with and the bill is considered read and open to amendment at any point. i have an amendment. the court shall report the amendment. >> amendment in the nature of substitute for hr 38.
>> it shall be considered base texet for purposes of amendment. it's notees to all members in compliance with the committee rules. is there any discussion on the amendment in the nature of the substitute? there being no further discussion on the amendment, the committee will move to considerati consideration. coleman's recognized. >> thank you for recognizing me, mr. chairman. considering the past, the president's commitment to build a massive wall along our southern border, i can't say it's surprising this committee has chosen to follow his lead in the misguided effort. but it is disappointing, nonetheless. because there's so many things we can do with this $10 billion that would be a better use of the resources in building a border wall. i'd suggest sending the money to
gateway project because we certainly could use it or we could partially rectify our failure last week to fund the health insurance program and instead of authorizing 5,000 additional border patrol agents, we could take advantage of the massive decline to sthift resources away from border control and i.c.e. where there are real and growing threats rather than -- and instead of wasting a day debaiteding a bill that won't become law, hopefully, we could be having what domestic violence extremism hearing that we've always been asking for or just a discussion with emergency responders on how to deal with the threat to our homeland that is a madman with eetzy access to assault weapons. but obviously i don't set the hearing topics or choose the bills to be marked up so i'll briefly discuss this very flawed
piece of legislation. my colleagues have already laid out some of the problems in the amendments they will be offering and will continue to do so throughout. i want to highlight a couple of specific provisions in the bill. section 120 c 2 gg and 120 c 2 hh, these provisions are waver. from complying with the american indian religious freedom act and religious freedom restoration act. this is considered odd considering i've been hearing a lot about religious freedom these past few years. indeed last congress, seven members, including you, mr. chairman, the sponsor of this bill co sponsored the first amendment defense act which is widespread -- in the name of religious freedom. so when we seek to protect lgbt individuals from discrimination,
my republican colleagues say religious freedom doesn't allow that. and when we seek to insure women have access to contraceptions, they say religious freedom doesn't allow that. and when we seek to the insure nonprofits don't abuse their tax exempt status, my republican colleagues say religious freedom doesn't alow that. but suddenly when we're looking to build a massive wall by republican -- my republican colleagues couldn't care less about religious freedom and the first amendment. but it's not even just that they don't care, they've gone out of their way to specifically put into statute that our existing federal freedom laws don't apply when they're controlling the border detaining individuals or constructing the border wall. i hope that before voting for this bill our committee members will think about how they will explain to their constituents
and community religious leaders why this bill was worth abandoning their commitment to religious freedom when there's so many other cases they view it as an absolute right and given what we've experienced over the last month, i cannot end this point of concern without mentioning the hurricanes, the devastation to our islands, to our states. what happened in las vegas, we could be using the resources today to a better use. so due to these provisions, i urge the committee to reject this legislation. i yield back. >> is there further discussion on the amendment. >> thank you to the chairman and the it ranking member for their presentation of the underplying
legislation. i recall in times past, mr. chairman and to the ranking member, we worked oen a border security initiative in a bipartisan manner and that bill was enormously effective. it was an enormously effective construct of how the individuals, citizens, ranchers and others that live at the border felt and could perceive that the united states was doing something about and something real about border security. it did have some enhancement of staffing, but it used an important construct of technology and intelligence to be able to insure the safety and security of the people of the united states of america and particularly the border. i come from a border state. as does the chairman. and i know that in our many visits, we have heard a number
of reactions to a border wall. which this particular legislation seems to put without tongue and cheek in concrete. this is a wall enormously difficult. i have been discussing border security with texans for a very long time. i have interacted with universities who have rejected and contested the federal government taking their land. and so we now are going to go on what i believe will be not a joy ride but a ride to no end and of no consequences. this is not a good use of the needs of the american people to be secure. i hold an article that says the massacre in vegas, an act of pure evil and to the
commentators on the local cable, you are misdirected to not note that this is an act of domestic terrorism. plain and simple. the perpetrator used military weapons. weapons of military force. used a bump kit intended to massacre as many people as he could. this is an issue that if the ranking member has been discussing and we have been discussing for a very long time. we have a full blown constructive response to domestic terrorism. whether it was was in charlotte -- charlton, charlottesville where certainly there was intimidation or whether it was elsewhere. the pulse night club. this is an act of domestic terrorism. so i would much rather have us concentrate on ways to save lives and focus on the american
people opportunity and right to be protected in their own homeland as opposed to pursuing a broken policy of a border wall. i also note the legislation does not seem to have any civil liberties protection, which is what we had, right to privacy on some of these issues which i will be determining and finally, let me make the point that we have 800,000 young people who are fearful for their lives. they're fearful because we have not reauthorized as the president indicated that he would do is protect the d.a.c.a. young people. some of them are military persons, some are in college. many of them are supporting their families. but they are young people here in this country because they've pledged allegiance to this flag and they love this nation. we've done nothing to protect those deferred individuals and i believe that what we're doing
here today is a misdirection, a wrong journey a failure to the american people and not a concentration of what we need do is holistically looking at the nees needs in aviation, cyber security and more importantly to look seriously as how we protect the american people at all of our borders both southern and northern borders. that would be the way to approach this. i also take note and would like to put on the record i do not see one democratic co sponsor and i would hope that securing this nation as it has always been mr. chairman, it has always been a bipartisan effort. i hope we can turn that corner today. i-year-old back. >> any further discussion on the amendment. >> thank you, mr. chair and members. i also want to first of all express my deep condolences for the victims of las vegas.
one of those victims, at least one, was one of my constituents, mother of four. her youngest child was just four months old. and mr. chair, i want to thank you very much for your work on homeland security issues. i think all of us can agree that p protecteding our country from bad hombres, criminals and drugs very paramount and all of us agree on those objectives. but i think we have to focus on the facts before we make such huge investments of taxpayer dollars. let's make sure that we acknowledge the facts. according to department of homeland security, last year we had visa over stays accounted for. 740,000 undocumented individuals in the u.s. these over stays may now be the primary area of undocumented in this country. the border wall is not going to do anything to stop these over
stays. the wall, the construction of the wall actually started back in 1992 by president clinton and today in some areas of the border, three walls exist with buffer zones, heavily patrolled. so this proposed wall would actually be the fourth wall be to built in some of the areas. and this committee itself, the admiral of the coast guard testified that the coast guard lacks resources. to adequately stop known drug shipments into this country. we need to focus in those areas. then secretary kelly also acknowledged our country needs a multilayer defense system, not a wall. but we need to stop the negative elements from reaching our country. way before they reach our borders and of course we need cooperate with law enforcement both north and south of the border. we need their cooperation to make sure nothing gets close to
our nation that would harm our constituents. and let's also address economic reality. both canada and mexico are our largest trading partners. let's work with them to make sure bad hombres and elicit drugs don't reach our nation and of course let's acknowledge that america's insashable appetite for illegal drugs are essentially the field that keeps drug business, violence going throughout, not only the u.s. but throughout the world. and of course finally let's acknowledge the fact that we need immigration reform in this country. 70 to alt80% of ouring ing ingl workers and those red states rely on ag for their economic well being. i yield the remainder of my
time. >> i'd like to note to the gentleman that u.s. exit is addressed in this bill. it's never been fulfilled. the gentleman's correct, it does account for nearly half of the illeg population in the united states and the billion dollars is authorized in this bill to address that very important program and i know you share my concern with that as well. so thank you. any further discussion on the amendment? >> there being no further discussion on the amendment, the committee will move the consideration of the nature of the amendment. nature of the substitute listed on the roster. per the roster agreement is amendment 026, offered by mr. thompson, would the gentleman like the offer his amendment? >> yes, i have an amendment
listed on the roster and ask for its consideration at this time. >> clerk shall report the amendment. >> and in the nature of a subsidy also by mr. thompson. >> mr. thompson's recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. >> mr. chairman, my amendment seeks to put fundamental truth about this bill front and center. in ordered for mr. trump's border wall to be realized, a mass acquisition of private land would need to occur because nearly 2/3 of the targeted land from trump's wall is privately owned. as we saw over the last decade, the federal government to acquire private land is by invoking the fifth amendment of the constitution, the so-called takeings clause. given the pressure that the trump administration is under to
deliver on the president's famous campaign promise, does anyone here doubt that federal efforts to secure the land for president trump's wall will bring about the most significant takeings in the modern era? for that reason my amendment today appropriately renames that bill to build trump's wall act. over the last decade the border security build up resulted in the construction of about 700 miles of border fence. to get those miles of fence built, the federal government filed over 400 cases to seize private land. trump's wall, as he envisions it and this bill proposes would necessitate the seizing of four more private land that was done in the prior efforts. so ranchers and land owners beware. under this bill the
administration is coming for your land. but don't just take my word for it. the president makes a significant signal towards his expensive federal takings plan when he requested funding for a new imminent domain legal unit in the fiscal year 2018 budget request be submitted to congress. to quote from his budget blueprint, the amount requested, supports the addition of 20 attorneys to pursue federal efforts to obtain the land and holdings necessary to secure the southwest border. that statement is about as forth right as this president has ever been about his intentions. it is also crystal clear that the central goal of this legislation is to insure that expedishes construction of a border wall. mr. chairman, you said as much in the august 7th fox news piece
that you co authored with representative. moreover, the fact that the bill grants the acting dhs secretary sole diskrucretions to wave anyw in the expedishes, underscores that the federal government will stop at nothing to get trump's wall built. so whether this leaves ranchers and others whose property is on the southern border, i refer you to the statement made by who -- judge hayden serves on the federal bench in the southern district of texas and in his capacity he's heard a majority of imminent domain cases that federal government has brought against border land owners and ranchers. for context, judge hayden was appointed by president george w. bush and is known to be an out
spoken critic of president obama immigration policies. in february judge hayden stated quote you have to realize that these are every day people living their ordinary life and all of a sudden the government knocks on their door and say we want your backyard unquote. judge hayden, who calls himself the fence judge was -- went on to say quote i mean all of a sudden you're facing the might of the department of homeland security and the department of justice and all of a sudden they are a defender in a lawsuit through no fault of their own, unquote. it's time for those who support the building of president trump's wall to recognize that this is not just unnecessary, unjustified and in effective, put it's also just flat out mean.
to fulfill a misguided campaign promise, this bill will set in motion the federal taking off massive amounts of land from ordinary americans for a wall that the underlying bills did not even fully fund. estimates between construction costs for trump's wall between 20 and $70 billion. yet this bill, which in addition to authorizing trump's wall requires dhs to deploy an expensive list of technology to each border patrol sector and make significant increases in its border staffing only provides $15 billion. and it's worth noting this bill authorizes appropriations without identifying any areas of poor reduction. thereby abandling the house republican leaderships protocols
which would require offsets for new funding. as i said in my opening statement, this bill seeks to deliver trump's wall at all costs. under this measure, american taxpayers would bear the cost of trump's bill, not the mexican government, as mr. trump repeatedly assured the nation. but this is about the direct human cost that the bill would inflict on the subset of americans. i am of course speaking of the cost to families that struggle and persevered against all odds to acquire and maintain their little piece of the american dream. it is those americans that will directly bear the cost of this wall. for these reasons i urge a yes on the amendment and yield back. >> is there any further discussion on the amendment? there being no further
discussion, this refers to the amendment and the substitute. i'll provide mr. thompson. all those in favor, say aye. against say no. the amendment is not agreed to. the core vote has been requested persunt the previous announcement, this vote will be postponed. further roster agreement is amendment number 006 offered by the gentleman from texas. would the gentleman like the offer his amendment? >> yes, mr. chair. i have an amendment on a the roster and ask for its consideration at the time. >> amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to hr 38. >> objection reading is dispe e dispensed with. r >> is hr 3548 authorized the construction of a big, beautiful border wall like the president described it on a campaign
trail? is the department of homeland security being directed to erect a big concrete wall with solar panels like the president said he would on july 12th, 2017? or is the wall authorized under this bill going to be see through as the president described it a few weeks ago at a political campaign rally. will it have a big, beautiful door like president trump says he envisioned back in august of 2016. my amendment inserts a definition to encompass the full breadth of that president described on many occasions. it reads as follows. amendment -- border wall system. the border wall system means a wall bethen to united states and mexico that is a, big and beautiful, b, see through, c,
real, d, not a fence. e, made of rebar and steel, f, inclusive of a door, h, has openings. i, solar. j, physically imposing in height, k, a continuous physical wall or other impassable physical barrier. l, 700 to 900 miles in length. m, made of reinforced concrete. n, astetically pleasing and consistent with the general surrounding environment. o, able to prevent tunnelling bewlb below it for a minimum of six feet. able to prevent for a minimum of 30 minutes, a physical breach of the wall by use of ledge hammer, pick ax, chisel, battery operated cutting tools, a settling torch or other similar hand held tools, cost effective
to construct or maintain. r, modelled after the border wall in israel, and s, paid for by the mexican government. i offer this amendment not because i support trump's wall or believe it will make the border more secure, i strongly oppose trump's wall, in fact i will bulldoze every inch of the structure on the existing mexican border. i offer this amendment to provide the clearest picture to date of the conflicting and absurd vision that president has for his wall. a vote for this amendment is a vote for donald trump's vision. a yes vote is a vote for his big, beautiful wall. with that, i yield back. >> gentleman, yields back until a discussion on the amendment. there being no further
discussion, let me just say i appreciate the gentleman's creaticre creativity in his amendment and sense of humor but i will oppose this amendment. there being no further discussion, the question occurs in the nature of substitute offered, all in favor signify by saying aye. all opposed say no. the no's have it and the amendment is not agreed to. >> mr. chair, i ask for a recorded vote. >> a recorded vote has been requested. the vote will be postponed. per the roster agreement listed next is amendment 027. i'll provide the gentleman from mississippi, mr. thompson. would the gentleman like to the offer his amendment? >> yes, mr. chairman. i have an amendment. >> clerk shall report the amendment. >> amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to hr 3548 offered by mr. thompson.
>> the reading is dispensed with. mr. thompson's recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much. mr. chairman, any good government program has accountability in place to success or failure. over the last decade, federal spending on border security has increased nearly 20-fold. in fact, funding for core border security has gone from $260 million in fiscal year 1990 to nearly $4 billion in fiscal year 2017. thanks to this committee, last year, for the first time, dhs was directed to develop reliable matrix to border security progress. without matrix, how will we know if or when operational control of the border is achieved? or which investments have been
effective? there is bipartisan agreement that dhs must have achievable, informed matrix to measure the level of operational control. regrettably, under this deal, the matrix that dhs is developing would be evaluated against an unachievable, unrealistic and discarded benchmark, the prevention of all unlawful entries into the united states. by this standard, the border is not secure if just one illegal crossing occurs. this unachievable, unrealistic standard is out of sync with the standards we apply to manage local law enforcement efforts. even the safest cities have some instances of crime. we don't characterize an entire city as unsafe because one robbery occurs. but that is exactly the message that is sent to border patrol sectors chief with the 100%
definition in the underlying bill. the men and women that put their lives on the line every day, some in terrible conditions to keep our border secure, should not be set up for failure at as this definition would do. that is a time where there was bipartisan agreement. that a 90% matrix was ambitious but achievable. takes operational control of hr 17, the border security results act which i introduced with chairman mccaul in 2013. the definition states that cbp achieves operational control of the border when it is able to apprehend at least 90% of attempted illegal crossings. i'll echo what the chairman said in his opening statement for
that mock-up of hr-1714. we have defined operational control in this bill based on the oversight work of the committee. it is a reflection of testimony from the chief of border patrol, a 90% standard for success. mr. chairman, you went on to say that the 90% standard is tough, realistic, and achievable, stopping 90% of illegal crossers and interdiction significant portions of drugs coming in this country would increase our security. i could not agree more. for the benefit of members, particularly newer members on this panel, i'd like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the opening statement of chairman mccaul at the mark-up of hr 1417, the border security results act of 2013 on may 15, 2013. >> without objection, so ordered. >> with that, mr. chairman, i
urge my colleagues to support my amendment and yield back the balance of my time. >> gentleman yields. is there any further discussion on the amendment? mr. perry recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think the message should be for the american people for the folks working on the border, for our society in general, for the world that we always strive for excellence every single time. we recognize, we acknowledge that we as people, as individuals are flawed. we make mistakes. systems, government, communities make mistakes, but we always seek our best effort on every occasion. we wouldn't accept a local law enforcement or a fire company that said, well r, kind sir, wee going to try to get to 90% of the fire. we're going try to get to 90% of the crime, and we hope we'll be successful. we know that are going to be crimes unsolved. and we know that there are going
to be fires unattended to and burn the whole place down. we don't strive for that. we always want to do our best on every occasion. and putting it in legislation, putting it in a law, enshrining in law that says we're not going to do our best. we're going try and do almost our best. mr. chairman, we are a nation of standards, or at least we used to be. and every time we change a standard and lower a standard, we set a new standard. i think it's pant that we maintain this one. while i agree with the matrix to inform us about what works better than other things and what doesn't work as well as other things over time, that informs us about where we should spend scarce resources and direct our attention as the situation changes. but i don't see any reason to ever relax from the standard that says we must do our best on every single occasion and stop people that shouldn't be in our country from coming whether they're terrorists or otherwise, and stop contraband like opioids
flowing into our country and destroying our communities. and just saying -- i don't know how i face a constituent, mr. chairman, and say i got a good friend whose son was addicted to heroin. and i'd say well, look, we gave it our 90%. i'm never going to say that, ever. i'm going to say we did our best every time, and we failed on occasion. and maybe we failed you. but i don't see any reason as a government to relax the standard, to change the standard, to lower the standard and to delve into mediocrity and act like we're doing everybody a favor. we're doing no one a favor when we the that. it's important we maintain the standard, mr. chairman, and i stridently object this to this amendment. i yield. >> gentleman yields. any further discussion on the amendment? >> mr. chairman? >> mr. vella is recognized. >> mr. chairman, the product of this committee's bipartisan oversight work. what has changed since 2013 to
justify setting aside the achievable standard that we developed on a bipartisan basis based on testimony from the chief of the border patrol. two things come to mind. first, the border is more secure thanks to significant investments in infrastructure, technology, and personnel that congress made over the past decade. second, donald j. trump that ran a campaign that vilified undocumented immigrants was elected. we can do better. well can come together and replace the 100% unachievable standard with language that this committee approved on a bipartisan basis in 2013. by doing so, we can send a message that we're holding cbp accountable and have high expectations when it comes to border security. to that end, i urge members to join me in supporting this common sense amendment. today's bill reverts back to doing nothing for border security accountability. with that i yield back. >> the gentleman yields. any further discussion on the amendment? there being no further discussion on the amendment, the
question now occurs on the aelt to t amendment. all those in favor signify by saying aye. all those signify by saying. no the no's have it and the amendment is not agreed to. per the roster agreement listed next on the roster is amendment 024 offered by the gentleman from mississippi, mr. thompson. would the gentleman like to offer his amendment? >> yes, mr. chairman, i have an amendment. >> the court shall report the amendment. >> amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to hr-3548 offered by mr. thompson. >> the objection dispensed with, mr. thompson is recognized for five minutes. >> my amendment seeks to ensure that each sector gets the infrastructure and technology that they need to keep the border secure.
section 113 dictates that border patrol sector chiefs with specific capabilities and technology, their agents should receive in the field. since 2014, border patrol has used a requirement management process to deploy resources in a risk-based manner to address emerging threats specific to each sector. this process, which was established at the direction of congress, is based on a dhs joint requirement process that this committee has authorized on numerous occasions. most recently, hr 2825, the dhs authorization act. under the capability gap analysis process, or c-gap, each border patrol sector analyzes how it fulfills its mission and identifies capability gaps that are preventing it from filling that mission. based on this on-the-ground
analysis from the leaders on the front lines, cbp identifies options to close those gaps through the use of technology, tactical infrastructure, or other solutions. this process informs the border patrol strategies and planning to fund and deploy tactical infrastructure and other operational requirements such as surveillance technology for border security operations. through this process, though this process is new, it is responsive to past well documented shortcomings in how cbp made decisions about purchasing equipment and technology. remember fbi net, that $1.5 billion virtual fence failure? importantly, through this process, the border security operator operators what is purchased, not congress. as a committee we have long-standing interests in dhs'
efforts to reform the acquisition process, and to now short circuit and scrap this project makes no sense. a vote for this amendment is a vote in favor of using an informed and risk-based approach to deploying capabilities where they are needed most. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and i yield back the balance of my time. >> gentleman yields back. there any further discussion on the amendment? >> mr. chair? >> ms. demmings is recognized. >> thank you so much, mr. chairman. i speak in support of this amendment. combining sections 111 and 113 represent a vast and inappropriate congressional overreach. not only do these provisions short circuit the requirement process used by sector g, they also prematurely commit to acquiring and deploying specific technology in each sector. this laundry list of items was
designed to be deployed in each individual border patrol sector could almost be mistaken for an earmark. sectors and entire regions of our southern and northern borders vary not only in terms of terrain, but also in terms of threats. by january 22, 2021, the statutory deadline in this bill for deploying the prescribed list of deployment to each sector should have shifted, and the list could be unresponsive to operators' needs. we have heard in testimony and during subcommittee hearings that cartels and others look to thwart the border are agile and adaptive. why is it, then, we are backing ourselves into a corner by predetermining what agents in the field can use? this amendment reaffirms the need to properly assess threats along the border and determine how we can best address them.
through the appropriate process, congress has required border patrol to identify what is needed to fulfill the mission of securing the boarder in a systematic manner. to ignore this directive would prove an expensive mistake. as such, i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment. and mr. chair and to our ranking member, i have to say as a former law enforcement officer with 27 years on the job, and as a member of this committee, my priority has been and still is the safety and security of our nation. and it saddens me today. a few days after 58 people in las vegas lost their lives, i represent orlando. 49 killed last year. that we would make the priority of this committee keeping a
ridiculous campaign promise. and with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> gentle lady yields back. there any further discussion on the amendment? >> mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i can only view this amendment as a delay tactic. and i say that because when i first came to congress in 2014, i think i was here about a week. and one of the very first memories i had of being in congress was a detailed discussion of a border security bill that went sector by sector with specific prescriptive instruction for each sector on the southwest border. i remember vividly because the bill at the time did not have anything about a northern border. so eventually the northern border had a similar prescription encompassed within it because we got input from the agencies. the agencies told what's they needed sector by sector.
we did not make it up. they told what's they needed. we received the input from them. and this bill not only encompasses and enshrines that input, but it also gives the agencies involved the sufficient flexibility to adapt to the change in landscape. so to delay further the implementation of border security is to ensure that not only is the border not safe from illegal aliens or it's not safe from possible terrorist activities, but something that is in every community and is killing kids in my community, and that's heroin and the opiate crisis. we've been in session in this particular hearing about an hour. and in that time, five more people in the united states have died of a heroin overdose. that's a fact. so let's digest that. by waiting and trying to delay until we have more polish and
while the fire bell is ringing is not going to help the situation. we have been down this road. we have consulted with the agencies. we have received their input. we have enshrined their input. and i urge that this amendment, while on its face looks logical, it's already been done to a large extent. and for that i ask that the amendment be defeated. >> gentleman yields back. any further discussion? mr. correa is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chair. i just wanted to speak in support of the amendment and also agree with the facts as outlined by my learned colleague from the state of new york. absolutely have an opioid crisis in this country. we have our children, many of them who are overdosing. and that is of course a major crisis, major proportion in our society yet. these drugs come from afghanistan. they come from all parts of the world. and, again, if i may repeat, the
testimony of our folks in our coast guard has said that are open sea, our northern borders are major areas of drug trafficking. when you look at the undocumented that are coming to this country, again, 70 to 80% of our workers in the ag area are undocumented. major major part of the economic miracle in this country. major, major portion of the workforce that feeds this country as well as others around the world. i support the amendment because i believe and we look, invevest major sums of tax dollars we have to do it on the facts as they present themselves to our country and not based on promises made during a campaign. >> will the gentleman yield? will the gentleman yield? >> will you yield? >> yeah. >> thank you. just to make sure that we have access to all the information,
mr. katko, we are not aware of any cbp provided information on what they need. so if we can get access to that information you referenced, i think it would help us a lot. >> would the gentleman yield? >> yes. >> thank you. that's what was a formulation of the bill. we received information from law enforcement agencies back in 2014 when the bill was initially crafted, and it's been -- we received updated information. and just to respond to my colleague and friend mr. correa, i was a federal organized crime prosecutor for 20 years, and i was on the southwest border to start my career. i know that border inside and out, and i know the law enforcement agencies down there. i know the trends from the national drug control policy. and i can tell you the vast majority of the heroin that is killing our kids is coming from the southwest border. with that, i yield back. >> will the gentleman yield? >> yeah, if i can yield back to mr. correa.
>> if my learned colleague from new york, i'm not disputing your professional credentials, sir. >> that's good. thank you. >> i've heard as well that the northern border also presents an issue to all of us. so again, we have to legislate, invest our tax dollars based on the facts as they present themselves to our great country. thank you very much. i yield the remainder my time. >> i reclaim my time. i just want to make sure this committee is aware there has been no document transmitted to us identifying that. so the reference that you make, mr. katko, is not correct from a cbp standpoint. so if you can provide us with that information, we'd gladly want it. but to just to refer to it and it does not exist is something different. >> i yield to gentleman -- well, he can get his whole five
minutes. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back to mr. correa. mr. correa yields. mr. richardson is recognized. >> mr. chairman, i would echo the comments from our ranking mr. thompson from mississippi regarding let's not operate in the dark. let's actually legislate using data, facts, and cbp's recommendations. but i just wanted to respond to my colleagues and our continued conversation about opioids and where they're coming from and the affect that they're having on this country, which i'm glad we now see the mental health crisis associated with this and the health crisis associated with it. but i would just remind my colleagues, and especially those that were former federal prosecutor, where was this loving, nurturing approach when crack cocaine epidemic happened in this country? and now we are up in arms about opioids, which we should. but we're not going back and fix
how we address crack that rav e ravaged the african american community. where was the -- where was the emphasis on where the cocaine was coming from at that time and how it ravaged our communities? where is the outrage now on where the guns are coming from? so i just want to -- not to put too much emotion on the drug part of this when we're using data and analytics and professional advice to figure out the best ways to spend billions of dollars that could otherwise go to these things. we have a limited amount of funds in this country. and we need to prioritize where we're going to spend it. finger we're going to talk about the effects of so-called open borders of lack of control we need to do that with surgical
precision, if we can. if not, with the best data that we can and the best advice from experts. but it's just very frustrating to me as a african american male that watched the crack epidemic in the so-called war on drugs that followed. the attorney general just said he wants to go back to the war on drugs approach for crack and all of those. and then we have this whole new approach to opioid addiction. and the question from me why is it different? what's the difference between opioid addiction and crack cocaine addiction scientifically? we know the difference if we look at the victims, the perpetrators and the affect on different communities. but i'm just concerned that we keep -- that we're moving away from data, facts, analytic and expert advice as we decide to spend billions and billions of dollars on something that may
not be the most effective way to protect our borders, and it's not done in a bipartisan manner. with that, i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. any further discussion? mr. duncan is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i oppose this amendment. i think it's a delaying tactic. i want to address mr. richmond's concerns about the money. and remind him that we spent during the time he was talking about, during the height of the cocaine and war on drugs, we spent over 10 billion in plan colombia to eradicate cocaine, coca, to stop the drug cartel in colombia working with our colleagues. we were fabulous partner in this, one of our strongest allies in the region. but facts of the matter are cocaine production is up in colombia and peru in the last 12 to 18 months. a lot of different variables
there dealing with the farc, colombia taking their eye off the ball with cocaine for other reasons. but the fact of the matter is cocaine production is up there is a ton of cocaine heading north. but it's not just cocaine. we have heroin produced in mexico, opioids in general, 15 fentanyl and cocaine coming north coming into the communities that he talked to eloquently about. one way to stop that is physical barriers and border controls. how does the cocaine and heroin and fentanyl and other addictive drugs make their way into this country? they come across a porous southern border. and let me just tell you, it's not just the drugs that are coming north, because we have no idea who is in our country. we have no idea who has crossed
the southern border into this country. it's not just illegal aliens wanting to come north to take jobs. it could possibly be elements of isis, al qaeda, and other people that have nefarious goals in mind. because when you don't have border control, you don't know who comes in the country. you talk about the cost. this is a -- i think a common sense approach to border security and securing our nation. because it really comes down to national security. and it comes down to stopping that cocaine from ever making it across our border and ultimately into the neighborhoods you talked about. the way of stopping, controlling those elements. mr. chairman, i opose this memo and ask my colleagues to oppose it as well. >> the gentleman yields back. any further discussion on the amendment? >> two minutes at a time today.
and just briefly respond about the lack of attention given to the crack cocaine epidemic. i can tell you, sir, that i spent 20 years of my career primarily focused on going after crack and cocaine organizations. in fact, i was in el paso two days and we had the seizure on the border of 500 kilos of cocaine. and it shocked me how easy it was to get it across the border. and it shocked me that all these years later the border is still a sieve. and it shocks me that we haven't done anything about it. i can tell you i spent the vast majority of my time in inner city neighborhoods trying to clean up the drug epidemic, and taking crack cocaine off the streets. often at great personal danger to the agents that worked with me and to the threats i received on a regular basis as to my family. we spent an extraordinary amount of time. the country spent an extraordinary amount of time trying to get a handle on it. but the fact of the matter is unless we do everything from decreasing demands for
counseling and drug treatment to better securing our borders and going after the bad guys we are never going to get a handle on it. but make no mistake about it, the heroin is the latest trend. but it's not the only one. there is an awful lot of good people in this country who sacrifice an awful lot, including many who sacrifice their lives to get the crack cocaine epidemic under control. and probably many people sitting in this room as prosecutors, former prosecutors and former law enforcement. i dare say we did not ignore that issue, and that did not get shortchange in the outrage. the outrage is here. the outrage has been there for all types of drugs. it always will be, as far as i'm concern candidate. with that i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back anymore. further discussion on the amendment? >> chair? >> the gentleman is recognized. >> i think the gentleman from louisiana was just trying to make a point that this has been an issue that has been going on for quite some time. and it is the difference now the
empathy which we should have for our children any time our children are suffering from an addiction and are dying at the rates they are, it is national crisis. they are our future. but the question is the empathy now was not there for the victims of crack cocaine. i think that's the only -- we have been screaming and yelling about this issue for two to three decades. and i'm glad that's it finally become a national crisis that is the point i think that we're trying to make. and with that, i'd yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from louisiana. >> yeah, and i want to agree with my colleague, mr. katko that a lack of attention was not
my concern. i think the attention was there. i think we responded in a way that was not driven by science. i can point to the fact that now we're treating it as a health crisis, which we should. and our response to opioids is the absolute right way to go. but i think it would have been the right way 30 years ago to crack cocaine as a health crisis in addiction, as opposed to the lock 'em up, throw away the key and treating addicts as criminals. and we're now treating addicts as addicts with substance abuse. and when i say science and data should always drive the process, let me just offer an example. if you were caught with crack cocaine and the same amount of powder cocaine, your sentence was 100 times longer for crack as opposed to the same amount as cocaine. and the overwhelming majority of
people who were caught with crack cocaine were african american. and people who were caught with powder were not. but you can't tell me that the science and the data, because the chemical makeup of crack cocaine and cocaine, the only difference is baking soda. and you can't tell me that baking soda warrants a 100-1 disparity. we came back to congress in a bipartisan matter. and i thank my colleagues on the other side for correcting this. but it's still to this day a 14-1 disparity in terms of the length of the sentence. so i agree. i am not saying that the approach to opioid is wrong. i think it's absolutely right. i'm just saying that it would have been the right response to the crack epidemic also. and if we're going to take the health approach to opioids, we should go back with criminal justice reform and do the same with crack cocaine. because at the end of the day, and this is where i draw great
comfort, is the fact that i believe my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and i want the same thing, and that is to keep drugs out of all communities, to make sure that our children can grow up and live out their wildest dreams and be as successful as they can without the threat of people preying on them with drugs and other things. so the fact that we agree on the ultimate goal i take a lot of comfort in. i just wish we would have some very meaningful conversation on the path to which we get there, and recognize the unintended consequences of the war on drugs in the '80s that was a different approach. and that's the only reason why i highlight the opioids. and i'll just close with the fact that there were many first responders going into hostile areas in the country and outside the country to protect neighborhoods and stop drugs. and we're going to need that
again. and i think that when we start looking at the very limited resources we have in this country, i'm just not sure that spending the amount of resources we are going to spend on this bill is the best way to protect our families, our children from the risk that they face. and i just think we ought to have a very honest conversation about the best way to spend the limited funds, not on campaign promise, but on data improving success methods. and with that, i'll yield back to mr. payne the remainder of the time. >> the gentleman yields back. any further discussion on the amendment? there being no further discussion, the question now occurs on the amendment to the amendment in the nature of substitute offer by mr. thompson. all in favor signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> all opposed signify by saying no. no. the no's have it. the amendment is not agreed to. per the roster agreement, listed
next is amendment number 023 offered by the gentleman from mississippi, mr. thompson. would the gentleman like to offer his amendment? >> mr. chairman, have i an amendment. >> the court shall report the amendment. >> amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to hr 3548 offered by mr. thompson. >> mr. thompson is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much. mr. chairman, my amendment strikes section 111 in its entirety. construction of president trump's wall is unjustified and would inflict great costs on american taxpayers, private landowners, and ranchers, and at least one native american tribe and the environment. section 111 includes unnecessary language authorizing construction of the wall. under current law, the president already has authority to build physical barriers along the
border. moreover, on the existing law the trump administration has brought authorities to waive all agreements. in fact, the bush administration utilized this waiver authority multiple times to avoid compliance with environmental and other laws perceived as impediments to its efforts to build a border fence. why build president trump's wall now when dhs in a report published last month found that today crossing into the u.s. illegally along the southwest border is the most difficult it has ever been. as someone who has been involved in border security oversight for some time, it's troubling to see the majority advance language that turns back the clock on years of commitment on a bipartisan basis to ensuring that border security investments
are informed by matrix and driven by strategies. that said, there are provisions in this bill that do not merit support and are justified. unfortunately, the majority has chosen to package them with the authorization of president trump's wall which is a non-starter. for instance, the bill acknowledges that personnel that infrastructure needs at our land ports of entry. in 2014, congress directed cbp to add 2,000 cbp officers and 2,000 border patrol agents. to say that cbp has struggled to meet these staffing levels is a drastic understatement. the hiring bonus, retention incentives and pay increases call for under this bill may help cbp on board and maintain adequate staffing levels. first, with respect to infrastructure, cbp officials
from previous administrations have testified before this committee that there is over $5 billion in unmet needs at our nation's vital ports of entry. time and action should be taken to address these operational imperatives. however, this bill is not the vehicle to do that. i would be remiss if i did not acknowledge that the provisions like the language calling for president trump's wall to be built have no offsets. as such, there are real questions about where the house leadership could even obtain this bill since it violates the rule. i'm disappointed the requirements of this bill are not driven by facts. late last year, mr. chairman, you and i worked together to get a dhs border security matrix mandate enacted into law. we're still awaiting the findings of this report. how is it that we are considering this bill without
any data to back up the demands this bill places on dhs and cbp? clearly this bill is a partisan exercise to appease president trump's misguided political vision of border security and everyday people will suffer because of this. i ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to consider the harm they are about to inflict on not only people living in southwest border communities, but across the country by sticking their constituents with a significant bill. i ask that members support this amendment, strike the discussions from the bill and start serious discussions regarding how best to bolster border security. with that i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. is there any further discussion on the amendment? >> mr. chairman? >> mr. payne is recognized. >> thank you.
chairman, for every border patrol agent we have put in the field over the last decade, apprehension rates have increased. i agree with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that perhaps having more boots on the ground is having a deterrent effect. however, i also ask my colleagues to consider that the flow of individuals attempting to cross the border illegally has been fall iing at a steady rate for the last six years. in fact, the cato institute found that when the data on the number of agents deployed to southwest border was combined with the apprehension rates, the average border patrol agent apprehended less than two people per month in 2016. of course, certain sectors
experience higher rates of apprehension than others. but i just do not see the rationale based on the overall picture for adding another 5,000 border patrol agents to the field. this observation is supported by the department's own inspector general. this summer the inspector general found that cbp lacks the data to prove that an additional 5,000 border patrol agents are needed at this time and does not have plans or strategies in place to deploy them once they're hired. as for tactical infrastructure and equipment, there has been a massive investment in border security resources since the bush administration. this committee leaned hard on the obama administration to use
investments effectively. and last month we received confirmation that those efforts have yielded results when dhs reported to congress that the likelihood that someone could successfully enter the u.s. undetected through southwest border is at the lowest level that dhs has seen in almost 20 years. knowing the facts about conditions on the southwest border, i'm hard-pressed to understand why we are meeting today to consider legislation o expeditiously board president trump's border wall. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back, any further discussion on the amendment? ms. barragan is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have to agree with the ranking member that this is just a
partisan effort. when i talked to several of my colleagues, many of them especially on this committee told me they didn't believe in a border wall. to see $15 billion being dumped into a bill basically to appease the president i think is a sad day in america and a sad day in this committee that has been very bipartisan. and just goes toward adding to the hate of what is happening in this country on the immigration issue. and when i sit in this committee and i hear from experts talk about the ineffectiveness of a border wall, and now to see us waste, waste $15 billion that can go to be used for something else that we need in a time when we have hurricanes and disasters happening in this country, to waste this money on a campaign promise is pretty disgusting. and that's why i oppose this. i yield back. >> the gentle lady yields back.
any further discussion on the amendment? mr. rutherford is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd just like to point out that border security has more to do than simply stopping illegal immigration in those who would cross our border illegally, but also drug trafficking, human trafficking, and i would point to the fact that, you know, i was in law enforcement in the '80s when crack cocaine, when it was mentioned earlier, the horrific impact that crack cocaine has in our communities. and i was in florida. and i know my colleague from orlando was as well. but we saw in response to that,
we saw the coast guard through 1878 be able to help us through title 32 orders. they come in and secure our ports, secure the seawall if you will, and become very effective in stopping the cocaine that was coming in to south florida. everybody remembers the crack cocaine wars of the late '80s. and jump-start and then operations phalanx which we still have today was the precursor to that was the national interdiction command and control plan that we have today. so this argument that we don't
need to strengthen our border, just i think negates -- does not recognize the fact that we've had tremendous success in of south florida. i can tell you when i was a young patrolman, drugs flowed north and the money flowed south in florida. and now it's just the opposite. the drugs flow south and the money flows north because the drugs are coming in through a southern land border. and that needs to stop. and i yield back, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman yields back. any further discussion on the amendment? there being no further discussion, the question now occurs on the amendment to the amendment in the nature of the substitute offer by mr. thompson. all in favor signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> all opposed signify by saying. no no. in the opinion of the chair, the
no's have it and the amendment is not agreed to. per the roster agreement, ranking members, a record vote has been requested. pursuant to previous announcement, this vote will now be postponed. per roster agreement we'll sit next is amendment number 007 offered by the gentleman from texas, mr. rav ella. would. >> the an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. vela. >> mr. vela is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, today much of the land without a border fence along the u.s.-mexico border is not federally owned. as such, there would need to be significant takings of private lan for trump's big beautiful wall to be erected. president trump fiscal year 2018 budget requests included funding
to hire an additional 20 eminent domain attorneys at the justice department. it is clear that the president is gearing up for a fight against private property owners. we've seen the federal government run roughshod over the interests of private landowners to meet the miles of land required to meet the act. this requires to establish a $20 million defense land who own land the federal government wants the take to build president trump's wall. the federal government pays as little as $100 for land it takes from citizens who are not aware of their rights or do not have legal representation. interestingly, in those instances, where there is a court challenge, citizens have been awarded up to $1 million. in fact, reuters reported that in one case, the government ended up paying $4.7 million pursuant to a court order for a parcel of land for which the original offer was just $233,000.
this amendment directs dhs to set aside $20 million, a drop in the bucket in the $15 billion bill to help protect the property rights of private landowners on the border. $20 million per year may seem like a lot of money. but when you pit that against the resources and expertise of the department of justice and the magnitude of this bill, it may not even be enough to protect vulnerable americans against an overzealous federal government. but it certainly will help. i urge my colleagues to protect the rights of private land owners and support my amendment, and i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. there any further discussion on the amendment? >> yes, mr. chairman. >> ms. watson collman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. when the department of justice serves a land own were a condemnation notice, the landowner has a right to request a jury trial. the central question for the jury is what compensates just compensation. rarely there s there a challenge to whether the taking for national security purposes is
justified. it almost always comes down to whether the landowner is getting a fair payment for their land. without legal help, land owners often receive a paltry check for $100 and no day in court. federal judge andrew hainan of the southern district of texas who was appointed by george w. bush and hears many of these land taking cases has said you have to realize that these are everyday people living their ordinary lives. and all of the sudden the government knocks on their door and says we want your backyard. i mean, all of the sudden they're facing the might of the department of homeland security and the department of justice. and all of the sudden they're a defendant in a lawsuit through no fault of their own. i could not agree more. the president, however, has other plans. in his budget, president trump asks for additional funding for more lawyers to pursue federal efforts to obtain the land and the holdings necessary to secure
the southwest border. during the presidential campaign, trump extolled eminent domain as necessary for this country. it is clear that president trump will stop at nothing to fulfill his misinformed border wall promise, and he certainly won't let a small rancher get in his way. he steamrolled private property owners in his business practices, and he has continued to do it as president. i support this amendment, and i pray that my colleagues will support the amendment to support their private property rights. and with that i yield back. >> the gentle lady yields back. there any further discussion on the amendment? mr. johnson is recognized. >> i'm in support of mr. vela's amendment for a lot of reasons. i have had an opportunity to travel to many parts of the border, as well as talk to system of the landowners. to hear the history of how long some of that land has been in
families and how proud they are and what they think a wall looks, whether it's solar or beautiful or has a door, they don't want it. but they also feel that with the might of the federal government on them, it's such an onerous charge that they feel somehow they're being put upon by their own government. some people who admitted that they voted for the president now say if i had known it was going to come to all of this, i would have reconsidered the vote. i didn't address that. but clearly, the more important part is as generations of land ownership and many sections of the board they're will be interrupted, the question of fairness and the overall
application of whatever the eminent domain procedure is questionable. mr. vela and ms. watson both talked about disparity of assessments in terms of value, all of that is something that i think this amendment speaks to. and, again, is just to put some resources there for those who potentially disagree with it because as you know, if you have to fight the government, they have a blank check. and all you have is what you have in the bank. so with that, i support mr. vela's amendment. >> gentleman yields back. any sort of discussion on the amendment? there being no further discussion, the question now occurs on the amendment to the amendment in the nature of substitute offer by mr. vela. all in favor, signify by saying aye. >> aye.
>> all opposed oppose by saying. no no. the no's have it and the amendment is not agreed to. >> ask for a record vote. >> a record vote has been requested. pursuant to previous announcement, this vote will be postponed. per the roster agreement listed next is amendment 010, offered by the gentleman from texas, mr. vela. would the gentleman like to offer his amendment? >> yes. and i have an amendment at the desk and wish to have it considered. >> the court shall report the amendment. >> amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to hr 3548 offered by mr. vela. >> with that objection, ring is dispensed with. mr. vela is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, according to the government accountability office, the federal government owns about 33% of the land along the u.s./mexico border. 67% of the land is owned by the states or private citizens. so in order to build trump's wall, the federal government would have to intensify eminent
domain actions to wrest land away from innocent u.s. landowners. the president knows this and wants to hire, as i said earlier, 20 additional eminent domain attorneys at the justice department. allow me to paint a picture for you of what happens when the federal government comes calling. under this process, first landowners are served with condemnation notices from the justice department stating the government's intent to take the land. then owners are provided just 30 days to challenge the order in court. oftentimes they are unaware of their rights and lack legal representation. landowners that fall in this category usually do not challenge the federal government and get paid $100 in so-called just compensation. that's the, quote, fair market valley, end quote, that the government appraisers often assess. to make matters worse, when the government comes, it often bisecs a property and only compensation for the acreage it takes, even though this action
renders much more land useless or inaccessible to the landowner there is nothing just about the amount of compensation in these instances. my amendment puts the private property owner with or without legal representation ahead of anything else. this amendment is a product of conversations with the cato institute which has been vocal in its opposition to seizing private land from citizens to build trump's wall. as such, my amendment states that the federal government cannot take a private citizen's land until a check is in their hands. i urge my colleagues to put the private property owner ahead of the federal government and support this amendment. with that i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. there any further discussion on the amendment? >> mr. chairman, i support this amendment. mr. trump's fiscal year 2018 budget requests included, as mr. vela stated funding for 20 additional eminent domain attorneys at the department of justice. it's pretty clear what the president is signaling. private property owners beware.
in an interview with fox news in 2015, mr. trump stated that the condemnation of property for transfer to private developers is a wonderful thing and is not taking property. of course, the president has a history of supporting land taking. we've all heard the story of miss vera from atlantic city who fought mr. trump for years to keep her home of 30 years rather than to give it up for trump's taj mahal casino parking lot. the landmark 2005 supreme court case keller versus new london comes to mind. that's where the supreme court upheld the taking of private land by the government to transfer to another private property for economic development. at the time, it was denounced by nearly everyone on both the left and the right. but not mr. trump. back in 2005 when the decision came down, mr. trump said on fox news, "i happen to agree with it
100%." so the equation is clear. we have a president who promised to build a wall at all costs along the border. we have the board they're is the most privately owned. we have a president who commits eminent domain and supports eminent domain and asks congress for the money to defend it in court. private property owners, beware. with that, i urge support for the amendment and yield back. >> gentle lady yields back. any further discussion on the amendment? there being no further discussion, the question now occurs on the amendment to the nae amendment in the nature of the substitute offered by mr. vela. all those in favor show favor by saying aye. all those opposed say. no in the opinion of the chair, the no's have it and the amendment is not agreed. to the record vote has been asked. pursuant to previous announcement, this vote will be postponed. next is amendment 011 offered by the gentleman from texas, mr.
vela. would the gentleman like to offer his amendment? the court shall report. >> amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to hr 3548 offered by mr. vela. >> objection ringing is dispensed with. mr. vela is recognized for five minutes. [ inaudible ] >> is his mike on? microphone. >> is owned by states, tribes and private citizens. in texas, the federal government owns just 100 miles of the 1,254 mile border. as such, private land owners face the threat of losing their property to the federal government pursuant to a fifth amendment eminent domain action as occurred over a decade ago under the bush administration. by granting dhs broad authority
to unilaterally waive any law that stands in the way of the wall getting built, this bill sends a message to dhs that above all else, and above individual rights, congress wants president trump's wall built. this bill puts families that own land along the border, in some instances for generations in the unfair position offending off eminent domain once again. we have a responsibility to ensure that eminent domain authority to seize private land is not abused. and my amendment would prevent such abuse. it requires that before exercising eminent domain, the dhs secretary certified that the land seizurer is necessary for homeland security and provide evidence that no other alternative exists. as an additional protection, this amendment requires the comptroller general who serves a nonpolitical and nonpartisan position to evaluate the efficiency of the certification. mr. chairman, this amendment is a simple and necessary check on the federal government whose team of lawyers is already gearing up to take on mostly small family land owners along
the united states/mexico border. support private property rights and support private land owners. please support this amendment. with that i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. any further discussion on the amendment? ms. barragan? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i wanted to speak in support of this amendment. to build president trump's wall, this bill grants the department of homeland security authority to waive any and all legal responsibilities that get in the way of building it. to build president trump's wall, the bill allows the dhs secretary to disregard environmental stewardship and responsibility to border communities. to build president trump's wall, the federal government will need to take land away from private citizens. over the years, congress and this committee in particular has made substantial investments in border security and heard from dhs about the merits of their layered and risk-based approach
securing our borders. this layered and risk based approach means using a variety of tools and technologies. this approach coupled with substantial resources has yielded results. last month dhs office of immigration statistics published a report on its efforts to secure the southwest border. in it, dhs stated the southwest border is more difficult to cross illegally than ever before. found according to to blur patrol data the number of sout west border apprehensions has been trending downward since the early 2000s. over the last 17 years we have increased the number of agents patrolling the border. deployed new technology to hep with surveillance operations and built fencing. the resources and personnel we have invested in our making a difference. yet now with no analysis to support the conclusion that a
border wall will make us more secure, the trump administration has sent dhs down the prim rose path of wrestling land away of private landowners to build the president's wall. this amendment legitimately requires a thorough examination of all possible options available to secure our border before encroaching on the right of private landowners. court to the wall street journal as of december 2016. 120 cases involving imminent domain seizure to build fencing pursuant to the secure fence act were still tied up in federal court. the exercise of imminent domain must always be the last resort. voting for this amendment under scores the need for dhs to study all other alternatives prior to taking land away from law-abiding citizens and could save taxpayer money. a recent kn analysis of cases
from the last round of land seizure found the federal government spent $78 million on 400 miles of land. and 25 million to pay for unresolved transaction and litigation expenses. >> is there further discussion on the amendment? >> jackson lee? >> the rise to support the gentleman from texas amendment. and i also rise to indicate my support for mr. thomp sons amendment in the nature of substitute. let me focus on mr. vela various amendment. because i have as i indicated, endured or participated or listened to homeowners on the border for a number of years as a member of the homeland security committee.
he is spot on with respect to the controversy kp confrontation that will occur. kp these protections on the issue of the as a rule nerkt of homeowners to the law of imminent domain are crucial chl the fact dhs would have to certify whether the land seizures were necessary and reasonable, and as well whether or not there were any other option is crucial. it is also important for controller general to be able to be have the over sight. if you are on the border particularly the texas border you will see the sin between texas and mexico. it is also been documented that border crossings are down substantially. but the business ties are strong. the family ties are strong. the land divide is complicated. and as well that our land goes right up to the border. and to secure or take away land
from homeowners who are using it either for livelihood really is a sin and a shame. particularly if the definitive need cannot be established. so i would offer that if this bill passes, i believe that it is crucial that we have these kinds of restrictions or restraints. let me indicate that we're now almost being held hostage because it is been represented in statements past that mr. trump will not move forward to fund the government unless there is a border bill a border wall. which i assume is the basis of this particular legislation. that ordinarily would have by partisan support. so now we're being held hostage twice. building a wall that the american people have to pay for with this $15 billion tag. and i stepped out of this homeland security hearing mark
up because i was in a hurricane meeting dealing with the devastation in my community and the state of texas. which many colleagues know. in that meeting, there was certainly the acknowledgment that this is going to be a large recovery. a large recovery for florida, texas, the virgin islands. puerto rico and the hurricane season is not yet over. it will be upwards of billions of dollars. some want to nickel and dime that recovery. which is going to under mine the resilience and the restoration of these communities that are suffering. people in my district that are still homeless, and i say homeless their homes are in disrepair. low income individuals. any of us remember hurricane katrina. we will certainly realize the difficulty that we have with hurricane katrina.
because we have the right to return that did not work. but we in houston house many, many people that were in our community. so this amendment brings restraint but i think it's important to emphasize why we're doing this legislation. might i also say, that we continue to be consumed of this act in las vegas. and i understand that the president will be in las vegas. i wonder what he will say besides giving comfort? i hope what he will say and the homeland security should be doing is dealing with the question of domestic terrorism and banning military weapons from being owned by civilians in the large numbers they are. or at least middlize the ability from somebody from going place to place baying military weapons. these are the things we need to do to save lives. i don't understand how the border wall will save lives or
provide enhanced security. i make the point that the under lying bill needs review and assessment. it needs to be a by partisan bill on security based on technology and other aspects-over security and clearly if anything happens we should pass the vela amendment that provides constraints for people on the border who's property is in jeopardy. >> any further discussion on the amendment? the question now occurs in the amendment to the amendment in the nature of substitute. offered by mr. in favor signify by saying aye. >> the amendment is not agreed to. record vote has been requested. this vote will be postponed. chair recognizes himself to offer amendment number 059 the
court shall report the amendment. >> amendment to the amendment in the nature of the substitute to had r 3548. by mr. mccall. >> i recognize myself for five minutes. minor technical changes to fix errors brought to our attention after the ans was released. i urge support and yield back the balance of my time. any further discussion on the amendment? the question now occurs on the amendment to the amendment in the nature of substitute. offered by the chair. all in favor signify by saying aye. next is amendment number 018 offered by the gentleman from texas. mr. herd. would the gentleman like to offer his amendment? >> yes, mr. chairman. ask for its consideration at this time.
>> court shall report the amendment. >> amendment to the amendment in the nature of the substitute. hr 3548 offered by mr. herd. >> mr. herd is recognized for five minutes. >> since 2009 i have been saying building a wall from sea to signing sea is the least effective and most expensive. especially true in areas like terrain and remoteness of the location render a wall impractical and ineffective as well as border patrol response time is measured in hours todays. this is something that the former secretary of homeland security agreed to here at one of our hearings and this is something that recently the president has agreed with. this amendment prevents the deployment of tact kag infrastructure such as physical barriers or walls in areas where natural terrain features make
the deployment ineffective. i would like the common sense would dictate. my amendment ensures this point is clearly stated in the bill. presenting hard earned taxpayer dollars from being wasted on ineffective features or deal with a situation like the bridge to nowhere. i would like to point out this amendment doesn't procollude the inclusion of technology. my smart act included in the under lying text and showing the 21st century technology to finally gain operational control of the border. i yield back to balance of my time. >> gentleman leads back. is there further discussion on the amendment? mr. thompson is recognized. >> while this amendment by the gentleman from texas is well intentioned. but i'm not certain that it will really help or protect the big
ben national park. or other land threatened by the border wall. as written the amendment grants the secretary of homeland security sole discretion to determine whether terrain features are remoteness of an area would render a wall ineffective and as such the exception would apply. this bill is essentially confers exception authority to the same person who is leading the effort to deliver on president trump's promise of a big beautiful wall. this amendment does not establish an objective process with an impartial ash tor. instead it maintains the current imbalance where the deck is stack stack stacked against federal land. enactment of this amendment would likely do nothing and big ben will continue to be threatened. more over i'm troubled the exception is so narrow to as so
ignore there are other legitimate grounds for exception. such as historical significance of sovereignty issues. in arizona for instance, the total nation has southern lands on both side of the border. president trump's wall would divide tribal land and isolate members who live on the mexican side. where there is an exception for tribal land. it's not there. it's create creates an additional problem. for that i urge a no vote. >> is there any further discussion on the amendment? dun can is recognized. >> i rise in support of this common sense amendment. i have traveled to the southern border and to take a look at the
challenges for ourselves understand there are places where border fencing and a wall is not feasible. and the district for example in the arizona, there are very high mountains. running north and south that kroz the international border from mexico into the united states. it's not feasible to put a wall in those mountains. or really any fencing. but what could happen is fencing of a wall up to the mountains and then put your forces the border security and border patrol in those mountains to apprehend the smugglers and others coming north. is feasible. this is a common sense amendment. dealing with the geographical features along a southwest border. and it makes sense. i urge my colleagues to support this. i yield back. >> any further discussion on the
amendment? there being no further discussion. the question now occurs on the amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. herd. all those in favor say aye. opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. amendment is agreed to. >> i ask for a rored vote. >> recorded vote has been requested. this vote will be postponed. >> for the roster. offered by the general lady from arizona. ms. mcsally. >> amendment at the desk. i ask for its consideration at the time. >> court shall report the amendment. amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to hr 3548. offered by ms. mcsally. >> reasonable cathis bill calls technology deployment.
too often we stick all of this great technology into large command centers far from the border. that information doesn't make it down to the chain to the agents. my amendment requires the technology be pushed down into the front line agents who need to to enhance the ability to secure the border and increase situational awareness and safety. in addition 21 weeks of basic training. agents and officers have a tough job. it's our responsibility to ensure they are properly trained and equipped with the skills they need to be successful. and secure the border confident in the ability to track down groups of drug traffickers. master important skills and reduce likelihood misconduct will occur. it requires establish a formal leadership training for first and second like supervisors. these basic leadership courses are required in most professional organizations like the military. and i want to ensure that the
such training is mandated in cdp. adds 550 office of professional responsibility special agents who are responsible for investigating corruption and misconduct. as cdp has grown the agents responsible for the investigations have not. recent sponsored report calls for 550 of the agents for the timely investigation of allegations. cdp rate of corruption and misconduct is low. compared to other like side departments. but the increase will allow timely investigations. sdp if there's wrong doing appropriately flag it for action. or forward for prosecution. lastly my amendment calls to conduct a high non-intrusive demonstration project at three land ports of entry. 90% of all drugs that enter the united states come through the official ports of entry. this demonstration project will allow cdp to keep the traffic moving at the same time screen all vehicles to identify and
reduce the pervasive smuggling threat. i ask my colleagues to support the amendment. >> any further discussion on the amendment. >> thank you very much. it's a good amendment. and we support it. >> that's excellent to hear. maybe the only by partisan moment of the day. we'll take it. and ne further discussion on the amendment? there being no further discussion on the amendment, question now occurs on the amendment to the amendment in the nature of substitute. offered by ms. mechanin favor s. the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. amendment is agreed to. congratulations. >> listed next is the amendment number 009 provide the gentleman
from texas. would the je pan like to offer his amendment. >> it will be another one. quite a few. the court shall report the amendment. amendment to the amendment in the nature of the substitute to hr 3548. offered by mr. vela. >> without objection. recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman the last time dhs sought to border fencing rights of landowners were not respected. by the decade ago when dhs sought to build fencing in with the secure fence act. border patrol and the contractors entered private property to implement plans without informing landowner or community leaders ahead of time. congress was troubled by this over reach and in response enacted a provision in 2008. offered by texas senator. to require the dhs secretary to consult with secretary of the interior and agriculture department as well as state and local government. and property owners. the stated purpose of the
consultation language was to minimize the impact on the environment, culture, commerce and quality of life. in areas where fencing is to be construed. at the time senator sads the consultation was required because local officials and landowners quote felt bulldozed and ilg ignored by the federal government. as it moves ahead of its plan to build 130 miles of fencing in texas. this amendment seeks to expand the consultation provision. on july 20, work crews with chain saws and heavy equipment were spotted at the national butterfly center in mission, texas. when the centers executive director approached the crew she was told they were hired today clear brush and trees along a 1.2 mile road inside the centers land. mr. chairman, that road is a private road on private land. the texas observer reported the center was not notified in writing as the law requires.
another example was the departments work at the national wildlife refuge. with a locals had no idea plans had been in the works for months. it was only uncovered after crews showed up to take soil samples and the media reported on it. i would loo like to ask for unanimous consent to enter into the articles from the texas observer detailing the incidents. my amendment would require dhs to report to congress on its specific construction plan. what the imminent domain implications are for the plan. and more importantly what feed back the agency is received from local stake hoerlsd. this provision would require dhs to engage with communities before proceeding. i urge my colleagues to support the amendment. with that i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. any further discussion on the amendment? there being no further discussion. question now occurs on the amendment to the amendment.
all in favor signify by saying aye. opposed say no. no. the noes have it the the amendment is not agreed to. >> the record vote has been requested pursuant to previous announcement. the vote will be postponed. listed next is amendment number 028. offered by the general lady from new york. ms. rice. >> i have an amendment at the desk. and wish to have it considered at this time. >> court shall report the amendment. >> without objection. ms. rice is recognized for five minutes. >> my amendment would trik the section of the bill that authorizes the secretary of homeland security to wave any and all legal requirements that the secretary deems necessary to ensure the expeditious completion of president trumps
border wall. this provision gives the secretary sole discretion to waive any law he or she wants without consults or notifying congress. as a separate and equal branch of government. on a regular basis. the similar provision granting waiver authority is being challenged in court right now by the attorney general of california. so this is an unsettled issue currently in litigation. the section is unnecessary, undemocratic and i urge many colleagues to support my amendment to have the provision removed. i yield back. >> any further discussion on the amendment? there being no further discussion the question now occurs on the amendment to the amendment in the nature of substitute offered by ms. rice. all in favor say aye. all opposed say no.
no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. amendment is not agreed to. >> i request a recorded vote. >> recorded vote requested. pursuant to previous announcement this vote will be postponed. listed next is amendment number 204. offered by the lady from texas. mr. jackson lee. >> i would like to offer the amendment. >> the court shall report the amendment. >> i thank you very much. ranking member. my amendment is intended to require transparency on the environmental impact that will occur should work done to construct the fence over all start along the border. 27 specious listed in the endangered species act live within 100 feet of the border.
in the project zone near san diego. and the arizona is designated critic critical habitat fir five of the species. found only in southern california. the california and california gnat catcher. pocket mouse and river side ferry shrimp. the u.s. department of homeland security waived laws that believe would impede the construct of the proposed wall along the border. the waiver will allow dhs to by pass certain federal laws, regulations and legal requirements in order to speed up construction along a three mile segment. three national environmental groups are suing the federal government over waivers the department of homeland security granted to circumvent laws to expedite construction of the administration border wall. the defenders of wildlife filed
the lawsuit against homeland security and acting secretary. and federal court over the department decision to waive 37 laws which could delay building a wall along a 15 mile stretch from the pacific ocean east ward along the u.s. mexico border in san diego. the waivers mean the border wall can be built without having to adhere to state and federal laws protecting wildlife. coastal zone, public land, out door recreation and safe drinking water. among other protections and requirements. the importance of safe drinking water is evidence by flint, michigan. which had the entire water supply poisoned result of bad policy decisions made by federal, state and local officials. hurricane harvey we're dealing with the issues impacting the environment. the waiver for the valley and wildlife ref ewe in texas will be devastating to the way of life for people living along the border. key sources of economic vitality
along the border. eco-tourism to witness the beauty of nature. the project area encompasses the mountain wilderness. and border fields state park. all of which are home to sensitive plants and animals and eco-system. listed as an endangered species and can be found in what project area in addition to 18 birds protected under the treaty act and eagle protection act. according to to the lawsuit. and to the facts that in march 2017, agents made 12193 apprehensions on the border. it is the lowest number in 17 years: according to to monthly southwest border numbers since fiscal year 200. for these reasons i ask any colleagues to support the jackson lee amendment.
in addition, i have seen as i said, the border. starting from california all the way across the southern border passed el paso. certainly arizona. and i recognize that it is rich with beauty. it is a reflection of the beauty of america. as in the far southwest or in the far northwest. and certainly in some areas along the northwest border. i think it is crucial we address the question and know that my colleague had an amendment that dealt with some of the issues. in the hill country. and i think it is important that we address the issues now. and so i ask my colleagues to support this amendment. which would call for publication in the federal registry the names oftd species of animals plants in danger by construction
of the fence wall. it is noted to the american people. think of the researchers and all of those who count on these endangered species to continue scientific work. if we're anything we should be supporters of the science and i would hope my colleagues support the amendment. with that, i yield back. >> any further discussion on the amendment? there being no further discussion, the question now occurs on the amendment to the amendment. in the nature substitute offered by ms. jackson lee. all in favor say aye. opposed say no. no. the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. >> chairman. i ask for a recorded vote. >> a recorded vote is requested. this vote will be postponed. >> listed next on the roster. is the keeting amendment.
i do not see mr. keeting here presently. we'll hold that in reserve and go to the next amendment. which is amendment number 025. offered by the gentleman from mississippi. mr. thompson. >> yes, i have an amendment listed on the roster. i ask for its consideration at this time. >> the court shall report the amendment. >> offered by mr. thompson. >> recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this bill directs the dhs secretary to deploy along the u.s. mexico border the most practical and effective tactical infrastructure and technology available. but it fails to explain what process or criteria would be utilized to arrive at such a determination. given the political nature of the current effort, to deliver president trumps wall.
how can we as good stewards of the u.s. taxpayer dollars and leaders of homeland security issues be a assured the secretary arrive at a determination that is not politically influenced? well, we can adopt my amendment. it would ensure that the secretary determines that the technology or tactical infrastructure intends to deploy is the most cost effective, and reflected in analysis prepared by partisan government accountability office. the bill authorizes 10 billion to build the wall. and deploy other tactical infrastructure and technology along the land border. it is interesting to see that this bill advance such a hefty price tag. does not include any offset. you would think the freedom caucus would have a thing or two to say about such an approach. i guess in this political
environment, it is all about getting donald trump a win. this bill with a heavy handed should authorizing his wall where any law standing in the way of the delivering his wall would be waived. would do that. unless we define the term most tract kal and effective the trump administration would be available to point to anything it wants. real or fake. to do whatever it wants. my amendment would prevent the exploitation of such language. by ensuring there is a legitimate basis for such a determination. that way we take the politics out of the equation. and we put the taxpayers concern back into the equation. this simple amendment a technical amendment i hope my colleagues can support. i yield back. >> any further discussion on the
amendment? the question now occurs on the amendment to the amendment in the nature of substitute. all in favor say aye. opposed saying no. no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. and the amendment is not agreed to. >> i ask for a recorded vote. >> recorded vote has been requested. this vote will be postponed. >> per the roster agreement listed next is amendment number 032. offered by td gentleman from massachusetts. mr. keeting. would the gentleman like to offer his amendment. >> i have an amendment at the desk. i'd like to offer it. >> the court shall report the amendment. >> amendment to the amendment in the nature of the substitute to hr 3548. offered by mr. keeting. >> without objection. mr. keeting is recognized for five minutes.
>> the purpose of the amendment is quite simple. require the gao and independent non-partisan agency certify whether the physical borders required to be recollected by the legislation. are the most secure, and cost effective at the deter or detect legal activity in the border. president has focussed on this primarily. yet it's clear that there were other efforts ongoing that are proving effective. their time tested, tested in terms of facts and statistics. and they include some of the reference. for instance the show results that are quite significant. the number of apprehensions. has been lower in 2016 than 2000. by the rate and increase from 69 to 83%. just during the decade of 2006 and 2016. the number of successful
unauthorized crossings is believed to be a tenth of what it was in 2000. in 2016 the number of apprehensions her border agent fell to 17. we seen something that it time tested and proven to be effective. while the dhs and border patrol has kontded to collect statistics on apprehension efforts. there's no study on how effective a new border wall of this proposed magnitude would really be. in light of all the evidence against constructing a border wall we certainly owe hard working american taxpayers some assurance that spending billions of dollars on building and han taning a wall is the most secure option we have. to date there's been no analysis by dhs or a non-partisan independent agency such as gao to conclude a word border wall would be the most effective solution. in 2013 this committee unanimously approved the border security result act 20613.
which would ensure we have metrics to measure effectiveness of the border security. measuring whether the current border security is keeping us secure. keeping in this by partisan spirit i have offered this amendment today to evaluate the effectiveness of a border wall. costing us millions of dollars. this brings me to my second measurement. really lt focus in on my amendment. it's the most cost effective way to achieve operational and control of the border. we don't really have statistics to show this is the case or not. gao report released in february states that the cdp doesn't have an accurate life cycle cost estimate. and some estimates put the actual cost of the wall at between 20 and $70 billion. this amendment is to get the facts before we act. to make sure taxpayers money spent wisely. to make sure we're being
effective in the process. before we move forward with such an enormous sum of money. at the border. let's at least find out what it would cost. how effective it would be. and if this is the wisest course of action. so i hope my amendment is passed. it makes great common sense. that this committee should be able to have that information before we move forward and debate this on the floor. before this issue moves to the floor. we really need this information for any kind of informed debate. better to fully debate an issue without settling it first than settle on an issue without debating it. and having the facts. i yield back. >> any further discussion opt amendment? no further discussion the question now occurs on the amendment to the amendment. offered by mr. keeting. all in favor say aye. opposed say no.
no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. >> i request a recorded vote. >> a recorded vote has been requested. this vote will be postponed. >> listed next is amendment number 020 offered by the general lady from california. would you like to offer your amendment. >> before i do that, i would like to ask for unanimous consent to enter a statement into the record from the aclu. >> so ordered. >> i have an amendment at desk i wish to have it considered at this time. >> court shall report the amendment. >> to hr 3548 offered. >> without objection the reading is. recognized for fie minutes. >> under the capability gap analysis process or c gap, each border patrol sector analyzes its mission and identifies gap preventing it from fulfilling
the mission. based on the risk base analysis from the officers on the ground, identifies options to close the gaps to the use of technology, tactical infrastructure or other solutions. this process informs cdp planning to identify operational and infrastructure requirements over the short, midand long time. like surveillance technology for border security operations. in the bill we're marking up today the secretary is granted unchecked authority to by pass the process and deploy resources when deemed necessary. my amendment would provide necessary over sight for those process by requiring the secretary to certify the chosen solution complies with the analysis. and follows the performance metrics developed by the department. this bill completely the process created by the department and e limb fates any over sight in deployment of resources. my amendment lets congress provide a check to the authority.
and ensure cdp is operating within its mandate. i ask my keegs to support the amendment and yield back. >> the general lady yields back. any further discussion on the amendment? the question now occurs in the amendment to the amendment. offered by. all say aye. opposed no. the amendment is not agreed to. >> per the roster agreement. listed next is amendment number 021 offer by the general lay day from california. >> i have an amendment at the desk i wish to have it considered at this time sdwl the court shall report the amendment. >> without objection. recognized for five minutes. >> federal regulation gives cdp the authority to operate within 100 miles of u.s. externt
boundary. almost two-thirds of the u.s. population and nine out of the ten of the largest metro poll tan areas are within 100 miles of the border. in fact my entire los angeles trikt is within the border zone. within the border zone agents can operate immigration check points. and they are supposed to be limited in scope, in practice, agents regularly conduct criminal investigations and the illegal searches at check points. the border zone was adopted by the department of justice without any public comment or debate 64 years ago when there were fewer than 1,100 agents. today, there are almost 23,000. my amendment reduces the border zone to 25 miles and keeps cbp focussed at the border. allowing them to operate so far from the border distracts from its primary mission and invites widespread constitutional violations. for the reasons i ask my
colleagues to support the amendment and yield back. >> general lady yields back. any further discussion on the amendment? >> mr. thompson is recognized. >> i'd like to speak in support of the amendment. a lot of us have had issues in our district, my district is some 150 miles from the border. and there have been actions taken that i felt not only was inappropriate but should handled by other agencies. limited that scope is the right thing to do. i support the amendment. >> gentleman yields back. any further discussion? >> again. i want to thank my colleagues. for the consideration of this. as someone who represents a border district and shares the border security sub committee.
there's tremendous challenges in border communities when in the rural areas there's hours to tas often before intercepts are happening. which essentially means that the public safety challenge with the transnational criminal organizations coming through, ranchers and border residents territory and i have long advocated that we need to have a strategy that is intelligence driven. increases situation awareness. uses all the assets. that are in this bill. in order to make sure that activity is detected and intercepted as close to the border as possible. because many fronts i have check points in my community, there's great frustration there. the impact it has on economic development. and just the potential negatives across the board. this is something i have been focussed on as a border representative and subcommittee chair. i'm concerned about an arbitrary
25 miles. i agree again with the spirit of what you're trying to get to. we can work together to continue to push for a strategy that focuses detection and interception right at the border or prior to the border. and so just as a chair i commit to continuing the focus on that. i do disagree with immediately and putting it at 25 miles at this moment. i want to speak in support of the dwrd and the spirit of what you're doing. i'm concerned about how that would be executed. i'm not going to vote yes. but i appreciate work continues to work with you and address the concerns. i yield back. >> i know her ranchers very well. that's why we're authorizing 5,000 more border patrol agents to push up to the pord border. so it there any further discussion on the amendment? there being no further
discussion the question occurs on the amendment to the amendment. all those in favor say i. opposed say no. no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. and the amendment is not agreed to sgr may i ask if a recorded vote, please. >> this vote will be postponed. >> per the roster agreement listed next is amendment number 202. offered by ms. jackson lee. >> i have a version at the desk. for unanimous consent. >> the clerk will distribute the amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. now the clerk shall report the amendment. >> amendment to the amendment in the nature of substitute. to hr 3548 offered by ms. jackson lee. >> without objection the reading is recognized for five minutes.
>> i thank the chairman. colleagues, the daca protection is still the present law of the land by way of an executive order. and it is still operable for the young people utilize it. we have heard in a by partisan manner this whole congress wants to fight for our daca students. many of whom are living in absolute fear and apprehension. many of whom are facing confusion. and for any daca student, daca protected individual, let me be very clear that please get in your application by october 5. in order to ensure your protection. please make sure your application is received by
october 5. delivered by october 5. dropped off in the appropriate office by october 5. my amendment is a very simple and fair amendment. recognizing what i understand is a by partisan respect and understanding that the daca students, daca young people were brought to the country through no fault of their own. they are military personnel, they are students, they are workers, that i are supporters of the family. my amendment at the end och section 115 does the following. chief of the u.s. border patrol shall submit a policy. protocol and procedures given to agents on how they are to engage citizens. lawful residents and childhood arrivals. this is clear evidence that this amendment is needed. unanimous consent to submit into the record daca recipients
briefly detained at check points. it is a story of 25 year-old. that came to the border check. with his daca credentials. and he was detained for hours which caused him to lose an important job interview. his sister had to come to the border to provide the where abouts and information about his mother and father. there have been too many surprises and got cha moments. around the policy. i ask unanimous concert for this article to be put in the record. >> without objection. so ordered. >> too many surprises and got cha moments around the immigration policy for any of us to make any accomplishment about the safety and security of daca resip ents. it's a compassion compromise to find a solution because there was no work done at many bills have been introduced. my save america bill to finds
solution for the millions born elsewhere but at the young age brought into the united states where they have lived since childhood. many mig not be aware until they needed proof of u.s. citizen ship. the president's decision to rescind the policy that liberated 800,000 young persons. 124,000 of them in texas. from the shadows of life and welcome them into the mainstream and encourage them to realize their potential and achieve the american dream was a rejection of the spirit of fair play that we as americans pride ourselves. again, these are the president's words. but daca is still operable for the young people. at the heart of the trump administration cruel heartless and misguided decision, to rescind daca is the spacious claim that president obama lacked the constitution and authority to take executive action to implement the policy. i'm willing today to take the president at his word and he would not want to have a distreatment for young daca
individuals that with their current documentation and that is operable as a they come into the border. they are status under the daca permission. there was no need to make any decision about daca right now. there was no real pending deadline. no court case. no legal requirement that would necessitate the presidential action. we're seeing that the actions of the border patrol agents are reflective of words not on law. because they're stomping daca individuals and treating them differently from citizens, legal residents and others who come into the country. it will be appropriate for us to assess what is being said to the border patrol agents. i know they want to serve their country. i thank them for their service. we are unfairly putting them in a position. my district we continue to mourn the loss of a dreamer. who came to the u.s. from mexico as a child and died here in the
united states. when his boat capsized while he was rescuing survivors of the flooding caused by hurricane harvey. in houston. hurricanes are some of the worst thinkings that can happen. he was out and came from with his boat. to join so many volunteers that helped save the livings of my citizens. who came to me and told me they wouldn't have survived if it hasn't been for the volunteers who came with their boats. their boots. and boats. the president should have focussed on the crisis in puerto rico and florida. and hurricane harvey. we have a very sad state of affairs where we have hurricane harvey victims survivors who are daca recipients who are frightened to come out and get benefits. they are status. i argue the main job should be comprehensive reform. banning military weapons. talking about domestic terrorism. we shouldn't leave the daca
state of the unions and status individuals unprotected. i ask my colleagues to support the amendment. it is simply establishing or asking for the protocol to be reported on as how a border patrol agent will handle individuals at the border. with that i ask support of the amendment and yield back. >> any further discussion on the amendment? let me say in response to the general ladies amendment that on september the 6, 2017, this year. u.s. customs dp border protection the acting chief of the border patrol issued a memorandum for chief border patrol agents and director chiefs on guidance and basically providing guidance on precisely what the general lady amendment is requesting. i would be happy to provide the general lady with the
memorandum. that was just recently issued. i think it answers the amendment and i think makes this amendment moot. for that reason i will oppose this amendment. >> will the gentleman yield. my amendment in particular asks for a report to be submitted to congress if it was provided to the border patrol agents. i would offer to say this was in the houston chronicle on tuesday. october 3. 2017. it is probably or most likely hasn't gotten to the border patrol agents. and their leadership. certainly congress should know what the protocols are. with the bill. it will probably be enhanced stopping and i think the amendment is relevant. and not moot. because this is a current action and so i'd ask my colleagues. i yield back. i thank the chairman for yielding. >> so general lady yields. any further discussion?
the question now occurs in the amendment to the amendment. offered by ms. jack season lee. all in favor say aye. opposed say no. no. the opinion of the chair the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. >> chairman. i ask for a recorded vote. >> a recorded vote has been requested. this vote will be postponed. >> for the roster afwreemt listed next is amendment number 056. offered by the gentleman from rhode island. would he like to offer his amendment. >> i have an amendment at the des desk. >> recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as you know, i share your strong desire to ensure or border is pr protected and secure.
i share the views of democratic colleagues in i have deep reservations about what the bill is in effective way to do that and achieving the goal. there are limited areas of the border where fencing could kproo improve the security. and for the billions of dollars to do so i believe is ineffective sdp unnecessary course of action. i also have concerns about the collateral effect of the legislation. respect to the construction. the amendment i'm offering with my good friend is targeted to the most agree jous of the effects. which can be found in section 120. of the bill. the section 120 would exempt activity carried out by the customs sp border protection on agency on federal land including wall construction from dozens of
statutes. hindered by environment or public health is well known and studied. gao report had clearly indicated nd 2010, 2012, 22, 26 border patrol agents in charge. interview said that federal land management laws had no impact on the security status of the jus diction. the remains four had either not requested additional resources to deal with any required. or those or had the requests denied. not the department of interior or department of agriculture. so section 120 is truly a solution search of a problem. but and for this i must commend you mr. chairman. it is a well drafted position.
far too often we look for a victim. to hides the scope of the a provision impact. to your credit section 20 doesn't fall into the trap. it's quite explicit. about what is exempting. and quite frankly it's scary. so if you live in a border community and i will mind everyone that includes any land within 100 miles of the southern or northern border, you should be concerned. so you care about safe drinking water, and clean air for your family? section 120 waives fundamental public health legislation. worried about potential flooding. after the construction of fence that accumulated debris. section 120 exempts activity from the environmental impact. or perhaps you're a small
business owner sebing the 165,000 visitors who come to bird watch at the national wildlife refuge. the protections to the the crown jewel of the system, thrown out by this bill. beyond the immediate effects on border communities, section 120 could cause permanent damage to the environment. as u.s. today reported earlier this year, the largest native cat to the americas the jaguar a species that's just begun to come back in the southwest after being wiped out by hunters is likely could not survive the construction of a wall. that blocks its wandering. section 120 prevents any protection under fundamental environment laws like the endangered species act from applying. i ask unanimous consent to insert the reference article i have here. into the record.
>> without objection, so ordered. >> thank you. these waivers the setting aside of decades of work by our colleagues both past and current. deeply disturbing. and i could go on and on about things like protection for tribal land, historic preservation and. the waives of the administrative procedures act. eliminating the protection of the over locked law which includes the freedom of information act. we are ending right for people in affected communities to know about the waivers granted to the law. imagine waivers granted and you never know why. we are silenting their right to be participants in the democracy by commenting on proposals. we're putting communities, citizens and the environments at risk in ways that may never be known until it's too late.
in closing section 120 doesn't solve a pressing problem. it causes a rash of them in ways most people will have no ways of knowing about. >> strike this section from the bill and keep the critical protections in place. i yield back. >> any further discussion on the amendment? mr. dunken is recognized. >> i thank the chairman. unfortunately the border patrol has difficult time patrolling certain areas of the border. not because of terrain or technology. some of the things we dpraes with mr. herd. because they are restricted by environmental regulations from accessing portions oftd border. border patrol agents are as a distinct disadvantage because they are consistently unable to use motorized vehicles to patrol the areas or place surveillance structures in strategic areas.
let me tell you who's not worried about the environment degradation. is the smugglers. causes. our borders have become an open highway. providing border patrol is a necessary thing. it provides both national security and long-term health of our federal land. so i'd urge my colleagues to reject the amendment. >> the legislation that's offered talks about construction, installation, operation and maintenance in the areas. the whole issue of apprehension is not prohibited under what's
offered. but more importantly, mr. chairman, a lot of the reason that we are the country that we are is based on the laws that we have. so, if we all of a sudden do away with the federal water pollution control act, the safe drinking water act, the clean air act, a lot of those acts that we hold sacred, this puts us in a position that we can't defend who we are. and so i am supportive of the amendment, because our founding fathers put a lot of these acts in place to present totect the environment, for conservation matters and other the reasons and i look at that as the way to go. and with that, i will support the gentleman from rhode
island's amendment. as well, mr. chairman, i have a letter in support of the amendment by 60 organizations around the country, i'd like to enter it into the record. >> without objection. that's so ordered. gentleman yields back. is there any further discussion on the amendment? >> mr. chairman, this bill prohibits anything of getting in the way of border security actions. that means there are no rules on cbt while operating on national parks or other national lands. the refuge is one of the most biological diverse areas in the country and has earned the title as a jewel of the national wildlife system. santa ana allows visitors to see birds, about thbutterflies and
speci species not found elsewhere. ken merritt, a federal wildlife official who oversaw santa ana from 1997 to 2008 said in an article that building a 18-foot wall through the refuge would most certainly destroy it. there is a way to accomplish border security without destroying protected land. it is on federal land, and the government can build it faster. expediency has taken higher importance than results. with that i yield back. >> the gentleman yield ts back. any further discussion? let me just, i have tremendous respect for the gentleman from rhode island. i just want to point out just a few key points. the current law provides the
authority to the secretary. and we expand this to technology. the waiver's been exercised seven times previously, in 2005, and challenged in court four times on constitutional grounds and has been upheld. without fourth discussion, the question now occurs on the amendment, to the amendment, and the substitute. all those in favor signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> and all those opposed please say no. >> no. >> a recorded voting has been requested. this vote will be postponed. perfect the roster agreement, 037. offer the gentleman from new york, mr. katko. >> amendment to the amendment in
the nature of a substitute. >> without objection, reading is dispensed with. mr. katko's recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. my community has been hit hard by the plight of drugs, human trafficking and smuggling and the constant threat of terrorism. they don't set up rings around congressional boundaries. they seek to find ways into our community and to take advantage of our neighbors. having served as a federal organized crime prosecutor for 20 years, i saw first hand how law enforcement integration at all levels can greatly influence our abilities before they become systemic. we want to combat against drugs, weapons and other contraband.
continued collaborative effort is essential for our current and joint future operations and we should look for other ways to integrate our law enforcement practices. a program that has integration between canada and the united states is the integrated border enhancement teams. it enhances border security. immigration and custom enforcement to monitor and intradikt illicit activity. i'd like to have -- codifying this program will demonstrate our commitment to collectively secure the northern border. further, by passing the amendment, they will have greater authority to reallocate
resources to highest threat areas this. gives the secretary of homeland security the ability to compose ibats. by passing this amendment we can close existing gaps along the border and increase interoperability. i hope my colleagues support my amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman yields back. is there any further discussion on the amendment? there being no further discussion, all in favor signify by saying aye. all those opposed signify by saying no. the ayes have it. an amendment 013, offered by the gentleman from texas, mr. ratcliffe. >> i'd ask that it be considered
at this time. >> amendment to the ooimt in the nature of a substitute to hr 3548 offered by mr. ratcliffe. >> mr. ratcliffe is recognized for five minutes. >> i am grateful for the opportunity to be here today to consider something that is a priority for my constituents and me, for the american people. and something that was promised by president trump. true border security. i share the president's concern that a porous border has incentivized widespread illegal immigration and allow drug smugglers to come into our country. the constitution tells us our primary role is providing for the common defense. and fulfilling the mandate given to us by the citizens of this country. i think it's critical that we do everything possible to prevent
the problems of a porous border from reappearing in the future. we need to tackle them now once and for all. i want to enact tunnel task force program at dhs. it is comprised of agents from ice, homeland security investigation. and dea and border control to combat subterranean activity. as a former united states attorney and prosecutor i saw first hand how transnational criminals and terrorists are constantly evolving their tools and tactics to bring illegal drugs and other contraband into this country. we need the foresight to anticipate how criminals will adapt, and we need to respond by giving our law enforcement the
tools necessary to combat them effectively, to shut them down and to shut down any potential cross-border threat. my amendment will do just that, i ask the committee to support my amendment and i yield back. >> any further discussion on the amendment? there being no further discussion on the amendment, the question now occurs on t amendment. all those in favor signify by saying aye. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. per the roster agreement, 024, offered by the gentleman from new jersey, mr. payne, would the gentleman like to offer his amendment? >> mr. chair, amendment at the desk. >> court shall report the amendment. >> amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute 3548 offered by mr. payne. >> the reading is dispensed with.
mr. payne is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chair. today cpb is the ladies and gentlemenest -- largest law enforcement agency. this bill directs cpb to have over 6,000 cpb law enforcement personnel hired and assigned to active duty within the next four years. since the underlying goal failed to have the number of investigators to match the increase in cpb's ranks, i was pleased to see that both representative mcsally and i shared concern about this grave omission. however, i respectfully disagree with my colleague's modest approach, given the number of investigators authorized under her amendment. i believe the number of investigators of cpb means to
match, to be much higher, not because i think cpb law enforcement officers are inherently corrupt or prone to misconduct, i am concerned, because i want to protect cpb from corruption and scandal. earlier this summer, we learned of a deeply troubling allegation of misconduct by 11 cpb officers, including three supervisors in my district. and north international airport. less than a month ago we were notified that the three of these individuals were arrested on charges of forcefully assaulting and intimidating fellow officers. based on her amendment, we would
only have one investigator for every 100 law enforcement personnel, which does not even meet the ratio of cpb, cpb's legacy agency used when its personnel was a fraction of what it is today. i believe the proposal is too modest and that cpb will need a greater capacity within its office of professional responsibility to keep up with the demands placed on cpb by this bill. by requiring the number of full-time investigators proposed in my amendment, cpb will be much better the positioned to effectively and affectively be able to respond. once again, i respectfully agree with my colleagues, but i feel it does not go far enough.
i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. >> gentleman yields back. is there any further discussion on this amendment? ms. mcsally. >> yes, i want to thank my colleague for the spirit of the amendment, and as is discussed previously in the other amendment, we do need to make sure that we have enough individuals in the office of professional responsibility to have timely investigations. this is the right thing to do for due process for individuals and for addressing any corruption or any misconduct. however, 550, the report of dhs says 550 would be sufficient at this time, which right now is t at 250. so with the country challenges we have, and even hiring the
number of already-mandated agents in cpb, both border patrol and cpb officers, i think it's significant to stick with the 550 and we can revisit. soy appreciate the spirit of it, and y but i think we should stick with the 550 and revisit. >> from chairman, this bill forces an enormous pressure on cpb to add personnel to its ranks. when it has struggled to meet the agents in the officers. while it's true that there are significant staffing shortages at ports of entry, additions must be taken carefully so to
protect cpb as an institution. we want to make sure that the officers they bring through their ranks are of the highest integrity. there were instances where drug cartels successfully infiltrated cpb ranks. that's why we have stricter standards, and polygraph examinations have been integrated into the process. as a result of the border security buildup over the last decade, the risk of cartels attempting to infiltrate the border patrol's ranks is high and the threat cannot be ignored. the homeland security committee addressed similar concerns. the number of full-time investigators be increased. this ensures that cpb has the personnel necessary. i urge my colleagues to protect cpb as an institution by voting in favor of this amendment. thank you, and with that i yield
back. >> gentlemen lady yield ts back. the question now occurs on the amendment to the amendment in the nature of substitute offered by mr. payne. all those in favor signify by saying aye. all those opposed signify by saying no. the amendment is not agreed to. a recorded vote has been requested, this vote will be postponed. 008, offered by the gentleman from texas. would the gentleman like to offer his amendment? >> yes, mr. chairman. >> amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to hr 3548. >> mr. vela's recognized for five minutes. >> i am sure that we all recall the massive rallies hosted by then candidate trump where eager crowds would gleefully the
participate in the call and response where he would say "we are going to build a wall", and ask "who's going to pay for it"? and the crowd would chant "mexico." and he would say, "who's going to pay for the wall"? and they would cheerfully shout "mexico." it was a central promise. it was so critical to the then-presidential candidate, that in august hours before his major immigration speech, he traveled to mexico to meet with the mexican president. just five weeks ago, on august 27, 2017, the president reiterated his promise on twitter that mexico would pay for the wall. the bill under consideration today may fulfill the promise of trump's wall, but it turns its back on a central feature of the president's proposal, that mexico would foot the bill.
instead, this bill makes american taxpayers pay for the bill. i do not support the construction of trump's wall, that said, i make the commitment to hold the president to his promise that the wall will be paid for by mexico. it should be easy if one agrees with his campaign promises. this would prevent a bait and switch against the american people. president trump promised the american people that mexico would pay for the wall. and this amendment would ensure that it does and save the taxpayers $15 billion. with that, i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. is there any further discussion on the -- >> yes, mr. chairman. >> ms. watson-coleman. >> mr. chairman, if someone came along, dangling a set of car keys and offered that, most people would say sure, why not, hand me the keys. but if upon taken to the dealership to drive the new vehicle off the lot an invoice
was handed over with a whole lot of zeros, that person would rightfully feel betrayed. for those out there that bought what then candidate trump was selling at face value, the reality today that the mexican government will not agree to pay for trump's wall is a harsh one. for the record, mr. chairman, i do not support president trump's plans for a big and beautiful border wall, that said. i think we owe it to the nation to have an extensive debate on whether we should condition the release of billions of tax dollars on whether president trump, the mr. "art of the deal" successfully negotiates a reimbursement agreement with our neighbors to the south. there's a big diefrns between a shiny new car and a free shiny new car. the president promised a border wall. what this is is a boarder wall
with a $15 billion price tag attached to it. the cost ranges from $20 billion to $70 billion, which is far less than what is provided here -- which is far more than what is even provided here. moth moreover, taxpayers will be expected to bear millions of dollars of costs. this is not what the american people were promised. it is a textbook bait and switch. i support this amendment to hold the president to heis promise. and with that, i yield back. >> any further discussion on the amendment? let me just say, my colleague from texas has crafted another very creative amendment but i do stand opposed to it. the question is on the amendment to the amendment.
all in favor signify by saying aye. all opposed signify by saying no. no. the nos have it and the amendment is not agreed to. a recorded vote has been requested. this vote will be postponed. next on the ross tore is amendment number 203 offered by ms. jackson lee. i do not see her present in the room. so we will bring this back up when she returns. per the roster agreement listed next is amendment number 020, offered by the gentleman from texas. in hurd. would the gentlemen like to offer his amendment? >> yes, mr. chairman. i have an amendment listed on the roster and ask for its consideration at this time. >> the court shall support the amendment. >> amendment so the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. hurd. >> without objection, the
reading is dispensed with. mr. hurd is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chair. as my colleagues know, the 23rd congressional district of texas contains over 800 miles of the u.s./mexico border and is home to eight national parks, including big bend. many of these national treasures, including big bend, already have working agreements with customs and border protection that account for their unique geographical and environmental ecosystems. national parks are part of the american experience and provide educational and economical benefits to the region and the country. we have a responsibility as a nation to protect them so they remain beautiful and wild for future generations of park goers to enjoy. my amendment is simple. the cbp has come to an agreement. and the activities stipulated by
that agreement take precedence over section 120 of the bill. there's an old saying, if it ain't broke, don't nefix it. i'm proud of the partnership that already exists. in this case, in the case of many national parks along the border, the existing close cooperation with cbp does not need fixing. i look forward to seeing an existing agreement going forward. and i urge our colleagues to stand by our national parks and support this agreement. >> while appreciate the motivation behind this amendment, it demands that we trust an outside agreement between cbp and the department of interior.
pursuant to section 120. president trump prioritized border enforcement above protection of national park. in april, president trump signed an executive order that put the national park system in j unprecedent unprecedented peril. and his secretary of interior proposed opening sections of land it to mining, logging and other developments. they have not expressed concern that the wall might endanger species or anything else. as such, there's no legitimate basis to expect individuals answerable to president trump to execute the agreement to protect these lands. if this committee is really concerned about protecting
federal land, the amendment offered by the gentleman from rhode island, to extract section 120 in its entirety should have been adopted. relying on agreements by and between officials working for an administration that wants the wall at all costs and has plans to reduce protections of federal lands as this amendment proposes strikes me as foolhardy. it also restricts congressional oversight insofar as these agreements would not be subject to notice or comment of congressional notification. in fact, the amendment lacks any disclosure, notification or transparency requirement. what is to prevent the administration from renegotiating existing agreements, ongoing agreements that protect lands. there are no safeguards in this.
with that i raise no vote on the amendment. >> there being no further discussion, the question refers to the amendment on the amendment in the nature of substitute offered by mr. hurd. all those in favor significant ne anify by saying aye. the agreement is agreed to. >> i ask for a recorded vote. >> a recorded vote has been requested pursuant to previous announcement. this vote will be postponed. this is our last amendment on the roster. per the agreement, the next amendment is number 203 offer the by the gentle lady from texas. ms. jackson lee, would the gentle lady like to offer her amendment? >> yes, i'd like to offer my amendment. >> amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to hr 354 3548 by ms. jackson lee. >> ms. jackson lee is recognized
for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, i have a parliamentary inquiry. i have a second amendment, can i do both enblanc? >> that would be preferable, yes. >> all right, the first one -- >> if the gentle lady would yield for -- >> court shall distribute the off-roster amendment. >> which one do you want -- >> we will be considering these enblanc. >> there's one on-roster amendment, 203 and two off hon roster amendments. >> i want to do one off roster, which would be relating to the detention centers. that's the only one i wish to do at this time with the one i'm presently doing. would like to do those two
mr. chairman? >> an amendment to the amendment to hr 3548. offered by ms. jackson lee. >> i thank the gentleman and the ranking member. i will discuss my two amendments. first one being amendment number 203, which deals with the impact of the muslim ban. the administration issued a new travel ban that is based upon the flawed logic of the first. it is wrong that you can determine a person holds a terror threat base the upon his country of origin. as i've indicated and said often in this markup, a terrorist act occurred on last sunday night in las vegas. domestic terrorism is as real. and therefore, the problem with
the muslim ban is profiling and the flawed, the flawed protocols that have over the past couple of months i've had to address things, muslim doctor and hess wi -- his wife, a doctor coming in to be with their dying mother. and during that time we know they were profiled coming in and were held in detention because they were muslim. this type of profile has proven to be flawed and should not be part of our international policy. this past weekend we had over 58 people killed. over 500 injured. my amendment in particular deals with the new travel ban and also damages, brings damage to our nation's refugee program by suspending it for 120 days,
limiting refugees to 50,000 a year, down from 110,000 set by the obama administration. the new guideline would mark a dramatic departure from the trump administration. so my amendment would deal with this flawed policy, and i ask my colleagues to support it. the second amendment prohibits the border protection from taking detainees to detention center unless those are adequately staffed to meet the health care and die tear etary f those being detain. let me be very clear that the detention centers that have been run by private auspices, they don't have the opportunity provide stotfamily members the stat
status of their loved ones. i've visited family members of my constituents at detention centers, and i can assure you that that simple amendment is truly one that is would commit the resources to meet the health care, dietary needs and those being detained. meaning that if this amendment was passed and if the other amendment was pass ted, it woul be far better for us to address the needs of people. the defense centers be fully staffed. so i ask my colleagues to support the two jackson lee amendments. with that, i yield back my time. >> gentle lady yields back. any further discussions on the enblanc amendments? the question now occurs to the offered by ms. jackson lee. all in favor signify by saying
aye. aye. in the opinion of the chair, the nos have it. >> i request a recorded vote. >> the gentle lady requests a recorded vote. this will be postponed. does any other member wish to offer an amendment to the amendment in the nature of substitute. >> court shall report. >> an amendment to the amendment in the nature of substitute to hr 3548. ms. mcsally. >> without objection, the reading is dispensed with. and the gentle lady's recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. recently it came to our attention that although it was not intended, the way some are reading section 120 of our bill would be to waive foia for provisions in that section. again, that was not the intent
of this bill. and this amendment simply clarifies that nothing in that section or this act will allow any waiving of foia responsibilities. transparency is an important part of governance, and i think we could all agree to make sure that this legislation, as it moves out of committee makes that clarification, so it's just simply saying the waiver authority may not be construed as affecting or negating in any manner the united states code currently referred to as the freedom of information act. i think this is an important issue to clear up. it was not intended by this legislation that foia be waived. but i wanted to make sure it was very clear that foia is not waived in this legislation. and with that, i yield back. >> gentle lady yields back. is there any further discussion on the amendment? ms. watson-coleman. >> i want to be sure that the
public has access to information, important information, from customs and border protection via the freedom of information act. one wonders how a provision exempting cbp got into the bill in the first place. however, i would be remiss if i did not point out that her amendment picks winners and losers. to the detriment of the air we breathe, the water we drink and the tribal sovereignty and endangered species, just to name a few issues. why are we exempting the freedom of information act on the waivers but not the exempt, on the clean air and water act. it's not good for border communities or the american public. so i will support the mcsally amendment but urge my colleagues again to support the amendment
offered by mr. langevin. >> i thank the gentle lady for the clarification. all in favor signify by saying aye. all opposed signify by saying no. in the opinion of the chase, ire ay ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. are there any other amendments to the amendment offered at this time? no other offers, the committee will return, i believe we will begin the process of voting on the votes that have been rolled to the conclusion of this. the ranking member's recognized. >> so immediately after, you
will come back? >> the clerk will send out a notice of the exact time of votes. let me just ask the clerk. i would assume we can begin voting after this series of votes. >> there's a classified briefing, section 702, patriot act. i think it would be wise for all members to return for votes after the conclusion of the classified briefing. and the clerk will send out the notice. so that the committee stands in recess.