Skip to main content

tv   U.S. House Meets for Legislative Business  CSPAN  September 12, 2017 3:59pm-6:00pm EDT

3:59 pm
the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. does any member wish to speak in opposition? hearing none? the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 123 printed in house report 115-297. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. serrano: i rise as the designee of the the gentleman from new york, mr. crowley and have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 123 rinted in house report 115-297 offered by mr. serrano of new york. mr. serrano: my amendment is very straightforward --
4:00 pm
the chair: the gentleman will suspend. pursuant to house resolution 504, the gentleman from new york, the gentleman from new york, mr. serrano, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. serrano: sorry for interrupting you, mr. chairman. my amendment is very straightforward and prohibit funds allocated in the bill being used for the construction and operation of private for-profit prisons. the use of private the use of private prisons in our country is in a crises. people are being locked up in a facility that doesn't respect basic human rights. one in four people behind bars worldwide is in a united states jail. that's right. the country with less than 5% of the world's population accounts for a quarter of all the world's prisoners. in fact, our prison population has continued to increase over the past few decades even as
4:01 pm
statistics have shown a decrease in crime. according to the f.b.i., violent and major property crimes are at a historic low. nevertheless, more and more americans are getting locked up. there are several reasons for this. from overly punitive mandatory minimum sentences to the cycle of poverty and the school-to-prison pipeline, but one thing is for sure, so long as there is an incentive to full prison cells for profit, there will be more americans unnecessarily behind bars. so long as we perpetuate the prison industrial complex, we will find it harder and harder to reduce our bloated prison population and make meaningful reforms to our criminal justice system. last year, an investigative reporter for the nation uncovered horrible conditions at private correction facilities. inmates were not receiving basic medical care. even items required by the
4:02 pm
bureau of prisons. in country case they were kept in rows of bunk beds in unair-conditioned zones baking in the heat and the sun. in another case, poor conditions sparked riots by the inmates. now, don't get me wrong. i feel no sympathy for violent criminals who have no remorse for what they did and deserve to be locked away for their crimes, but our founders knew that we have an obligation to maintain respect for human life and they enshrined in our constitution by protecting against cruel and unusual punishment. when this report came to light, president obama's attorney general loretta lynch chose to act. the president issued a memorandum saying we would phase out the use of private prisons partially by seeking to reduce our prison population. but in february, in keeping with this administration policy simply of reversing everything
4:03 pm
president obama did, attorney general jeff sessions rescinded the order. it has since indicated we won't continue to use private prisons. we will use more of them. and we will lock up more people to fill them. what a disgrace. it's a waste of taxpayer dollars, and it's a waste of countless american lives that could be turned around and made into successful citizens. i am proud that my home city of new york we have decided to divest our pension system from the for-profit prison industry. now it's time for the federal government to divest itself as well. we must continue to work on comprehensive criminal justice reform, seek to reform mandatory minimum sentences and curb the failed war on drugs and focus on re-entry and resbegation so -- integration so that those who serve time can become productive citizens
4:04 pm
of society rather than life-long inmates. tonight we can start with this amendment and send a message to the trump administration. we can tell him not to reverse the progress made under president obama and attorney general loretta lynch. tonight we can say that making money off incarcerating individuals is simply inconsistent with american values. thank you and i reserve the alance of my time. the chair: the gentleman eserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. culberson: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. culberson: i know that mr.er is ano is offering this on behalf of someone that couldn't be here today. i rise in strong opposition to this amendment. let me make sure i read it so people understand. none of the funds may be used for the operation of a
4:05 pm
correctional facility by a private party or contractor, period. this would shut down every privately prison and halfway house in the united states. where are those 34,000 criminals going to go? you have to turn them loose on the streets or pack them in like sar deans in exasing -- sar deans in exasing prison cells or spend billions of dollars over the next few years to house them. this bill is dangerous, irresponsible and risks the safety of the public. by cutting off immediately all money to prisons these 34,000 inmates would have to be released on the streets of america. i can't imagine what kind of disaster that would result in. furthermore, i always believed in the yellow pages test. if you can find a government service in the yellow pages, you ought to try to privatize it because as the general rule the private sector will find a way to do it more efficiently, less expensively and a way that will save taxpayer money. my experience has been with the
4:06 pm
private prisons that operated in the state of texas quite successfully, those operating throughout the bureau of prisons is they are providing better security, better food, better health care, better transportation, better housing, better facilities for both the inmates and the staff. they have been very successful across the country, and these 34,000 inmates will have nowhere else to go. this amendment is extremely dangerous, destructive and irresponsible and i urge members to join me in opposing this amendment not only to the risk of public safety but the damages it will do to the hardworking people of america. i urge members to join me in voting no. and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york has one minute remaining. mr. serrano: i would like to yield that to the gentlewoman from new jersey. the chair: the gentlelady is
4:07 pm
recognized. mrs. watson coleman: thank you very much. mr. speaker, i rise today to offer my strong support of this amendment to end the proliferation of private prisons in our federal justice system. following the administration's reversing president obama's ban on the use of private prisons for federal prisoners, the for-profit prison industry has ot only been rejuvenated but expanding. the only purpose is to educate and rehabilitate individuals who made mistakes and are serving their sentence. no one should profit from our prison system. that's why i plan to reintroduce the end for-profit prisons act, legislation that would require the bureau of prisons and u.s. marshal to end its contracts with for-private facilities and make critical changes to the re-entry process for individuals who have been released from federal prisons. with that i call for the immediate passage of this amendment. i thank the gentleman for yielding and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady
4:08 pm
yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. culberson: reserve. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from texas has the only time remaining. mr. culberson: mr. chairman, i urge members to join me in opposing this amendment to protect the public safety of the people of the united states, to ensure our tax dollars are efficiently used. but above all, to make sure these 34,000 inmates are not released onto the streets of america. i urge a no vote on this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. he amendment is not agreed to. for what purpose does -- it's now in order to consider mendment number 124 printed in house report 115-297. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition?
4:09 pm
mr. flores: mr. chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: is the gentleman the designee of the gentleman who offered the amendment? mr. flores: mr. byrne from alabama. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 124 printed in house report 115-297 offered by mr. flores of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 504, the gentleman from texas, mr. flores, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. flores: thank you, mr. chair. i rise today to often amendment with my good friend from alabama, mr. byrne, to address an ongoing bureaucratic overreach of our ocean -- our country's ocean and inland economies. our amendment bans the use of federal funds for the implementation of the previous administration's national ocean policy. executive order 13547, signed by then-president obama in 2010, requires that 60-plus
4:10 pm
bureaucracies essentially zone the oceans and the sources thereof. the national ocean policy's are an encroachment. these activities have not been authorized by congress nor have any appropriations ever been made by congress to fund those activities. yet, the bureaucracies continue to act as if those are irrelevant prohibitions against their activities. mr. chair, since 2010, this body has voted eight times in support of this amendment in a bipartisan manner. this language also was included in the base text of the fiscal ear 2018 interior and ag appropriations bills. we're looking to get it in the c.j.s. bill now. we're offering this amendment again because concerns remain the national ocean policy extends far beyond restricting ocean activities and it may significantly impact inland
4:11 pm
activities as well. this amendment simply stops the funding of unauthorized bureaucratic overreach. it does not have any impact on the coordination, planning or congressionally authorized activities to take care of our nation's important oceans. i urge -- excuse me -- i urge my colleagues to support the amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. serrano: i rise to claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. serrano: i rise in opposition to this amendment. this executive order was signed by president obama in july, 2010. the national ocean policy is designed to improve stewardship of our oceans, coasts, islands and great lakes by directing government agencies with differing mandates to coordinate and work together. the national ocean policy creates no new authorities. the result of increased
4:12 pm
coordination is better stewardship of our natural heritage through improved government efficiency, better development and use of data and formation and a process of transparent stakeholder engagement that informs decisionmaking. this increased coordination between agencies needs to take place on a federal level to reduce inefficiency, waste and redundancy between agencies. the national ocean council brings together state, local and tribal governments and all of the oceans' users, including recreational and commercial fishermen, boaters, industry, scientists and the public to better plan for, manage, harmonize and sustain uses of ocean and coastal resources. the bottom line is that the national ocean policy offers an avenue for thoughtful planning around issues affecting ocean,
4:13 pm
coastal and great lakes areas. it's the best choice for stakeholders looking to be involved in the process. for awful these reasons, i urge the defeat of this amendment. and before i reserve the balance of my time, on a personal note, it's amazing how much work we've done in the south bronx with what little bodies of water we have and little green space we have and how much we cherish it and how much we feel that it's been a gift that we continue to work on it. e no longer have earmarks, but when we did, it did a great job in restoring a lot of areas. then i see how in other parts of the country and at the federal level we want to undo years and years and years of progress. i keep thinking of republican leaders who took a different
4:14 pm
view. the roosevelt, he saw world in a different way, and thank god that he was our president for that period of time. when we needed him. for that particular issue. so just on a personal note that i understand that a lot of people see the world differently than i do. where i come from, tonight, people know that they now have places where they can rowboat, where they can eventually swim, where they can fish and where a eaver named jose has returned. the chair: does the gentleman reserve? does the gentleman reserve his remaining time? mr. serrano: i do, sir, yes. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas, for what purpose do you rise? mr. flores: i yield to the chairman as much time as he may
4:15 pm
consume. the chair: the gentleman yields to the other gentleman from texas. mr. culberson: i support this amendment. we had it in previous bills. i hope the house will adopt it in this bill. the chair: the gentleman from texas, mr. flores. mr. flores: yes, in closing, the issue is not whether or not we want to take care of oceans. we all agree we should take care of our oceans. we all believe in being good stewards of the environmental and economic interests in our oceans. but, mr. chair, we also believe in trying to make sure we have a government that adheres to the constitution. under article 1 of the constitution, all legislative powers shall be returned to congress, not some. all. that's the issue at stake here. the obama administration's national ocean policy overstepped constitutional statutory bounds. congress did pass a bill in the 106th congress to create an ocean commission to review and make recommendations. since then, the 108th, 109th, 110th, 111th congresses each
4:16 pm
looked at those recommendations and decided to take no legislative action. this must have been what caused then-president obama to move forward with his executive order and to try to go around congress. there have been no appropriations for these activities. additionally, 81 groups have signed a letter asking the appropriations committee to include this language to address this unconstitutional bureaucratic overreach in their annual appropriations bills. again, this is a simple amendment that stands up for constitutional rights of this body to create the statutes under which activity can be conducted and to transparently appropriate the funds for which authorized activities should it so choose. . we are not against ocean planning. what we are for is the constitution. again, this amendment has been adopted with bipartisan support in this body eight times since 2010. i want to thank mr. byrne of alabama for his work on this amendment. as well as to thank chairman
4:17 pm
culberson for his consideration. i urge my colleagues to support this straightforward amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: does the gentleman reserve or yield back? mr. flores: i'll reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york. the gentleman from new york yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. flores: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. the gentleman from texas requests a roll call vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas will be postponed. -- it is now in order to consider amendment number 125.
4:18 pm
for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. buck: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 125 printed in house report 115-297 offered by mr. buck of colorado. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 504, the gentleman from colorado, mr. buck, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. mr. buck: thank you, mr. chairman. for the opportunity to speak about my amendment to the commerce, justice, science and related agencies division of h.r. 3354. mr. chairman, the state criminal alien assistance program or the scap program is intended to further local law enforcement's ability to adhere to federal immigration law. the scaap program provides states and localities with federal funds to help offset correctional costs relating to incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens with at least one felony or two misdemeanor convictions. however in recent years a number
4:19 pm
of jurisdictions receiving funding that have adopted sanctuary policies, allowing violent criminal aliens to go free, has skyrocketed. my amendment would cut off scaap money for cities that violate the intent of these funds. these sanctuary cities must not continue using taxpayer money to flagrantly violate federal immigration law and put american citizens at risk. look no further than my home state in colorado and the case of mr. evan valez. he was picked up on charges, including possession of a weapon, vehicle theft, and alluding. he also had a history of gang involvement. i.c.e. placed a detainer on him but denver officials failed to honor the federal detainer, releasing him without providing the proper notice to. i c.e. officials. upon his release, he took part in robbing and shooting 32-year-old tim cruise at an r.t.d. train station. he's been charged with first degree murder. sanctuary policies just don't break the law, they place people's lives in danger. we cannot continue allowing
4:20 pm
these jurisdictions' sanctuary cities to use taxpayer money to further these misguided policies. the office of justice program's own website states that applicants for scaap funds are required to certify compliance with all federal laws at the time of application. that if they ay receive information indicating an applicant violated the statute related to sanctuary policy, the applicant will be investigated by the inspector general and could be subject to criminal and civil penalties. a recent u.s. immigration and customs enforcement agency report identified the top 10 jurisdictions with the highest volume of detainers issued that restrict cooperation with i.c.e. not surprisingly, every one of those sanctuary cities received scaap awards in fiscal year 2016. mr. chairman, sanctuary cities stand against the rule of law. these jurisdictions support illegal immigration and allow individuals who violate the law to remain free. we cannot allow these
4:21 pm
jurisdictions to continue these harmful policies on the american people's dime. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york, for what purpose do you rise? >> i rise in opposition to the amendment. claim the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> i oppose this unnecessary amendment. all this amendment does is prohibit use of funding to violate current law. as we all know, federal grant recipients of the state criminal alien assistance program or scaap are not using federal funds in contravention of federal law. serser the amendment is really about -- mr. serrano: the amendment is really about so-called sanctuary cities. this and other amendments like this seek to effectively overthrow community policing by diverting state and local police from their core mission of protecting public safety. imposing this one-size-fits-all approach with the great trust
4:22 pm
between immigrant communities and local police, thereby undermining public safety in all communities and for all residents. we should not be attempting by word or deed to turn our local law enforcement into an arm of federal immigration efforts. i live in a sanctuary city. and i can tell you with great certainty that amendments like this one will make my hometown less safe. people will be less likely to report crimes and cooperate with investigations simply because of the concern that they will be deported for interacting with local law enforcement. what we need is broad and humane immigration reform, which would place undocumented immigrants on a workable and earned path to citizenship. thereby allowing them to contribute even more to their families, communities and our country. our immigration system is
4:23 pm
broken. but this amendment does nothing to fix it. i urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment and i must say, the sanctuary cities, as they are called, have a lot of support from law enforcement throughout the nation. because they know that they need to speak to people in the community and get information on who the bad guys are. or who the bad gals are. number one. number two, this is going to be a boone for the legal profession , because just about every city and every state is going to sue if this ever became law. and we actually started holding moneys back because they know how much help is brought to their community and how much they want to keep it in place. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado, mr. buck. mr. buck: how much time do i have? the chair: the gentleman has 2
4:24 pm
1/2 minutes. mr. buck: i yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from texas. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. culberson: mr. chairman, i rise in strong support of the gentleman's amendment. when kate steinle was murdered, i was a new chairman of this subcommittee and i swore that i would find way to cut off federal funding to these sanctuary cities. that young lady's murder could have been prevented had the city of san francisco simply cooperated with federal immigration authorities and handed that criminal over to be deport immediately. that's all we're talking about here. when the previous administration , attorney general lynch, i met with her, as the c.f.o. so to speak of the d.o.j. i used the power of the purse and the congress was entrusted with by the foundsers of our constituents to persuade the previous attorney general to adopt precisely the policy that mr. buck is attempting to make sure that we continue to follow. i know under attorney general sessions' leadership, sanctuary cities are not going to receive federal money. that policy was first put in place last summer at my
4:25 pm
insistence. current law, current guidelines in the department of justice grant policies are that a local law enforcement agency has to certify that they are cooperating 100% of the time with federal immigration authorities about individuals in local jails or state prisons. that's all this is. if a state prison or local jail is housing someone who was in the country illegally when they commit the d the crime and was -- committed the crime and was sentenced before they were released, current department of justice policy adopted last summer being enforced today by attorney general sessions says you have to tell federal authorities you're about to release this person so they can be immediately deported. that's commonsense, it protects public safety and it's a wise use of our tax dollars. another 30 seconds? mr. buck: another 20 seconds. i'll have 10 to close. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. culberson: the days of sanctuary cities accepting federal money and ignoring federal law are over. the policy under this
4:26 pm
administration, the policy i insisted be adopted last summer is, if you want federal money, follow federal law. don't ask. i support the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman from colorado. mr. buck: i refresh -- i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york. mr. serrano: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. buck: thank you, mr. chairman. i ask nye colleagues to support my amendment -- my colleagues to support my amendment and thank the chairman of the subcommittee for his support. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes -- in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the gentleman from new york. mr. serrano: i'd like a recorded vote on this. the chair: the gentleman from new york has requested a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 126 printed in report 115-297.
4:27 pm
for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. amash: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 126 printed in house report 115-297 offered by mr. amash of michigan. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 50 had 4, the gentleman from michigan and a member -- 504, the gentleman from michigan and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. amash: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself as much time as i may consume. each year the federal government takes billions of dollars worth of property from people who have not been charged with any crime. it's an unconstitutional practice that is used to violate the due process rights of innocent people. fortunately some states have passed laws to limit asset forfeiture. but the federal government helps state law enforcement evade these requirements by doing adoptive forfeitures, where the federal government accepts property seized by the state law enforcement, for fits it under federal law -- forfeits it under federal law, and gives the state
4:28 pm
agency a cut of the proceeds. mr. chairman this practice is outrageous -- mr. chairman, this practice is outrageous. it is you blunts the authority of states to regulate its own -- in rcement and it 2015 the department of justice placed limits on adoptive forfeiture, prohibitting the federal government from accepting property seized by local police when there is no involvement by federal law enforcement and the property does not relate to public safety. these are commonsense restrictionses that prevent the most egregious seizures. unfortunately these restrictionses were revoked in june of this -- restrictions were revoke in june of this year. -- revoked in june of this year. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. anyone seeking time in opposition? seeing none, the gentleman from michigan. mr. amash: mr. chairman, i yield
4:29 pm
one minute to the gentleman from ohio, mr. davidson. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. the gentleman from ohio. mr. davidson: mr. chairman, i stand in support of the amendment. the amendment does a great deal to restore our constitutional right to due process and protects the institution of federalism. the equitable sharing program incentivizes local law enforcement agencies to ignore state laws regarding civil asset forfeiture in favor of federal law. after ohio reformed civil asset forfeiture laws, local agencies have been able to bypass, just as the gentleman from michigan described. d.o.j. allows this even when federal officials play no role in the investigation or the arrest. congressman amash's amendment would end this policy. this program violates the independence of state police powers and undermines due process. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. mr. chairman, i yield. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. amash: mr. chairman, i yield
4:30 pm
one minute to the gentlewoman from hawaii, ms. gabbard. ms. gabbard: thank you, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. gabbard: i urge my colleagues strongly to adopt this amendment. attorney general sessions' recent announcement to expand civil asset forfeiture really allows local law enforcement to bypass state laws and seize prorlt from people with the lowest -- property from people with the lowest possible burden of evidence. and without concern for whether the person is eventually charged or convicted. while some will tell you this is necessary to go after big drug cartels, the reality is the median value of the adoptive forfeiture seizures has been around $9,000. not exact the sign of any major drug trafficking operation. . they tend to target poor neighborhoods. between 2012 and 2017, the median value of assets seized by cook county police was just over $1,000. in philadelphia in 2015, the
4:31 pm
median value was $192. this policy does not discriminate between the innocent and the guilty. the responsibility on private citizens to prove they're innocent rather than law enforcement to prove guilt, innocent people without legal representation often never see their money or property again and even those who are proven innocent have no promise their property will be returned. may i have 15 seconds? >> mr. chairman, i yield another 15 seconds. ms. gabbard: the fourth amendment of the constitution exists to protect the citizens of this country from being deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. in practice and in principle, adoptive forfeiture is a violation of that fourth amendment. i urge my colleagues to support it. thank you. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. amash: i yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from california, mr. rohrabacher.
4:32 pm
the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rohrabacher: asset forfeiture is a crime against the american people committed by their own government. this is opposite what the people who wrote the constitution had in mind. people to take away -- the government to take away someone's property and then say you have to prove you're innocent to get it back, that is totally in contrast to the limited government, individual responsibility, individual freedom, property rights, concepts that our founding fathers had in mind. if we believe in freedom, if we believe in liberty, let's not open up the government to be able to steal our property and then we have to go to court. we've lost all of our due process. we -- it's now our obligation to prove that we are innocent until proven guilty. that is ridiculous. vote for this amendment. protect the freedom of our people. the chair: the gentleman from michigan. mr. amash: mr. chairman, i
4:33 pm
yield 45 seconds to -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. amash: i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from virginia. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized. >> i stand to express my strong support for the amash amendment. civil assets forfeiture presents one of the strongest threats to our civil, property and constitutional rights. i encourage all my colleagues to support this great amendment. thank you, mr. chair. mr. amash: mr. chairman, is there any time? the chair: the gentleman has 10 seconds. mr. amash: mr. chairman, i want to encourage support of this amendment. we must defend property rights. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to.
4:34 pm
it's now in order to consider amendment number 127 printed in house report 115-297. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. roskam: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume on amendment 127. the chair: is the gentleman offering an amendment? mr. roskam: yes, sir. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 127 printed in house report 115-297 offered by mr. roskam of illinois. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 504, the gentleman from illinois, mr. roskam, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. excuse me -- the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois. mr. roskam: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. let me tell you a quick story. andrew clyde served three combat tours in iraq and after which he returned home and opened a store in georgia. mr. clyde had an insurance policy that only covered up to $10,000 in offpremises losses. so like any reasonable person,
4:35 pm
he never brought more than $10,000 with cash with him when he was making his nightly deposits. you know what happened next? the internal revenue service noticed he was depositing just under $10,000 in cash regularly so they took all of his cash. that is $950,000. if you are like most people, you're confused when you first hear about this. as it turns out, mr. clyde was in violation of a federal law known as structuring which is the intentional avoidance of federal reporting requirements by staying below $10,000 in cash deposits. this law was intended to catch large-scale criminal enterprises, mobsters, terrorists, human traffickers, not veterans like mr. clyde. when structuring his believe to have occurred, the i.r.s. can use the civil assets forfeitture, force the owner that the money was proved legally. in this instance, andrew clyde earned the money legally and
4:36 pm
had a legitimate reason for depositing less than $10,000. so you would assume that mr. clyde would have ended this with the i.r.s. talking to him saying, oh, we made a mistake, clearly you are not a mobster or terrorist, thank you for your service, here's your life savings back but, no, that's not what happened, mr. chairman. that's not how the story ended. instead, the i.r.s. threatened him with criminal structuring charges until he agreed to settle with the agency and give them $50,000 after he'd already spent $100,000 in legal fees. he lost $150,000 simply because he wanted to make sure his cash deposits were low enough to be insured. if that's sounds messed up to you, mr. chairman, that's because it is. now, here's the good news. the house recently passed unanimously h.r. 1843, the respect act, and this bill prohibits the i.r.s. from seizing funds from individuals unless there's a probable cause that the money was earned illegally or connected to an
4:37 pm
illegal activity. but there's still the problem of those people who are already victims of this abuse by our government in civil asset forfeiture. now, since we began this on a bipartisan basis investigating this, the i.r.s. civil asset forfeiture practices a couple years ago, the i.r.s. has apologized for past behavior which is good. they worked quickly to work out possible -- reach out to possible victims, which is good. subsequently responded to the 545 petitions they received. as of march 1, the i.r.s. returned over $6 million in seized funds. good news. so far so good. but the plot continues. here's where we are right now. it turns out that a majority of the petitions were actually referred to the department of justice. the i.r.s. referred d.o.j. 255 cases and has recommended that the d.o.j. return $16 million to taxpayers whom they do not suspect to be connected in any
4:38 pm
way to illegal activity. unfortunately, the department of justice has not been as nearly interested in correcting these past wrongdoings. as of july, the department of justice only responded to 73 of the outstanding 255 cases. this is completely unacceptable. the federal government took legally earned money from taxpayers and the department of justice hasn't given the time of day to the majority of those people, including a response, including andrew clyde. so the roskam-neal amendment, offered by myself and mr. neal, the ranking member from massachusetts on the ways and means committee, is very simple. it simply says this. no one in the relevant section of the department of justice can get a performance bonus until they finish reviewing the backlog of cases that the i.r.s. has sent them. we're not asking the department of justice to do anything extraordinary, mr. chairman. we're simply asking them to do their job. and until they do their job,
4:39 pm
the bare minimum taxpayers can expect is we least don't reward these people with bonuses. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. anyone seeking time in opposition? seeing none, the gentleman from texas. mr. culberson: mr. chairman, i'd like to claim the time in opposition but i strongly support the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. culberson: i strongly support your amendment. i will work with you as the c.f.o. of the d.o.j. and help make sure they review these cases rapidly and return people's money to their rightful owners. once again, mr. roskam has brought a great amendment to the house floor and i look forward working with him. and i urge members to support the amendment. the chair: does the gentleman yield back? mr. culberson: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from illinois. mr. roskam: mr. chairman, i thank the gentleman. i thank the gentleman for his assurance and hard work in this and i am confident this will be reinvolved.
4:40 pm
i have to tell you that -- resolved. i have to tell you that the discussions the house had with the department of justice, mr. chairman, they have been obtuse. they have been ridiculous. i have been embarrassed by the interactions i had with senior staff members at the department of justice on this issue. the ways and means subcommittee has been scandalized by this. we are going to do something about this, and so here today we're rising both sides of the aisle to bring remedy and to bring rescue and restoration to our citizens. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it's now in order to consider amendment number 128 printed in ouse report 115-297.
4:41 pm
it's now in order to consider amendment number 129 printed in house report 115-297. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 129 printed in house report 115-297 offered by mr. walberg of michigan. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 504, the gentleman from michigan, mr. walberg, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. walberg: thank you, mr. speaker. in recent years we've seen a growing number of instances where the government has confiscated private property from citizens and small businesses without any criminal conviction or even criminal charges. under current civil forfeiture
4:42 pm
law, the system is ripe for abuse and has undermined the constitutional rights of far too many americans. in response, 24 states and the district of columbia have adopted reforms to their forfeiture laws. however, through a practice known as adoptive seizures, federal agencies like the department of justice can circumvent state and local laws to continue this practice. in july, the department of justice announced the continuation and expansion of civil forfeiture, reversing a previous ban on adoptive seizures. my bipartisan amendment, introduced with representative cohen, mcclintock and ellison, would prohibit funds for d.o.j. to implement this expansion. our amendment is also supported by a broad and diverse coalition of organizations, including the american conservative union, the institute for justice, the
4:43 pm
naacp, and the aclu. today's vote takes an important step in halting the practice of adoptive seizures. protecting the rights of states and localities and limiting some future abuses. ultimately, this amendment is the starting point, and we can't stop here. congress must submit more comprehensive changes into law, changes like those included in the fifth amendment, integrity restoration act, my bipartisan bill that calls for sweeping reforms to curve civil asset forfeiture abuse. america was founded on the principles of due process and property rights, and these principles must be vigorously defended. i urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment, and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. is there anyone wishing to speak from opposition? mr. cohen: i'd like to speak in
4:44 pm
support. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to thank mr. walberg for bringing this amendment and for the bill he's proposed and senator paul as well. i think criminal asset forfeiture is one the most worst, most heinous, most despeckable, vial laws we ever put on the books. it's an assault on human beings and state governments, on states' sovereignty and on individuals having a right to their property and having a right to a hearing and being found guilty of something before their property is taken. the way it is today, the government can come in and they don't have to charge you with a crime and they can take your car or your money or whatever else they find. it is un-american a thing that ever existed. mr. walberg laid out some of the supporters. aclu and naacp and then it goes around to some conservative worlds. there are many times i found you get 360 degrees where the liberals and conservatives come together and agreeing in libertarian principles that
4:45 pm
something needs to happen. we have rand paul, keith ellison and myself, something needs to happen so we need to pass it now and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan, mr. walberg. mr. walberg: i thank mr. cohen, and i think that's absolutely true. when you do a complete circle, you come to a point of understanding that something is amiss, in good will we work together in a bipartisan fashion to fix it, there can be useful issues relative to civil assets, but it needs to follow due process. our civil liberties must be protected. we want to support law enforcement. it's a tough job. but nonetheless, in our great country, liberty is still the most important ideal that we have and the freedom that makes us different from other nations. so i thank my good friend for his support and would ask my colleagues to support it and i yield back the balance of my time. .
4:46 pm
the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 130 printed in house report 115-297. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? rassrass mr. chair, i have -- mr. raskin: mr. chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 130 printed in house report 115-297 offered by mr. raskin of maryland. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 504, the gentleman from maryland, mr. raskin, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland. mr. raskin: mr. chairman, thank you very much. i also want to thank my colleagues, mr. sensenbrenner, mr. conyers and mr. mooney, for co-sponsoring and supporting this amendment. it's a bipartisan amendment and i think a natural economyment to the excellent amendments just added -- compliments to the excellent amendments just added. it would prohibit funding made
4:47 pm
available by this act to be used to implement the recent d.o.j. policy change which dramatically expands the federal government's civil asset forfeiture program. the new policy revives a controversial and i think unconstitutional practice that has been decried by americans and members of congress across political spectrum who hold dear the idea of due process and the presumption of innocence as it applies not just to us as people, but also to our private property as well. the new policy allows state and local law enforcement to circumvent state laws, limiting civil asset forfeiture, but by having federal agencies adopt state and local cases. under this practice, law enforcement may seize a citizen's cash and property simply because someone suspects it of being connected to criminal activity, without convicting, indicting, arresting or even charging the property owner with having committed a crime and without proving or even alleging in court that the
4:48 pm
property is somehow connected to criminal activity. hundreds of millions of dollars worlte of property have been seized -- worth of property have been seized in this way but law enforcement on an officer's mere suspicion. in order to get your property back, you have to go out and hire a lawyer. you have to go to court and you have to prove that your property was obtained through innocent means, completely reversing the constitutional presumption of innocence that's at the heart of due process. this practice is an outrageous violation of property rights, of civil liberties, and of the due process principle that we are all presumed to be innocent as american citizens and it raises profound questions also under the takings clause which for bids the taking of -- forbids the taking of private property without just compensation by the government. although the resurrected policy contains a few new safeguards they will not remotely prevent abusive seizures or eliminate the profit incentives to encourage rampant civil asset
4:49 pm
forfeiture. the policy will lead to the safe abuses uncovered in 2014. a "the washington post" investigation found that since 2001, state and local law enforcement had made more than 55,000 seizures of cash and property worth nearly $2.5 billion under the civil asset forfeiture program. one striking case discussed by "the new york times" was of an owner of a restaurant in arnold's park, iowa. who deposited her cash earnings in the bank on a weekly basis. and it was always under $10,000. she was suspected of illegally structuring her deposits, although they were perfectly innocent, and the i.r.s. simply seized $33,000 from her, causing huge problems for her bills. another case that caught my eye was of a chinese american restaurateur who was traveling with a large sum of money because he was about to buy a building for his new restaurant. he'd been saving for decades to
4:50 pm
buy his own restaurant. he was stopped by the police and became understandably very anxious during the encounter. the police said that they found a large sum of cash money he had with him, suspicious, and his nervous demeanor also telling, and they simply seized his money. they detained him for two hours, let him go. they didn't charge him with anything but they seized his money. his life savings he planned to use the purchase for the building of his restaurant. he was lucky in that he was able eventually, years later, to get his money back. but he lost the business deal and his deposit in the process. in 2014 the value of money and property seized under civil asset forfeiture by federal law enforcement exceeded the total of losses in money and property fromberglaries in our country. that means our people lost more money at the hands of the government through civil asset forfeiture than from being burglarized. because of the abuses revealed in 2015, d.o.j. imposed restrictions to limit when the federal government could adopt forfeiture cases and ban state
4:51 pm
and local police from using federal law to seize cash and property without criminal charges or warrants. but the new policy lifts these restrictions and places the federal government back on the side of the trampling of people's constitutional rights. with civil asset forfeiture, people cannot only lose their property without being charged for a crime, they can also lose their property when somebody else allegedly uses their property in commission of a crime. a michigan woman lost a car she co-owned with her husband because he was caught soliciting prostitution while driving her car. this policy runs rough shod over the property rights of the innocent and burdens our citizens with onerous costs to get their property back, that they never should have lost in the first place. mr. chair, democrats, republicans and independents all agree that civil asset forfeiture is a serious threat to our constitutional values. thank you very much. i urge all of us to vote for this important amendment. the chair: is anyone claiming time knoppsition?
4:52 pm
seeing none, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from maryland. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment agreed to.
4:53 pm
for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, pursuant to section 36 house resolution 504, as a designee of chairman frelinghuysen, i rise to offer en bloc 4 as part of the consideration of division f of h.r. 3354, the list of amendments included in en bloc is at the desk and has been agreed to by both sides of the aisle. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendments en bloc. the clerk: en bloc number 4 consisting of amendments mbered 132, 140, 143, 144, 157, 47, 148, 151, 153, 181 and, 163, 166, 177, 185. printed in house report 115-297
4:54 pm
offered by mr. cole of oklahoma. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 504, the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. cole, and the gentlewoman from new york, mrs. lowey, each will control 10 minutes. chair recognizes the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. cole: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, the the gentleman from connecticut, ms. delauro, who is the ranking member of the subcommittee on labor, health and human services and education, approved this list of amendments last week, along with myself. and was looking forward to discussing them and others with all of us here today. unfortunately the gentlelady is not able to be here this week due to the death of her beloved mother, louisa delauro, who passed away over the weekend at age of 103. the gentlelady from connecticut and i have something in common on this point. neither of us would likely be a member of this body today were it not for the inspiration and role model of our mothers. both of whom were actively involved in local politics. like my own late mother, helen cole, who served in the oklahoma
4:55 pm
house and senate and as mayor of our hometown of moore, oklahoma, louisa delauro served 35 years as the member of the new haven, connecticut, board of alderman. the longest tenure in the city's history. she served with six different mayors and dedicated her time to improving the lives of seniors and the working poor. her daughter has most certainly followed in her footsteps, bringing her passion, dedication and tirelessness for these same causes to the halls of congress. we're sorry the gentlelady cannot be with us today. we know she's honoring her mother and her mother's legacy and making her mother proud of her work here. mr. chairman, with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from new york, mrs. lowey. mrs. lowey: mr. chairman, first i would like to join my colleague in sending our thoughts and condolences to the
4:56 pm
delauro family. ranking member delauro's mother, luisa, passed away this -- louisa, passed away this weekend at the age of 103. the family is together this week in new haven, connecticut. louisa delauro was an inspiration to her daughter, rosa. to the city of new haven, and to us all. louisa was the longest serving member of the new haven board of aldermen in the city's history. serving 35 years. she set an example for women everywhere, as she fought to ensure that women's voices were heard in male-dominated arena of politics. as rosa has said, her mother understood that politics was an avenue for change, a way to help people who were struggling. and she dedicated her service to
4:57 pm
issues involving seniors, the working poor and her beloved neighborhood of worcester square. which she helped to designate as new haven's first historic district. louisa was a beloved local leader with an open door policy, who developed friendships that lasted a lifetime. but she was also well known as a strong-willed fighter for issues she believed in. and it's clear that her dedication and fierce passion will live on in her daughter, our friend, rosa. even though louisa delauro anded away at 103, for rosa her family it still feels like she was taken too soon. my thoughts are with my good friend, rosa delauro, and the
4:58 pm
entire delauro family. mr. chairman, i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentlelady from oregon, ms. bonamici. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. bonamici: thank you, mr. chair. i thank the gentlelady for yielding. i rise today in support of the en bloc amendment which includes my bipartisan amendment to highlight the need to fully fund student support and academic enrichment grants. these grants are critical to the successful implementation of title 4 of the every student succeeds act. schools across the country can use the student support grants to give all students access to a well-rounded education. the grant program is also important because it was created to allocate funding by formula, which levels the playing field so small school districtses can get their fair share of funding. i'm disappointed that this bill funds student support grants
4:59 pm
significantly lower than the original $1.65 billion authorized in the every student succeeds act. and i hope there will be an opportunity in the senate to increase funding for these critical student support grants. thank you to the chairman and ranking member for including my amendments in an en bloc passage. and -- package, and for your hard work on this bill. thank you, mr. chair, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. cole: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield three minutes to my good friend from the great state of alifornia, mr. denham. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. denham: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in support of this en bloc which includes my amendment to prevent homeless youth and young mothers from seeing a lapse in service from their runaway youth programs and maternity group homes. specifically this amendment allows h.h.s. to offer transitional living program and
5:00 pm
maternity group home grants for centers that would otherwise see a lapse in funding in fiscal year 2018. this amendment does not increase funding for the program. this amendment simply prevents senters from facing a gap in -- centers in from facing a gap in grant eligibility. this amendment does not increase -- this -- failure to act will cause runaway and homeless youth in maternity group home centers across the county to downgrade, discontinue or eventually close. . hey provide a temporary use of shelters. they provide transitional help to parental youth, homeless to ensure their well-being. this issue was first brought to my attention by the modesto
5:01 pm
center for human services which supports individuals in stanislas county, california. it provides youth services, substance abuse treatment, family resource centers, shelter services and community projects. the center relies on existing transitional living program grant, the t.o.p. grants are critical to helping homeless youth find employment and transition back in the community. the modesto center, along with other shelters are in jeopardy of losing funding due to circumstances outside of their control. these grants account for a significance portion of their annual budgets and a gap of this length will drastically reduce the services or force programs to shut down completely. my amendment implores the administration to authorize bridge funding to close this gap and grant eligibility allowing services to continue until the grant is realigned with appropriations process.
5:02 pm
for the area i represent, losing these grants would have a much wider ramifications to the overall homeless population and collaborative efforts to improve homeless care. m.g.h. grants help break the crippling cycle of homelessness. i call on my colleagues to support this amendment and allow homeless youth and parenting young people access to life-changing services. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. thank you. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from new york, mrs. lowey. mrs. lowey: mr. chairman, i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from michigan, r. kildee. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. kildee: i thank my ranking member for yielding and for her leadership and work on this important issue. i support and appreciate my amendment being including in this en bloc amendment. my amendment increases funding for three very important and successful programs to provide
5:03 pm
lead prevention resources in support to those already exposed to high levels of lead. lead is a dangerous nearotoxin. he effects can be permanent. especially neurotoxin. the affects can be permanent. according to the medical community, there's no safe level for lead. and as you know, i come from flint, michigan, where we have experienced the most significant lead crisis. it's one we are still working to overcome. so even though that crisis in flint is no longer in the headlines, flint and many other communities are still dealing with issues caused by exposure to lead. there's no cure to lead exposure, so we have to work on prevention and do everything we can to support those like those people in flint and others across the country that have been exposed so they can grow
5:04 pm
into healthy and successful adults. this amendment will do just that. i appreciate the ranking member, rosa delauro, and i share in my colleague's express of grief of her loss. i thank ranking member lowey and thank chairman cole for working to include this in the en bloc amendment and i urge its passage. thank you. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from cole, mr. cole. mr. cole: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield a minute and a half to the distinguished gentleman from pennsylvania, my friend, mr. costello. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. costello: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased to rise in support of this en bloc amendment. specifically the amendment i offered with congresswoman bonamici. our amendment would help ensure adequate funding for a grant program available to states, including my home state of pennsylvania, to tailor assessment systems to work for teachers, parents and students. the amendment would provide $378 million in funding for
5:05 pm
state assessment grants. the amount authorized for these grants in the every student succeeds act but notably $8.9 million more than that which was included in the legislation we are currently debating. including full funding for state assessment grants is a critical way for congress to fulfill our promise under essa that we would streamline testing so the high stakes testing culture that's burdened schools and students for too long is rolled back. i thank the chairman and ranking member for the opportunity to offer this amendment and urge the adoption of the en bloc amendment. i yield back. the chair: i thank the gentleman. the gentlewoman from new york, mrs. lowey. mrs. lowey: mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from cole, mr. cole. mr. cole: mr. chairman, i also yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from oklahoma. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair,
5:06 pm
the ayes have it. the en bloc amendments are agreed to. the committee will rise informally to receive a message. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has passed s. 1311, cited as the abolish human trafficking act of 2017, in which the concurrence of the house is requested. the speaker pro tempore: the committee will resume its sitting.
5:07 pm
the chair: the committee will be in order. it's now in order to consider amendment number 131 printed in house report 115-297. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. kilmer: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. -- mr. kildee: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 31 printed in house report 115-297 offered by mr. kildee of michigan. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 504, the gentleman from michigan, mr. kildee, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. kildee: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in support of my amendment that would increase funding for youth employment initiatives by $10 million. michigan's unemployment rate is 4.7%, but for youth aged 16 to 24, it's more than double that, over 11%. young people face high unemployment and the lack of opportunity to find meaning in the world of work as
5:08 pm
implications that go far beyond just those years that they might find meaningful employment. investing in those young americans ensures they all do better. providing those important employment opportunities builds a strong foundation around the concept of hard work, and i know many members support this effort. we just need to make sure we find every opportunity that we can to make sure that every young person looking for an opportunity to earn a few dollars but especially to understand the connection between their focus on work and the benefits that they will realize from it, not only in terms of their own well-being, but the contributions they can make to their community. just last month, i had an opportunity to visit a really great example of how youth employment can make a positive impact in my home community. i visited a community garden run by greg gaines who employs flint area youth in summer jobs. they learn to grow crops. they learn that hard work pays
5:09 pm
off. over time they see these crops come in, they sell at the local farmers' market. very few will work in agriculture, but they come to understand that with some patience and some effort and the focus of showing up on time and doing a good day's good work will literally and figuretively produce fruits they can benefit from. 14-24-year-olds in this program. obviously will make a difference in terms of the way their lives and their life trajectory goes forward but also sets a great example for their peers. this is just one of those things that we do in the federal government that is an investment in our future. it's an investment in the lives of these kids. it pays us back 10-fold. we should support it with every dollar we can find, and i urge my colleagues to support my amendment and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma rise? mr. cole: mr. chairman, i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman from
5:10 pm
oklahoma is recognized. mr. cole: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to begin by saying how much i frankly appreciate the gentleman's amendment. any programs in this bill frankly were eliminated or substantially reduced to stay within the allocation which as my good friend knows was $5 billion below the f.y. 2017 enacted level. some other programs, including job training programs for youth, were reduced by relatively modest amounts, again, to stay within the allocation. the total amount in the bill for youth job training grants is $832 million. a reduction over last year of just 4.5%. while i support the job training programs, grants and programs in question, i oppose the amendment out of concern that the offset of the database of labor's administration account will be hard to absorb, including the reductions included in the bill. i'll commit to my friend, we will work through the process and see if there are some way
5:11 pm
to get these funds restored going forward. with that i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. kildee: thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate my friend's comments. i understand the position he holds and i do hope we can work together eventually to make sure this program is more fully funded. i'd yield one minute to the ranking member of the full committee on appropriations, mrs. lowey. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. lowey: mr. chairman, i, too, appreciate the chairman's comments and i do hope during this process we will respond to this important request, and i rise in support of this amendment. the underlying bill cuts the department of labor's youth employment program, which provides funding to all 50 states by $42 million. a shortsighted proposal that ignores the needs of millions of young people. in the united states, there are roughly 5.5 million teenagers and young adults between the ages of 16 and 24 who are
5:12 pm
neither working nor in school. this translates to one in seven teens and young adults. the youth program helps prepare out of school and low-income youth in our communities for employment and postsecondary education. these youth represent extraordinary potential for our nation's economy. investing in them has a ripple effect on future generations of low-income children and families and i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. cole: i reserve, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. kildee: thank you, mr. chair. i had you a like to yield one minute to -- i'd like to yield one minute to the ranking member of the committee on education and work force, a champion for this and others, the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. scott: mr. chairman, i rise in support of this amendment which would increase funding for youth employment activities
5:13 pm
under the work force investment and opportunity act. as has been stated, about five million of our nation's youth are both out of school and out of work, so we have a choice. do we invest to help our youth get on a good path or do we pay considerably more later? we have to choose to invest now. this includes increased funding for youth employment activities that help out-of-school and out-of-work youth. helps fund summer jobs, on-the-job training, apresentishships and others. we will pay later in incarceration, teen pregnancy and public assistance. if we make investments now, we make investments in our communities, in our nation and our shared future and we save money in the future. i support the amendment and urge its adoption. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. mr. kildee: i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. cole: continue to reserve
5:14 pm
but i'm willing to yield whenever my friend is. mr. kildee: thank you, mr. chairman. i simply urge my colleagues to support this. the life of a young person is changed permanently because of an experience they had finding meaning in work, again, as i said at the outset, my view is we should find every way we can to support including as many young people on that experience as possible. this amendment would do that. i urge my colleagues to support it and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. cole: i yield back my time, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. kildee: mr. chairman, i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan will be postponed. it's now in order to consider amendment number 133 printed in
5:15 pm
house report 115-297. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. mitchell: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 133 printed in house report 115-297 offered by mr. mitchell of michigan. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 504, the gentleman from michigan, mr. mitchell, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. mitchell: our nation faces a dire fiscal situation. we have reached our debt ceiling and determining how to control spending while funding necessary programs. the path we're on is not sustainable. it jeopardizes our future, our children's future and our national security. we must get our fiscal house in order and take this problem seriously. paying lip service to the problem will not solve it. we must be responsible now before it's too late. the reality is, we can make cuts to the size and costs of our federal government without impacting essential programs.
5:16 pm
in fact, the right cuts will allow our economy to grow by stopping over-eager bureaucrats who seem to believe everything should be regulated until it no longer functions. we in congress need to be focused on growing and protecting main street, not protecting an already-bloated federal government and bureaucracy. the amendment i propose today is simple. it makes cuts to the bureaucracy of several offices of division f relating to labor and health and human services. it cuts funds for the same department of labor that gave us the overtime rule the persuader rule. this is an agent soif bureaucrats that wish to legislate through regulation my amendment puts forth a modest 10% reduction of administrative expenses which would save taxpayers $351 million annually on labor and h.l.s. alone. let me restate that we can actually save $351 million annually by just cutting administrative costs. in fact, they will find the money, an additional $10 million
5:17 pm
, in the youth employment service, we cut our burachcism i come from the world of private business. i understand that fiscal responsibility starts on a small scale and requires commitment to changing the trend. my amendment, when combined with similar measures across all appropriations will yield big savings to taxpayers and will do so without cutting projects or essential programs we hold dear. i urge my colleagues to seriously consider my amendment eas we work to secure our fiscal future. thank you and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma rise? >> i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized nor opposition. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to begin by thanking my friend for the amendment, quite frankly. while i understand and share many of the gentleman's concerns, most of the accounts this amendment reduces have been reduced in the bill.
5:18 pm
the allocations we are working on required us to find savings wherever possible. mr. cole: i believe cutting this another 0% would unnecessarily increase the risk of unnecessary disruptions in services the agencies in this bill are charged with. while i oppose the amendment for these reasons, i pledge to my friend i'll continue to work with him and others to identify specific areas for additional efficiencies and savings can be realized and i know my friend feels strongly about entitlement reform, where the real money is at, i want to look forward to working with him on that as well. but for the time, mr. chairman, i must urge the rejection of the amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. mitchell: i appreciate the efforts of the chairman and all the appropriations efforts. in fact this week will pass -- we'll pass a full sense of -- full set of appropriations bills out of the house and to the
5:19 pm
senate, the first time this a long time. i work for the private sector where a budget cut meant you spent less real dollars. i believe there are a number of programs we need to be careful. item by item would be the best way. at some point in time we need to draw a line. we can't continue spending what we are spending and hope that we're going to be fiscally responsible down the road. so i appreciate the chairman's comments and i work -- i'll work carefully with him and i agree, entitlement reform is a huge issue and we've got to take it on. we've got to amend the budget control act. i'm going to support our appropriations package and continue trying to work to tweak those so we actually save money and we're efficient and we save programs that we hold dear that are productive. thank you and on that i will yield back. thank you, sir. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. cole: i'd like to recognize my good friend, the distinguished gentleman --
5:20 pm
distinguished gentlelady from new york, these ranking member of the full appropriations committee, for a minute. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. >> i rise in opposition to this amendment. this amendment would truly tess mate the ability of the department of -- departments of labor, health and human services, and education to meet the needs of americans by indiscriminately transferring $351 million to the spend regular ducks account. mrs. lowey: this does nothing to improve the bill which is already underfunded. the majority has imposed more than a $5 billion cut to the labor-hhs bill below the 2017 omnibus level. further cuts are completely unnecessary and that's not all. the committee's allocation was approximately $5 billion below the nondefense level allowed under the budget control act. we have the resources available, yet the majority refuses to allocate them to the essential
5:21 pm
programs funded through this bill. this amendment would not encourage the agencies to do more with less. simply put, it would force the agencies in our -- and our constituents to do less with less. i urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. cole: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to recognize my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from virginia for one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. scott: this amendment would reduce fundering by 10% for programs administered by all accounts in the labor-hhs appropriations bill. by making it across the board it makes it more difficult for the agencies to administer their programs, making it harder, if not impossible , for the government to protect its citizens by enforcing wage and protection laws. the -- ensuring safe workplaces, ensuring education for students
5:22 pm
with disabilities, supporting -- support for those with drug addictions, the bill, as the gentlelady indicated, is already underfunded and this will just make matters worse. mr. chairman, i hope we would defeat this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. cole: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the sque on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 134 printed in house report 115-297. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? >> i rise as a designee of the gentlewoman from connecticut, i have an amendment at the desk.
5:23 pm
the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 134 printed in house report 115-297, offered by mr. pocan of wisconsin. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 504, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. pocan, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. pocan: thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment i'm doing on behalf of ms. delauro who as we know her mother passed this weekend, she's in our thoughts. it also incorporates two other amendments that we would have taken up separately under my name but they're all inclusive in here so let me talk about what the amendment does this amendment would restore tund funding to working protection programs in their current -- in the fiscal year -- to the fiscal year 2017 levels the bill as it stands has a cut of $59 million to worker protection agencies, including a cut of $21 million to osha, the elimination of the
5:24 pm
susan harwood trading grants and a cut of $13 million to the mine safety and health administration. s the lowest budget osha has seen since 2009. we need osha. it saves lives. since 1970, occupational deaths have been cut in half, saving over 80 million lives. but there's plenty of work left to do. last year alone, 4,800 workers were killed on the job and over three million were seriously injured. an average of 15 workers die every day from job injuries costing u.s. businesses over $170 billion. the proposed budget would further reduce enforcement personnel by 140 investigators. that's 2,318 fewer workplace investigations. in addition, in the bill under consideration, safety training grants to reach workers in the highest risk jobs are eliminated despite being a core osha program through every administration, republican an
5:25 pm
democrat, since 1978. osha is only enough funding to inspect every workplace under its jurisdiction every 159 years. why would this bill eliminate funding for susan harwood training grants that protect and educate workers in the most dangerous jobs? this program costs less than one tenth of 1% of the department of labor's budget this cut is irresponsible and reckless. we cannot cut occupational health research, the primary federal agencies that conducts research to prevent work-related illness and injury this research is a critical defense against tragedy. we must fund emsha to keep our nation's mines safe. there's too much on the line to neglect this sector. this amendment would restore funding to the bureau of international labor affairs which is tasked with enforcing labor provisions of free trade agreements that are intended to protect american workers and finally, this amendment would restore funding to the national labor relations board which protects the rights of workers
5:26 pm
under the national labor relations act. i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma rise in mr. cole: i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. combe: thank you, mr. chairman. -- mr. cole: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to say how much i regret and i know my friend regrets our good frent wasn't here to offer her amendment. i appreciate my good friend from wisconsin stepping up and doing that he's a valued member of the subcommittee and one who contributes mightily to its deliberations. i understand the concern of some with the relative modest reductions in this bill of labor enforcement agecies. it's been the subcommittee's policy for many years to protect works' health and safety by increasing funding for compliance assistance and reducing enforcement activities. that's exactly what this bill actually does. i appreciate that the subcommittee has had to reduce
5:27 pm
funding for many programs in the bill to work within its allocation. my concern with this amendment is the substantial offsoast the department management funds at the departments of labor, health and human services, and education. for that reason, i oppose the amendment. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. pocan: mr. speaker, i'll just close in saying, you know, i've been an employer for nearly 30 years and on behalf of the vast majority of employers who have very responsible workplaces and care for their workers, and take care of their workers, it's the irresponsible businesses that hurt all the other businesses. and when we don't inspect companies that can have workplace violations, when we can only get around every 159 years to every workplace that's under the jurisdiction, when we don't enforce wage laws, we hurt the responsible businesses in this country and that's why it's important to do this. i would urge my colleagues to
5:28 pm
support this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. cole: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from wisconsin. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. he amendment is not agreed to. mr. pocan: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from wisconsin will be postponed. the chair understands amendment number 135 will not be offered. it is now in order to consider amendment number 136, plinted in house report 115-297. for what purpose does the gentleman from the northern mariana islands seek recognition? mr. sablan: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number -- amendment number 136 printed in house report 115-297, offered by
5:29 pm
mr. sablan of the northern mariana islands. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 504, the gentleman from the northern marea -- mariana islands and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from the northern mariana islands. mr. sablan: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sablan: i will be brief my amendment moves a small amount of money within the osha bureaucracy in order to put enforcement federal boots on the ground in the pacific region where my district. the mare -- where my district, the mare wra in a islands, is. some of you know the marianas is in a transition from over-reliance on foreign workers to a -- to an economy that's predominantly united states workers. last month the house passed and the president signed into law an increase in the fee used to train u.s. workers to replace
5:30 pm
foreign workers. at the end of this month, minimum wage goes up, bringing us within 20 cents of the u.s. minimum wage, $7.05 an hour. these changes are all part of the gentleman -- strategy to make the workplace more accessible and attractive to u.s. workers who are still on the sidelines, unemployed. there is one more small, but important, move we can make. assure this potential u.s. workers they the job sites are safe. we're fortunate to have lots of investments in the resort industry right now. hotels are going up, water -- i imagine some of you have had a first job working construction. so you know there are inherent dangers on a construction site and frankly we have already had accidents. there is an osha office in
5:31 pm
honolulu but that is 4,000 miles away. we need a real federal presence. boots on the ground that we assure u.s. workers if they get a job working construction, the workplace is safe. as i say, there is one more element -- this is one more element in the strategy to put u.s. workers into jobs. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma rise? mr. cole: mr. chairman, i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cole: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i appreciate the gentleman's amendment and i agree that workers' safety is one of the department of labor's most important functions. i think, however, we just disagree on the most effective ways the federal government can help with that effort. this bill actually increases compliance assistance programs at the -- at osha to do just
5:32 pm
that. so i will oppose the gentleman's amendment which will offset the increases to osha enforcement by reducing critical compliance assistance efforts that many of our members strongly support. and with that, mr. speaker -- mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. mr. sablan: mr. chairman, this is moving money. we have enough money for compliance education. the problem is it's like having a car driving -- you know, education, knowing the next sheriff is 4,000 miles away. you are not going to get caught driving. we need federal boots on the ground. at this time i yield to my friend from new york, the gentlelady, mrs. lowey. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. lowey: mr. chairman, i am very pleased to rise in support of mr. sablan's amendment which would improve enforcement of
5:33 pm
workplace safety standards in the territories. i would note that adjusted for inflation, osha's enforcement budget has been cut by more an 20% since 2010 and osha's safety inspections declined by more than 20% during that time. it's a sad commentary that we are placing less value on an american worker's safety at the workplace than we did a decade ago. we should be supporting workplace safety in the territories, and we should be supporting workplace safety in the 50 states as well. i urge my colleagues to support mr. sablan's amendment, and i ield the balance of my time. mr. sablan: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. cole: mr. chairman, we verve. the chair: the gentleman --
5:34 pm
mr. cole: mr. chairman, we reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from the marin ana islands -- mariana islands is recognized. mr. sablan: i ask my colleagues to support this lifesaving amendment. i'll yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. cole: mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the by the offered gentleman from northern mariana islands. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. he amendment is not agreed to. the chair understands amendment umber 137 will not be offered. it's now in order to consider amendment number 138 printed in house report 115-297. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek
5:35 pm
recognition? ms. meng: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 138 printed in house report 115-297 offered by ms. meng of new york. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 504, the gentlewoman from new york, ms. meng, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from new york. ms. meng: thank you, mr. chair. this amendment increases funding for the women's bureau within the department of labor by slightly more than $1 million and would decrease the bureau of labor statistics prices and cost of living division by the same amount. it would restore the proposed cut they will make to d.o.l. women's bureau while allowing the b.l.s. prices and cost of living division to be funded at $3.5 million above the current enacted funding level and more than half a million dollars over the president's request for the coming fiscal year. for those who might be unaware,
5:36 pm
the women's bureau within the department of labor conducts research to help departmental agencies develop policies that advance the interests of working women. it plans and executes research and advises other agencies on the structure and implementation of a wide range of worker programs. unfortunately, the president's budget request for next fiscal year sought to cut more than 3/4 of the existing staff within the bureau as well as almost $9 million. thankfully, this bill does better than the request. my simple hope is we can go one small step further and fund this program next year at the level it is currently funded at. that is all my amendment seeks to do. i urge my colleagues to support funding for the women's bureau within the department of labor at existing funding levels while offsetting this change would funds in a manner that still permits the b.l.s. prices
5:37 pm
and cost of living division to be funded almost $3.5 million above the current enacted level. and almost half a million above the president's request. i urge support for this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. does anyone wish to seek time in opposition? mr. cole: mr. chairman, i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. cole: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i appreciate the gentlelady's amendment, and i certainly support the women's bureau at the department of labor. many programs in this bill were eliminated or substantially reduced to stay within our allocation. in contrast, the women's bureau was reduced by a relatively modest $1 million. the administration budget request proposed reducing the women's bureau by $8.5 million. clearly a reduction that the committee did not agree with in the bill. i understand the importance of many of these programs, and these are some of the difficult decisions that have to be made to fund bipartisan priorities
5:38 pm
in this bill like increases in funding to the n.i.h. and yet still stay within our allocation. i expect and hope as the process moves forward and we negotiate a bipartisan funding agreement we will have further discussions regarding the funding of the women's bureau and i regret having to oppose the gentlelady's amendment at this time. with that, mr. chairman, i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. meng: i want to reiterate the importance of the women's bureau. i believe the federal government, to have whatever advice, suggestions and research that is needed to help all departmental agencies develop policies that further advance the interests of working women. women currently in our country make on average 77 cents to every dollar that a man makes. and that amount is even lower for women of color. this department would work on -- this bureau would work on issue surrounding equal pay,
5:39 pm
employment rights of pregnant women and women who are breast-feeding in the workplace, paid family leave, apresentishships for women and women -- apprenticeships for women and women of color. our government needs to do better, and i believe members of both parties should care about this issue. right now i'd like to yield one minute to the gentlewoman from new york. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mrs. lowey: mr. chairman, i rise in strong support of my friend, ms. meng's amendment which would restore the women's bureau to its f.y. 2017 funding level. women now comprise almost half of the nation's work force, and their contributions are vital to the country's economic prosperity. but they continue to be barriers to women's full and equal participation in many careers and industries. women continue to earn less than men in the same position,
5:40 pm
which means the research and policy advocacy supported by the women's bureau continues to be as important as ever. i urge my colleagues to support ms. meng's amendment. i yield back the balance. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentlelady from new york reserves. ms. meng: i urge support for this amendment. my amendment simply seeks to fund this program next year at the level it is currently funded at. and i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. cole: mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yield it's -- yields back -- the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes -- the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. ms. meng: mr. speaker, i asked previously for a voted vote.
5:41 pm
the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from new york will e postponed. it's now in order tore consider amendment number 139 printed in house report 115-297. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. foster: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 139 printed in house report 115-297 offered by mr. foster of illinois. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 504, the gentleman from illinois, mr. foster, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois. mr. foster: thank you, mr. chair. my amendment highlights the need to think about our future work force and how it will change because of technology. and to encourage the bureau of labor statistics to accept a wider and more forward-looking range of inputs into its range of projections for the work
5:42 pm
force of the future. i co-chair the new democrat coalition's future of work task force with my colleagues, congressman seth moulton and jared polis. mr. hymes joins me in co-sponsoring this amendment today. over the -- mr. himes joins me in co-sponsoring this amendment today. we had forums to hear from various expertes that would require this body's attention in the coming years and tech declaration aids. we heard from historians, policy experts about how technological revolutions of the past have impacted social and political institutions and how lessons from those experiences and from current conditions can help us prepare for the future. we've also heard from labor and business leaders that are pioneering the way they attract talent, retain their services and develop skills for the increasingly rapidly changing economy. it's nearly unanimous among our experts that the economy will change significantly and change
5:43 pm
faster, but it's less clear how quickly the work force will need to adapt. for decades, the bureau of labor statistics has been doing excellent and invaluable work to track our labor trends and its projections have proven very reliable and useful to business, to our educators in times of slower and rarely predictable projections. it is based on historical data and historical changes and some of the changes in technology such as robotics, self-driving vehicles and artificial intelligence could fundamentally change our economy in ways that haven't been seen before. so in its current form, the way the bureau calculates and estimates future development of the work force may not be able to capture the dramatic changes that our future holds. one panel convened by the tax force suggested it would be impossible to do projections in
5:44 pm
any single way to predict the work force but that with additional resources the bureau of labor statistics could model for a variety of scenarios of different rates of technological change in different areas. my amendment increases the b.l.s. amount by a dollar and decreases it by a dollar and i intend it to mean that the b.l.s. should submit to congress an estimate for the resources it would need to make a range of forward-looking estimates. including consultation with those industries that are driving this rapid technological change and those that will be affected by that change, to account for the increasing rate of technological job displacement. t is hard to estimate by backward-looking extrapolations how the changes from self-driving cars and vehicles or artificial intelligence will affect the real jobs of the future. technological changes in the work force are not new. the industrial revolution and the automation of agriculture
5:45 pm
transformed the way work was performed in our country, and significantly improved on the whole our standard of living over time. but the results have not been uniform for all communities and all populations. those transformations typically played out over generations so our social and political institutions had ample time to respond, but today, development and deployment of technology is far more rapid and congress, business and our educational systems need the best possible data to evaluate policy proposals, to produce the work force training needed for their future employees and to develop educational curriculum to ensure our economy works for veryone. like in the industrial revolution, it presents an opportunity for an improved standard of live bug it will bring changes to our work force
5:46 pm
and business communities and government must work together. additional considerations will help congress to anticipate these changes and to weigh proposed solutions. objective projections based on empirical evidence are crucial to debate that which will be based on different views of the role of government and its relationship with market forces. those are the differences that should shape our ideas for helping americans enjoy prosperous and full lives in the future so i urge my colleagues to join me and vote yes on my amendment to begin to establish a range of scenarios for the bureau of labor statistics and the future world we will inhabit. thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman reserves. mr. foster: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. does the gentleman from oklahoma rise in opposition in mr. cole: mr. chairman, the gentleman's amendment has no net impact on the fund og they have bill so i do not oppose the
5:47 pm
amendment. the chair: does anybody wish to rise in opposition? seeing none, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed. -- is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 141 printed in house report 115-297. for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i rise as the designee of the gentlewoman from new mexico and i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: ealt number 141 printed in house report 115-297, offered by ms. mention of new york. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 504, the gentlelady from new york, ms. mention, and a member opposed, each -- ms.
5:48 pm
pentagon and a member opposed -- ms. meng and a member opposed each will control five minutes. ms. meng: i urge my colleagues to support my amendment which creases funding for the work force program by $5 million. this program saw funding cut in half in this bill. the behavioral work force and training program supports education and training for careers in behavioral health at institutions of higher education and through professional and paraprofessional training programs with a foe couns rural and medically underserved communities. this program was created as part of the 21st century cures act in response to the significant nationwide shortage of behavioral health providers. 55% of u.s. counties do not have a practicing behave yrl health provider and 77% of counties reported unmet behavioral health
5:49 pm
needs. these statistics would be alarming at any time, but they are particularly concerning in the midst of a national opioid epidemic. a 2016 surgeon general's report found only about 10% of people with a substance abuse disorder received any type of specialty treatment. additionally, 60% of adults with a mental illness didn't receive mental health services in the previous year. this lack of access to services has severe consequences for the individuals seeking treatment, their family, an our communities. when they don't have access to treatment, individuals with behavioral health needs receive a whole different set of services. jails and sometimes emergency rooms become the de facto behavioral health system. mr. chairman, i urge my colleagues to make this important investment in the behavioral health work force and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from oklahoma rise in opposition? mr. cole: yes, mr. chairman, i
5:50 pm
do. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. cole: thank you, mr. chairman. the gentlelady from new york, representing the gentlelady from new mexico, raises a very important point. the amendment offered is for an increase to a work force training program. our committee understands the value of this program, which is why we did not accept the administration budget request which actually terminated the program. we were able to fund it, though below last year's level. our committee received an allocation that was lower than fiscal year 2017 and as i've explained several times before and doubtless will again, we had to make some very tough decisions. but i do pledge to work with the gentlelady as we work toward the fiscal year 2018 final bill. at this time, though, i must oppose the amendment and urge its rejection. the chair: does the gentleman yield back? the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from
5:51 pm
new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. he amendment is not agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 142 printed in house report 115-297. for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york seek recognition? ms. meng: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will dez egg nate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 142 printed in house report 115-297 offered by ms. meng of new york. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 50 , the gentlelady from new york, ms. meng and a member opposed each will control five minute. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from new york. ms. meng: thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment seeks to increase funding for h.r.s.a.'s jeryatic work force enhancement program by $4 million, restoring funding to the current enacted level.
5:52 pm
i'm thankful for the amount already provided for this in bill but i'm hopeful we can go one step further and fully fund this program again in the coming fiscal year. the geriatrics work force enhancement program improves health care for older americans by providing clinical training opportunities to students, medical faculty, and providers, direct service workers, patients, families and care givers to integrate geriatric and primary care delivery systems. in the 2015-2016 academic year, grantees provided training to 18,451 students and fellows articipating in a variety of geriatrics-focused degree programs, placements and fellowships. of these trainees, 11,824 gladge waited or completed their train -- graduated or completed their training in the most recent academicic year and grantees
5:53 pm
partnered with 355 hospitals, long-term care facilities and institutions to provide clinical experience to trainees. america's population is aging and it is imperative that new generations of health care professionals and providers have the skills needed to care for older americans. every person in this chamber at some point in their life will wish their health care provider has this training an i hope we will all recognize that fact today and do what is prudent. i hope we will unanimously support this amendment, plan for the future health care of our nation, an restore funding to the hlsa geriatric work force enhancement program account. i urge support for this amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from oklahoma rise in opposition? mr. cole: yes, i do the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. cole: thank you, mr. chairman. the gentlelady frankly, there's considerable merit in the amendment that she's suggesting. the amendment offered is to
5:54 pm
increase -- for an increase to work force training program. our committee understands the value of this program, which is why we did not accept the administration's budget request which terminated the program. we were able to fund it, though below last year's level. however, i will certainly commit to my friend that we'll work with her as we go through the fiscal process toward the final bill and hopefully we can find a way to increase this at a later time. at this time, however, mr. chairman, i must oppose the amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady is recognized. merchandise meng: again, this amendment -- ms. meng: again this amendment requires that the program be fully funded. i look fwand -- i look forward to working with the chairman and i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. mr. kell: i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes visit, the amendment is
5:55 pm
not agree -- the noes have it, the amendment is not agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 145 printed in house report 115-297. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 145 printed in house report 115-297, offered by mr. kildee of michigan. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 504, the gentleman from michigan, mr. kildee, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. kildee: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise to support the amendment that i've offered to increase funding for the very successful healthy start program. add $24. million to match the president's funding request. the healthy start program helps infants start out life with the support they need to grow into successful adults. it provides prenatal care, base
5:56 pm
exhealth needs, promotes positive parenting, practices for thousands of children. it's especially important to the people in my hometown, as i mentioned before, and many other communities, trying to work through exposure to high levels of lead, which is a neurotoxin and of course what we know is there's no cure but the way we treat, the support we pr provide these youngsters often gives them a chance to overcome these sorts of developmental hurdles. healthy start is a critical way to do that. helping infants and their families mitigate the effects of that lead exposure. flint's ongoing crisis brought to light the nationwide issues that we face in drinking water. people are more aware of these issues and the impact that they can have on families. so it is incumbent on us to do everything we cannot just to repair the damage, not just to prevent further damage but to help those who are struggling to get through these sorts of
5:57 pm
developmental challenges. healthy start is a proven program. it does that. it's one of the reasons that i essentially take the same position president trump has taken that we should have a greater investment in healthy start. i don't often find myself in that position but in this case, i'm willing to assert that on this floor. early childhood education gives kids regardless of their sose yo economic background, a chance. and i think it's our duty to give every child a fair chance to succeed. that's what this amendment is intended to do. i urge my colleagues to support it. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the -- does the gentleman from oklahoma wish to rise in opposition? mr. cole: i do. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. cole: i thank my friend for the amendment. i wish i could support it, frankly. i very much support healthy start. and very much appreciate his support for that program. as the gentleman knows, again,
5:58 pm
our subcommittee received an allocation below last year's level and as a result did not have the ability to increase funding for some programs, this one included. the gentleman's amendment offsets the increase with a reduction in the resources for the sec retear of health and human services to carry out his responsibilities. this would hinder the secretary's ability to administer the program effectively. i oppose the amendment. but i want to share with my friend, as we work our way through the process, i'll work with him to see if ke we can find a way to increase those funds. but at this point we don't have them available. for that reason, mr. chairman, i must oppose the amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. kildee: i urge my colleagues to support this eafment i do appreciate very much my friend from oklahoma's sincere support for the effort. let's hope that the amendment
5:59 pm
passes, if it does not, i do look forward to working with you in order to ensure that every child could potentially benefit from this program does in fact have that opportunity. with that, i again urge my colleagues to support this amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. cole: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. kildee: i request a recorded vote. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 149 printed in house report 115-297. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i have annd

19 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on