[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 143 (Wednesday, September 6, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H7082-H7087]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 0050
Members have found out about ICE immigration actions in their
districts after the fact. The least we can do as Members of Congress is
to provide oversight and keep track of how much DHS is spending. There
is no question dangerous criminals should be detained and should be
deported. ICE will still be able to do that. But if they need more
money, they should come to this Congress and tell us why they need this
money.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Torres).
The amendment was rejected.
Modification to Amendment No. 79 Offered by Mr. Carter of Texas
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that
amendment No. 79 printed in part B of House Report 115-295, which was
adopted as part of the amendments en bloc, be modified by the
modification placed at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:
Modification to amendment No. 79 offered by Mr. Latta of Ohio:
Before ``dollar amount'' insert ``first''.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
September 6, 2017, on page H7082, the following appeared: The
Clerk read as follows: Before ``dollar amount'' insert ``first''.
The online version has been corrected to read: The Clerk read as
follows: Modification to amendment No. 79 offered by Mr. Latta of
Ohio: Before ``dollar amount'' insert ``first''.
========================= END NOTE =========================
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Texas?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is modified.
Amendment No. 80 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 80
printed in part B of House Report 115-295.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk made
in order by the rule.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of division E (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to implement, administer, or enforce the prevailing
wage requirements in subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 40,
United States Code (commonly referred to as the Davis-Bacon
Act).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 500, the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. King) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
Modification to Amendment No. 80 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify my
amendment with the modification at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:
After the words ``this Act'' insert ``or Divisions A, C, D,
F, or G''
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Iowa?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is modified.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, this eliminates the funding that would go to Davis-
Bacon and enforcing Davis-Bacon, the Federal wage scale that advertises
prevailing wage but turns out to be union scale.
We debated this twice earlier this evening. The modification for the
edification of the people who might not have picked up on that rolls
this Davis-Bacon amendment together with the appropriations component
that we will debate tomorrow so there is clarification here on the
floor.
I have long been for the repeal of Davis-Bacon. I have made a
statement that the Federal Government doesn't have any business
dictating to an employer and an employee what they should be able to
agree to on wages.
We have been in the construction business for 42 years. We started on
our 43rd year this week. We have paid Davis-Bacon wages in most of
those years, if not all of those years, and it upsets the efficiency of
being able to manage the job, and it interferes with that relationship.
If it is going to be prevailing wages, then let the market decide
that. But the studies that we have out there, there is no study that I
know of that would show where there is an imposed Davis-Bacon wage
scale that it costs less money. It always costs the taxpayers more
money to do a particular project.
Our records of these years run between an 8 percent greater than it
[[Page H7083]]
would be if we had merit shop or as high as 35 percent greater than the
cost of the projects. We average it out to 20 percent. There are
studies out there that say a 22 percent increase.
So I describe it this way: if the Federal Government is going to
mandate union scale on construction projects, whether it be for
building a wall on the southern border or an interstate or a bridge, a
highway, a building, whatever it might be, you can decide whether you
want to borrow money from China to build 4 miles of road or 5, if you
want to build four bridges or five, or if you want to build four
buildings or five. That is what it comes down to in the end. We can
build five of everything instead of four if we just repeal Davis-Bacon.
So this scores well for us. The fiscally responsible people will come
down on the side of eliminating Davis-Bacon. This country would not
adopt such a policy if it happened today.
By the way, this is the last remaining Jim Crow law that I can find
in America. As so many things are being taken down left over from that
era, it is time we took down Davis-Bacon, too. So I would urge adoption
of my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Earlier this evening, the same amendment was
soundly defeated twice on this floor, so I am not sure why there is a
need to go over the same worn ground again.
The Davis-Bacon Act is a longstanding law that ensures workers on
federally funded construction projects are reasonably paid, no less
than the wages paid for similar work in the local community. It is
simply a matter of fairness that we ensure that the Federal Government
pays fair wages for an honest day's work.
Mr. Chairman, I have heard the gentleman from Iowa suggest that
Davis-Bacon's history is linked to discrimination. But I believe he may
be misinformed in thinking that it was the cause and not the solution.
In 1927, a contractor who was employing African-American workers was
building a Veterans Bureau hospital. Congressman Bacon found that there
were very serious issues related to the pay of low wages and the
discrimination against the wages of migrant workers. He introduced
Davis-Bacon initially to help make sure that these construction workers
would be paid the prevailing wages in their community. As I said, these
workers happened to be African American.
I urge all of my Members to, once again, vote ``no'' on this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Kilmer).
Mr. KILMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding. I also
rise to oppose this amendment because I support quality jobs for folks
and the laws that protect them.
When I go around my district, I hear from folks who are still feeling
squeezed that are ready to seize opportunities that they might not have
right now. Since 1931, the Davis-Bacon Act has been there to help
working men and working women earn a decent wage.
I would respond to the good gentleman's statement that Davis-Bacon is
about embracing the premise that when we use taxpayer dollars to build
a project, it is not just about building that project. It is about
building the middle class.
I oppose this amendment because it seeks to undo three generations
worth of protections that have helped our country create the strongest
middle class in the world. I don't support nickeling and diming
workers.
We have a responsibility to make sure the future is better for the
generations to come, and if those who follow us earn less or get
injured more and can't take care of their health, that is a step
backward and not forward.
So I urge my colleagues, once again, to defeat this amendment.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume
to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter).
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
gentleman's amendment, and I adopt all of his arguments that he has
made.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, in response, I have heard a piece of
history revisionism. Now is the first time I recall, in all these
debates that we have had, that the purpose of Davis-Bacon, which does
produce a result of union scales imposed by, as I said earlier this
evening--it is not prevailing wage.
{time} 0100
Employers that are nonunion don't report wages to the Federal
Government because the union comes to organize their employees. So the
thing that is called prevailing wage is a distortion of the reality. We
know this.
I have been in this business 42 years. I talked to a contractor just
a week ago who was a bridge contractor. He has been operating in rural
Missouri. In just this past year's numbers, unskilled laborers cost him
$45 an hour. There is no way that you go down to Missouri and hire
somebody that is unskilled and you have to pay them $45 an hour. For
somebody that is going to look through the chart, I should tell you it
is about $23 an hour for labor and $22 for fringe benefits. The fringe
benefits are to pay for your health insurance and your retirement
program. But some of these employees are on our ObamaCare, with their
premiums paid by other money that we borrow from China.
It is foolish for a fiscally responsible nation, trying to get to
balance, to have a David-Bacon law in place. And I will pound on this
drum until we come to our senses on this.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, the House has already voted twice
against this amendment today, and I hope it will do so again.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I
have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 30 seconds remaining.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I would just conclude that this is
the first time I have heard that Davis-Bacon was formed to protect
minority migrant workers that came out of Alabama to work in New York.
That seems to me to be Members of Congress representing the folks that
are not their constituents. That would be one of the rare times also.
So that is history revisionism. This is a Jim Crow law. It needs to
go. It needs to be ripped out of the code at every opportunity.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment, as modified,
offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment, as modified, offered by the gentleman
from Iowa will be postponed.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
September 6, 2017, on page H7083, the following appeared: The
Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by
The online version has been corrected to read: The Acting CHAIR.
Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the
amendment, as modified, offered by
========================= END NOTE =========================
Amendment No. 81 Offered by Mr. Castro of Texas
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 81
printed in part B of House Report 115-295.
Mr. CASTRO of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of division E (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to enter into contracts in fiscal year 2018 with
privatized immigration detention facilities.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 500, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Castro) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. CASTRO of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment would prohibit the Department of Homeland
Security from entering into contracts
[[Page H7084]]
with privatized immigration detention facilities for fiscal year 2018.
A study done by the Homeland Security Advisory Council's Subcommittee
on Privatized Immigration Detention Facilities found that privatized
detention facilities experienced a multitude of issues, including
deficiencies in staffing, subpar medical care, inefficient abuse
reporting systems, and a lack of transparency.
Further, an in-depth report on two of the country's private detention
facilities show further injustices, such as inadequate access to legal
information and services.
It is best that DHS is prohibited from doing business with these
facilities until these issues are resolved and it is shown that these
facilities meet ICE's Performance-Based National Detention Standards.
This amendment is necessary, as the government's reliance on
privatized facilities will continue to grow, based on trends in
detention. In fact, only 9.2 percent of detained individuals are in
ICE-owned facilities. We must ensure that detained individuals are
treated humanely and that they have access to due process.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Mr. Chair, over half of the ICE detention
population is housed in privately owned and operated detention
facilities. Neither ICE nor State and local detention facilities can
provide the number of beds required to house the detained population
that we have today. Without the capacity provided by contracts with
private detention facilities, ICE will be forced to dramatically scale
back interior enforcement and, more seriously, release thousands of
dangerous criminal aliens from custody.
Eliminating private facilities will require a significant expansion
to ICE's capacity that, according to estimates, will exceed $1.3
billion and could be as much as $5 billion to $6 billion.
I also note that my colleague in the minority considers detention
standards to be of vital importance, yet the majority of the facilities
that meet the highest and most stringent detention standards are the
very same contract facilities this language would eliminate.
For these reasons, I oppose this amendment and ask for a ``no'' vote.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CASTRO of Texas. Mr. Chairman, studies have shown repeatedly that
these private detention centers are of a lower quality than publicly
owned facilities.
There is something very perverse about an industry in the private
detention and private prison industry that basically profits off of
mass incarceration and that has an economic incentive to get more
people into detention, into jail, into prison, and, at the same time,
tries to do everything that it can to cut costs and cut corners. In
doing so, it fails not only its public charge and its duty, but also
terribly fails the people entrusted to it.
The fact is that these private prisons, the detention centers, the
companies that own them, hired lobbyists in California, for example,
within the last few years. They had 70 lobbyists. One of the companies
had 70 lobbyists on staff. They lobby for harsher criminal penalties.
Why? Because the more people that have to be detained, the more money
they make.
That simply is not how the criminal justice system should work and
that is not how we should do detention within the immigration realm.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, once again, I oppose the
gentleman's amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CASTRO of Texas. Mr. Chairman, this is about treating people as
humanely as possible. When profit is the main thing that drives the
decisions on detention, incarceration, the conditions in which people
are detained, then we are doing a severe injustice to those folks.
Because of that, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Castro).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CASTRO of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will
be postponed.
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 83
printed in part B of House Report 115-295.
Amendment No. 84 Offered by Ms. Jayapal
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 84
printed in part B of House Report 115-295.
Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of division E (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used for the construction or expansion of detention
facilities.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 500, the gentlewoman
from Washington (Ms. Jayapal) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Washington.
{time} 0110
Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chairman, the United States already operates the
largest immigration detention system in the world at a cost of $2
billion annually. In fiscal year 2017, ICE had the capacity to detain
an unprecedented 39,324 men, women, and children. Although a large
amount of funding is dedicated to detain these people, the system is
plagued with inhumane conditions and inadequate oversight. Mr.
Chairman, my amendment imposes a moratorium on the construction and
expansion of immigration detention facilities.
This year, we are seeing the highest number of deaths in ICE custody
since 2011. Private, for-profit detention facilities in particular have
not abided by basic standards necessary to protect civil and
constitutional rights, and all of this is occurring at the same time
that the administration is increasing enforcement, including expedited
removals with inadequate due process, elimination of the longstanding
division between local police and Federal immigration enforcement, and
this is all tearing families apart.
The overreach of these detention facilities combined with an
overreach on enforcement in general, instead of focussing on more
practical, humane, and, frankly, economically viable options of
alternatives to detention, are issues that Congress must address.
We should not be funding these dangerous overreaches by expanding
immigration detention with no accountability. This amendment ensures
that we focus on fixing this broken system as opposed to funding an
increased detention expansion, and this is deadly. It is a deadly
powder keg, and I don't use the term ``deadly'' lightly.
I would like to take a moment to talk about Jacinta Morales, a woman
from Oregon detained at the Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma,
Washington. Jacinta found out she was pregnant while she was in
detention. She said: I was thrilled to be pregnant and thrilled at the
prospect of being a mother again.
When she found out she would be deported, torn from her 11-year-old
U.S. citizen son as well as her long-time partner, Jacinta was
devastated. She experienced pain and nausea, and not long after, she
woke up bleeding. After an hour, she went to the doctor, where she
waited another hour. One of the people who was seen before her had a
toothache.
When the doctor finally saw her, they requested an ambulance to take
her to the hospital, but the ambulance didn't come for a long time, and
so they took her in the back of a patrol car where she was forced to
sit up, making the bleeding worse. When Jacinta finally arrived at the
hospital, she learned she had a miscarriage.
Jacinta is one of 292 pregnant women ICE detained between January and
[[Page H7085]]
April of 2017, alone, and part of the 60 percent of detained women.
Formerly detained women and their attorneys and advocates have reported
that pregnant women only receive the bare minimum of services and
accommodations and are routinely denied extra blankets, additional
food, and adequate prenatal care.
When pregnant women are referred to outside obstetricians, ICE policy
does not prohibit the shackling of pregnant women during transport.
Moreover, the stress of detention and fear of miscarriage may lead
detained women to abandon their asylum claims.
One of these women, I am going to call her Ana, accepted deportation
back into the hands of her abuser because she was so afraid that being
detained would harm her unborn child.
ICE's own detention standards and directive on the detention of
pregnant women acknowledges the complexity and risks of detaining
pregnant women, but implementation and oversight are not enough to
protect these women.
It is irresponsible to expand detention while the agency struggles to
conduct even basic oversight and hold facilities accountable for
inhumane conditions. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, it seems that the minority has a
very good tag team match going here. The previous amendment would
eliminate, if it passes, all of the privately owned facilities, leaving
us with, by the gentlewoman's own statement, 3,500 beds for detainees;
whereas, our total population today ranges from 35,000 to 40,000 people
that are detained, which would mean all those people would have to be
released or placed in some kind of alternative of which the no-show for
that alternative is horrendous.
This kind of restriction makes no sense. Even though there is nobody
planning to build ICE facilities right now, to restrict the government
from a possible need, should that need arise--I remind you that in
2014, in the month of August, 78,000 children came across the border,
and an equal number or more of a child with a parent came across the
border in the Laredo sector alone.
So we have real needs that need to be met, and quite honestly, this
amendment ties the hands and everybody gets turned loose. I very much
oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Washington has 45 seconds
remaining.
Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chairman, I will just say that we currently have
almost 40,000 people in detention. We are not proposing eliminating all
detention centers. We are saying we are putting a moratorium on
expansion of detention centers. Those people would still be able to
stay there. We could detain up to that many people.
I don't think that is the right policy for the United States of
America, but I am not saying that we are going to eliminate all of that
detention space. What I am saying is that we need accountability around
the detention system, and as long as we don't have that accountability
and we have pregnant women who are losing children in the ICE detention
facilities, I believe that we should ensure that we have
accountability.
I will tell you that we are continuing to detain and not hold these
detention centers accountable for any of the things that happen within
the detention centers, so, again, I hope that my colleagues will
support this amendment and allow us to bring some accountability back
to our detention system.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Washington
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 85 Offered by Mr. Zeldin
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 85
printed in part B of House Report 115-295.
Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of division E (before the short title) insert
the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used by the Coast Guard to enforce Executive Order 13449
or section 697.7(b) of title 50, Code of Federal Regulations,
in the Block Island Transit Zone (as that term is defined in
section 697.7(b)(3) of such title).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 500, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Zeldin) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Chairman, my amendment to H.R. 3354 will provide
needed regulatory relief to fishermen from the East End of Long Island
and the entire region who are struggling under confusing and arbitrary
Federal restrictions on striped bass fishing in Block Island Sound.
The unique maritime geography of our region means that making the 15-
mile journey by boat from Montauk Point, New York, to Block Island,
Rhode Island, requires passing through a segment of waters considered
to be part of the EEZ known as the Block Island Transit Zone.
For recreational anglers, charter boat captains, and commercial
fishermen, this shift in jurisdiction can mean the difference between a
nice day on the water and committing a Federal offense.
My amendment would bar the U.S. Coast Guard from enforcing this ban
on striped bass fishing in these waters so that Coast Guard resources
can be focused on their important national security and safety mission.
No other species of fish besides striped bass are subject to this
confusing ban which was meant to impact the high seas of the EEZ, not a
small segment of local waters situated between two State boundaries.
Fishermen should be able to legally fish for striped bass in this
limited area just as they currently can in adjacent State waters. A
recreational angler or boat captain on the water off of Montauk Point,
New York, can easily go from fishing legally and responsibly in State
waters to violating Federal law once they pass over the 3-mile limit
where New York State waters end and the Transit Zone begins.
Many of these individuals lack the expensive GPS technology to know
if and when they have crossed the boundary, and there are no buoys to
warn them. These are responsible men and women who have the greatest
vested interest in preserving the striped bass fishery, but they also
desperately need relief from confusing government regulations that are
hurting their livelihoods and access to local fisheries.
{time} 0120
Last Congress, my stand-alone bill to address this issue, H.R. 3070,
the EEZ Clarification Act, passed the House with a unanimous voice
vote.
This amendment is supported by the Recreational Fishing Alliance, the
Long Island Commercial Fishing Association, and the Montauk Boatman &
Captains Association.
On behalf of the hardworking men and women of Long Island who rely on
fishing as a way of life, I ask for your support on this commonsense
amendment.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. This is not an appropriate amendment for inclusion
in an annual spending bill. The
[[Page H7086]]
Coast Guard opposes the amendment because their mission to protect
natural resources is not specific to individual regulations.
Enforcement limitations on specific regulations would place a
significant burden on the Coast Guard.
In addition, Congress should not be in the business of micromanaging
fish conservation. The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission is
an interstate commission which allows Atlantic Coast States to
collectively manage the conservation of their shared coastal fishery
resources. We should allow the Commission to do its job in managing
fish stocks.
Congress shouldn't second-guess them and micromanage fish regulations
in particular locations. There is a process in place for addressing
these issues at the regional level, and we should allow that process to
work.
Currently, the consensus position of the Commission is that the
fishing restrictions should remain in place and the stock assessment
for striped bass is planned for next year. This ban was put in place
after going through the Federal rulemaking process. If a change is
needed, it should follow the same process.
I believe this amendment places an undue burden on the Coast Guard,
and it is bad precedent for Congress to interfere with a State-driven
process. For these reasons, I oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Chairman, this bill removes a burden from the Coast
Guard. It doesn't micromanage any local council. It actually empowers
the local council. It doesn't make any changes to stock assessments.
You still are subject to the management of the local fisheries. You
cannot fish for any more fish than you were previously. So actually,
all the logic that was used by my colleague, you could actually very
much more easily argue the opposite side.
It should be further noted that my colleague from California, as she
speaks about what is the right policy here on the east end of Long
Island for our hardworking fishermen, voted in favor of H.R. 3070,
which was unanimously passed by the last Congress.
So it wouldn't make any sense to be arguing that this bill places a
burden on the Coast Guard when it is lifting it, or that it is
micromanaging a local council when it empowers it to control the
fishery.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, we should allow the Atlantic States
Marine Fisheries Commission to do its job, and I continue to oppose
this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Chairman, I think it is a great idea to empower the
Atlantic Fishery Council by passing this amendment because if we don't
pass this amendment, if we don't change the Federal law, they are not
empowered. Federal law says you can't fish in the EEZ between Montauk
Point and Block Island, Rhode Island. So if we do not pass this
legislation, if H.R. 3070 became law in the last Congress, we wouldn't
be here right now and the Council would be managing the local fishery.
But Federal law prevents the regional management of the fishery. It
actually just says, outright, you can't fish for striped bass at all.
So all the arguments that are now being used for the first time
against this particular argument, a proposal that was passed
unanimously last Congress, which is now being opposed by a colleague
from California, to be telling us what the right policy is on the east
end of Long Island, saying that we should be managing this fishery is
an argument I absolutely agree with, and that is exactly why it is so
important to pass this legislation.
My colleague, in opposing this proposal, is actually making the
argument of exactly why it needs to pass. I encourage all of my
colleagues to vote for it.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 87
printed in part B of House Report 115-295.
Amendment No. 88 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 88
printed in part B of House Report 115-295.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk made
in order under the rule.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of division E (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. ___. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used for a new hire who has not been verified through the
E-Verify program.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 500, the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. King) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
Modification to Amendment No. 88 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify my
amendment by the modification at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:
Modification to amendment No. 88 offered by Mr. King of Iowa:
After the words ``this Act'' insert ``or Divisions A, C, D,
or F''
=========================== NOTE ===========================
September 6, 2017, on page H7086, the following appeared: The
Clerk read as follows: After the words ``this Act'' insert ``or
Divisions A, C, D, or F''
The online version has been corrected to read: The Clerk read as
follows: Modification to amendment No. 88 offered by Mr. King of
Iowa: After the words ``this Act'' insert ``or Divisions A, C, D,
or F''
========================= END NOTE =========================
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Iowa?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is modified.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her
consent to this unanimous consent request which will help expedite our
debate here on this long appropriations discussion that we are having.
This is the amendment that requires that E-Verify be used in all new
hires that are funded under this appropriation. And it is a well
established debate, I think, not only throughout the years of E-Verify,
but also throughout this evening.
It is all new hires, in conjunction with an offer of employment,
simply run their data through E-Verify. If it comes back from E-Verify
verifying that that information that is provided by the applicant
identifies an individual who can work legally in the United States,
that is the verification that the efficiency has gone way up into the
upper 90, 99 point something percentile.
Mr. Chair, I urge the adoption of this amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, under the OMB directive from 2007,
all Federal agencies are already required to use the E-Verify system to
confirm the employment eligibility of new hires. Beyond Federal
employees, a 2008 executive order and a Federal acquisition regulation
already require that employees of Federal contractors also be verified
as eligible to work through E-Verify, so my opposition to this
amendment is primarily on the basis that it is unnecessary.
Given that the current administration has proposed making the use of
E-Verify mandatory for private sector hiring, it just doesn't seem
likely that it would somehow weaken the current requirement for the
Federal Government to use the system. This funding limitation simply is
not needed.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume
to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter).
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, what Ms. Roybal-Allard just stated
was true, but I rise in support of this gentleman's amendment because
it is time the agencies and departments fully comply, and this
amendment attempts to achieve that effort. Therefore, I support the
gentleman's amendment.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I would just reiterate that we are
getting reports that there are gaps in this enforcement and, spending
my life in a contracting business, I would remind the Members that we
have general contractors, we have first tier contractors,
[[Page H7087]]
we have second tier subcontractors, even third tier subcontractors, and
so we want to ensure that the enforcement is there of E-Verify. And I
want to thank everyone for their cooperation, and I urge the adoption
of my amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment, as modified,
offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
{time} 0130
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now
rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
King of Iowa) having assumed the chair, Mr. Marshall, Acting Chair of
the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R.
3354) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior,
environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September
30, 2018, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
____________________