To amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to clarify the definition of a deposit broker, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the further consideration of H.R. 3354.

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 504, as the designee of Chairman Frelinghuysen, I offer amendments en bloc No. 3 as part of consideration of division C of H.R. 3354.

The list of amendments included in the en bloc, Mr. Chairman, is at the desk and has been agreed to by both sides.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).

Mr. Chairman, I wish to address the gentlewoman's comments, very briefly.

I want to thank the gentlewoman for bringing this matter to the House's attention. Harmful algal blooms are an important issue, especially to the State of Florida. We know how dangerous they are and the terrible effect they have had on our friends in Florida, who are already suffering the effects of this hurricane. Our prayers and thoughts are with them. All of us in Houston understand the severity of the problem they face, and we are praying for them and look forward to helping them in any way we can.

I will certainly continue to work with the gentlewoman on this issue that she brings to the House's attention.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert).

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the en bloc amendment. It is made up of noncontroversial items that we have worked out with the minority, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Lipinski. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my two amendments included in the en bloc package being considered for Division C of H.R. 3354 I want to thank Chairman Culberson and Ranking Member Serrano for their leadership on this division, and for including these amendments in the en bloc package. These bipartisan amendments, cosponsored by me and my friend Mr. LoBiondo of New Jersey, protect critical functions at the National Weather Service. The Weather Service is essential to so much of what we do. From its critical functions like helping us predict, prepare for, and ride out extreme weather events to its everyday functions like telling us whether or not to carry an umbrella, life without up-to-date weather information is hard to imagine.

My first amendment (No. 89) directs the National Weather Service not to cut $1.2 million from the Climate Prediction Center. one of its National Centers for Environmental Protection The Service is further directed not to consolidate the functions of the Climate Prediction Center into the Weather Prediction Center. Keeping these two centers separate recognizes the essential and very different services each one provides. The medium- and long-term predictions offered by the Climate Prediction Center are used for planning by diverse industries including transportation, agriculture, energy, and public health. Its global datasets are used by the Department of Defense and the U.S. Agency for International Development to understand international phenomena like flood and drought that could impact food supplies and regional stability.

My second amendment (No. 88) directs the National Weather Service not to cut $10.1 million from its budget for Information Technology Officers, and to maintain an on-site IT Officer at each Weather Forecast Office. These officers do software maintenance, technical systems upgrades, and develop software and data products to meet local office needs. According to the Weather Service's assessment of its performance during Hurricane Matthew (2016), ``[Weather Forecast Offices] were unanimous in their support of having a local [IT Officer] present to address issues before, during, and after hurricane season.'' In addition, a significant number of IT Officers are also trained, experienced meteorologists who can augment the forecasting staff during extreme weather.

I think all of my colleagues can agree that supporting the National Weather Service is more important now than ever and I urge support for these amendments and for the en bloc package.

Mr. Chairman, as the designee of Chairman Frelinghuysen, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert), my good friend.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Washington for his service to the people of Seattle, the people in his State, his service here, and for his devotion to this program.

I absolutely recognize the importance of the COPS Hiring Program and what an important impact it has had on the safety of local communities. We are especially grateful to our first responders in southeast Texas, southwest Louisiana, and the people of Florida. I don't know what we would do without our first responders. Our police officers and firemen have done a magnificent job in the wake of these terrible storms that we have had.

Given the staffing shortages and the current issues facing our law enforcement, the COPS program is especially important. As you know, the Senate has funded the COPS program in its bill, and I look forward to working with the gentleman to make sure the COPS program is funded in conference.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have no particular objection to the amendment other than I am concerned about the offset. We need to make sure the Department of Justice has all the resources they need in order to protect this country. I am concerned about taking it out of General Administration. However, I am prepared to let the amendment go.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we have, as you know, an extremely difficult budget year. Our constituent's hard-earned tax dollars are being stretched farther and thinner than ever, particularly in light of the disasters that struck Texas and southwest Louisiana and now Florida.

We have, in our Commerce, Justice, Science bill, protected America's investment and basic research through the National Science Foundation and its main grant account, the Research and Related Activities account.

We have funded the Research and Related Activities account at $672 million this year. We recognize that America's leadership in the world is grounded, in large part, on the innovations and discoveries that are made by unrestrained scientific research.

I am a very strong supporter of the National Science Foundation's scientific research. And while we would like to see higher levels of funding for the National Science Foundation for NASA and for other science-related research in this bill, until the Congress comes to an overall budget agreement, Mr. Chairman, we simply do not have additional funds, and we must live within our means.

The proposed offset that is offered by this amendment would seriously hinder program and financial oversight over the Department of Commerce and could result in professionals being let go.

Further, with respect to the gentlewoman's statement, I believe it is important that we defer to the National Science Foundation to distribute any additional funds according to the highest priority needs identified by the scientific community and not designate them for a specific directorate.

Should the gentlewoman's amendment pass, the funds will be added to the research and related activities account, in general. It will then be up to NSF to determine how those additional funds are spent according to the needs of the scientific community, that the offset is very damaging to the Department of Commerce and the important work they do, in fact, the constitutionally mandated work that they do, to provide for the decennial census of the United States.

Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Brooks), my good friend and colleague.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman withdrawing the amendment. I want to express my support for the work the Legal Services Corporation does.

When we reach a budget agreement throughout the Congress for Legal Services, we will work with you in conference to help make sure they have the funds that they need to do their vital work to defend abused women, veterans, and members of the military who need assistance. They do important work. As soon as we find some extra room, I will work with you in conference to find them some extra support.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, remembering that, first and foremost, the appropriations annual operating budget of the United States represents only 30 cents out of every dollar spent by the Federal Government.

I am keenly aware of how precious and hard-earned and scarce every dollar earned by our constituents is. We need to focus on the 70 percent: the automatic pilot programs, the looming insolvency of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. That is how we can really get our budget balanced.

We have done our part on the Appropriations Committee to bring down annual spending every year, and the ATF, in particular, plays an important role in protecting America's Second Amendment rights. You must remember that the ATF is now under the direction of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who shares with us a passion for protecting Americans' Second Amendment rights.

This amendment would cause serious damage to ATF's ability to end the backlogs. The ATF would not be able to speed up the processing of the National Firearms Act applications. The ATF would not be able to beef up the National Integrated Ballistic Information Network, which is so vital to help police officers identify the source of the bullet used in a crime.

This amendment would injure an agency that is doing good work today under the leadership of Attorney General Jeff Sessions to protect our Second Amendment rights. Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to oppose it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), my colleague, the ranking member on the Commerce-Justice-Science Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to oppose this amendment.

ATF is doing a good job of protecting our Second Amendment rights, and this amendment would injure them severely.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, this amendment would cut the Bureau of Prisons' operations by $10 million. This is a serious cut. The Bureau of Prisons performs an essential function in keeping our streets safe and protecting the people of America.

We have already funded the youth mentoring programs in our bill today at $75 million. It is 25 percent above the request, because of the value of these programs.

I certainly agree with the gentleman that these programs are successful, they are effective, but the Department of Justice is not even finished awarding the grants from fiscal year 2017, and this program is very healthy.

This program would also, Mr. Chairman, eliminate a longstanding authority the Bureau of Prisons has had for

contract flexibility that enables the Bureau of Prisons to manage its contracts in a way that benefits both the agency and the taxpayer. This includes contracts for halfway houses, reentry facilities, and juvenile detention.

This burden would strap the Bureau of Prisons, putting pressure on them and putting inmates in more danger, putting officers and staff in greater danger. If we want prisoners to get healthcare and rehabilitation, Mr. Chairman, and prisoners and staff to be safe, we have to adequately fund the Bureau of Prisons.

Mr. Chair, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, but I have no objection to this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I share my colleagues' support for law enforcement and have no objection to this amendment; and I will work with the gentlemen to ensure that the COPS program is funded when we get to conference, we have a budget agreement across the Congress, and additional funds are made available. The COPS program is an essential one that will be at the top of the list.

My support for law enforcement is reflected in the $100 million increase seen in the Byrne JAG Program, which is a

very flexible grant program for local law enforcement to use for a variety of reasons, including hiring police officers, including forensic work, lab work, and eliminating the backlog of rape kits, which is so important to getting dangerous criminals off the streets.

The Byrne JAG Grant Program is one that is increasingly popular and successful among the men and women of law enforcement, and that is why we have increased it by $100 million in this year's Commerce, Justice, Science bill to keep the men and women of America safe, to support our law enforcement officers of whom we could not be prouder.

We are immensely grateful for the work of our first responders and law enforcement. The people of Houston, the people of southwest Louisiana, the people of Florida have all relied on them in this time of crisis with these terrible floods in Houston, the hurricane in Florida. I don't know what we would do without our first responders and men and women in uniform in the law enforcement community protecting us every day.

Mr. Chair, I have no objection to the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman Smith, I support your amendment to increase the physical and biological sciences and will fight for it in conference.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I can. It is fully consistent with the authorization.

Mr. Chairman, I join the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Harris) in opposing this amendment because the EEOC, under the previous administration, has created this monstrosity of a burden on small businesses, and they did such a poor job of it that the Office of Management and Budget actually put the requirement under review and suspended it.

Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose this amendment. I join the gentleman in seeking to protect small businesses from this unnecessary and burdensome requirement. EEOC already has a huge backlog of cases involving actual complaints of discrimination that need to be resolved, people who need to be protected, and EEOC should focus on doing their job, clearing up the backlog, protecting people from discrimination where they actually already have a real complaint, not looking for needles in haystacks.

Mr. Chair, I urge Members to join us in opposing this amendment, and I recommend a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. I understand his concern. I appreciate him bringing it to our attention. I understand similar language has already passed the House. I have no objection to him, and I urge Members to support it.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is entirely appropriate to make inmates help pay for some of the cost of their time in a halfway house. This program helps make inmate reentry into the community as seamless as possible. It has been a successful one. We want to reduce obstacles to make that transition without unnecessary burdens. However, this proposal would cut the Bureau of Prisons' operations by about $20 million. It would be forced to be absorbed by the Bureau of Prisons, that money that they are now receiving in reimbursement from transitioning inmates.

The Bureau of Prisons' resources are already stretched very thin, Mr. Chairman, and this money would come out of other programs such as reentry services, antirecidivism, counseling, and inmate health and safety that are needed for inmate welfare and a successful transition into society.

While I appreciate the intent of the gentlewoman's amendment, if the Bureau of Prisons were to have a cut of $30 million, then prison safety and prison services would be severely compromised, and that won't help inmates or officers.

Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to join me in opposing this amendment. I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. Within 2 months of my becoming chairman of the subcommittee, the ATF did, indeed, attempt to ban this commonly used ammunition. Mr. Latta is exactly right.

I met, at the time, with the Director of the ATF. I am grateful that the ATF withdrew the proposed ban. The Director of the ATF, Tom Brandon, is doing a good job of protecting America's Second Amendment rights. I want to ensure Mr. Latta that I will continue to work to make sure that this rule is not put back into place.

As long as I am chairman of the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, I will always zealously protect the unambiguous Second Amendment rights of every American to keep and bear arms.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the gentleman's amendment and I urge its adoption.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I understand my colleague is offering this on behalf of another Member who could not be here today, but I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

Let me make sure that we read it so the people understand what we are talking about. None of the funds made available by this act may be used for the operation of a correctional facility by a private party or contractor, period.

This would shut down every privately operated prison and halfway house in the United States. Where are those 34,000 criminals going to go? Well, you would have to just turn them loose on the streets or pack them in like sardines in existing prison cells or spend billions of dollars over the next few years to house them.

This amendment is dangerous, irresponsible, and risks the safety of the public. By cutting off immediately all funding to private prisons, these 34,000 inmates would have to be released onto the streets of America. I can't imagine what kind of disaster that would result in.

Furthermore, I have 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. As a general rule, the private sector is going to find a way to do it more efficiently, less expensively, and in a way that is going to save taxpayer money.

My experience with the private prisons that have operated in the State of Texas quite successfully throughout the Bureau of Prisons is that they are providing better security, better food, better healthcare, better transportation, better housing, better facilities for both the inmate and the staff. They have been very successful across the country. These 34,000 inmates will have nowhere else to go.

This amendment is extremely dangerous, destructive, and irresponsible. I urge Members to join me in opposing this amendment not only for the risk to public safety, but for the damages it will do to the hardworking people of America.

Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to join me in voting ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

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 that our tax dollars are efficiently used, but, above all, to make sure these 34,000 inmates are not released onto the streets of America.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the gentleman's amendment, and I support it. We have had it in previous bills. I hope the House will adopt it in this bill as well.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I am in support of the en bloc amendments. We have worked on it jointly, and I support all of the amendments that are included in the en bloc.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Rosen).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to take a moment to say to my friend that my prayers and my thoughts are with him, his family, his constituents, Texas, Florida, the Caribbean, South Carolina, my birthplace of Puerto Rico, and all the other folks who have been through this very difficult time.

I intend to use my vote on appropriations in whatever way it can to serve to help those communities as they get back on the road to recovery.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, and I commend the authors for offering it.

This effective program funds a series of centers that help small- and medium-sized manufacturers to develop new products, attract new customers, and reduce protection costs.

Because this bill received an inadequate allocation, the chairman was forced to partially agree with the President's efforts to undermine our manufacturing sector, and the bill currently contains a cut of $30 million from the MEP program. This amendment provides an important downpayment in restoring funding for this important program. We will have to do better down the line, but this is a good start.

Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I feel comfortable with Mr. Cohen withdrawing his amendment because I know the chairman, Mr. Culberson, is very supportive of this program.

It is interesting to note that this program was born in a bipartisan fashion, with President Nixon, at that time, being the main supporter of it.

The bill only provides $300 million for Legal Services, which is a cut of $85 million from fiscal year 2017. This amendment provides a downpayment towards restoring these cuts, and I commend the authors for offering it.

We should not be cutting LSC funding at a time when more people than ever qualify for these services. Legal aid providers always must turn away more than half of eligible applicants. They already do that, and these cuts would only create a bigger problem.

Very briefly, in closing, there are a lot of issues that we can discuss that make America great. One of them is the right to legal representation. If you can't afford it, then this is where programs like Legal Services come in and support.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

This reduction would have a significant impact on public safety. The ATF would be investigating fewer firearm traffickers and violent gangs. They would be unable to respond effectively to theft burglaries from Federal firearms licensees. These cuts would weaken the ATF's ability to do its primary responsibilities: combat violent crime and regulate the firearms and explosive industries.

Not surprisingly, a reduction of this magnitude would result in approximately 400 employees being laid off. According to the ATF, that means they would have to eliminate approximately 200 special agents, 65 industry operations investigators, and 135 professional technical positions. The elimination of these positions at ATF directly degrades the Department's capacity to combat violent firearm crimes and regulate the firearms and explosives industries.

I just think that this is not a proper amendment at this time or, for that matter, at any time, and I join the chairman in agreeing on this.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this very misguided amendment. This amendment would allow felons and other dangerous individuals to try to regain the ability to own guns by sending an application to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

I am not sure why the Member would offer an amendment that makes it easier for felons to get guns. Most Americans would be shocked by such a proposal. Each year since 1993, Congress has prohibited ATF from processing applications from felons seeking to have their gun rights restored, and with good reason.

Prior to 1993, there were numerous examples of felons who had their gun rights restored by ATF only to go on to commit further crimes later. For example, in 1977, Michael Paul Dahnert of Wisconsin was convicted of burglary. In 1986, he was granted relief and allowed to, once again, own firearms. Two months later, he was rearrested and charged with first degree sexual assault and four counts of second degree sexual assault, for which he received 5 years in prison.

In 1977, James Morgan was convicted of perjury to a grand jury. In 1988, he was granted relief and allowed to gain and own firearms. He was arrested that same year for first degree wanton endangerment and later sentenced to 6 months confinement and 2 years probation.

These are only a few examples. It is important to point out that the gentleman's amendment makes no distinction as far as the seriousness of the offense for which the individual was initially denied a firearm, and ATF would need to investigate all applications for gun rights restoration. Furthermore, simply processing these applications would require significant ATF agent resources and would divert ATF away from its core law enforcement mission of fighting firearm offenses.

Since 1998, when the National Instant Criminal Background Check System was put in use, well over 1 million firearm transfers have been denied after background checks established that the individuals attempting to purchase the firearms were prohibited from processing firearms.

Even if only 20 percent of the denied individuals file an application with ATF to have their gun rights restored, this would require the efforts of hundreds of full-time ATF agents to perform background checks of these individuals. The agents would be diverted

from their primary law enforcement investigation.

Even though ATF is legally required to ensure that the applicant ``will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety,'' we know that this process is not perfect, as evidenced by the examples I just gave.

The bottom line is that this amendment would give guns back to felons and, at the same time, sharply reduce ATF's resources for pursuing violent crime investigations. Both of these outcomes would seriously harm public safety, and for these reasons, I strongly urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, if you hear the opposition to this amendment, you would think that discrimination does not exist in this country any longer. Oh, how I wish that were the case.

Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment. This amendment would strike the harmful EEOC rider which blocks the EEOC from collecting data on the expanded EEO-1 form. This data collection would allow EEOC to better examine pay patterns by industry and/or geographic region and/or employer or establishment, conduct comprehensive statistical analysis, and evaluate the context of the discrimination allegations.

The EEOC will use the data primarily for early assessment of allegations of discrimination based on sex, ethnicity, or race. In short, the newly expanded form will be critical to closing gender and racial wage gaps. Preventing the collection of this information will result in less oversight and more wage discrimination.

Mr. Chair, I strongly support the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chair, if the gentleman had brought some cooked fish, I probably wouldn't read this.

Mr. Chair, this is not an appropriate amendment for inclusion in an annual spending bill. Congress should not be in the business of micromanaging fish conservation in this manner.

The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission is an interstate compact that was established in 1942 as a mechanism to allow Atlantic coastal States to join forces in managing their shared fishery resources.

For over 75 years, this Commission has served as a body for the Atlantic coastal States, coordinating the conservation and management of 27 nearshore fish species. Each State is represented on the Commission by three commissioners who participate in deliberations and interstate fisheries management, fisheries science, habitat conservation, and law enforcement.

Through these activities, the States collectively ensure the sound conservation of management of their shared coastal fishery resources. We should allow the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission to do its job in managing fish stocks. We must not allow the House to be in the business of second-guessing them and micromanaging fish regulations in particular locations.

There is a process currently in place for addressing these issues at the regional level, and we should allow that process to work. A stock assessment for striped bass is planned for next year. The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission can make a determination as to whether it intends to ask the Federal Government to open up the Block Island Transit Zone to striped bass fishing.

Currently, the consensus position of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission is that the fishing restrictions should remain in place. I believe that this is a bad precedent for Congress to interfere with this State-driven process.

For that reason, I oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. This amendment is very inappropriate for this bill and sets a bad precedent. We should not be tying the hands of the ATF as it attempts to keep our law enforcement officers safe.

The Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act established a process to ensure that police officers do not face a threat of armor-piercing bullets capable of being fired from concealable semiautomatic handguns. This law passed the House of Representatives in 1985 by a vote of 400- 21. Then it later passed the Senate by a vote of 97-1.

For far too long we have dealt with irresponsible riders on appropriations bills that put limits on our ability to keep our communities and our law enforcement officers safe. This is just one more example.

Mr. Chairman, I urge the defeat of this amendment.

I may say to my colleagues that this is one of the issues that baffles me the

most. I don't hunt, but I respect people who do. I don't target practice and target shoot, but I respect people who do. But it seems that more and more every day, as we have more and more violence, we want more and more stronger weapons because otherwise we are going to lose our rights if we don't do so.

Mr. Chairman, our rights are at the ballot box and many other places, not just in our holster. I think if we continue to do this, first of all, this is the wrong place to do it, and, secondly, it is the wrong thing to do.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, just very briefly, I usually don't get up a second time, but to my friend--and he is my friend--it is a confusion in this country. This is not about protecting the Second Amendment. We all do. Everybody does.

It is about common sense and asking: Where does it stop? How do we keep it from growing? How violent can we get? How many people can we shoot?

That is what this is about. It is not about the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is well protected. Trust me.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very straightforward. It would prohibit funds allocated in the bill from being used on the construction and operation of private, for-profit prisons.

The use of private prisons in our country is a crisis. More and more Americans are being locked up in facilities that don't respect basic human rights. One in four people behind bars worldwide is in a United States jail. That is right. A country with less than 5 percent 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 statistics have shown a decrease in crime.

According to the FBI, violent and major property crimes are at historic lows. 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 in the school-to-prison pipeline.

But one thing is for sure: so long as there is an incentive to build 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 Bureau of Prisons. In one case, they were kept in rows of bunk beds in un-air- conditioned domes, baking in the heat and the sun. In another case, the 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 it 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 that 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's policy of simply reversing everything President Obama did, Attorney General Jeff Sessions rescinded the order. He has since indicated that 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 is a waste of taxpayer dollars and a waste of countless American lives that could be turned around and made into successful citizens.

I am proud that in my home city of New York we have decided to divest our pension system from the for-profit prison industry. But now it is time for the Federal Government to divest itself as well.

We must continue to work on comprehensive criminal justice reform that seeks to reform mandatory minimum sentences and curb the failed war on drugs and focus on reentry and reintegration so that those who serve time can become productive members of society, rather than lifelong inmates.

Tonight, we can start with this amendment and send a message to the Trump administration. Tonight, 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 of incarcerating individuals is simply inconsistent with American values.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman).

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 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 coordination is better stewardship of our national heritage through improved government efficiency, better development and use of data and information, and a process of open and 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 uses, including recreational and commercial fishermen, boaters, industries, 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, coastal, and Great Lakes areas. It is the best choice for stakeholders looking to be involved in the process.

For all of these reasons, I urge the defeat of this amendment.

Before I reserve the balance of my time, on a personal note, it is amazing how much work we have done in the south Bronx with what little bodies of water and green space we have, how much we cherish it, and how much we feel that it has been a gift that we continue to work on. We no longer have earmarks, but when we did, it did a great job in restoring a lot of areas.

I see how, in other parts of the country and at the Federal level, we want to undo years and years of progress. I keep thinking of Republican leaders who took a different view. Teddy Roosevelt would be so upset at so much of what we are doing today because he saw the world in a different way. Thank God that he was our President for that period of time when we needed him for that particular issue.

Just on a personal note, I understand that a lot of people see the world differently than I do. Where I come from, tonight people know they now have places where they can row a boat, where they can eventually swim, where they can fish, and where a beaver named Jose has returned.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk made in order by the rule.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment with the modification at the desk.

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

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.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter).

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.

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.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

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.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment by the modification at the desk.

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.

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,

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.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in support of our bipartisan amendment, which would increase Legal Services funding by $10 million. I am willing to withdraw this amendment after my colleagues and I take a brief moment to speak about Legal Services. I know that the chair and the ranking member support Legal Services and may be able to help, but at some time in the future.

Our justice system is the envy of the world. Whenever we travel, people say what they really respect about America is the rule of law and our justice system, but it takes professional help by an attorney to navigate it. When they are poor--which most people don't have legal training--they are not going to be able to successfully compete against a private attorney on the other side. They need help. If they don't have that help, the justice system is not fair.

Legal Services helps ensure equal justice under the law. It helps all kind of folks: military families, homeowners and renters, families with children, the disabled, and the elderly.

It is vital all over the country, but in places like Houston, residents struggle from Hurricane Harvey. Lone Star Legal Aid, which is partially funded by Legal Services, is helping people navigate the legal hurdles when people need them most so that they can get their lives back.

Mr. Kennedy has been a strong supporter of this. He was supposed to be here today, but I think he has been detained.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his help.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), the ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee. Mr. Serrano has helped me on other amendments as well as this one.

Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Culberson for his help, and Mrs. Brooks for her leadership.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time, and I withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Chair, as the designee of the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, this amendment would reprogram $10 million from the prison account and put it in the juvenile justice programs designed to reduce recidivism, gang violence, and gun crimes.

Ms. Jackson Lee, a fellow member on the Judiciary Committee, has been a leader on this issue, and she is right in her approach, understanding that working with juveniles early will save money in the long run and see that they don't get into the prison pipeline that so often takes young people and ruins their lives and costs our communities and our taxpayers a great deal of money.

Our Federal prisons are presently funded $7 billion for administration, operation, and maintenance. Twenty million dollars of that is made up for contract confinement.

This amendment would reduce the account by $10 million and put it into juvenile justice programs that would reduce recidivism, gang violence, and gun crime.

These juvenile justice programs that would get the benefit of this money would protect our most vulnerable children through treatment and mentoring programs. According to the Justice Policy Institute, locking up juveniles costs an average of $407 a day and $148,000 per person per year.

There are a lot of conservative coalitions, like FreedomWorks, American Conservative Union Foundation, and Taxpayers Protection Alliance that agree that mass incarceration is extremely costly to taxpayers.

This amendment invests in our youth population at the front end with rewards on the back end, as these folks don't end up in the prison system; supports programs that have shown consistent success in curtailing gang violence and gun crimes.

Violence among our youth is a health epidemic that must be addressed; therefore, we must support professionals that possess practical experience in epidemic control for violence prevention, and that show success working with the most vulnerable and at-risk youth population when addressing this health epidemic.

Within the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the following programs focus on violence prevention: Forum, Community Based Violence Prevention, and Defending Childhood. The CBVP explicitly calls for and supports the health approach; hence, this amendment provides funding for organizations such as community-based violence prevention programs that have shown great success.

Cure Violence, a health-based organization operating in several cities and States, including Chicago and New York and Philadelphia and others, has shown great success and also shown success in Puerto Rico. They have had 100 percent reduction in homicide retaliation in Chicago, a 41 to 73 percent drop in shootings in five of eight communities in Baltimore; they have had a 56 percent drop in killings, and 44 percent other places.

In essence, this is putting money in a place where we can save money, save youths, save lives.

Mr. Chair, I ask that we support this amendment that Ms. Jackson Lee has brought forth. It makes a lot of common sense.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I understand Mr. Culberson's position and look forward to his help with legal services that will help juveniles, too.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time, and I withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

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. Chairman, how much time do I have left?

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. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.