This i think is a commonsense approach to Border Security and securing our nation because it really comes down to National Security and it comes down to stopping that cocaine from ever making it across our border and ultimately into the neighborhoods you talk about. Its a way of stopping controlling those elements. Mr. Chairman, i oppose this amendment. I ask my colleagues to oppose it as well. The gentleman yields back. Any further discussion on the amendment . Will the gentleman yield two minutes of his time to me . Just to briefly respond to the lack of attention given to the crack cocaine epidemic, i can tell you, sir, i spent 20 years of my career primarily focused on going after crack and cocaine organizations. In fact, i was in el paso two days and we had a seizure on the border of 500 kilos of cocaine and it shocked me how easy it was to get across the border and it shocks me all these years later the border is a sive and it shocks me we havent done anything about it. I can tell you i spent the vast majority of my time in inner city neighborhoods trying to clean up the drug epidemic and taking crack cocaine off the streets. Often at great personal danger to the agents that worked with me and to the threats i received on a regular basis and to my family. We spent an extraordinarily amount of time, the country spent an extraordinarily amount of time trying to get a handle on it. Unless we do everything from decreasing demand for counseling and drug treatment to better securing our borders and going after the guys, bad guys, we are never going to get a handle on it. But make no mistake about it, the heroin is the latest trend but its not the only one. Theres an awful lot of good people in this country who sacrifice an awful lot, including many who sacrifice their lives to get the crack cocaine epidemic under control. Probably many people sitting in this room as prosecutors, former prosecutors and former Law Enforcement, so i would dare say we did not ignore that issue and that did not get shortchanged in the outrage. Outrage is here. Outrage has been there for all types of drugs and always will be as far as im concerned. With that i yield back. Mr. Mccaul the gentleman yields back. Any further discussion on the amendment . Mr. Payne is recognized. Mr. Payne i think the gentleman from louisiana was just trying to make a point that this has been an issue that has been going on for quite sometime, and it is the difference now and the empathy which we should have for our children anytime our children are suffering from an addiction and are dying at the rates that they are, it is a national crisis. They are our future. Empathy uestion is the now was not there for the victims of crack cocaine. I think thats the only we have been screaming and yelling three issue for two to three decades. And im glad that its finally ecome a national crisis. That is the point i think were trying to make. With that i yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from louisiana. Yeah. And i want to agree with my colleague, mr. Katko, that a lack of attention was not my concern. I think the attention was there. I think we responded in a way that was not driven by science. I can point to the fact that now we are treating it as a Health Crisis which we should. Mr. Richmond our response of the Opioid Crisis is the right way to go. I think it would have been a right way 30 years ago to crack cocaine as a Health Crisis, an lacktion as opposed to the em up throw away the key and treating addicts as criminals. And were now treating addicts as addicts with substance abuse. When i say science and data should always drive the process, let me just offer an example. If you were caught with crack cocaine and the same amount of powder cocaine, your sentence was 100 times longer for crack as opposed to the same amount as cocaine. And the overwhelming majority of people who were caught with crack cocaine were africanamericans. And people caught with powder were not. But you cant tell me that the science and the data, because the chemical maker of crack cocaine and cocaine, the only difference is baking soda. And you cant tell me that baking soda warrants 1001 disparity. We cam back as a congress in a came back as a congress in a bipartisan side and i thank my colleague for correcting it but still this day a 141 disparity in terms of the length of the sentence. So i agree. I am not saying that the approach to opioid is wrong. I think its absolutely right. Im just saying that it would have been the right response to the crack epidemic also, and if were going to take the Health Approach to opioid, we should go back with criminal Justice Reform and do the same with crack cocaine because at the end of the day and this is where i draw great comfort is i believe my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and i want the same thing and that is to keep drugs out of all communities, to make sure that our children can grow up and live out their wildest dreams and be as successful as they can without the threat of people preying on them with drugs and other things. So the fact that we agree on the ultimate goal, i take a lot of comfort in. I just wish we would have some very meaningful conversation on the path to which we get there and recognize the unintended consequences of the war on drugs and in the 1980s that was a different approach. And thats the only reason why i highlight the opioids and i will just close with the fact that there were many First Responders going into very hostile areas in the country and outside the country to protect neighborhoods and stop drugs. And were going to need that again and i think when we start looking at the very limited resources we have in this country, im just not sure that spending the amount of resources we are going to spend on this bill is the best way to protect our families, our children from the risk that they face. And i just i just think we ought to have a very honest conversation about the best way to spend the limited funds, not on Campaign Promises but on data and proven success methods. With that ill yield back to mr. Payne the remainder of the time. Mr. Mccaul the gentleman yields back. Any further discussion on the amendment . There being no discussion, the question now occurs on the amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. Thompson. All those in favor signify by saying no. All those opposed signify by saying no. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Per the roster agreement, listed next is amendment 023 offered by the gentleman from mississippi, mr. Thompson. Would the gentleman like to offer his amendment . Mr. Thompson yes. Yes, mr. Chairman. I have an amendment. Mr. Mccaul clerk shall report the amendment. The clerk amendment 023 offered by the gentleman from mississippi, mr. Thompson. Mr. Mccaul the gentleman is recognized for his amendment. Mr. Thompson my amendment strikes 111 in its entirety. From the construction of President Trumps wall is unjustified and would inflict great cost on american taxpayers, private landowners and ranchers and at least one native american tribe and the environment. Section 111 includes unnecessary language authorizing construction of the wall. Under current law, the president already has authority to build physical barriers along the border. Moreover, under existing law, the Trump Administration has Broad Authority to waive all legal requirements to construct such barriers. In fact, the Bush Administration utilized this Waiver Authority multiple times to avoid compliance with environmental and other laws perceived as impediments to its efforts to build a border fence. Why build President Trumps wall now when d. H. S. In a report published last month found that today crossing into the u. S. Illegally along the southwest border is the most difficult it has ever been . As someone who has been involved in Border Security oversight for sometime, its troubling to see the majority advance language that turns back the clock on years of commitment on a bipartisan basis to ensuring Border Security investments are informed by matrix and driven by strategies. That said, there are provisions in this bill that do not mert support and are merit support and are justified. Unfortunately, the majority has chosen to package them with the authorization of President Trumps wall which is a nonstarter. For instance, the bill acknowledges the dire personnel and infrastructure needs at our land, ports of entry. In 2014, congress directed c. B. P. To add 2,000 c. B. P. Officers and 2,000 Border Patrol agents. To say c. B. P. Has struggled to meet the Staffing Levels is a drastic understatement. The hiring bonus, retention incentives and pay increases called for under this bill may help c. B. P. Onboard and maintain adequate Staffing Levels. Further, with respect to infrastructure, c. B. P. Officials from previous administrations have testified before this committee that there is over 5 billion in unmet needs at our nations vital ports of entry. Timely action should be taken to address these operational impair tiffs. However, this bill is not the vehicle to do that. I will be remiss if i did not acknowledge that the provisions like the language calling for President Trumps wall to be built have no offsets. As such, there are real questions about whether house leadership could even entertain this bill since it violates the cutgo rule. Im disappointed that the requirements of this bill are not driven by facts. Late last year, mr. Chairman, you and i worked together to get a d. H. S. Border security matrix mandate enacted into law. We are still awaiting the findings of this report. How is it we are considering this bill without any data to back up the demands this bill places on d. H. S. And c. B. P. . Clearly, this bill is a partisan exercise to appease President Trumps misguided political vision of Border Security and everyday people will suffer because of it. I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to consider the harm they are about to inflict on not only People Living in southwest border communities but across the country by sticking their constituents with a significant bill. I ask that members support this amendment, strike the partisan section from the bill and support starting serious discussion regarding how best to boast the Border Security. With that i yield back. Mr. Mccaul the gentleman yields back. Is there any further discussion on the amendment . Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mccaul mr. Payne is recognized. Mr. Payne thank you. Mr. Chairman, for every Border Patrol agent we have put in the ield over the last decade, apprehension rates have decreased. I agree with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that perhaps having more boots on the ground is having a deterrent effect. However, i also ask my colleagues to consider that the flow of individuals attempting to cross the border illegally has been falling at a steady rate for the last 60 years. In fact, the Cato Institute found that when the data on the number of agents deploy to the southwest border was combined with the apprehension rates, the average Border Patrol agent apprehended less than two people per month in twoucks. 2016. Of course, certain sectors have different rates of apprehensions than others, but i just do not see the rationale based on the overall picture for adding another 5,000 Border Patrol agents to the field. This observation is supported by the departments own Inspector General. This summer the Inspector General found that c. B. P. Lacks the data to prove that an additional 5,000 Border Patrol agents are needed at this time and does not have plans or strategies in place to deploy them once theyre hired. As for tactical infrastructure and equipment, theres been a massive investment in bored remember Security Resources since the Bush Administration. This committee learned hard leaned hard under the Obama Administration to use investments effectively. And last month, we received confirmation that those efforts have yielded results when d. H. S. Reported to congress that the likelihood that someone could successfully enter the u. S. Undetected through the southwest border is at the lowest level that d. H. S. Has seen in almost 20 years. Knowing the facts about conditions on the southwest border, im hard pressed to understand why we are meeting today to consider legislation to expeditiously build President Trumps border wall. And with that, mr. Chairman, i yield back. Mr. Mccaul the gentleman yields back. Any further discussion on the amendment . Ms. Barragan is recognized. Ms. Barragan thank you, mr. Chairman. I have to agree with the Ranking Member that this is just a this is just a partisan effort. When i talked to several of my colleagues, many of them, especially on this committee, tell me they didnt believe in a border wall. 15 billion now being dumped into a bill basically to apiece the president i think is appease the president i think is a sad day in america and a sad day in this committee that has been very bipartisan. And just goes toward adding to the hate of whats happening in this country on the immigration issue and when i sit in this committee and i hear from experts talk about the ineffectiveness of a border wall and now to see us waste, waste 15 billion that can go to be used for Something Else that we need and a time when we have hurricanes and disasters happening in this country, to waste this money on a Campaign Promise is pretty disgusting. And thats why i oppose this. I yield back. Mr. Mccaul the gentlelady yields back. Any further discussion on the amendment . Mr. Rutherford is recognized. Mr. Rutherford thank you, mr. Chairman. Just like to point out that Border Security has more to do an simply stopping illegal immigration and those who would cross our border illegally but also drug trafficking, human trafficking. And i would point to the fact, you know, i was in Law Enforcement in the 1980s when crack cocaine, when it was mentioned earlier the horrific impact that crack cocaine had in our communities. And i was in florida. My colleague from orlando was as well. But we saw in response to that, throughs coast guard amitadis, they come in and secure our ports, secure the sea wall, if you will, and come very effective in stopping the cocaine that was coming into south florida. Everybody remembers the crack. Ocaine wars of the late 1980s jumpstart and then operation which we still have today which the precursor to that was the National Interdiction command and control plan that we have today. Argument that we dont need to strengthen our negates think does not recognize the fact that weve had tremendous success in south florida. I can tell you when i was a young patrol man, drugs flowed north and the money flowed south. Now its the opposite. Drug flows south and money flows north because its coming through Southern Land border and that needs to stop. And i yield back, mr. Chairman. Mr. Mccaul the gentleman yields back. Any further discussion on the amendment . There being no further discussion the question now occurs to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. Thompson as many as are in favor will signify by saying aye. Those oppose, no. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. Per the roster agreement, the Ranking Member a recorded vote has been requested. Pursuant to ev the previous announcement, this vote will be postponed. Per roster agreement, listed next is amendment number 007 offered by the gentleman from texas, mr. Vela. Would the gentleman like to offer his amendment . Mr. Vela yes. I have ask for consideration at this time. Mr. Mccaul the clerk will report the amendment. The clerk amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to h. R. 3548 offered by mr. Vela. Mr. Mccaul without objection, the reading is dispensed with. Mr. Vela is recognized for five minutes. Mr. Vela much of the land without a border fence along the u. S. Mexico border is not federally owned. As such, there would need to be significant takings of private lands for President Trumps big beautiful wall to be erected, as this bill directs. President trumps fiscal year 2018 budget request included funding to hire an additional 20 Eminent Domain attorneys at the Justice Department. It is clear that the president s gearing up for a fight against private Property Owners. Weve seen the federal government run roughshod over the interest of private landowners to meet the miles of fencing requirements under the secure fence act. This amendment requires d. H. S. To establish a 20 Million Legal Defense Fund for ranchers and landowners who own the own land the federal government wants to take to build President Trumps wall. The federal government