John Culberson

Mr. CULBERSON

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Speaker, the difference of opinion on this bill vividly illustrates the profoundly different world view of Democrats versus Republicans. Democrats instinctively trust the government and instinctively distrust individuals. Republicans instinctively distrust the government and trust the good hearts and good sense of individual Americans to be the best stewards of protecting themselves, their family, their property, and their freedoms. Our Founders understood this, and this is why the First Amendment protects our freedom of conscience and the Second Amendment follows it immediately so that we, as free people, have the ability to protect ourselves--our freedom of conscience--against the overpowering force of the government. We in Texas enacted in 1995, while I was a member of the Texas house, a concealed carry law, and we have had now over 20 years of data. People can go to the Department of Texas Public Safety website and look under conviction rates and see that the concealed carry permit holders in Texas, over the last 22 years, are 21 times less likely to commit a crime than the average Texans. The 7 minutes Sheriff Rutherford just mentioned to us are a lifetime, if you or your family or neighbors are at risk of attack. The individual law-abiding American who is carrying a concealed weapon has had a background check, they have been trained in the use of the weapon, and they know the law. We all, as Americans, should work together to preserve the Second Amendment right of every American to keep and bear arms no matter what State they are in. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support this important legislation.

Mr. CULBERSON

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Speaker, over a year ago, Kate Steinle, a young woman in San Francisco, was murdered by a criminal illegal alien and died in the arms of her father. At that time, as chairman of the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Subcommittee on Appropriations, I swore that I would do whatever it would take to cut off every dollar of Federal money to every sanctuary city in America. I persuaded the previous Attorney General to put that policy in place. Thankfully, with President Trump's election and the appointment of our new Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, they moved aggressively to enforce existing laws, secure our border, and restore respect for the rule of law in this great Nation. It is appalling and outrageous that a jury in San Francisco acquitted the killer who murdered Kate Steinle. This should renew our zeal as the Representatives of the people of this country to restore respect for the rule of law by cutting off every dollar of Federal money to every sanctuary city in American and to do whatever it takes to protect our citizens from criminal aliens who enter this country illegally and then commit crimes against the people of this great Nation. What happened in San Francisco is an outrage, and I will not rest until we cut off every dollar to every sanctuary city in the United States of America.

Mr. CULBERSON

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Speaker, due to extraneous circumstances, my flight did not arrive on time and I was unable to make votes on October 23, 2017. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 569, YEA on Roll Call No. 570, and YEA on Roll Call No. 571.

Mr. CULBERSON

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the amendment. I will work with Mr. Roskam as the CFO of the DOJ and do whatever is necessary to help make sure they review these cases rapidly and return people's money to their rightful owners. Once again, Mr. Roskam has brought a great amendment to the House floor. I look forward to working with him to ensure that his intent is implemented as quickly as possible. Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, the days of sanctuary cities accepting Federal money and ignoring Federal law are over. The policy under this administration, the policy I insisted be adopted last summer, is, if you want Federal money, follow Federal law, or don't ask. I support the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the gentleman from Colorado's amendment. When Kate Steinle was murdered, I was the new chairman of this subcommittee, and I swore that I would find a way to cut off Federal funding to these sanctuary cities. That young lady's murder could have been prevented had the city of San Francisco simply cooperated with Federal immigration authorities and handed that criminal over to be deported immediately. That is all we are talking about here. With the previous administration, Attorney General Lynch, I met with her as the CFO, so to speak, of the DOJ. I used the power of the purse that the Congress was entrusted with by the Founders of our constituents to persuade the previous Attorney General to adopt precisely the policy that Mr. Buck is attempting to make sure that we continue to follow. I know, under Attorney General Sessions' leadership, sanctuary cities are not going to receive Federal money. That policy was first put in place last summer. At my insistence, current guidelines in the Department of Justice grant policies are that a local law enforcement agency has to certify that they are cooperating 100 percent of the time with Federal immigration authorities about individuals in local jails or State prisons. That is all this is. If a State prison or local jail is housing someone who was in the country illegally when they committed the crime and were sentenced, before they are released, current Department of Justice policy adopted last summer, being enforced today by Attorney General Sessions, says you have to tell Federal authorities you are about to release this person so they can be immediately deported. That is common sense. It protects public safety, and it is a wise use of our tax dollars.

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CULBERSON. 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. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to join me in opposing this amendment to protect the public safety of the people of the United States, to ensure 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. CULBERSON. 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. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

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

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

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

Mr. CULBERSON. Will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. CULBERSON. 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.

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

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