On the recordSeptember 6, 2017
Mr. Chairman, in response to the gentleman's comments, I am not at all convinced that it is needless. The reports that I am getting are that E-Verify has not been adequately enforced, especially at the contractor and subcontractor level. This is Congress reminding those who consume Federal dollars and Federal contracting under this T-HUD appropriations bill that they shall comply with the law that was referenced by the gentleman. I don't know why it would be divisive, if it is Federal law, and needless, supposedly. Let's go ahead and pass this and remind those that follow Federal law and this debate won't happen next year. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of this amendment, the E-Verify amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time. The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King). The amendment was agreed to. Announcement by the Acting Chair The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in part B of House Report 115-295 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order: Amendment No. 15 by Mr. King of Iowa. Amendment No. 17 by Mr. Carter of Georgia. Amendment No. 25 by Mr. McClintock of California. Amendment No. 32 by Mr. Budd of North Carolina. Amendment No. 33 by Mr. Brooks of Alabama. Amendment No. 38 by Ms. Rosen of Nevada. Amendment No. 39 by Mr. Grothman of Wisconsin. Amendment No. 46 by Mr. Grothman of Wisconsin. Amendment No. 51 by Mr.…





