the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. shuster: i ask unanimous consent that during further consideration of senate amendments to h.r. 22, pursuant to the house resolution 512, amendment number 1 be printed n part a of house report 114-326, may be considered out of sequence. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. r. shuster: thank you.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of senate amendment to the text of h.r. 22. the gentleman from mississippi, mr. palazzo, will kindly take the chair.

the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of the senate amendment to the text of h.r. 22 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986, to exempt employees with health coverage under tricare or the veterans administration from being taken into account for purposes of determining the employers to which the employer

mandate applies under the patient protection and affordable care act. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose earlier today an amendment consisting of the text of rules committee print 114-32 was pending. pursuant to the order of the house of today, amendment 1 printed in part b -- printed in part a of house report 114-326 may be you can considered out of sequence -- may be onsidered out of sequence. it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in art a of house report 114-326. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? mr. ryan: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in part a of house report 114-326 offered by mr. ryan of ohio. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 512, the gentleman from ohio, mr. ryan, and a member opposed each will control five minutes.

the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio. mr. ryan: thank you, mr. speaker. my amendment is co-sponsored by congresswoman napolitano and endorsed by the natural gas vehicles of america, the electrical drive transportation association and the national propane gas association. the amendment addresses one specific provision in the bill, section 1109, that modifies how congestion mitigation and air quality cmaq, funds can be used in nonattainment and maintenance areas. p.m. stands for par tick late matter. and the -- particulate matter. the purpose of the cmaq program is to fund transportation programs that will contribute to attainment or maintenance of the national ambient air quality standards. all projects and programs that are eligible for cmaq funds must come from a conforming federal or state transportation plan. the program is designed to allow states to identify the right solution for their air quality challenges and utilize cmaq funds to implement them.

without the ryan-napolitano amendment, the language in section 1109 may restrict states' discretion in identifying the most cost effective emission reduction technologies and effectively limit their options to only diesel retrofits. specifically, the priority consideration and use of funding provisions for the section seemingly restrict local authorities' ability to consider other alternative vehicle technologies that can be adopted to meet the goals of this section. other technologies such as natural gas, propane or electric vehicles also reduce p.m. 2.5 and provide other air quality benefits. in my state of ohio and in the chairman's state of pennsylvania, being two of those states, they allow for the use of cmaq funds for a variety of alternative fuel vehicles. however, 1109 as written may limit their and other states' solutions in using cmaq funds to address the nonattainment issue. we should not be directing

states how to use these funds and it's important that we keep he utilization of cmaq funding technology-neutral. giving states the flexibility in utilizing these funds allows them to select the best vehicle technology, to address p.m. 2.5 concerns, modifying the priority consideration and use of funding language in this section allows us to meet the environmental goals while avoiding picking winners and losers. i'd like to thank chairman shuster for his help, ranking member defazio and their staffs, for working with us on this amendment. and i yield two minutes to the amendment co-sponsor, ongresswoman napolitano. the chair: the gentlelady from california voiced for two minutes. mrs. napolitano: thank you, mr. chairman. and i do rise in strong support and as a co-sponsor of this amendment and thank my colleague, mr. ryan, for offering it and thank you, sir, for allowing me to co-sponsor it, because this is an important issue to my area. this amendment for section

1109-c would clarify language in the bill in order to -- for local transportation agencies, i say local, to continue to fund not only highway but transit and bicycle and pedestrian projects with congestion mitigation and air quality program funds, which is called cmaq. this amendment would also allow for alternative fuel vehicles to be eligible for recipient funds along with diesel retrofit projects. . repeat, retrofit projects the concern was brought to my attention by metropolitan planning organizations in california, including los angeles metropolitan transportation and the cities they represent, including in my district, that important transportation projects would no longer be prioritized for cmaq funding. so in 2014 southern california transportation agencies, mind you, they represent over 20 million people, used cmaq funding to provide $51 million in traffic flow improvements, $22 million in bicycle and

pedestrian projects. the amendment would clarify that these projects still are prioritized for cmaq funding. i thank chairman shuster, ranking member defazio for working with us on this amendment and look forward to working with my colleagues in conference to further clarify that flow, that traffic flow transit and bicycle and pedestrian projects continue. thank you, congressman ryan, and i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. shuster: i claim time in opposition although i do not oppose the amendment. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. shuster: thank you, mr. chairman. currently under the cmaq program, funds may be used to purchase publicly owned alternative fuel vehicles. including passenger vehicle, service trucks, street cleaners and others. this is a good amendment. that ensures alternative fuel vehicles are still eligible under this bill. i support the amendment and yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. ryan: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from ohio. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in 114-326. house report for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in part a of house report 114-326 offered by mr. hunter of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 512, the gentleman from california, mr. hunter, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. hunter: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, the roads, bridges and other infrastructure projects we seek

to advance in the legislation before us today require a steady supply of aggregate and gravel. without it we might as well not even be here debating this legislation. in fact, a report from the u.s. geological survey, 2011 usgs report, aggregate availability in the united states, found that, quote, a 70% increase in the annual aggregate production may be required to upgrade our transportation infrastructure. the report went on to say that there is an indisputable need for an uninterrupted large supply of cag are a gate for the restoration and rehabilitation of the infrastructure. it is also important to note that a substantial portion of the cost of aggregate is its transportation costs and lowering those costs will reduce the cost of construction projects. my state, california, is just one example where the need is great. according to a recent report, california goes through 200 million tons of high grade aggregate every year, which is the equivalent of more than seven million trips by large diesel trucks. so here's what my amendment

does. it streamlines access to marine-accessible sand and gravel aggregate supply points throughout the united states. allowing our country to meet the future needs of national infrastructure projects which are covered in this legislation. with this amendment we have the opportunity to strengthen our supply of raw building materials for infrastructure projects, reduce road congestion and transportation costs, and strengthen our maritime community. i urge all members to support this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise? mr. defazio: to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. defazio: i yield myself such time as i may consume. generally, the gentleman from california and i work together on a number of things, and this is one where i reluctantly rise in opposition to his proposal. and i have spent a good deal of time on aggregate issues in my own district. that relate to, you know, those

which are located in the marine environment. and i understand some of the frustrations and concerns that go on there. but the language in this is so broad that we're preempting both the rivers and harbors act of 19 -- 1899, which relate to impediments to navigation. at this mendment point would, for instance, overturn an easement that has been entered into between joint and the owners of this aggregate and there's a concern that if a dock were built in that area, it would interfere with the navigation that's a prime route for our submarine or strategic submarine forces in the pacific northwest and the pacific region. so, you know, with he think it

has un-- we think it has unintended consequences that go far beyond any idea of streamlining access to maritime aggregate resources. so we would have -- i would have to recommend members oppose the amendment. i would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. hunter: i'd like to yield two minutes to mr. harris. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for two minutes. mr. harris: thank you very much, mr. chairman. i rise in support of the gentleman from's al -- the gentleman from california's amendment. we need to start the rebirth of our nation's shipping capabilities and begin to build u.s. flag sea going vessels to move a domestic supply of sand and gravel across our nation. this amendment allows access to aggregate that will be available to restore damaged beaches, enhance fishery habitats, estuaries and regions of the atlantic ocean, the gulf of mexico, the pacific ocean, by providing clean sand and gravel for broad scale beach replenishment projects that are

so vital across the nation. this will to establishment of u.s. source to meet demand. half of all uses for sarned and gravel are used for public projects, building and replacing vital u.s. highways, bridges and seawall infrastructures. utilizing this will reduce costs. moving cargo on the water and cost competitive, economical and efficient. passage of this amendment puts our country on the potential to have 20,000 more shipbuilding manufacturing jobs. bus by building 20 to 40 container carrier ships worth $3 billion if we pass this amendment. this amendment is good for the country and good for our infrastructure and it's good for creating american jobs across

this country. i yield back. mr. hunter: how much time do i have? the chair: gentleman has one minute remaining. mr. hunter: here's what this amendment does. f you have a quartery, whether it's it is an inlet waterway or a sound, you can develop your gravel pits and put that aggregate on ships, not on ucks, that have much lower emission cost. it's going to help the maritime community. we import sapped and gravel right now from china. we get our aggregate right now from communist china. let's strengthen our supply and allow producers the ability to export their aggregate to the

national defense community, to our road makers, building makers. this strengthens america and strengthens national security. and i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. defazio: again, this amendment waives all laws for construction of these transportation-related acilities, piers, wharfs and loadout structures. if you waive all the laws, someone may want to build a pier that interferes with everybody else and narrows that channel including the united states navy. that's not a very good way to go forward and that was recognized by congress in 1899, impedements to commercial navigation and

strategic national defense navigation. i think there may be another way to get at more easily utilizing these resources, but preempting the rivers and harbors act and the hobbs act which would impede other navigation is incredibly .roblem so with that, again, i would strongly oppose the amendment and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california, those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to.

the chair understands that amendment 4 will not be offered. it is now in order to consider amendment number 5 printed in part a of house report 114-326, for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in part a house report 114-326 offered by mr. deseanier of california. the chair: the gentleman from california and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. desaulnier: this amendment s based on a an act that rebuilds public trust by promoting decision making in the transportation and investment process. this commonsense amendment helps states in metro planning

organizations to offer the highest return for taxpayers and communities through increased transparency and improved accountability. americans of all types are suspicious of government right now. in the context of transportation funding, many americans believe that highway and bridge decisions are based on politics and insider connections, rather than statewide and regional transportation goals. in many areas of the country, local commuters have little ideas how states department of transportations make their project decisions and why they choose one project over another. they ask taxpayers to spend more on projects with minimal accountability. this requires state and regional transportation plans to include project descriptions and score projects based on criteria developed by the state or the region, not the federal government. requiring the projects be assessed ensures that limited

transportation resources are invested in projects that provide the highest return on investment to commuters. requiring transportation decision makers to communicate ow projects are chosen helps the public. many states are incorporating criteria today in virginia, north carolina, tennessee, louisiana, texas and washington state, minnesota and massachusetts amongst others. there is early evidence that this has increased confidence. effective transportation systems are critical to our growing and prosperous u.s. economy. we cannot allow diminishing resources to be directed towards bad investments. this ensures that the public has more complete information to judge the merits of projects for themselves. mr. chairman, many much of the

debate about america's crumbling infrastructure is how we are going to find the money to match the need. as responsible legislators, we should ask ourselves how we can invest the resources we already have. i urge my colleagues to support this good governance amendment and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. shuster: claim time in opposition. the proposed amendment would propose burdensome requirements on states. significantly delaying project selection and construction. states already under current law are subject to extensive planning requirements and take factors into account in developing their short and long-range plans. it is critical they have the flexibility to weigh tradeoffs without being hamstrung by a process. participation by stakeholders and the public is a hallmark of

the planning process. states are required to have a plan to ensure that any interested party can be heard. the national governors' association, national conference of legislatures and the metro planning association and american association of state highway and transportation officials all oppose this amendment and they are the very people that deal with this. so i oppose the amendment and urge all my colleagues to oppose it also. with that, i yield back. the chair: the alyields. the gentleman is recognized. mr. desaulnier; how much time do i have left? i want to thank him for his consideration, i do believe having seen this in the san francisco bay area, the incentive and requirement to do more will help with the transportation, as i stated earlier. i would urge my colleagues to support the amendment. and i yield back.

the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. desaulnier; i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 6 printed in part a of house report 114-326. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i rise as designee of representative grijalva and i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in part a of house report number 14 -- 114-326 offered by mr. cartwright of pennsylvania. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 512, the gentleman

from pennsylvania and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania for five minutes. mr. cartwright: this bill uses streamlining the regulatory eupham inch h is a sm over bedrock and environmental laws. it dead indicates 50 pages of this bill to paving over the national environmental policy act, also known as nepa, as well as the national historic reservation act, nhpa. i know it is popular in republican circles, they blame environmental regulations. the evidence tells us a different story. the federal highway administration reported several years ago before all of this steamrolling started that more than 90% of nepa reviews for

highway projects were accomplished through a categorical exclusion process that takes only a few days. for the few and we're talking about only 4% of highway projects which do require an environmental impact statement, the end result is often savings for the taxpayers and better projects that cause less harm to the environment and to our communities. earlier this year, a plan to improve u.s. route 23 in michigan was modified to avoid the largest loss of wetlands in the state's history and to preserve that habitat for migratory water fowl. in new jersey, in 2012, route 53 causeway was completed after nepa review helped to minimize private property takings as well

as damage to title marshes. in my home state, construction of the pennsylvania turnpike i-95 project is under way after a thorough nepa review which was conducted with the input and support of legal residents and local government officials. this process led to the selection of a design with the fewest impacts to homes, businesses and the local environment. nepa does not lead to unnecessary delays. it leads to better outcomes. the real culprit in delaying highway projects is the lack of funding and to address that problem, the house majority will need to first look in the mirror. it is their draconian budget slashing that has left our transportation infrastructure in the disrepair that is in

existence today. my amendment would require us to evaluate the impacts of the last two rounds of regulatory steamrolling passed in the safety lieu bill and the map 21 bill before we take any steps to gut environmental protection or historic preservation. this approach is perfectly reasonable because while there is evidence that regulatory reform was not needed in the first place, there is exactly zero evidence that it has had any positive impact at all because no information has been collected on the matter. the very least we can do is evaluate the effects of the laws we pass before we declare the need for more of the same. shirking our responsibility to appropriate highway dollars and

instead just scapegoating laws that protect the american people from harm is simply dishonest. however, mr. speaker, on behalf of representative grijalva, i'm withdrawing this amendment. i do believe the sections of this bill that this amendment strikes are seriously flawed and i do look forward to working with my colleagues on the transportation and infrastructure committee, the administration and our friends in the senate on achieving a more reasonable outcome. i yield back. . the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. he amendment is withdrawn.

it is now in order to consider amendment number 7 printed in part a of house report 114-326. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 7 precipitationed in part a of house report 114-326 offered by mr. hunter of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 512, the gentleman from california, mr. hunter, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. hunter: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, this bipartisan amendment is only a technical change to a pilot program that is already included in the underlying bill and i'd like to thank the chairman and ranking

member for including the base language in the bill. this legislative language in our proposed amendment is a means for state department of transportations to increase their revenues without an additional burden on the taxpayer. everybody knows that every state is hurting for transportation dollars. this helps them. by acknowledging contributions of third parties to a state d.o.t.'s roadside maintenance through a corporate logo made of live plant materials, rather than conventional metallic material, state departments of transportation will have new means for funding highway maintenance needs. this will free up funds for other highway projects. i support this program because caltrans and six other state d.o.t.'s ask for the authority for this program. the pilot program does not cost the state or federal government a penny to operate. estimates are that my state of california could conservatively save millions of dollars annually in roadside maintenance costs from this program. other states would enjoy other similar tangible benefits. the ledge -- the legislative

language for pilot program as it appears in the underlying bill does not specifically permit acknowledgment through live plant materials and place noes limitations on what guidelines -- places no limitations on what guidelines would be developed under the pilot program. the legislative language in our proposed amendment paves the way for state d.o.t.'s to implement and acknowledge -- an acknowledgment program by specifying this particular approach in the legislative language and by providing some spess fessity on the guidelines -- specificity on the guidelines that the u.s. department of transportation should develop and what matters are best left to the states to assure the success of this innovative new approach. i urge all members to support this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise? mr. defazio: i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. defazio: i yield myself uch time as i may consume.

this amendment would allow commercialization within the right of federal right of way and that causes concern as to the potential for proliferation . you know, we've had many debates over the years and i've been on the committee over dvertising approximate mate to interstates -- approximate to intertates. this amendment is not new -- interstates. this amendment is not new. it's not widely supported. we did not hear from california that they were in support. we were in touch with them numerous times. perhaps they are but we didn't hear that. and the outdoor advertising association of america does not support the amendment. so i would urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the amendment. the chair: does the gentleman reserve? mr. defazio: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time.

the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. hunter: mr. chairman, how much time do i have? the chair: the gentleman has 3 1/4 minutes. mr. hunter: i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from california. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized is for one minute. curb curb thank you, mr. chairman. i thank -- mr. curbelo: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank my friend from california for yielding. i want to thank him for taking the initiative on offering this amendment, which simply modifies the pilot program already created in the manager's amendment. my endorsement of this amendment stems from the fact that florida's d.o.t. currently has a co-sponsorship program and a multitude of other state d.o.t.'s have also offered their support. this program permits states to partner with private sector organizations which will fund further roadside maintenance. the private sector, not the government, will be responsible for the fabrication, installation and maintenance of the signs resulting in zero expense to taxpayers. this amendment enables state d.o.t.'s to implement and acknowledge -- an

acknowledgment program with live plant materials, furthermore it provides specifics on the guidelines u.s. d.o.t. should develop and lets states decide which matters are of significance to them. i respectfully urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields ack the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. hunter: this is one of those things that i thought everybody would enjoy, mr. chairman. it's environmentally friendly. it uses plants and flowers. and it doesn't cost anybody anything. i mean, this is one of those deals that i'm surprised is opposed by any member. at this time i'd like to yield one minute to the gentlelady from florida, ms. brown. ms. brown: thank you, mr. chairman. i think this is -- my state of florida could receive $35 million in revenue and $8.7 million in maintenance savings

annually for the program. at this time revenue is flat funded. don't to the states participate in it, it's a pilot program. and it's flowers and it's friendly. i support it and i would urge my colleagues to vote for it. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. hunter: i thank the gentlelady and at this time i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. defazio: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. defazio: the bill itself establishes this -- the gentleman has proposed a up to 20-year part-time program, that seems pretty permanent in terms of most people's life spans. i'd be happy to yield.

so we're planting perennials not -- reclaiming my time, so i guess we're planting perennials not annuals. ok. in any case. the bill itself does establish a pilot program that would establish five states would be alloyd not just to do logo -- allowed not just to do logo flowers but to do other innovative projects that could generate revenues for use in the maintenance of the right ofways. -- right of ways. this would be five states, there would be good lines published by the secretary -- guidelines published by the secretary and they'd terminate after six years. and then we'd see if there was wisdom for expanding it. one problem that was raised is we've gone through, as i said, many controversies over billboards, particularly when they went to billboards, that would change as you were driving. and there was heavy regulation of that. because of the period of the change, so as not to distract

drivers and cause potential traffic accidents. and, you know, i can imagine you're driving along and you're really wanting to read that logo as you're going by and this could contribute to distracted driving. so we must oppose the amendment. with that i would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. hunter: mr. chairman, how much time do i have left? the chair: the gentleman has 1 1/4 minutes. mr. hunter: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm looking at some of the designs that have already been done. one's a nike swish. you don't have to read a swish. you just know it's a swish. because we all know what nike swishes look like. you have the pepsi logo. you don't have to read that. by going with the gentleman's argument, you couldn't have any billboards up anywhere. there's tons of billboards out that you have to read. these are just logos. and the cooperations want to pay the state transportation to put these logos on the side of the road. this is free money for the

states. free money for states' transportation. and i would urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. defazio: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. hunter: mr. chairman, i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will e postponed. the chair: it is now in order to consider amendment number 8 printed in part a of house

report 114-326. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. denham: request -- claiming time in support of the amendment. the chair: does the gentleman have an amendment -- mr. denham: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number printed in house report 114-26 offer blid denham of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 512, the gentleman from california and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. denham: thank you, mr. chairman. in 1994 congress enacted the federal aviation administration authorization act or f.a.a.a. to prevent states from undermining federal deregulation of interstate commerce through a patchwork of state regulations. since 1994, motor carriers have been operating under the federal meal and rest brake

standards until a ruling by the california ninth circuit court. this amendment would remedy that issue. and i would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise? mr. defazio: rise in opposition . claim time in opposition. i yield myself such time as i may consume. unfortunately the language of this amendment is so broad that it would basically preempt, you know, meal, rest brake and other laws that relate to truck drivers in 21 say thes. -- states, so i think this is an issue of states' rights. it's an issue of an overly road attempt to address what is a real contradiction that was created by the ninth circuit. you know, that, you know, if you have a truck driver who's

operating long haul through a number of states, having to comply with new rest or meal brake requirement -- break requirements and the federal clock, which i can barely understand with the new requirements on rest, every time the driver crosses a state line it's confusing and i think is a potential impediment to interstate commerce. we offered an amendment that would have specifically addressed that concern. unfortunately we weren't able to reach agreement on that. mr. larson from washington state submitted that amendment to the rules committee, it was not allowed and unfortunately we only have this overly broad amendment. so this would not just affect interstate trucking, it would preempt california's wage, hour and rest break rules for

intrastate trucking in the state of california. and 20 other states. in fact, the case that was before the ninth circuit was intrastate truck drivers who were delivering appliances. and also would go further, we spend a lot of time, when i chaired the subcommittee, on the issue of these basically pressed labor who were theoretically purchasing their trucks to haul cargo out of long beach and out of los angeles, who were really basically being enslaved. they were never going to pay them off or own them. they were hot seated. other people were also buying the same truck at different hours of the day. nobody ever got the trucks. and this would basically preempt any laws in california so that drivers could be paid on a piece rate, no matter what the congestion conditions, you know, sorry, gee, we paid you for that load, so it took you eight hours, that's the way it is. so you only earn 49 cents an

hour, sorry, because wage an hour laws don't apply to you. it is just overly broad attempt to address what is, you know, what does have at its core a contradiction under the faaa or whatever it is that they call the ruling about interstate commerce, so we would have to oppose the amendment. with that i reserve the balance of my time. >> i thank the gentleman. he was here in 1994. he understands the issue and while his language did not fully address the issue, we are going to continue to work together as this amendment moves forward. deb den -- mr. denham:, i now would like to yield one minute to ms. brown rom florida.

ms. brown: let me say first, i want to thank you all for your leadership in getting this bill to the floor. and i'm going with the new speaker who says the will of the house and i'm sure the will of the house will pass this amendment. why? because one of the things transportation is intermodal and i was here in 1994 when we said we aren't going to have a patchwork or each state with their own rules and regulations. let's move forward and this amendment, in my opinion, we need to reinstate the intentions of the congress in 1994 and with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. denham: reserves. the chair: the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. defazio: i yield myself such time as i may consume. 90% of the trucking industry is

represented, not necessarily in in termsvolume, but by of value and with that, i yield a minute to the gentlelady from california. the chair: the gentlewoman from california has one minute. mrs. napolitano: i thank mr. defazio. i rise in opposition to this amendment which would overturn a federal court decision that determined california kneel and rest breaks apply to truckers sm the ninth circuit court of appeals ruled that trucking operations in california must allow a 30-minute breaks after five hours of work and a 10-minute rest break after each rest break. -- meal and rest break is and this amendment would preempt and boot the 21 other states' laws currently in force and

territories that guarantee -- i won't go into the states' names, but the states must not be allowed -- should be allowed to set meal and rest standards. one size does not fit all. i ask my colleagues to oppose and i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. denham: i yield one minute to the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. costa: this amendment is needed to -- mr. costello: this amendment is needed to fix. are faced with an overreact judiciary as a result of this misinformed decision. congress has taken deliberate action in the past to preempt states in getting away. and this amendment makes clear the intent of congress that states can't impose their own requirements whose hours are

governed under national federal regulations. drivers who need a break are always entitled to take one. this amendment does not change that. current whistleblower laws protect them and this amendment does not change that. as a result of the ninth circuit court decision motor carriers will be forced to plan their routes and services around the obligation of state break requirements and will deprive businesses and drivers currently afforded under federal law and reduce shipping capacity and increase shipping costs and causes confusion and costs. who will pay the price for the decision of the unelected judges of the ninth circuit? consumers will face higher prices. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. denham: reserve.

the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. mr. defazio: how much time is remaining? the chair: 45 seconds. mr. defazio: i yield the gentleman 45 seconds. mr. takai: my friends across the aisle reject legislation because it encroaches to states' rights but this disappears when protecting workers. this clarifies the act of 1994 and changes and expands its application to preempt the will of states such as mine. this laws ensure rest and meal amendment this overrules the court and weaken labor protections. as a member of the education and work force committee, i stand in strong opposition to this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote against it. i yield back.

the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. denham: i would request to know how much time is remaining? the chair: 2 1/2 minutes. mr. denham: i yield one minute to the gentleman from nebraska. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> this amendment reinforces, make no mistake about it, current law that has been on the bob stokes. mr. ashford: it promotes interstate commerce and ensures economic growth and for the files safety requirements. this amendment will allow a vital industry in my district and a vital industry to our nation, the trucking industry, to operate without a patch work of regulations. in my home state we have several of the nation's largest motor carriers. they provide good-paying jobs.

these employers may now face litigation that could ca cost tens of millions of dollars and create uncertainty across this country. litigation shouldn't threaten the livelihood of the residents of my state and businesses in my district will refuse to do business. this will destroy jobs and hinder competition and hurt taxpayers. i urge support for this amendment. i yield back. mr. denham: i yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. walker. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for 45 seconds. mr. walker: the patchwork of laws and rules when drivers eat, sleep is impractical. this creates an unreasonable burden on truck divers and companies. dismantling the federal standards and causes

inefficiencies and inhibits innovation and occur tails the expansion of markets. i encourage support for the amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. denham: reserve. mr. denham: yield the balance of my time to -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> i rise in support of this amendment. in my district, i have some of the largest trucking companies in the country. these are hardworking dedicated people who play a vital role in the success of our economy and the regulations have made their jobs much, much more difficult. this amendment relieves truck drivers of a patch work of regulations that make their jobs very difficult. let me correct a common misunderstanding. this amendment does not prevent drivers from taking breaks.

it does the exact opposite and allows the drivers to be flexible to take breaks when they think it's most appropriate and most safe and not worry they are violating the law. arbitrary times will not work. i'm a strong supporter of this amendment. with that, mr. chairman. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. denham: recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will e postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 9 printed in 114-3326.house report

>> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 9 rinted in house report 114-326 offered by mr. aguilar of california. the chair: the gentleman from california and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. aguilar: we can all agree our veterans deserve the best we can offer when they return home. while we can never repay them, we can reaffirm our appreciation to help them transition back to civilian life. my amendment would help us do just that. this amendment requires the department of transportation and the department of defense to work together to help veterans transition into civilian jobs driving commercial trucks. it would help them obtain commercial drivers' licenses as outlined in a report commissioned by the federal

safety administration two years ago. this report was done at the direction of the last surface transportation bill, map 21, and my amendment requires.and d.o.d. to implement the improvements. one of the most important ways we need to help veterans is connecting them with job opportunities. encouraging local businesses to hire more veterans is one step but helping them translate those skills in the military is a crucial step. many veterans who drove specialized vehicles in the military they struggle to put these skills when they return home. my amendment makes it easier for veterans to put their skills to work by requiring the federal motor safety administration's reports be butt into effect. it writes the accommodation that states can waive driving skills test if they can certificate if

i they were in a position of driving a specialized motor vehicle. this was included in the underlying bill which i applaud further efforts. my amendment goes a bit further. my amendment helps create an abbreviated commercial driver's license skills test for states to give military drivers who do not have the experience of operating vehicles. this amendment based on the recommendations of the report directs our military services to work with the federal motor carrier safety administration and the american association of motor vehicle administrators to clarify options available to service members and veterans to obtain existing information on military licenses, military driver history and c.m.v. experience. we need to do better by our men and women in uniform who have rifbled so much. as we focus on growing our

economy. we need to keep our veterans in mind as we seek to expand job opportunities. this amendment will do just that. the study commissioned was two years ago. time to put into action and get our veterans back to work. this is about getting our veterans what they have earned and deserved and i look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to see this through. thank you and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. shuster: i seek the time in opposition although i do not oppose the amendment. the chair: without objection. mr. shuster: i appreciate the gentleman from california. the star act requires that the secretary to issue regulations by the end of the year to implement recommendations of a report to congress on assisting veterans. however, the bill does not address the nonregulatory regulations. this amendment requires that the

secretary implement those recommendations. this is a good amendment that will assist our veterans and transition into civilian life. i urge support and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. aguilar: i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 10 printed in part a of house report 114-326. for what purpose does the

gentlewoman from california seek recognition? ms. hahn: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 10 printed in part a of house report 114-326, offered by ms. hahn of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 512 the gentlewoman from california, ms. hahn, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california. ms. hahn: i rise to offer the hahn-cicilline amendment to the surface transportation reform and re-authorization act of 2015. our committee has been putting in many months, some would say years new york writing this bill. it's a great day to see this bill come to the floor. i would like to thank chairman shuster, ranking member defazio and the entire transportation infrastructure committee for our hard work in crafting this legislation. if i might take a moment at this point to give a fare well and

rest in peace to howard coble, who was a good member of our transportation committee, who served in the coast forward. in fact, we named our coast guard and maritime transportation act, the howard coble coast guard and maritime transportation act of 2014. we will miss him. he was a good member of our committee. our amendment today looks to make our nation's roadways safer and also more scenic by directing the secretary of transportation to study the benefits and costs of undergrounding power lines. 40% of all power outages are due to fallen trees or weather events and an adecisional 8% are caused by traffic accidents. by placing power lines underground, roadways are safer from downed lines during storms, service to customers is more reliable, and our roadways will simply be more beautiful to drive on. every year, over 1,000

fatalities occur as a result of collisions with utility poles. in fact, according to the insurance institute for highway safety, about 20% of all highway deaths are due to power line polls -- polesened traffic barriers. this amendment asking the secretary to evaluate if this is feasible and share with congress us findings. we should take this highway authorization as an opportunity to make our highways safer and more scenic. my home state of california has been a leader in undergrounding power lines. in 1967, california began encouraging and directing utility providers to allocate a portion of their budgets to replacing overhead cables with underground cables. this has been a good start but i think we could do more in this century. it was president johnson, urged on by lady bird who sthind highway beautification act in 1965 to limit unsightly roadside mess.

upon the bill's passage, president johnson said, beauty belongs to the all the people and so long as i'm president, what has been divinely given by nature will not be recklessly taken away by man. by conducting a nationwide study, we can begin to see where the conversions make sense across the country. with that, i reserve my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. shuster: i seek time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. shuster: as always, i appreciate the gentlelady from california and her hard work, a valued member of the committee, although on this amendment, i don't believe it has to do with transportation policy. i think it's a good thing when you bury power lines for a lot of reasons. appearance, weather, all those things. but i don't believe this is a federal issue. nor do i believe the u.s. department of transportation is the appropriate agency to determine the cost and benefits of burying power lines.

i believe that should be up to the companies and their cost-benefit analysis to etermine that and not to underwrite or subsidize their operations by doing this. so again, with great respect to the gentlelady from california, i oppose this amendment. i reserve the balance. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. hahn: i'm happy to be joined by my colleague from rhode island, congressman cicilline, i yield him two minutes to speak in support of this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. cicilline: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the gentlelady for yielding. i rise in strong support of this amendment. this amendment will require the secretary to conduct a study on the economic costs and feasibility of burying power lines underground. according to federal day tark the u.s. power grid loses power

285% more often than it did in 1984 when this record began. it costsed a -- as much as $150 billion per year. underground power lines make up 18% of the u.s. transmission lines yet nearly all new residential and commerce developments opt for underground service. in hurricane irene in 2011, more than 6357b9 million people in the united states lost power including more than 0% of the residents in my home state of rhode island as well as connecticut and maryland. i urbling my colleagues to support this simple, straightforward amendment so that we can begin to create a more reliable and resilient electric grid. i want to acknowledge the work being advanced by scenic america to help restore and modernize the highway beautification act that comes -- that congresswoman hahn made reference to. a group of us have been in a working group, trying to work on legislation to restore and modernize the highway

beautification act and scenic america has been taking the lead in this work. i think the work of lady bird johnson is incredibly important. this is an important first step to get information, to understand the economic impact of burying power lines, what a difference it will not only in terms of the scenic beauty of the highways but also to businesses and to prevent the economic loss that happens to individuals and businesses. it's an excellent amendment. i thank the gentlelady for her great leadership. i urge my colleagues to support the amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. hahn: thank you. scenic america is working on different ways in this country to beautify our landscape and i believe that this transportation bill is the appropriate place to do this as this is about

highways and our roads in this untry but having the disapproval and opposition of my chairman wasn't that strong but it was a disapproval, i will agree to withdraw this and we will work with scenic america to find another way to bring the undergrounding of our utilities forward. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. cicilline: i ask the congressman if he'd work with congresswoman hahn and i and others who want to restore the beautification. mr. shuster: i appreciate the gentleman pushing this issue. burying power lines, i think, is a positive thing. does add to the beauty of the landscape. but i don't believe the that it's the federal government's role, the taxpayers' role to

underwrite this. i appreciate the withdrawal, i appreciate your pushing this issue. i continue to oppose the amendment and with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. does the gentlewoman withdraw her amendment? ms. hahn: i do. i sadly withdraw. the chair: the amendment is withdrawn. it is now in order to consider amendment number 11 printed in part a of house report 114-326. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. heck: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 11 printed in part a of house report 114-326, offered by mr. heck of washington. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 512, the gentleman from washington, mr. heck, and a

member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. heck: thank you, mr. chairman. small towns and cities alike have reasons to manage their stormwater runoff. our streams, rivers, lakes and estuaries are all at risk of dangerous pollution following a downpour. trust me, those of us from western washington know this full well. in places like puyallup, washington, are finding ways to adjust their neighborhoods to protect surrounding waterways from pollution. ince 2009, puyallup has helped residents install rain gardens to absorb rainfall. these are linked by pipes that direct excess water from the roofs and direct it to the guard bs rather than into the streets and sewer. this is one innovation of several great ideas inknow vated throughout this great country in places like puyallup. my amendment today builds on the success on the ground by simply asking the department of

transportation to develop best practices for stormwater management, collect the information and a guide on how to implement, install and maintain green stormwater infrastructure and help any state that requests help with the development of such a plan. voluntary program. not a requirement. no new money. many of these innovative infrastructure practices, permeable pavement, natural training swells, green roofs, they're economical and increase property values and invest in the people that make their careers designing and building these inventions. these new tools are both flexible and yield a strong return on investment. the people of puyallup get that. they know and you and i know, we can't let water carry oil from our cars, pesticides and other pollutants into the rivers an sounds. we can't do that and coach a

strong economy or a desirable location for business and living. we can't let runoff kill, as an example, our cherished salmon. i ask you to support the promise of these innovative economical ideas to manage stormwater, get d.o.t. involved. this is the best of federalism no new money new york mandatory program, just a way to get information out which the federal usdot is in a perfect position to collect and make available. with that, mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time and yield to the jovepl from the sixth congressional district of -- to the gentleman from the sixth congressional district of washington state. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kilmer: i thank the gentleman from washington's 10th district. in my neck of the woods we take pride in the puget sound. we understand it's in danger. that's why i join my colleague today to talk about one of the treasures the sound holds.

the water, the salmon, the orcas, an entire ecosystem that's under attack. this is a threat that happens every time a thunderstorm or rain strikes cities like tacoma. when heavy rains hit that water will wash toxic mixtures of oil and heavy metals off our streets and highways. the "seattle times" wrote about a new study that found some runoff was so toxic, it killed salmon in 2 1/2 hours. it's something we don't often think about but this storm waurlt creates pollution that lingers. folks in me region i represent are doing groundbreaking work, putting in green stormwater infrastructure to capture this runoff before it hit ours water. things like rain gardens, green roofs, instead of letting storm water slide along and collect more dirt and grime and end up in our body of water. it captures it. our amendment would encourage the growth of these prompts. it would give our local

government in places like tacoma and puyallup and elsewhere a clear guide bok on -- guidebook on the best ways to implement this. it demonstrates how we can be partners in cleaning up our water. it matters to tacoma and other cities. stormwater runoff may be hard to spot but it's taking a toll on puget sound and other bodies of water. that's why this amendment is important and that's why i vote my -- encourage my colleagues to vote for it. i yield back. mr. heck: i reserve. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? mr. shuster: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. shuster: i certainly understand what the gentleman from washington is trying to accomplish here. the reason i oppose it is not because of what he is attempting to do but the federal highway administration currently has strongly supported and

encouraged use of implementation of green infrastructure in the federal transportation frodget mitigate highway runoff impacts. they published a new stormwater runoff model and it is engaged in various stormwater research, including stormwater performance measures. department of transportation also is part of a federal agency green infrastructure collaborative. this initiative includes working with states to implement i want grate ecosystems including landscape scale mitigation. i don't believe we need to legislate further on this. i also admit -- i also want to make note that last night we agreed to ms. edwards' of maryland amendment on stormwater mitigation with states in the metropolitan planning process. i understand what the gentleman is trying to accomplish, i think it's already in the legislation. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from washington is

recognized. mr. heck: may i inquire how much time i have left? the chair: you have one minute remaining. mr. heck: with all due respect to the chair of the committee that isn't included in the current legislation. clearly not the intent of the amendment. the intent of the amendment is to ask them to accumulate best practices. yes, they have programs where they promote and they advocate. this is to ask them to go out and find these programs like we talked about in puyallup, which were unusual and innovative and aren't yet in the manual so they can share. this is information sharing on a scale they don't currently do. in fact, it would help with the serious problem. but given the chair's opposition to this, i will only ask that he consider taking a deeper dive on what we're trying to accomplish here because it solves a problem and with that, mr. chairman, i would withdraw the amendment. the chair: the amendment is withdrawn. .

mr. shuster: the federal highway administration is working on these things clab are atively with the states and i think -- collaboratively with the states and i think we should oppose the amendment and ield back my time. the chair: it is now in order to consider amendment number 12 printed in part a of house report 114-326. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? mr. king: mr. chair, i have an amendment at the desk, number 12. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 12 printed in part a of house report 114-326 offered by mr. king of iowa. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 512, the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, this is an

amendment that i have offered in the past and it will be known as the amendment that eliminates the davis-bacon act, and the substance of it is this. none of the funds made available by this act may be used to implement, administrator or enforce a -- administer or enforce a prevailing rate of wage and it's effectively the davis-bacon act. it gets attention from some of my colleagues. i will say, mr. chairman, i have worked with this issue as long as anyone in the united states congress. i have worked back for years as i did about five years in the construction site as an employee. multiple times i received davis-bacon wage scales and sometimes i did not. in 1975 we began hiring employees. sometimes we paid davis-bacon wage scale. sometimes we did not, but i was always aggravated by the federal government deciding that they knew what we had to

pay our help and what they were worth. and i recall many debates on the floor of the house of representatives -- and people from the other side of the aisle would say, anytime there's a relationship between two or more people that are consenting adults, the federal government has no business sticking themselves in the middle of that relation. and yet the davis-bacon act tells me what my son, who is now sitting in the gallery, has to pay me if i'm going to climb in the seat of one of his machines, say an excavator. we are 40 years in the business. i have seen what's created by the davis-bacon act. you might need somebody on a shovel and he decides it pays more to get on a motor grader or a bulldozer. this recollection the efficiency as well as puts the high price on the product that's being produced under the contracting business in the united states. and so i would say this, over our years in the construction

business, the extra cost for davis-bacon ranges somewhere between 8% and 38% additional depending on the type of project and the location where you are. the average is someplace between 20% to 22%. so to boil this all down, if we want to be responsible to the taxpayer, then we want to get the best dollar out of that somebody's going to say that it's second-rate work. that would be a direct insult to me. it would be a direct insult to my son who owns king construction today and is listening to this debate. our quality of work stands to anyone's and it's superior to many. sometimes it's davis-bacon wage scale and sometimes it's not. we know what they're worth. the government does not. we want to hire the best help and keep the best help and keep the best help on. that's just here in this microcosm of king construction but it's extrapolated across the nation. so do we want to build four miles of road under government-mandated wages or do we want to build five? i want to build the five miles. i want to build the most

bridges and the highest efficiency we can get. that's the substance of this amendment. i urge its adoption and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise? mr. defazio: to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. defazio: i yield myself two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. defazio: there was a time in america, 193 , -- 1931, that people were desperate and unscrupulous contractors would move people from place to place, put them in work camps and undercut the wages in communities. the wisdom of the congress back then, this is not proper. communities have different wage rates. this is not a dictate from washington, d.c., about the wages. it says you will pay the wages that prevails in your community. for instance, in the gentleman's community, the median wage is $49,427. but under davis-bacon, an electrician, pretty darn skilled person, in my position,

would only get $36,500 if they got the minimum davis-bacon wage. so i don't see that's outrageous. what we're trying to prevent here is the abuse of construction workers and people moving them from place to place, bringing them from a very low-cost state and saying, hey, you know, when you go home, you're going to be doing good. we'll put you in a little work camp, tent. you come here to this state, you undercut all the local workers, you do the job, you go home. we don't want to go back to those days. those were not healthy days in america. so this is really a way to provide people with a living wage. certainly not an extraffic get wage. i don't think $36,500 for an electrician in iowa is an extraffic get wage and i don't see why we should pull the floor underneath them and say, that's too high. we should pay our electricians better than that. our trade agreements and a whole host of other things that are going on that are creating income inequality, this will

exacerbate income inequality and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from iowa is recognized. mr. king: mr. chairman, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. who seeks time? mr. defazio: i'd yield two minutes to the ranking member of the education and the work force committee. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. scott: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise in opposition to the king amendment. this amendment would prohibit the application of prevailing wages provided under the davis-bacon act for funds expended on construction projects in this bill. davis-bacon sets wage and benefit standards for federally assisted construction projects to ensure that contractors compete on the quality of their work, not by undercutting wage levels in local communities. negating the applicable wage laws as the king amendment proposes to do, often leads to shoddy construction and substantial cost overruns. this is not set to insult the sponsor of the amendment. the fact is that the census

construction data shows that value added per worker in states with prevailing wage laws is 13% to 15% higher than in states without prevailing wage laws. additionally, studies conducted by the university of utah found that prevailing wage has led to the reduction -- by repealing the prevailing wage has led to a reduction of the or elimination of apprenticeship programs. this is national apprenticeship week. we should be promoting apprenticeship programs, not taking measures that would negatively impact this critical job-training tool. under prevailing wage laws, contractors are forced to compete with -- under prevailing wage laws, contractors are forced to compete who can best train, equip construction crews, not who can assemble the cheapest, most exploited work force, either locally or by importing

work someplace else. historically, mr. speaker, there has been bipartisan opposition to repealing the davis-bacon act and infrastructure program. let's consider that bipartisan tradition on prevailing wages by voting no on this amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from iowa is recognized. mr. king: mr. chairman, how much time do i have remaining? the chair: you have two minutes. mr. king: thank you, mr. chairman. and the gentleman has yielded back his time? the chair: the gentleman from oregon still controls time in opposition. the gentleman from oregon has reserved. mr. king: then i reserve. mr. defazio: i have the white to close. i have one -- i have the right to close. i have one additional speaker. i have one minute left. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: does the gentleman have the right to close? the chair: the gentleman from oregon has the right to close. mr. king: in that case, mr. chairman, i'll yield myself the

balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. king: thank you, mr. chairman. i thought i'd actually made the statement, i thought my good friend from virginia would pick this up that it isn't about shoddy construction work that can be laid at the feet of operations. i'm standing here on my feet in my boots having done all kinds of work for lots of years. and so has my family going back about five generations. and our work has been competing with and superior to that of many, and there's nothing in the record of our company that anyone could point out to other than quality and efficiency and in fact the reason that they need an apprentice program is you can't afford to hire and train them unless the government is going to pay them less than a prevailing wage. i have been one and i have been bound bounsed out of there because of the -- bounced out of there because of the davis-bacon act. when i listen to the gentleman

how we'll prevent people from moving a low wage area to a high wage area, that is what started the davis-bacon act. it wasn't to keep the low wages out. it was to keep african-americans out of new york city during the depression when there was a large federal building contract and a contractor successfully bid that job. he was from out of town and he brought his crews in from alabama. african-americans from alabama to do the work cheaper than the union scale would do in new york. that's what brought about this davis-bacon act. when the federal government decides they're going to tell people what they have to pay their employees, they're the last people that knows exactly what it is worth. and when you have to compete in this real world where equipment is expensive and time is priceless and we have strict specifications and strong engineers and bonds, bid bonds, performance bonds, insurance contracts, we have to be efficient, we have to be professional. and we have to be able to not only do this as well as anyone but more efficiently than

anyone. that's what the merit shop does. nobody is dragging our feet in our operation. they want the company to be successful. and when i send people out on a davis-bacon job, they're sometimes rolling because they know it pays them to roll clods rather than get the job done. that's our expression, mr. speaker. so i urge the adoption of this amendment, and i see that my time has expired. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. defazio: if i could inquire, i believe i have one minute left. the chair: you have 1 1/2 minutes left. mr. defazio: can you do 1 1/2 minutes left? i think you can. do you want to use it all? go for it. i yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from michigan. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. >> i thank the ranking member. thank you, mr. speaker. mr. kildee: you know this is a pretty simple question and i know my friend from iowa tends to see this question through the lens of his own personal experience and his own company. frankly, this is a bigger question than that. i think it's right that the

federal government has a stake in how it spends its money. that the federal government ought to be able to say that when we fund construction projects we don't want contractors to simply pick the cheapest labor they can. and sure, we may want to build more roads, but we want to make sure those roads last. it's not just a matter of how many miles you build but whether or not they're going to be done in a way that makes sure that quality of the work matches the investment that this country is making. and so i understand the gentleman's point. i can just tell you by my own experience having done development, construction in one of the toughest markets in america, big construction and small jobs, i always knew when we paid prevailing wage that the work was going to be done on time and it was going to be done with quality. and when it comes to the federal dollar, doesn't it seem to me and all of us here that

cheap is not always better, that we owe it to the american people to deliver to them a product that's consistent with the quality we would like to see in our own home? when you go to buy material or when you go to hire a contractor yourself for your own home, you don't say to yourself, who's the lowest cost provider i can get? you want to make sure the job is done right. secondly, the american people need a raise. we don't need the federal government to participate in this race to the bottom in undercutting local economies by paying people less than they're worth. we lost enough in this country. it's time to end this. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. defazio: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings

on the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa will be ostponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 13 printed in part a of house report 114-326. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. larsen: i ask commams consent that amendment 13 printed in part a of house report -- the chair: the gentleman will suspend. does the gentleman have an amendment at the desk? mr. larsen: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 13 printed in part a of house report 114-326, offered by mr. larsen of washington. the chair: pursuant to house les lution -- resolution 512, the gentleman from washington, mr. larsen, and a member opposed

each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. larsen: i ask unanimous consent that amendment 13 be modify by the form placed at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the modification. the clerk: modification to amendment number 13, offered by mr. larsen of washington. in lieu of amendment number 13 -- mr. larsen: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. the chair: without objection the reading is dispensed with. is there objection to the modification? hearing none, the amendment is modified. the gentleman is recognized. mr. larsen: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i've heard from many mid sized cities in my district that they often struggle to compete with larger cities for federal transportation funding. while the needs of mid sized cities are just as significant the larger cities, the cost of accessing hire grants is too

great. my amendment improves that by improving access to tithia loans. while it's great for big projects, smaller projects can be discouraged from using it because the application process is complicated. my amendment affects grant requests for less than $1 million. these are smaller, lower risk projects that aren't happening because states and smaller localities may be scared off by he long application. this is a streamlining amendment that puts more power in the hands of state and local government, something i know my colleagues can support. i appreciate that chairman shuster and ranking member defazio have made other improves -- improvements and my amendment complements these in a straightforward way.

i appreciate the support of leadership on the committee of this amendment and i ask support of my amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. shuster: i seek time in opposition though i do not oppose the amendment. the clerk: without objection -- the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. shuster: i support the gentleman's commonsense amendment. as usual he brings common sense to the table and this will accelerate the approval of tithia approval. i urge all members to support it and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington. mr. larsen: thank you for the recognition, i ask for support for this amendment and yield back. the chair: the squone the amendment as modified by the gentleman from washington. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment as modified is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 14 printed in part a of house report 114-326.

for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. culberson: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 14 printed in part a of house report 114-326 offered by mr. culberson of texas. the chair: the gentleman from texas, mr. culberson, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. culberson: one of our principal responsibilities here is to be good stewards of our constituents' hard-earned tax dollars. it's a responsibility i knee each of us takes seriously and my amendment today will make sure we apply the same commonsense standards to the investment of our conituents' hard-earned tax dollars as we do to the investment of our own tax dollars. you in your own life would not loan money or invest money in a business so poorly managed it took on more debt than they could manage. you wouldn't put your money in a company that had taken on so much debt that their debt exceeded their liabilities.

and certainly if you were applying for a bank loan a bank would not loan your business money if your business had more debt than it had assets. and that's all this amendment says is that the federal government will not invest our constituents' hard-earned tax dollars in a transit agency that has more debt than they do liabilities. my amendment ensures that the minimum asset to debt ratio that a transit entity can have is one to one. common sense, this is sort of a working guideline that i know the transportation appropriations subcommittee on which i work and the federal transit administration has for years wanted to be sure that the agencies out there, transit entities across america, have no more debt than they do assets. so the amendment says the

federal government will not issue a grant, federal transit grant, to an agency that has ratio of current assets to debt that exceeds one to one. very straightforward. very simple. let's protect our constituents' hard-earned tax dollars in the same way we would protect our own. in fact, it's actually much higher obligation that we have to be good stewards of the treasury as responsible representatives. i urge adoption of this amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise? mr. defazio: i rise to claim time np opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. defazio: i yield myself such time as i may consume. this is an unusual amendment, to say the least. here is no measure of assets for, done regularly for our

transit systems in america. in fact, the only measurement that's done is that we have an $84 billion, with a b, billion dollar backlog to bring our existing transit systems up to a state of good repair. that means basically, i'm sure everyone would fail this test. if you want to do away with transit in america and get them out of the trust fund, something ronald reagan made a high priority and put transit into the trust fund, he was the first republican to support that and they've been in ever since he said we cannot ignore our urban centers. they are the engines of economic growth in this country. and we can't ignore them and we need to be able to move people efficiently in those urban areas system of since then we have, you know, had a modest portion of the trust fund, about 20%, going into transit. that's not adequate, as it is not adequate for bridges. 140,000 need replacement or repair. it's not adequate for highways,

40% of the system is failing and needs rebuilding. but an $84 billion in backlog in transit, they're killing hemohere in the nation's capital because of the state of disrepair. it's an embarrassment. there's no transit district in the united states of america who makes money. what is this about? i don't get it. we're not lending money for them to make a profit and pay off loans. they all receive federal support. they need more federal support. in fact, in my travels, i've only been one place where they claim the transit district made money. in hong kong. i urge you to go ride there at rush hour and see if you enjoy that experience. it's not very good here either, but in in case, no one else claims to make money, and i don't know if they really do, it's a communist dominated state, so it's probably not true. i don't understand the amendment, i would urge my colleagues to oppose it and i

reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. culberson mcthink -- mr. culberson: my colleague from oregon is confusing the issue here. let me read from the amendment itself. the applicant, transit agency, has to have a current operating rambyow of current assets to current liabilities of one-to-one. they have to have the same current level of debt as they do assets in order to be eligible to apply far central trans-- federal transit grant. this isn't about making money, it's about making sure taxpayers won't give another brick to an entity a transit agency that's already got too much debt and is overloaded and is in a position they may not be able to take full advantage of the grant that taxpayers, our constituents, should not have to put their hard-earned tax dollar into a transit agency that's carry manager debt than they have

assets. this is very straightforward. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. defazio: i yield myself such time as i may consume, i'll yield to the gentleman, name a transit agency that's gone bankrupt recently? mr. culberson: houston metro, i spoke to the chairman of the houston metropolitan transit agency and he tells me their asset to debt ratio -- mr. defazio: reclaiming my time it's not relevant. reclaiming my time. that is -- i don't know what, you know who is running that thing. it's not -- sir, it's my time. they've not gone bankrupt, they're still operating. the federal government has not had, that i'm aware of, any major tipia loans go into default. this is a bizarre amendment in search of a problem that doesn't exist. we have no transit agencies making money.

i don't anticipate will have a transit agency making money. no one in the world operates transit agencies that make money tavepls public service to mitigate congestion and provide for our major urban areas to move people more efficiency -- efficiently with a partnership between the federal government and local authority. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. culberson: this is not about making money. the houston transit agency told me yesterday that their astote debt ratio is about two or three to one. two to three times more assets than they do debt. that's what this amendment says is, we will, as good stewards of our taxpayers' hard-earned dollars, only send federal transportation grants to transit agencies like houston metro that have done a good job managing their responsibilities and their assets are at least on par with their debt. that's all it says. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman eserves.

the gentleman from texas has the right to close. mr. culberson: my colleague from oregon is confusing the issue. this isn't about making money or repaying money. this is about making sure our constituents' hard-earned tax dollars are going to be wisely and carefully and prudently sent only to those transit agencies that have proven they can do a good job. that they don't have more debt currently than they have current assets. my amendment, quoting from the amendment, is very simple. applicants shall have a current operating ratio of current assets to current liabilities of one-to-one. that's a minimum. houston metro would call fi for this there's transit agencies all over america that would qualify for this. let's make sure the transit agency, before they ask for our constituents' hard-earned tax dollars are demonstrated they're

competent, capable of managing the money they have on hand and don't have more debt than they can carry. i urge passage of the amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. defazio: i yield myself such time as i may consume. actually, the amendment is to take money from new york city, washington, d.c., probably baltimore, boston, i don't know, i could name -- anyone who has legacy transportation system that actually until ronald reagan was president pretty much was built without federal dollars and run without federal support, and they have huge, you know, backlogs in terms of bringing them up to a state of good repair. 120 or 130-year-old tunnels. and this would just basically say let's put the money in the places which have the most modern transportation systems, built most recently and probably built since federal support was put in place by ronald reagan and stick it to the ones that did it on their own, 130, 140

years ago and have been struggling to keep up and had a partnership with the froth seasonal since pronled reagan was president of the united states. this does not go to the efficient soif an operation, any time anybody apply farce loan or anything else, they are evaluated in terms of how they'll be able to repay those loans at the fair box, out of operating costs, not what their assets and liabilities are. with that i urge my colleagues to oppose the amount and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. mr. culberson: on that, i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, the proceedings on his question are postponed.

the chair understands that amendment number 15 will not be offered. it is now in order to consider amendment number 16 printed in part a of house report 114-326. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition? meng meng mr. chair, i have an amendment at the desk. -- ms. meng: mr. chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 16 printed in part a of house report 114-326 offered by ms. meng of new york. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 512, the gentlewoman from new york, ms. meng, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from new york. ms. meng: my amendment is simple. it's identical to language that appeared in the senate version of the transportation bill that required improved data collection on the type of child

restraint systems in use whenever a child is present during a car crash. i'm honored to have representative love as a co-sponsor of this amendment, nd i thank her for her support. mr. chair, i know that we have 81 amendments to work through today and a long evening ahead of us, so in the interest of time i'll keep my remarks brief. my amendment merely requires revisions to the crash investigation data collection system of the national highway traffic safety administration in an effort to save children's lives. the more we know about the type of child restraint system is used, how it was used and the outcome of that use the more we'll be able to avert future tragedies. after three years of collection of the data required by this amendment, the secretary will be required to submit a report to congress on the performance of various child restraint systems. it is my hope that we will join together at that time to craft new legislation that addresses what we learn. again, this is a bipartisan

amendment, mr. chair. i believe it's a good amendment and i believe we have an opportunity to save children's lives. i urge support for this amendment, and i yield the remainder of my time. the chair: does the gentlelady reserve? ms. meng: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. shuster: i claim time in opposition though i do not oppose this amendment. this amendment is not in our jurisdiction. it's in the energy and commerce's jurisdiction but i understand the energy and commerce supports this amendment and we support the amendment also. with that i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. ms. meng: i yield back. i yield one minute. mr. defazio: i thank -- the chair: the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. defazio: i appreciate the fact that the chairman is not opposed and the committee of jurisdiction is not opposed. it's very timely. we just did a study about child safety seats which raises questions about rear-facing seats, and i think this comprehensive data would be very, very important as we move

forward potentially changing the dividelines on how we restrain -- guidelines on how we restrain children to better protect them and congratulate her on bringing it forward and hope it is accepted. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman from new york. ms. meng: i yield back my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 17 printed in part a of house report 114-326. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? mr. russell: i have an amendment. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 17 printed in part a of house report 114-326 offered by mr. russell of oklahoma. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 512, the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. russell, and

a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. russell: thank you, mr. speaker. , street mr. chairman cars, known as trolies, are mass transit vehicles that are embedded in normal roadways, often drawing electrical power from overhead structures. from 2009 to 2014, the department of transportation awarded $432 million for streetcar projects in 14 cities throughout the country. street cars are highly impractical from a public transit standpoint. like a bus but unlike a train, a streetcar speed is constrained by the speed of traffic around them. unlike a bus, however, they are bound by their tracks. if anything blocks the tracks, such as an accident or a construction project, the entire line shuts down, making it inefficient in the form of

transportation. streetcars are costly to build and operate. they require extensive infrastructure, including tracks and overhead power. that is not required for buses. per passenger per mile, they are also significantly consistently more costly to operate than buses. nd according to a 2013 journal of public of transportation study, they fail or at the bottom of all efficient forms of transportation. yet, the congressional research service can find no clear evidence that streetcar increase transit ridership. streetcar corridors that saw economic growth often benefited from other substantial subsidies. it is unclear if streetcars contributed to this growth. the main argument for this amendment, which would prohibit future funding, that it would establish federal prohibitions on any financial assistance to establish, maintain, operate or otherwise support a streetcar

service unless there is a current contract in place, and that would not be entered before the date of enactment of the act. the main argument for streetcar is often their psychological appeal. while it's appreciative, it's also very subjective and often depends on tourists and communities. it's like water fairies and the department of transportation is not in a good position to judge how locals and tourist also feel about a streetcar project. and therefore we lack the project.o fund the tiger is an extremely competitive program with far more, 20 times more the applicants than there is money available. a recent rule change has been expected to make it easier for streetcars to receive funding from the capital investment

grant program, also known as the new starts and small starts program. the president's administration has requested $3.2 billion for this program in f.y. 2016, including $75 million for streetcar projects and at least six more are under development. any further grant awards for streetcar projects will divert scarce federal funding from other high-priority transportation projects. and while we appreciate all forms of transportation, our infrastructure, our national defense and the vitality of our commerce on our roads beg for more efficient means of transportation for our dollars that are limited. bus rapid transit for ortation, or b.r.t., example, attract people. they are a more reliable, frequent service. there is an objective evidence that the b.r.t. tends to increase ridership and decrease trip time, according to the government accountability office. streetcar projects are

expensive, uncertain gambles that depend on subjective, local and tourist sentiments more than objective facts, and it is for that reason as we face a $19 trillion deficit and as we face foreign policy challenges abroad that require contingency dollars and as we look at husbanding the strength for our transportation, my amendment would make sure that these resources are used in their proper place. local communities should therefore risk their own funds, like my home state in oklahoma, where oklahoma city recently $129 downtown streetcar project that they approved without using federal funds. and while municipalities want streetcars, they should not do it with other americans' money. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back my time. the chair: does the gentleman reserve his time? mr. russell: yes. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise? mr. defazio: i rise in

opposition to the amendment and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. defazio: i thank the chair. you know, this amendment would dictate to communities across america what form of transit they could put into their urban areas to solve problems of congestion and efficient movement of people from place to place, whether you mention tourist destinations. yes, some may relate to tourist destinations. other relates to medical facilities. as in portland, oregon, where the streetcar terminates at the oregon health sciences university which also then utilizes the tram. it's both at the bottom and the top of the hill. and it is used by many patients and others who have to get to -- get there. so these are not just toy things or things that are used for tourists. they are used to solve congestion problems in major urban areas. they are also incredible tools for economic development.

fixed streetcar line in portland, you know, revitalized the whole section of the city, generated $3.5 billion in private economic development because the line was there. they didn't get any federal money but they built their projects, you know, adjacent to that line which also provided a built-in ridership. many people who reside in those pretty high-end apartments actually don't own cars. and they utilize the streetcar. and, you know, salt lake, it's attracted already $400 million in investment. atlanta, georgia, very successful program. tucson, arizona, incredible initial ridership. far exceeding projections. cities across america are finding great success with streetcars and to deny them this tool on some arbitrary basis i think is unwarranted.

with that i reserve the balance of my time. oh, i think he already yielded back. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. russell: how much time do i have? the chair: the gentleman has 30 seconds. mr. russell: thank you, mr. speaker. no research supports clear economic growth according to the congressional research service. and while there may be other factors usually with heavy government subsidies that also contribute to this growth, it is not any -- does not have any delineation toward streetcars. what bill does not dictate but protects scarce resources. in a nation that has an incredible deficit problem, we have to get to the point where we can have priorities. this focuses priorities and thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. defazio: i'd yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer. the chair: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for three

minutes. mr. blumenauer: i could not disagree more with my friend from oklahoma city. first of all, the streetcar is a highly developed mechanism that 30 communities across the country are involved with right now, and they all invest their own money including oklahoma city. i find it ironic that somehow there's this notion that people are picking this out of the air as a toy or arts and crafts. that's not the case. look -- i've been working on this for over 30 years since i initiated a project for portland streetcar in portland. i'd be happy to introduce the gentleman to business people, to local government -- actually, my friend from oregon understated. it's $4.5 billion. what's happening in seattle, in tacoma. was in new york in brooklyn this friday where they're

looking at a streetcar. it is an extraordinarily efficient way to concentrate development. it encourages private investment. it extends the pedestrian experience. it's part of the tool kit. i notice the gentleman left the chamber. i was going to ask him, did he know that in his city, oklahoma, there is a tiger grant that is going to build three blocks of rail line starting in 2016? it was a choice of oklahoma city, and they thought the tiger grant was so important that they're using federal money in a project that's supplementing local money. my friend from oregon is correct, the ranking member. we shouldn't take this tool away from communities, large and small, across the country. from kenosha, wisconsin, to los angeles, people are understanding that the

streetcar has a vital role in revitalizing communities, giving people more choices, focusing economic development and it's why the tram, the streetcar is ubiquitous across the world. it's why we now have 30 cities that are doing it. i would argue, if you look at the billions of dollars we've invested in transportation projects, less than a half a billion dollars that people competed for very aggressively for these tiger grants is money well spent. it's well spent in my community. some people might want bus rapid transit, like my colleague from oregon has in eugene, but this is a tool that has proven its worth. communities around the country from cincinnati to dallas, texas, are doing it because it works and it would be a tragic mistake to approve an amendment that would take this tool away from communities that decide to

do it and would like to supplement their local resources with federal money like is happening in oklahoma ity next year. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oklahoma. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 18 printed in art a of house report 114-326. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from maryland seek recognition? ms. edwards: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 18 printed in part a of house report 114-326 offered by ms. edwards of maryland. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 512, the gentlewoman from maryland and a member opposed each will control five minu.