this account for fiscal year 2018 has already reduced by undreds of millions of dollars how much -- dollars. mr. visclosky: how much more are you going to cut? i happen to live in gary, indiana. i don't live in new jersey. i don't live in new york. what i appreciate is that the chairman, the ranking member, the members of the subcommittee put together a national investment bill. this is an investment in our nation. one of the largest metropolitan regions and economic engine. and if we fail to make these types of investments, we are making a fundamental mistake. particularly given the fact that during the last campaign, we heard a lot about investing in infrastructure and the gentleman is here tonight wanting to further reduce that particular investment. this is an important account to every american citizen. i support the committee's position and i am opposed to the gentleman's amendment and i would yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. diaz-balart: mr. chairman, i would now recognize mr. payne. mr. payne: mr. chair. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. payne: i rise as the designee of the ranking member lowey, and rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. payne: mr. speaker -- the chair: did the gentleman from florida yield back? the gentleman from florida may not reserve. he may yield. mr. diaz-balart: i yield, yes, sir. mr. payne: thank you, mr. chair. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. payne: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the proposed amendment. to coin it an earmark is unfortunate. the amendment would strike the language passed out of appropriations committee that supports transportation projects of national significance. the committee voted to appropriate $900 million to rail programs already authorized by congress in the fast act. for the last eight weeks, millions of commuters in the new york metropolitan area suffered through a summer of hell after amtrak announced emergency track work at penn station. the busiest in north america. because of the three derailments in the span of a few weeks. this was just an inkling of the turmoil that would be brought if the federal government does not live up to its promise to fund much-needed repairs on the northeast corridor. i must emphasize, moneys approved by the appropriations committee are for programs already authorized by the fast act, which was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support . i urge all of my colleagues to vote against the budd amendment nd with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. budd: mr. chairman, this is a lot of money. as i mentioned earlier. the state of good repair account is funding at $-- at 18 times last year's promoted level. let me say that again. 18 times last year's level. and the budget request. i'll close with one more quote from governor christie regarding the decision to cancelle the original version of this project -- cancel the original version of this project. he said, i don't want to hear about the jobs it will create. if i don't have money for the payroll, it will not create the jobs. this is not a difficult decision for me. the federal government doesn't have the money for the payroll either, mr. chairman. we're $20 trillion in debt. heritage action, club for growth, freedomworks, national taxpayers union, citizens against government waste are scoring yes on my amendment. mr. chairman, i urge a yes vote. i thank the chairman and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina yields back. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. diaz-balart: mr. chairman, i think we know this issue. i strongly oppose the amendment and i would urge a no vote. and with that i would yield back. the chair: the gentleman from florida yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from north carolina. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. budd: mr. chairman, i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from north carolina will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 33 printed in part b of house report 115-295. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? mr. brooks: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 33 printed in part b of house report 115-295 offered by mr. brooks of alabama. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 500, the gentleman from alabama, mr. brooks, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from alabama. mr. brooks: mr. chairman, america suffered four consecutive trillion-dollar per year deficits during the obama and bush administrations. the election of a republican house in 2010 brought progress. the trillion-dollar per year 439 cits were cut to below $ billion in 2013. a $439 billion deficit is still horrible. but it is a whole lot better than $1 trillion deficit. unfortunately america's solvency has deteriorated since 2015. in fiscal year 2016 america's deficit exploded to $587 billion. $148 billion worse than the previous year. in fiscal year 2017, this fiscal year, the nonpartisan congressional budget office projects the deficit will again explode to $693 billion, $145 billion worse this year than last year. and that is before the bill comes due for the hurricane harvey destruction in louisiana and tick. congress will soon raise -- texas. congress will soon raise america's debt ceiling as a result and within days thereafter, america's debt will blow through the $20 trillion mark. as a result of america's $20 trillion debt, we pay over $250 billion per year in debt service. how much is $250 billion? the roughly five times what we spend on transportation for things like highways, bridges and interstates each year. that debt service money is gone, no longer able to provide services to americans. rather it is spent to make 'mends for past government excesses and irresponsible spending. worse yet, the nonpartisan congressional budget office projects that is america's debt service cost will increase by another $600 billion within a decade to more than $800 billion per year. the question is then asked, where is that money going to come interest? what's going to be cut? will it be social security? will it be medicare, medicaid, national defense? what? the c.b.o., america's comptroller general, and the government accountability office have all warned congress and the president in writing that america's deficits and debt are unsustainable. to be clear, in the accounting field, the word unsustainable is bad. really bad. it is the equivalent of a bankruptcy warning. it is a warning that america's headed to a debilitating insolvency and bankruptcy if we don't do better. in sum, washington's financial irresponsibility is a betrayal of the american people, it's pushing america into a debilitating bankruptcy and insolvency will thank will destroy the american -- that will destroy the american dream for our children and grandchildren. it is in this setting that i beseech the house of representatives to be financially responsible. please support my amendment that eliminates federal government operating subsidies of amtrak, thus forcing amtrak passengers to pay their actual cost of riding on amtrak trains. stated differently, what policy justification is there for forcing americans who don't use amtrak to subsidize the travel of americans who do use amtrak? i know of none. how bad is the amtrak subsidy problem? the congressional research service reports that from 1971 to 2015, federal amtrak subsidies totaled $78 billion in constant 2015 dollars. in fiscal year 2014, amtrak had a net loss of $1.1 billion. who will pay for that loss? america's children and grandchildren. that is who. because that's money we don't have, have to borrow to get, and cannot afford to pay back. instead of allowing amtrak to continue to run up debts and add to our national debt, we should force amtrak to be self-sufficient, we should force amtrak passengers to pay their own travel costs. we must cut amtrak from the government dole. we don't give these kind of subsidies to people who ride in airplanes. we don't give these kind of subsidies in a lot of other means of transportation. mr. speaker, i ask for a yes vote. be financially responsible. make amtrak pay its own way. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. does a member seek time in opposition? the gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes in opposition. mr. diaz-balart: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in opposition to this amendment. this amendment would shut down, as we've heard, all 15 of amtrak's long distance routes and all 28 state-supported routes. let me tell you. the gentleman from alabama is absolutely, and he's very consistent, he's sincere about trying to reduce the federal deficit. and i commend him for that. here's the problem. this amendment results not in savings, but in increased costs of $423 million. i want to repeat that. this amendment would have the effect of increasing costs by $423 million. it would stop all revenues associated with the national network immediately, but costs would continue to accrue for years. and in addition, some costs that were paid for from the national network account would now simply shift to the northeast corridor account. so, for instance, as ets that are shared by both long distance and northeast corridor, like stations or tracks, are funded under each account proportionly. these costs that were formerly paid by the national network would still need to be paid. this bill, again, -- so again this amendment actually coulds more money. i know that obviously -- costs more money. i know that's obviously not the intent because i know the gentleman from alabama is absolutely sincere. this is something we have to realize. this bill does not just -- is not just arbitrary decisions. we held hearings and we carefully scrubbed each account to make sure that the reductions that we made were responsible, and that they were actually going to result in reductions. so again, this is not the right way to do it. this would actually increase costs. it is not prudent to eliminate an entire transportation option. by the way, furthermore. and in this case, as i mentioned before, it would actually cost even more so to do so. so i respectfully would urge a no vote and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. brooks: mr. chairman, only in the hall ofs of congress does a $1.1 billion cut in subsidies for a mode of transportation allegedly result in higher costs to taxpayers. i would submit that there is zero, zero evidence that amtrak passengers cannot absorb higher fares to pair that i own way. mr. speaker, we're -- pay their own way. mr. speaker, we're talking about $1.1 billion out of a $700 billion deficit for this fiscal year. we have to be responsible. we have to protect the future of our children and our grandchildren. and i urge the adoption of my amendment to do just that. the chair: does the gentleman reserve? mr. brooks: if i have any time left, mr. chairman, i do reserve. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. diaz-balart: i would recognize mr. price for as much time as he would consume. mr. price: i appreciate the chairman in yielding and join him in opposing this amendment. amtrak serves more than 500 destinations in 46 states. it is a more and more critical component of our transportation system in north carolina. and many, many states like it across the country. it connects small communities that otherwise wouldn't have access to air service or other first-rate transportation. in the past 11 years, am trass has had 10 consecutive -- amtrak has had 10 consecutive years of ridership. so this is an irresponsible amendment. it would eliminate thousands of jobs for amtrak workers, it would hurt the local economies that benefit from amtrak routes . eliminating this national network service would also harm state-supported routes. we in north carolina and other tates take notice when that is charged. it's an accurate charge. they feed into these long distance routes. it costs the government billions of dollars due to the violation of labor agreements. so it would be a very costly amendment. there's no doubt about it. support for a robust national rail system has been reaffirmed by members of both parties and we can reaffirm it here tonight by voting against this amendment. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. diaz-balart: 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 alabama. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. brook brooks mr. chairman, i ask for a -- mr. brooks: mr. chairman, i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. brooks: mr. chairman, i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings and the amendment offered by the gentleman from alabama will be postponed. the chair: now in order to consider amendment number 36 printed in part b of house report 115-295. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 36 printed in part b of house report 115-295 offered by mr. soto of florida. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 500, the gentleman from florida, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. soto: my funding would increase that sun rail a constituent pearning train in my district would need to begin phase three. phase three would connect the commuter rail system to the orlando international airport nd the tunnels under crux that would create bright line and sun rail which are divided by a few miles and federal funding will be key to connect this intermodal system. central florida needs to be more mobile and i urge in the future we look as we go forward with phase three and stand ready to help. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. and i withdraw my amendment. the chair: the amendment is withdrawn. it is now in order to consider amendment number 37 printed in part b of house report 115-295. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. carbajal: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 37 printed in part b of house report 115-295 offered by mr. casha hall of california. the chair: the gentleman from california and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. carbajal: i'm offering eastern amendment to ensure we are taking the appropriate steps to improve pipeline safety to mitigate some of the devastating impacts of oil spills throughout our nation. this is particularly important issue for my constituents on the central coast where we have seen the damage of oil spills wreck our communities and local economy. during the 1969 santa barbara oil spill, over 100,000 barrels of crude oil spilled into the santa barbara channel. this was the largest oil spill in california's history that significantly harmed santa barbara's unique unique ecosystem and wildlife. recreational interests and commercial fishing. paired with the 2015 oil spill also in santa barbara county where cleanup costs hit $92 million, these incidents show us that we cannot continue to drag our feet. we need to implement pipeline safety and mitigation rules that congress passed six years ago. in 2011, the house worked in a bipartisan way to pass the pipeline safety regulatory certainty and job creation act. this law, which passed the house unanimously, directed the pipeline and hazardous material administration to update and strengthen key pipeline safety standards. the law called on them to issue a rule requiring automatic shutoff valves on new pipelines and strengthen requirements for the inclusion of leak detection technologies on pipelines. my amendment is straightforward. it sets $1 million own budget for the finalization and implementation of section 4 and 8 of the bipartisan 2011 pipeline safety law so that our federal guidelines are up to date. section 4 requires new pipelines to install automatic shutoff alves -- mr. diaz-balart: we are ready to accept his amendment. so if he would just yield back, we'll accept his amendment and i thank the gentleman for bringing it up. mr. carbajal: i will yield back if the amendment is in order to be accepted. thank you so much. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back. 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 and the amendment s agreed to. it is now in order tore consider amendment number 38 printed in part b of house report 115-295. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from nevada seek recognition? ms. rosen: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 38 printed in part bmp of house report 115-295 offered by ms. rosen of nevada. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 500, the gentlewoman from nevada, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from nevada. ms. rosen: mr. chairman, i rise in support of my amendment to increase funding by $35 million for the neighborhood re investment corporation. for the past 40 years, neighbor works america provided financial support, technical assistance and training for community-based development right here in the u.s.a. it partners with more than 240 organizations focused on providing access to home ownership and to safe and affordable rental housing. these organizations are public-private partnerships providing accountability and stewardship of scares federal dollars. in 2016, neighbor works america developed 13,000 affordable homes and created more than 21,000 new homeowners and assisted over 360,000 families with affordable housing. neighbor works has demonstrated the ability to attract affordable housing projects leveraging private dollars for every 1 dollar appropriated. our country is recovering from the crippling housing crisis. my home state was hit the hardest when the housing bubble burst and we experienced the ighest rates of foshe closure. my district has the lowest availability. in fact, there are only 15 affordable and rental homes. neighbor works has played a critical role in helping develop affordable housing, revitalize and create jobs. last year, the nevada housing organizations and nevada hand, received over $600,000 in grants providing home ownership counseling and education to over 6,500 household creating new homeowners and preserving home ownership for over 250 individuals. congress needs to strengthen programs and allow low-income families to have a roof over their head. neighbor works offers home buyer and foreclosure counseling and has a mitigation counseling program. created in twemp to address the foreclosure crisis, this program has counseled more than two million homeowners facing foreclosure in response to the housing crisis. you may hear from my friends that there is no longer a need for counseling because rates are decreasing and i'm glad to see the rates decrease. as foreclosures plague many parts of our country. statistics show that a foreclosed home reduces praisal values by nearly 9%, preventing one foreclosure helps every household in the neighborhood. it plays a crucial role in reducing a homeowner will not go back in foreclosure. they work with homeowners on their budgets to find the best option for their situation. according to a study counseled homeowners are twice as likely to receive a cure for their foreclosure as homeowners not counseled through the neighbor works program. neighbor works also offers disaster preparedness and recovery for economies, including training, resources and assistance. organizations in and around the impact zone of hurricane harvey are ready to offer disaster recovery and we know irma is on its way to florida. on the heels of one of the worst natural disasters, now is not the time to roll back our investments in neighbor works and the organizations it supports. despite the continued need for affordable housing and revitalizing communities, the underlying bill would slash its funding. we cannot afford to reverse our progress made in affordable housing. we should continue critical investments in programs like neighbor works. mr. chairman, i urge my colleagues to join me in voting es for this amendment. the chair: does the gentlewoman reserve? ms. rosen: i reserve. the chair: florida is recognized for five minutes in opposition. mr. diaz-balart: i support the mission of neighborhood investment corporation. this bill that we're on provides with $140 million, the same amount that was provided in 2017. we are not rolling that back at all. the reduction from f.y. 2016 reflects the elimination of the national foreclosure and hit occasion counseling program. this was to be a one-year program when it began in 2007 and in response to the foreclosure crisis at the time. this one-year program continued on for nine years. now recognizing that the economy improved obviously significantly and foreclosure numbers continue to decline, congress discontinued the mfmc program in 2017. in fact, the prior administration proposed elimination in its budget request for the very same reason. in 2016, put this in perspective, foreclosure filings were at a 10-year low and 14% below than the 2015 levels. and has stayed for a normal range. n.r.c. has integrated foreclosure mitigation counseling in which other counseling programs eliminating the need for a separate program. we scrub these accounts and for those reasons i respectfully urge a no vote. thank you. and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentlewoman from florida is recognized. ms. rosen: i yield to mr. price. mr. price: i support this amendment. i have seen the difference to neighbor works making available hundreds of affordable apartments for veterans and families. the administration proposed slashing neighbor works by $113 million. so i commend the committee, our subcommittee for refusing that proposal. but we need to bring it back to the fiscal 2016 level and that's what our colleague is proposing. that would be $35 million and bring it to that 2016 level of funding and let neighbor works to do even more good work. i urge adoption of the amendment and i yield back. the chair: the time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. diaz-balart: i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from nevada. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. ms. rosen: mr. chairman, i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from nevada will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 39 printed in part bmp of house report 115-295. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? mr. grothman: we are going to talk about amendment number 39. the clerk: amendment number 39 rinted in house report 115-295 offered by mr. grothman of wisconsin. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. grothman: this amendment reduces the total funding for public housing excluding veterans, elderly and the disabled by $177 million. our president is trying to balance the budget had less funding for this program than what there was last year. because i'm a person who believes in getting things done through compromise, i'm reducing the increase in this program to .nly 2% from the 4% i always had problems with this program, like a lot of these programs that kind of discourages work and the more you work, the more your rent goes up. it discourages marriage because if you are married to somebody with a good job, you could lose your apartment. and finally, like a lot of these programs, if you look at some of these projects, i talked to some of the people in my area who administer them, the apartments, rental units given to people who have section 8 are better than a lot of working people, which doesn't seem right. . . at that time we already knew we were looking at blowing through a $20 trillion deficit. since that time we've had a couple major hurricanes out there, which i think would cause everybody to look for ways to reduce the spending that was put in these bills in july. so, i'm going ask that amendment number 39 pass. i'm going to ask that we restrict the increase to 2%. i can't believe i compromised so much on that. but we'll go for a 2% increase instead of a 4% increase and hope you'll all be glad. considered a down payment to help the struggling people in texas and florida. the chair: reserve? mr. grothman: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: does a member seek recognition in opposition? the gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes in opposition. mr. diaz-balart: thank you, mr. chairman. look, we've scrubbed this bill for savings in overhead and administration and i want to thank the gentleman for always bringing up these important issues. we have fubbleded vouchers at a level that meets h.u.d.'s commitment to those currently receiving assistance, many of them who are elderly and disabled. i know that's not what the gentleman's going after. but we scrubbed this bill and we think the funding is where it needs to be at this stage. so i would respectfully urge a no vote on this amendment and with that i would reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. grothman: i don't see how in our current position we can a4% increases on anything -- can afford 4% increases on anything. like i said, i think there's kind of an infor instance here that this is overall a good program and people ought to be look at this program, like so many of these means-based programs that kind of create a situation which both discourage work and discourage marriage. and i'm disappointed that there be any alliance in this budget that people would feel a 4% upper was appropriate. the chair: does the gentleman reserve? mr. grothman: yep. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. diaz-balart: i'd like to recognize the gentleman from north carolina for as much time as he may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. price: i thank the chairman for yielding and i join him in opposition to this amendment. there are some conflicting accounts about what the underlying bill would do. certainly there's been an attempt to contain the damage in the bill. some groups, like the national low income housing coalition, however, estimate, that housing vouch -- estimate that housing vouchers will be lost under the current bill. then we have this amendment? this amendment would compound many times whatever problems are involved in this legislation. and have a horrible impact on low income families. the gentleman has asserted here tonight that veterans wouldn't be harmed, the disabled wouldn't be harmed, the elderly wouldn't be harmed. read the amendment. read the amendment. where is any of this stated? how can he make such a statement? all these groups and more would be harmed. i urge this amendment's rejection. the chair: does the gentleman from florida reserve? mr. diaz-balart: i reserve. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from florida yields back. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. grothman: one more time i'll point out, it's all fine and good to save the federal government from spending money. we are broke and we have a lot -- we got a lot more broke in august when those hurricanes hit. i think it would be appropriate for everybody around here to remember that the day will come when we can no longer borrow money and that will be a very ugly day indeed. like i said, we could have introduced the amendment to go back where donald trump wanted. i know he's a warrior and cares a lot about this country's children and grandchildren. i put a 2% upper in there. and i think it's sad when people feel a 2% increase is being difficult on people. if there are problems back home, there's nothing that prevents local states or counties or individuals out of their own pocketbook to put more money in this sort of program. i reserve the balance of my time if there's any left. the chair: you're the only time remaining, sir. mr. grothman: yep. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. grothman: yep, yield back. the chair: the question son the amendment offered by the gentleman from wisconsin -- is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from wisconsin. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. grothman: we'll ask for a roll call. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from wisconsin will e postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 44 printed in art b of house report 115-295. for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut seek recognition? mr. courtney: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 44 printed in part b of house report 115-295 offered by mr. courtney of connecticut. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 500, the gentleman from connecticut, mr. courtney, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from connecticut. mr. courtney: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, this amendment, which i introduced with my colleague, congressman john larson, also of connecticut, will address the serious escalating problem in north central and eastern connecticut. thousands of homes there are currently at risk of collapse due to crumbling concrete foundations. mineral identified as pyrotite was found in a quarry and used in concrete to pour home foundations in at least 36 towns in the region from the 1980's through the early 2000's. exposure to moisture causes the to rust in the foundation over time, causing the foundation walls to bow and crack, eventually deteriorating to the point where homeowners can literally see through the cracks and even remove chunks of the foundation by hand. thanks complex issue and our amendment is a critical step to bring assistance to the region. it directs h.u.d. to develop application of connecticut's community development block grants to pyrotite related residential damage under its anti-blight programs and procedures. it is our belief that h.u.d., state, local and private sector stakeholders can find solutions to ease the burdens of homeowners and prevent damage to the broader real estate market and economy of the region. i urge passage of this amendment and with that i would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: does a member seek time in opposition to the amendment? the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. diaz-balart: mr. chairman, i appreciate the gentleman's concern. i look forward to working with him and also with h.u.d. to address this issue and want to thank him for bringing this up. i yield back. i accept the amendment and yield back. the chair: the gentleman from connecticut is recognized. mr. courtney: thank you, mr. chair. i want to thank the chairman for his remarks and i again just want to briefly yield one minute to my colleague from connecticut, mr. larson, and with that i'm sure we'll conclude. the chair: the gentleman from connecticut is recognized. mr. larson: less than a minute. i want to thank the chairman and also thank the ranking member for their support in what a critical issue. the citizens in the state of connecticut. i want to thank representative courtney for spear heading this effort in the state of connecticut, along with a young state senator named timothy d. larson. thank you so much. and i yield back. the chair: does mr. courtney yield back? thank you. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from connecticut. 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 46 printed in part b of house report 115-295 for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? mr. grothman: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 46 printed in part b of house report 115-295 offered by mr. grothman of wisconsin. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 500, the gentleman from wisconsin and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. grothman: thank you. i'd like to thank the chairman and ranking member for their collaborative effort to bring this bill forward. i do rise in support of amendment -- my amendment to h.r. 3354, which should be amendment 46. this amendment deals with project-based rental assistance rather than tenant-based rental assistance. it sufferses from the same problems, however. one more time, our president when he introduced his budget looking at the $20 trillion deficit decided to reduce this program a little bit. it would probably be good to reduce the program a little bit. because like many of these programs, it's fundamentally flawed and it discourages work. and also discourages marriage. i have looked at some of these housing projects in my district and the irritating that people are getting free housing, sometimes have better housing than people paying foyer that are own housing. therefore i make the modest request to get rid of the increase in the current budget. i'm not going as far as our president, who actually decreased this line. but i think the fair to reduce the current bill by $266 million. which is the increase in the current year. again, i think, as opposed to when this bill was originally put together, we've got a couple hurricanes i think would cause everybody in this building to realize that in so far as we can spend any more money on this budget, should be focused a little bit more on the people in texas and florida and we should not be increasing other programs. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. does a member seek time in opposition? mr. diaz-balart: yes, i do, sir. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes in opposition. mr. diaz-balart: thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment would cut funding, as was explained, to what i believe is a vital h.u.d. program that houses 1.2 million low and very low income households across the country. a majority of those households include folks with either disabilities or frankly who are elderly. the average household income is less than 12ds,000. this funding level would not allow h.u.d. to renew all expiring housing contracts with private owners. but would also cause other issues of instability in the program, that platform, and can cause housing providers to leave the program. the gentleman has i think some very valid points about some of his concerns. with some of -- all of these government programs. i just don't think this ises the right way to do it. i would urge -- this is the right way to do it. i would urge a no vote on the amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. grothman: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida voids. mr. diaz-balart: also would yield. the chair: the gentleman from florida yields. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from wisconsin. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. grothman: i'll ask for a roll call. maybe i'll have a better shot tomorrow. the chair: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from wisconsin will e postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 48 printed in part b of house report 115-295. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? mr. stivers: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 48 printed in part b of house report 115-295 offered by mr. stivingers of ohio -- stivers of ohio. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from ohio, mr. stivers, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio. mr. stivers: mr. chairman, my amendment would transfer funding for the private enforcement initiative at h.u.d. to the administrative enforcement initiative. the amendment does not change the top line appropriation. i believe the fair housing act must be strongly enforced and i believe this is best accomplished by strengthening h.u.d.'s administrative enforcement initiative and enhancing the role of state and local agencies in finding and punishing bad actors. the private enforcement initiative has been abused by some nonprofits that are more interested in winning attorneys' fees than finding and punishing bad actors. the cost of these frivolous lawsuits ultimately is transferred onto low and middle income americans in the form of more expensive rent and housing. worsening our country's affordable housing crisis. i don't believe this is fair or what was intended under the fair housing act. i believe there's a better way to more strongly and effectively enforce fair housing protections. a similar amendment passed two years ago and i encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. does a member seek time in opposition? the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. for five minutes in opposition. mr. price: mr. chairman, i strongly oppose this amendment. the private enforcement initiative provides grants to nonprofit organizations to prevent and eliminate discriminatory housing practices. these organizations receive complaints. they investigate them. they work to educate landlords and property managers. on their responsibilities under federal fair housing law. their work ensures the legitimate complaints move forward and that education is provided to housing providers when that is appropriate. across the country p.e.i. grantees are working to ensure that families with children have access to housing. just this may h.u.d. and project sentinel, an organization in california, announced a conciliation agreement with the landlord who refused to rent to people with small children and infants. another p.e.i. grantee in california worked to ensure that a person with disabilities had access to medically required service animal. another grantee worked to ensure a mortgage lender didn't discriminate on the basis of race. this is the kind of work p.e.i.'s do. it may seem expedient to some to transfer the funding and responsibility of fair housing innovation states and local organizations but we'd lose a lot by doing that. we'd lose years expertise that the p.e.i. program has developed. the gentleman has specific issues with the program, about how it's run, you know, the authorizing committee can hear those complaints. on the appropriations process. this is not the police to refine the law under which the program operates, let alone to pull the plug on funding. given all of the good work that p.e.i. grantees do across the country and in my district, i can't support eliminating this program and i urge colleagues to oppose this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. unfortunately, in some jurisdictions there are many abuses. 60 minutes had a great story about this, other media outlets featured the abuses as well. the gentleman argues, we can't do this in the appropriations process. mr. stivers: we do limitation amendments every day. they're germane and effective controls that we have in place and we are allowed to put in place on these spending programs. i simply believe that the administrative enforcement initiative is more effective and will use the money to better help low and moderate income americans. so i disagree with the gentleman and urge my colleagues to support the amendment and i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. price: this amendment is a pretty good example, i must say, of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. there may be complaints here and there. there are ways to pursue those complaints. but the good work that these organizations do, the documented cases of discrimination, discriminatory practices, exclusion that they have remedied, that they've made right, should be very compelling to us. and certainly the blunt instrument of simply withholding of funding isn't going to deal with that. it's going to likely do great damage to organizations across the country that have had a very positive impact. so this amendment would end their work. would end the work of nonprofits that use funding to ensure housing providers remain in compliance with federal housing law. very bad idea. let's oppose this amendment and i yield back the rest of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. stivers: i would direct the gentleman, mr. chairman, to a g.a.o. report on this very program that talks about these abuses. i hope he takes a serious look at it. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. 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 49 printed in part b of house report 115-295. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson spb i rise to offer amendment number 49. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 49 printed in house report 115-259, offered by mr. thompson of pennsylvania. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. thompson and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise to offer amendment number 49 to the underlying bill, h.r. 3354, make america strong and prosperous appropriation act. mr. chairman, the commonwealth of pennsylvania over a five-year period has failed three attempts to place tolls on interstate 0. this plan has cost millions of dollars, led actually to the indictments of several political insiders and abetted in diminishing the average citizen's faith in public institutions. unfortunately, pennsylvania still has authorizing language for tolls on interstate 80 on state law. any move by pennsylvania to dust off the plan to toll one of its interstates must be met with scrutiny and open public debate and this will ensure that happens. the amendment i offered with mr. kelly will limit funds nor bill for the purpose of placing kohls on interstate 80 and pennsylvania -- in pennsylvania in 2018. i thank the chairman and reserve the balance of my time. chip the gentleman reserves. does a member -- the chair: the gentleman reserves. does a member seek time in opposition? >> i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for five minutes in opposition. mr. price: i can't imagine why we'd want to micromanage pennsylvania's trchings system. i wouldn't want this body micromanaging north carolina's. we had a decision about tolling in my district a few years ago. tolling wasn't anybody's first choice or second choice or third choice. but if tolling had not been instituted on a part of the loop road around raleigh, north carolina, if tolling had not been instituted, we would have waited 20 years if -- 20 yearers in road to be constructed. so we took a deep breath and undertook a toll project. that's why the road is built and serving commuters today. that decision could have gone either way. but we would have had no business in this body coming in and dictating that decision in north carolina or any other state. and i don't know why we should start tonight. flexible law is very flexible. federal law is very flexible about the use of federal aid funds for new toll facilities. and even existing toll-free roads. states will make different decisions about this. i would say our infrastructure needs are pressing enough to require an all of the above approach and if tolls are appropriate and are accepted then that's perhaps what we should do. but that's a decision for state and local officials and their constituents in considering these matters. so we have no business in adopting an amendment of that sort. i very much hope we will not. i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. thompson: i'm not sure -- i appreciate the gentleman's opinion but i don't see where congress does not have input into a federal highway. that is what interstate 80 is. it's approximately 311 miles. it is more than well maintained, the dos of -- the cost of it, with significant gas tax levied today pays for not just maintenance but construction and the improvements that are necessary. again, we're talking federal gas tax, again, a nexus to this body that the gentleman doesn't seem to realize. and what this amendment does is just call on -- and require an open debate with scrutiny and so -- quite frankly, i continue to just ask the support for this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. price: i'd like to clarify that i'm not the least bit interested in getting into the merits of this project. none of my business. none of our business. so that's not the point. haven't said a word about the merits of the project. i know nothing about it. what i do know is this is a decision the state of pennsylvania is perfectly capable of making for itself. not interested in the folks who might be on the losing side of the decision to come to this body to carry their water. we have no business doing that. this is simply an inpreept exercise of appropriations power and i urge the amendment's rejection and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. thompson: i made my arguments clear and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania. 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 50 printed in art b of house report 115-295. it is now in order to consider amendment number 51 printed in part b of house report 115-295. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? mr. king: i have an amendment at the desk made in order by the rule. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 51, printed in part b of house report 115-295, offered by mr. king of iowa. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 500, the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume and this is an amendment, davis-bacon amendment, it will be brought on each of the four sections of this appropriations bill we're considering here in the house this evening and perhaps tomorrow morning, mr. chairman. just to make it clear, the text of the amendment is very simple. it says noiven funds made available by this act may be used to implement, administer or enforce the prevailing wage requirements of subchapter 4 title 40 u.s. code commonly referred to as the davis-bacon act. what the davis-bacon act is, it's a statute that exists from about 1933. its genesis is back during the great depression when there was, let's say, labor protectionism brought about by the unions in new york city and when a contractor from alabama bid a federal building contract and there were not many of them in those days, that alabama contractor was successful and imported african-american labor out of alabama to do the work into the trade zone of the construction unions in new york city. so two republicans, a republican senator and a republican member of the house, got together and wrote the davis-bacon act, which is -- it's defined as prevailing wage. but in my 42 years in the construction business, which we just concluded as of labor day, we've st labor day, that dealt with the davis-bacon act quite a lot. our math goes between % and 35% increase in the cost of prompt. we use an average of 20%. i believe you'll see some of those sophisticated study goes to 22% increase in prices. we're dealing with taxpayers' money here in a fiscal time when we need to get to balance. there never was a time when we should be wasting taxpayers' money. prevailing wage is a merit shop wage, not a union scale imposed by a bog sap, a bunch of guys sitting around a table deciding whether to give raises to different classifications to labor forces. i've long opposed davis-bacon, it messes up efficiency within our companies, not just raise the cost and impose union scale on the taxpayers but erodes the efficiency that you can provide in a private sector approach. so after all these years, i'm pledged to see the day when this is finally repealed and i urge the adoption of this amendment which strikes use of davis-bacon enforcement in the underlying appropriations and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: does a member seek time in opposition? >> i seek time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for five minutes in opposition. mr. price: i rise in opposition to this amendment. davis-bacon is a pretty simple concept and a fair one. it requires that workers on a federally funded construction project be paid no less than prevailing wages. the wages paid in the community for similar work. the davis-bacon act ensures workers are paid decent wages while preventing unscrupulous contractors from undercutting competitors in so doing. in doing this, davis-bacon help prospect workers and the federal government. mr. chairman, the house has taken numerous votes on this issue and on every vote this body has maintained davis-bacon requirements. last year, we avoided including divisive language like this and it's my hope that we will stop attacking working people and their organizations and defeat the amendment before us. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from iowa is recognized. mr. king: i would inquire how much time i have remaining. the chair: 2 1/2 minutes. mr. king: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself as much time as i may consume. i'd like to point out that i hear the script read every year they bring the effort to repeal or undo davis-bacon but i don't hear a lot of response to the fact that davis-bacon is a jim crow law designed to keep minorities, particularly african-americans, out of the construction trades, particularly in the unions. and the assertion that it's a prevailing wage doesn't hold up when you live in this universe where i have for 42-plus years. that's just as an owner. i saw that also for other companies. when i see these rates and talk to a contractor that's building bridges in rural missouri down there in the hoops and hollers as we say, and they are paying for an unskilled laborer who for a number of those hours he does lean on the shovel while he waits for other things to get done, $23 an hour for wages, $22 for fringe benefits, $45 an hour out of pocket for the contractor, really just transferred to the taxpayer. that's an example. there's much of it that's here hat goes in 46, 57, here's $51.60 an hour, mr. chairman. and so no, this is not this is not prevailing wage and there is no study in all the time i have dealt with this that would demonstrate that prevailing wage is a merit shop earned wage, instead it's set by a bunch of guys sitting around the table and reflects almost always union scale and many of the contractors will not report their davis-bacon prevailing wages and they want to avoid it and not reporting what they are paying in wages and many of the states that have adopted a mini davis-bacon for the state, they press this thing to the point that the difference between the merit-shop wages and union scale is very close together. we have double-breasted operations where company a and company b wrapped up in one half of the company is union and the other company isn't. there's a gentleman that used to serve this congress from massachusetts who was famous for saying, the federal government has no business intervening in a relationship between two or more consenting adults. employee and employers should decide what they want to make as a business agreement. and if i want to pay $100 an hour or $1 that should be up to me. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. price: i yield to mr. norcross. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. norcross: i rise in strong opposition to this amendment that would eliminate davis-bacon prevailing wage. that time of year? must be. come back to congress and say i want to lower the working wages and conditions. that's what we are hearing. when you can't win it on the votes, you play the race card. davis-bacon, over 100 years ago, republican congressman jim davis and robert bacon realized there was a problem with federal contracts. these contracts were unfair to local economies. they were not taking into account what has been going on historically in those areas. this very simply ensures that construction workers are paid the same like workers in their local community. i want to go back to the people who elected to me and say i want to lower your wages. i want to lower them to the point i'll make anything up because that's what we're hearing. this has been around and it continues to be involved and made to work because it works for those local communities. it's about insuring those local communities are not going to be run over by big federal contractors coming in but being paid exactly what the people in that community are being paid. it continues today because it works. it works in new york, it works in new jersey, it works in florida, oklahoma. it's about fairness. it's about leveling the playing field, something that apparently many people in this chamber forgot. we are here to raise the standards, not lower it. i encourage to defeat this amendment to keep doing what we are supposed to do, represent the people who elected us to make their lives just a little bit better, not what we're hearing is, i'll play the race card and try to lower the wages. my god, where are we going? we are fighting lower wages. it's about raising people up. the greatest thing that they can be. and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. brooks: i urge defeat of the amendment and i yield 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 iowa. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. king: mr. chairman, i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 52 printed in part b of house report 115-295. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 52 printed in part b of house report 115-295. the chair: the gentlewoman from texas and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from texas. ms. jackson lee: i'm reading a headline that says it could take houston years to fully recover from hurricane harvey. this is not because my local leaders, mayors and county judges and governors are not working as hard as they can, but it is the most significant costly flood in the continental united states' history. we are praying that hurricane irma detours away from those places that it has not yet hit. we certainly pray for puerto rico and u.s. virgin islands and our friends in florida and up the east coast. right now, we have that position in that unlikely and nonappreciated position of having the most devastated flood. my amendment has to do with state and local funds being part of designing their own reconstruction, their own projects, their own capital projects. my amendment says none of the funds made available under this act under the heading of transit formula grants may be used in contravention of section 5309. the identical amendment was offered in the jackson lee amendment to h.r. 2577 and received a positive voice vote. in particular, this amendment affirms the importance to the nation of projects that create economic development particularly in a transportation area. pursuant to section 5309 of title 49, the section of -- the secretary of transportation may make grants under this section to state and local governments. the authority to assist -- i would be happy to yield. mr. diaz-balart: i'm prepared to accept this amendment. if she is willing to yield back the remainder part of her time. i'm more than willing to accept her amendment and thank her for bringing it up. ms. jackson lee: let me thank the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee and if i might just make one moment and take your gracious offer. i would like to acknowledge that this amendment is supported by the trade union. thank them very much for their support and ask unanimous consent to put the articles about our rebuilding in the record. ask unanimous consent -- the chair: the request will be covered by general leave. ms. jackson lee: and conclude by making this point, is that local entities should have the right to direct funds where they believe they are most important particularly for transportation projects. and as they do so with federal dollars, let me add my support for davis-bacon. it is in essence completely opposite of what was represented. it is a civil rights bill for all people. i ask my colleagues to join me to have state and local governments get federal funds and restore the gulf region. this is an important amendment to make sure we can direct our own destiny with federal funds and the secretary of transportation has that authority to give to us to be able to do so. i yield back. i ask support of the jackson lee amendment. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment s agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 53. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from washington seek recognition? ms. herrera beutler: i rise in support of my amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in part b of house ms. t 115-295 offered by herrera beutler of washington. the chair: the gentlewoman from washington, misherrera beutler and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from washington. ms. herrera beutler: recently the state of oregon passed the transportation package that included a provision to establish tolls on the state line between washington and oregon. since that time, there has been a lot of concern in my district that tolls could be established i-205 bridge border of and i-on the washington side. that is not an unreasonable idea if the tolls are going to be used on that stretch of roadway. but here's the kicker. my constituents use those bridges upwards of 50,000 people commute into portland to work. the problem is that the proposal, this scheme would be used to pay for projects well south of portland and a stretch of roadway that my constituents don't use. they would be paying a toll and money used elsewhere in the state. that is fundamentally unjust. i'm not opposing the concept of tolls but that creates a real problem in terms of how the money is used and would break face with really the american people. that's what my amendment would do is stop this practice in this area. it's not that i oppose the concept of the fees paid. let me be clear about that. that issue fee needs to be towards the maintainance or upkeep of that resource and needs to have that nexus there and those two bridges need to be addressed. if those tolls are diverted elsewhere, we will have major problems. my amendment would oppose this and with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman -- does a member seek time in recognition? mr. price: i seek time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. price: i rise in opposition to this amendment. i understand the concern that has led to it about the practice of totaling or the possibility two adjacent to highways in two states. the same kind of reasoning that applied to mr. thompson's amendment earlier would apply to this. this is not a decision for us to make on the house floor tonight. this is clearly a local matter and we don't have any business micro managing it. the states can have their own decision making processes and have a way of consulting with one another. federal law has been pretty flexible on this for good reasons and flexible about totaling, the use of the treatment of existing toll-free roads for good reason. we have pressing infrastructure needs and great need for flexibility and the way we fund infrastructure improvements. i relayed earlier, the kind of decision we made in north carolina, not particularly our first choice to have a toll road but the alternative was waiting for 20 years. others will make decisions but it's not our place to preempt those decisions and let alone in an appropriations bill. i do oppose this amendment. and i yield my time -- i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from washington. ms. herrera beutler: and to the speaker's point, i do are stand, i-5 and i-205 federal highways and not backwards' routes. these are federal highways that -- i-5 the i-corridor rridor with a maximum of 300,000 wecks. so it's a pretty major federal investment. levying tolls is one thing. that is something we do and user fees is a fair concept, but we need to apply them fairly. and any attempt to levy tolls on i-205 and i-5 to pay for infrastructure improvements that these commuters wouldn't benefit from is where i feel like this is unfair and in the extreme. with that, i yield the balance of my time -- reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman from washington reserves. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. price: i yield the balance of my time to our colleague from oregon, mr. blumenauer. mr. blumenauer: may i inquire how much time? the chair: the gentleman has 3 /2 minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you, i appreciate this. this is an interesting question about an opportunity for people in a region to try and craft a solution. i've been working with people in clark county for 40 years because this has been a serious problem between portland and vancouver, oregon and washington. and the gentlelady may have noticed, this is a serious problem for her constituents. in fact, they pay more of the burden in terms of congestion, lost opportunity for economic development, i hear from it all the time from businesses in our communities. there is no solution to this congestion problem without either investing money or sending some pricing signals to try and change some behaviors. not everybody has to cross the 205 and the i-5 freeway at 8:30 in the morning and 5:30 in the evening. now what has been proposed in oregon is to look at alternatives. i'm not going to prejudge what it is, but i would notice that there is a year-long process that is under way, including people on the other side of the river, because we've always worked with clark county and previously with the legislators in the state of washington and congresspeople, to try to figure out how we work together because we are one region. there are, what, 60,000 people who work in oregon every day who have to negotiate a really troublesome area. now, the federal government is 2017 rying to pay for infrastructure with 1993 dollars. we haven't raised the gas tax since 1993. when states around the country have been stepping up, including in washington and puget sound, oters are expressing their own frustration and taxing themselves to solve these problems. the federal government has been missing in action. in fact, many of my friends on the republican side of the aisle are looking at creative programs for public-private partnerships. they're looking at in some cases there were 26 senators that talked about devolving the interstate freeway system and the federal transportation partnership to the states. now for us to swoop in when the federal government has been missing in action to try and help the gentlelady's constituents and mine and to try and pull the rug out from underneath an approach that may have some potential and would in fact require voter support, i think is an egregious overreach. i may have missed it but i haven't heard the gentlelady's proposals to pay for solutions for her constituents. i've offered some, we're working on the oregon side and occasionally we've had some partnerships with the state of washington who collapsed the proposal for a columbia crossing because they weren't willing to put any money on the table. for the federal government to intervene takes away this option. i think is outrageous and wrong. >> i'd like to inquire as to my ime remaining. the chair: you have two minutes left. ms. beutler: thank you. i'll make this brief. i think a lot of points the gentleman made are valid and i don't reject them at all. i think we need to come up with solutions to pay for these things, we need to fix the congestion issue, we need to work together, i completely agree with all of that which is why this scheme that was put together to tax one portion essentially, charge a toll of washington commuters who are paying into the portland and oregon economy through their income taxes already, and then using that money, that money collected from those tolls not on the bridge, not on the crossing, the area where we all agree we need to find a solution but using it wrells in the state is fundamentally unfair. he made my point. that's the problem. it's not that i oppose the idea of tolls. it's not that the facts in southwest don't know we're going to have to -- we have to bring something to the table with regard to a solution. i'm not afraid to advocate for that. that's not the issue here. the issue -- and even within its scommigs they're going to be looking at other ways to fund their projects throughout the state. that's great. but it is fundamentally unfair to pick the pocket of a people, of a working people, who have -- they don't even have a right to redress oregon's government. they don't vote. so to take their money because you can smacks of being a bully. that's what i'm against. that's what's unfair. that's what i won't stand for. that's why i'm offering this amendment. i urge its adoption and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from washington. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed. -- is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 54 printed in part b of house report 115-295. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? mr. grothman: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 54 printed in house report 115-295, offered by mr. grothman of wisconsin. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. grothman, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. mr. grothman: i'm -- i'd like to thank the chairman and ranking member for their collaborative effort in bringing this forward. as we all know, heading toward $20 trillion in debt, one of the agencies that i think has been criticized far long period of time to a certain extent for incompetence and to a certain extent wondering whether their functions are appropriate to the federal government is the department of housing and urban development. our president trump who got elected to look out for our children and grandchildren proposed cutting this budget overall by 18%. and i commend president trump for trying to look out for our children and grandchildren. the appropriations committee has shaved that reduction to 1%. the pup of my amendment is to increase it to approximately a 3% reduction. only about one sixth of what the reduction that president trump wanted. since we last met in july we've gone through these two hurricanes. we're already voted an $8 billion appropriation out of here and we know that's just a small down tamente on the new obligations that we're going to have. i would ask this house to increase that 1% reduction to a 3% reduction which is what we have here. i think that's very modest. not at all what the president wanted, just a sixth of what the president wanted. but i encourage my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields. does a member seek recognition in opposition? >> yes, i do. so the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes in opposition. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we have taken a responsible and thorough approach to h.u.d.'s funding in this bill and reduced h.u.d.'s budget by $187 million over the last year. mr. diaz-balart: we have done so while keeping as a priority, for example, housing assistance to the most needy among us. the elderly. the disabled. our veterans. this amendment would potentially hurt some of those vulnerable citizens. and again, the across the board approach goes against, frankly, what i think we have to be doing in government. which is go line by line, do the tough work, go line by line, identify lower priority or functioning programs for reduction so we can target resources to where they are actually most needed. let me just give you a few examples of that. where we have target red sources. cdbg. veterans' vouchers. veteran voucher renewals. vouchers for the disabled. i cannot agree to an amendment that would again adelose board then cut those programs. so also another issue which i know is not the honorable member's intent. i also understand that c.b.o. scored this amendment at 0 savings and we can, if we had a lot of time we can talk about why. again, it's not even achieving what the gentleman is trying to achieve. i do thank him for his passion in looking out for the taxpayer. i think that's a very needed thing here in congress. but i respectfully would urge a no vote on this amendment and with that, i would yield back the remaining time. the chair: the gentleman yields. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from wisconsin. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. he amendment is not agreed to. mr. grothman: i'll ask for a roll call and see if we get better results tomorrow. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceeding on the amendment of of the gentleman from wisconsin will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 55 printed in part b of how house report 115-295678 for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? mr. barr: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: earment numb 55 offered by mr. barr of kentucky. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 500, the gentleman from kentucky, mr. barr, and a member opposed each will control pive minutes. the -- five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky. mr. barr: thank you, mr. chairman. as many of you know, manufactured home -- manufactured homes are the only form of nonsubsidized housing that are directly regulated by h.u.d. statute dictates that h.u.d. is required to facilitate the availability of affordable manufactured homes to increase home ownership for all americans. recently, the department has imposed excessive and contradictory regulations on manufactured housing. h.u.d. is impeding on some state functions, reinterpreting regulations to the detriment of long-standing and accepted building practices, and implementing rules that unnecessarily limit consumer choice and increase costs. as the primary regulator of manufactured housing, h.u.d. should work with industry, not against it, to ensure regulations are streamlined, cost effective, and applied fairly and transparntely while also working to keep manufactured housing as an affordable housing alternative for all american families. in central and eastern kentucky and many other parts of rural america, manufactured housing offers a very affordable option and a good option for housing for many folks. and for the life of me, i do not understand why the federal agency charged with the responsibility of providing affordable housing would be limiting choices and access to this very affordable and very good option for housing for many rural americans. my limitation amendment would fix three problems where h.u.d.'s regulation of manufactured housing exceeds and at times contradicts statute. these three problems are intrusive installation programs, burdensome and unnecessary on-site completion of construction rule, and shifting guidelines alternative construction. so mr. chairman, what i'm offering here tonight is an important limitation amendment addressing these issues to help mitigate the ongoing negative impact that these regulations are having on access to affordable housing across america and so i urge my colleagues to support this important work where congress can work together to eliminate impediments to the manufactured housing market so that all americans can have access to affordable housing. and i yield back the remainder of my time or reserve the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. does a member seek time in opposition? >> i seek time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for five minutes in opposition. mr. price: i rise in opposition to this amendment. our colleague does make solid points about the importance of manufactured housing, about the serviceability of it, about the access of it. the affordability. there are many, many aspects about manufactured housing that recommend themselves to our constituents. to people at various income levels. he asks why we would possibly want any kind of consume brother texts enacted at the federal level in this business though. and i think the answer to that is pretty obvious. it's about safety and security, it's about protecting consumers who put good money down for these houses. that's not to say every rule, every protection is well conceived. possibly some need to be scrutinized and some need to be revised but we're going to do it tonight on the floor of the house in an appropriations bill? i would hope not. that's not a good way to proceed. we for one thing have authorizing colleagues, colleagues on the authorizing committee who have not had hearings as far as i know on these issues. we've not we have had people or groups that look out for the consumers, very limited debate here tonight. five minutes on each side. and on that basis, we're going to wipe away carefully conceived consumer protections in the area of manufactured housing. i urge my colleagues not to go down this path. not to say we shouldn't consider these things. congress, including the authorizing committees and hud should examine the impact of these regulations before we make sweeping changes to existing policy. i urge defeat of the amendment and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. bower bower i appreciate the gentleman's arguments, but consumer protection is choice. and they take away access and competition and choices. that is not consumer protections and not consumer protection to say to rural americans looking for access to affordable housing saying you can't have access to a manufactured home. this is a bipartisan amendment. there are members of the party on the other side of the aisle who recognize that in rural america and other places, we need a bipartisan fix to bureaucratic overreach. and these are new requirements that are not thoughtfully conceived as the gentleman would argue. these are new requirements imposed without warning, without any thoughtful process at the agency. and so again, i would urge my colleagues to join us in a bipartisan amendment to fix a bureaucratic overreach which denies low-income americans to access to affordable housing. why we would tolerate the agency that is supposed to be the advocates to deny them access to affordable housing. support rural americans and support manufactured housing. i yield back. mr. price: it's news to most of us, i expect, that consumer protections is incompatible with consumer choice. we offer protections of all sorts in the case of housing. t's against predatory housing, it's against shoddy construction, it's against a race to the bottom in terms of quality that individual buyers may not be able to perceive. that compatibility of basic consumer protections and consumer choice is presented every day in our marketplace. and i certainly don't see why it should be absent here, although, as i said earlier, some of these rules may be up for scrutiny. it's not that we are prepared to do it here tonight. i would also point out that the only type of housing that moves across state lines is the manufactured housing. so that provides an additional argument why we should be particularly diligent in dismantling federal protections. i urge rejection of 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 kentucky. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment s agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 56 printed in art b of house report 115-295. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri seek recognition? mr. smith: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. smith of missouri. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 500, the gentleman from most, mr. smith, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from missouri. mr. smith: this amendment requires that funds in transportation, housing and urban development funds only go to cities and states that uphold federal law. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve. the chair: does a member seek ime in opposition? mr. price: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility. local law enforcement is not and should not be the long arm of i.c.e. and if it is perceived to be the long arm of i.c.e., it's going to work with the community what needs to be done for local law enforcement and the community protection. the end result would tear communities apart and hinder the ability of local law enforcement to effectively do their job. furthermore, this amendment has no place in the appropriations bill. the employees at the department of transportation and housing and urban development are not law enforcement and do not routinely need to act with immigration or customs enforcement. this amendment would insert unnecessary controversy in the bill and does nothing to improve transportation, does nothing to provide housing for low-income americans, does not change existing law or the way programs are administered. the underlying bill has enough hallenges as written to add -- without adding something of this moment and this divisiveness. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. smith: the gentleman across the aisle is correct when he says that this does not change current law. and it is just enforcing current federal law. and with that, i urge the body to support this amendment. 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 missouri. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. mr. price: i ask for a roll call vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from missouri will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 57 printed in part b of house report 115-295. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. perry: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 57 printed in part b of house report 115-295 offered by mr. perry of pennsylvania. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 500, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. perry, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. perry: i yield myself such time as i may consume. this amendment would prohibit nsa to of funds for fm file joint notice of proposed rulemaking limiting speed limiting devices on trucks and buses. fmcsa and the national highway traffic association focused on the potential decrease in the severity of accidents. however, the severity of accidents is already trending downward. as a matter of fact, the large truck involved fatal crash rate per 100 million miles has dropped 74% since 1980. bus-involved fatal crashes has dropped 71% since 1980 without the federal government's involvement in speed-limiting devices. ccording to the fmcsa reports, 71.4% of truck-involved fatal crashes occur on noninterstates with speed limits with proposed limits. they can put the device on but not going to apply where the accidents happen. this mandate may actually increase the number of accidents. studies have shown the higher variance of vehicle speed increases accident risk. not good to have some vehicles going slow and really fast. speed limiters create differentials as interaction among these vehicles increases, so does the likelihood of more accidents. speed limiters will result in loss productivity necessitating more heavy-duty vehicles on the road to create more demand. they will be going slower mandated by the federal government. the good idea fairy from the federal government showed up when no one asked them to. this disregards the authority of states to determine speed limits within their borders. thank goodness the federal government is here to tell all 50 states how to run their railroads and their highways. speed limiters led to fuel savings and increased safety, the market will incentivize the use of these market devices. the market does it well and does it best. however, it's not the role of the federal government tore mandate their use. mr. chairman, i'm not asking for less money or more money. i'm asking you to save money and save freedom for the american people and make sure their products get to their homes on time and get the federal government out of the way of one truck trying to pass another one, one doing 54 and another one doing 64 miles an hour for 20 miles up the highway. mr. price: i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: mr. chairman, the facts are pretty clear about this matter. thousands of people die on our highways each year because of speeding trucks. e technology is successfully deployed by many trucking companies across this country. we know high speeds of large trucks are a deadly combination. a 2012 study found that trucks without a speed limiting device had twice as many speed-related crashes as those who had a speed limiter installed. those are the facts. pretty incontravert i believe, i believe. so on the basis of this, quite rightly, the national highway traffic safety administration and the federal motor carrier safety administration have a rulemaking under way, a careful rulemaking, looking at all the evidence and the proposal is here tonight that we upend that. we on the floor of this house with five minutes of consideration on each side that we irrigate on to ourselves the decision to upend this safety rule. this is a technology that saves lives. the evidence is very, very clear. what that exact rule should look like in the end, we don't know. but we do know that to completely set aside the rulemaking process in such a vital area is reckless and irresponsible. this amendment should be rejected. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. perry: mr. speaker, the speaks are clear that as i stated, large truck involved fatal crashes per 100 million miles has dropped 74% before speed limiters were even available. bus-involved fatal crashes per 100 million miles has dropped 71%. somehow the private sector doesn't want to crash their trucks. and if the private sector and certain companies want to install the speed limiters, they do that, because they don't want to crash their trucks. most people don't want to crash their trucks. and we love these agencies to do the things that we don't want to do apparently and then create them and then do things we don't want them to do. we were dual elected by the citizens of this country to run the country. they didn't elect these people coming up with these rule. they don't want them. i'm here to defend people who ant freedom and don't want bureaucrats running our lives. with that, mr. chairman, i yield and ask for positive consideration of this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. nd the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 58 printed in part b of house report 115-295. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. babin: i have an amendment at the desk. choi the clerk will designate -- the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 58 offered by mr. babin of texas. the chair: pursuant to resolution 500, the gentleman from texas, mr. babin and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. babin: my amendment would delay the implementation and enforcement of the electronic logging device mandate surntly set to go into effect this december 18 until the end of the next fiscal year, september 30, 2018. but while this amendment is certainly about trucking, truckers and the businesses and jobs that depend on them, i think it speaks to something more. something that all of us who have the privilege of serving here in the people's house are absolutely here to do. reducing the regulatory burden put in motion by previous administrations is one of our most important jobs here in congress. to encourage entrepreneurship and to create jobs in america. his e.l.d. mandate is one such regulation. i'm honored to stand with the independent truckers, our nation's agricultural producers and countless others to fight on their behalf. more than 30 organizations have endorsed this let's make something leer. my amendment will not ban e.l.d.'s and will not repeal the mandate from going into effect at a future date. all my amendment does is delay the mandatory requirement that almost every interstate hauling truck will have to pay for and install one of these devices by the end of this year. for those who have already installed an e.l.d. and are satisfied with it, my message is simple. if you like your e.l.d., you can keep your e.l.d. while it's too late to use the congressional review act on this regulation, it's not too late to act. passage of this amendment and the underlying bill will set us on the course to protect small businesses and prevent a major disruption to the freight and shipping network just one week before this christmas. to all my colleagues on the appropriations committee, i say thank you for section 132 of this bill which already provides relief from the e.l.d. mandate for livestock haulers. please join me now to give relief to all american truckers and to all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. i say another year will give the president time to nominate and confirm a full-time director of the federal motor carrier safety administration, allow for waivers and exemptions to be examined and adjudicated and alleviate the sticker shock for installation and compliance facing small trucking companies if december 18. we may disagree on many sorts of issues but we will all go home on the weekend to districts where small businesses are the very back bone of our local communities and our economy. let's give them a hand. let's take another year and get this thing right. i urge support for my amendment and the underlying bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. does a member seek time in opposition? the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for five minutes in opposition. mr. price: i rise in opposition to the amendment. truck crash deaths in this country have increased significantly in recent years. that should be the back drop of this discussion. 4,067 people were killed in crashes involving large trucks in 2015 alone. that's a 20% increase since 2009. studies show that driver fatigue, that's what this amendment is all about, driver fatigue, is an important part of the problem. the federal motor carrier safety admgs and the national transportation safety board repeatedly have recommended that all trucks and buses be equipped with e.l.d.'s. in 2012, congress decided to take strong action to address this problem, passed a requirement for the use of e.l.d.'s with bipartisan support as part of the map 21 legislation. supports of the amendment say that the enforcement community is not ready to begin enforcement by december 18. that's really not the case. and it's also true that inspectors aren't going to pull truckers out of service for noncompliance until april 1 of next year. that's a considerable grace period. it'll give the trucking and the enforcement community ample time to adjust to the mandate. the department of transportation has estimated that the benefits of adopting e.d.: -- e.l.d.'s to be over $1 billion. implementing the mandate makes financial sense and makes sense in terms of the safety of our people, the safety on our roads. so i urge on stoigs this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. babin: i would answer that that some of the companies with the worst safety records have had a full slate of e.l.d.'s in their fleet for many years. there's evidence absolutely to the contrary of what the gentleman just said. also, the obama administration who signed this bill into law during a time when the house was republican, the senate was democrat, estimates that the department of transportation estimates that the cost of compliance for this bill, for this mandate, is over $2 billion. that comes from the previous administration itself. so i would urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to give relief to the small businesses, three out of four truckers are in favor of delaying the implementation of this mandate. the chair: the gentleman reserves? the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from north carolina. mr. price: at this time i would like to yield one minute to the gentleman from arkansas, mr. crawford. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. crawford: i rise in opposition to mr. babin's amendment. while well intentioned this delay would endanger public safety by giving commercial vehicle operators the ability to exceed the federal hours of service limits. congress passed the moving ahead for progress 21st century act to issue rule making requiring the use of e.l.d.'s in commercial vehicles. congress again affirmed the requirement in the fast act and fiscal year 2016 premises this eamerican trucking association was in lock step with congress at each instance and thousands of fleet owners adelose country are taking steps to adopt this technology and train drivers as congress intended. after five years, they have completed the rule making and done so in the proper way by conferring with industry and congress and i can appreciate my friends in the agriculture industry, some of my closest friends, i serve on the ag committee as well as the transportation and intrastrudgeture committee, would like to see -- and infrastructure committee, would like to see a delay. perhaps the gentleman could have niche d a policy for segments like those in agriculture. an additional 30 seconds? thank you. in closing i ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to oppose this well-intentioned amendment, a policy that secured nearly unanimous support in our conference when it was enacted and work with an administration who understands smart, consumer-safety regulations like this we can address the concerns my friend from texas has without undoing the progress that has made our highways safer. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina. mr. price: i would like to yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from arkansas, mr. westbrook. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. westbrook: i rise in opposition to this amendment. i have great respect for anymy colleague, mr. babin who introduced this amendment. i understand his intentions but i believe it's too late in the game to be changing this rule. there are many companies who have invested in this technology. mr. westerman: we seem to have a problem in congress where we can't give clear direction to businesses and therefore it creates uncertainty. they sometimes make investments and in the rule -- and the rules change. this would be a time when the rules would change before this investment would even be made. there's been specific issues like livestock addressed already in committee. and again, i urge a no vote on this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina. the gentleman yields. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. babin: how much time do i have left? the chair: one minute. mr. babin: i would just say , in answer to my colleagues from arkansas, i appreciate what they're saying. however the truth is that there's a lot of confusion. this samandate, many of us came to congress here to roll back these types of mandates. and this type of regulatory bureaucracy which stifles the entrepreneurship and creeeags of jobs. we are not trying to do away with this mandate. what we're trying to do is delay it so that we can adjudicate and study and let people find out exactly how much it will cost because there is some dispute there if you like your e.l.d., you can keep your e.l.d. i yield back. 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. the amendment is not agreed. to pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceed on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 59 printed in part d of house report 115-295678 for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? mr. king: i have an amendment at the desk made in order by the rule. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 59 printed in house report 115-295 offered by mr. king of iowa. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 500, the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, and a member opposed will each control five minutes this echair recognizes the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: thank you, mr. chairman. this is the e-verify amendment. it was offered in the previous segment of this appropriations bill as well. and what it does, it just simply reinstates and clarifies federal law, the requirement to use e-verify in the forms of all federal contracting and under this s.u.d. bill, that's what would apply. we have run into cases where there's been, let's say concerns that the federal agencies are not uniformly and consistently abide big federal law and so this says that none of the funds, the funds will not be used for new hires unless they're verified through the e-verify program. the e-verify program, we've worked this now far few years, brought to us by ken calvert of california. and even though it's early days, it hit a couple of bumps in the road, it's gotten better and better and better. we use it, i've used it, it's efficient. and it's not time consumeral all. so just reiterates federal law. in fact the federal acquisition regulation act of 2009 reinforces and requires that their compliance be there for new hires to be used, e-verify on all new hires affected by this appropriation bill so i urge its adoption and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: does a member seek time in opposition? >> i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for five minutes in opposition. mr. price: i rise in opposition to this needless an divisive and indeed prohavingtive amendment. president bush long ago ordered federal agencies to comply with e-verify. that was in 2007. i've seen no indication that the trump administration intends to rescind this order. so this amendment if it only applies to hiring at federal agencies would do absolutely nothing. so why is it before us? what's the purpose here tonight? is it possibly a political purpose? what the amendment does do in fact is to insert unnecessary controversy into this bill. does nothing to improve transportation. it does nothing provide housing for vulnerable americans. the underlying bill, one would think, has enough challenges as written without this fwra due us to amendment. i urge defeat of this distraction. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from iowa is recognized. mr. king: mr. chairman, in response to the gentleman's comments, i'm not at all convinced that it's needless. the reports i'm getting are that e-verify has not been adequately enforced especially at the contractor and subcontractor level. this is congress reminding those who consume federal dollars in federal contracting under this s.u.d. appropriation bill that they shall comply with the law. i don't know why it would be divisive. it's current law. needless, supposedly, let's go ahead and pass this and remind those that follow federal law and this debate won't happen next year. i urge adoption of this amendment. the e-verify amendment. i would yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields. 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. the amendment is agreed. -- is agreed to. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendmented printed in part b of house report 115-295 on which further proceedings were postponed

Related Keywords

New York , United States , Arkansas , Alabama , Nevada , Portland , Oregon , North Carolina , Missouri , Texas , Raleigh , Kentucky , Florida , California , Indiana , Wisconsin , Washington , Connecticut , Jersey , Oklahoma , New Jersey , Crawford , Iowa , Clark County , Pennsylvania , Ohio , Americans , American , Jackson Lee , Santa Barbara , Herrera Beutler , Ken Calvert , Neighborworks America , Thompson Spb , Bower ,