[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 17355-17445]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      HIRE MORE HEROES ACT OF 2015

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 512 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the Senate 
amendments to the bill, H.R. 22.
  Will the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo) kindly take the 
chair.

                              {time}  1504


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of 
the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 22) to amend the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt employees with health coverage under 
TRICARE or the Veterans Administration from being taken into account 
for purposes of determining the employers to which the employer mandate 
applies under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, with Mr. 
Palazzo (Acting Chair) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, 
an amendment consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 114-32 was 
pending.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, amendment No. 1, printed 
in part A of House Report 114-326, may be considered out of sequence.


              Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Ryan of Ohio

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in part A of House Report 114-326.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 56, line 8, after ``diesel retrofits'' insert ``or 
     alternative fuel vehicles''.
       Page 56, line 9, insert ``or indirect'' after ``direct''.
       Page 56, line 14, insert ``or indirectly'' after 
     ``directly''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is cosponsored by 
Congresswoman Napolitano and is endorsed by the Natural Gas Vehicles 
for America, the Electric Drive Transportation Association, and the 
National Propane Gas Association.
  The amendment addresses one specific provision in the bill, section 
1109, which modifies how Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality, CMAQ, 
funds can be used in PM2.5 nonattainment and maintenance areas. ``PM'' 
stands for ``particulate matter.''
  The purpose of the CMAQ Program is to fund transportation projects or 
programs that will contribute to the attainment or maintenance of the 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. All projects and programs that 
are eligible for CMAQ funds must come from a conforming Federal or 
State transportation plan. The program is designed to allow States to 
identify the right solution for their air quality challenges and 
utilize CMAQ funds to implement them.
  Without the Ryan-Napolitano amendment, the language in section 1109 
may restrict States' discretion in identifying the most cost-effective 
emissions reduction technologies and effectively limit their options to 
only diesel retrofits. Specifically, the priority consideration and use 
of funding provisions for the section seemingly restrict local 
authorities' ability to consider other alternative vehicle technologies 
that can be adopted to meet the goals of this section.
  Other technologies, such as natural gas, propane, or electric 
vehicles, also reduce PM2.5 and provide other air quality benefits. In 
my State of Ohio and the chairman's State of Pennsylvania, being two of 
those States, they allow for the use of CMAQ funds for a variety of 
alternative fuel vehicles. However, section 1109, as written, may limit 
their and other States' solutions in using CMAQ funds to address the 
nonattainment issue.
  We should not be directing States on how to use these funds, and it 
is important that we keep the utilization of CMAQ funding technology 
neutral. Giving States the flexibility in utilizing these funds allows 
them to select the best vehicle technology to address PM2.5 concerns. 
Modifying the priority consideration and the use of funding language in 
this section allows us to meet the environmental goals while avoiding 
picking winners and losers.
  I would like to thank Chairman Shuster for his help and Ranking 
Member DeFazio and their staffs for working with us on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Mrs.

[[Page 17356]]

Napolitano), the amendment's cosponsor.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support as a 
cosponsor of this amendment. I thank my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) 
for offering it. I thank the gentleman for allowing me to cosponsor it 
because this is an important issue for my area.
  In section 1109(c), this amendment would clarify language in the bill 
in order for local transportation agencies to continue to fund not only 
highway, but transit, bicycle, and pedestrian, projects with Congestion 
Mitigation and Air Quality Program funds, called CMAQ. This amendment 
would also allow for alternative fuel vehicles to be eligible for 
recipient funds along with diesel retrofit projects.
  A concern was brought to my attention by the metropolitan planning 
organizations in California, including the Los Angeles County 
Metropolitan Transportation Authority and the cities they represent, 
which includes my district in the San Gabriel Valley, that important 
transportation projects would no longer be prioritized for CMAQ 
funding.
  In 2014, southern California transportation agencies--mind you, they 
represent over 20 million people--used CMAQ funding to provide $51 
million in traffic flow improvements, $50 million in transit, and $22 
million in bicycle and pedestrian projects. This amendment would 
clarify that these projects are still prioritized for CMAQ funding.
  I thank Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio for working with 
us on this amendment. I look forward to working with my colleagues in 
conference to further clarify that traffic flow, transit, and bicycle 
and pedestrian projects continue to be eligible for CMAQ set-aside 
programs as they are now.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I 
don't oppose the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, currently under the CMAQ Program, funds 
may be used to purchase publicly owned alternative fuel vehicles, 
including passenger vehicles, service trucks, street cleaners, and 
others.
  This is a good amendment that ensures alternative fuel vehicles are 
still eligible under this bill. I support the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Hunter

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in part A of House Report 114-326.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 73, line 24, strike the closed quotation mark and the 
     final period.
       Page 73, after line 24, insert the following:
       ``(n) Facilitating Commercial Waterborne Transportation.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, or rights granted 
     thereunder, and provided that the requirements of the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
     seq.) are met, a property owner may develop, construct, 
     operate, and maintain pier, wharf, or other such load-out 
     structures on that property and on or above adjacent beds of 
     the navigable waters of the United States to facilitate the 
     commercial waterborne transportation of domestic aggregate 
     that may supply an eligible project under this section, 
     including salt, sand, and gravel, from reserves located 
     within ten miles of the property.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Hunter) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, the roads, bridges, and other 
infrastructure projects we seek to advance in the legislation before us 
today require a steady supply of aggregate and gravel. Without it, we 
might as well not even be here debating this legislation.
  In fact, a report from the U.S. Geological Survey--2011 USGS Report: 
Aggregate Resource Availability in the United States--found ``a 70 
percent increase in annual aggregate production may be required to 
upgrade our transportation infrastructure.''
  The report went on to say, ``There is an indisputable need for an 
uninterrupted, large supply of aggregate for the restoration and 
rehabilitation of the infrastructure.''
  It is also important to note that a substantial portion of the cost 
of aggregate is its transportation costs, and lowering those costs will 
reduce the cost of construction projects.
  My State of California is just one example of where the need is 
great. According to a recent report, California goes through 200 
million tons of high-grade aggregate every year, which is the 
equivalent of more than 7 million trips by large diesel trucks.
  So here is what my amendment does:
  It streamlines access to marine-accessible sand and gravel aggregate 
supply points throughout the United States, allowing our country to 
meet the future needs of the national infrastructure projects which are 
covered in this legislation.
  With this amendment, we have the opportunity to strengthen our supply 
of raw building materials for infrastructure projects, to reduce road 
congestion and transportation costs, and to strengthen our maritime 
community.
  I urge all Members to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Generally, the gentleman from California and I have worked together 
on a number of things, and this is one time when I reluctantly rise in 
opposition to his proposal.
  I have spent a good deal of time on aggregate issues in my own 
district that relate to those which are located in the marine 
environment, and I understand some of the frustrations and concerns 
that go on there. The language in this, though, is so broad that we are 
preempting both the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and the Truman-Hobbs 
Act, which relate to impediments to navigation.
  At this point, that sort of amendment would, for instance, overturn 
an easement that has been entered into between the joint Naval Base 
Kitsap and the owners of this aggregate. There is a concern that, if a 
dock were built in that area, it would interfere with the navigation 
that is a prime route for our strategic submarine forces in the Pacific 
Northwest and the Pacific region.

                              {time}  1515

  So we think it has unintended consequences that go far beyond any 
idea of streamlining access to maritime aggregate resources.
  So I would have to recommend Members oppose the amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Harris).
  Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the gentleman from 
California's amendments.
  With this amendment, we need to start the rebirth of our Nation's 
shipping capabilities and begin to build U.S.-flagged seagoing vessels 
to move a domestic supply of sand and gravel across our Nation.
  This amendment allows access to aggregate that will be available to 
restore damaged beaches, enhance fisheries habitats in the estuaries 
and littoral regions of the Atlantic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico, and the 
Pacific Ocean by providing clean sand and gravel for broad-scale beach 
replenishment projects that are so vital across the Nation.
  This amendment will also lead to establishment of a reliable U.S. 
source to meet domestic demand for major construction and public 
projects. Half of all uses for sand and gravel are used for

[[Page 17357]]

public projects, building and replacing vital U.S. highways, bridges, 
and seawall infrastructures.
  Utilizing our marine transportation will save taxpayer dollars by 
reducing costs on public works projects because, simply put, moving 
containerized cargo on the water is cost-competitive, economical, and 
efficient.
  Passage of this amendment puts our country on the path to having the 
potential to create at least 20,000 more shipbuilding manufacturing 
jobs just by building at least 30 to 40 new seagoing bulk freighters 
and container carrier ships worth at least $3 billion that will result 
if we pass this amendment.
  This amendment is good for the country. It is good for our 
infrastructure, and it is good for creating American jobs across this 
country.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 1 minute 
remaining.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Here is what this amendment does. If you have a quarry that does 
gravel or aggregate by any waterway, whether it is an inland waterway, 
an inlet, a sound, or the ocean, you can then develop your gravel pits 
and put that aggregate on ships--not on trucks, not on rail, but on 
ships--that have a much lower emission cost than anything else does. 
You can put them on ships, which means it is going to help the maritime 
community.
  We import sand and gravel right now from China. We get our aggregate 
right now from Communist China. Instead of doing that, let's strengthen 
our domestic supply and allow the aggregate producers around the 
country the ability to export their aggregate to domestic suppliers, to 
the national defense community, to our road makers, and to our building 
makers.
  This strengthens America. It strengthens our national security. I 
urge all my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Again, this amendment waives all laws for construction of these 
transportation-related facilities, i.e., piers, wharfs, and load-out 
structures.
  Now, the problem is that, if you waive all the laws, someone may want 
to build a pier that interferes with everybody else who navigates that 
narrow channel, including the United States Navy with their boomer 
subs. That is not really, I think, a very good way to go forward; and 
that was recognized by Congress as a problem in 1899, impediments to 
commercial navigation, in this case, strategic national defense 
navigation.
  So I think there may be another way to get at more easily utilizing 
these resources. But preempting the Rivers and Harbors Act and the 
Truman-Hobbs Act, which means structures could be built which would 
impede others' navigation, is really incredibly problematic. I really 
think that this should be considered in a more deliberate way as part 
of future legislation, perhaps the Water Resources Development Act or 
something along those lines.
  Again, I would strongly oppose the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understands that amendment No. 4 will not 
be offered.


               Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. DeSaulnier

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in part A of House Report 114-326.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 110, after line 23, insert the following:
       (C)(i) by redesignating paragraphs (7) and (8) as 
     paragraphs (8) and (9); and
       (ii) by inserting after paragraph (6) the following:
       ``(7) Project selection transparency and accountability.--
     Projects included in the adopted transportation plan shall be 
     selected through a publicly available transparent process 
     that includes use of criteria that directly support factors 
     in subsection (h), the national transportation goals under 
     section 150(b), and applicable State and regional goals. The 
     criteria shall be used to publicly evaluate and identify the 
     highest performing projects.''.
       Page 111, after line 3, insert the following:
       (7) in subsection (j)(3)(A), by inserting at the end the 
     following: ``Projects included in the priority list shall 
     come from the highest performing projects identified in the 
     transportation plan under subsection (i)(7). If a lower-
     performing project is included in the priority project list, 
     an explanation shall be included to explain why the lower-
     performing project was selected, including the goals of 
     achieving geographic balance or providing benefit to 
     economically distressed areas.'' after the period.
       Page 114, after line 22, add the following:
       (C) by redesignating paragraph (9) as paragraph (10);
       (D) by inserting after paragraph (8) the following:
       ``(9) Project selection transparency and accountability.--
     Projects included in the adopted long-range statewide 
     transportation plan shall be selected through a publicly 
     available transparent process that includes use of criteria 
     that directly support factors in subsection (d), the national 
     transportation goals under section 150(b), and applicable 
     State and regional goals. The criteria shall be used to 
     publicly evaluate and identify the highest performing 
     projects.''; and
       (4) in subsection (g), in paragraph (5)(A), by inserting at 
     the end the following: ``Projects included in the 
     transportation improvement program shall come from the 
     highest performing projects identified in the transportation 
     plan under subsection (f)(9). If a lower-performing project 
     is included in the priority project list, an explanation 
     shall be included to explain why the lower-performing project 
     was selected, including the goals of achieving geographic 
     balance or providing benefit to economically distressed 
     areas.''
       Page 244, after line 9, insert the following:
       (C)(i) by redesignating paragraphs (7) and (8) as 
     paragraphs (8) and (9);
       (ii) by inserting after paragraph (6) the following:
       ``(7) Project selection transparency and accountability.--
     Projects included in the adopted transportation plan shall be 
     selected through a publicly available transparent process 
     that includes use of criteria that directly support factors 
     in subsection (h), the national transportation goals under 
     section 150(b), and applicable State and regional goals. The 
     criteria shall be used to publicly evaluate and identify the 
     highest performing projects.''.
       (7) in subsection (j)(3)(A), by inserting at the end the 
     following: ``Projects included in the priority list shall 
     come from the highest performing projects identified in the 
     transportation plan under subsection (i)(7). If a lower-
     performing project is included in the priority project list, 
     an explanation shall be included to explain why the lower-
     performing project was selected, including the goals of 
     achieving geographic balance or providing benefit to 
     economically distressed areas.'' after the period
       Page 247, after line 17, insert the following:
       (4) in subsection (f)--
       (A) by redesignating paragraph (9) as paragraph (10);
       (B) by inserting after paragraph (8) the following:
       ``(9) Project selection transparency and accountability.--
     Projects included in the adopted long-range statewide 
     transportation plan shall be selected through a publicly 
     available transparent process that includes use of criteria 
     that directly support factors in subsection (d), the national 
     transportation goals under section 150(b), and applicable 
     State and regional goals. The criteria shall be used to 
     publicly evaluate and identify the highest performing 
     projects.''.
       (5) in subsection (g)(5)(A), by inserting at the end the 
     following: ``Projects included in the statewide 
     transportation improvement program shall come from the 
     highest performing projects identified in the transportation 
     plan under subsection (f)(9). If a lower-performing project 
     is included in the priority project list, an explanation 
     shall be included to explain why the lower-performing project 
     was selected, including the goals of achieving geographic 
     balance or providing benefit to economically distressed 
     areas.'' after the period.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. DeSaulnier) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  

  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is based on the 
bipartisan Metropolitan Planning Enhancement Act that rebuilds public 
trust by promoting evidence-based decisionmaking in the transportation 
investment process. This commonsense amendment helps States and 
metropolitan planning organizations offer

[[Page 17358]]

the highest return for taxpayers and commuters through increased 
transparency and improved accountability.
  Americans of all types are suspicious of government right now. In the 
context of transportation funding, many Americans believe that highway 
and bridge project decisions are based on politics and insider 
connections rather than statewide and regional transportation goals.
  In many areas of the country, local commuters have little idea how 
State Departments of Transportation and MPOs make their project 
decisions or why they choose one project over another; yet, every year, 
lawmakers ask taxpayers to spend more and more of their hard-earned 
dollars on infrastructure projects with minimal transparency and 
accountability.
  This amendment requires State and regional transportation plans to 
include project descriptions and to score projects based on criteria 
developed by the State or the region, not the Federal Government.
  Requiring that projects be assessed with objective criteria ensures 
that limited transportation resources are invested in projects that 
provide the highest return on investment to commuters. Furthermore, 
requiring transportation decisionmakers to communicate how projects are 
chosen enhances the public's understanding of and confidence in the 
project selection process.
  Many States and MPOs are incorporating project priority criteria 
today: Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Louisiana, Texas, 
Washington State, Minnesota, Massachusetts, amongst others. There is 
plenty of early evidence that this has increased confidence within the 
commuting public.
  Effective and efficient transportation systems are critical to our 
growing and prosperous U.S. economy. We cannot allow diminishing 
resources to be directed toward bad investments. This amendment ensures 
that the public has more complete information to judge the merits of 
projects for themselves.
  Mr. Chairman, much of the debate about America's crumbling 
infrastructure is about how we are going to find the necessary money to 
match the need. As responsible legislators, we should ask ourselves how 
we can most efficiently invest the resources we already have.
  I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense, good governance 
amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, the proposed amendment would impose 
burdensome new requirements on States and metropolitan planning 
organizations, significantly delaying project selection and 
construction.
  States and MPOs already, under current law, are subject to extensive 
planning requirements and take multiple factors into accountant in 
developing their short- and long-range plans. It is critical that they 
have the flexibility to weigh tradeoffs in different priorities without 
being hamstrung by a strict ranking process.
  Transparency and the opportunity for participation by stakeholders 
and the public is a hallmark of the planning process. States and MPOs 
are required to have a participation plan to ensure that any interested 
party can be heard.
  The National Governors Association, the National Conference of State 
Legislatures, the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations, 
and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation 
Officials all oppose this amendment, and they are the very people that 
deal with this.
  I oppose the amendment, and I would urge all my colleagues to oppose 
it, also.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Chair, with all due respect to the chairman, I 
want to thank him for his consideration.
  I do believe, having seen this in the San Francisco Bay Area, that 
the incentive and the requirement to do more will actually help with 
the transparency, as I have stated earlier.
  I would urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. DeSaulnier).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


               Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Cartwright

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in part A of House Report 114-326.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I rise as designee of Representative 
Grijalva, and I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike sections 1301 through 1313.
       Page 168, line 12, strike ``this Act,''.
       Strike sections 1315 through 1317.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, this bill uses ``streamlining'' the 
regulatory process, which is a euphemism for ``steamrolling'' over 
bedrock environmental laws. In fact, it dedicates 50 pages of this bill 
to paving over the National Environmental Policy Act, also known as 
NEPA, as well as the National Historic Preservation Act, NHPA.
  I know it is popular in Republican circles to blame environmental 
regulations for all of our Nation's ills, but that doesn't make it 
true. In fact, the evidence tells us an entirely different story.
  The Federal Highway Administration reported several years ago, before 
all of this steamrolling started, that more than 90 percent of NEPA 
reviews for highway projects were accomplished through a categorical 
exclusion process that takes only a few days. For the few--and we are 
talking about only 4 percent--highway projects which do require an 
environmental impact statement, the end result is often savings for the 
taxpayers and better projects that cause less harm to the environment 
and to our communities.
  Earlier this year, a plan to improve U.S. Route 23 in Michigan was 
modified to avoid the largest loss of wetlands in the State's history 
and to preserve that habitat for migratory waterfowl prized by hunters.
  In New Jersey, in 2012, construction on the Route 53 causeway to 
Ocean City was completed after NEPA review helped them minimize private 
property takings as well as damage to tidal marshes.
  In my own home State of Pennsylvania, construction of the 
Pennsylvania Turnpike/I-95 Interchange Project is underway after a 
thorough and public NEPA review, which was conducted with the input and 
support of local residents and local government officials. This process 
led to the selection of a design with the fewest impacts to homes, 
businesses, and the local environment.
  NEPA does not lead to unnecessary delays; it leads to better 
outcomes. The real culprit in delaying highway projects is a lack of 
funding. To address that problem, the House majority will need to first 
look in the mirror. It is their draconian budget slashing that has left 
our transportation infrastructure in the disrepair that is in existence 
today.
  My amendment is simple, Mr. Chair. It would require us to evaluate 
the impacts of the last two rounds of regulatory steamrolling passed in 
the

[[Page 17359]]

SAFETEA-LU bill and the MAP-21 bill before we take any further steps to 
gut environmental protection and historic preservation.
  This approach is perfectly reasonable because, while there is ample 
evidence that regulatory reform was not needed in the first place, 
there is exactly zero evidence that it has had any positive impact at 
all because no information has been collected on the matter.
  So the very least we can do, in the interest of responsible 
government, is evaluate the effects of the laws we pass before we 
declare the need for more of the same. Shirking our responsibility to 
appropriate highway dollars and instead just scapegoating laws that 
protect the American people from harm is simply dishonest.

                              {time}  1530

  I do believe the sections of this bill that this amendment strikes 
are seriously flawed, and I do look forward to working with my 
colleagues on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the 
administration, and our friends in the Senate on achieving a more 
reasonable outcome.
  Mr. Chair, as the designee of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Grijalva), I withdraw this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.


                 Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Hunter

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 
printed in part A of House Report 114-326.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 225, strike lines 4 through 20 and insert the 
     following:
       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish a program to 
     permit the acknowledgment of roadside maintenance with the 
     use of live plant materials.
       (b) Term.--The Secretary shall carry out the program for a 
     10-year period. Upon the request of a State, the Secretary 
     may continue to carry out the program for that State for an 
     additional 10-year period.
       (c) Participating States.--The Secretary shall select 10 
     States to participate in the program.
       (d) Guidelines for Selection of States.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish guidelines 
     for selecting States to participate in the program.
       (2) Discretion of states.--The guidelines shall not limit 
     the discretion under subsection (e) of any State 
     participating in the program. Any other guidelines relating 
     to the participation of a State in the program shall be 
     established by that State, subject to subsection (e).
       (3) Priority.--In selecting States to participate in the 
     program, the Secretary shall give priority to any State that 
     can provide documentation demonstrating that the State, or 
     its agents, prior to November 2015, actively reviewed, or 
     stated an interest in, innovative approaches using live plant 
     materials for acknowledging a substantial contribution to 
     roadside maintenance.
       (e) Inconsistent Laws, Regulations, or Manuals.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, States 
     participating in the program may permit acknowledgment of 
     roadside maintenance through the use of live plant materials 
     without being limited by any Federal, State, or other law, 
     regulation, or manual that limits or regulates procurement 
     actions, acknowledgment signs, advertising, landscaping, or 
     other uses of, or actions relating to, highway rights-of-way 
     or areas adjacent to highway rights-of-way.
       (f) Funds Exclusively for Roadside Maintenance.--Any funds 
     paid to a State under the program shall be considered to be 
     State funds (as defined in section 101(a) of title 23, United 
     States Code), and shall be made available for expenditure 
     under the direct control of the State transportation 
     department (as defined in that section) exclusively for 
     roadside maintenance.
       (g) Report.--Before the expiration of the first 10-year 
     period referred to in subsection (b), the Secretary shall 
     submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
     of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
     Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report on the 
     results of the program.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Hunter) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, this bipartisan amendment is only a 
technical change to a pilot program that is already included in the 
underlying bill. I would like to thank the chairman and the ranking 
member for including the base language in the bill.
  This legislative language in our proposed amendment is a means for 
State Departments of Transportation to increase their revenues without 
additional burden on the taxpayer. Everybody knows that every State is 
hurting for transportation dollars. This helps them.
  By acknowledging contributions of third parties to a State DOT's 
roadside maintenance through a corporate logo made of live plant 
materials rather than conventional metallic material, State Departments 
of Transportation will have innovative new means for funding highway 
maintenance needs. This will free up funds for other highway projects.
  I support this program because Caltrans, my State DOT, and six other 
State DOTs asked for the authority to operate this kind of innovative 
program. The pilot program does not cost the State or Federal 
Government a penny to operate. Estimates are that my State of 
California could conservatively save millions of dollars annually in 
roadside maintenance costs from this program. Other States would enjoy 
other similar tangible benefits.
  The legislative language for the pilot program, as it appears in the 
underlying bill, does not specifically permit acknowledgment through 
live plant materials and places no limitations on what guidelines the 
U.S. Department of Transportation would develop for innovative 
approaches under the pilot program.
  The legislative language in our proposed amendment paves the way for 
State DOTs to implement an acknowledgement program with live plant 
materials by specifying this particular approach in the legislative 
language and by providing some specificity on the guidelines that the 
U.S. Department of Transportation should develop and what matters are 
best left to the States to assure the success of this innovative new 
approach.
  I urge all Members to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would allow commercialization within the 
Federal right-of-way, and that causes concern as to the potential for 
proliferation.
  We have had many debates over the years that I have been on the 
committee over advertising proximate to interstates. We have come to a 
pretty good stasis on that issue. This amendment is not new. It is not 
widely supported.
  We did not hear from California that they were in support. We were in 
touch with them numerous times. Perhaps they are, but we didn't hear 
that. The Outdoor Advertising Association of America does not support 
the amendment.
  I would urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 3\1/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Curbelo).
  Mr. CURBELO of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
California for taking the initiative on offering this amendment, which 
simply modifies the pilot program already created in the manager's 
amendment.
  My endorsement of this amendment stems from the fact that Florida's 
DOT currently has a cosponsorship program, and a multitude of other 
State DOTs have also offered their support. This program permits States 
to partner with private sector organizations, which will fund further 
roadside maintenance. The private sector, not the government, will be 
responsible for the

[[Page 17360]]

fabrication, installation, and maintenance of the signs, resulting in 
zero expense to taxpayers.
  This amendment enables State DOTs to implement an acknowledgment 
program with live plant materials. Furthermore, it provides specifics 
on the guidelines USDOT should develop and lets States decide which 
matters are of significance to them.
  I respectfully urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, this is one of those things that I kind of 
thought everybody would enjoy. It is environmentally friendly, it uses 
plants and flowers, and it doesn't cost anybody anything. I mean, this 
is one of those deals that I am surprised is opposed by any Member.
  At this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. 
Brown).
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, my State of Florida could receive 
$35 million in revenue and $8.7 million in maintenance savings annually 
for the program.
  At this time, revenue is flat-funded. This is a ``may.'' The States 
don't have to participate in it. It is a pilot program. It is flowers, 
and it is friendly. I support it, and I would urge my colleagues to 
vote for it.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill itself establishes this. The gentleman has 
proposed an up-to-20-year pilot program. That seems pretty permanent in 
terms of most people's life spans.
  Mr. HUNTER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. It takes a long time for these flowers to grow.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Reclaiming my time, I guess we are putting in 
perennials, not annuals. Okay.
  In any case, the bill itself does establish a pilot program that 
would establish that five States would be allowed not just to do logo 
flowers, but to do other innovative projects that could generate 
revenues for use in the maintenance of the rights-of-way, and this 
would be five States. There would be guidelines published by the 
Secretary. They would terminate after 6 years, and then we would see if 
there was wisdom in expanding it.
  One problem that is raised is we have gone through, as I said, many 
controversies over billboards, particularly when they went to 
billboards that would change as you were driving.
  There was heavy regulation of that because of the period of the 
change so as not to distract drivers and cause potential traffic 
accidents. I can imagine you are driving along and you are really 
wanting to read that logo as you are going by, and this could 
contribute to distracted driving. So we must oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 1\1/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I am looking at some of the designs that 
have been already done. One is a Nike swoosh. You don't have to read a 
swoosh. You just know it is a swoosh because we all know what Nike 
swooshes look like.
  You have the Pepsi logo. You don't have to read that. By going with 
the gentleman's argument, you couldn't have any billboards up anywhere. 
There are tons of billboards that you have to read.
  These are just logos, and the corporations want to pay the State DOT 
to put these logos on the side of the road. This is free money for the 
States, free money for States' transportation.
  I would urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Denham

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 
printed in part A of House Report 114-326.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle D of title I of Division A, insert 
     the following:

     SEC. __. FEDERAL AUTHORITY.

       (a) In General.--Section 14501(c) of title 49, United 
     States Code, is amended ---
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``paragraphs (2) and 
     (3)'' and inserting ``paragraphs (3) and (4)'';
       (2) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (5) as 
     paragraphs (3) through (6) respectively;
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
       ``(2) Additional limitations.--
       ``(A) A State, political subdivision of a State, or 
     political authority of 2 or more States may not enact or 
     enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the 
     force and effect of law prohibiting employees whose hours of 
     service are subject to regulation by the Secretary under 
     section 31502 from working to the full extent permitted or at 
     such times as permitted under such section, or imposing any 
     additional obligations on motor carriers if such employees 
     work to the full extent or at such times as permitted under 
     such section, including any related activities regulated 
     under part 395 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations.
       ``(B) A State, political subdivision of a State, or 
     political authority of 2 or more States may not enact or 
     enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the 
     force and effect of law that requires a motor carrier that 
     compensates employees on a piece-rate basis to pay those 
     employees separate or additional compensation, provided that 
     the motor carrier pays the employee a total sum that when 
     divided by the total number of hours worked during the 
     corresponding work period is equal to or greater than the 
     applicable hourly minimum wage of the State, political 
     subdivision of the State, or political authority of 2 or more 
     States.
       ``(C) Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to limit 
     the provisions of paragraph (1).''.
       (4) in paragraph (3) (as redesignated) by striking 
     ``Paragraph (1)--'' and inserting ``Paragraphs (1) and (2)--
     ''; and
       (5) in paragraph (4)(A) (as redesignated) by striking 
     ``Paragraph (1)'' and inserting ``Paragraphs (1) and (2)''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall have the force and effect as if enacted on the date of 
     enactment of the Federal Aviation Administration 
     Authorization Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-305).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Denham) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, in 1994, Congress enacted the Federal 
Aviation Administration Authorization Act, or F4A, to prevent States 
from undermining Federal deregulation of interstate commerce through a 
patchwork of State regulations. Since 1994, motor carriers have been 
operating under the Federal meal and rest break standards until a 
ruling by the California Ninth Circuit Court. This amendment would 
remedy that issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Unfortunately, the language of this amendment is so broad that it 
would basically preempt meal, rest break, and other laws that relate to 
truck drivers in 21 States. So I think this is an issue of states' 
rights.
  It is an issue of an overly broad attempt to address what is a real 
contradiction that was created by the ninth circuit, that if you have a 
truck driver who is operating long haul through a number of States 
having to comply with new rest or meal break requirements on the 
Federal clock, which

[[Page 17361]]

I can barely understand with the new requirements on rest, every time 
the driver crosses a State line, it is confusing and I think is a 
potential impediment to interstate commerce.
  We offered an amendment that would have specifically addressed that 
concern. Unfortunately, we weren't able to reach agreement on that. Mr. 
Larsen of Washington State submitted that amendment to the Committee on 
Rules. It was not allowed. Unfortunately, we only have this overly 
broad amendment.
  This would not just affect interstate trucking; it would preempt 
California's wage, hour, and rest break rules for intrastate trucking 
in the State of California and 20 other States. In fact, the case that 
was before the ninth circuit was intrastate truck drivers who were 
delivering appliances.
  It also would go further. We spent a lot of time when I chaired the 
subcommittee on the issue of these, basically, pressed labor, who were 
theoretically purchasing their drayage trucks to haul cargo out of Long 
Beach and out of Los Angeles, who were really basically being enslaved. 
They were never going to pay them off. They were never going to own 
them. In fact, they were hot-seated. Other people were also buying the 
same truck at different hours of the day. Nobody ever got the trucks.
  This would basically preempt any laws in California so that drivers 
could be paid on a piece rate no matter what the congestion conditions: 
Sorry. Gee, we paid you for that load. So it took you 8 hours. That is 
the way it is. So you only earned 49 cents an hour. Sorry. Because wage 
and hour laws don't apply to you.

                              {time}  1545

  It is just an overly broad attempt to address what has, at its core, 
a contradiction under the FAAA Act, the ruling about interstate 
commerce. So I would have to oppose the amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Oregon. He was here 
in 1994 when Speaker Foley pushed this issue through. He understands 
the issue. While his language did not fully address the issue, we are 
going to continue to work together to resolve this as this amendment 
moves forward.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown).
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chair, let me just say first to Mr. Shuster 
and Mr. DeFazio that I want to thank them for their leadership in 
getting this bill to the floor. I am just going with the new Speaker, 
who said, ``the will of the House.'' And I am sure the will of the 
House will pass this amendment. Why? Because one thing is that 
transportation is intermodal.
  I was here in 1994, when we said we were not going to have a 
patchwork and we were not going to have each State with their own rules 
and regulations. I say let's move forward. In my opinion, we need to 
reinstate the intentions of the Congress in 1994.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would note that 90 percent of the trucking industry is 
represented--not necessarily in terms of volume, but in terms of 
value--by OOIDA, and they are opposed to this.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. 
Napolitano).
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I thank Mr. DeFazio for yielding.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment, which would 
overturn a Federal court decision that determined California meal and 
rest break laws apply to truckers.
  On July 9, 2014, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, as was 
mentioned before, ruled that trucking operators in California must 
allow for 30-minute breaks after 5 hours of work and a 10-minute rest 
break after each 4 hours. This meal and rest break standard is very 
reasonable when you consider the truck drivers can be subject to 14 
hours of on-duty time.
  The amendment would not only preempt California's law with regard to 
trucking operations, but would preempt laws in 21 other States and 
territories that guarantee a meal break. I won't go into the States' 
names. The States must be allowed to set meal and rest break standards 
as they see fit for the health and safety of their workers. One size 
does not fit all.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Costello).
  Mr. COSTELLO of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is needed 
to keep interstate commerce moving and to correct a misguided rule 
issued by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Here, we are faced with 
an overactive judiciary legislating from the bench with very real and 
very adverse economic consequences as a result of this misinformed 
decision.
  Mr. Chairman, Congress has taken deliberate action in the past to 
preempt States from getting in the way of a nationally uniform set of 
rules for motor carriers. This amendment makes clear the intent of 
Congress that States can't impose their own requirements on drivers 
whose working hours and breaks are governed under nationally uniform 
Federal regulations.
  Mr. Chairman, under current Federal safety regulations, drivers who 
need a break are always entitled to take one. This amendment does not 
change that. Likewise, current Federal whistleblower laws protect 
drivers from carriers who stand in the way of that, and this amendment 
does not change that.
  But as a result of the Ninth Circuit Court decision, motor carriers 
will now be forced to plan their routes and services around the 
obligations of individual State break requirements. This will deprive 
businesses and drivers of the flexibility currently afforded under 
Federal law for interstate commerce. It will reduce shipping capacity. 
It will increase shipping costs, and it causes confusion and cost.
  If not corrected, who will pay the price for the decision of the 
unelected judges of the ninth circuit? In my district, it will be the 
small businesses and consumers who face higher prices, and it will 
prove more costly to transportation professionals whose livelihoods are 
directly dependent on an efficient and streamlined shipping and 
trucking industry.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. May I inquire how much time is remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon has 45 seconds remaining.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Takano).
  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong opposition to this 
amendment.
  My friends across the aisle regularly reject legislation because it 
encroaches on states' rights, yet their commitment to State sovereignty 
disappears when it comes to protecting workers.
  This amendment does more than just clarify the Federal Aviation 
Administration Authorization Act of 1994. It changes and expands its 
application to preempt the will of States such as mine.
  California's meal and rest break laws ensure a safe working 
environment for truck drivers traveling within the State, and the U.S. 
Court of Appeals specifically ruled these laws are not preempted by the 
Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act.
  This amendment overrules the court and State legislatures to weaken 
labor protections at the industry's request.
  As a member of the Education and the Workforce Committee, and as a 
Californian, I stand in strong opposition to this amendment and urge my 
colleagues to vote against it.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Ashford).
  Mr. ASHFORD. Mr. Chairman, I am proud today to stand with 
Representative Denham as a cosponsor of this amendment.
  This amendment reinforces--make no mistake--a current law that has 
been

[[Page 17362]]

on the books for over two decades. It promotes interstate commerce, 
ensures economic growth, and fortifies safety requirements.
  This amendment will allow a vital industry in my district and a vital 
industry to our Nation, the trucking industry, to operate without a 
patchwork of State regulations.
  In my home State of Nebraska, we have several of the Nation's largest 
motor carriers. These employers haul freight throughout the country and 
provide good-paying jobs. Unfortunately, these employers may now face 
litigation that could cost tens of millions of dollars and create 
regulatory uncertainty across this country.
  Far-flung litigation shouldn't threaten the livelihood of hardworking 
Nebraskans. It is likely that companies like those in my district will 
simply refuse to do business in certain States. This result will 
destroy jobs, hinder competition, and hurt taxpayers.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Walker).
  

  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, Congress has been clear that the patchwork 
of laws and rules dictating when drivers eat, sleep, and pull over is 
impractical. Fifty standards create an unreasonable burden on truck 
drivers and companies.
  Furthermore, dismantling the Federal standards jeopardizes safety, 
increases costs, causes significant inefficiencies, reduces 
competition, inhibits innovation and technology, and curtails the 
expansion of markets.
  I support the Denham amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to do 
the same.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Stewart).
  Mr. STEWART. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.
  In my district, I have some of the largest trucking companies in the 
country. I recognize these are hardworking, dedicated people who play a 
vital role in the success of our economy. The growth of regulations 
under this administration has made their jobs much, much more 
difficult.
  This amendment seeks to relieve truck drivers of a patchwork of 
regulations that make their jobs very difficult, with little positive 
effect.
  Let me correct a common misunderstanding. This amendment does not 
prevent drivers from taking breaks when they think it is appropriate. 
In fact, it does the exact opposite. It allows the drivers to be 
flexible to take breaks when they think it is most appropriate and most 
safe and not to worry if they are violating the law.
  Arbitrarily predetermined break times set by 50 different States 
simply will not work, and that is why I am such a strong supporter of 
this amendment.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Denham).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Aguilar

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9 
printed in part A of House Report 114-326.
  Mr. AGUILAR. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle D of title I of division A, add the 
     following:

     SEC. __. PROGRAM TO ASSIST VETERANS TO ACQUIRE COMMERCIAL 
                   DRIVER'S LICENSES.

       Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary, in coordination with the Secretary of 
     Defense, shall fully implement the recommendations contained 
     in the report submitted under section 32308 of MAP-21 (49 
     U.S.C. 31301 note).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Aguilar) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. AGUILAR. Mr. Chairman, I think we can all agree that our veterans 
deserve the very best we can offer when they return home. While we can 
never repay them for their heroism and bravery, we can reaffirm our 
appreciation by doing everything in our power to help them transition 
back to civilian life. My amendment would help us do just that.
  This amendment requires the Department of Transportation and the 
Department of Defense to work together to help veterans transition into 
civilian jobs driving commercial trucks. It would help them obtain 
commercial driver's licenses, as outlined in a report commissioned by 
the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 2 years ago. This 
report was done at the direction of the last surface transportation 
bill, MAP-21, and my amendment requires DOT and DOD to work together to 
implement the report's recommendations.
  Along with improving access to quality health care, one of the most 
important ways we need to help veterans is connecting them with job 
opportunities. Encouraging local businesses to hire more veterans is 
one step, but helping our veterans translate those skills they used in 
the military is a crucial part of putting our veterans back to work.
  Many veterans who drove specialized vehicles in the military struggle 
to put these skills to work when they return home because of 
unnecessary and burdensome regulations. My amendment makes it easier 
for veterans to put their skills to work by requiring the Federal Motor 
Carrier Safety Administration's report recommendations be put into 
effect.
  Please allow me to explain.
  My amendment writes into law the recommendations that States can 
waive driving skills tests if a veteran certifies that he or she was 
employed in the military in a position operating a commercial motor 
vehicle, or CMV, during the last year. This was included in the 
underlying bill, for which I applaud the majority and minority for 
their efforts; however, my amendment goes a bit further.
  Among other things, my amendment helps create an abbreviated 
commercial driver's license skills test for States to give military 
drivers who do not have the experience operating vehicles with air 
brakes or manual transmissions.
  This amendment also, based on the recommendations of the report, 
directs the military services to work with the Federal Motor Carrier 
Safety Administration and the American Association of Motor Vehicle 
Administrators to clarify options available to servicemembers and 
veterans to obtain existing information on military licenses, military 
CMV driver history, and military CMV experience.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to do better by our men and women in uniform 
who have risked and sacrificed so much to keep us safe and free. As we 
focus on growing our economy, we need to keep our veterans in mind as 
we seek to expand job opportunities. This amendment will help us do 
just that.
  The study commissioned by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration was 2 years ago. It is time to put that into action and 
to get our veterans back to work. This is about getting our veterans 
what they have earned and deserve, and I look forward to working with 
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to see this through.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I 
do not oppose the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I appreciate the gentleman from California bringing this 
amendment forward.
  The STRR Act requires the Secretary to issue regulations by the end 
of this year to implement recommendations of

[[Page 17363]]

a report to Congress on assisting veterans in acquiring a commercial 
driver's license. However, the bill does not address the nonregulatory 
recommendations. This amendment does that. It requires the Secretary to 
implement those recommendations within a year.
  This is a good amendment that will assist our veterans in making the 
transition to civilian life. I urge all Members to support the 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. AGUILAR. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Aguilar).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1600


                  Amendment No. 10 Offered by Ms. Hahn

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10 
printed in part A of House Report 114-326.
  Ms. HAHN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle D of title I of division A, add the 
     following:

     SEC. __. STUDY ON BURYING POWER LINES.

       Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary shall conduct a study and report the 
     findings of such study to the appropriate committees of 
     Congress regarding the feasibility, costs, and economic 
     impact of burying power lines underground. Such study shall 
     include the potential costs and benefits of burying power 
     lines underground when building new roads.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Hahn) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. HAHN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer the Hahn-Cicilline amendment 
to the Surface Transportation Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2015. 
Our committee has been putting in many months, some would say even 
years, in writing this bill. So it is actually a great day to see this 
bill finally come on the floor.
  In addition, I would like to thank Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member 
DeFazio, and the entire Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for 
our hard work in crafting this legislation.
  If I might just take a moment at this point to give a farewell and a 
rest in peace to Howard Coble, who was a good member of our 
Transportation Committee, who served in the Coast Guard. In fact, we 
named our Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act the Howard Coble 
Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2014. We will miss him. 
He was a good member of our committee.
  Our amendment today looks to make our Nation's roadways safer and, 
also, more scenic by directing the Secretary of Transportation to study 
the benefits and costs of undergrounding power lines.
  Forty percent of all power outages are due to fallen trees or weather 
events, and an additional 8 percent are caused by traffic accidents.
  By placing power lines underground, roadways are safer from downed 
lines during storms, service to customers is more reliable, and our 
roadways will simply be more beautiful to drive on.
  Every year over 1,000 fatalities occur as a result of collisions with 
utility poles. In fact, according to the Insurance Institute for 
Highway Safety, about 20 percent of all highway deaths are due to power 
line poles and traffic barriers.
  This is a preventable tragedy, and this amendment asks the Secretary 
to evaluate if this is feasible and to share with Congress its 
findings.
  We should take this highway authorization as an opportunity to make 
our highways safer and more scenic.
  My home State of California has been a leader in undergrounding power 
lines. In 1967, California began encouraging and directing utility 
providers to allocate a portion of their budgets to replace overhead 
cables with underground cables. This has been a good start, but I think 
we could do more in this country.
  It was President Johnson, urged on by Lady Bird, who signed the 
Highway Beautification Act in 1965 to limit unsightly roadside mess.
  Upon the bill's passage, President Johnson said, ``Beauty belongs to 
all the people. And so long as I am President, what has been divinely 
given to nature will not be taken recklessly away by man.''
  By conducting a nationwide study through the DOT, we can begin to see 
where these conversions make sense across this country.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I, as always, appreciate the gentlewoman from California 
and her hard work. She is a valued member of the committee.
  I don't believe this amendment has to do with transportation policy. 
I think it is a good thing when you bury power lines for a lot of 
reasons--appearance, weather, all those things--but I really don't 
believe this is a Federal issue, nor do I believe the U.S. Department 
of Transportation is the appropriate agency to determine the costs and 
benefits of burying power lines.
  I really believe that should be up to the companies and their cost-
benefit analysis to determine that and not to underwrite or subsidize 
their operation by doing this.
  So, again, with great respect to the gentlewoman from California, I 
oppose this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. HAHN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline) to speak in support of this 
important amendment.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and 
for her extraordinary leadership on this effort.
  I rise in strong support of this amendment. This amendment would 
require the Secretary to conduct a study of the feasibility, costs, and 
economic impact of burying power lines underground.
  According to Federal data, the U.S. electric grid loses power 285 
percent more often than it did in 1984, when data collection efforts on 
blackouts began.
  According to the Department of Energy, that costs American businesses 
as much as $150 billion per year, with weather-related disruptions 
costing the most per event.
  Underground power lines make up just 18 percent of U.S. transmission 
lines, yet nearly all new residential and commercial developments opt 
for underground electric service.
  During Hurricane Irene in 2011, more than 6.5 million people in the 
United States lost power, including more than 30 percent of the 
residents living in my home State of Rhode Island, as well as 
Connecticut and Maryland.
  I urge my colleagues to support this simple, straightforward 
amendment so that we can begin to create a more reliable and resilient 
electric grid.
  I want to acknowledge the work being advanced by Scenic America to 
help restore and modernize the Highway Beautification Act that 
Congresswoman Hahn just made reference to.
  A group of us, including this extraordinary gentlewoman from 
California, have been in a working group trying to work on legislation 
to really restore and modernize the Highway Beautification Act, and 
Scenic America has really taken the lead in this work.
  I think the words of Lady Bird Johnson that the gentlewoman just 
recited are incredibly important. This is an important first step to 
just get information to understand the economic impact of burying power 
lines, what a difference it will make not only in terms of the scenic 
beauty of our highways, but also to businesses, and to prevent the 
economic loss that happens both to individuals and businesses.
  It is an excellent amendment. I thank the gentlewoman for her great 
leadership. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.

[[Page 17364]]


  Ms. HAHN. I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline). 
This was our joint amendment.
  Mr. Chair, as you said, Scenic America is working on different ways 
in this country to beautify our landscape. I believe that this 
transportation bill was the appropriate place to do this, as this is 
about highways and our roads in this country.
  But, having the disapproval and opposition of my chairman--it wasn't 
that strong, but it was a disapproval--I will agree to withdraw this 
amendment, and we will work with Scenic America to find another way to 
bring the undergrounding of our utilities forward.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHUSTER. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island, although I 
oppose his amendment.
  Mr. CICILLINE. I would just ask the gentleman if he would commit to 
working with Congresswoman Hahn and I and a group of others that are 
really interested in restoring and modernizing the Highway 
Beautification Act so that we might work collaboratively on restoring 
some of those important provisions.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I appreciate the gentleman pushing this issue. Again, as 
I said, burying power lines I think is a positive thing. It does add to 
the beauty of the landscape. But I just don't believe that it is the 
Federal Government's role to underwrite, the taxpayers to underwrite, 
these utility companies.
  So, again, I appreciate the withdrawal. I appreciate your pushing 
this issue. I continue to oppose the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. HAHN. Mr. Chair, I withdraw my amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.


           Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Heck of Washington

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11 
printed in part A of House Report 114-326.
  Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle D of title I of division A, add the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 1431. STORMWATER REDUCTION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

       Chapter 3 of title 23, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 330. Stormwater reduction assistance program

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section, the term `green 
     stormwater infrastructure' refers to stormwater management 
     techniques that address the quality or quantity of stormwater 
     related to highway construction or due to highway runoff.
       ``(b) Federal Highway Runoff Management Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this section, the Secretary, in 
     consultation with the heads of other relevant Federal 
     agencies, shall develop and publish best practices and 
     guidance for the installation, use and maintenance of green 
     stormwater infrastructure, including the adoption of 
     permeable, pervious, or porous paving materials or other 
     practices and systems that are designed to minimize 
     environmental impacts of stormwater runoff and flooding.
       ``(2) Contents.--The guidance shall include best practices, 
     guidelines, and technical assistance for the installation and 
     use of green stormwater technologies, including--
       ``(A) identification of existing and emerging green 
     stormwater infrastructure technologies;
       ``(B) cost-benefit information relating to green stormwater 
     infrastructure approaches;
       ``(C) performance analyses of green stormwater 
     infrastructure technologies in typical use scenarios; and
       ``(D) guidance and best practices on the design, 
     implementation, use, and maintenance of green stormwater 
     infrastructure features.
       ``(3) Updates.--Not later than 5 years after the date of 
     publication of the guidance under this paragraph, and not 
     less frequently than once every 5 years thereafter, the 
     Secretary, in consultation with the heads of other relevant 
     Federal agencies, shall update the guidance, as 
     applicable.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Heck) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Chairman, small towns and cities alike 
have reasons to manage their storm water runoff. Our streams, rivers, 
lakes, and estuaries are all at risk of dangerous pollution following a 
downpour.
  Trust me, those of us from western Washington know this full well, 
and places like Puyallup, Washington, are actually finding ways to 
adjust their neighborhoods to protect surrounding waterways from 
pollution.
  Since 2009, Puyallup has helped residents install rain gardens to 
absorb the rainfall. These rain gardens are linked by pipes that 
collect the excess water from the roofs and direct it to the gardens 
rather than to the streets and then into the sewer.
  This is just one innovation of several great ideas that are innovated 
throughout this country in places like Puyallup.
  My amendment today builds on the success on the ground by simply 
asking the Department of Transportation to develop best practices for 
storm water management, to collect the information, and a guide on how 
to implement, install, and maintain green storm water infrastructure, 
and help any State that requests help with the development of such a 
plan--a voluntary program, not a requirement, no new money.
  Many of these innovative infrastructure practices--permeable 
pavement, natural drainage swales, green roofs--are economical and 
increase property values and invest in the people that make their 
careers designing and building these inventions.
  These new tools are both flexible and yield a strong return on 
investment. The people of Puyallup, Washington, get that.
  They know and I know and you know that we can't let water carry oil 
from our cars, pesticide from our lawns, and other pollutants into 
Clarks Creek or the Puyallup River or the Puget Sound.
  We can't do that and keep a strong economy or a desirable location 
for business and living. We can't let runoff kill, as an example, our 
cherished Coho salmon.
  So I ask you to support the promise of these innovative economical 
ideas to manage our storm water and to get DOT involved.
  This is the best of federalism. No new money, no mandatory program, 
just a way to get the information out, which the Federal U.S. DOT is in 
the perfect position to collect and make available.
  Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from the Sixth Congressional 
District of Washington (Mr. Kilmer).
  Mr. KILMER. I thank the gentleman from Washington's Tenth District.
  In my neck of the woods, we take pride in the Puget Sound and we 
understand that it is in danger. That is why I join my colleague today 
to talk about the treasures the Sound holds: the water, the salmon, the 
oysters, the orcas, an entire ecosystem that is currently under attack. 
This is a threat that happens every time a thunderstorm or a rain 
strikes cities like Tacoma.
  When heavy rains hit, that water will wash toxic mixtures of oil and 
heavy metals off of our city streets and highways and into waterways 
like Puget Sound.
  The Seattle Times recently wrote about a new study that found some 
runoff was so toxic that it killed Coho salmon in 2\1/2\ hours.
  It is something we don't often think about, but this storm water mix 
creates a pollution that lingers. Folks in the region I represent are 
doing groundbreaking work putting in green storm water infrastructure 
to capture this runoff before it hits our waters.
  These are projects like rain gardens, green roofs, and natural 
drainage swales. Instead of letting storm water slide along and collect 
more dirt and grime and end up in our bodies of water, it captures it.
  Our amendment would encourage the growth of these projects. It would 
give our local governments and places like Tacoma and Puyallup and 
elsewhere a clear playbook on the most effective ways to implement 
green storm water infrastructure.
  It demonstrates that the Federal Government and local stakeholders 
can

[[Page 17365]]

be partners in cleaning up our waters. This matters. It matters to 
Tacoma and other cities. It matters to bodies of water like the Puget 
Sound.
  Storm water runoff may be hard to spot, but it is taking a toll on 
Puget Sound and other bodies of water. That is why this amendment is 
important. That is why I encourage my colleagues to vote for this 
amendment.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Fortenberry). The gentleman from Pennsylvania 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I certainly understand what the gentleman 
from Washington is trying to accomplish here.
  The reason I oppose it is not because of what he is attempting to do, 
but the Federal Highway Administration currently has strongly supported 
and encouraged the use and implementation of green infrastructure in 
the Federal aid transportation projects to mitigate highway runoff 
impacts.
  FHWA recently published a new storm water runoff model, and it is 
engaged in various storm water research, including storm water 
performance measures.
  The Department of Transportation also is part of a Federal agency 
green infrastructure collaborative. This initiative includes working 
with States to implement integrated ecosystems, including landscape-
scale mitigation. So I don't believe we need to legislate further on 
this.
  I also would make note that just last night, we agreed to the 
amendment of Ms. Edwards of Maryland on storm water mitigation to put 
the States in the metropolitan planning process.

                              {time}  1615

  Again, I understand what the gentleman is trying to accomplish. I 
think it is already in the legislation. I think it is already in 
current law, so I would oppose the amendment
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much 
time I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington has 1 minute 
remaining.
  Mr. HECK of Washington. With all due respect to the chair of the 
committee, that isn't included in the current legislation and is 
clearly not the intent of the amendment. The intent of the amendment is 
to ask them to accumulate best practices. Yes, they have programs where 
they promote and they advocate. This is to ask them to go out and find 
these programs like we talked about in Puyallup which are unusual and 
innovative and which aren't yet in the manual so that they can share. 
This is information sharing on a scale that they don't currently do.
  In fact, Mr. Chairman, it would help with a serious problem; but 
given the Chair's opposition to this, I will only ask that he consider 
taking a deeper dive into what we are trying to accomplish here because 
it solves a problem.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I will continue to work with the 
gentleman. The gentleman is correct. It is not in current law, but the 
Federal Highway Administration is working on these things 
collaboratively with the States, and I think that we ought to let them 
continue at that pace.
  Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Chair, I withdraw my amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.


              Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12 
printed in part A of House Report 114-326.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle D of title I of division A, add the 
     following:

     SEC. __. PREVAILING RATE OF WAGE REQUIREMENTS.

       None of the funds made available by this Act, including the 
     amendments made by this Act, may be used to implement, 
     administer, or enforce the prevailing rate of wage 
     requirements in subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 40, 
     United States Code (commonly referred to as the Davis-Bacon 
     Act).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. King) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that I have 
offered in the past, and it will be known as the amendment that 
eliminates the effect of the Davis-Bacon Act. The substance of it is 
this:
  None of the funds made available by this act may be used to 
implement, administer, or enforce the prevailing rate of wage, which is 
the effect of this amendment, and it is effectively the Davis-Bacon 
Act. It seems to get the attention of some of my colleagues.
  I would say, Mr. Chairman, that I have worked with this issue as long 
as anyone in the United States Congress. I have worked back for years, 
as I began about 5 years in the construction site as an employee. 
Multiple times I received Davis-Bacon wage scales; sometimes I did not.
  As I became a contractor in 1975, we began hiring employees. 
Sometimes we paid Davis-Bacon wage scales, and sometimes we did not; 
but I was always aggravated by the Federal Government's deciding that 
they knew what we had to pay our help and what they were worth.
  I recall many debates on the floor of the House of Representatives 
when people from the other side of the aisle would say that anytime 
there is a relationship between two or more people that are consenting 
adults, the Federal Government has no business sticking themselves in 
the middle of that relationship. Yet the Davis-Bacon Act tells me what 
my son, who is now sitting in the gallery, has to pay me if I am going 
to climb in the seat of one of his machines, say an excavator, a 
scraper, a bulldozer, or a motor grader.
  So we are 40 years in the construction business. I have watched the 
inefficiencies that are created by the Davis-Bacon Act. You might need 
somebody on a shovel, and he decides it pays more to get on a motor 
grade; or you might need somebody on a scraper, and he decides it pays 
more to get on a bulldozer. This wrecks the efficiency as well as puts 
an extra high price on the cost of the products that are being produced 
under the contracting business in the United States.
  So I would say this, Mr. Chairman, that over our years in the 
construction business, the extra costs for Davis-Bacon ranges somewhere 
between 8 and 38 percent additional, depending on the type of project 
and the location where you are. The average is someplace between 20 and 
22 percent.
  So to boil this all down, if we want to be responsible to the 
taxpayer, then we want to get the best dollar out of that.
  Somebody is going to say that it is second-rate work. That would be a 
direct insult to me. It would be a direct insult to my son, who owns 
King Construction today and who is listening to this debate. Our 
quality work stands with anyone's, and it is superior to many; and 
sometimes it is Davis-Bacon wage scale, and sometimes it is not. But we 
know what they are worth. The government doesn't know what they are 
worth. We want to hire the best help, keep the best help, and keep the 
best help on. That is just here in this microcosm of King Construction, 
but it is extrapolated across the Nation.
  So do we want to build 4 miles of road under government-mandated 
wages or do we want to build 5? I want to build the 5 miles. I want to 
build five bridges, not four. I want the best dollar for the taxpayers, 
and I want the highest efficiency that we can get. That is the 
substance of this amendment, and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, there was a time in America in 1931 when people were 
desperate, and unscrupulous contractors would move people from place to 
place, put them in work camps, and undercut

[[Page 17366]]

the wages in communities. The wisdom of the Congress back then was this 
is not proper. Communities have different wage rates.
  This is not a diktat from Washington, D.C., about the wages. It says 
you will pay the wages that prevail in your community. For instance, in 
the gentleman's community, the median wage is $49,427. But under Davis-
Bacon, an electrician--a pretty darned skilled person in my opinion--
would only get $36,500 if they get the minimum Davis-Bacon wage. So I 
don't see that that is outrageous.
  What we are trying to prevent here is the abuse of construction 
workers and people, moving them from place to place, bringing them from 
a very low-cost State and saying: Hey, when you go home, you are going 
to be doing good. We will put you in a little work camp and a tent. You 
come here to this State; you undercut all the local workers; you do the 
job; and you go home. We don't want to go back to those days. Those 
were not halcyon days in America.
  So this is really a way to provide people with a living wage, 
certainly not an extravagant wage. I don't think $36,500 for an 
electrician in Iowa is an extravagant wage, and I don't see why we 
should pull that floor out from underneath them and say: Oh, hey, well, 
that is a little too high. We want to be able to pay our electricians 
less than that.
  This is about trying to create a race to the bottom like we have in 
too many other things in this country, our trade agreements and a whole 
host of other things that are going on that are creating income 
inequality. This will exacerbate income inequality. This amendment 
should be defeated.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott), the ranking member of the Education and Workforce Committee.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the King amendment.
  This amendment would prohibit the application and payment of 
prevailing wages provided under the Davis-Bacon Act for funds expended 
on construction projects in this bill.
  Davis-Bacon sets wage and benefit standards for federally assisted 
construction projects to ensure that contractors compete on the quality 
of their work, not by undercutting wage levels in local communities. 
Negating the application of wage laws, as the King amendment proposes 
to do, often leads to shoddy construction and substantial cost 
overruns.
  This is not said to insult the sponsor of the amendment. The fact is 
that the census construction data shows that the value added per worker 
in States with prevailing wage laws is 13 to 15 percent higher than in 
States without prevailing wage laws.
  Additionally, studies conducted by the University of Utah have found 
that repealing the prevailing wage has led to the reduction or 
elimination of apprenticeship programs. Mr. Chairman, this is National 
Apprenticeship Week. We should be promoting the participation in 
apprenticeship programs, not taking up measures that would negatively 
impact this critical job training tool.
  Under prevailing wage laws, contractors are forced to compete on the 
basis of who can best train, equip, and manage construction crews, not 
on the basis of who can assemble the cheapest, most exploitable 
workforce either locally or by importing labor from somewhere else.
  Historically, Mr. Chairman, there has been bipartisan opposition to 
repealing or suspending the Davis-Bacon Act in infrastructure programs. 
Let's continue that bipartisan tradition on prevailing wages by voting 
``no'' on this amendment.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Iowa has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I thought I had actually made the statement, I thought 
my good friend from Virginia would pick this up, that it isn't about 
shoddy construction work that can be laid at the feet of merit shop 
operations. I am standing here on my feet in my boots having done all 
kinds of work for lots of years, and so has my family, going back about 
five generations. Our work has been competing with and superior to that 
of many, and there is nothing in the record of our company that anyone 
could point to other than quality and efficiency.
  In fact, the reason that he needs an apprentice program is because 
you can't afford to hire somebody and train them unless the government 
is willing to let you pay them less than the prevailing wage. That is 
what the apprentice program is. I have been one, and I have been 
bounced out of there because of the Davis-Bacon Act.
  Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, when I listen to the gentleman about how 
we are going to prevent people from moving people in from a low-wage 
area to a high-wage area to take a higher wage or perhaps undercut the 
existing wage that is there, that is what started the Davis-Bacon Act. 
It wasn't to keep the low wages out. It was to keep African Americans 
out of New York City during the Depression when there was a large 
Federal building contract, and a contractor successfully bid that job. 
He was from out of town and he brought his crews in from Alabama, 
African Americans from Alabama, to do the work cheaper than the union 
scale would do in New York. That is what brought about this Davis-Bacon 
Act.
  When the Federal Government decides they are going to tell people 
what they have to pay their employees, they are the last people that 
actually know what that is worth. When you have to compete in this real 
world where equipment is expensive and time is priceless and we have 
strict specifications, strong engineers, bonds--bid bonds and 
performance bonds--and insurance contracts, we have to be efficient, 
and we have to be professional. We have to be able to not only do this 
as well as anyone, but more efficiently than anyone. That is what the 
merit shop does.
  Mr. Chairman, nobody is dragging their feet in our operation. They 
want the company to be successful. When I send people out on a Davis-
Bacon job, they are out there sometimes rolling clods because they know 
that it pays them to roll clods rather than get the job done. That is 
our expression, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire if I have 1 minute 
remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
  Mr. KILDEE. I thank the ranking member.
  Mr. Chairman, this is actually a pretty simple question, and I know 
my friend from Iowa tends to see this question through the lens of his 
own personal experience and his own company, but, frankly, this is a 
bigger question than that.
  I think it is right that the Federal Government has a stake in how it 
spends its money and that the Federal Government ought to be able to 
say that when we fund construction projects, we don't want contractors 
to simply pick the cheapest labor they can. Sure, we may want to build 
more roads, but we want to make sure those roads last. It is not just a 
matter of how many miles you build, but whether or not they are going 
to be done in a way that makes sure that the quality of the work 
matches the investment that this country is making.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman's point. I can just tell 
you about my own experience having done development and construction in 
one of the toughest markets in America, big construction and small 
jobs. I always knew when we paid a prevailing wage that the work was 
going to be done on time and it was going to be done with quality.
  When it comes to the Federal dollar, doesn't it seem to me and all of 
us here that cheap is not always better, and that we owe it to the 
American people to deliver to them a product that is

[[Page 17367]]

consistent with the quality that they would like to see in their own 
home? When you go to buy material or when you go to hire a contractor 
yourself for your own home, you don't say to yourself, ``Who is the 
lowest cost provider I can get?'' You want to make sure the job is done 
right.
  Secondly, the American people need a raise. We don't need the Federal 
Government to participate in this race to the bottom in undercutting 
local economies by paying people less than they are worth. We have lost 
enough in this country. It is time to end this.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  For over 75 years, the Davis-Bacon Act has been protecting middle 
class families and taxpayers.
  As a son of a union worker in Snohomish County, Washington, I know 
how important prevailing wages can be for middle class families.
  A prevailing wage is not necessarily a union wage--it's set by the 
Department of Labor after surveying local labor.
  But it's a living wage, one that has helped build middle class 
economies in my district in places like Everett and Lynnwood.
  Davis-Bacon standards also ensure that taxpayers are getting their 
money's worth when it comes to construction projects.
  By paying a decent wage, Davis-Bacon projects are built by more 
experienced and more productive construction workers.
  The result is better built, longer lasting projects that save money 
over their lifetime which is especially important because poor and 
crumbling infrastructure hurts everyone.
  We shouldn't cut corners when it comes to our transportation 
infrastructure, and we shouldn't cut corners when it comes to hiring 
construction workers.
  The amendment before us would do just that.
  Workers deserve to be paid fair wages.
  I ask my colleagues to support middle class families by voting 
against this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa will be 
postponed.
  


                              {time}  1630


          Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Larsen of Washington

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13 
printed in part A of House Report 114-326.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Add at the end of title II the following:

     SEC. __. STREAMLINED APPLICATION PROCESS.

       Section 603 of title 23, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) Streamlined Application Process.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of enactment of the Surface Transportation Reauthorization 
     and Reform Act of 2015, the Secretary shall make available an 
     expedited application process or processes available at the 
     request of entities seeking secured loans under this chapter 
     that use a set or sets of conventional terms established 
     pursuant to this section.
       ``(2) Terms.--In establishing the streamlined application 
     process required by this subsection, the Secretary shall 
     include terms commonly included in prior credit agreements 
     that are desirable to borrowers and allow for an expedited 
     application period, including--
       ``(A) the secured loan is in an amount of not greater than 
     $100,000,000;
       ``(B) the secured loan is secured and payable from pledged 
     revenues not affected by project performance, such as a tax-
     backed revenue pledge, tax increment financing, or a system-
     backed pledge of project revenues; and
       ``(C) repayment of the loan commence not later than 2 years 
     after disbursement.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Larsen) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.


  Modification to Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Larsen of Washington

  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
amendment No. 13 printed in part A of House Report 114-326 be modified 
in the form I have placed at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:
  Modification to amendment No. 13 offered by Mr. Larsen of Washington:

       In lieu of amendment #13 printed in Part A of House Report 
     114-326.
       Add at the end of title II the following:

     SEC. __. STREAMLINED APPLICATION PROCESS.

       Section 603 of title 23, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) Streamlined Application Process.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of enactment of the Surface Transportation Reauthorization 
     and Reform Act of 2015, the Secretary shall make available an 
     expedited application process or processes available at the 
     request of entities seeking secured loans under this chapter 
     that use a set or sets of conventional terms established 
     pursuant to this section.
       ``(2) Terms.--In establishing the streamlined application 
     process required by this subsection, the Secretary may 
     include terms commonly included in prior credit agreements 
     and allow for an expedited application period, including--
       ``(A) the secured loan is in an amount of not greater than 
     $100,000,000;
       ``(B) the secured loan is secured and payable from pledged 
     revenues not affected by project performance, such as a tax-
     backed revenue pledge, tax increment financing, or a system-
     backed pledge of project revenues; and
       ``(C) repayment of the loan commence not later than 5 years 
     after disbursement.''.

  Mr. LARSEN of Washington (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the modification.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is modified.
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I have heard from many 
midsize cities in my district that they often struggle to compete with 
larger cities for Federal transportation funding.
  While the needs of midsize cities are just as significant as those of 
larger cities, the administrative burden of accessing TIGER grants or 
TIFIA loans is often too great. My amendment addresses that difficulty 
by improving access to TIFIA loans.
  While TIFIA is a great funding source for bigger projects, sponsors 
of smaller projects can be discouraged from using it because the 
application process is complicated and requires more resources than 
these cities can muster.
  My amendment would require the Secretary to provide an expedited 
process for TIFIA applications that are less than $100 million and 
backed by real revenue. These are smaller, lower risk projects that 
aren't happening because States and localities might be scared off by 
the long and involved TIFIA loan application process.
  By creating an expedited process for these smaller, lower risk 
projects, we can open access to Federal resources for smaller cities 
and counties that we represent.
  This is a streamlined amendment that puts more power in the hands of 
State and local governments, something I know that my colleagues can 
support.
  I appreciate that Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio have 
made other improvements to the TIFIA process in the underlying bill, 
and my amendment complements these improvements in a straightforward 
way. I would appreciate the support of the leadership on the committee 
for this amendment.
  I ask support of my amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, even 
though I do not oppose the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.

[[Page 17368]]


  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I support the gentleman's commonsense 
amendment. As usual, he brings common sense to the table.
  This amendment does and will accelerate the approval of TIFIA credit 
assistance for certain projects.
  I encourage all Members to support the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I ask support for this 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen), as modified.
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Culberson

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 14 
printed in part A of House Report 114-326.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 249, after line 14, insert the following:
       (2) in subsection (c)(1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (B)(ii) by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in subparagraph (B)(iii) by striking the period and 
     inserting ``; and'' ; and
       (D) by adding at the end of subparagraph (B) the following:
       ``(iv) the applicant shall have a current operating ratio, 
     as such ratio is set forth by the Federal Transit 
     Administration using the ratio of current assets to current 
     liabilities, of 1:1.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Culberson) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, one of our principal responsibilities 
here is to be good stewards of our constituents' hard-earned tax 
dollars. It is a responsibility that I know each one of us takes very 
seriously.
  My amendment today will ensure that we apply the same commonsense 
standards to the investment of our constituents' hard-earned tax 
dollars that we do in the investment of our own dollars.
  You in your own life would not loan money or invest money in a 
business that was so poorly managed that it took on more debt than they 
could manage. You wouldn't put your money in a company that had taken 
on so much debt that their debt exceeded their liabilities. And, 
certainly, if you were applying for a bank loan, a bank would not loan 
your business money if your business had more debt than it had assets.
  That is all this amendment says is that the Federal Government will 
not invest our constituents' hard-earned tax dollars in a transit 
agency that has more debt than they do liabilities.
  My amendment ensures that the minimum asset-to-debt ratio that a 
transit entity can have is 1:1. It is common sense. This is sort of a 
working guideline that I know the Transportation Appropriations 
Subcommittee, on which I work, and the Federal Transit Administration 
has for years wanted to be sure that the agencies out there--transit 
entities across America--have no more debt than they do assets.
  So the amendment says the Federal Government will not issue a Federal 
transit grant to an agency that has a ratio of current assets to debt 
that exceeds 1:1, very straightforward, very simple.
  Let's protect our constituents' hard-earned tax dollars in the same 
way we would protect our own. In fact, it is actually a much higher 
obligation that we have to be good stewards of the Treasury, as 
responsible representatives.
  I urge adoption of this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This is an unusual amendment, to say the least. There is no measure 
of assets done regularly for our transit systems in America. In fact, 
the only measurement that is done is that we have an $84 billion--B, 
billion--backlog to bring our existing transit systems up to a state of 
good repair. That means, basically, I am sure everybody would fail this 
test.
  So if you want to do away with transit in America and get them out of 
the trust fund--something that Ronald Reagan made a high priority, and 
he put transit into the trust fund. He was the first Republican to 
support that, and they have been in ever since.
  He said: We cannot ignore our urban centers. They are the engines of 
economic growth in this country, and we can't ignore them. We need to 
be able to move people efficiently in those urban areas.
  So, since then, we have had a modest proportion of the trust fund--
about 20 percent, generally--going into transit.
  That is not adequate, as it is not adequate for bridges; 140,000 need 
replacement or repair. It is not adequate for highways; 40 percent of 
the system is failing and it needs total rebuilding.
  But an $84 billion backlog in transit--they are killing people right 
here in the Nation's Capital because of the state of disrepair. It is 
an embarrassment.
  There is no transit district in the United States of America who 
makes money. So what is this about? I don't get it. We are not lending 
money for them to make a profit and pay off loans. They all receive 
Federal support, and they need more Federal support.
  In fact, in my travels, I have only been one place where they claim 
the transit district made money, which is Hong Kong. I urge you to go 
ride there at rush hour and see if you enjoy that experience. It is not 
very good here either.
  But, in any case, no one else claims to make money. And I don't know 
if they really do. That is a Communist-dominated state. So it is 
probably not true.
  I don't understand the amendment, to tell the truth. I would urge my 
colleagues to oppose it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, my colleague from Oregon is confusing 
the issue here. The amendment is very straightforward.
  Let me read from the amendment itself. The applicant transit agency 
has to have a current operating ratio of current assets to current 
liabilities of 1:1. They have to have the same current level of debt as 
they do assets in order to be eligible to apply for a Federal transit 
grant.
  This isn't about making money. This is about making sure the 
taxpayers are not going to give another brick to a transit agency that 
has already got too much debt and is overloaded and is in a position 
where they may not be able to take full advantage of the grant. 
Taxpayers, our constituents, should not have to put their hard-earned 
tax dollars into a transit agency that is carrying more debt than they 
have assets. This is very straightforward.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas for 
him to name a transit agency that has gone bankrupt recently.
  Mr. CULBERSON. In fact, I just spoke to the chairman of the Houston 
Metropolitan Transit Authority yesterday, and he tells me that their 
asset-to-debt ratio--they have got assets.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Reclaiming my time, I don't know what and who is running 
that thing.
  Mr. CULBERSON: They are going to go bankrupt.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Sir, it is my time. They have not gone bankrupt. They 
are still operating.
  The Federal Government has not had, that I am aware of, any major 
TIFIA loans or anything go into default.
  This is a bizarre amendment in search of a problem that doesn't 
exist. We have no transit agencies that are making money. I don't 
anticipate we ever will have a transit agency that makes money. No one 
in the world operates transit agencies that make money.
  It is a public service to mitigate congestion and provide for our 
major

[[Page 17369]]

urban areas to move people more efficiently with a partnership between 
the Federal Government and local authorities.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, this is not about making money. The 
Houston Metropolitan Transit Authority chairman yesterday told me that 
their asset-to-debt ratio is about 2:3:1. So they have got 2 to 3 times 
more assets than they do debt.
  That is what this amendment says, that we will, as good stewards of 
our taxpayers' hard-earned dollars, only send Federal transportation 
grants to transit agencies like Houston Metro that have done a good job 
managing their responsibilities and their assets are at least on par 
with their debt. That is all it says.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, my colleague from Oregon is confusing 
the issue. This isn't about making money. This isn't about repaying the 
money.
  This is about making sure that our constituents' hard-earned tax 
dollars are going to be wisely and carefully and prudently sent only to 
those transit agencies that have proven they can do a good job, that 
they don't have more debt currently than they have current assets.
  My amendment, quoting from the amendment, is very simple:

       Applicant shall have a current operating ratio of current 
     assets to current liabilities of 1:1.

  That is at a minimum. Houston Metro would qualify for this. There are 
transit agencies all over America that would qualify for this.
  Let's make sure that the transit entity, before they ask for our 
constituents' hard-earned tax dollars, have demonstrated that they are 
competent and capable of managing the money that they already have on 
hand and they don't have more debt than they can carry.
  I urge passage of the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Actually, the amendment is to take money from New York City, 
Washington, D.C., probably Baltimore, Boston--I don't know--anyone who 
has a legacy transportation system that actually, until Ronald Reagan 
was President, pretty much was built without Federal dollars and run 
without Federal support and they have huge backlogs in terms of 
bringing them up to a state of good repair, 120-, 130-year-old tunnels.
  This would just basically say: Let's put the money in the places 
which have the most modern transportation systems, built most recently, 
and probably built since Federal support was put in place by Ronald 
Reagan and stick it to the ones who did it on their own 130, 140 years 
ago and have been struggling to keep up and only had a partnership with 
the Federal Government since Ronald Reagan was President of the United 
States.
  This does not go to the efficiency of an operation anytime anybody 
applies for a TIFIA loan or anything else. They are evaluated in terms 
of how they are going to be able to repay those loans at the fare box, 
out of the fare box, out of operating costs, not what their assets to 
liabilities are.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will 
be postponed.

                              {time}  1645

  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understands that amendment No. 15 will 
not be offered.


                  Amendment No. 16 Offered by Ms. Meng

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 16 
printed in part A of House Report 114-326.
  Ms. MENG. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title I (page 233, after line 8), insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 1431. IMPROVEMENT OF DATA COLLECTION ON CHILD OCCUPANTS 
                   IN VEHICLE CRASHES.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall revise the crash 
     investigation data collection system of the National Highway 
     Traffic Safety Administration to include the collection of 
     the following data in connection with vehicle crashes 
     whenever a child restraint system was in use in a vehicle 
     involved in a crash:
       (1) The type or types of child restraint systems in use 
     during the crash in any vehicle involved in the crash, 
     including whether a five-point harness or belt-positioning 
     booster.
       (2) If a five-point harness child restraint system was in 
     use during the crash, whether the child restraint system was 
     forward-facing or rear-facing in the vehicle concerned.
       (b) Consultation.--In implementing subsection (a), the 
     Secretary shall work with law enforcement officials, safety 
     advocates, the medical community, and research organizations 
     to improve the recordation of data described in subsection 
     (a) in police and other applicable incident reports.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 3 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House 
     of Representatives a report on child occupant crash data 
     collection in the crash investigation data collection system 
     of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
     pursuant to the revision required by subsection (a).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentlewoman 
from New York (Ms. Meng) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
  Ms. MENG. Mr. Chair, this bipartisan amendment is simple. It is 
identical to language that appeared in the Senate version of the 
transportation bill that required improved data collection on the types 
of child restraint systems in use whenever a child is present during a 
car crash.
  I am honored to have Representative Love as a cosponsor of this 
amendment, and I thank her for her support.
  Mr. Chair, I know that we have 81 amendments to work through today 
and a long evening ahead of us; so, in the interest of time, I will 
keep my remarks brief.
  The amendment I am offering merely requires revisions to the crash 
investigation data collection system of the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration in an effort to save children's lives. The more 
we know about the type of child restraint system used, how it was used, 
and the outcome of that use, the more we will be able to avert future 
tragedies.
  After 3 years of collection of the data required by this amendment, 
the Secretary will be required to submit a report to Congress on the 
performance of various child restraint systems. It is my hope that we 
will join together at that time to craft new legislation that addresses 
what we learn.
  Again, this is a bipartisan amendment, Mr. Chair. I believe it is a 
good amendment, and I think we have an opportunity to save children's 
lives.
  I urge support for this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I 
do not oppose the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not in our jurisdiction. 
It is in the Energy and Commerce Committee's jurisdiction. I understand 
the Energy and Commerce Committee supports the amendment, so we support 
the amendment also.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. MENG. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

[[Page 17370]]

  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact that the chairman does not oppose 
and that the committee of jurisdiction does not oppose.
  It is very timely. We just had a study about child safety seats which 
raises questions about rear-facing seats, and I think this 
comprehensive data would be very, very important as we move forward, 
potentially changing the guidelines on how we restrain children in 
vehicles to better protect them.
  I congratulate the gentlewoman on bringing this amendment forward, 
and I hope that it is accepted.
  Ms. MENG. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Meng).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Russell

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 17 
printed in part A of House Report 114-326.
  Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title III of division A, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. __. STREETCAR FUNDING PROHIBITION.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, Federal 
     financial assistance may not be provided for any project or 
     activity to establish, maintain, operate, or otherwise 
     support a streetcar service. This section does not apply to a 
     contract entered into before the date of enactment of this 
     Act.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Russell) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Chairman, streetcars, also known as trollies, are 
mass transit vehicles that operate on rail lines embedded in normal 
roadways, often drawing electrical power from overhead structures.
  From 2009 to 2014, the Department of Transportation awarded $432 
million for streetcar projects in 14 cities throughout the country.
  Streetcars are highly impractical from a public transit standpoint. 
Like a bus, but unlike a train, a streetcar's speed is constrained by 
the speed of traffic around them. Unlike a bus, however, they are bound 
by their tracks. If anything blocks the tracks, such as an accident or 
a construction project, the entire line shuts down, making it an 
inefficient form of transportation.
  Streetcars are costly to build and operate. They require extensive 
infrastructure, including tracks and overhead power, that is not 
required for buses. Per passenger, per mile, they are also 
significantly and consistently more costly to operate than buses. 
According to a 2013 Journal of Public Transportation study, they fail 
or are at the bottom of all efficient forms of transportation.
  The Congressional Research Service can find no clear evidence that 
streetcars increase transit ridership. Streetcar corridors that saw 
economic growth often benefited from other substantial subsidies. It is 
unclear if streetcars contributed to this growth.
  The main argument for this amendment, which would prohibit future 
funding, is that it would establish Federal prohibitions on any 
financial assistance to establish, maintain, operate, or otherwise 
support a streetcar service unless there is a current contract in place 
that would be entered into before the date of the enactment of the act.
  The main argument for streetcars is often their psychological appeal. 
While this is appreciated, it is also very subjective, and it depends 
on the sentiments of tourists or local communities. They are more 
comparable to water taxis or Ferris wheels than to buses and light 
rail. The Department of Transportation is not in a good position to 
judge how tourists and locals will feel about a streetcar project. The 
agency, therefore, lacks the insight to predict the success of a 
project.
  Most streetcar funding has come from the Transportation Investment 
Generating Economic Recovery grant program, or TIGER program. TIGER is 
an extremely competitive program with 20 times more applicants than 
there is money available. Recent rule changes are expected to make it 
easier for streetcars to receive funding from the Capital Investment 
Grant Program, also known as the New Starts and Small Starts program.
  The President's administration has requested $3.2 billion for this 
program for FY 2016, including $75 million for streetcar projects, and 
at least six more are under development.
  Any further grant awards for streetcar projects will divert scarce 
Federal funding from other high-priority transportation projects. While 
we appreciate all forms of transportation, our infrastructure, our 
national defense, and the vitality of our commerce on our roads beg for 
more efficient means of transportation for our dollars, which are 
limited.
  Bus Rapid Transit projects, or BRT projects, for example, attract 
riders with higher quality stations and buses, traffic lanes that are 
fully or partially dedicated to buses, and more reliable, frequent 
service. Unlike for streetcars, there is objective evidence that the 
BRT tends to increase transit ridership and decrease trip time, 
according to the Government Accountability Office.
  Streetcar projects are expensive, uncertain gambles that depend on 
subjective local and tourist sentiments more than on objective facts. 
It is for that reason--as we face a $19 trillion deficit and as we face 
foreign policy challenges abroad that require contingency dollars and 
as we look at husbanding the strength for our transportation--that my 
amendment would make sure that these resources are used in their proper 
place.
  Local communities should, therefore, risk their own funds, like in my 
home State of Oklahoma. Oklahoma City recently passed a $129 million 
downtown streetcar project, which its own citizens approved, without 
using Federal funds. While municipalities may desire streetcars, they 
should not do it with other Americans' money.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This amendment would dictate to communities across America what form 
of transit they could put into their urban areas to solve problems of 
congestion and the efficient movement of people from place to place.
  The gentleman mentioned tourist destinations. Yes, some may relate to 
tourist destinations; others may relate to medical facilities, as in 
Portland, Oregon, where the streetcar terminates at the Oregon Health & 
Science University. It also then utilizes a tram, which is at both the 
bottom and the top of the hill. It is used by many patients and others 
who have to get there. So these are not just toy things or things that 
are used for tourists. They are used to solve congestion problems in 
major urban areas. They are also incredible tools for economic 
development.
  As for the fixed streetcar line in Portland, they revitalized a whole 
section of the city, which generated $3.5 billion in private economic 
development because the line was there. They didn't get any Federal 
money, but they built their projects adjacent to that line, which also 
provided a built-in ridership. Many people who reside in those pretty 
high-end apartments actually don't own cars, and they utilize the 
streetcar.
  Salt Lake has already attracted $400 million in investment. Atlanta, 
Georgia, has a very successful program. Tucson, Arizona, has seen an 
incredible initial ridership, far exceeding projections. Cities across 
America are finding great success with streetcars; so to deny them this 
tool on some sort of arbitrary basis, I think, is unwarranted.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma has 30 seconds 
remaining.

[[Page 17371]]


  Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Chairman, no research supports clear economic 
growth, according to the Congressional Research Service. While there 
may be other factors--usually with heavy government subsidies--that 
also contribute to this growth, it does not have any delineation toward 
streetcars.
  This amendment does not dictate but protects scarce resources. In a 
nation that has an incredible deficit problem, we have to get to the 
point at which we can have priorities. This focuses on priorities.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I could not disagree more with my 
friend from Oklahoma City.
  First of all, the streetcar is a highly developed mechanism that 30 
communities across the country are involved with right now, and they 
all invest their own money, including Oklahoma City. I find it ironic 
that somehow there is this notion that people are picking this out of 
the air as a toy or arts and crafts. That is not the case.
  Look, I have been working on this for over 30 years, since I 
initiated a project for Portland's streetcar. I would be happy to 
introduce the gentleman to businesspeople, to local government. 
Actually, my friend from Oregon understated it. It is $4.5 billion. It 
is happening in Seattle, in Tacoma. I was in New York--in Brooklyn--
this Friday, where they are looking at a streetcar. It is an 
extraordinarily efficient way to concentrate development. It encourages 
private investment. It extends the pedestrian experience. It is part of 
the toolkit.
  I notice the gentleman has left the Chamber. I was going to ask him 
if he knew that, in his Oklahoma City, there is a TIGER grant that is 
going to build three blocks of rail line starting in 2016. It was a 
choice of Oklahoma City. They thought the TIGER grant was so important 
that they are using Federal money in a project that is supplementing 
local money.
  My friend from Oregon is correct, the ranking member, in that we 
shouldn't take this tool away from communities, large and small, across 
the country. From Kenosha, Wisconsin, to Los Angeles, people are 
understanding that the streetcar has a vital role in revitalizing 
communities, in giving people more choices, in focusing economic 
development; and it is why the tram--the streetcar--is ubiquitous 
across the world. It is why we now have 30 cities that are doing it.
  I would argue, if you look at the billions of dollars we have 
invested in transportation projects, less than a half a billion dollars 
that people competed for very aggressively, for these TIGER grants, is 
money well spent. It is well spent in my community. Some people might 
warrant Bus Rapid Transit, like my colleague from Oregon has in Eugene.

                              {time}  1700

  This is a tool that has proven its worth. Communities around the 
country, from Cincinnati to Dallas, Texas, are doing it because it 
works. It would be a tragic mistake to approve an amendment that would 
take this tool away from communities that decide to do it and would 
like to supplement their local resources with Federal money, like is 
happening in Oklahoma City next year.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Russell).
  The amendment was rejected.


                Amendment No. 18 Offered by Ms. Edwards

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 18 
printed in part A of House Report 114-326.
  

  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title III of division A, add the following:

     SEC. __. APPOINTMENT OF DIRECTORS OF THE WASHINGTON 
                   METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section--
       (1) the term ``Compact'' means the Washington Metropolitan 
     Area Transit Authority Compact (Public Law 89-774; 80 Stat. 
     1324);
       (2) the term ``Federal Director'' means--
       (A) a voting member of the Board of Directors of the 
     Transit Authority who represents the Federal Government; and
       (B) a nonvoting member of the Board of Directors of the 
     Transit Authority who serves as an alternate for a member 
     described in subparagraph (A); and
       (3) the term ``Transit Authority'' means the Washington 
     Metropolitan Area Transit Authority established under Article 
     III of the Compact.
       (b) Appointment by Secretary of Transportation.--
       (1) In general.--For any appointment made on or after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Transportation shall have sole authority to appoint Federal 
     Directors to the Board of Directors of the Transit Authority.
       (2) Amendment to compact.--The signatory parties to the 
     Compact shall amend the Compact as necessary in accordance 
     with paragraph (1).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentlewoman 
from Maryland (Ms. Edwards) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Maryland.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and the ranking 
member.
  Representative Comstock of Virginia and I have an amendment that is 
at the desk, and I don't have to tell my colleagues who ride Metro 
every day to and from work of the issues that WMATA Metro has had with 
safety, performance, and management.
  Our bipartisan amendment gives the Secretary of the United States 
Department of Transportation the authority to appoint the four Federal 
members to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Board. 
Currently, the General Services Administration has this sole authority 
and shares oversight responsibilities of the Federal board members with 
the U.S. Department of Transportation. The WMATA board determines the 
agency's policy and provides oversight for the funding, operation, and 
expansion of transit facilities.
  We have worked closely with Senator Mikulski of Maryland on this 
issue, and she has introduced a bill in the Senate that is cosponsored 
by all three other local Senators: Senators Cardin, Warner, and Kaine 
of Virginia.
  From various conversations we have had, the Secretary of 
Transportation is also aware of this issue and is supportive of the 
Department of Transportation taking over. The General Services 
Administration has stated that ``this was never in our wheelhouse.'' 
And WMATA does not oppose this change.
  I want to thank Chairs Chaffetz and Meadows and Ranking Members 
Cummings and Connolly for working with us since the amendment also 
falls under the jurisdiction of the House Oversight and Government 
Reform Committee. They have cleared this amendment.
  Before I close, I want to remember our late colleague--and former 
colleague on the Transportation Committee--Howard Coble, who died last 
night. He represented the Sixth Congressional District of North 
Carolina, including the town I was born in, Yanceyville, North 
Carolina. He will be sorely missed by all of us and his long-time 
constituents and his service with us. May he rest in peace.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  I don't have to tell my colleagues, some of who ride Metro each day 
to and from work, of the issues the Washington Metropolitan Area 
Transit Authority (WMATA) has had with safety, performance, and 
management.
  The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA, 
Public Law 110-432), included the National Capital Transportation 
Amendments Act, a bill authorizing $1.5 billion in federal funding for 
WMATA capital improvements. It was because of this federal investment 
and WMATA's large federal employee ridership that the National Capital 
Region Congressional Delegation created the federal board members.
  The Delegation expanded the WMATA Board from twelve members from 
Maryland, the District of Columbia, and Virginia to include sixteen 
members, establishing the four new federal member positions. The 
Delegation

[[Page 17372]]

also believed that these federal board members would not be wrapped up 
in jurisdictional politics. Often board members from the jurisdictions 
do not recommend what is needed because their jurisdiction does not 
have the money.
  The National Capital Region Congressional Delegation gave the 
appointment authority to the General Services Administration (GSA) 
because at the time, it seemed the best federal agency to represent the 
overall federal workforce. Approximately forty percent of WMATA's 
ridership is federal employees.
  Our amendment gives the Secretary of the U.S. Department of 
Transportation (USDOT) the authority to appoint the four federal 
members to the WMATA Board. Currently, the GSA has this sole authority 
and shares oversight responsibilities of the federal board members with 
USDOT. The WMATA Board determines the agency's policy and provides 
oversight for the funding, operation, and expansion of transit 
facilities.
  I have worked with Senator Mikulski on this issue and she has 
introduced a bill in the Senate that this amendment is based on. S. 
2093 is cosponsored by all 3 other local Senators, Senators Cardin, 
Warner, and Kaine.
  From various conversations we have had, Secretary Foxx is aware of 
this issue and is supportive of USDOT taking over. GSA has stated that 
``this never was in our wheelhouse.'' And WMATA does not oppose.
  I want to thank Chairs Chaffetz & Meadows and Ranking Members 
Cummings & Connolly for working with us since the amendment falls under 
the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee's jurisdiction. It 
is my understanding they have cleared this amendment.
  Since the creation of the federal board positions in 2008, GSA has 
not played an active role in oversight of the federal board members. 
GSA does not have any expertise about what it takes to operate a 
transit system, nor does it have any experience.
  Only USDOT has been committed to the oversight of the federal board 
members and trying to correct WMATA's myriad problems. WMATA's serious 
safety, operational, and financial issues have all been documented by 
USDOT. The Secretary of USDOT and the Federal Transit Administration 
have been working directly with the federal board members and the 
transit agency to get things fixed. The federal board members and USDOT 
are in regular communication.
  In addition, the local delegation led by Senator Mikulski has been 
providing the federal finding authorized in PRIIA in the annual 
Transportation & HUD (THUD) Appropriations Bill. For the last seven 
years, bill and report language has been included requiring strict 
oversight by the USDOT Secretary on how these taxpayer dollars are 
spent.
  Before I close, I would like to remember our late colleague, Howard 
Coble, who died last night. He represented the 6th Congressional 
District of North Carolina, including the town that I was born in, 
Yanceyville. Howard will be sorely missed by all of us and his long-
time constituents. May he rest in peace.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, although I don't oppose the 
amendment, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Missouri?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, this particular amendment 
really is in the jurisdiction of the Oversight and Government Reform 
Committee. They are in favor of the amendment, so we are going to urge 
our colleagues to support it. We are not going to oppose it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say it has been a real 
pleasure to be able to work with Mrs. Comstock on this amendment. It is 
very rare that we have opportunities to work across the aisle and also 
across the Capitol to make sure that we are doing the right thing for 
our transit system here in the metropolitan Washington area that serves 
so many millions of both Federal workers and tourists from all of our 
different States and jurisdictions.
  It is really clear that the General Services Administration in this 
day and age is probably not the most appropriate place for the 
appointment of these members of the board. It is dutifully to be placed 
with the Department of Transportation to which they have agreed. I 
thank our colleagues for all agreeing to this as well.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).
  The amendment was agreed to.


           Amendment No. 19 Offered by Ms. Frankel of Florida

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 19 
printed in part A of House Report 114-326.
  Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Beginning on page 424, strike line 17 and all that follows 
     through page 426, line 24.
       Page 428, line 20, strike ``and'' at the end.
       Page 428, line 23, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
       Page 428, after line 23, insert the following:
       (4) is not a high-risk carrier, as identified by the 
     Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
       Beginning on page 449, strike line 5 and all that follows 
     through page 451, line 22.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Ms. Frankel) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chair, ranking 
member, and all the colleagues who worked so hard on bringing this 
legislation to the floor.
  My amendment is really about improving this bill. It is going to make 
it a better bill, and it is about making our Nation's roads safer and 
the delivery of goods more efficient.
  There are 15.5 million trucks on the road each year driving more than 
93 billion miles annually, carrying over a billion dollars' worth of 
goods. There is no question that our Nation's trucking industry is a 
huge economic driver, earning $650 billion annually, 5 percent of the 
United States GDP.
  With all that sunshine comes a little bit of rain. The National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration said that in 2013 almost 4,000 
people were killed and 95,000 people were injured by large trucks, 
costing the public a whopping $100 billion annually. So my amendment 
does three things to increase safety and to reduce those costs.
  First, the amendment brings the requirement for commercial truck 
insurance into the 21st century. It is shocking, Mr. Chair, that the 
minimum insurance required for commercial trucks has remained the same 
since the 1980s at $750,000 per incident regardless of the number of 
victims or their injuries. The FMCSA, which is the Federal Motor 
Carrier Safety Administration, is currently engaged in rulemaking to 
examine the appropriateness of this standard. The base bill requires 
studies that I respectfully submit will slow down this process.
  Imagine a large truck hitting a bus full of schoolchildren and the 
insurance only being $750,000 to cover all the losses. Do you want to 
be the person that tells the parents that Congress needs to do more 
studies before their medical bills can be paid? My amendment strikes 
these unnecessary studies so that the FMCSA can finish their important 
work without delay.
  Second, the base bill creates a national hiring standard that brokers 
and shippers must use to hire carriers. One of these standards is based 
on outdated information. It is not updated annually. So my amendment at 
the desk would strengthen the hiring standard by prohibiting the hiring 
of motor carriers defined as ``high-risk carriers'' by the FMCSA.
  Finally, just this year, the FMCSA did a study that found that 
compliance, safety, and accountability scores accurately predict safety 
performance by drivers. These scores are currently used by brokers and 
shippers to identify unsafe carriers. Studies show that, since this 
system has been used, there has been a 14 percent reduction in serious 
violations of the law. I want to repeat that. There has been a 14 
percent reduction in serious violations of the law.
  This base bill requires another study that is going to take 18 
months. Not only that, the base bill now hides important safety 
statistics during this time. What my amendment does is very

[[Page 17373]]

simple. The provision makes these safety scores transparent for the 
public to see.
  Together, these measures are going to improve the movement of goods 
across the country by increasing safety and efficiency. It is a real 
good amendment. I think it is going to make this bill much better, and 
I urge its adoption.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition 
to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, this amendment literally just 
guts some very crucial reforms to this bill. What this amendment does 
is strikes a section in the bill that requires the Federal Motor 
Carrier Safety Administration to remove from its Web site those 
compliance and safety accountability program scores.
  What we found is that the CSA is a flawed system. It treats safe 
carriers unfairly, and it has done very little to improve motor carrier 
safety records.
  The Government Accountability Office and the motor carrier 
stakeholders, they have been very critical of the CSA program. They 
have called for the reform. So what this does is make sure that those 
reforms are going to happen quickly. It doesn't hide anything. Once the 
reforms are in place, the scores are going to go back up on the Web 
site.
  In the meantime, that raw data concerning accidents, violations, out-
of-service rates, it will remain publicly available; and it is also 
going to be available to law enforcement if they need to investigate or 
prosecute an unsafe carrier. So nothing is being hidden, but what this 
does is require that these reforms are going to take place and they are 
going to take place very, very quickly.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would just be repeating 
myself.
  I do want to repeat one thing which I think is important. Since the 
system has been used by FMCSA, there has been a 14 percent reduction in 
serious violations of the law, and I think that speaks for itself.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chair, again, this guts some very 
important parts of this bill.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Frankel).
  The amendment was rejected.


          Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Duncan of Tennessee

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 20 
printed in part A of House Report 114-326.
  Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 428, line 23, before the period, insert ``or be 
     unrated''.
       Page 428, after line 23, insert the following:
       (4) has not been issued an out-of-service order to prohibit 
     a motor carrier from conducting operations at the motor 
     carrier level--
       (A) for failing to pay fines under part 385.14 of title 49, 
     Code of Federal Regulations;
       (B) for a proposed ``unsatisfactory'' safety rating under 
     part 385.13(d) of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations;
       (C) for failing to respond to a new entrant audit under 
     part 385.325 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations; and
       (D) and currently is being considered as an imminent hazard 
     at the carrier level (not the individual driver or equipment 
     level).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.


  Modification to Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Duncan of Tennessee

  Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent that 
amendment No. 20, printed in part A of House Report 114-326, be 
modified by the form I have placed at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:
  Modification to amendment No. 20 offered by Mr. Duncan of Tennessee:

  

     on line 12 of amendment No. 20, add the word ``not'' after 
     is.

  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is modified.
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, first I want to commend 
Chairman Graves. Nobody could have done a better job on this bill than 
he has done. I also want to thank Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member 
DeFazio because they have placed just about everything that I have 
requested into this bill, including accepting an amendment yesterday.
  I will repeat something that I said during general debate yesterday: 
I am so pleased that after we have spent hundreds of billions of 
dollars over the last 15 years in a vain attempt to rebuild the Middle 
East, now we are finally going to pass a major bill to rebuild this 
country and provide hundreds of thousands of jobs all across this 
Nation.
  I rise today, Mr. Chairman, with Mr. Paulsen of Minnesota to offer an 
amendment that is basically very technical in nature, but it is one 
that is very, very important to many thousands of the smallest 
companies in the trucking industry.
  I want to thank Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio for 
including in the base bill some of the language from a bill that I 
introduced that deals with this situation. This amendment expands that 
by clarifying the requirements that a freight broker must meet before 
hiring a motor carrier for the delivery of goods.

                              {time}  1715

  Currently, the bill requires a broker to check to ensure that the 
motor carrier is first registered with and authorized by the Federal 
Motor Carrier Safety Administration to operate as a licensed motor 
carrier; secondly, has the minimum insurance required by Federal law; 
and, third, has the satisfactory safety fitness determination by the 
FMCSA. All of these things make for a safer trucking industry in this 
country.
  Our amendment inserts ``or be unrated'' in the third requirement. 
Currently, there are thousands of small trucking operations which have 
yet to be audited or rated by the FMCSA. By adding the words ``or be 
unrated,'' we ensure that these small companies are not precluded from 
being in the pool of eligible motor carriers that can be used for 
shipping goods.
  According to the Owner-Operators Independent Drivers Association, 
OOIDA, without this amendment, we will be creating an incentive not to 
use small carriers, putting hundreds of thousands of truck drivers out 
of business due to no fault of their own.
  Without this change, we will hurt small mom-and-pop trucking 
businesses and drive up the cost of shipping goods for everyone.
  The second part of our amendment adds a fourth requirement that must 
be checked by the brokers. This fourth condition requires a broker to 
check to make sure that a motor carrier has not been issued an out-of-
service order to prohibit a carrier from conducting operations. Once 
again, this makes for a safer trucking industry in this country.
  If we do not make this amendment part of the bill, thousands of small 
companies and mom-and-pop operators who have never had a wreck or had a 
violation would lose business just because FMCSA does not have the 
sufficient time or staff to officially rate them.
  In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I will just say this amendment ensures 
that we have only safe trucks on the road and that thousands of small 
businesses are not hurt in the process. However, I have received 
assurances from both Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio that 
they want to do something about this.
  I think everybody on both sides of the aisle in this Congress really 
wants

[[Page 17374]]

to try to help the smallest businesses in almost any industry, and they 
have told me that they will really try to do something about this in 
conference.
  With that assurance and at their request, I am withdrawing this 
amendment and hope that we can improve the bill as it goes on through 
conference.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the amendment at this point.
  The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.


                 Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Lewis

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 21 
printed in part A of House Report 114-326.
  Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 441, beginning line 3, strike section 5404 and insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. 5404. STUDY ON COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S LICENSE PROGRAM.

       (a) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to evaluate 
     the safety effects of the laws and regulations of States that 
     allow licensed drivers between the ages of 18 years and 21 
     years to obtain a commercial driver's license to operate a 
     commercial motor vehicle within the State.
       (b) Matters Included.--The study under subsection (a) shall 
     include the following:
       (1) A review of the requirements for licensed drivers 
     between the ages of 18 years and 21 years to obtain 
     commercial driver's licenses described in such subsection.
       (2) A review of collision rates and fatal collision rates 
     for such drivers while operating a commercial motor vehicle.
       (3) A review of any other safety factors and metrics 
     determined appropriate by the Secretary in accordance with 
     subsection (c).
       (c) Input.--In conducting the study under subsection (a), 
     including with respect to the safety factors and metrics 
     reviewed under subsection (b)(3), the Secretary shall solicit 
     input from representatives of State motor vehicle 
     administrators, motor carriers, labor organizations, 
     independent truck drivers, safety advocates, medical 
     associations and medical professionals, and other persons 
     determined appropriate by the Secretary.
       (d) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall publish a report 
     containing the results of the study under subsection (a), 
     including any recommendations for statutory changes.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple. It would strike a 
pilot program that allows teenagers to drive trucks across State lines. 
Right now this bill mandates that we allow teenagers to become truck 
drivers. But, Mr. Chairman, it does not ask whether we should give them 
the keys.
  The American public has a strong opinion on this issue. After 92 
percent of the comments strongly opposed to this idea, the Federal 
Motor Carrier Safety Administration denied a request for a similar 
program in 2003. The vast majority thought it was a bad and dangerous 
proposal.
  My amendment simply asks the Department of Transportation to take 
another look, a second look, before starting a national program. We 
need to examine the safety of places where young drivers are already 
allowed to drive trucks within their own States.
  Interstate highways are already dangerous enough. Given the higher 
and higher accident and fatality rates of younger drivers, it makes no 
sense to make this change without looking at all of the data.
  Mr. Chairman, young drivers may not have the experience needed to 
handle heavy, dangerous vehicles. Some follow too closely. Others go 
too fast and don't check their mirrors. Young drivers can use their 
brakes too much, and that is a real danger when handling an 80,000-
pound truck.
  Ask any parent. They know. Young drivers do not always listen, even 
when an experienced driver is in the front seat. My amendment does not 
say no. It says just let us do the research first. We should study the 
safety of teen truck drivers before any experiment that might have 
dangerous results.
  I urge my colleagues to support my commonsense amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition 
to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Missouri is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would strike a 
limited pilot program that is authorizing drivers over the age of 19\1/
2\ to enter into a graduated program to obtain a commercial driver's 
license. The program is very limited to a number of States and a number 
of carriers that can participate. It also includes a number of safety 
requirements and a GAO report to Congress examining its safety impacts.
  Mr. Chairman, what is interesting about the way present law is is 
that a driver of the age that is being addressed here could drive all 
the way across the State of Missouri, for instance, but they can't 
drive 10 miles in the city of Kansas City, across town, because it is 
over a State line.
  It doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and it actually hampers a whole 
lot of businesses out there that operate in communities like Kansas 
City, St. Louis, and St. Joseph that are actually split by a State 
line.
  The trucking industry is facing a severe shortage in the number of 
drivers. With freight expected to increase 30 percent over the next 10 
years, the driver shortage is only going to worsen. We need to get more 
young people interested in careers in the transportation industry. It 
is as simple as that.
  This is a limited pilot program. It represents a delicate compromise 
that would accomplish a very important goal.
  I urge Members to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that there is a driver 
shortage, but it is important, very important, to follow the data. We 
should not put inexperienced drivers on the road before we have all of 
the facts.
  In my congressional district, in Metro Atlanta, we have three major 
interstate highways running through our city: I-75, I-85, and I-20. 
Even with experienced drivers, there is always some major accident. We 
need to follow the data. I urge all of my colleagues to support my 
commonsense amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, again, what we are trying to do 
with this program is just allow those drivers to be able to cross the 
State line. Again, they are already allowed to go an entire State's 
length within the State.
  I would ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will 
be postponed.


           Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 22 
printed in part A of House Report 114-326.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 449, beginning line 5, strike section 5501 relating 
     minimum financial responsibility rulemaking.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Johnson) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in 
support of my amendment to H.R. 22.

[[Page 17375]]

  Minimum insurance requirements for trucks have remained the same 
since the 1980s. Currently, it is $750,000. Healthcare costs have 
skyrocketed. For example, hospital care for traumatically brain-injured 
people can average $8,000 per day. Minimum insurance does not 
realistically account for multivehicle accidents where $750,000 must be 
divided among all of the injured parties.
  FMCSA is currently undergoing rulemaking to evaluate current 
insurance requirements. Congress should not delay or derail this 
effort. Section 5501 conditions the agency's rulemaking upon its 
completion of detailed studies that must be completed in consultation 
with industry stakeholders.
  This amendment strikes language that is designed to delay and 
ultimately derail this long-overdue rulemaking. When a person suffers 
life-threatening injuries due to the negligence of a motor carrier, the 
cost of long-term care and the loss of his or her livelihood often is 
pushed to the background. For families that undergo this ordeal, it 
often comes as a surprise that, despite a congressional mandate in the 
1980s, minimum insurance requirements for interstate truckers and bus 
carriers have remained unchanged.
  The Motor Carrier Act of 1980 specifically set out to ensure public 
safety by requiring insurance premiums to be updated regularly. A 
similar bill, the Bus Regulatory Reform Act of 1982, was passed for the 
segment of the industry transporting passengers interstate.
  While the minimum insurance levels in 1985 for general freight 
carriers and small-bus operators was $750,000 and $1.5 million 
respectively, with higher liability limits for carriers of hazardous 
materials and large bus carriers, the intent of Congress was to 
increase the minimums regularly to keep pace with inflation.
  In April of this year, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration released a report to Congress that examined the adequacy 
of the current financial responsibility requirements for motor 
carriers. The conclusion was clear: Today the cost of injuries and 
fatalities arising from crashes far exceed the minimum insurance levels 
interstate operators are required to carry. As a result, victims are 
often not appropriately compensated for their injuries.
  Language in section 5501 is an attempt to stop or at the very least 
delay this long-overdue FMCSA rulemaking in its tracks by taking away 
the resources necessary for the agency to evaluate appropriate levels 
of financial responsibility for the motor carrier industry. FMCSA 
rulemaking is necessary because current insurance limits do not 
adequately cover crashes primarily because of increased medical costs.
  To be on par with medical consumer price index inflation, the 
liability limit for general freight carriers today would be $4.4 
million, calculated from the 1980 passage date of the Motor Carrier 
Act, and around $6.5 million for small-bus operators.
  Moreover, the April FMCSA report found that, in real terms, insurance 
premiums have actually decreased for the same level of coverage since 
the 1980s. The result is that thousands of crash victims are left 
without the financial resources to pay medical bills or restore the 
quality of life that he or she enjoyed before the trucking or bus 
accident, that despite the fact that insurance premiums have gone down.
  In many cases, the burden of healthcare costs are passed on to 
taxpayers, as Medicare and Medicaid shoulder millions of dollars of 
medical care each year due to inadequately insured carriers. We must 
keep the trucking industry accountable for safety by supporting this 
amendment.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition 
to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, what this amendment does is it 
strikes some very commonsense regulatory reforms in the bill.
  The underlying bill requires the Department of Transportation to 
study whether an increase in minimum insurance levels for intercity 
buses is needed before pursuing a rulemaking to change the levels. I 
don't understand why we would strike language that simply tells the 
Department to determine whether a problem exists before it regulates.
  The amendment also strikes language in the bill that requires the 
Secretary to consider the impact of an ongoing rulemaking on small 
trucking companies and safety.
  These considerations, Mr. Chairman, are not going to delay the 
rulemaking, but it is going to add transparency and accountability to 
the process.
  I would urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
  The amendment was rejected.


                 Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Ribble

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 23 
printed in part A of House Report 114-326.
  Mr. RIBBLE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title V of division A, add the following:

     SEC. __. TRANSPORTATION OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS AND 
                   EQUIPMENT.

       Section 229(e)(4) of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement 
     Act of 1999 (49 U.S.C. 31136 note) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``50 air mile radius'' and inserting ``75 
     air mile radius''; and
       (2) by striking ``the driver.'' and inserting ``the driver, 
     except that a State, upon notice to the Secretary, may 
     establish a different air mile radius limitation for purposes 
     of this paragraph if such limitation is between 50 and 75 air 
     miles and applies only to movements that take place entirely 
     within the State.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Ribble) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. RIBBLE. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would increase the air-mile 
radius from 50 air-miles to 75 air-miles for the transportation of 
construction materials and equipment to satisfy the 24-hour reset 
period under the hours of service rule. It would also give States the 
ability to opt out of this increase if the movement would take place 
entirely within one State's borders.
  This is a bipartisan amendment cosponsored by Mr. Lipinski, Mr. 
Hanna, and Mr. Cramer.
  Commercial motor vehicle drivers in the construction industry face 
some unique circumstances. They often haul perishable materials like 
asphalt and concrete from a construction company's central shop or 
dispatch center to a specific project site within that company's area 
of operation.
  These drivers spend long periods of time waiting to pick up materials 
and loading or unloading equipment, instead of driving, but they are 
considered on duty for the entire duration of the trip. Current law 
allows construction industry drivers to reset their weekly on-duty time 
after a 24-hour consecutive off-duty period; however, this exemption is 
only allowed if those drivers work within a 50 air-mile radius.
  Because construction companies operate today in larger areas than 
they did when the exemption was first put in place two decades ago, I 
am offering this amendment to increase this air-mile radius to 75 air-
miles. I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, 
though I am not in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Oregon is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, this amendment extends an existing 
exemption established in 1995 by Congress,

[[Page 17376]]

and I think it is a reasonable and very small adjustment to that. I 
think it will improve efficiency and lower costs. I have no objection.
  I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Lipinski), a cosponsor of the amendment.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. I thank the ranking member for yielding.
  I want to thank Mr. Ribble for his work on this amendment and other 
important transportation issues. I think Mr. Ribble and Ranking Member 
DeFazio have explained this very well.
  In recognition of the unique nature of the construction industry, 
Congress did provide this exemption to certain hours of service rules 
for commercial motor vehicle drivers in the industry.
  Increasing this from 50 to 75 miles is a small change, but I think it 
will be very helpful because the current exemption we have seen has 
come up short. It needs to be modernized for most efficient goods 
movement and keep perishable materials from spoiling, as well as 
account for the fact that many materials suppliers operate in areas 
outside of the current air-mile radius. This amendment helps improve 
the exemption by increasing it by 25 miles.
  It is also important to note that this amendment provides an opt-out 
provision for those States that do not wish to participate in this 
increase.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. RIBBLE. Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to support my amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ribble).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Schweikert

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 24 
printed in part A of House Report 114-326.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title VI of division A, add the following new 
     section:

     SEC. 6027. PILOT PROGRAM FOR REDUCTION OF DEPARTMENT-OWNED 
                   VEHICLES AND INCREASE IN USE OF RIDE-SHARING 
                   SERVICES.

       (a) Pilot Program Requirement.--The Secretary of each 
     covered department shall establish a pilot program within the 
     department for the following purposes:
       (1) To reduce the inventory of light vehicles owned by the 
     department by 10 percent for each of the fiscal years 
     described in subsection (b), through the sale or other 
     appropriate disposal of such vehicles.
       (2) At the discretion of the Secretary of the department, 
     to increase the use by the department of commercial ride-
     sharing companies.
       (b) Fiscal Years Described.--The fiscal years described in 
     this subsection are the following:
       (1) The first fiscal year beginning after the expiration of 
     the 1-year period starting on the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
       (2) Each of the four fiscal years following the fiscal year 
     described in paragraph (1).
       (c) Report to Congress.--Not later than 60 days after the 
     end of the fiscal year described in subsection (b)(1), and 
     annually thereafter for the duration of the pilot program, 
     the Secretary of each covered department shall submit to 
     Congress a report on the results of the pilot program in the 
     department. The report shall include information about the 
     transportation budget of the department and such findings and 
     recommendations as the Secretary of the department considers 
     appropriate.
       (d) Covered Department.--In this Act, the term ``covered 
     department'' means each of the following:
       (1) The Department of Agriculture.
       (2) The Department of the Interior.
       (3) The Department of Energy.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, these amendment marathons can often be 
a bit exhausting around here with all sorts of ideas coming from 
different directions, but now for something completely different.
  Our government is heading to having about a half a million light-duty 
vehicles, so think of this: As of today, I think we have about 460,000 
light-duty vehicles in the fleet of government.
  Our amendment is something very, very simple. We all walk around with 
these supercomputers in our pocket--our smartphones--and we see the 
technology revolution, the information revolution, that is happening 
around us, whether it be ride sharing, on-call services, or just the 
management of data. We have people living next to each other going to 
the same workplace.
  Let's use this information in this new world around us and ask three 
agencies to reduce their vehicle fleets by engaging in the new world of 
information, whether it be ride sharing, an Uber model, a Zipcar model, 
or taxicab model. Maybe it is a hybrid that we have never thought of 
that gets brought forward.
  So the amendment is very, very simple. All we are asking is that 
three agencies reduce their vehicle fleets by using modern technology, 
modern means of transportation, modern social transportation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, first, I would ask the gentleman very quickly the 
question: Why these particular agencies?
  I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert).
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, to my friend on the other side, there 
was a GAO report--I think it might now have been a couple of years 
ago--and these three agencies actually were tagged as having the 
highest number of vehicles as a percentage of, I believe, employment 
population that sat idle. Agriculture was close to 30,000 vehicles; 
Interior, 18,000. There was an actual reason.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman.
  Although the gentleman does reside in Arizona, I know he certainly is 
aware that both the BLM and the Forest Service must cover huge amounts 
of territory with their employees, including many forested and remote 
areas.
  In my district, just doing my rounds on paved roads, I can be out of 
cell service 20 to 25 percent of the time. There is no Uber, Lyft, or 
any alternative available to me, let alone my Forest Service and BLM 
employees who are up in the forest. I don't think Uber is lurking 
around the forest waiting to pick them up. Plus, they don't have cell 
service. I guess they could use a sat phone, but I don't think they 
will come.
  The agency choices are peculiar. They may have a large fleet, and 
they have a large fleet for a particular reason. Obviously, you can 
have one Forest Service employee and one vehicle going to a very remote 
work location for one work duty. They don't have an opportunity to ride 
share or do anything else. I find that to be particularly problematic.
  I think the intent of having the government reduce the number of 
light vehicles, particularly for agencies that are based in urban areas 
or more urban environments, is very intriguing and interesting. I would 
be happy to support his next amendment, which would have us study this 
issue. The GAO, working with GSA, I think could point to appropriate 
ways to reduce the fleet and to more efficiently reduce costs and yet 
still have employees be able to use their time very efficiently.
  I would oppose this amendment, but in order to save time, I will say 
now that I will support the next amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, to my colleague from Oregon, one more 
time, the reference points in the GAO study actually said vehicles that 
lay idle, and that is why we chose these. There was actually a reason 
for choosing these three agencies.
  Mr. Chairman, a couple of data points: Agriculture, 29,818 light-duty 
vehicles; Interior, 18,752 light-duty vehicles; the Department of 
Energy, 7,315 light-duty vehicles.

[[Page 17377]]

  We are asking them to do the 10 percent reduction of those vehicle 
fleets over the 4 years. If technology efficiencies, the new gig 
economy, however you see it, can't accomplish that through the simplest 
reforms brought to us by the modern era, we are in trouble.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask for support of this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I think the gentleman misstated. It is 10 percent per year for 5 
years. It is a 50 percent reduction in fleet. So that seems, without 
much more granular data, pretty radical. And I wouldn't want to see 
that the next time I have got a major fire, the Forest Service doesn't 
have adequate vehicles in the Willamette Forest or in any other forest 
in my State to dispatch all the people they need to command and control 
and to deal with that fire.
  So I think the idea of the study has merit. I think it is an 
arbitrary cut of 50 percent, particularly with two land management 
agencies that manage millions of acres of land. I know of Forest 
Service and BLM employees that, on a given day, their duty may require 
them to drive 4 hours to a remote spot to do a particular function, 
spend an hour there, and drive back; and there is no way around it 
because they had to do something at that particular point. So saying, 
``Gee, you are going to have to ride share or thumb or call Uber and 
see if they will take you out there for a couple hundred miles in the 
mountains,'' it just doesn't work for me.
  I think a study is a good idea, and we may find, indeed, there are 
efficiencies. But to arbitrarily reduce the fleets of the two largest 
land management agencies in the Federal Government, the Forest Service 
and the BLM, by 50 percent, I think could cause very unanticipated and 
potentially disastrous problems.
  I urge opposition to the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert).
  The amendment was rejected.


               Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Schweikert

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 25 
printed in part A of House Report 114-326.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title VI of division A, add the following new 
     section:

     SEC. 6027. STUDY AND REPORT ON REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF 
                   VEHICLES OWNED BY CERTAIN FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS 
                   AND INCREASING THE USE OF COMMERCIAL RIDE-
                   SHARING BY THOSE DEPARTMENTS.

       (a) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall conduct a study on the feasibility of--
       (1) reducing the amount of vehicles owned by a covered 
     department; and
       (2) increasing the use of commercial ride-sharing companies 
     by a covered department.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall submit to Congress a report that contains the 
     results and conclusions of the study conducted under 
     subsection (a).
       (c) Covered Department Defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``covered department'' means each of the following:
       (1) The Department of Agriculture.
       (2) The Department of the Interior.
       (3) The Department of Energy.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, not to belabor this one, because 
actually, in many ways, our friend from Oregon has spoken to this one. 
I actually believe we may have some misreading of what the previous one 
says, but we will adjudicate that again maybe over coffee.
  This is basically a similar concept as we were just discussing but is 
actually trying to produce some data sets for future policy.
  Mr. Chairman, my understanding is the gentleman from Oregon is going 
to accept the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1745

  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 26 Offered by Mr. Reichert

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 26 
printed in part A of House Report 114-326.
  Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 580, in the matter following line 20, add to the 
     analysis for chapter 702 of title 49, United States Code, 
     after the item relating to section 70203, the following:

``70204. GAO study on economic impact of labor contract negotiations at 
              ports on west coast.

       Page 584, line 20, strike the closing quotation marks and 
     the period at the end.
       Page 584, after line 20, insert the following:

     ``Sec. 70204. GAO study on economic impact of labor contract 
       negotiations at ports on west coast

       ``(a) Study.--With respect to the slowdown that occurred 
     during labor contract negotiations at ports on the west coast 
     of the United States during the period from May 2014 to 
     February 2015, the Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall conduct a study to--
       ``(1) determine the economic impact of such slowdown on the 
     United States and on each port in the United States, 
     including changes in the amount of cargo arriving at and 
     leaving from ports on the west coast and other changes in 
     cargo patterns, including congestion;
       ``(2) calculate the cost, including the cost to importers, 
     exporters, farmers, manufacturers, and retailers, of 
     contingency plans put in place to avoid disruptions from such 
     slowdown;
       ``(3) review steps taken by the Federal Mediation and 
     Conciliation Service to resolve the dispute that caused such 
     slowdown;
       ``(4) identify tools such Service or the President could 
     have used to facilitate a resolution to such dispute;
       ``(5) evaluate what other mechanisms are available to the 
     President to avoid disruptions during future labor 
     negotiations at ports in the United States;
       ``(6) suggest how such mechanisms could be changed to 
     improve the ability to avoid such disruptions in order to 
     prevent serious economic harm to importers, exporters, 
     farmers, manufacturers, and retailers; and
       ``(7) suggest any legislation that might ensure better 
     regulation of the operations of ports in the United States 
     with respect to such labor negotiations.
       ``(b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
     enactment of this section, the Comptroller General of the 
     United States shall submit a report to Congress containing 
     the findings of the study conducted under subsection (a).''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Reichert) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, today I rise to offer an amendment that 
will allow us to collect the facts and evaluate the impact of the 2014-
2015 West Coast ports slowdown and dispute.
  The efficient movement of goods is critical to the economic success 
of this country. Our farmers and manufacturers must be able to export 
their high-quality products to the customers around the world that they 
rely upon.
  Beginning in the summer of 2014, these customer relationships and our 
economy were threatened. This was the result of a prolonged contract 
negotiation between the Pacific Maritime Association and the 
International Longshore and Warehouse Union that ended February 2015.
  Just how serious was the impact of these prolonged negotiations? One 
example from my home State provides a clear illustration.
  Our apple growers in Washington State were faced with an estimated 
$100 million worth of apples that they could not sell. Other stories 
can be told about multiple types of produce and products, including the 
hay and the potato industry, in Washington State.
  In fact, Mr. Chairman, I was in Malaysia and Singapore during part of 
the

[[Page 17378]]

slowdown, and the complaint in those two countries was they couldn't 
get their potatoes. And especially they were upset they weren't getting 
their Washington State french fries.
  So this did have an impact across the globe. This wasn't just a 
United States economy impact. This was a global impact.
  In fact, the ships coming from those countries to the West Coast were 
slowed down to 8 knots, hoping that this would be resolved by the time 
the ships reached the West Coast.
  This amendment simply requires the Government Accountability Office 
to study the economic impact of this dispute, review the steps taken to 
reach an agreement, and suggest what other tools might be used to 
prevent future slowdowns.
  Like many of you, I have committed to my constituents that I will 
work to ensure that this is not repeated for the sake of our workers, 
farmers, and manufacturers. This amendment moves us in that direction.
  I thank my colleagues, Representatives Schrader, Newhouse, Radewagen, 
and Coffman for working with me on this important issue. I urge support 
of this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, we would all like to prevent future disruptive 
shutdowns like this. I think a full survey of all the causes would be 
interesting. It would be an interesting thing to have the GAO conduct.
  Unfortunately, this is directed only at one factor, which is the 
union itself. In fact, in here, finding 7 says: Suggest any legislation 
that might ensure better regulation of the operations of the ports in 
the United States with respect to such labor negotiations.
  I think that that is very focused just on the labor side and not a 
balanced look at what might have gone on on the management side of this 
issue.
  Secondly, there are many other ongoing, enduring, and very costly 
port congestion factors out there that should be comprehensively looked 
at in order to more efficiently move freight in and out of our ports, 
absent any sort of labor dispute or shutdown or lockout or any of those 
certain things that relate to labor that also merit a comprehensive 
look and, I think, merit a potential action by Congress. But this 
report would not enlighten us in those areas either.
  I would like to see the GAO conduct an analysis of the myriad of 
factors that point to port congestion, provide Congress with a wide 
range of policy recommendations, including options for financing 
intermodal efficiency to enhance the trade of goods in and out of the 
United States. So I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, just as a matter of clarification, this 
legislation addresses both the Pacific Maritime Association and union 
issues.
  How can you be against something that would be an investigation that 
would clearly reveal what the problems are on both sides?
  So this legislation is not designed to point the finger at any one 
entity. Two entities are involved in this issue. We need to find out 
what we can do to prevent this from happening in the future because it 
costs the United States economy money, it costs jobs, and it affects 
the entire global economy.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from American Samoa 
(Mrs. Radewagen).
  Mrs. RADEWAGEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to thank Representatives Reichert, 
Schrader, Newhouse, and Coffman for their work in offering the 
amendment that will simply direct GAO to conduct a study on the impact 
of the recent West Coast ports slowdown so that we can avoid these 
costly slowdowns in the future.
  As we all know, the Nation's economic stability and prosperity are 
directly linked to our ability to import and export goods. In fact, 30 
percent of the Nation's GDP stems from imports and exports, 30 percent. 
That is a large portion of the country's production.
  During the slowdown, many of our businesses struggled to maintain the 
flow of capital due to their inability to ship goods. Additionally, 
many of our retailers found it difficult to keep their shelves stocked 
due to the lack of incoming goods, causing revenue loss and even the 
shutting of some businesses.
  Now, just imagine if, instead of 30 percent, that number was 90 
percent. Could you possibly imagine the devastation to the economy of 
even a brief slowdown?
  It would have been the biggest story of the year. Our constituents 
would have been camped out on our front steps demanding action from 
Congress.
  Well, let me tell you that, in American Samoa, that number is 90 
percent. We rely almost solely on imported goods for our food and 
energy needs.
  The main revenue generator on our beautiful islands is the tuna 
canning industry, which comprises more than 85 percent of the island's 
GDP. This industry relies heavily upon their ability to ship their 
products quickly to the mainland and other nations.
  We must ensure that this does not happen again. This amendment being 
offered by my colleagues and me will take the first step in finding 
solutions to future slowdowns in the operations at our Nation's ports.
  I ask that my colleagues in the House support this bipartisan measure 
to ensure the continued flow of goods to and from our ports and the 
growth of our economy.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. Schrader).
  Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chairman, I am actually pleased here to join my 
colleague, Representative Reichert from Washington, in offering this 
important amendment today.
  I want to assure Members here on the floor that this in no way is 
picking sides. You want to talk about labor disputes? These are labor 
management disputes.
  The problem we have on the West Coast is that this particular dispute 
last year actually crippled severely the United States economy not just 
on the West Coast, but into the Midwest and beyond.
  We can't have this happen again. We cannot have this happen again. We 
have to remain competitive in this global economy. We have to figure 
out a different way to resolve these disputes so that what is a 
legitimate labor management negotiation does not affect businesses, 
farmers, workers, and thousands of jobs across this country.
  In my State, Terminal 6, the port of Portland's container terminal, 
is no longer operational. Why? Because the carriers don't want to call 
on this port because it is too unreliable. They don't know if they are 
going to have ships to anchor up for weeks on end waiting to upload.
  Instead, they will just call on other ports north or south of us. 
This is directly an impact for the businesses and farmers.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. SCHRADER. The Reichert amendment simply allows us to have a GAO 
study to talk about what possible outcomes could be different than what 
we endured last year. The goal here is just simply to get some facts, 
get some information, protect American jobs, protect American workers.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Washington has 
expired.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would suggest that, in reading the language, I think it could be 
more balanced and I think it also should include those other factors 
which are day-to-day congestion, which do cost our economy hundreds of 
millions or billions of dollars a year.
  So I am opposed to this, as worded. I urge people to oppose it, and I 
would hope that we can work through the conference committee on 
something that will give us a more comprehensive analysis of what we 
need to do to increase the viability of all American ports.

[[Page 17379]]

  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 27 Offered by Mr. Newhouse

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 27 
printed in part A of House Report 114-326.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title VIII of Division A of the bill, add the 
     following:

     SEC. ___. FINDINGS ON PORT PERFORMANCE.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) America's ports play a critical role in the Nation's 
     transportation supply chain network.
       (2) Reliable and efficient movement of goods through the 
     Nation's ports ensures that American goods are available to 
     customers throughout the world.
       (3) Breakdowns in the transportation supply chain network, 
     particularly at the Nation's ports, can result in tremendous 
     economic losses for agriculture, businesses, and retailers 
     that rely on timely shipments.
       (4) A clear understanding of terminal and port productivity 
     and throughput should help--
       (A) to identify freight bottlenecks;
       (B) to indicate performance and trends over time; and
       (C) to inform investment decisions.

     SEC. ___. PORT PERFORMANCE FREIGHT STATISTICS PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 63 of title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 6314. Port performance freight statistics program

       ``(a) In General.--The Director shall establish, on behalf 
     of the Secretary, a port performance statistics program to 
     provide nationally consistent measures of performance of, at 
     a minimum--
       ``(1) the Nation's top 25 ports by tonnage;
       ``(2) the Nation's top 25 ports by 20-foot equivalent unit; 
     and
       ``(3) the Nation's top 25 ports by dry bulk.
       ``(b) Reports.--
       ``(1) Port capacity and throughput.--Not later than January 
     15 of each year, the Director shall submit an annual report 
     to Congress that includes statistics on capacity and 
     throughput at the ports described in subsection (a).
       ``(2) Port performance measures.--The Director shall 
     collect monthly port performance measures for each of the 
     United States ports referred to in subsection (a) that 
     receives Federal assistance or is subject to Federal 
     regulation to submit a quarterly report to the Bureau of 
     Transportation Statistics that includes monthly statistics on 
     capacity and throughput as applicable to the specific 
     configuration of the port.
       ``(A) Monthly measures.--The Director shall collect monthly 
     measures, including--
       ``(i) the average number of lifts per hour of containers by 
     crane;
       ``(ii) the average vessel turn time by vessel type;
       ``(iii) the average cargo or container dwell time;
       ``(iv) the average truck time at ports;
       ``(v) the average rail time at ports; and
       ``(vi) any additional metrics, as determined by the 
     Director after receiving recommendations from the working 
     group established under subsection (c).
       ``(B) Modifications.--The Director may consider a 
     modification to a metric under subparagraph (A) if the 
     modification meets the intent of the section.
       ``(c) Recommendations.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Director shall obtain 
     recommendations for--
       ``(A) specifications and data measurements for the port 
     performance measures listed in subsection (b)(2);
       ``(B) additionally needed data elements for measuring port 
     performance; and
       ``(C) a process for the Department of Transportation to 
     collect timely and consistent data, including identifying 
     safeguards to protect proprietary information described in 
     subsection (b)(2).
       ``(2) Working group.--Not later than 60 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this section, the Director shall 
     commission a working group composed of--
       ``(A) operating administrations of the Department of 
     Transportation;
       ``(B) the Coast Guard;
       ``(C) the Federal Maritime Commission;
       ``(D) U.S. Customs and Border Protection;
       ``(E) the Marine Transportation System National Advisory 
     Council;
       ``(F) the Army Corps of Engineers;
       ``(G) the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation;
       ``(H) the Advisory Committee on Supply Chain 
     Competitiveness;
       ``(I) 1 representative from the rail industry;
       ``(J) 1 representative from the trucking industry;
       ``(K) 1 representative from the maritime shipping industry;
       ``(L) 1 representative from a labor organization for each 
     industry described in subparagraphs (I) through (K);
       ``(M) 1 representative from a port authority;
       ``(N) 1 representative from a terminal operator;
       ``(O) representatives of the National Freight Advisory 
     Committee of the Department; and
       ``(P) representatives of the Transportation Research Board 
     of the National Academies.
       ``(3) Recommendations.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     date of the enactment of this section, the working group 
     commissioned under this subsection shall submit its 
     recommendations to the Director.
       ``(d) Access to Data.--The Director shall ensure that the 
     statistics compiled under this section are readily accessible 
     to the public, consistent with applicable security 
     constraints and confidentiality interests.''.
       (b) Prohibition on Certain Disclosures.--Section 6307(b)(1) 
     of title 49, United States Code, is amended by inserting ``or 
     section 6314(b)'' after ``section 6302(b)(3)(B)'' each place 
     it appears.
       (c) Copies of Reports.--Section 6307(b)(2)(A) of such title 
     is amended by inserting ``or section 6314(b)'' after 
     ``section 6302(b)(3)(B)''.
       (d) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of 
     contents for chapter 63 of such title is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:

``6314. Port performance freight statistics program.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Newhouse) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman of the 
committee, Mr. Shuster, as well as Ranking Member DeFazio and all the 
members of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for their 
hard work on this large bill, this legislation.
  The amendment I offer today for myself and Mr. Schrader of Oregon is 
vitally important to the American economy. Nearly a year ago, a dispute 
began at 29 of our Nation's West Coast ports that drastically slowed 
imports and exports to a near standstill.
  Agricultural products rotted on the docks. Retailers couldn't get 
products to stores. American manufacturers could not get their products 
to foreign customers. By one estimate, there was nearly $7 billion in 
damages to our economy.
  Mr. Chairman, I have no interest in pointing fingers over who is 
responsible for the dispute. However, I do believe that Congress has a 
great interest in preventing future disruptions from harming our 
businesses and consumers as well as our economy.
  One thing that became abundantly clear during the disruption was that 
there was very little data available to gauge how our ports are 
functioning on a day-to-day basis. If something is impeding port 
performance, be it a dispute, major congestion, or even a natural 
disaster, we need to know if and how our ports are suffering before it 
harms our economy and standing with foreign trading partners.
  This amendment is simple. It requires the Bureau of Transportation 
Statistics to collect and make available data on how our Nation's ports 
are operating. Currently, the Bureau collects this information for our 
railroads, for our highways, and our airports. We also need this 
information for our ports as well.
  The amendment that we are introducing is already in the Senate 
highway bill. It has been approved by the Senate Commerce Committee by 
voice vote. This is not and should not be controversial.

                              {time}  1800

  I also want to note that there are over 150 organizations supporting 
this measure, organizations like the National Retail Federation, the 
American Farm Bureau, the Association of American Railroads, the 
National Association of Manufacturers, and the American Trucking 
Association. The list

[[Page 17380]]

goes on and on. It has very broad multi-industry and bipartisan 
support.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is about transparency and certainty for 
our Nation's economy. If something is harming our ports, our 
decisionmakers need information to address and mitigate that harm.
  Now, I would have urged my colleagues to adopt this amendment, just 
as a broad, bipartisan group did so in the Senate, but I have been in 
close conversation with staff of the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee, as well as the chairman and the ranking member. I would ask 
for continued commitment on the part of the chairman to keep working on 
this issue. It is very important and vital to the economy of the United 
States.
  With that commitment, Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.
  The Chair understands that amendment No. 28 will not be offered.


                Amendment No. 29 Offered by Mr. DeSantis

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 29 
printed in part A of House Report 114-326.
  Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle D of title I of division A, add the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 1431. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON INSOLVENCY OF THE HIGHWAY 
                   TRUST FUND AND RETURNING POWER TO STATES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) The Highway Trust Fund is nearing insolvency.
       (2) It is critical for Congress to phase down the Federal 
     gas and diesel taxes and empower the States to tax and 
     regulate their highway and infrastructure projects.
       (3) The Federal role and funding of surface transportation 
     should be refocused solely on Federal activities and empower 
     States with control and responsibility over their 
     transportation funding and spending decisions.
       (4) The objective of the Federal highway program has been 
     to facilitate the construction of a modern freeway system 
     that promotes efficient interstate commerce by connecting all 
     States.
       (5) The Interstate System connecting all States is near 
     completion.
       (6) Each State has the responsibility of providing an 
     efficient transportation network for the residents of the 
     State.
       (7) Each State has means to build and operate a network of 
     transportation systems, including highways, that best serves 
     the needs of the State.
       (8) Each State is best capable of determining the needs of 
     the State and acting on those needs.
       (9) The Federal role in highway transportation has, over 
     time, usurped the role of the States by taxing motor fuels 
     used in the States and then distributing the proceeds to the 
     States based on the perceptions of the Federal Government on 
     what is best for the States.
       (10) The Federal Government has used the Federal motor fuel 
     tax revenues to force all States to take actions that are not 
     necessarily appropriate for individual States.
       (11) The Federal distribution, review, and enforcement 
     process wastes billions of dollars on unproductive 
     activities.
       (12) The Federal mandates that apply uniformly to all 50 
     States, regardless of the different circumstances of the 
     States, cause the States to waste billions of hard-earned tax 
     dollars of projects, programs, and activities that the States 
     would not otherwise undertake.
       (13) Congress has expressed a strong interest in reducing 
     the role of the Federal Government by allowing each State to 
     manage its own affairs.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the Secretary should provide a new policy blueprint to 
     govern the Federal role in transportation once existing and 
     prior financial obligations are met;
       (2) this policy should return to the individual States 
     maximum discretionary authority and fiscal responsibility for 
     all elements of the national surface transportation systems 
     that are not within the direct purview of the Federal 
     Government;
       (3) this policy will preserve the Federal responsibility 
     for the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate 
     and Defense Highways and will preserve responsibility of the 
     Department of Transportation for design construction and 
     preservation of transportation facilities on Federal public 
     land, preserving responsibility of the Department of 
     Transportation for national programs of transportation 
     research and development and transportation safety; and
       (4) this policy will preserve responsibility of the 
     Department of Transportation to eliminate, to the maximum 
     extent practicable, Federal obstacles to the ability of each 
     State to apply innovative solutions to the financing, design, 
     construction, operation, and preservation of Federal and 
     State transportation facilities with respect to 
     transportation activities carried out by States, local 
     governments, and the private sector.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. DeSantis) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Chairman, we are here today discussing how to meet 
the country's important infrastructure needs, and I think what my 
amendment does is offer a vision for a different approach in the 
future. I think it is an approach that is more accountable to 
taxpayers, and I think it rests on governments closer to the people 
making more of our transportation decisions.
  I don't think anyone is going to sit here and claim that the transit 
and highway system as it is done up here in Washington is being done 
well. It is chronically underfunded. We are using all kinds of budget 
gimmicks in this bill. We are doing the Strategic Petroleum Reserve 
again to, quote, unquote, pay for this. Somehow you are taking oil at 
$50 a barrel and you are projecting it to be sold for $85 a barrel. So 
we know we have been through this a lot here.
  I think part of the problem is, if you look at our infrastructure 
needs, most of them are intrastate, not necessarily interstate. And 
while the interstate system is very important and it needs to be 
maintained, expanded where appropriate, most of the needs that we have 
in a State like Florida can be done at the county level or at the State 
level.
  I would note, Mr. Chairman, that since we have had the highway trust 
fund since 1956, Florida has paid a lot in taxes, and we received about 
88 cents on the dollar back. So I am trying to figure out why we would 
want to perpetuate a system that is not fiscally sustainable and that 
puts more power in Washington.
  Think about it. Most of your needs are done countywide, citywide, and 
statewide, and yet people in a State like Florida will pay their gas 
taxes. That will be shipped up to Washington; people will fight over 
it, politicians, lobbyists, and interest groups; and then the money 
that comes back is 88 cents on the dollar.
  I would like to send the gas tax to Washington that is going to fund 
the actual interstate system, but then leave a portion of the gas tax 
for State legislatures to spend or for people in local governments to 
spend. I think you would be able to do it cheaper. I think it would be 
more accountable to the taxpayers, and I think it would be better for 
motorists and people who are using our transportation system.
  So all this does, Mr. Chairman, it is not binding. I wish we could 
have done something binding, but there are different budget rules. What 
it does is lay out a vision that we can do this in a way that rests on 
decisions being made closer to the American people rather than putting 
everything in Washington, D.C.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, we want to go back to the good old days; that is, 
before Dwight David Eisenhower was President. Here we have what we had 
before when we didn't have a national highway program. This is the 
brand-new Kansas turnpike. Oklahoma said: We will build ours. Uh-oh. We 
have got financial problems.
  They didn't.
  So for a few years, this brand-new ribbon of concrete ended right 
here. Kind of odd. This is Amos Schweitzer's farm field. They put up a 
big wooden barrier. People crashed through it, and Amos towed them out 
of the field. He was a nice guy.
  Until we had a national program where the Federal Government would

[[Page 17381]]

partner with the States for something that was of national import, it 
didn't happen. Let's go back to those good old days.
  This is a new idea, came from Grover Norquist: We are going to 
devolve the duty to the 50 States assembled and the territories, and 
somehow they will magically coordinate this. Oh, by the way, if you 
happen to be a coastal State with major ports--I think Florida has a 
few of those--gee, you are going to have to pay for all of the costs of 
transshipping the goods that flow into your State out to the other 
States. That is your responsibility. You are Florida, raise the money 
to do it.
  Oh, how are you going to do that?
  I don't know. You can't raise taxes on the imports because that would 
be a Federal responsibility, a different category.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an idea whose time has not yet come, an idea 
whose time passed a very long time ago. We need more investment in the 
national system. Mr. Chairman, 140,000 bridges need repair or 
replacement; 40 percent of the highway surface, the roadbeds need 
replacement; $84 billion backlog in bringing our transit systems up to 
a state of good repair, and that is not even dealing with a growing 
population, growing mobility, and the need for a national freight 
program. And we are just going to send it back to the States, and they 
will magically somehow take care of it--poppycock.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Chairman, we would love for these interstate issues 
to be done at the Federal level. That is what the Federal Government is 
here for, and that is the way it should be. But when you are talking 
about purely local issues, there is not a reason to send the money up 
to Washington and then beg back for pennies on the dollar. That is not 
an efficient way to do it.
  Yes, I think that we do have a responsibility to have an efficient 
interstate system, but we also need to understand that Washington 
shouldn't be dictating what local communities do.
  And, yes, in a State like Florida where we have a lot of this is 
intrastate, let's empower the States and let's empower the local 
communities. Just imagine if they were able to have a portion of that 
gas tax go directly to them. I think you would see great decisions 
made.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the chairman of the committee.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I share many of the same conservative beliefs that my 
colleague from Florida has. This town is littered with agencies that 
don't belong here according to the Founding Fathers. Over time they 
have grown up, and the Federal Government has taken that power.
  But I do disagree with the gentleman from Florida on this issue. When 
it comes to transportation, the Constitution we have today, the 
breaking point of the Articles of Confederation, one of the breaking 
points, the biggest breaking point, was the transportation system. 
Maryland and Virginia couldn't come together on a treaty to navigate 
the Potomac River, so they realized that if they couldn't connect this 
Nation, then we would never be a nation. We would be 13 separate 
entities, 50 entities today. But the Founding Fathers came and wrote 
the Constitution we know today.
  Article I, section 8 talks about the role of the Federal Government, 
providing for the common defense, regulating interstate commerce, and 
establishing post roads. Those post roads today are the highways and 
the byways of this Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman. Washington shouldn't be 
dictating. This bill does more to send back power to the States, to let 
the States drive the issues. But there is a Federal role, not to do it 
all, but to partner--to partner--with the States in building the 
infrastructure system that we have today. What physically connects us 
is our highway system; it is our transportation system.
  I would argue also, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman pointed out that 
Florida--I agree, I know what the return on Florida is, but Florida has 
benefited tremendously by two roads in particular: I-95 and I-75. If 
you go to the east coast or the west coast of Florida, millions of 
people are traveling from the Northeast and the Midwest down to Florida 
to spend their dollars, and many are relocating. If you go to the east 
coast, there are many Pennsylvanians. So Florida has benefited 
tremendously by this system that we have today.
  Again, I believe with this bill we are turning back to the States a 
lot of responsibility. I think this is a conservative bill based on 
that, to let States--and also, to remind the gentleman and my 
colleagues, I like to turn back things to the States that they actually 
ask for. My phone is not ringing off the hook having Governors say, 
``Give us this back.''
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman an additional 15 
seconds.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Finally, Mr. Chairman, Adam Smith said in ``The Wealth 
of Nations'' that government should do three things for their people: 
provide them with security, preserve justice, and erect and maintain 
infrastructure to promote commerce.
  If you don't believe Bill Shuster, get out a copy of ``The Wealth of 
Nations'' and read what Adam Smith said, the father of our economic 
system.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I urge everyone to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I would point out that under the current 
formulas, actually, and current spending levels, Florida is getting 
back $1.15 on the dollar. So, actually, under the gentleman's proposal, 
devolving back to the States, doing away with the Federal revenues, 
both gas tax and general fund revenues, would actually be a net loss to 
Florida; but then I guess they would just have to raise their gas taxes 
by the 18.3 cents that is going to the Federal Government and a bit 
more in order to make that up.
  Again, we would lose the coordination among the States. The 
priorities of States bordering Florida may not match the priorities of 
Florida in terms of access and egress to the State of Florida. So I 
think we are well-served as a nation by having a coordinated Federal 
program and streamlined and efficient reforms.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to oppose this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. DeSantis).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will 
be postponed.


    Amendments En Bloc No. 1 Offered by Mr. Shuster of Pennsylvania

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 512, I offer 
amendments en bloc.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
  Amendments en bloc No. 1 consisting of amendment Nos. 30, 31, 32, 33, 
34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 
52, 53, 54, 55, and 56 printed in part A of House Report No. 114-326, 
offered by Mr. Shuster of Pennsylvania:


           Amendment No. 30 Offered by Ms. Moore of Wisconsin

       Page 17, after line 14, insert the following:
       (8) Sense of congress on prompt payment of dbe 
     subcontractors.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (A) the Secretary should take additional steps to ensure 
     that recipients comply with section 26.29 of title 49, Code 
     of Federal Regulations (the disadvantaged business 
     enterprises prompt payment rule), or any corresponding 
     regulation, in awarding federally funded transportation 
     contracts under laws and regulations administered by the 
     Secretary; and

[[Page 17382]]

       (B) such additional steps should include increasing the 
     Department's ability to track and keep records of complaints 
     and to make that information publicly available.


          Amendment No. 31 Offered by Mr. Graves of Louisiana

       Page 65, strike lines 16 and 17, and insert the following:
       ``(5) enhance the resiliency of critical highway 
     infrastructure, including highway infrastructure that 
     supports national energy security.


           Amendment No. 32 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado

       Page 198, line 3, strike the closing quotation marks and 
     the final period and insert the following:
       ``(86) Interstate Route 70 from Denver, Colorado, to Salt 
     Lake City, Utah.''.


           Amendment No. 33 Offered by Ms. Bonamici of Oregon

       Page 198, line 3, strike the closing quotation marks and 
     final period.
       Page 198, after line 3, insert the following:
       ``(86) The Oregon 99W Newberg-Dundee Bypass Route between 
     Newberg, Oregon, and Dayton, Oregon.''.


           Amendment No. 34 Offered by Mr. Schrader of Oregon

       Page 198, line 3, striking the closing quotation mark and 
     the second period.
       Page 198, insert after line 3 the following:
       ``(86) Interstate Route 205 in Oregon from its intersection 
     with Interstate Route 5 to the Columbia River.''.


           Amendment No. 35 Offered by Mr. Duffy of Wisconsin

       Page 229, line 23, strike the closing quotation marks and 
     final period.
       Page 229, after line 23, insert the following:
       ``(n) Certain Logging Vehicles in Wisconsin.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall waive, with respect 
     to a covered logging vehicle, the application of any vehicle 
     weight limit established under this section.
       ``(2) Covered logging vehicle defined.--In this subsection, 
     the term `covered logging vehicle' means a vehicle that--
       ``(A) is transporting raw or unfinished forest products, 
     including logs, pulpwood, biomass, or wood chips;
       ``(B) has a gross vehicle weight of not more than 98,000 
     pounds;
       ``(C) has not less than 6 axles; and
       ``(D) is operating on a segment of Interstate Route 39 in 
     Wisconsin from mile marker 175.8 to mile marker 189.''.


          Amendment No. 36 Offered by Mr. Crawford of Arkansas

       Add at the end of the title I of the bill the following:

     SEC. __. OPERATION OF CERTAIN SPECIALIZED VEHICLES ON CERTAIN 
                   HIGHWAYS IN THE STATE OF ARKANSAS.

       If any segment of United States Route 63 between the exits 
     for highways 14 and 75 in the State of Arkansas is designated 
     as part of the Interstate System, the single axle weight, 
     tandem axle weight, gross vehicle weight, and bridge formula 
     limits under section 127(a) of title 23, United States Code, 
     and the width limitation under section 31113(a) of title 49, 
     United States Code, shall not apply to that segment with 
     respect to the operation of any vehicle that may have legally 
     operated on that segment before the date of the designation.


      Amendment No. 37 Offered by Mr. Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania

       At the end of subtitle D of title I of Division A, insert 
     the following:

     SEC. ___. PROJECTS FOR PUBLIC SAFETY RELATING TO IDLING 
                   TRAINS.

       Section 130(a) of title 23, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking ``and the relocation of highways to eliminate 
     grade crossings'' and inserting ``the relocation of highways 
     to eliminate grade crossings, and projects to eliminate 
     hazards posed by blocked grade crossings due to idling 
     trains''.


          Amendment No. 38 Offered by Mr. Lipinski of Illinois

       At the end of subtitle D of title I of division A, add the 
     following:

     SEC. __. EXEMPTIONS FROM REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN WELDING 
                   TRUCKS USED IN PIPELINE INDUSTRY.

       (a) Covered Motor Vehicle Defined.--In this section, the 
     term ``covered motor vehicle'' means a motor vehicle that--
       (1) is traveling in the State in which the vehicle is 
     registered or another State;
       (2) is owned by a welder;
       (3) is a pick-up style truck;
       (4) is equipped with a welding rig that is used in the 
     construction or maintenance of pipelines; and
       (5) has a gross vehicle weight and combination weight 
     rating and weight of 15,000 pounds or less.
       (b) Federal Requirements.--A covered motor vehicle, 
     including the individual operating such vehicle and the 
     employer of such individual, shall be exempt from the 
     following:
       (1) Any requirement relating to registration as a motor 
     carrier, including the requirement to obtain and display a 
     Department of Transportation number, established under 
     chapters 139 and 311 of title 49, United States Code.
       (2) Any requirement relating to driver qualifications 
     established under chapter 311 of title 49, United States 
     Code.
       (3) Any requirement relating to driving of commercial motor 
     vehicles established under chapter 311 of title 49, United 
     States Code.
       (4) Any requirement relating to parts and accessories and 
     inspection, repair, and maintenance of commercial motor 
     vehicles established under chapter 311 of title 49, United 
     States Code.
       (5) Any requirement relating to hours of service of 
     drivers, including maximum driving and on duty time, 
     established under chapter 315 of title 49, United States 
     Code.


           Amendment No. 39 Offered by Mr. NOLAN of Minnesota

       At the end of title I of division A, add the following:

     SEC. __. WAIVER.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall waive, for a covered 
     logging vehicle, the application of any vehicle weight limit 
     established under section 127 of title 23, United States 
     Code.
       (b) Covered Logging Vehicle Defined.--In this section, the 
     term ``covered logging vehicle'' means a vehicle that--
       (1) is transporting raw or unfinished forest products, 
     including logs, pulpwood, biomass, or wood chips;
       (2) has a gross vehicle weight of not more than 99,000 
     pounds;
       (3) has not less than 6 axles; and
       (4) is operating on a segment of Interstate Route 35 in 
     Minnesota from mile marker 235.4 to mile marker 259.552.


           Amendment No. 40 Offered by Mr. Cohen of Tennessee

       Page 241, line 10, strike ``and''.
       Page 241, after line 10, insert the following:
       (2) by amending paragraph (3)(I) to read as follows:
       ``(I) the provision of nonfixed route paratransit 
     transportation services in accordance with section 223 of the 
     Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12143), 
     but only for grant recipients that are in compliance with 
     applicable requirements of that Act, including both fixed 
     route and demand responsive service, and only for amounts--
       ``(i) not to exceed 10 percent of such recipient's annual 
     formula apportionment under sections 5307 and 5311; or
       ``(ii) not to exceed 20 percent of such recipient's annual 
     formula apportionment under sections 5307 and 5311, if 
     consistent with guidance issued by the Secretary, the 
     recipient demonstrates that the recipient meets at least one 
     of the following requirements:

       ``(I) Provides an active fixed route travel training 
     program that is available for riders with disabilities.
       ``(II) Provides that all fixed route and paratransit 
     operators participate in a passenger safety, disability 
     awareness, and sensitivity training class on at least a 
     biennial basis.
       ``(III) Has memoranda of understanding in place with 
     employers and American Job Centers to increase access to 
     employment opportunities for people with disabilities.''.


            Amendment No. 41 Offered by Mr. Veasey of Texas

       Page 248, beginning on line 6, strike ``or general public 
     demand response service'' and insert ``or demand response 
     service, excluding ADA complementary paratransit service,''.


          Amendment No. 42 Offered by Mr. Lipinski of Illinois

       Page 252, strike lines 14 through 19 and insert the 
     following: ``exceed 80 percent of the net capital project 
     cost. A full funding grant agreement for a new fixed guideway 
     project shall not include a share of more than 50 percent 
     from the funds made available under this section. Funds made 
     available under section 133 of title 23, United States Code, 
     may not be used for a grant agreement under subsection (d). A 
     grant for a core capacity project shall not exceed 80 percent 
     of the net capital project cost of the incremental cost to 
     increase the capacity in the corridor. A grant for a small 
     start project shall not exceed 80 percent of the net capital 
     project costs.''; and


        Amendment No. 43 Offered by Ms. Adams of North Carolina

       Page 263, line 18, strike ``minority, and female'' and 
     insert the following: ``female, individual with a disability, 
     minority (including American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, 
     Black or African American, native Hawaiian or other Pacific 
     Islander, and Hispanic)''.


         Amendment No. 44 Offered by Ms. Foxx of North Carolina

       Page 268, line 14, strike ``and''.
       Page 268, line 17, strike the period and insert a semicolon 
     and after such line insert the following:
       ``(iv) the percentage of program participants who are in 
     unsubsidized employment during the second quarter after exit 
     from any such program;
       ``(v) the percentage of program participants who are in 
     unsubsidized employment during the fourth quarter after exit 
     from any such program;
       ``(vi) the median earnings of program participants who are 
     in unsubsidized employment during the second quarter after 
     exit from any such program;
       ``(vii) the percentage of program participants who obtain a 
     recognized postsecondary

[[Page 17383]]

     credential, or a secondary school diploma or its recognized 
     equivalent, during participation in or within 1 year after 
     exit from any such program; and
       ``(viii) the percentage of program participants who, during 
     a program year, are in an education or training program that 
     leads to a recognized postsecondary credential or employment 
     and who are achieving measurable skill gains toward such a 
     credential or employment.''.
       Page 267, line 25, strike ``and''.
       Page 268, line 4, strike the period and insert a semicolon 
     and after such line insert the following:
       ``(x) address in-demand industry sector or occupation, as 
     such term is defined in section 3 of the Workforce Innovation 
     and Opportunity Act (29 U.S.C. 3102).''.


         Amendment No. 45 Offered by Mrs. Lawrence of Michigan

       Page 314, after line 15, insert the following new 
     subsection:
       (d) Report.--The Council shall, concurrently with 
     submission to the President of a report containing final 
     recommendations of the Council, transmit such report to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
     and Transportation of the Senate.


           Amendment No. 46 Offered by Ms. Moore of Wisconsin

       At the end of title III of division A, add the following:

     SEC. ___. EFFECTIVENESS OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION CHANGES AND 
                   FUNDING.

       Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Comptroller General shall examine and evaluate 
     the impact of the changes that Map-21 had on public 
     transportation, including--
       (1) the ability and effectiveness of public transportation 
     agencies to provide public transportation to low-income 
     workers in accessing jobs and being able to use reverse 
     commute services;
       (2) whether services to low-income riders declined after 
     Map-21 was implemented; and
       (3) if guidance provided by the Federal Transit 
     Administration encouraged public transportation agencies to 
     maintain and support services to low-income riders to allow 
     them to access jobs, medical services, and other life 
     necessities.


        Amendment No. 47 Offered by Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois

       Page 466, after line 21, insert the following:
       (a) Automobile Transporter Defined.--Section 31111(a)(1) of 
     title 49, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``specifically''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following: ``An automobile 
     transporter shall not be prohibited from the transport of 
     cargo or general freight on a backhaul, so long as it 
     complies with weight limitations for a truck tractor and 
     semitrailer combination.''.
       (b) Truck Tractor Defined.--Section 31111(a)(3)(B) of title 
     49, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``only''; and
       (2) by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``or any other commodity, including cargo or 
     general freight on a backhaul''.
       (c) Backhaul Defined.--Section 31111(a) of title 49, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) Backhaul.--The term `backhaul' means the return trip 
     of a vehicle transporting cargo or general freight, 
     especially when carrying goods back over all or part of the 
     same route.''.
       Page 466, line 22, insert ``(d) Stinger-Steered Automobile 
     Transporters.--'' before ``Section''.


           Amendment No. 48 Offered by Ms. Moore of Wisconsin

       Page 322, strike line 8 and insert the following:
       ``(vii) support for school-based driver's education classes 
     to improve teen knowledge about--

       ``(I) safe driving practices; and
       ``(II) State's graduated driving license requirements, 
     including behind-the-wheel training required to meet those 
     requirements; and''.


          Amendment No. 49 Offered by Mr. Crawford of Arkansas

       At the end of subtitle E of title V of Division A of the 
     bill, add the following:

     SEC. ___. COMMERCIAL DELIVERY OF LIGHT- AND MEDIUM-DUTY 
                   TRAILERS.

       (a) Definitions.--Section 31111(a) of title 49, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) Trailer transporter towing unit.--The term `trailer 
     transporter towing unit' means a power unit that is not used 
     to carry property when operating in a towaway trailer 
     transporter combination.
       ``(6) Towaway trailer transporter combination.--The term 
     `towaway trailer transporter combination' means a combination 
     of vehicles consisting of a trailer transporter towing unit 
     and two trailers or semitrailers--
       ``(A) with a total weight that does not exceed 26,000 
     pounds; and
       ``(B) in which the trailers or semitrailers carry no 
     property and constitute inventory property of a manufacturer, 
     distributor or dealer of such trailers or semitrailers.''.
       (b) General Limitations.--Section 31111(b)(1) of such title 
     is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (E) by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (F) by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(G) has the effect of imposing an overall length 
     limitation of less than 82 feet on a towaway trailer 
     transporter combination.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Property-carrying unit limitation.--Section 31112(a)(1) 
     of such title is amended by inserting before the period at 
     the end the following: ``, but not including a trailer or a 
     semitrailer transported as part of a towaway trailer 
     transporter combination, as defined in section 31111(a)''.
       (2) Access to interstate system.--Section 31114(a)(2) of 
     such title is amended by inserting ``any towaway trailer 
     transporter combination, as defined in section 31111(a),'' 
     after ``passengers,''.


            Amendment No. 50 Offered by Ms. Meng of New York

       At the end of subtitle E of title V, insert the following 
     new section:

     SEC. 5515. GAO REVIEW OF SCHOOL BUS SAFETY.

       Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall 
     submit to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives a review of the following:
       (1) Existing Federal and State rules and guidance, as of 
     the date of the review, concerning school bus transportation 
     of elementary school and secondary school students engaging 
     in home-to-school transport or other transport determined by 
     the Comptroller General to be a routine part of kindergarten 
     through grade 12 education, including regulations and 
     guidance regarding driver training programs, capacity 
     requirements, programs for special needs students, inspection 
     standards, vehicle age requirements, best practices, and 
     public access to inspection results and crash records.
       (2) Any correlation between public or private school bus 
     fleet operators whose vehicles are involved in an accident as 
     defined by section 390.5 of title 49, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, and each of the following:
       (A) A failure by those same operators of State or local 
     safety inspections.
       (B) The average age or odometer readings of the school 
     buses in the fleets of such operators.
       (C) Violations of Federal laws administered by the 
     Department of Transportation, or of State law equivalents of 
     such laws.
       (D) Violations of State or local law relating to illegal 
     passing of a school bus.
       (3) A regulatory framework comparison of public and private 
     school bus operations.
       (4) Expert recommendations on best practices for safe and 
     reliable school bus transportation, including driver training 
     programs, inspection standards, school bus age and odometer 
     reading maximums for retirement, the percentage of buses in a 
     local bus fleet needed as spare buses, and capacity levels 
     per school bus for different age groups.


            Amendment No. 51 Offered by Ms. Meng of New York

       Page 524, line 12, after ``challenges'' insert ``, 
     including consumer privacy protections''.


       Amendment No. 52 Offered by Mrs. Napolitano of California

       Page 541, line 15, add at the end the following: ``In 
     developing such regulations, the Secretary shall consult with 
     States to determine whether there are safety hazards or 
     concerns specific to a State that should be taken into 
     account in developing the requirements for a comprehensive 
     oil spill response plan.''


        Amendment No. 53 Offered by Mr. Moulton of Massachusetts

       Page 571, line 3, redesignate section 7015 as section 7016.
       Page 571, after line 2, insert after section 7014 the 
     following new section:
  


     SEC. 7015. STUDY ON THE EFFICACY AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 
                   EUROPEAN TRAIN CONTROL SYSTEM.

       (a) In General.--The Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall, in consultation with other heads of Federal 
     agencies as appropriate, conduct a study on the European 
     Train Control System.
       (b) Issues.--In conducting the study described in 
     subsection (a), the Comptroller General shall examine, at a 
     minimum, the following issues:
       (1) The process by which the European Train Control System 
     came to replace the more than 20 separate national train 
     control systems throughout the European continent.
       (2) The costs associated with implementing the European 
     Train Control System across all affected railroads in Europe.
       (3) The impact of the European Train Control System on 
     operating capacity and rail passenger safety.
       (4) The efficacy of the European Train Control System and 
     the feasibility of implementing such a system throughout the 
     national rail network of the United States.
       (5) A comparison of the costs associated with adopting 
     European Train Control System technology with the costs 
     associated

[[Page 17384]]

     with developing and implementing Positive Train Control in 
     the United States.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this section, the Comptroller General shall 
     submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
     of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
     Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report 
     on the results of the study described in subsection (a).


          Amendment No. 54 Offered by Mr. Neugebauer of Texas

       At the end of title VII, add the following:

     SEC. ___. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ENDORSEMENT EXEMPTION.

       The Secretary shall allow a State, at the discretion of the 
     State, to waive the requirement for a holder of a Class A 
     commercial driver's license to obtain a hazardous materials 
     endorsement under part 383 of title 49, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, if the license holder--
       (1) is acting within the scope of the license holder's 
     employment as an employee of a custom harvester operation, 
     agrichemical business, farm retail outlet and supplier, or 
     livestock feeder; and
       (2) is operating a service vehicle that is--
       (A) transporting diesel in a quantity of 3,785 liters 
     (1,000 gallons) or less; and
       (B) clearly marked with a ``flammable'' or ``combustible'' 
     placard, as appropriate.


          Amendment No. 55 Offered by Mr. Cummings of Maryland

       Page 573, after line 11, add the following:

     SEC. __. TRACK SAFETY: VERTICAL TRACK DEFLECTION.

       (a) Report.--Not later than March 31, 2016, the Secretary 
     shall transmit a report to the Committee on Transportation 
     and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate detailing research conducted or procured by the 
     Federal Railroad Administration on developing a system that 
     measures Vertical Track Deflection (in this section referred 
     to as ``VTD'') from a moving railroad car, including the 
     ability of such a system to identify poor track support from 
     fouled ballast, deteriorated cross ties, or other conditions.
       (b) Inclusions.--This report shall include--
       (1) the findings and results of testing of VTD 
     instrumentation during field trials on revenue service track;
       (2) the findings and results of subsequent testing of VTD 
     instrumentation on a Federal Railroad Administration 
     Automated Track Inspection Program geometry car;
       (3) if considered appropriate by the Secretary based on the 
     report and related research, a plan for developing 
     quantitative inspection criteria for poor track support using 
     existing VTD instrumentation on Federal Railroad 
     Administration Automated Track Inspection Program geometry 
     cars; and
       (4) if considered appropriate by the Secretary based on the 
     report and related research, a plan for installing VTD 
     instrumentation on all remaining Federal Railroad 
     Administration Automated Track Inspection Program geometry 
     cars within 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act.


           Amendment No. 56 Offered by Mr. Walz of Minnesota

       At the end of title VII, add the following:

     SEC. ____. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS BY RAIL LIABILITY STUDY.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall initiate a study 
     on the levels and structure of insurance for a railroad 
     carrier transporting hazardous materials.
       (b) Contents.--ln conducting the study under subsection 
     (a), the Secretary shall evaluate--
       (1) the level and structure of insurance, including self-
     insurance, available in the private market against the full 
     liability potential for damages arising from an accident or 
     incident involving a train transporting hazardous materials; 
     and
       (2) the level and structure of insurance that would be 
     necessary and appropriate--
       (A) to efficiently allocate risk and financial 
     responsibility for claims; and
       (B) to ensure that a railroad carrier transporting 
     hazardous materials can continue to operate despite the risk 
     of an accident or incident.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date the study 
     under subsection (a) is initiated, the Secretary shall submit 
     a report containing the results of the study and 
     recommendations for addressing liability issues with rail 
     transportation of hazardous materials to--
       (1) the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 
     of the Senate; and
       (2) the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of 
     the House of Representatives.
       (d) Definitions.--ln this section:
       (1) Hazardous material.--The term ``hazardous material'' 
     means a substance or material the Secretary designates under 
     section 5103(a) of title 49, United States Code.
       (2) Railroad carrier.--The term ``railroad carrier'' has 
     the meaning given the term in section 20102 of title 49, 
     United States Code.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, let me start off by first saying we lost a 
valuable former member of this committee just recently. Howard Coble 
passed away. I just want to say that Howard was on this committee his 
entire time in Congress.
  He was a very valued member of the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee. He was a champion of the Coast Guard, which he served, his 
beloved Coast Guard, and he was always there fighting for them. He was 
an excellent Representative of the people of his district in North 
Carolina, and he was a great friend of mine and, I know, many, many 
Members of this Congress.
  Howard Coble will be missed greatly. I am just proud to say that on 
the last Coast Guard reauthorization bill we were able to name it after 
Howard Coble, someone who deserved that honor.
  So, again, it is with a heavy heart I say that I salute Howard Coble 
and say farewell, as I said, to a great friend and great Member of this 
institution.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise now to offer these amendments en bloc. They 
reflect priorities from both sides of the aisle. I thank all Members 
for their cooperation in putting together this en bloc, and I urge all 
Members to support it.
  I would like, also, to take a moment at this time to thank all the 
Members on both sides of the aisle that participated in this debate. I 
want to thank the Speaker for putting us first on the floor for this 
new open and transparent--I know some of my colleagues on the other 
side don't think it was open enough, but I think many of us on the 
committee, I don't want to speak for Mr. DeFazio, but it was an open 
process to me, and I think that is important.

                              {time}  1815

  As Mr. Polis talked about earlier today, he had ideas. We were able 
to incorporate some of those, some of the Members on the other side, 
and some we certainly opposed. But it was the hard work and willingness 
to come together on this important piece of legislation. I think this 
makes it stronger when we go to the Senate.
  The STRR Act continues the Federal role in providing a strong 
national transportation system, enables our country to remain 
economically competitive, and helps ensure our quality of life. As we 
just talked about in the last amendment, this is a Federal 
responsibility. The Founders would have wanted it this way. They 
certainly probably had differences of opinion. But this role is 
something the Federal Government needs to be part of.
  The STRR Act is a multiyear bill that provides that certainty for 
States and local governments. This bill helps to improve our Nation's 
infrastructure and maintains a strong commitment to safety, but it also 
provides important reforms that will help us to continue to do the job 
more effectively. Some of those reforms I mentioned earlier were 
pushing back to the States, giving them the ability to have the 
flexibility, to make sure that they can drive this in their States to 
get these projects done more effectively and more efficiently, which 
will save us all money.
  I urge all Members to support this bill and the amendments en bloc.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).
  

  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank both the ranking 
member for yielding and for his support, and the chairman for his 
support, for two amendments that I have in this bloc.
  One is a commonsense amendment exempting a narrow class of welders 
from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety regulations that I offered with 
Mr. Davis of Illinois and a number of other Members. The other 
amendment is a bipartisan compromise that I offered with Mr. Dold and 
Mr. Nadler. It is an effort to clarify that transit agencies can 
utilize CMAQ and TIFIA funds to

[[Page 17385]]

match the 50 percent funding in a New Start grant.
  I appreciate the chairman's willingness to work with me on this issue 
and restore the Core Capacity and Small Starts projects Federal match 
limit back to 80 percent and allow local agencies to flex other Federal 
funds to these projects.
  Without these funds, without these changes, local flexibility would 
be greatly diminished and many projects would be delayed or canceled, 
including Chicago's red and purple line modernization.
  This bill still restricts the use of the STP funds for the remainder 
of the match and codifies the New Starts grant amount at 50 percent. I 
strongly disagree with these new restrictions and hope we can also work 
on this in conference.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Nolan), a member of the committee.
  Mr. NOLAN. Mr. Chairman, my amendment and the body of the amendments 
in this bloc are really all about public safety. Mine, in particular, 
is a bipartisan, commonsense solution to a very limited but seriously 
dangerous problem. In short, it will help make winter travel safer for 
truckers, travelers, and pedestrians who live, work, and do business in 
and around the great seaport of Duluth, Minnesota.
  I would like to thank Chairman Bill Shuster and Ranking Member Peter 
DeFazio for working with me on this, and the endless hours that you 
have put forth in committee and here on the floor yesterday, today, 
late into the night, and tomorrow for opening up and democratizing this 
process, making amendments like mine and others possible.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Wisconsin (Ms. Moore) to describe her amendments which are included.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member.
  I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for accepting my 
amendments on the DBE prompt payment issue, and to allow teen driving 
safety grants to be used to help fund school-based driver's education 
to help our young people meet the Graduated Driver Licensing 
requirements.
  I want to talk about the last of my amendments, requiring a GAO 
report on the impact of MAP-21 changes on the ability of those who 
previously benefited from transportation services under the Job Access 
and Reverse Commute program to get to work.
  The report would examine whether services to low-income riders 
declined after MAP-21 was implemented, as well as efforts by the FTA, 
after passage of MAP-21, to encourage public transportation agencies to 
maintain and support these services so that low-income riders would 
allow them access to jobs, medical services, and other life 
necessities.
  MAP-21 ended the stand-alone JARC grant program. Instead, those 
activities were added as eligible uses of funds under larger formula 
grant programs. There was no requirement that transit agencies use any 
of their annual transit funding to provide services to meet the needs 
of low-income individuals trying to get to work--none.
  My amendment would allow us to know what the real-world impact of 
these changes are. Congress did not intend these changes to make it 
harder for low-income and TANF populations to use transportation to get 
to work. That just doesn't make sense. These hardships should not 
occur.
  I hope that adoption of this amendment sends a message to transit 
agencies that they must continue to provide innovative services to 
ensure that low-income people and the marginally employed are able to 
reach places of employment, educational opportunities, job training, 
child care, medical appointments, and other life necessities.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Ms. Adams) to discuss her amendment.
  Ms. ADAMS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise today in support of this package of amendments that includes 
my amendment, which clarifies minority groups to be targeted in human 
resources outreach efforts by the Department of Transportation. My 
amendment would expand the bill's use of the term ``minority'' and 
specify the inclusion of underrepresented minority groups.
  Oftentimes, when policies are put in place to create diversity, they 
are not implemented with special attention to communities that are 
historically underrepresented. This is a special burden for 
underrepresented minorities who have higher than average unemployment 
rates.
  Furthermore, we all know investments in infrastructure means jobs for 
our constituents and opportunities for our businesses back home. As we 
work to pass this legislation, I believe we must make a concerted 
effort to diversify the people who are able to take advantage of these 
opportunities.
  I should note that particular areas of the transportation industry, 
such as public transportation service providers see better levels of 
diversity, but it is time to expand these opportunities to include 
engineering, contracting, project development, and other components of 
the process. Our transportation industry should reflect the diversity 
of our country at every level.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Graves).
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make note of an 
important provision that is included in the en bloc amendment package.
  As you know, the transportation bill includes a new program that 
addresses significant roadways. It addresses some of the more expensive 
projects, and it establishes a competitive grant program in excess of 
about $740 million a year.
  One of the important things we have to do is we have to provide 
guidance to the Department of the Transportation in regard to the 
criteria they use, the metrics they use, in this competitive process.
  An amendment in this bill includes the importance of strategic energy 
assets to ensure that roadways like LA 1 in south Louisiana are 
included.
  After Hurricane Katrina, gasoline prices nationwide spiked about 75 
cents a gallon. Following Hurricanes Gustav and Ike in 2008, gasoline 
prices spiked about $1.40 a gallon, which was the largest price spike 
since the Arab oil embargo. So it is important that, as they go through 
and allocate these grants, that they are looking at factors that are 
very important and have national consequences.
  I want to thank the ranking member and the chairman and all the big 
four for helping us on this.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, we are not quite at the end of this epic, 
but I would like to take a moment.
  First, I want to reflect on the chairman's brief eulogy for Howard 
Coble, who was a wonderful member of the committee; and Howard's 
embarked on his last great voyage. We all remember him warmly.
  I would like to thank the chairman and the chair of the subcommittee 
for the way in which we moved forward. This bill was a product of many, 
many months of negotiation between Members and staff. I think we have a 
good policy-based product here, so I want to thank the chairman and the 
chairman of the subcommittee. I want to thank my ranking member of the 
subcommittee, Eleanor Holmes Norton.
  I want to thank my committee staff on my side: Helena Zyblikewycz, 
Auke Mahar-Piersma--we are blessed with interesting names on our side--
Andrew Okuyiga, Ben Lockshin, Jennifer Homendy, Ryan Seiger, Alexa Old 
Crow. Of course, my chief of staff Kathy Dedrick. We have had much 
mention of the last time we did one of these bills. Kathy staffed me 
when we

[[Page 17386]]

did the last time long-term bill, which was quite a few years ago. Jen 
Gilbreath, Jaime Harrell, and Luke Strimer.
  On the Republican side, I particularly want to thank Chris Bertram 
and Murphie Barrett and all the other Republican staff for their 
fabulous work.
  I won't say all the meetings were warm and fuzzy, but we worked stuff 
out in the end. I think we got a good product. I think going through 
this legislative process was a demonstration that House Members can 
individually be relevant, offer their ideas. They might be rejected, 
they might be accepted, but I think this was a very good process.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Yoder). The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 6 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, this has been 3 years in the making. When 
I first became chairman just about 3 years ago to almost the date 
today, one of my top priorities was to pass a multiyear surface 
transportation bill. I have had some people who lament and say: Oh, you 
have been on the floor long; oh, you have had to go through these 
different fights. But I can tell you, it has all been pleasurable. It 
is exciting that we finally are getting this thing to send here on the 
floor and get it into conference.
  I couldn't do it without the help and advice of a great staff on the 
Republican side. I also want to thank the Democratic staff. I know both 
staffs have spent some long nights and some long weekends trying to get 
this thing all worked out, and they have done a great job of it. I 
thank each and every one of them on both sides of the aisle for their 
hard work.
  I want to thank all the members on the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee on both sides for their valuable input and, 
again, their hard work in putting this thing together to bring it to 
the floor. I want to thank Ranking Member DeFazio, Ranking Member 
Norton, and the chair of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, Mr. 
Graves, for their work.
  Peter DeFazio has been a good friend and able opponent at times. He 
has been here a long time. He is bright; he is tough; he is passionate; 
but at the end of the day, we are able to come together on a lot of 
these issues and work it out, so I appreciate Mr. DeFazio's efforts.
  And finally, let me say, for the first time in my 15 years of 
Congress that I have participated in a Transportation and 
Infrastructure debate on the floor, that my father's name has not been 
mentioned one time. So let me be the first to mention my father, Bud 
Shuster. I am not sure if he is watching at home. If he is, he is 
taking notes and will tell me things I said right and things I could 
have probably said better. But I just want to thank him for the 
guidance he has given me throughout my life, for the valuable advice he 
has offered to me at times when I have asked and many times when I have 
not asked. And, again, if he is watching tonight, I am sure he is 
writing down some things that he is going to give me some pointers on. 
But I want to thank my father, Bud Shuster, again, for his great 
support over the years.
  I am looking forward to getting to conference and getting this thing 
done because I think it is important to the American people that we 
have a long-term highway bill. This has been an issue that people say 
it is great, there is a lot of bipartisan support--and there is--but 
these are issues that Republicans, Democrats, and Americans care about, 
our infrastructure, and want to get to work without delays and want to 
get products to market and want to get the raw materials to the 
factories that keep us competitive in the world. We are in a world 
market that we have to remain competitive, and transportation is one of 
those vital links that will keep us there.
  With that, again, I thank everybody for their hard work. Staff, 
again, thank you.
  With that, I urge all Members to support the final bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment to 
add the Newberg Dundee Bypass Route as a High Priority Corridor and I 
would like to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for working with me 
to bring it forward. Let me be clear--there is no cost to this 
amendment--it merely raises the prominence and importance of the 
bypass. The construction of the bypass is underway and has great 
potential to ease congestion, promote freight mobility, and provide 
important multi-modal connections for residents and visitors in the 
broader Yamhill County region. The success of Oregon's wine and 
agricultural industries has increased freight traffic in the region. 
The bypass seeks to address the difficulties associated with 
transportation of goods and services and enhance the recovery of 
Yamhill County's economically distressed communities. The development 
of this corridor has wide support in the region, including from the 
state, local and tribal governments, and surrounding communities. I 
include a letter from Oregon's Department of Transportation in support 
of this amendment for the Record.
  Further, this project is of significant importance because of its 
location in the Cascadia Subduction Zone. We know that the question is 
not if, but when, an earthquake and tsunami will hit. Preparing our 
region is a priority for Oregonians and will save countless lives and 
federal funds. This road serves as an evacuation route for the central 
coast and is being built to withstand a 9.0 earthquake. I thank 
Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio for their support of my 
amendment.

                                     Department of Transportation,


                                       Office of the Director,

                                      Salem, OR, October 30, 2015.
     Re: Support for amendment to designate the OR 99W Newberg-
         Dundee bypass route between Newberg, OR, and Dayton, OR 
         as a new High Priority Corridor on the National Highway 
         System.

     Hon. Bill Shuster,
     Chairman, Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Peter DeFazio,
     Ranking Member, Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio: I write 
     today in support of an amendment to H.R. 22 offered by 
     Representative Suzanne Bonamici of Oregon.
       Representative Bonamici has filed an amendment with the 
     Rules Committee seeking to amend Section 1405 of the bill by 
     adding the OR 99W Newberg-Dundee Bypass route between 
     Newberg, OR, and Dayton, OR as a new High Priority Corridor 
     on the National Highway System.
       The Newberg-Dundee Bypass project is one of many key 
     regional transportation corridors in Oregon. The Bypass 
     project is important to both regional freight movement and 
     congestion relief. In addition, the Oregon Department of 
     Transportation's (ODOT) Safety Priority Index System for 2014 
     identified six sites on OR 99W that are in the top 10 percent 
     of crash sites statewide based on frequency and severity of 
     incidents. In the event of a major natural disaster such as a 
     Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake and tsunami, this 
     corridor would serve as an emergency evacuation and relief 
     route for the central Oregon Coast. The first phase of the 
     project, which is currently under construction, is being 
     built to withstand a 9.0 Cascadia subduction zone earthquake 
     to ensure this critical lifeline will remain operational in 
     such an event. For these reasons, ODOT supports the inclusion 
     of the Newberg-Dundee Bypass on the list of High Priority 
     Corridors on the National Highway System.
       Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                               Matthew L. Garrett,
                                                         Director.

  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member 
DeFazio for working with me on both of my amendments.
  The amendment I offer would require the Department of Transportation 
to submit a report to the House Transportation Committee and the Senate 
Commerce Committee on research managed by the Federal Railroad 
Administration (FRA) to develop a system to measure vertical track 
deflection caused by a moving railroad car.
  Such a system should be able to identify a combination of factors 
that, individually, may not be able to cause a train derailment but 
that, together, could endanger safe train operations, such as 
deteriorated cross ties, fouled ballast, and other deficiencies in the 
structures that support rail tracks.
  The amendment authorizes the Department of Transportation to develop 
a plan for using quantitative inspection criteria to identify poor 
track support systems if such an approach is supported by the FRA's 
research.
  The amendment also authorizes the Department to develop a plan to 
install instruments to measure track deflection on its Automated Track 
Inspection Program geometry cars within 3 years of the date of 
enactment of this bill,

[[Page 17387]]

if this approach is supported by the FRA's research.
  I developed this amendment in very close consultation with the 
families of Rose Louese Mayr and Elizabeth Conway Nass, who were 
tragically killed in a coal train derailment that occurred in Ellicott 
City, Maryland, in my district, in 2012.
  These families have worked tirelessly to understand the technical 
circumstances that led to the 2012 train derailment and to identify 
specific steps that can be taken to prevent future tragedies. I am 
deeply honored to have worked with them on this amendment.
  According to the National Transportation Safety Board's (NTSB) report 
on the Ellicott City accident, ``the point of derailment was a rail 
fracture several hundred feet'' before a bridge. After extensive 
laboratory analysis, the NTSB concluded that the broken rail segment, 
``showed evidence of rolling contact fatigue, a gradual breakdown of 
the rail-head surface.''
  The Ellicott City accident is one of several recent accidents that 
have involved rail-head wear and drawn attention to the ways in which 
the presence of multiple individual defects can eventually lead to a 
rail break.
  While track conditions are addressed in current Federal Track Safety 
Standards, there are no quantitative inspection criteria. Consequently, 
these conditions are rarely cited as defects to be remediated.
  I hope that we can build on the research foundation that my amendment 
requires and eventually develop rules that will address specific track 
conditions.

                              {time}  1830

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Young of Iowa). The question is on the 
amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Shuster).
  The en bloc amendments were agreed to.


            Amendment No. 57 Offered by Ms. Herrera Beutler

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 57 
printed in part A of House Report 114-326.
  Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 289, strike lines 11 through 14 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(i) $352,950,000 for fiscal year 2016;
       ``(ii) $462,950,000 for fiscal year 2017;
       ``(iii) $468,288,000 for fiscal year 2018;
       ``(iv) $473,653,500 for fiscal year 2019;
       ``(v) $479,231,500 for fiscal year 2020; and
       ``(vi) $484,816,000 for fiscal year 2021;''.
       Beginning on page 289, strike line 21 and all that follows 
     through page 290, line 8, and insert the following:
       ``(i) $262,950,000 for fiscal year 2016;
       ``(ii) $262,950,000 for fiscal year 2017;
       ``(iii) $268,288,000 for fiscal year 2018;
       ``(iv) $273,653,500 for fiscal year 2019;
       ``(v) $279,231,500 for fiscal year 2020; and
       ``(vi) $284,816,000 for fiscal year 2021.''.
       At the end of title III of division A, add the following:

     SEC. __. INCREASE SUPPORT FOR GROWING STATES.

       Section 5340 of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
       ``(b) Apportionment.--Of the amounts made available for 
     each fiscal year under section 5338(b)(2)(M), the Secretary 
     shall apportion 100 percent to States and urbanized areas in 
     accordance with subsection (c).''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (d).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentlewoman 
from Washington (Ms. Herrera Beutler) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Washington.
  Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Mr. Chairman, over 50 percent of all transit 
riders in the U.S. travel on buses, but only 10 percent of our transit 
funding actually goes to buses. I will say that again. Over half of the 
people in this country who use public transportation take buses to get 
to work, to the grocery store, to visit family; yet the Federal 
Government dedicates less than 10 percent of its transit funds 
specifically to buses and to bus facilities.
  We are selling communities short, communities like my home in 
southwest Washington, but we have an opportunity to rectify the 
situation, Mr. Chairman.
  While overall transit funding has been steadily increasing, this bill 
funds buses in 2016 at, roughly, half of the 2012 levels--that is, Mr. 
Chairman, unless you happen to represent one of seven States for which 
this bill sets aside, roughly, an additional $272 million a year.
  While all 50 States can compete for funds through the nationwide 
Competitive Bus Grant program, which is funded at $90 million in 2016 
and $200 million each year after, a select few of the northeastern 
States get an additional $272 million pot to draw from. That is right, 
Mr. Chairman.
  These high-density States--Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, New 
Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Delaware--have a special pot of 
money set aside for them that averages $90 million more a year than the 
nationwide pot that all 50 States compete for. Oh, and those seven 
States still get to compete for the nationwide pot.
  It is an issue of fairness, Mr. Chairman. The idea that seven States 
have available to them more money than all 50 States combined isn't 
fair to the communities in my State or in yours or in the other 43 
States.
  My amendment would simply move the funding from the seven-State set-
aside program into the Competitive Bus Grant program and allow all 
States to compete for these much-needed resources.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Washington, a former member 
of the committee.
  Let me be clear. I agree we should be further increasing the funds 
available for bus procurement. MAP-21 cut bus funding in half--a 
devastating cut to many smaller and mid-sized transit agencies, 
including in my district.
  We tried to reverse these cuts as much as we could in this bill, but 
with the severely limited funding that was mentioned earlier today, 
there was only so much we could do. In total, we increased the bus 
formula and competitive grant program by 40 percent.
  I would also like to mention the bus procurement reforms in the bill 
that are designed to lower the cost of bus purchases. We provided 
several different mechanisms that provide bulk buying power for transit 
agencies. Buses are expensive, and larger purchases will help them to 
get lower costs.
  This amendment will further increase the bus procurement programs and 
shift money from the high-density-States formula that benefits seven 
northeastern States. The high-density-States formula is actually an old 
Senate provision, carefully drafted by the esteemed members of the 
Senate's Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee sometime ago and 
is of great benefit to those seven States.
  I am very sympathetic to the amendment, but I am obligated, 
reluctantly and tepidly, to oppose it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Turner).
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this earmark, as I 
am a cosponsor and am in support of this amendment, No. 57, offered by 
Ms. Herrera Beutler.
  This has been interesting in the debate because it has been 
absolutely clarified on both sides that we see this as an earmark. 
Basically, seven States take from this bill a disproportionate amount 
based on a formula that declares them high-density States: New York, 
New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, Rhode Island, and 
Delaware.
  If you do not live in one of these States and if you are a Member of 
Congress, you should vote for this amendment because declaring them 
high-density States is a meaningless designation. For example, Chicago, 
Los Angeles, and many, many urban areas throughout our country are high 
density and deserve to be able to participate in this fund, but they 
cannot because they are not located in one of

[[Page 17388]]

these States that has largely been, as the ranking member has 
indicated, a Senate formula set-aside.
  Our Founding Fathers, when they came together to create the system of 
the House and the Senate, did so so that we would have equality, a 
balance between each of the States and their populations. This is not a 
balance when you have a set-aside for seven States.
  Once again, I would call on all of my fellow colleagues who do not 
live in New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, 
Rhode Island, and Delaware to vote for this amendment by Ms. Herrera 
Beutler. She has identified that this is an earmark for these States 
and that it robs money from other States that need assistance with 
public transportation.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. TURNER. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment because 
it does correct an injustice.
  Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Mr. Chairman, as was well said, 371 Members of 
the House represent people in States that will benefit from this 
amendment. By voting ``yes'' for this amendment, 371 Members will have 
an opportunity to increase access to important transit funds in their 
districts without raising spending levels in the bill.
  Even those Members in these high-density States are not losing access 
to the funds. The amendment allows all 50 States to compete fairly for 
grant funding based on the needs of the area and the merits of the 
project.
  How can anybody be against this? What is wrong with this?
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would say that a great 
former Speaker of the House, Tip O'Neill, said that ``all politics is 
local.''
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Herrera Beutler).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 58 Offered by Mr. Chabot

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 58 
printed in part A of House Report 114-326.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle D of title I of division A, add the 
     following new section:

     SECTION 1431. INCREASING CERTAIN PENALTIES RELATING TO 
                   COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY.

       (a) Civil Penalty.--Section 521(b)(2)(A) of title 49, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``$2,500'' and 
     inserting ``$5,000''.
       (b) Criminal Penalty.--Section 521(b)(6)(A) of title 49, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``$2,500'' and 
     inserting ``$5,000''.
       (c) Disqualifications.--
       (1) First violation or committing felony.--Section 
     31310(b)(1) of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``; or'' and inserting 
     a semicolon;
       (B) in subparagraph (E), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; or''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(F) determined by the Secretary to have operated a 
     commercial motor vehicle that the individual knew or 
     reasonably should have known had a defect that resulted in a 
     fatality.''.
       (2) Second and multiple violations.--Section 31310(c)(1) of 
     title 49, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``; or'' and inserting 
     a semicolon;
       (B) by redesignating subparagraph (F) as subparagraph (G);
       (C) in subparagraph (G) (as so redesignated)--
       (i) by striking ``(E)'' and inserting ``(F)''; and
       (ii) by inserting ``, operations,'' after ``violations''; 
     and
       (D) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(F) determined by the Secretary to have more than once 
     operated a commercial motor vehicle that the individual knew 
     or reasonably should have known had a defect that resulted in 
     a fatality; or''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief.
  All of us here have the honor to serve in the people's House, and we 
are here to serve our constituents--the people who send us here from 
all over the country--and also to serve in the best interests of our 
great Nation.
  I had a constituent who approached me. I happened to be touring the 
business at which he works, and he told me something that affected me 
greatly.
  His son was just days before his 23rd birthday. He was a student at 
the University of Cincinnati. He was coming down Interstate 75 in a 
minivan and was minding his own business. I don't know what he was 
thinking about, but he had his whole future ahead of him.
  But a completely avoidable accident occurred. A wheel that was so 
rusted broke free from a big rig, and it crossed the median. It struck 
the vehicle he was in, and it killed him immediately, a couple of days 
before his 23rd birthday.
  It had been a couple of years, but his father was still very 
emotional about this, understandably so.
  We looked into this situation. We talked with a number of our 
colleagues and did a lot of research on it and worked with the American 
Trucking Association and with America's Independent Truckers' 
Association as well. We came up with an amendment to this particular 
bill that we are discussing here this evening, the transportation bill.
  What the amendment would do, essentially, is stiffen the penalties 
for a driver who knowingly operates a commercial vehicle that has a 
serious defect that results in a fatal crash.
  Clearly, what we are trying to do is to make the public more safe and 
to deal with a family that has been tragically changed forever. They 
lost one of the most important members of that particular family. We 
are trying to do this in a responsible way.
  The trucking industry in this country, for the most part, is very 
safety conscious, and their rate of fatalities has come down. I commend 
them greatly for what they are trying to do, but there is a hole in the 
system right now.
  In this particular situation, there was a rusted thing that shouldn't 
have been on the road. This type of thing doesn't happen all that 
often, but it happened this time, and it killed my constituent's son.
  We have discussed this with the chairman and with staff. It is my 
understanding that the chairman is willing to work with us on 
addressing this issue of trying to make the American public safer and 
is willing to work with our distinguished folks on the minority side as 
well.
  With that understanding, I am willing to withdraw my amendment here 
this evening and continue to work with them through the process to 
hopefully address this issue in a way that will receive support on both 
sides of the aisle so that we can pass this into law and make the 
public safer. It will allow this particular family, who was affected so 
tragically in this instance, to know that they have done something to 
honor their son.
  I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to work with the gentleman on 
the issue. I oppose the amendment, but I want to continue talking with 
the gentleman and working with him.
  Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I 
am not in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Oregon is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I certainly want to work with the 
gentleman. I mean, this is a story that tugs at you. The gentleman 
brings before us an important issue. I think there is a way to get at 
this; so, I would love to work with the gentleman as we go to 
conference and see what we can do.

[[Page 17389]]

  With the indulgence of the House, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
  Mr. COHEN. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Shuster and Mr. DeFazio as well for working 
with me and for working with the entire committee. The Transportation 
and Infrastructure Committee does work together in a bipartisan 
fashion, and the House does work.
  On the other hand and in the same vein, I had the pleasure of knowing 
Howard Coble for my entire time I have been in Congress. I was his 
ranking member on Judiciary, and he was my ranking member on Judiciary.
  We had a great relationship. He was one of the finest gentlemen I 
have ever known. He was a scholar. He was a gentleman. He loved North 
Carolina. He loved this House. He will be missed. He was an example of 
the way people can work together to make progress in the United States 
Congress. I was honored to know him.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to share in the 
gentleman's comments about our colleague, Howard Coble of North 
Carolina.
  He was truly a wonderful part of this distinguished institution. I 
served on the Judiciary Committee for the better part of 20 years with 
Howard Coble, and we all looked up to him. He was kind of one of a 
kind, and I say that in the most honorable way.
  He was one we looked to. He had a sense of humor that went to your 
heart. He was just a great guy. He will be truly missed not only by his 
constituents, but by this House that he loved for so many years.
  On my amendment, I have heard both the chairman and our friends on 
the minority side indicate they are willing to work with us on this 
amendment.
  Mr. CHABOT. With that understanding, I withdraw my amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.
  The Chair understands that amendment No. 1 printed in part A of House 
Report 114-326 will not be offered.

                              {time}  1845


                    ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE ACTING CHAIR

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments printed in part A of House Report 
114-326 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following 
order:
  Amendment No. 5 by Mr. DeSaulnier of California.
  Amendment No. 7 by Mr. Hunter of California.
  Amendment No. 8 by Mr. Denham of California.
  Amendment No. 12 by Mr. King of Iowa.
  Amendment No. 14 by Mr. Culberson of Texas.
  Amendment No. 21 by Mr. Lewis of Georgia.
  Amendment No. 26 by Mr. Reichert of Washington.
  Amendment No. 29 by Mr. DeSantis of Florida.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any 
electronic vote on these questions after the first vote in this series.
  Pursuant to clause 6(f) of rule XVIII, the Chair will reduce to 5 
minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the amendment 
consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 114-32, as amended.


               Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. DeSaulnier

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. DeSaulnier) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 171, 
noes 252, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 599]

                               AYES--171

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crawford
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emmer (MN)
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Hudson
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kline
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perlmutter
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--252

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Grayson
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Israel
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Larsen (WA)
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Meng
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Perry
     Peters
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (NY)
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (OH)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Velazquez
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)

[[Page 17390]]


     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Calvert
     Ellmers (NC)
     Gohmert
     Meeks
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Takai
     Torres

                              {time}  1912

  Messrs. FARENTHOLD, CROWLEY, LAMBORN, GRAVES of Georgia, Ms. 
VELAZQUEZ, and Mr. MOONEY of West Virginia changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. DANNY DAVIS of Illinois, Ms. BROWN of Florida, Mr. LANGEVIN, and 
Ms. CLARKE of New York changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Ms. SINEMA. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 599 I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''


                 Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Hunter

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Collins of Georgia). The unfinished business is 
the demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) on which further proceedings 
were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 173, 
noes 255, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 600]

                               AYES--173

     Abraham
     Allen
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Bass
     Benishek
     Beyer
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blum
     Bonamici
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Byrne
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Carter (TX)
     Cartwright
     Castro (TX)
     Chaffetz
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coffman
     Cohen
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duckworth
     Duffy
     Emmer (MN)
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garamendi
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Green, Al
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hanna
     Harris
     Hastings
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Hudson
     Huffman
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     Jolly
     Jones
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     LaMalfa
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     McCarthy
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Miller (MI)
     Mooney (WV)
     Murphy (FL)
     Nolan
     Nugent
     O'Rourke
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Polis
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Quigley
     Ratcliffe
     Renacci
     Rigell
     Roe (TN)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rouzer
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Russell
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanford
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Upton
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Wagner
     Walden
     Walters, Mimi
     Walz
     Watson Coleman
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder

                               NOES--255

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Aguilar
     Amash
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Bishop (MI)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Boustany
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Calvert
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carney
     Carter (GA)
     Castor (FL)
     Chabot
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clawson (FL)
     Cleaver
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Courtney
     Crawford
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSantis
     DeSaulnier
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fleming
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garrett
     Gosar
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Grayson
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Hahn
     Hardy
     Harper
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins
     Himes
     Holding
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Israel
     Jeffries
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Knight
     Kuster
     Labrador
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latta
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Love
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     MacArthur
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matsui
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meng
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moolenaar
     Moore
     Moulton
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norcross
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Palmer
     Pascrell
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Pompeo
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Ribble
     Rice (NY)
     Rice (SC)
     Richmond
     Roby
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Roskam
     Rothfus
     Ruiz
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salmon
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Shuster
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (TX)
     Speier
     Stefanik
     Stutzman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tipton
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Trott
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walker
     Walorski
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Welch
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Ellmers (NC)
     Foxx
     Gohmert
     Meeks
     Takai


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1918

  Ms. ADAMS changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. BUCHANAN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 600, I was unavoidably detained. 
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''


                 Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Denham

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Denham) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 248, 
noes 180, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 601]

                               AYES--248

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (IN)
     Brown (FL)
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carson (IN)
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Clyburn
     Coffman
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cooper

[[Page 17391]]


     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garamendi
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Himes
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Rangel
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Rush
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schrader
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Veasey
     Vela
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Walz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zinke

                               NOES--180

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks (AL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bustos
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Gibson
     Gowdy
     Graham
     Graves (MO)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roskam
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schweikert
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Shuster
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Trott
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Ellmers (NC)
     Gohmert
     Hartzler
     Meeks
     Takai


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1922

  Mr. RICHMOND changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


              Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
King) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 188, 
noes 238, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 602]

                               AYES--188

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly (MS)
     King (IA)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney (FL)
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Stewart
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Trott
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--238

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Barletta
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Bost
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bucshon
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Denham
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donovan
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Duffy
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emmer (MN)
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Graham
     Graves (MO)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Hastings
     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Hultgren
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jolly
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating

[[Page 17392]]


     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     LaHood
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     MacArthur
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stefanik
     Stivers
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Cardenas
     Ellmers (NC)
     Engel
     Gohmert
     Meeks
     Rokita
     Takai


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1925

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. CARDENAS. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 602, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 602 I was inadvertently 
detained and missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``no.''


               Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Culberson

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Culberson) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 116, 
noes 313, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 603]

                               AYES--116

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Babin
     Barton
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Buck
     Burgess
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Collins (GA)
     Conaway
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Harris
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hurt (VA)
     Jenkins (KS)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly (MS)
     King (IA)
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Massie
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     Messer
     Miller (FL)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mulvaney
     Neugebauer
     Nugent
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Renacci
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Rouzer
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Stutzman
     Thornberry
     Weber (TX)
     Westmoreland
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IA)
  


                               NOES--313

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Barletta
     Barr
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Bost
     Boustany
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donovan
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emmer (MN)
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frankel (FL)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Graham
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Hartzler
     Hastings
     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jolly
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Knight
     Kuster
     LaHood
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Love
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     MacArthur
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Marino
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Meng
     Mica
     Miller (MI)
     Moore
     Moulton
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nolan
     Norcross
     Nunes
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Ribble
     Rice (NY)
     Rice (SC)
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Russell
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Trott
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Webster (FL)
     Welch
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Ellmers (NC)
     Gohmert
     Meeks
     Takai


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1928

  Mr. ROONEY of Florida changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Lewis

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Lewis) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.

[[Page 17393]]

  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 181, 
noes 248, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 604]

                               AYES--181

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donovan
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fitzpatrick
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Price (NC)
     Price, Tom
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--248

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Castor (FL)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Connolly
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cummings
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garamendi
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Takano
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Titus
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Ellmers (NC)
     Gohmert
     Meeks
     Takai


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1931

  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California changed her vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Amendment No. 26 Offered by Mr. Reichert

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Reichert) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 200, 
noes 228, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 605]

                               AYES--200

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Ashford
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brat
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (TX)
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Dold
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Holding
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney (FL)
     Roskam
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zinke

                               NOES--228

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter (GA)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chabot
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Comstock
     Connolly
     Conyers

[[Page 17394]]


     Costello (PA)
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donovan
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Graham
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Hudson
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     MacArthur
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Massie
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Rice (SC)
     Richmond
     Rokita
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Shuster
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stefanik
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Trott
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Williams
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth
     Yoho
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Brady (TX)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Gohmert
     Meeks
     Takai


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1935

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Amendment No. 29 Offered by Mr. DeSantis

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. DeSantis) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 118, 
noes 310, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 606]

                               AYES--118

     Amash
     Babin
     Barton
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Buck
     Burgess
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Collins (GA)
     Conaway
     Culberson
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fleming
     Flores
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Harris
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly (MS)
     King (IA)
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mulvaney
     Neugebauer
     Nugent
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Rice (SC)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Stewart
     Stutzman
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walker
     Weber (TX)
     Wenstrup
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Yoho

                               NOES--310

     Abraham
     Adams
     Aderholt
     Aguilar
     Allen
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Barletta
     Barr
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Bost
     Boustany
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donovan
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emmer (MN)
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frankel (FL)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Graham
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Hartzler
     Hastings
     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holding
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Hunter
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Knight
     Kuster
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lummis
     Lynch
     MacArthur
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Marino
     Massie
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nolan
     Norcross
     Nunes
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pitts
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rouzer
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Russell
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stefanik
     Stivers
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiberi
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Trott
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Webster (FL)
     Welch
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Brady (TX)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Gohmert
     Meeks
     Takai


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1938

  Ms. SINEMA changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen). The question is on the amendment 
consisting of the text of the Rules Committee Print 114-32, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.

[[Page 17395]]



                              {time}  1945


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Perry

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in part B of House Report 114-326.
  Mr. PERRY Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 1022, strike lines 5 through 7 and insert the 
     following:
       (a) In General.--Section 2(b)(1)(E)(v) of the Export-Import 
     Bank Act of 1945 (12 U.S.C. 635(b)(1)(E)(v)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``20 percent of such authority for each 
     fiscal year'' and inserting ``25 percent of such authority 
     for fiscal year 2016, 30 percent of such authority for fiscal 
     year 2017, 35 percent of such authority for fiscal year 2018, 
     and 40 percent of such authority for each fiscal year 
     thereafter''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following: ``If the Bank fails 
     to comply with the 2nd preceding sentence with respect to a 
     fiscal year, the Bank may not approve the provision of a 
     guarantee, insurance, or credit, or any combination thereof 
     benefitting a single person, in an amount exceeding 
     $100,000,000 until the beginning of the 2nd succeeding fiscal 
     year.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. PERRY. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, the Export-Import Bank has a portfolio annually 
somewhere to the tune of $120 billion, I think under the new proposal; 
$130 billion. Fifty-one percent, Madam Chairman--fully 51 percent--goes 
to 10 companies in our country--$120 billion. Isn't that fantastic?
  Whether you support or oppose the Ex-Im, everyone can welcome the 
fact that the reauthorization we are considering today raises the 
Bank's small-business target 25 percent. Republicans and Democrats in 
both the House and the Senate have called on the Bank to focus on 
small-business needs more effectively.
  This amendment keeps that 25 percent small-business target in the 
underlying bill. It doesn't change that, but it would then raise the 
target by 5 percent per year through the reauthorization period.
  Madam Chair, $120 billion a year, $130 billion a year, 51 percent 
goes to 10 companies in the United States. You think: Wouldn't it be 
great if the town that I represent, the towns that Members in this 
House represent, could be one of those 10 companies? It is not to 
disparage any of those 10 companies. We are happy that they are in the 
United States, and we are happy that they are profitable.
  But these small businesses that are trying to get a leg up, that want 
to employ their neighbors and that want to enrich their communities 
would like a shot as well. But they don't have legions of lobbyists, 
and they don't have big staffs to go to the Ex-Im Bank and plead their 
case.
  What that results in is 98 percent of small businesses, 98 percent of 
trade across our country, is conducted without any help at all of the 
Export-Import Bank. Wouldn't it be great if we could remedy that? And 
wouldn't it be easy if we could remedy that?
  Madam Chairman, that is what the amendment that I propose does. With 
this amendment, Ex-Im still has the flexibility to devote most of its 
assistance--now 51 percent to 10 companies in the country--to large 
businesses. The big ones will still have the same access to Ex-Im. All 
this does is requires the Ex-Im to take small businesses more 
seriously.
  Yes, it is a little more work. They don't have the lobbyists and the 
staff that all these big, multinational companies do. But isn't it 
worth it in our small towns to help them and to assist them?
  We know the Bank is more than capable of doing this. In fiscal year 
2014, 25 percent of its authorization went to small businesses. So the 
Bank easily met its target. But in the 3 years prior to that, Ex-Im 
ignored--literally ignored--the small-business target that Congress 
enacted and required of them.
  Under this amendment, Ex-Im has to ensure that it meets its small-
business target. It has to. If we want to help small businesses like 
the one in your town, the one in the towns that you represent, we have 
to make sure that it does that. We need to keep an ambitious target 
that Ex-Im can meet and encourage the Bank to reach it.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition 
to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition 
to this amendment, and I will be opposing all amendments to this 
portion of the highway bill.
  Without a doubt, these amendments reflect the latest in a string of 
tactics by opponents of the Export-Import Bank to delay and block any 
reauthorization of the Bank from moving forward. This amendment and 
other anti-Ex-Im amendments we will soon consider cannot reasonably be 
viewed as a constructive effort.
  As we know well, small businesses unquestionably are central to the 
health of our economy. Fortunately, before extremists, ones on the 
opposite side of the aisle, shut down the Ex-Im Bank. Many small 
businesses were already directly supported by the programs offered by 
the Export-Import Bank.
  In fact, in fiscal year 2014, out of over 3,700 authorizations, more 
than 3,300, or nearly 90 percent, directly served U.S. small 
businesses. Of the remaining 10 percent, many of these authorizations 
served companies that support vast U.S. supply chains, including in my 
district.
  The effort to use small businesses as a pawn in the fight to kill the 
Ex-Im Bank should be rejected. This amendment must be rejected.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PERRY. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney), my good friend.
  Mr. MULVANEY. I thank the gentleman. I agree with most of what the 
ranking member on Financial Services just said with the exception of 
the conclusion. Everything that the Export-Import Bank does for small 
businesses actually is very productive.
  So here is the question: Why isn't the Export-Import Bank meeting its 
small-business requirement? Why hasn't it met it? For the last 3 years, 
it has not met its statutory requirement.
  One of the things we have not talked about yet, Madam Chairman, is 
that the amendment also puts a penalty on the Bank for not meeting that 
target. Right now it is the law that the Bank has to provide a certain 
level of services to the small-business community. It has failed to do 
that. As is so often the case, there is no penalty. This amendment 
would add the penalty.
  It helps small business, it expands the Export-Import Bank's small-
business presence, and it actually puts some teeth in the law for a 
change. For that reason, I hope that we can support this amendment.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the whip.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman. I am sorry I 
don't have more time.
  Madam Chairman, this is a bill about jobs. The amendment is about 
killing jobs, as he wants to kill the Bank, the gentleman who sponsored 
this amendment. That is all it is. Every one of these amendments will 
undermine the Export-Import Bank that got 313 votes on this floor.
  The gentleman mentions five businesses. What he didn't mention is the 
thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of jobs that they 
create and maintain. That is what we are talking about: jobs for 
average Americans. Whether they work for large, medium, or small 
businesses, we are talking about jobs for Americans.
  Here you are at the last minute trying to kill it. You had 2\1/2\ 
years to offer your amendments. You had 2\1/2\ years to bring this bill 
to the floor. You chose not to because the minority was going

[[Page 17396]]

to kill this bill. I told your majority leader over and over and over 
again it had the majority of your party, and you refused to bring it to 
this floor.
  Tonight is the time to say the majority rules, the 313 will rule. 
Reject every one of these amendments. Let's create jobs with the 
Export-Import Bank.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair would remind Members that their remarks 
are to be directed to the Chair and not to other Members.
  Mr. PERRY. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck) who serves on the Financial 
Services Committee and who has worked tirelessly for this 
reauthorization.
  Mr. HECK of Washington. Madam Chair, let's begin with the facts. The 
facts are this: every single killing amendment being offered tonight 
is, in fact, being sponsored by somebody who voted against passage of 
the Ex-Im. They don't want to improve the Ex-Im. They want to kill the 
Ex-Im.
  The fact is the 20 percent target in current law, with all due 
respect to one of the previous speakers, is not a requirement. It is a 
target. Stop saying requirement. Words matter. That is misleading, and 
it is wrong. The fact is nearly 90 percent--90 percent--of all 
transactions of the Ex-Im go to small businesses.
  I can't help it that Jenny's Pickles, a jar thereof, sells for 
infinitely less than a Boeing airplane or that Manhasset music stands 
sell for infinitely less. The fact of the matter is 90 percent of their 
transactions go to small businesses.
  The fact of the matter is Economics 101. Please hear me sometime: the 
Boeing Airplane Company has 14,800 businesses in its supply chain and 
6- to 8,000 are small. Reject the amendment.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fincher), who has been an absolute 
leader on this issue.
  Mr. FINCHER. Madam Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Madam Chair, one more time let me talk about the facts. The facts 
are, as the gentleman from Washington just stated, 90 percent of the 
Bank's transactions go to small businesses, 3,340 transactions.
  The facts are that section 201 in our reform bill that is actually 
reforming the Export-Import Bank takes the target--not the requirement, 
but the target--from 20 percent to 25 percent.
  What we need to make sure that we are focused on here tonight is not 
punishing people that want to grow their businesses or not trying to 
put a cap on people that want to create jobs.
  Again, I am from a little place called Frog Jump. This is not about 
Boeing, and this is not about GE. This is about jobs all over this 
country that don't cost the taxpayer one penny--not one penny--Madam 
Chairman.
  This is just about killing the Export-Import Bank and killing jobs. 
It breaks my heart, but we must defeat these amendments. I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. PERRY. Madam Chair, the fact is that all the reforms that the 
kind gentleman just spoke of are not going to happen. None of that is 
happening. The Senate threw that in the trash.
  So what we have is an Export-Import Bank that has refused to comply 
with the law over and over again. The fact also remains that nobody 
here is trying to kill the Export-Import Bank. We aren't. This is the 
process by which we make it better.
  Whether or not you sell a jar of pickles or whether you sell an 
airplane, $120 billion, 51 percent of it goes to 10 companies. You 
figure it out. You figure out what that looks like to you. To me, it 
looks like cronyism. That is what it looks like to me.
  I come from York, Pennsylvania, and instead of creating thousands and 
thousands and thousands of jobs, we would like to create tens and 
hundreds of thousands of jobs by requiring the Bank that is encumbering 
the United States taxpayer to work with small businesses, the 
businesses in our town, instead of just going to the big businesses in 
this country.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Madam Chairman, I would simply say 
to the gentleman from Pennsylvania you figure it out. Evidently, you 
don't know anything about what Ex-Im does and the jobs that it 
provides.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Oklahoma 
(Mr. Lucas), a leader with courage.
  Mr. LUCAS. Madam Chair, my colleagues, I would urge you to reject 
this amendment and all the amendments.
  This process should have happened 6 months ago. It should have 
happened in committee. It should have happened in regular order. But we 
weren't allowed to do that. We have been forced into this position.
  Reject this amendment, reject these amendments, and then let's begin 
the process of real reform.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Madam Chair, I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  

  Mr. MULVANEY. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Mulvaney

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in part B of House Report 114-326.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 1032, after line 4, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. RESTRICT BANK LENDING TO SERVING AS COUNTERVAILING 
                   LENDER.

       (a) Ban on Providing Credit Assistance for Transaction That 
     Does Not Meet Foreign Competition.--Section 2(b) of the 
     Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (12 U.S.C. 635(b)) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(14) Prohibition on Assistance for Transaction That Does 
     Not Meet Foreign Competition.--The Bank shall not guarantee, 
     insure, or extend (or participate in the extension of) credit 
     involving any transaction, with respect to which credit 
     assistance from the Bank is first sought after the effective 
     date of this paragraph, that does not meet competition from a 
     foreign, officially sponsored, export credit agency.''.
       (b) Annual Certification That Each Provision by the Bank of 
     Credit Assistance Is Made to Meet Foreign Competition.--
     Section 8(h) of such Act (12 U.S.C. 535g(h)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(h) Certification That Each Provision of Credit 
     Assistance Is Made to Meet Foreign Competition.--The Bank 
     shall include in its annual report to the Congress under 
     subsection (a) a certification that--
       ``(1) each provision by the Bank of a loan, guarantee, or 
     insurance, with respect to which credit assistance from the 
     Bank was first sought after the effective date of this 
     subsection, in the period covered by the report was made to 
     meet competition from a foreign, officially sponsored, export 
     credit agency; and
       ``(2) no such provision was made to fill market gaps that 
     the private sector is not willing or able to meet.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.

                              {time}  2000


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. MULVANEY. Madam Chair, a parliamentary inquiry before you start 
my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from South Carolina will state his 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Madam Chair, you state No. 2. Is that Mulvaney No. 2 or 
Mulvaney No. 1?
  The Acting CHAIR. Amendment No. 2 printed in part B of House Report 
114-326.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I have heard a couple arguments already--I guess we heard them 
before,

[[Page 17397]]

Madam Chair--about how the place to do this was in committee. Fine. 
That could be. It doesn't make the amendments bad. It doesn't mean the 
principles contained in here are wrong. We didn't get a chance to do 
that in committee. You can blame whoever you want to for that. But the 
point of the matter is, this is where we are going to take up the 
amendments, and the fact we didn't do it 6 months ago does not make a 
good amendment a bad amendment. The amendments will stand on their own 
merit, as this one will, Madam Chair.
  What this one does is fairly simple. One of the things we have heard 
for the last several years about the Bank is that we need the Bank in 
order to meet foreign competition, that 1,700 other countries have 
export credit facilities, and if we don't have one of our own, we will 
unilaterally disarm and not be able to compete in the global 
marketplace.
  I happen to disagree with that. I happen to have some faith that 
American goods are good enough to compete overseas without the 
government subsidy. But that is fine. Let's take that for sake of 
discussion and say, all right, we don't want to unilaterally disarm. 
What this amendment does is makes sure that we don't.
  What this amendment does is simply says, look, if you want to use the 
Export-Import Bank, you have to be able to establish that you are 
actually competing with a foreign export credit facility. Fairly 
simple. It goes to the heart of what so many people say is why we have 
the Bank. So why not simply say, all right, look, we will have this 
thing until we can convince other countries to get out of this 
business, which we should be doing and, by the way, are obligated by 
law to be doing--not by target, but by law.
  We have had the responsibility to do that, Mr. Chairman, since 2012, 
yet this administration has refused to do that. But until we get a 
chance to enforce the law and actually get other countries to disarm, 
let's go ahead and not unilaterally disarm, and let's make sure, in 
order to use the Export-Import Bank, you have to be meeting specific 
and identifiable competition from other export credit facilities.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in 
opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Jenkins of West Virginia). The gentlewoman is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chair, I yield myself 1 minute.
  This amendment, offered by one of the leading opponents of the Ex-Im 
Bank, would effectively chop the Ex-Im Bank's mission in half by 
eliminating the Bank's role in providing finance to fill market gaps 
that the private sector is unable to meet. This would overwhelmingly 
harm the small businesses that use the Bank and that often have the 
hardest time securing the financing they need through the private 
sector alone.
  For example, when U.S. small businesses are seeking to export, 
commercial banks often refuse to accept foreign receivables as 
collateral for a loan without an Ex-Im guarantee. Without Ex-Im, these 
small businesses would be unable to extend terms to foreign buyers and 
would have to ask for cash in advance. In these cases, sales would 
almost always go to a firm from another country that can count on the 
backing of its own official export credit agency.
  I urge all Members to oppose this amendment, which would undermine 
the Bank's important role.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chair, how much time did each of us consume in our 
opening statements?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from South Carolina consumed 2 
minutes. The gentlewoman from California consumed 1 minute.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes 
to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck).
  Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Chairman, two quick points.
  First, let's not quite leave this issue of the irregular order and 
nature of what we are doing. Let's all remember one thing. Not only are 
all the people who are advancing amendments here today opponents of the 
Ex-Im and want to kill it, but they also, many of them, sat in the 
committee and voted against an amendment to the budget views and 
estimates that suggested that reauthorization of the Ex-Im ought to be 
subjected to regular order. They have already made their position 
clear: no regular order. They not only don't want regular order, they 
don't want the Ex-Im.
  No, it is not 700 and however many countries that have export credit 
authority; it is only 59. It is every other developed nation on the 
face of the Earth. The Chinese have not one, but four, export credit 
authorities. In the last 2 years, they financed as much as our Export-
Import Bank has in its 81-year history.
  Let me leave you with this one thought: I know a lot of you on that 
side of the aisle read The Wall Street Journal. I hope you saw the 
Business section 2 days ago. The headline is, ``China Rolls Out First 
Large Passenger Jet''--The Wall Street Journal.
  I warned here about a year ago they were developing the C919. There 
it is. There is the picture. They also indicate in here that they have 
the C929, which is a double aisle, wide-body jet airplane under 
development.
  Do you really want to strike this death blow to the heart of 
America's manufacturing business? Please vote ``no'' on this and all 
amendments.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  

  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes 
to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I think it is worth once again considering 
how we got to this point. Considering that under regular committee 
order, we should have taken this bill up 6 months ago. Three months 
ago, many of us went from the point of pleading to demanding, pressing 
harder and harder to try to bring this to the focus. Ultimately, that 
was not the option, and we were obligated to use a rather old but 
important rule in order to bring this legislation to the floor.
  As some of my colleagues have noted, a supermajority of the House 
voted for it--313 Members. A majority of the Republican Conference, a 
majority of the majority voted for it. Yet now we are at a point where 
we are rebattling all of these amendments.
  If you can't win by playing by the rules, then how do you win in this 
place? If we defeat all of these amendments, will things mysteriously 
happen in the next process and we will have to fight that off? That is 
why I tell my colleagues: Play by the rules. Remember what we 
accomplished last week? Understand the real purpose of these 
amendments. If it was to perfect a bill, then the authors would have 
been working with us 6 months ago or 3 months ago or a few weeks ago, 
but that wasn't the option provided. So now, a second time, we have to 
fight our way all the way through these issues.
  Please demonstrate that you care about economic competitiveness in 
this country. Please demonstrate that you care about workers in this 
country. Reject all of these amendments. Let's move the process over. 
Let's finish this for real.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Schweikert).
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, look, I stand behind the microphone 
right now, hopefully helping many of you who support the Ex-Im Bank, to 
help you stand behind your previous rhetoric.
  If I remember, as you said, the older--was it archaic?--process that 
was brought last week, I noticed the rule you brought allowed me to 
bring my reform amendment because you were reforming the--oh, that is 
right. You didn't. You did not allow us to have that voice on those 
reforms. It was not a process. So now guess what is going on? We happen 
to have regular order, an opportunity to walk up and

[[Page 17398]]

say we have some little ideas that we believe make the institution 
better.
  To my friend over on the left, okay, 59 credit enhancement, surety 
enhancement organizations. All this amendment does is it says, if you 
are competing against someone who is using another country's credit 
enhancement, you get to use ours. Isn't that what you are asking for 
reform-wise?
  If you want to level the playing field, what a great idea. If they 
are using it, we get to use it. If they are not using it, we don't have 
to. That is reform, and that matches up with the rhetoric I was hearing 
around here last week of how you were reforming the institution.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fincher).
  Mr. FINCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member.
  Again, we continue to make these great speeches and get all wound up, 
but we don't talk about the facts. The facts are that Bank customers 
already have to certify. The facts are that all of the people offering 
the amendments want to kill the Export-Import Bank, which creates 
thousands of jobs. The facts are that we could have done this in 
committee a year ago. The facts are none of us wanted to be here 
tonight having this debate because we wanted to do this in regular 
order.
  But, Mr. Chairman, the facts are that, if we allow these amendments 
that are just aimed at killing the Export-Import Bank to pass and 
thousands of people are going to lose their jobs and our competitors 
all around the world are going to benefit, we must vote ``no.'' We need 
to defeat this amendment. I appreciate my buddy from South Carolina 
offering it, but I just think it is in the wrong order, and we need to 
defeat it.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from South Carolina has 1\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, let's look at the facts. Yes, the Bank is 
required right now to look at this. They are not required to actually 
consider it. In fact, there are examples, factual examples, of the Bank 
looking into whether or not there were any countervailing efforts done 
by foreign credit facilities and just ignoring that. Yes, the law does 
require them to, but there are no teeth in the law. This amendment 
would allow us to do that.
  Another fact: in 2012, this body required the Export-Import Bank to 
start getting out of the business of competing with Export-Import Banks 
overseas in the airline industry. The law signed here, signed by the 
Senate, signed by the President was completely ignored by this 
administration. This amendment would fix that.
  Those are the facts, Mr. Chairman, from my friend from Tennessee. The 
facts are the administration is not following the law.
  We have seen that from time to time, haven't we?
  We have a chance to rectify that here this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, 
by passing this amendment and focusing the Bank on what everybody seems 
to agree is a very important core duty of competing with export credit 
facilities overseas, and I would recommend an approval of the 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South 
Carolina will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Mulvaney

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in part B of House Report 114-326.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 1032, after line 4, insert the following:

     SEC. 95004. CERTIFICATION THAT BANK ASSISTANCE DOES NOT 
                   COMPETE WITH THE PRIVATE SECTOR.

       Section 2 of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (12 U.S.C. 
     635), as amended by section 95001 of this Act, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(l) Recipients of Bank Assistance for a Transaction of 
     More Than $10,000,000 Required to Certify Inability to Obtain 
     Credit Elsewhere.--The Bank shall not guarantee, insure, or 
     extend credit, or participate in an extension of credit, in 
     connection with a transaction, with respect to which credit 
     assistance from the Bank is first sought after the effective 
     date of this paragraph, of more than $10,000,000, to a 
     person, unless the person has--
       ``(1) certified to the Bank that the person has sought, and 
     has been unable to obtain, private sector financing for the 
     transaction without any Federal Government support; and
       ``(2) provided the Bank with documentation that at least 2 
     private financial institutions have declined to provide 
     financing for the transaction.''.

     SEC. 95005. FALSE CLAIMS ACT PROVISIONS.

       (a) Applicability of False Claims Provisions to Export-
     Import Bank Transactions.--Section 3729(a) of title 31, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4);
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3) Additional violations.--Any person who--
       ``(A) receives a loan or guarantee from the Export Import 
     Bank of the United States for the purposes of supporting a 
     project or venture, without conducting reasonable diligence 
     to determine whether private sector financing would have been 
     available to support the project or venture, whether or not 
     the terms of the private sector financing would have been 
     substantially different from the terms of the financing 
     provided by the Export Import Bank of the United States; or
       ``(B) receives a loan or guarantee from the Export Import 
     Bank of the United States for the purposes of supporting a 
     project or venture, knowing that private sector financing 
     would have been available to support the project or venture, 
     whether or not the terms of the private sector financing 
     would have been substantially different from financing 
     provided by the Export Import Bank of the United States,
      is liable to the United States Government for the face value 
     or the appraised value of the loan or guarantee, whichever 
     amount is greater.''; and
       (3) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ``the violation of 
     this subsection'' and inserting ``a violation under paragraph 
     (1)''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to acts described in paragraph (3) of section 
     3729(a) of title 31, United States Code, as added by 
     subsection (a)(2) of this section, that are committed on or 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 95006. STATUTORY REQUIREMENT FOR EXPORT-IMPORT BANK 
                   CONTRACTS.

       Section 2 of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (12 U.S.C. 
     635), as amended by sections 95001 and 95004 of this Act, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(m) Effects of Finding by Inspector General That Contract 
     Recipient Made Inaccurate Representation About Availability 
     of Competing Foreign Financing or Private Sector Financing.--
       ``(1) Rescission of contract.--The Bank may not enter into 
     a contract under which the Bank provides a loan or guarantee, 
     unless the contract provides that, if the Inspector General 
     of the Bank determines that a representation made by the 
     recipient of the loan or guarantee about the availability of 
     competing foreign export financing or private sector 
     financing was inaccurate at the time the representation was 
     made--
       ``(A) the contract shall be considered rescinded; and
       ``(B) the recipient shall immediately repay to the Bank an 
     amount equal to--
       ``(i) in the case of a loan, the amount of the loan; or
       ``(ii) in the case of a guarantee, an amount equal to the 
     appraised value of the guarantee.
       ``(2) Ineligibility for future financial support.--A person 
     whose contract is rescinded under paragraph (1) shall not be 
     eligible for any financial support from the Bank.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman).

[[Page 17399]]


  Mr. STUTZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of private 
lenders crowded out by the Export-Import Bank.
  I thank my friend from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney) for his work 
reforming the Export-Import Bank and for introducing this particularly 
important reform.
  This amendment is pro-American, pro-jobs, and is entirely consistent 
with the policy of Ex-Im's lapsed authorization.
  Last year, Mr. Chairman, and earlier this year, I worked in good 
faith to reform the Export-Import Bank. The Bank's authorization lapsed 
in large part because the White House and the Bank's proponents would 
not take yes for an answer. They refused to work with us on changes, 
just like they are again tonight, that would prevent any single 
business from dominating the Bank's activity or to prevent the Bank 
from crowding out private lenders. That latter point is the one that 
this amendment will address.
  This amendment requires loan applicants receiving more than $10 
million to certify that they had originally sought out and been denied 
by two private lenders. This requirement doesn't block anyone from 
getting a loan. It only requires that they go to traditional banks 
first.

                              {time}  2015

  This provision is similar to one required for some Small Business 
Administration financing as well.
  Mr. Chairman, one of my central objections to government lending 
programs is their capacity to destroy and replace private markets. The 
government inevitably misallocates resources and jobs, ultimately 
making our industries less competitive and reducing jobs in the long 
term.
  Apparently, the authors of the Bank's prior reauthorization also 
agree to that point because, according to the Ex-Im's charter, it is 
``the policy of the United States that the Bank in the exercise of its 
functions should supplement and encourage and not compete with private 
capital.'' Let me emphasize that last part, that the Bank should not 
compete with private capital. Unfortunately, I have heard from lenders 
in Indiana who say that, absent Ex-Im, they would be financing more 
exports.
  If the Bank is going to exist at all, the role of the Bank should 
only be as a lender of last resort. The Bank is only intended to fill 
gaps in the private lending market. Any larger role the Bank plays is a 
violation of its own charter. Worse, granting the Bank a larger role 
would exacerbate market distortions that will, ultimately, fail 
countries and the businesses that rely on them.
  This amendment simply ensures that the Export-Import Bank stays 
within its bounds. If the Bank is truly a lender of last resort, this 
amendment will not affect its lending. If it is, in fact, competing 
with private lenders despite clear congressional intent, then this 
amendment will start to correct the problem.
  Mr. Chairman, the world is watching. Developing countries are 
deciding whether to pursue American-style capitalism or Chinese-style 
central planning. As Speaker Ryan put it last week on this House floor, 
we should be exporting democratic capitalism, not crony capitalism. If 
this Bank is going to be reauthorized, we should at least make a real 
effort to let private lenders have the first opportunity to finance 
exports.
  I know that many of Ex-Im's proponents agree that the Bank is not a 
long-term solution to foreign competition. Even Ex-Im Chair Fred 
Hochberg agrees, telling us earlier this year in committee that, in a 
perfect world, there would be no export credit agency of the United 
States. If our priority is long-term economic growth and employment, 
then we must not be tempted to rely on central planned exports the way 
that China and Europe do.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a commonsense amendment, and I ask my 
colleagues to support it.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in 
opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 
minute.
  This amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina is yet 
another attempt to undermine the reauthorization of the Ex-Im Bank by 
requiring multiple denials of assistance from the private sector be 
provided as a precondition of obtaining financing. The Ex-Im Bank would 
not exist if they had to go before someone and require that they look 
at their application 10 times, 15 times.
  This would be burdensome. It would be time consuming and, more 
likely, unworkable for the potential uses of the Ex-Im Bank. The fact 
is that private sector banks don't generally issue letters of 
rejection, likely making compliance with the amendment impossible.
  I also take issue with the provisions included in the amendment that 
are designed to intimidate potential users of the Bank who would be 
liable if they were found to have not adequately determined whether 
private sector financing may have been available to them.
  I urge Members to oppose this amendment, which would impose new 
restrictions on U.S. businesses alone, putting them at a unique 
disadvantage.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck).
  Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Chairman, of all of the arguments against 
the Export-Import Bank, this is my favorite. Ayn Rand would be 
thrilled. I am appalled. Of all of the arguments, private lenders will 
be crowded out. Private lenders will be displaced. Private lenders: 
``Woe is me. You are taking away our business.''
  Yet no one ever--not once--has answered the question: Why is it then 
that the American Bankers Association and the Independent Community 
Bankers Association are among the strongest supporters of this? It is 
because--and the truth of the matter is--markets aren't perfect, and 
they don't work in certain circumstances.
  Where don't they work? They don't work with low-cost items: Miss 
Jenny's Pickles, Manhasset Music Stands, PEXCO's Traffic Cones.
  Why? It is because a small bank doesn't have the wherewithal to 
collect across an international border, and a big bank isn't going to 
bother with that low volume of a transaction. A big bank isn't going to 
bother with Miss Jenny's Pickles or with Manhasset Music Stands. It is 
not worth it to them.
  That is why they see that markets aren't perfect. There are certain 
instances in which they fail, and that is why they support the 
reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank.
  We, actually, ought to be very proud of them. Sometimes it is used as 
a point of criticism. ``You know they only finance 1 or 2 percent. Who 
needs them? It is such a small amount.'' You ought to take that as a 
point of pride. We are laser-focused on exactly where the need is--
where the market isn't perfect. We are not subsidizing. We are, in 
fact, compensating for an imperfect market.
  Perhaps it is China that is subsidizing with their four export credit 
authorities, which, again, in the aggregate, have loaned more in the 
last 2 years or have financed more than we have in our 81-year history.
  We are laser-focused where the market doesn't exactly work--small 
cost items. Large-lived capital items, that is the other issue. Who is 
going to collect across an international border?
  I urge you to vote ``no'' because the private sector wants you to 
vote ``no.''
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I inquire as to the time remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from South Carolina has 1 minute 
remaining.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Rokita).
  Mr. ROKITA. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, as a rank-and-file Member--that is, a Member who is not

[[Page 17400]]

on the Financial Services Committee--I want to stand in strong support 
of this amendment. There are a lot of us who are looking for a way 
forward in this, and this reform would allow that to happen.
  We don't know whether the private sector would work or not, because 
those who are seeking lending aren't forced to ask. I find it laughable 
that some say this would be too onerous on a bank or on someone who is 
seeking lending. These are the same people who think that Dodd-Frank 
regulations are okay, that they aren't too onerous. I think that is 
ridiculous.
  Last week, we were afforded the choice of an unreformed Ex-Im Bank or 
no Ex-Im Bank. This amendment and the ones being brought up tonight 
that are like it offer us a third way: commonsense reforms that would 
allow the private sector to work and then would allow the Ex-Im Bank to 
be a function of last resort, preserving the jobs that we all care 
about. No one on this floor, Republican or Democrat, wants to kill a 
job. That is ridiculous.
  So, as a rank-and-file Member who is off committee, I stand in 
support of the Mulvaney amendment, and I ask for its support.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger).
  Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. I thank the ranking member for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to address a statement that was made a 
little earlier from my friend from Indiana.
  He quoted the chairman and said that, in a perfect world, we would 
not need Ex-Im. I agree. In a perfect world, we wouldn't need nuclear 
weapons. In a perfect world, nobody would have nuclear weapons, but 
nobody in this Chamber is suggesting that we unilaterally disarm our 
nuclear weapons in order to live by the politics of purity.
  I had dinner the other day with a friend of mine who has a 
manufacturing company. It is a small manufacturing company. They export 
drilling components to Third World countries to help them drill for 
their own energy resources. He informed me that he has actually lost 15 
percent of his business since this charter has expired. That is real 
money. That is real exporting. That is a real situation that affects 
real people's lives.
  Look, I understand that people want to amend this, and I think they 
have a right to desire to amend this. The place to amend this would 
have been in the committee, which I am not on by the way. It would have 
been an opportunity to have amended it and to have had a full debate 
and to have brought the amended bill to the floor of the House of 
Representatives to debate. That didn't happen.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).
  Mr. LUCAS. I thank the ranking member.
  Mr. Chairman, I will just simply ask my colleagues: Why did we get to 
this point? Why should we vote against this amendment? Why should we 
vote against all 10 amendments?
  It is because, 100 years ago, our friends--our predecessors--set up a 
system so that, if a Speaker or a chairman thwarted the will of the 
body, there would be a way for the membership to bring it forward and 
pass it; but the system had to be created so streamlined that that same 
force or forces working to prevent the body from working its will could 
not overcome it.
  Last week, we demonstrated that rule worked. Unfortunately, today, we 
are demonstrating they didn't quite think everything through, because 
we are revoting or we are voting on 10 issues on a subject matter that 
was solved last week.
  My colleagues, if you enjoy being here this evening, if you enjoy 
listening to this debate all over again, I am sorry. The proponents 
didn't do this. We thought we had won by playing fair and square last 
week. Furthermore, we would have loved this debate 6 months ago.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded 
vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South 
Carolina will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Mulvaney

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in part B of House Report 114-326.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 1032, after line 4, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. PROHIBITION ON SUPPORT TO CERTAIN ENTERPRISES IN 
                   COUNTRIES WITH SOVEREIGN WEALTH FUNDS OVER 
                   $100,000,000,000.

       Section 2(b) of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (12 
     U.S.C. 635) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(14) Prohibition on Support to Certain Enterprises in 
     Countries With Sovereign Wealth Funds Over 
     $100,000,000,000.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Bank shall not guarantee or extend 
     (or participate in an extension of) credit in connection with 
     a transaction, with respect to which credit assistance from 
     the Bank is first sought after the effective date of this 
     paragraph, with a foreign company (or joint venture including 
     a foreign company) that benefits from support from a foreign 
     government if the foreign government has 1 or more sovereign 
     wealth funds with an aggregate value of at least 
     $100,000,000,000.
       ``(B) Sovereign wealth fund defined.--In clause (i), the 
     term `sovereign wealth fund' means, with respect to a 
     government, an investment fund owned by the government, 
     excluding foreign currency reserve assets, any asset held by 
     a central bank for the execution of monetary policy, and any 
     government-managed pension fund.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Before I go on to the next amendment, I want to very briefly put a 
closing point on the last discussion in responding to the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Heck).
  Of course, the bankers love this. What does a banker love any less 
than a guaranteed loan?
  As for Miss Jenny's Pickles that we have heard about many, many 
times, I will point out to everybody that the last amendment was 
limited to loans that were greater than $10 million, not really, really 
small businesses. Those are exactly the type of private sector market 
loans we are looking for.
  In fact, if I wanted to sum up in one sentence as to why you should 
support the last amendment, it would be: Can't we at least, maybe, give 
the private sector a chance first on loans of this size?
  There is another opportunity to do that now, Mr. Chairman, on this 
next amendment, which would prohibit the Export-Import Bank from doing 
any business with companies that are owned or have other ties to 
sovereign wealth funds in excess of $100 billion.
  I will give you a classic example of how the Export-Import Bank is 
being used right now.
  The Government of Indonesia was seeking bids for a power plant. One 
of the American manufacturers was in the bidding, and the bid request 
came in as follows and said that the buyer shall finance the project by 
using 30 percent equity and 70 percent debt. An export credit agency 
shall cover at least 50 percent of the debt financing. Bidders shall 
propose a prospective lender who will cover the loan without guarantee 
from the Government of Indonesia and without collateral.
  What was this, Mr. Chairman?
  This was a foreign government saying: We would like to buy your 
stuff,

[[Page 17401]]

and if we don't pay you, we would like your taxpayers to be on the 
hook.
  That is exactly what this is, and that is why so many of these 
international requests for proposals have exactly that requirement in 
it. These foreign governments don't want to be responsible if they 
can't pay. They want this government to be responsible if they can't 
pay, and that means they want our taxpayers to be responsible if they 
can't pay.
  We figured let's go ahead and let that be, Mr. Chairman, for a little 
bit; but if you have a sovereign wealth fund in excess of $100 billion, 
then maybe you should be on the hook. Maybe our taxpayers should not 
be. Maybe you are big enough to actually guarantee your own debts. It 
seems like a fairly reasonable thing that we should be sitting here, 
trying to figure out ways to protect the taxpayer. So I encourage folks 
to support this particular amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2030

  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chair, I claim time in 
opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chair, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to yet another poison pill amendment 
offered by the gentleman from South Carolina. The amendment seeks to 
create an odd linkage between the world's sovereign wealth funds and 
the provision of export credit financing.
  Given the fact that, even if these funds involve themselves a great 
deal in the provision of export financing, which I understand they do 
not, I would assume they would be more interested in financing their 
own country's exports and not the exports of American goods and 
services.
  In any event, I want to be very clear about one thing. The purpose of 
the U.S. Export-Import Bank is to support American jobs by boosting 
U.S. exports. The Bank exists to serve American interests. So when we 
withhold financing from the potential foreign purchaser of a U.S. 
product or service, we are only hurting ourselves.
  This is not a serious amendment. I urge Members to oppose it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), who serves on the Financial 
Services Committee.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chair, I, too, oppose this amendment. This amendment 
incorrectly presumes that sovereign wealth funds have some special 
linkage to export financing. Sovereign wealth funds do not have a 
direct link to export credit financing.
  The gentleman is certainly thinking about one of his favorite 
companies, Delta, who complains about the Export-Import Bank while 
ignoring the OECD and existing mechanisms established to address this, 
for example, the Open Skies laws. I repeat. Sovereign wealth funds do 
not have a direct link to export credit financing.
  I agree with the gentlewoman from California that this cannot be 
taken seriously. I urge Members to oppose it.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Heck).
  Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Chair, let's remind everybody that it has 
been asserted here that you would pass this amendment to protect 
taxpayers, and the exact opposite is the truth.
  The truth is, for a generation, the Export-Import Bank has 
transferred money into the U.S. Treasury to reduce the deficit. If you 
want to reduce the deficit, vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  It has also been suggested that these amendments somehow constitute 
reform as opposed to the underlying bill. It is not true. This is the 
biggest package of reforms ever enacted for Ex-Im.
  It does the following: increases small-business target from 20 to 25 
percent, codifies the chief risk officer and the risk management 
committee, provides and requires external audits of fraud controls, 
provides for upgrades and modernization of IT long overdue, expands 
loss reserves to 5 percent, reduces exposure of the portfolio from $140 
billion to $135. Lastly, it has a pilot program for a reinsurance 
program shifted to the private sector.
  This is a reform bill without these amendments. These amendments are 
designed to kill the bill. Vote ``no'' on the bill. Vote for reform. 
Vote ``no'' on the amendments.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chair, I inquire as to the amount of time 
remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from South Carolina has 3 minutes 
remaining. The gentlewoman from California has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Rokita).
  Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Chair, regarding reforms, looking at the underlying 
legislation that we dealt with last week, those reforms either already 
existed, have been in place and been ignored by the Ex-Im Bank--we have 
been waiting several years since the last time I voted against the Ex-
Im Bank for these reforms, and they don't do it; they have been 
ignored--or it is ignorance or malfeasance regarding traditional or 
standard business or Bank practices.
  I stand in favor of this amendment because this proposal would 
prevent the Ex-Im Bank from providing financing to any foreign company 
or joint venture that benefits from government support when that joint 
venture's country also has a sovereign wealth fund over $100 billion. 
Why in the world would we want to subsidize a joint venture that has or 
could have state backing from its own country?
  Now, if we enacted this reform for fiscal year 2014, applying this 
provision would have resulted in an estimated reduction of 
approximately $3.1 billion or only 15 percent of the Bank's total 
authorizations, far from killing it, but, again, allowing a needed 
reform that isn't in the underlying legislation we dealt with this 
week.
  I urge support for this amendment.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fincher).
  Mr. FINCHER. Mr. Chair, again, I know great public speeches, but this 
is the biggest package of reforms since President Reagan.
  The Bank actually returns on an average of $500 million to $1 billion 
to the Treasury every year. It is not costing the taxpayer a dime.
  These are a few companies: Abro Industries, South Bend, Indiana; 
Auburn Leather Company, Auburn, Kentucky; Metropolitan Air Technology, 
Chicago, Illinois; Advanced Protection Technologies, Clearwater, 
Florida. Several companies, Mr. Chair, that will not be in business if 
we kill the Export-Import Bank. All you hear from the opposition are 
excuses, trying to kill the Export-Import Bank.
  It is a shame when the facts don't matter, Mr. Chairman, but the 
facts are this doesn't cost the taxpayers. The facts are we are doing 
more to reform the Bank than has been done in 40 years. This is a 
Republican reform package. Let's put the politics aside here and do 
what is best for our constituents, the folks back home.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chair, once again, let's turn this amendment down. 
Let's turn back all of these amendments.
  If anything, this amendment appears to try to fix the problem that 
one company has in one sector in one region of the world. Some people 
might define that as crony capitalism. Others might even call it an 
earmark.
  Let's turn it back. Let's turn all these back. Let's get on with our 
business. I'm sorry we have to go through this this evening.
  Mr. MULVANEY. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Schweikert).
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chair, to my friend from Tennessee, let's do the 
facts. Simple amendment because, without it, you have all decided to 
subsidize the uber-wealthy in the world.
  Think about it. You have made a decision to use our import credit 
facility,

[[Page 17402]]

our constituents' credit, to subsidize great wealth around the world. 
That is what you have decided to do here.
  I thought there was a battle here between the right and the left and 
the left always said, ``We are for the little guy.'' Here is your 
chance.
  If you want just some basic reforms that--are you thrilled with the 
concept of a sovereign wealth fund coming out of Indonesia? Malaysia? 
Others? We are going to guarantee the loan instruments on the back of 
our taxpayers.
  Come on. At some point, the argument is absurd saying: Well, you had 
a chance to do this last week. No, we didn't. You chose to do a closed 
rule. You did. You had every opportunity to do an open rule and give us 
the chance to put these actual reforms in.
  The Acting CHAIR. Members are reminded to address their remarks to 
the Chair.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chair, obviously, they don't get what a sovereign 
wealth fund is. It just is a balance of payments between countries, and 
I think that it is a dilatory argument.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I have heard three arguments, Mr. Chairman, that somehow this is a 
convoluted linkage. No, it is not. It is pretty straightforward. The 
Bank shall not guarantee or extend credit in connection with a 
transaction with a foreign company or joint venture, including a 
foreign company, that benefits from support from a foreign government 
if the foreign government has a sovereign wealth fund with an aggregate 
value of at least $100 billion.
  I have no idea how that is convoluted, Mr. Chairman. That is about as 
straightforward as you get. If you are involved in a sovereign wealth 
fund, you don't get taxpayer money.
  The other thing I heard is that this is to protect one customer, one 
client. That is absurd. This is designed to protect 150 million 
American taxpayers.
  The last thing I heard was this is not serious. Yes, it is. Anytime 
we have the opportunity to put American taxpayers in front of foreign 
taxpayers, I think that would be very serious.
  I would encourage the support of this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman and Members, this 
desperate attempt by my friends on the opposite side of the aisle, this 
last-minute attempt to try and kill Ex-Im, is laughable.
  I am asking all of the Members of this House to simply see it for 
what it is and vote against it. Vote ``no'' on these amendments and 
this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South 
Carolina will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Mulvaney

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in part B of House Report 114-326.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 1032, after line 4, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. SATISFACTION OF OBLIGATIONS OF THE EXPORT-IMPORT 
                   BANK OF THE UNITED STATES.

       (a) Elimination of Authority to Issue Obligations to the 
     Secretary of the Treasury.--Section 5 of the Export-Import 
     Bank Act of 1945 (12 U.S.C. 635d) is repealed.
       (b) Requirement That the Export-Import Bank of the United 
     States Cover All Its Losses.--
       (1) In general.--Section 2 of Public Law 90-390 (12 U.S.C. 
     635k) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``the first $100,000,000 of such losses 
     shall be borne by the Bank; the second $100,000,000 of such 
     losses shall be borne by the Secretary of the Treasury; and 
     any losses in excess thereof'' and inserting ``all losses''; 
     and
       (B) by striking the 2nd and 3rd sentences.
       (2) Conforming repeal.--Section 3 of Public Law 90-390 (12 
     U.S.C. 635l) is repealed.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, this one is fairly simple. We have heard now for the 
last half-hour or so how much money the Treasury gets from the Export-
Import Bank, how profitable the Export-Import Bank is for the American 
taxpayer. Okay. That is great.
  Then, let's get rid of the connection between the Export-Import Bank 
and the guarantee that the Treasury gives to it. Let's let the Export-
Import Bank rise and fall on its own economics and its own balance 
sheet and not put the taxpayer on the hook.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in 
opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to 
the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strident opposition to this 
amendment. I think that this amendment really tells the story that they 
really are trying to destroy the Export-Import Bank as opposed to 
reform it. How can you deny borrowing authority to a lending 
institution and say you are serious about having it stay alive?
  The Bank has done a fantastic job of managing risk by keeping its 
overall debt rate below one quarter of 1 percent, far better than most 
private banks, in fact.
  The Export-Import Bank reauthorization already includes the creation 
of a permanent chief risk officer role, establishing a risk management 
committee, enhancing the Bank's loan loss reserves, among other 
reforms.
  The underlying bill makes the Bank safer and better run than before, 
making this amendment transparently unnecessary.
  Members should oppose this anti-Ex-Im amendment.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fincher).
  Mr. FINCHER. Mr. Chair, to the gentlewoman's comments, this does show 
an attempt to kill the Bank.
  When we go back home to our districts, a lot of times we are on the 
tail end of jokes, being Congressmen and Congresswomen, and sometimes 
they talk about us being a little slow.
  So let me go over the facts one more time for the gentleman from 
South Carolina. The Bank doesn't cost the taxpayer a penny. We are 
doing more in the way of reforms than since President Reagan. It 
returns $500 million to $1 billion a year back to the Treasury.
  Now, I know that they have taken the position to kill the Bank, but 
this kills jobs. This is about jobs in Tennessee, jobs in California, 
jobs in Oklahoma, jobs in Illinois.
  This is not a level playing field. China, Russia, and all of these 
other countries are just hoping that we make the mistake and we don't 
reauthorize the charter of the Export-Import Bank.

                              {time}  2045

  Let's be responsible adults. Let's not play politics as usual and 
worry about these outside groups and our political scores, Mr. 
Chairman. Isn't it sad that we would worry about some score with an 
outside group more than our districts and more than our constituents 
that have jobs because of the Export-Import Bank? We should be ashamed 
of ourselves.
  I again urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on all these amendments, 
and let's get to the serious business of the people's House.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy).

[[Page 17403]]


  Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of Mr. Mulvaney's 
amendment to shield taxpayers from bailing out the Export-Import Bank.
  I have been here for this debate over the last 45 minutes, and I have 
heard my good friend from Frog Jump, Tennessee, comment, and I think he 
said the Export-Import Bank doesn't cost taxpayers one penny, okay? 
That was the quote, doesn't cost one penny. But what this amendment 
does is guarantee that the Export-Import Bank won't cost the taxpayer 
one penny because the taxpayer is not going to be on the hook. But then 
I just heard my good friend from Tennessee say, if we pass this 
amendment, it is going to kill the Bank.
  You can't have it both ways. Either it kills the Bank if you don't 
have a backstop because it costs the taxpayers money, or it doesn't 
cost the taxpayers any money and this amendment won't kill the Bank. 
But you can't have it both ways. It does not work that way.
  Listen, this makes sense. The Export-Import Bank helps the 10 largest 
businesses in America. Why are moms and dads and families in Wausau, 
Wisconsin, or Hayward, Wisconsin, Frog Jump, Tennessee, the suburbs of 
Chicago, or rural Oklahoma, who make $50,000, $60,000--maybe a little 
more in the Chicago suburbs--why are they the backstop for these 
biggest corporations?
  That shouldn't be the way it is. So let's take the backstop of that 
taxpayer, those American families, let's take them off the hook. As the 
author of the amendment said, let's let the Bank stand on their own. 
Let them make that guarantee on their own.
  In our communities, our banks make loans to small businesses every 
single day. I know the gentlewoman from Wisconsin knows that. There is 
not a taxpayer backstop to those loans. If they don't pay those loans 
back, the bank loses. Why are the biggest corporations getting the 
backstop of the American taxpayer? This one makes sense. This one makes 
sense.
  Let's all stand together and say the American taxpayer, the American 
family is not going to back up the biggest banks. Let's get away from 
the crony capitalism. It is not going to kill the Bank. It is a good 
amendment. This is the place and the time for reform. Maybe it should 
have happened 6 months ago, but with regular order, it gets to happen 
today. Let's stand together for American families and against crony 
capitalism.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much 
time I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger).
  Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting in these 
great conversations, good debate, nobody has said that this doesn't 
make money for the taxpayers. They try to make the link and everything 
else, and that is fine.
  My friend from Wisconsin just said, well, if this amendment kills the 
Bank, it is because, et cetera, et cetera. This amendment is aimed to 
kill the Bank because it is a poison pill amendment on Ex-Im. That is 
what all these amendments are. They are attempting a last-ditch effort 
to destroy something that has really, frankly, provided a lot of jobs 
in my district and provided a lot of exports from my district.
  We talk about protecting taxpayers. Protecting taxpayers from what, 
an extra $500 million? Are we protecting them from a smaller deficit? 
It doesn't make sense. I am not sure why certain folks have made this 
the hill to die on. There are a lot of better hills to die on, to 
fight, to argue in this.
  I will tell you a quick story. I went to Ethiopia 6 months ago or so. 
I flew to Ethiopia on a Boeing Dreamliner. Now, I know a lot of people 
like to call out names of big companies, but I didn't go to Ethiopia on 
Ethiopian Airlines on an Airbus. The fact that I was on a Boeing 
Dreamliner means that the parts and components are made in my district 
for that Dreamliner, which means there are people who have a job 
because Ethiopian Airlines bought a Boeing.
  Let's kill this amendment and save the Bank.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining on my side?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from South Carolina has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time to 
close.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the 
balance of my time.
  I have listened carefully to the arguments that are being made on the 
opposite side of the aisle, and I listened carefully to Mr. Duffy. 
Evidently, he does not know or does not understand that those big 
corporations that he talked about are hiring small businesses in his 
district. He does not understand that these are the suppliers to these 
big companies. These are the families who are benefiting from the jobs 
and the contracts that they have been able to get.
  Evidently, listening to my friends on the opposite side of the aisle, 
they really don't understand the Ex-Im Bank. They really don't 
understand its support for our ability to export, thus creating jobs.
  While on the one hand they talk about how great our country is and 
how competitive we are, how competitive we need to be, they don't 
understand that, just as Mr. Fincher said, other countries such as 
China are just hoping that we cannot reopen this Bank. They are just 
hoping that we will not support our exporters, because they are going 
to support their exporters 100 percent.
  If you care about jobs, if you care about contracts, if you care 
about small businesses, you would not be opposing this Bank. As a 
matter of fact, there are those who would say: I am surprised that 
Maxine Waters is such an advocate for the Ex-Im Bank; we did not expect 
her to be. But I want you to know, I have worked with the Chamber of 
Commerce. I have held meetings in my district.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, a couple different things. I am a little 
surprised, Mr. Chairman, to hear some of the advocates here today 
because some of them, including the most recent speaker, were actually 
against the Bank when there was a different party in charge of the 
White House.
  I hear today that this is supposedly about jobs, jobs being created. 
By the way, that is a claim that not even the Export-Import Bank makes 
on its own. It has never come into our committee and said, ``We create 
jobs.'' It comes into our committee and says, ``We support jobs.'' We 
are not really sure what that means. We have asked them. They are not 
really sure how to count it. In fact, there is really good evidence 
that they are counting it wrong.
  Let's say for the sake of argument, Mr. Chairman, that they do create 
jobs. They also destroy jobs. Every time the government gets involved 
in the market and creates jobs someplace, they destroy it someplace 
else. It is just much harder to see. So it is very difficult for us to 
say: Look, this job was destroyed by the Export-Import Bank.
  But I will tell you this, my local banks in rural South Carolina 
can't go to the Treasury and borrow money for free every time they want 
to. If they could, they might be able to create some more jobs as well.
  We have a distortion to the market, Mr. Chairman, plain and simple. 
That is all this is. Are there going to be winners? Absolutely. There 
is a lot of them, as a matter of fact. In fact, you can go buy stock in 
some of them if you want to. Are there losers? Absolutely. You will 
never see them. You will never see them. They are in Union County, 
South Carolina, maybe. I don't know because we will never see the jobs 
that are not created because of the distortion created by the Bank.
  We have a tremendous opportunity not to kill the Bank. If the Bank 
really is as profitable as you say it is, this should be fine.
  By the way, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger) has left and 
said that no one is getting up to say the

[[Page 17404]]

Bank doesn't make money. Here I am. The Bank doesn't make money. First 
of all, if you made it count right, it wouldn't make any money. But, in 
my lifetime, we have had to bail this institution out to the tune of 
billions of dollars. How soon we forget those types of things, Mr. 
Chairman.
  We are going to pass this amendment. It is not designed to kill the 
Bank. It is designed to get the taxpayers off the hook in case the Bank 
makes the same mistakes today that it has made in the past.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded 
vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South 
Carolina will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Mulvaney

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in part B of House Report 114-326.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 1032, after line 4, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. STRENGTHENING PORTFOLIO DIVERSIFICATION AND RISK 
                   MANAGEMENT.

       (a) Limitations on Sectoral Credit Exposure of the Bank.--
     Section 2 of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (12 U.S.C. 
     635), as amended by section 95001 of this Act, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(l) Limitations on Sectoral Credit Exposure of the 
     Bank.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Bank shall not guarantee, insure, or 
     extend (participate in the extension of) credit in connection 
     with a transaction in a single industrial sector if the 
     provision of the guarantee, insurance, or credit would result 
     in the total credit exposure of the Bank in the sector being 
     more than 20 percent of the total credit exposure of the 
     Bank.
       ``(2) Effect of excessive sectoral credit exposure.--If, as 
     of the end of a fiscal year, the credit exposure of the Bank 
     in a single industrial sector exceeds the limit specified in 
     paragraph (1), the Bank may not guarantee, insure, or extend 
     (participate in the extension of) credit in connection with a 
     transaction in the sector until the President of the Bank 
     reports to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
     Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Financial Services 
     of the House of Representatives that, as of the end of the 
     calendar month preceding the month in which the report is 
     made, the credit exposure of the Bank in the sector does not 
     exceed the limit.''.
       (b) Limitations on Bank Assistance Benefitting a Single 
     Person.--Section 2 of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (12 
     U.S.C. 635), as amended by section 95001 of this Act and 
     subsection (a) of this section, is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(m) Limitations on Bank Assistance Benefitting a Single 
     Person.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Bank shall not guarantee, insure, or 
     extend (participate in the extension of) credit in a fiscal 
     year if the provision of the guarantee, insurance, or credit 
     would result in a single person benefitting from more than 10 
     percent of the total dollar amount of credit assistance 
     provided by the Bank in the fiscal year.
       ``(2) Effect of excessive benefit for a single exporter.--
     If, in a fiscal year, a person has benefitted from more than 
     10 percent of the total dollar amount of credit assistance 
     provided by the Bank in the fiscal year, the Bank may not 
     guarantee, insure, or extend (participate in the extension 
     of) credit so as to benefit the person until the beginning of 
     the 2nd succeeding fiscal year.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2016.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I was on a working group last year under the auspices 
of the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services with, amongst 
other people, the good gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fincher), who has 
now left us for dinner. No, there he is. One of the things that the 
opponents and proponents of the Bank could all agree on was the fact 
that the Bank was poorly run when it came to managing its risk. 
Specifically, it has what bankers call market concentration. It puts 
too many of its eggs in one basket. In fact, one particular industry, 
aircraft and avionics, takes up almost 30 percent of the Bank's 
portfolio.
  We had a banker on that committee who worked with us. He said no 
self-respecting private sector bank would ever allow that to happen. 
That is simply bad management. It is not credible management. It is not 
responsible management to the shareholders. The bad news here, of 
course, Mr. Chairman, is the shareholders are the people who pay us.
  What does this amendment do? It tries to bring some of the private 
sector sanity into the Export-Import Bank and say: Look, you are going 
to have to abide by rules that ensure diversification of risk, both 
within industries and across companies.
  If this were really a bank and not just a political extension of the 
current administration, they would probably be doing this. If the Bank 
was run by a banker and not a political bundler, the Bank would 
probably already be doing this. But since it is a political extension 
of this administration, since it is run by a political bundler and not 
a banker, it falls to us to make sure that the Bank follows some 
commonsense rules about to whom it lends and how much it lends to them.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in 
opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. I yield myself 1 minute.
  Yet again the gentleman from South Carolina is offering an amendment 
designed to kill the Ex-Im Bank and compromise its reauthorization in 
the highway bill conference. By imposing arbitrary caps on the Bank's 
ability to meet the needs of American exporters, regardless of the 
sector they represent, the amendment would starve certain sectors of 
the financing they need, resulting in a needless loss of U.S. jobs.
  I am concerned the amendment would also create incentives for 
businesses to be the first in line to get the limited amount of 
financing that is available for that particular sector or industry and 
would also undermine its mandates to serve sub-Saharan Africa, small 
businesses, and renewable energy exports.
  Given the Bank's extremely low default rate, it is hard to envision 
how this amendment would help the Bank better manage its portfolio.
  I urge Members to reject this poison pill amendment so that we can 
reauthorize the Ex-Im Bank without delay.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to 
the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, these amendments are getting more and more 
strange as the evening wears on.
  The favorite indictment of this Bank, I think, is that it picks 
winners and losers, and yet here is an amendment that does exactly 
that. It puts these artificial caps on sectors. Mr. Chairman, this Bank 
is demand driven, and if the world demands shifts, why would we create 
barriers to U.S. firms meeting that demand? These caps just mean that 
the U.S. can't compete for growing market trends.

                              {time}  2100

  This is a poison pill amendment, and I urge the Members to reject 
this so we can reauthorize the Bank immediately.
  

  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to my friend Mr.

[[Page 17405]]

Mulvaney's amendment. He is a friend. I do want to say that this 
amendment puts not only a cap, but statutory quotas on industry sectors 
for the full 5-year authorization. It ignores market forces.
  The amendment would mirror the French quota system in their export 
credit agency, which is ineffective. Rapidly developing industries like 
unconventional gas--and I represent a gas State, where we do a lot of 
Marcellus shale--and the industrial Internet would be disadvantaged 
under this policy.
  It creates incentives for businesses to rush to be the first in the 
door and get under the arbitrary cap, resulting in missed opportunities 
and inequitable treatment of U.S. exporters and U.S. workers. This 
would make the Bank ineffective and unable to fill in the gaps in the 
private sector or to help American businesses compete on a level 
playing field.
  I also have to note, too, that I suspect that many of the amendments 
that we are seeing here tonight are not designed to make the bill 
better, but to simply take it down. As I said, Mr. Mulvaney is my 
friend, but I suspect if his amendment is adopted, he probably still 
wouldn't be inclined to support the legislation, unless he tells me 
otherwise.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from South Carolina has 3 minutes 
remaining, and the gentlewoman from California has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Arbitrary limits, I had to laugh about that one, Mr. Chairman, when I 
was making my notes, because I was in a committee meeting today with 
the same folks making the argument now, saying that Congress does that 
all the time. In fact, I think the person who made that argument is 
sitting across the aisle from me today.
  I am just glad that folks making the argument now in opposition to 
this amendment aren't in charge of private banks. In fact, if they 
were, they would probably be in jail, because a lot of the same 
restrictions on lending that are contained in Dodd-Frank are exactly 
the rules that the Export-Import Bank is breaking right now.
  We would never tolerate a private institution that allows the type of 
concentration, both marketwise and geographically, that the Export-
Import Bank has. Dodd-Frank would never permit it. Apparently, now it 
is okay, because we don't have private shareholders on the hook. We 
have taxpayers on the hook. So, if things go bad, it is really not that 
big a deal.
  I will remind everyone here, Mr. Chairman, that the inspector 
general's report has suggested exactly the type of reforms that are 
contained in this amendment. Anyone with any banking experience or even 
people from Tennessee with just a little common sense might be able to 
look at the balance sheet of this Bank and say: ``Wait a second. There 
is too much concentration of various industries. There is too much 
concentration of various geographic areas. This is a really, really bad 
way to run a bank.''
  And it would be, of course, if this is a bank. But it is not a bank. 
It is a government program. It should be run like a bank, however. And 
that is what this amendment gives us the opportunity to do.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I think it is relevant that we think for a 
moment about the Bank.
  Some of my friends here who press these amendments--which, I would 
remind you, you should vote against all of them--say that they are not 
trying to kill the Bank. They are trying to do something.
  Well, didn't the Bank expire in July? Isn't it no longer able to do 
new business? Isn't that the definition of dead? By their lack of 
action, which is inaction, they killed it. Now they say, with their 
actions, they will resurrect it? Not likely, my friends.
  Turn all these amendments down. Let's get on with the core business 
here. Let's fight the fight we fought last week again, and one more 
time let's give American business an opportunity to compete with the 
rest of the world.
  Who knows--we might have to do this three or four more times, but 
let's keep doing the right thing for American workers. Let's keep doing 
the right thing for American business. That is all I am asking: just do 
the right thing and abide by the decision of the House and the majority 
of the majority.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck).
  Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from South 
Carolina suggested that the Export-Import Bank was a political 
extension of this administration. If that is true, let's be real clear: 
it has been a political extension of every single administration since 
it was created in 1934.
  All 13 Presidents have supported the Export-Import, all 13--Democrats 
and Republicans, liberals and conservatives. Sixteen times it has bean 
reauthorized in this Chamber. Virtually every time, it was done 
unanimously and overwhelmingly.
  In earlier remarks, the other gentleman suggested that those of us 
who oppose these amendments are trying to have it both ways. They also 
say that we try to pick winners and losers with the Export-Import Bank.
  Well, this amendment is exhibit A in picking winners and losers. It 
compels diversification. It is not based on need and not based on 
creditworthiness. Diversification for diversification's sake, that is 
not what a good bank does, and that is not what the Export-Import Bank 
does. The Export-Import Bank meets a specific need in the marketplace; 
and when it does it, it creates jobs, jobs for Americans.
  Oppose this amendment. Oppose all amendments.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from South Carolina has 1\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, in closing on all of these amendments, I 
want to touch on something we haven't had a chance to talk about here 
today.
  There are a lot of people in here who are apparently very proud of 
the Bank. They are happy with the way the Bank is run. They don't think 
that, but for some token reforms and changes, the Bank needs to change 
very much at all.
  The last 6 years have been 75 years of combined prison time because 
of wrongdoing at the Bank. There were 90 criminal indictments and 
complaints, 49 criminal judgments, and more than $223 million--a 
quarter of a billion dollars--in court-ordered fines and restitution 
because of wrongdoing at the Bank.
  We are proud of that? That is something that doesn't need serious 
overhaul? That is something we can just tweak around the edges because 
we have done it for so long?
  Maybe that is part of the problem. Maybe it has been a really, really 
long time since we have looked at this Bank under the microscope like 
we should. Maybe we should not have rubberstamped it for the past 16 
administrations. Maybe the Bank should have followed the law that we 
passed in 2012 to reform itself.
  What does it say about an institution, Mr. Chairman, that ignores the 
law that this Chamber passes, the Senate passes, and the President 
signs? You combine that which can only be described as bureaucratic 
arrogance with this--prison time, criminal indictments, judgments, 
fines and restitutions--and you have an institution that is in sad need 
of reform, Mr. Chairman, and this is it.
  The amendments that you will see tonight are your only opportunity to 
do that. We could have done it the other day on the motion to 
discharge, but it was finely tuned so that that could not happen. This 
is it. We should

[[Page 17406]]

pass not only this amendment, Mr. Chairman, but all of the amendments.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South 
Carolina will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Rothfus

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 
printed in part B of House Report 114-326.
  Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 1032, after line 4, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. GUARANTEE FROM UNITED STATES EXPORTER REQUIRED AS A 
                   CONDITION OF PROVIDING GUARANTEE OR EXTENDING 
                   CREDIT TO FOREIGN PERSON.

       Section 2 of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (12 U.S.C. 
     635), as amended by section 95001 of this Act, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(l) Guarantee From United States Exporter Required as a 
     Condition of Providing Guarantee or Extending Credit to 
     Foreign Person.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Bank may not provide a guarantee or 
     extend (or participate in the extension of credit) to a 
     foreign person in a fiscal year in connection with the export 
     of goods or services by a United States company, unless--
       ``(A) the United States company--
       ``(i) guarantees the repayment by the foreign person of the 
     applicable percentage for the fiscal year of the amount of 
     the guarantee or credit provided by the Bank; and
       ``(ii) pledges collateral in an amount sufficient to cover 
     the applicable percentage for the fiscal year of the amount 
     guaranteed by the United States company; and
       ``(B) the guarantee by the United States company is senior 
     to any other obligation of the United States company.
       ``(2) Applicable percentage defined.--In paragraph (1), the 
     term `applicable percentage' means--
       ``(A) in the case of fiscal year 2016, 10 percent;
       ``(B) in the case of fiscal year 2017, 20 percent;
       ``(C) in the case of fiscal year 2018, 30 percent;
       ``(D) in the case of fiscal year 2019, 40 percent;
       ``(E) in the case of fiscal year 2020, 50 percent;
       ``(F) in the case of fiscal year 2021, 60 percent;
       ``(G) in the case of fiscal year 2022, 70 percent;
       ``(H) in the case of fiscal year 2023, 80 percent;
       ``(I) in the case of fiscal year 2024, 90 percent; and
       ``(J) in the case of fiscal year 2025 and each succeeding 
     fiscal year, 100 percent.
       ``(3) Inapplicability to small business exporters.--
     Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to the provision 
     of a guarantee or credit in connection with an export by a 
     small business concern (as defined in section 3(a) of the 
     Small Business Act).''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I cannot understate the importance of this amendment, Mr. Chairman. 
The House finally has an opportunity to begin today what may be a 
years-long process of unwinding the Federal Government's massive loan 
guarantees. We need to do this to better protect hardworking taxpayer 
dollars so we can ensure that, when bills come due in 10 years for 
Social Security, Medicare, and veterans' benefits, we will be able to 
meet these commitments that Americans have earned and deserve.
  My amendment also supports small businesses and ensures they can 
continue to export goods and services. In short, it is a win-win for 
taxpayers and job creators alike.
  My amendment builds a firewall to protect the American taxpayer in 
the event that an overseas purchaser takes out a loan from the Export-
Import Bank and stops paying it back. While the loan will still have a 
taxpayer guarantee, the U.S. exporter that directly profits on the deal 
will be responsible for a percentage of the loss before you go to the 
taxpayers.
  One need only look at the details surrounding the deal with NewSat, a 
troubled satellite operator in Australia, to see why this amendment is 
necessary. The American taxpayer lost $139 million of a direct loan 
from the Export-Import Bank because the deal wasn't properly 
collateralized. Hardworking taxpayers should not be left paying for 
these risky loans.
  This is vitally important, Mr. Chairman. This amendment will allow 
elected Representatives to cast a vote on whether it is fair and 
prudent to facilitate transactions where profits stay in the private 
sector, but losses are passed on to taxpayers. This is often described 
as ``privatize the profits, but socialize the losses.''
  Here is how the amendment works. First, it does not apply if any 
exporter is a small business. According to the Export-Import Bank's own 
figures, nearly 90 percent of the Bank's transactions directly serve 
small businesses. This amendment does not touch this 90 percent and 
will not impact local mom-and-pop businesses.
  For big businesses, though, when a foreign government or corporation 
takes out a loan from the Export-Import Bank to buy their products or 
services, if that foreign purchaser then defaults on the loan, before 
dipping into the Bank's reserves--which belong to the taxpayers--the 
big businesses would have to repay a percentage of the loan.
  To minimize any potential disruptions, this reform is phased in 
gradually over the next decade, starting at a mere 10 percent for any 
lending that occurs in fiscal year 2016, 20 percent in fiscal year 
2017, and so on. Loans will still get made, the Bank will still 
operate, but the American taxpayers will have a layer of protection 
that will mitigate any chance of the Export-Import Bank requesting a 
bailout, as it did in 1987 to the tune of $3 billion.
  Why is this so important? Because American taxpayers are today the 
guarantor of more than $3 trillion in loans backed by numerous 
agencies, including the Export-Import Bank. This level of taxpayer 
leverage is not sustainable; and in 10 years, when we look into the 
faces of our seniors and our veterans, I want to have the confidence 
that we will have the resources we need to uphold the commitments we 
have made to them.
  Mr. Chairman, the modest reforms in this amendment are a small step 
towards achieving that end. We can--we must--start this process today. 
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in 
opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic leader.
  Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank her for 
her tremendous leadership on this issue. I join her; Mr. Heck of 
Washington; our whip, Mr. Hoyer; Congresswoman Moore of Wisconsin; and 
so many others on the Republican side of the aisle who have been such 
strong leaders on reauthorization of the Ex-Im Bank.
  Mr. Chair, some concerns have been raised here that I think are in 
need of response.
  In terms of this amendment, I rise in opposition to it and state that 
the Bank's portfolio is well-collateralized, especially in the largest 
product sector, and it maintains a loss rate of less than one-quarter 
of 1 percent.
  The Bank is also self-funded, largely through user fees collected 
from foreign customers, and has generated a surplus of close to $7 
billion, money that has been sent to the U.S. Treasury to help reduce 
the deficit.
  The previous speaker, Mr. Mulvaney, talked about some incidences of 
fraud that he said were associated with the Bank. I think it is 
important for our colleagues and those who are listening to this debate 
to know that those

[[Page 17407]]

incidences of fraud were fraud exacted upon the Bank, not by the Bank; 
and so the charge that this fraud was within the Bank is just simply 
not true. These were people who tried to defraud the Bank.
  Now, there was one incidence of fraud that the members of the staff 
of the Bank referred to or called out--one incident. So I just don't 
want anyone to be misled into thinking that, however it was 
characterized, it is a fact.

                              {time}  2115

  That is why we have an IG, and that is why it is so good that in this 
bill, in terms of fraud and ethics, it creates a nonpartisan chief 
ethics officer and requires a GAO review at least once every 4 years of 
the Bank's fraud controls.
  Legitimate concerns were raised, but the fact is the Bank should not 
be associated with fraud that is being exacted against it as if it was 
committing fraud. That is just not so.
  But it is a good evening because we are debating an issue that has 
strong bipartisan support, that creates jobs, that reduces the deficit, 
that increases our competitiveness overseas, that enables U.S. 
companies to have markets for our products overseas, not only big 
businesses that are addressed in this amendment. That is important as 
well.
  But for small and moderate-sized businesses who would not have the 
internal resources to find markets abroad, the Ex-Im Bank is created 
for that purpose.
  I thank Mr. Dent and others who have been so much a part of bringing 
this legislation to the floor. I think it is a victory for the American 
people that we will have a bill that not only is good for our highways 
and in terms of transportation, but also reauthorizes the Ex-Im Bank in 
order to agree with the language in the Senate bill.
  So all of these amendments, however well intentioned or well thought 
out, have the additional burden of taking down the Bank. Maybe you save 
them for another day, but in the here and now, we do not need any 
amendments on the Ex-Im Bank in the transportation bill just because 
the Ex-Im Bank is authorized in the transportation bill in the Senate.
  This House very thoughtfully passed our own authorization. I would 
hope that the Senate would agree to our language unamended.
  Again, I commend all of you who made this evening possible, and I 
look forward to a celebration of passing a highway bill that does not 
take down the Ex-Im Bank.
  Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck).
  Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Chair, I am not as calm as the Leader in 
her remarks because I think enough is enough.
  Not directed at the offerer of this amendment but to a previous 
speaker: I cannot help but be reminded of Joseph Welch during the 
McCarthy hearings when he said: Have you no sense of decency, sir, at 
long last?
  With one exception, these indictments were people outside the Bank 
trying to defraud the Bank; yet, it is offered here today as a 
reflection on the 300 or 400 employees down there.
  What do they do? Well, they have a default rate that is one-tenth the 
rate of transactions in trade by the private sector, one-tenth.
  They have a collection rate that is the envy of the commercial 
banking sector. They transfer funds to the Treasury, $6 billion or $7 
billion in the last generation. That is what these hardworking people 
do.
  Stop it. Stop making comments that reflect on all of these people who 
are hardworking civil servants, who are doing the job, and who are 
reducing the deficit.
  Yes, they are supporting and creating jobs. What does ``support'' 
mean? Create or save. The GAO says that, not me, the GAO. So stop it.
  Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fincher).
  Mr. FINCHER. I thank the gentlewoman.
  Mr. Chair, again, let's go over the facts. We are getting off base.
  The Bank doesn't lose taxpayer dollars. It returns money to the 
Treasury every year, $500 million to $1 billion.
  We are reforming. This is a Republican reform bill. We should be 
happy when Democrats want to cross the aisle and support Republican 
ideas. This is a Republican reform bill.
  And to the gentleman that makes the argument on this amendment, the 
aircraft section of the portfolio is over on collateral 1.4 to 1.
  These are bogus arguments. These are amendments to kill the Bank.
  This is sad when people put their political scorecards above their 
constituents. This is about jobs in all of our districts.
  They are not using the facts. The facts are that this creates lots of 
jobs at no cost, and we are reforming the Bank.
  Read the bill. Read the bill, Mr. Chairman, and maybe we would have 
more than 313 votes next time we vote on this.
  Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, I have heard a number of times tonight 
that the Bank doesn't cost anything. But if you take a look at the 
Congressional Budget Office analysis and if you use fair value 
accounting, it costs $2 billion over 10 years. And there will be an 
amendment later on talking about that.
  I think people forget about the $3 billion taxpayer bailout that 
Export-Import asked for in 1987.
  Finally, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were fine until they weren't, and 
they left the taxpayers with a $150 billion tab.
  I am looking 10 years down the road, Mr. Chairman, looking at the 
debt that this country continues to accrue and thinking about the 
obligations that we have to meet in 2025 for our seniors, for our 
veterans. I want to make sure that we are not going to have a bailout 
at that time of this institution.
  All this amendment does is says, who bears the risk of loss, the 
taxpayer or the entities that made the profit. It is phased in over 
time. Small businesses are protected.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).
  Mr. LUCAS. I thank the ranking member, and I thank the chairman.
  Mr. Chair, I would simply note that the provision requires U.S. 
business to factor in new costs of a guarantee for repayment to the Ex-
Im Bank, in addition to the fees and interests already required. Those 
additional costs would make U.S. business less competitive.
  Now, that said, once again, I urge my colleagues to turn back this 
amendment, turn back all 10 amendments.
  Remember, the Bank expired in July. When my friends say they don't 
want to kill it, they already have. Now they are just trying to keep it 
from being brought back to be able to function as a part of our 
economy.
  Look through the amendment process we are going through here. Look at 
the whole process we are involved in. Understand what is really 
occurring.
  Nothing ever happens by accident in politics--right?--or the 
legislative process. Understand the fight we are engaged in.
  Turn back this amendment. Turn back all these amendments. Let's get 
on with it. If we could have made things better 6 months ago, we would 
have, but we weren't allowed to.
  Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, this amendment has 
been offered in an attempt to delay and derail the Bank's 
reauthorization.
  Despite the implication made by the gentleman's amendment that Ex-Im 
is undertaking and mismanaging excessive risk, it is important to be 
clear on the fact that the Bank has a portfolio that is well 
diversified regionally and by sector, spread across over 170 countries 
and dozens of industries.

[[Page 17408]]

  The Bank's portfolio is also well collateralized, especially in its 
larger product sector, and it maintains the loss rate of less than one-
quarter of 1 percent.
  Moreover, Ex-Im Bank's strong portfolio has withstood the test of 
numerous market disruptions in the past.
  Finally, the Bank is also self-funded largely through user fees 
collected from foreign customers and has generated a surplus of close 
to $7 billion, money that has been sent to the U.S. Treasury to help 
lower our deficit.
  So I urge all Members to reject this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, again, I think people have a short memory 
of what happened with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the $150 billion 
loss that those institutions incurred.
  This amendment does not end the Bank. It allows loans to continue to 
be made. It simply puts a firewall between a potential loss and the 
taxpayers. Who bears the risk of loss? The taxpayers or the entity that 
made the profit?
  I suggest that there should be phased in over time 10 percent the 
first year, just 10 percent--that is a miniscule ask--that those who 
make a profit from this Bank have a little skin in the game. Small 
businesses are exempted.
  I ask for support of this amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote 
``yes.''
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
will be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Royce

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 
printed in part B of House Report 114-326.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 1032, after line 4, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. PROHIBITION ON AID TO STATE-SPONSORS OF TERRORISM.

       Section 2(b)(2) of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (12 
     U.S.C. 635(b)(2)) is amended--
       (1) in the paragraph heading, by inserting ``or State-
     Sponsors of Terrorism'' before the period;
       (2) in subparagraph (A)--
       (A) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (i);
       (B) by redesignating clause (ii) as clause (iii) and 
     inserting after clause (i) the following:
       ``(ii) in connection with the purchase or lease of any 
     product by a country that is designated as a state-sponsor of 
     terrorism, or any agency or national thereof; or''; and
       (C) in clause (iii) (as so redesignated), by inserting ``or 
     a state-sponsor of terrorism'' before the period;
       (3) by redesignating subparagraphs (C) and (D) as 
     subparagraphs (D) and (E), respectively, and inserting after 
     subparagraph (B) the following:
       ``(C) State-sponsor of terrorism defined.--In this 
     paragraph, the term `state-sponsor of terrorism' means a 
     country the government of which the Secretary of State has 
     determined, for purposes of section 6(j)(1)(A) of the Export 
     Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 2405(j)(1)(A)) (as 
     continued in effect pursuant to the International Emergency 
     Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), section 620A(a) 
     of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2371(a)), 
     section 40(d) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 
     2780(d)), or any other provision of law, to be a government 
     that has repeatedly provided support for acts of 
     international terrorism.'';
       (4) in subparagraph (D) (as so redesignated)--
       (A) in the subparagraph heading, by inserting ``or a state-
     sponsor of terrorism'' after ``Marxist-leninist'';
       (B) by inserting ``or that any country described in 
     subparagraph (C) has ceased to be a state-sponsor of 
     terrorism'' after ``(B)(i))'';
       (C) by inserting ``or a state-sponsor of terrorism, as the 
     case may be,'' before ``for purposes''; and
       (D) by inserting ``or a state-sponsor of terrorism, as the 
     case may be'' before the period at the end; and
       (5) in subparagraph (E) (as so redesignated)--
       (A) in clause (i)--
       (i) by striking ``Subparagraph'' and inserting ``Clauses 
     (i) and (iii) (but only to the extent applicable with respect 
     to Marxist-Leninist countries) of subparagraph''; and
       (ii) by striking ``(ii)'' and inserting ``(iii) (but only 
     to the extent applicable with respect to Marxist-Leninist 
     countries)''; and
       (B) in clause (ii), by striking ``(ii)'' and inserting 
     ``(iii) (but only to the extent applicable with respect to 
     Marxist-Leninist countries)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Royce) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I would explain to my colleagues at the 
outset that I, frankly, think we should voice vote this amendment 
without objection. I think it is misguided to oppose it because this 
amendment is not part of this fight over Ex-Im.
  What this fight is over, what this amendment is over, is my 
experience in terms of the President using waivers. I will explain to 
you my worry if we don't close this loophole, which I frankly think it 
would be very easy to close because I think the Senate would agree with 
us.
  But Export-Import Bank loans and guarantees obviously would be 
absolutely off limits to state sponsors of terrorism if we write the 
law correctly. The worst of the worst--Iran, Syria, Sudan--should have 
the Bank door slammed shut, period.
  That is what this amendment does. No administration wiggle room, none 
at all.
  One country where the Ex-Im has not operated in recent years is Iran. 
This is because of our sanctions. But, of course, much of this 
sanctions regime is going to be suspended, misguidedly, as part of the 
President's nuclear deal.
  So what does that mean?
  For one, the administration is committed to making it possible for 
Iran to purchase commercial aircraft. I think we can all agree, Ex-Im 
supporters and opponents alike, that Iran should not be entitled to 
American taxpayer-financed aircraft deals.
  Iran has a long history of using its commercial airlines to support 
its terrorist proxies. Its commercial flights are now flying military 
personnel to Syria. When I say ``now,'' I mean right now.
  Iran is on a roll in the region undermining our partners and backing 
the murderous Assad regime in Syria.
  Now, some parts of U.S. law, most notably in the Foreign Assistance 
Act, do prevent Ex-Im from engaging with state sponsors of terrorism. 
But these commonsense prohibitions are subject to Presidential waivers, 
and we have seen the President abuse waivers to pursue his agenda over 
and over again on Iran, no matter what Congress thinks.
  Without consulting Congress, the administration signed us up for an 
agreement that will waive sanctions year after year until Iran has 
nuclear breakout capability. That is the way I think this ends.
  So, Mr. Chairman, the Foreign Affairs Committee that I chair is 
continuing to examine the Iran agreement in great detail. We understand 
how this administration has abused its authority to force a deal that 
allows the Ayatollah to keep a path to a nuclear weapon, in my view, 
with little regard for the views of the American people or their 
Representatives in Congress.
  This is not just about Iran. The administration is unilaterally 
bending, ignoring, and rewriting law to advance his agenda here at home 
toward Cuba and elsewhere.
  So this amendment protects against executive overreach. It would 
strengthen existing law by prohibiting any bank activities in 
connection with the purchase or lease of any product by a country that 
is designated as a state sponsor of terrorism, to include any agency or 
national of that government, and it prohibits the waivers that are 
currently exercised by the President.

                              {time}  2130

  That means that anyone who is a national of Iran or an appendage of 
that state sponsor of terrorism cannot benefit from the Bank. The 
Iranian Government and its Revolutionary

[[Page 17409]]

Guards--which is increasingly involved in transportation, in energy, in 
construction, and in telecommunications--are set to profit from the 
President's nuclear agreement. Now, that is bad enough. But they 
shouldn't be getting Ex-Im backing on top of that.
  Mr. Chairman, given my experience with this President with the 
waivers he has already given, I want that loophole closed. I don't 
think there is a reason for a debate on this. I think it should be 
voice-voted, and I think the Senate will concur in that.
  Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition 
to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 
minute.
  Mr. Chairman and Members, this amendment, more than any other, is the 
one most clearly aimed at fracturing the majority coalition that has 
overwhelmingly backed the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank.
  For Members who might feel pressure to vote for this amendment, I 
urge you to keep in mind that you would also be voting to send the Ex-
Im provision in this bill to conference and directly into the hands of 
Chairman Hensarling and Chairman Shelby, which will prove fatal to the 
Export-Import Bank.
  Moreover, the Foreign Assistance Act as well as the omnibus spending 
bill the House adopted last December both prohibit Ex-Im support to 
state sponsors of terrorism, and there is no reason to believe that 
will change.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge Members to appreciate the extraordinary 
efforts it has taken Members on both sides of the aisle to get us to 
this point, and I call on my colleagues to reject this poison pill 
amendment that is designed to upend the reauthorization of the Bank.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that, with or without passage of 
this amendment, the transportation bill with the Ex-Im language is 
going to conference with the Senate. That is the next step in this 
procedure.
  I understand some believe this, and I understand some have been told 
that this in some way affects that conference. I don't think so. It is 
going to go to conference. I do not understand the reason to object to 
this because I think, frankly, whether you are for Ex-Im or against Ex-
Im, at the end of the day, you don't want the President to have this 
particular waiver. I don't think Members here want that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), who has had so much courage.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member.
  Mr. Chairman, first, before we talk about the substance of the 
amendment, let's look at the lay of the land. I am a farmer by trade. 
That is always something you do, you look at the lay of the land.
  The six principal authors of the 10 amendments offered today, all 
members of Financial Services, none of them were proponents 6 months 
ago when we were attempting, pleading to bring this bill up for 
consideration.
  None of these six, as I remember, demanded that we bring the bill up 
3 months ago when frustration caught up with us. None of these six 
signed the discharge petition to use a rule of the House to allow this 
body to have its say. I don't believe any of these six authors actually 
voted to discharge the petition or voted for the final product last 
week when 313 Members of this body and a majority of the majority voted 
for it. So understand the lay of the land. Understand the nature.
  Now, I have the greatest respect for the chairman of the Foreign 
Affairs Committee. I sat next to him for 20 years on Financial 
Services. He is extremely sincere. My friends, the issues he brings up 
in this amendment are relevant, but his chairmanship of the committee 
he presides over has primary jurisdiction on this.
  This particular amendment would address a small part of one part of 
the things the Federal Government does. Maybe we need a bill to address 
all of these kinds of situations. Maybe we need--as we should have had 
on Export-Import in Financial Services--a thoughtful and considerate 
process to craft a good, solid piece of legislation. I know he is 
capable of it. I know he can do it. I want him to do it.
  But let's do it in that concept of regular order in regular process. 
Let's not take this situation where we have had to do extraordinary 
things to give the House a chance to make the decision. Let's not take 
this situation now and in the spirit of the folks who set up the 
discharge process 100-plus years ago say: Well, the House decided, but 
really the House's opinion doesn't matter. Now we are going to redo it. 
We are going to go a different way.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, I have faith this evening that, after my 
colleagues have listened to this debate on 10 amendments, when they 
come to the floor and vote on all 10 amendments, they will turn all 10 
down. I am sorry, my colleagues, that you have to do this, because we 
shouldn't be here doing this tonight. This was decided last week.
  But I hope if we will send a clear message and turn back all 10 
amendments, that this will be over with. Let's not do this again next 
week. That is contrary to the spirit of the House.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), another member the 
Financial Services Committee.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have tremendous respect for the author 
and his intention here, but any amendment to the Ex-Im title means the 
Ex-Im title is open to the conference, which will kill the Ex-Im Bank. 
So we should not adopt an amendment that mostly restates existing law. 
We have, already, provisions which prevent the Bank from financing 
state sponsors of terrorism.
  First, the Bank's own charter, which I helped draft, prohibits them 
from extending loans or any assistance to any entity that violates U.S. 
sanctions.
  Second, as the gentleman points out, the Foreign Assistance Act 
prohibits any aid to state sponsors of terrorism but allows for a 
Presidential waiver, but that is a national security waiver, which is 
very limited.
  I commend the gentleman for his amendment because it has caused the 
Ex-Im Bank to issue, just an hour ago, a pledge not to seek any waiver 
under any circumstances that they can concurrently conceive of.
  But third, and most importantly, the last 10 appropriations bills 
have an absolute ban on the Ex-Im Bank helping state sponsors of 
terror, and there is no waiver allowed. Now, I would like the next 
omnibus bill, which already has this provision in it, to have the 
gentleman's language in it as well, and I look forward to working on 
that.

                                                 November 4, 2015.
     Re: Letter Concerning Prohibitions Related to State Sponsors 
         of Terrorism.

     Hon. Fred P. Hochberg,
     Chairman and President, Export Import Bank of the United 
         States, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Hochberg: Thank you for your letter outlining 
     the position of the Bank in opposition to support for exports 
     to countries designated state sponsors of terrorism.
       As we have discussed, there may be an effort to sell or 
     lease civilian aircraft to Iran Air or other Iranian 
     airlines, and that there may be efforts to secure export 
     credit agency support for such sales or leases. I am 
     therefore grateful for your acknowledgement that there is no 
     scenario that you currently foresee where a Presidential 
     Waiver would be sought to provide loans for export of any 
     items to these countries or any person from those countries.
       I understand, of course, that unforeseen and even bizarre 
     circumstances may arise in international affairs; but given 
     the current state of our relations with these countries, I am 
     pleased to hear that you cannot anticipate any scenario where 
     we would provide Ex-Im Bank assistance to state sponsors of 
     terrorism.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Brad Sherman,
                                               Member of Congress.

[[Page 17410]]

     
                                  ____
                                                 November 4, 2015.
     Hon. Brad Sherman,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Sherman: Pursuant to applicable law, the 
     Export-Import Bank of the United States does not finance any 
     transactions for designated state sponsors of terrorism. As 
     you know, transactions involving the three existing state 
     sponsors of terrorism--the Republic of Sudan, the Islamic 
     Republic of Iran, and the Syrian Arab Republic--are already 
     subject to numerous additional restrictions. As Chairman and 
     President of the Export-Import Bank of the United States, I 
     do not anticipate any scenario in which the Bank would seek a 
     waiver from the President of the United States as 
     contemplated by (i) section 620A of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2371), or (ii) the Arms Export Control 
     Act (22 U.S.C. 2780(g)), in connection with a transaction 
     involving a country designated as a state sponsor of 
     terrorism, or any transaction involving any person from any 
     such countries.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Fred P. Hochberg,
                                           Chairman and President.

  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded 
vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


               Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Schweikert

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9 
printed in part B of House Report 114-326.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 1032, after line 4, insert the following:

     SEC. _____. USE OF FAIR VALUE ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES.

       The Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (12 U.S.C. 635 et seq.) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 16. USE OF FAIR VALUE ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES.

       ``The Bank shall prepare the financial statements of the 
     Bank in accordance with fair value accounting principles.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my fellow Members, let's do some basic accounting, 
something we would all remember from our accounting 101 class. How many 
times tonight in the debate have we had the discussion: Oh, Ex-Im Bank, 
its losses are absolutely tiny? I have heard numbers tonight of 1.7 
percent. But do any of you remember the hearing with the head of the 
Export-Import Bank where we asked the question: Can you tell me your 
impairment?
  Remember, a charge-off is a loss; an impairment is someone who is not 
paying.
  Mr. Chairman, the head of the Ex-Im Bank just stared at us with 
really angry eyes. He just stared at us. It turns out that the Bank 
games their losses. This is how they report such a great number.
  If I turned to you and said, ``Hey, your neighborhood bank has a loan 
on the books that has sat there for 55 years without a payment,'' 
wouldn't you think that would have not been in the impairment category 
that is not reported under their current accounting methodology, but 
would have been charged off or forced to be charged off? Could you 
imagine a Dodd-Frank-regulated bank keeping a loan with no payment for 
55 years? They still have a $36 million loan to pre-Castro Cuba on 
their books. We found lots of this sort of stuff because of the 
accounting methodology.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very simple. It just basically says 
to do what the rest of the financial world has to do and use fair value 
accounting.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition 
to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition 
to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Schweikert), which would do little to strengthen or improve the Export-
Import Bank. Rather, the amendment is a cynical attempt to inaccurately 
and artificially inflate the cost of the programs offered by the Bank. 
All this would achieve is confusion regarding the real-world state of 
the Bank's fiscal health.
  The fact of the matter is the Export-Import Bank has been 
extraordinarily careful in its risk management, which has resulted in a 
dividend to taxpayers of close to $7 billion. This is real money, and 
to pretend it isn't real for accounting purposes just isn't credible.
  Overwhelmingly, majorities in the House and Senate have passed 
identical reauthorization measures that deliberately excluded this 
provision, and adding it back now would only serve to undermine the 
Bank's reauthorization.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Sherman), who serves on the Financial Services Committee.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, this Bank is important. That is why Ronald 
Reagan said on January 30, 1984, that the Export-Import Bank 
contributes in a significant way to our Nation's export sales. We 
should not adopt an unnecessary amendment, the effect of which would be 
to kill the Bank.
  Now, this amendment deals with accounting. As co-chair of the CPA 
Caucus, I understand the importance of solid accounting rules. As a 
CPA, we are the referees that make sure that accounting rules are 
followed.
  The amendment talks about fair value accounting, more properly 
described as fantasy value accounting. Don't confuse fair value 
accounting with anything that is used in private enterprise or anywhere 
else. It is not the same as generally accepted accounting principles. 
Stick with generally accepted accounting principles. Stick with the 
principles consistent with the CBO, and those principles show you that 
the Bank makes money for the Treasury, which is why it transfers half a 
billion to a billion dollars a year.
  Under fantasy value accounting, we don't look at whether the Bank is 
making money. We look at whether they would be making money if we lived 
in a fair world. So you would say, for example, in looking at the cost 
of funds and what it takes to borrow money, you could look at the 
accounting statements of Pizza Hut and say: Don't look at what they 
actually paid as interest costs, but what they would have paid in a 
fair world where they had the same interest rate as Jack's Pizzeria.

                              {time}  2145

  Well, maybe we don't live in a fair world. But the fact is, generally 
accepted accounting principles are to determine whether a company or 
entity is making or losing money in the real world. Stick with 
generally accepted accounting principles. Stick with the CBO. Stick 
with the CPAs. Stick with GAAP. Say ``no'' to fantasy value accounting.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  You would be happy to know and my friend from California would be 
happy to know CBO actually supports fair value accounting.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fincher), a real champion and a 
leader to reauthorize the Bank.
  Mr. FINCHER. Mr. Chairman, once again, let's go back to the facts. 
The facts are this is a Republican reform bill. The gentleman from 
South Carolina is listening. This doesn't cost the taxpayer a dime.

[[Page 17411]]

  The scare tactics from my colleagues that are trying to kill the Bank 
are not going to work. This returns $500 million to $1 billion per year 
to the Treasury to help pay down the debt.
  My colleagues that are in opposition to this talk about us picking 
winners and losers, the supporters of the Ex-Im Bank. Well, do you know 
what? We are picking winners: American jobs. Those are the winners 
here.
  This is shameful that we are having this debate tonight at 10:00 on 
an issue that could have been handled in our committee a year ago. And 
the gentleman talks about hearings. Well, we haven't had any hearings 
in how many months? I don't know if we have had any this Congress. We 
had some last Congress. We haven't had any this Congress.
  This is how we fix issues. We have hearings, we have markups, we 
debate them in committee, and then we move items to the floor. But that 
didn't happen this time.
  So what we have is we have 10 amendments. As the gentleman from 
Oklahoma said a few minutes ago, the Bank is already dead. They 
succeeded. But they want to bury the Bank now.
  Let's put American jobs first and put political scorecards and trying 
to out-conservative each other for some ranking in some book last. 
Let's work for our districts and not play political games, Mr. 
Chairman.
  I urge my colleagues, once again, to vote ``no'' on all of these 
amendments. Let's put people back in charge.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, may I request how much time is 
remaining on both sides?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona has 3 minutes remaining. 
The gentlewoman from California has 15 seconds remaining.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 90 seconds to the good 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney).
  

  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to encourage my colleagues, if 
they vote for one and only one of these Export-Import Bank amendments, 
they should vote for this one.
  In fact, I would bring to their attention that they probably have 
already voted for it before because, in the last two Congresses, we 
have voted to put the Federal agencies on fair value accounting and 
passed that out of the House. We have already done it. I don't know 
where the objections were at that time, but we have already done this 
as a House, and we should do it again.
  To the gentleman from California's point regarding GAAP, let's be 
honest with people. Let's be honest. The government doesn't use GAAP. 
The government does not use GAAP the way that most ordinary people 
understand it. We use GAAP for government, which is entirely different.
  Let's just settle on this amendment so that we can count in a way 
that people understand, that if you lent money to the Batista regime 
before Castro and it hasn't been paid yet, maybe it is a bad loan; if 
you lent money to Chiang Kai-shek, maybe that is a bad loan. Let's 
start counting in ways that ordinary people can understand. This is not 
a poison pill. It is just good governance.
  And, most importantly, Mr. Chairman, it would not change the way the 
Bank functions in any way whatsoever. All it would do is change the way 
the Bank counts and tells Congress and the American people how it is 
performing. I strongly encourage that if you are going to vote for one 
Export-Import amendment, this would be the one.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, this is what our 
accountant friend, Mr. Sherman, called fairytale value accounting. But 
further than that, President George W. Bush calls this fuzzy math.
  We have heard everything this evening. We have had every attempt to 
try to kill the Export-Import Bank, and now we are into this fuzzy, 
fairytale math that is being presented by my friend.
  I urge my friends to vote ``no'' on this amendment. I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, all right. So fuzzy math, even though 
we now require the International Monetary Fund to use fair value 
accounting, even though many of you, when you voted for the Troubled 
Asset Relief Program, demanded fair value accounting. We now demand 
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, when they are doing their projections, to 
use fair value accounting. And a whole bunch of us in this room have 
voted for that.
  Let's actually touch on that. Mr. Chairman, forgive me because I am 
going to try to find the most elegant way to say this.
  My friend from Tennessee now multiple times has referred to a 
scorecard. Okay? So how many people are voting for this for donations? 
Just a theoretical question. I mean, if you are going to impugn, be 
careful.
  Many of us have been working on this issue since the day we arrived 
at this body before it was ever a political issue bouncing up through 
the blogosphere. This is a problem.
  Our amendment here, a fair value accounting, has actually been 
supported by the gentlemen sitting across from me who opposes this. You 
have all voted. You have all voted to put all of government on fair 
value accounting.
  But now all of a sudden, when it is an actual reform to the Ex-Im 
Bank because we might actually understand the value of risk and what is 
really going on and actually maybe understand what belongs in the 
impairment category instead of the charge-off category, we would get 
some honest information. That is what this amendment will do.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will 
be postponed.


              Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Westmoreland

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 23 
printed in part B of House Report 114-326.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 1032, after line 4, insert the following:

     SEC. __. PROCEDURES REQUIRED IN RESPONSE TO COMMENT ALLEGING 
                   ECONOMIC HARM WILL RESULT IF PROPOSED BANK 
                   TRANSACTION IS APPROVED.

       Section 3(c) of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (12 
     U.S.C. 635a(c)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(11) Procedures required in response to comment alleging 
     economic harm will result if proposed bank transaction is 
     approved.--If the Board of Directors receives a comment from 
     a representative of a United States company, in response to a 
     notice that the Board has caused to be published in the 
     Federal Register, that alleges that the company will suffer 
     economic harm if a proposed Bank transaction is approved, 
     then, unless the Board unanimously votes to do otherwise, the 
     Board shall provide for--
       ``(A) a 60-day discussion period that begins at the end of 
     the comment period otherwise required by law, with respect to 
     all comments received by the Board in response to the notice, 
     which period shall be extended by not more than 60 days if at 
     least 1 Board member recommends such an extension; and
       ``(B) an opportunity for any such commenter who makes such 
     an allegation to appear before the Board and be heard with 
     respect to the notice if at least 1 Board member recommends 
     that the commenter be invited to do so.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I want to clarify a few things. This 
is not a poison pill. My amendment is not a poison pill.
  My friend from Oklahoma said that he wanted to play by the rules. 
That is what I want to do. I have got an amendment that I never had an 
opportunity to submit. Do you know why? Because of the discharge 
position.
  The authors of the discharge petition chose to have it brought up 
under a

[[Page 17412]]

closed rule. So I never got a chance. My 700,000 people never had a 
chance.
  Now, I don't know how many people in Frog Jump, Tennessee, buy wide-
bodied planes. I am sure there are probably one or two that buy them. 
But I have got 6,000 Delta employees, both current and retired, that 
live in my district.
  What this amendment does is it allows a fair playing field to where 
you can go to the board of directors at Ex-Im Bank and give your 
analysis, not to the Ex-Im--that is almost like giving your complaint 
to the opposition's attorney. We want to go to the board because it is 
not fair.
  Mr. Chairman, I include in the record a Wall Street Journal article 
called ``Boeing Helped Craft Own Loan Rule.'' They have been cooking 
the books.
  All we want to do is have a chance where we can go to the board of 
directors and present our case because, when Ex-Im is cooking the books 
with Boeing, that doesn't leave us much of a chance.

             [From the Wall Street Journal, Mar. 12, 2015]

                   Boeing Helped Craft Own Loan Rule

                           (By Brody Mullins)

       Washington.--When the Export-Import Bank sought to respond 
     to critics with tighter rules for aircraft sales, it reached 
     out to a company with a vested interest in the outcome: 
     Boeing Co., the biggest beneficiary of the bank's assistance.
       For months in 2012, according to about 50 pages of emails 
     reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, the bank worked with 
     Boeing to write rules that would satisfy critics in Congress 
     and the domestic commercial airline industry--while leaving 
     most sales of Boeing's airplanes to foreign carriers 
     unscathed.
       Ex-Im Bank, which helps finance the purchase of U.S. 
     exports through loans and guarantees, is the target of 
     Republicans who want to kill it, in part because they say it 
     mostly provides subsidies to America's largest companies. The 
     Boeing emails will add fuel to that fight.
       The previously unreported documents, obtained through an 
     open-records request, show how the two sides swapped ideas, 
     drafts and data on sales of wide-body airplanes. Ex-Im Bank 
     officials pushed their Boeing counterparts for information. 
     Boeing suggested changes to the bank's draft proposal.
       They reveal an extraordinary level of coordination between 
     public officials and corporate executives. In a message one 
     Saturday morning, Bob Morin, then the bank's head of aircraft 
     financing, sent a plea: ``If Boeing expects Ex-Im Bank to 
     continue supporting wide-body aircraft, we need to get this 
     right.''
       When Congress renewed the bank's charter in 2012, the bank 
     was required to publish its methodology for determining which 
     transactions were significant enough to trigger an additional 
     ``economic-impact review'' and, potentially, rejection.
       The requirement didn't specifically include aircraft 
     purchases, but Delta Air Lines Inc. and some lawmakers wanted 
     the bank to include them in the rules, too.
       That's when Boeing and Ex-Im Bank started discussing how 
     the rule should be written. Many of the emails between the 
     bank and Boeing deal with the guidelines the bank was 
     creating to determine which aircraft transactions would 
     trigger the additional review.
       The collaboration appears to have worked. In the nearly two 
     years since the rule went into effect, no Boeing sales have 
     been nixed as a result.
       Republican presidential hopeful Jeb Bush recently joined 
     the chorus of conservatives questioning the bank's purpose. 
     In late February, he told a gathering of the Club for Growth, 
     a conservative advocacy group, that the government should 
     consider whether this kind of financing ``should be phased 
     out.'' The bank's current authorization expires June 30 and 
     the lobbying battle is heating up.
       Its usual supporters include lawmakers of both parties, 
     including House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) and Minority 
     Leader Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.), as well as the U.S. Chamber 
     of Commerce, major labor unions, manufacturers and Wall 
     Street banks.
       Officials at Boeing declined to comment on the emails. In 
     general, said Tim Myers, president of Boeing Capital Corp., 
     Boeing's aircraft-financing unit, ``it would be only 
     natural'' for the bank to ask for input since Boeing is the 
     only U.S. maker of wide-body commercial aircraft.
       Tim Keating, the company's top Washington lobbyist, called 
     the interaction an example of how government should work: 
     ``There doesn't have to be a full hostile relationship 
     between the regulator and the regulated,'' he said.
       Matt Bevens, a spokesman for Ex-Im, said other countries 
     have their own export-financing agencies, but Ex-Im is the 
     only one that assesses the economic impact of its 
     transactions. Mr. Bevens, speaking on behalf of the 
     individual employees named in the emails, said the bank 
     developed the new guidelines voluntarily and that it would 
     have been ``irresponsible if Ex-Im Bank had failed to consult 
     the only American manufacturer of commercial aircraft.''
       Bank supporters say foreign airlines would buy planes from 
     European rival Airbus Group NV without Ex-Im financing. 
     Boeing customers are among the biggest recipients of Ex-Im 
     Bank loan guarantees. In the most recent fiscal year ended 
     Sept. 30, 2014, the bank helped Boeing sell 61 wide-body 
     planes to foreign airlines by guaranteeing more than $7 
     billion in loans.
       Overall, in that fiscal year the bank guaranteed $20.5 
     billion in financing for U.S. exports. The bank charges a fee 
     on its loans and made $675 million in profit that it sent to 
     the U.S. Treasury.
       Yet while the bank helps some American exporters, it irks 
     other domestic firms.
       Delta, for one, says the bank's financing gives rivals such 
     as Emirates Airline, Thai Airways International PLC and Air 
     India an advantage in their aircraft purchases that isn't 
     available to U.S. carriers. For some foreign airlines, Ex-Im 
     Bank's financing can be less expensive than a standard 
     commercial loan.
       It's amid such criticisms that the Ex-Im Bank and Boeing 
     collaboration began. In August 2012, a bank official 
     forwarded a draft proposal on the economic-impact trigger to 
     several senior executives at Boeing and its aircraft-
     financing unit.
       ``Please note that this is an internal Ex-Im document still 
     in draft form, but we wanted to get your input on several 
     aspects of it prior to further developing the paper,'' wrote 
     Claire Avett, an Ex-Im policy analyst on Friday, Aug. 31.
       ``We look forward to working closely with you to define 
     concrete next steps to be able to achieve these ends,'' she 
     wrote, referring to imminent internal deadlines.
       The next morning, Saturday, Sept. 1, a second bank official 
     sent a follow-up email. ``We do not have a lot of time,'' 
     wrote Mr. Morin, the Ex-Im official in charge of aircraft 
     financing.
       The emails suggest Ex-Im Bank officials wanted Boeing's 
     help to write guidelines that would limit the number of 
     additional reviews on aircraft purchases.
       ``Subjecting and applying other transactions to detailed 
     analysis under economic impact procedures has had the effect 
     of killing most of those deals,'' wrote Mr. Morin, in the 
     Sept. 1 email. ``Accordingly, it is very important that we 
     establish the correct procedures here,'' he said.
       Mr. Bevens, the Ex-Im Bank spokesman, says those deals were 
     killed by delays and uncertainty created by the review 
     process, not the review process itself. He said those delays 
     are why Boeing and its suppliers opposed subjecting aircraft 
     purchases to potentially lengthy scrutiny.
       A few hours later on Sept. 1, a senior official at Boeing 
     Capital responded that the company was working ``to look at 
     what data we can pull together.'' The Boeing official, Kristi 
     Kim, director of aircraft financial services at Boeing 
     Capital, said the company was building model impact studies 
     ``to see how the data would vary.''
       Tim Neale, a spokesman for Boeing, said the company's goal 
     was to ensure that the reviews were ``based on reasonable 
     criteria.''
       On Sept. 6, James Cruse, a senior vice president at Ex-Im's 
     policy and planning group, wrote to Boeing to thank the 
     company for its input. ``We recognize we are pushing and 
     pressing you in ways that are not in your natural strike zone 
     (and may verge toward ridiculous),'' he wrote.
       The next month, the partners delved into nitty-gritty 
     details, including the time frame that would be used to 
     assess economic impact (shortening the time period to 12 
     months might be best, one Boeing official suggested). They 
     settled on 12 months.
       They also discussed who would conduct the reviews, if they 
     were ever triggered. Boeing itself was an option because it 
     had access to industry data. Other options were Ex-Im Bank or 
     an outside consulting firm.
       In one email where the two sides discussed who should 
     conduct the analysis, Ms. Avett, the Ex-Im Bank policy 
     analyst, asks for input on ``what would be most palatable to 
     Boeing.''
       In the end, Ex-Im Bank took the job of performing the 
     reviews. In the two years since the new rules went into 
     effect, Ex-Im has helped finance roughly 50 aircraft deals. 
     Just one of those--a lease deal of Boeing planes by Aeroflot 
     Russian Airlines--triggered the detailed economic review. 
     Ultimately, that transaction was approved.

  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Emirates Airline probably has the money to pay for 
these wide-bodied jets. But I respect Mr. Heck from Washington because 
he is fighting for people that work in his district. That is what I am 
trying to do. I am trying to work and fight for those folks in my 
district.
  All we want is an opportunity to take an analysis, a real analysis, 
not one that the Ex-Im Bank called Boeing and said: You know what? You 
need to revise this number so we can understand or we can make a claim 
for the analysis that you need the money.

[[Page 17413]]

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in 
opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong 
opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Westmoreland), which, with all due respect, is a solution in search of 
a problem that, if adopted, will only serve to undermine the 
competitiveness of U.S. businesses.
  The fact is the Ex-Im Bank already has a process in place for 
providing public notice and comment under which any member of the 
public, including companies who believe they may have been harmed, may 
submit comments which the board reviews prior to approving any 
transaction.
  Lengthening this approval process by an additional 4 months, as the 
gentleman's amendment would do, would only serve to hurt our exporters 
by preventing them from competing in time-sensitive deals. Our U.S. 
exporters need and deserve every competitive edge they can get.
  I urge my Members to reject this unnecessary and burdensome 
amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to tell the 
gentlewoman that it is not 4 months. It is 60 days. Is 60 days too much 
to ask that you could go present your case in front of the board of 
directors? I think that is just fair.
  To the gentlewoman from California, I understand, but you are just 
reading something that your staff has given you. It is not 4 months. 
This is a new idea. I never got the chance to offer this amendment.
  Mr. Fincher, with the discharge petition, evidently wrote a perfect 
bill. I have been doing this for 25 years. I have never seen a perfect 
bill. We are trying to perfect the bill that Mr. Fincher wrote and that 
the discharge petition brought to the floor on a closed rule where 
nobody could have any amendments.
  All I am trying to do is get a fair shake for my folks, just like Mr. 
Heck of Washington is trying to get a fair shake for his. Give me the 
opportunity. Give us an opportunity to do that.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, what the gentleman 
doesn't realize is we are all trying to get a fair chance for our 
constituents, the small businesses and the jobs.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
  

  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the ranking member.
  Here we have another Delta amendment once again. The Ex-Im Bank 
already, Mr. Chairman, has a process in place for providing public 
notice and comment. Companies can provide feedback, which the board 
reviews prior to approving any transaction.
  I can tell you that this is very dilatory again. All of Delta's 
lawsuits have all been thrown out. This is only another attempt to 
force the Ex-Im Bank to delay. The frustrating delay is doing its work.
  I urge all my colleagues to vote against this dilatory amendment.

                              {time}  2200

  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time is remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck).
  Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Chairman, my favorite literary theme is 
illusion reality, where you do not know whether you are in an illusion 
or you are in reality. It is greatly used throughout our culture and 
great movies, like ``The Stunt Man,'' with Peter O'Toole, or in classic 
literature, like ``Ulysses,'' by--who?--James Joyce.
  It is not a good axis on which to pivot around an argument regarding 
public policy; so let's leave the illusion behind and go to reality. 
Here is the reality:
  The Ex-Im does support jobs--164,000 last year. GAO, which you keep 
citing, approved its methodology. What is the proof? We have already 
lost nearly 1,000 jobs since you shuttered the doors of the Ex-Im. The 
reality is this is unilateral disarmament if we fail to reauthorize it. 
Every other developed nation has an export authority.
  The reality is that this reduces deficit. The Ex-Im reduces deficit. 
Every year for 20 years, since the enactment of the Credit Reform Act, 
it has transferred cash. The heck with the accounting system--cash. The 
reality is a lot of these small businesses don't have an alternative.
  Steve Wilburn, who is the CEO of FirmGreen, stood before us last year 
and said: If you have got an alternative for my pending deal in Korea, 
tell me what it is. He lost the deal because of the cloud over Ex-Im. 
An Indian company got the job. This issue is about jobs.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I don't know what the gentleman is 
talking about with regard to reality because the reality is that my 
constituents are losing jobs, and that is not fair.
  I believe the gentleman is an attorney. All we want is an opportunity 
to go to the people who can make a decision and ask them to make that 
decision within 60 days. I am not going to go to the attorney who is 
fighting me and say: ``Hey, here is my analysis--or here is my thing. 
Take it, and give it to somebody else.'' That is the fox looking after 
the henhouse, and that is not the way we need to operate.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to 
how much time I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman has 2 minutes remaining.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fincher).
  Mr. FINCHER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, this already is allowed in the current charter. I know 
the gentleman from Georgia wants to play political games, but this is 
already happening. Yes, it is. This is just another attempt to try to 
kill the Bank--to keep it dead, to bury it.
  It is sad, Mr. Chairman. We worked on this reform package--this 
Republican reform package--for a year and a half. Where was the 
gentleman from Georgia with his amendment? Mr. Mulvaney with his 
amendments? and the other Members in this body with their amendments 
during this year and a half? We didn't get to have a committee process, 
Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, where was the process by which he could offer his 
amendment? No, Mr. Chairman. They wait until they could try to bury the 
Bank here tonight and kill thousands of jobs and reward China and 
Russia.
  We have to vote ``no'' on all of these amendments. Kill them all. 
Let's revive American jobs and do what is best for our constituents.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, to the gentleman from Frog Jump, if 
he would read section 2(e)(7)(c) to (d), he would understand that my 
amendment tries to amend the procedure. Now, I know he wrote the 
perfect bill, but I am trying to help the gentleman perfect it.
  Mr. Chairman, the other thing is I never saw the gentleman's bill. I 
never had a chance to amend the gentleman's bill. If the gentleman had 
allowed the open process--the right process--that the gentleman from 
Oklahoma talked about, then I would have had a chance to have offered 
my amendment; but, unfortunately, they chose to have a closed rule. So 
don't talk to me about process, because the process has not been 
followed here.
  I just want to make it clear that all I am trying to do is the same 
thing as everybody here is doing. I am trying to represent my 
constituents. I think I deserve a chance to do that, and I think we 
deserve a chance to perfect the bill that Mr. Fincher and the others 
brought to the floor under a discharge petition.

[[Page 17414]]

  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), one of our champions on the 
reauthorization of the Ex-Im Bank.
  Mr. LUCAS. I thank the ranking member.
  Mr. Chairman, I will note to my colleagues that I think the world of 
the gentleman from Georgia. He is a wonderful fellow as he is trying to 
help his people, but politics is like life--a lack of action is an 
action. When there was no action to help move an Export-Import 
reauthorization bill this spring or this summer, then the opportunity 
to do all of these great things went away. We all knew it was going to 
expire in July, and the people in critical positions chose to let that 
happen. Discharge was just an opportunity to resurrect what has already 
died.
  Now, I would say this:
  Let's finish the process. Let's put it back on the books for 4 years. 
Let's start the hearing process. If there are reforms and changes that 
need to be made, then let's file a new bill, and let's go with it; but 
let's not stop the opportunities economically that are created by this 
in the intervening period of time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say respectfully to my friend from Georgia, who 
has out-Southerned me, you are wrong on this one, sir.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will 
be postponed.


             Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Young of Iowa

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10 
printed in part B of House Report 114-326.
  Mr. YOUNG of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amend the table of contents by inserting after the item 
     pertaining to section 62001 the following:

            TITLE LXIII--REQUIREMENTS REGARDING RULE MAKINGS

Sec. 63001. Requirements regarding rule makings.

       Page 988, insert after line 20 the following:

            TITLE LXIII--REQUIREMENTS REGARDING RULE MAKINGS

     SEC. 63001. REQUIREMENTS REGARDING RULE MAKINGS.

       For each publication in the Federal Register required to be 
     made by law and pertaining to a rule made to carry out this 
     Act or the amendments made by this Act, the agency making the 
     rule shall include in such publication a list of information 
     on which the rule is based, including data, scientific and 
     economic studies, and cost-benefit analyses, and identify how 
     the public can access such information online.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. Young) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. YOUNG of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  We talk a lot about transparency and accountability around here. We 
hear about transparency and accountability needs from our constituents 
regarding the Federal Government. It is time to quit just talking the 
talk and walk the talk.
  The question is: How do rulemakers get their conclusions? How do they 
come to a decision when they are working on rules and regulations?
  They have certain science and data and criteria and analyses that 
they look at, but we don't often get to see that. We hear their 
conclusions, and we wonder: How did they get to that conclusion? They 
used science, data, and analyses.
  My amendment simply says that those scientific tools, data, and 
analyses have to be made public and just posted online. It is pretty 
simple. The data they used needs to go online so we can see it all as 
well and have the same benchmark and be on the same page. Why shouldn't 
Americans have access to this as well? Why shouldn't we have a more 
transparent government? Just post a link on the Internet. Let's walk 
the talk on transparency.
  This amendment has been approved before as part of the REINS Act that 
passed 249-159. Now, the REINS Act looked at the whole Federal 
Government, but this amendment just pertains to the Department of 
Transportation. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It is 
common sense. It is what our constituents demand--common sense and 
transparency.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MOORE. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Foxx). The gentlewoman from Wisconsin is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. MOORE. Madam Chair, this amendment would not only undo all of 
Dodd-Frank but all financial market regulations past, present, and 
future. I support the cost-benefit analyses mandates that are already 
contained in Federal securities laws and in President Obama's executive 
orders.
  This particular amendment, of course, is dilatory, and it would mean 
that rulemaking would take even longer as the SEC has struggled to meet 
the impossibly subjective economic cost-benefit standards to stave off 
upcoming court battles over competing economic impact projections.
  Not only that, Madam Chair, but the most dangerous part about this 
initiative is that this would open the door to the most powerful 
industry participants. If it were possible to make rules, they could 
challenge the rules in a way that achieved their most narrow interests, 
and it would be to the detriment of investors or to the less affluent 
market participants. In this way, the most powerful industry interests 
would not only be able to use the courts to undo consumer protections, 
but they would also seek competitive advantages over competitors.
  Current law already requires the SEC to conduct economic analyses, 
pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Congressional Review Act, 
and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as other agencies do.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Iowa. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I heard my friend from the other side talk about the SEC and Dodd-
Frank and executive orders. We are just, really, talking about any 
rules and regulations pertaining to this act--the transportation bill, 
primarily the Department of Transportation.
  I believe that it is very important that we have more transparency 
and accountability in government. I do not see what is wrong with the 
American people being allowed to see the data, the cost-benefit 
analyses, the science, and the criteria of those who make these rules. 
What is so wrong with that, with being on the same page?
  I simply ask my colleagues to support this amendment. Transparency 
and accountability, we talk about it a lot, but we don't do enough of 
it. I have some other great transparency and accountability amendments, 
and we will worry about those later. Right now, I am asking my 
colleagues to support transparency and accountability. Let the American 
people see how we make decisions that affect their lives.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MOORE. Madam Chair, will the Chair advise me as to how much time 
I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Wisconsin has 3 minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. MOORE. Madam Chair, I appreciate the fact that the gentleman has 
claimed that he is restricting this to the highway bill; but, again, it 
is problematic because it would really impose

[[Page 17415]]

cost-benefit analyses on all rulemaking under the highway bill, as 
amended.
  It would require several rulemakings from the SEC that are related to 
emerging growth companies, private security transaction exemptions, and 
disclosure reforms. It would require the SEC to comply with this 
additional hurdle that is administratively burdensome and that opens up 
the SEC to additional litigation risks. It is not just limited to the 
transportation bill just in terms of its multiplier impact.

                              {time}  2215

  This legislation is just yet another veiled attempt to stop the Ex-Im 
Bank, which we have discussed earlier today, because it, again, would 
create a sufficiently high bar to pass new rulemaking and open up every 
SEC rule to ongoing litigation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Iowa. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Transparency is a good thing. Shining sunlight is a good thing. It is 
the best disinfectant out there.
  Why can't we know, the American people, the science and the cost 
benefit behind the rules and regulations that are inflicted upon the 
American people, good or bad, whatever they are?
  Madam Chairman, the other side, my friend mentioned the Ex-Im Bank. I 
am not in that battle with this amendment. This is just about general 
rules and regulations, the science behind them. Why can't the American 
people know what it is? We will all be on the same playing field, so we 
know what we are talking about. It is a good thing.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MOORE. Madam Chair, this has been misnamed as a transparency 
bill. It is not a transparency bill. This cost benefit bill literally 
is a race-to-the-courthouse bill, and we would just be in an endless 
litigious position.
  We are already late with the transportation bill. We have already 
created great uncertainty for all of our cities, counties, and towns in 
America. Why would we now want to subject our broken bridges and our 
broken transportation system to yet another dilatory tactic that sort 
of slows down our ability to create good jobs and to fix our 
infrastructure?
  Madam Chair, I would urge all Members to vote against this initiative 
because it is wrong-headed at a time when we really need to get our 
transportation infrastructure improvements back on track.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Iowa. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time 
to close.
  So we can't find out what the science is. At the same time, we don't 
even know who these nameless, faceless folks are in the bureaucracy who 
are putting out these rules and regulations. Why are we to be left in 
the dark? What is wrong with transparency? Sunlight is the best 
disinfectant. The American people are tired of this, are tired about 
this veil around our government.
  I don't care what administration it is, Republican, Democrat, why 
should it matter. I put my name on a bill and amendment. You do, too. 
These rules and regulations that come out, we have no idea who these 
people are. They could be very well intended and that is fine. We don't 
know what their titles are either. Are they experts in their fields? We 
don't know. Where is the transparency?
  This amendment passed in a bipartisan way before. I am asking for my 
colleagues to support it this time.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Young).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. MOORE. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa will be 
postponed.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments printed in part B of House Report 
114-326 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following 
order:
  Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Perry of Pennsylvania.
  Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Mulvaney of South Carolina.
  Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Mulvaney of South Carolina.
  Amendment No. 4 by Mr. Mulvaney of South Carolina.
  Amendment No. 5 by Mr. Mulvaney of South Carolina.
  Amendment No. 6 by Mr. Mulvaney of South Carolina.
  Amendment No. 7 by Mr. Rothfus of Pennsylvania.
  Amendment No. 8 by Mr. Royce of California.
  Amendment No. 9 by Mr. Schweikert of Arizona.
  Amendment No. 23 by Mr. Westmoreland of Georgia.
  Amendment No. 10 by Mr. Young of Iowa.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any 
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Perry

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry) on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 121, 
noes 303, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 607]

                               AYES--121

     Abraham
     Allen
     Amash
     Barr
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Buck
     Burgess
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Collins (GA)
     Conaway
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Harris
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hurt (VA)
     Jenkins (KS)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McSally
     Meadows
     Messer
     Miller (FL)
     Mooney (WV)
     Mulvaney
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Roe (TN)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Salmon
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Stewart
     Stutzman
     Tipton
     Walker
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Williams
     Wittman
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--303

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Aguilar
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Barletta
     Barton
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Bost
     Boustany
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter (GA)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donovan
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gibbs
     Gibson

[[Page 17416]]


     Graham
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Hartzler
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jolly
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Knight
     Kuster
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Long
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     MacArthur
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Marino
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meng
     Mica
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Moore
     Moulton
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Newhouse
     Nolan
     Norcross
     Nunes
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Roby
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Russell
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stefanik
     Stivers
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Trott
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Weber (TX)
     Welch
     Westerman
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Womack
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Babin
     DeFazio
     Ellmers (NC)
     Meeks
     Rice (NY)
     Sinema
     Takai
     Wagner
     Wilson (FL)

                              {time}  2245

  Messrs. KILDEE and RUSH changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. WEBSTER, HURT of Virginia, and Ms. JENKINS of Kansas changed 
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. BABIN. Madam Chair, on rollcall No. 607, my voting card didn't 
register. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''


                Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Mulvaney

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney) on which further proceedings were postponed and 
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 117, 
noes 309, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 608]

                               AYES--117

     Abraham
     Allen
     Amash
     Babin
     Barr
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Brat
     Buck
     Burgess
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Collins (GA)
     Conaway
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Farenthold
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Grayson
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Harris
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Love
     Lummis
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Messer
     Miller (FL)
     Mooney (WV)
     Mulvaney
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Olson
     Palmer
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Roe (TN)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (TX)
     Stewart
     Stutzman
     Tipton
     Walker
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Williams
     Wittman
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--309

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Aguilar
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Barletta
     Barton
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Bost
     Boustany
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter (GA)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donovan
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emmer (MN)
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gowdy
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Hartzler
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jolly
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Knight
     Kuster
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Long
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     MacArthur
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McSally
     Meehan
     Meng
     Mica
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Moore
     Moulton
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Newhouse
     Nolan
     Norcross
     Nunes
     O'Rourke
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (NY)
     Rice (SC)
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Roby
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Russell
     Ryan (OH)
     Salmon
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stefanik
     Stivers
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Trott
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Weber (TX)
     Welch
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Womack
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--7

     DeFazio
     Ellmers (NC)
     Loudermilk
     Meeks
     Sinema
     Takai
     Wilson (FL)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  2249

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

[[Page 17417]]




                Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Mulvaney

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney) on which further proceedings were postponed and 
on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 124, 
noes 302, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 609]

                               AYES--124

     Abraham
     Allen
     Amash
     Babin
     Barr
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Buck
     Burgess
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Collins (GA)
     Conaway
     Culberson
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Grayson
     Guthrie
     Harris
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Love
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McSally
     Meadows
     Messer
     Miller (FL)
     Mooney (WV)
     Mulvaney
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Olson
     Palmer
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Roe (TN)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Salmon
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Stewart
     Stutzman
     Tipton
     Walberg
     Walker
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Williams
     Wittman
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--302

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Aguilar
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Barletta
     Barton
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Bost
     Boustany
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (IN)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter (GA)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donovan
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Hartzler
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jolly
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Knight
     Kuster
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Long
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     MacArthur
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Marino
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meng
     Mica
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Moore
     Moulton
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Newhouse
     Nolan
     Norcross
     Nunes
     O'Rourke
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pitts
     Pocan
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (NY)
     Rice (SC)
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Roby
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Russell
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stefanik
     Stivers
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Trott
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson Coleman
     Weber (TX)
     Welch
     Westerman
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Womack
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--7

     DeFazio
     Ellmers (NC)
     Loudermilk
     Meeks
     Sinema
     Takai
     Waters, Maxine

                              {time}  2253

  Mr. BYRNE changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Mulvaney

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney) on which further proceedings were postponed and 
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 116, 
noes 308, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 610]

                               AYES--116

     Abraham
     Allen
     Amash
     Babin
     Barr
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Brat
     Buck
     Burgess
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Collins (GA)
     Conaway
     Culberson
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Farenthold
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Grayson
     Guthrie
     Harris
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Love
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Messer
     Miller (FL)
     Mooney (WV)
     Mulvaney
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Olson
     Palmer
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Roe (TN)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Stewart
     Stutzman
     Tipton
     Walker
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Williams
     Wittman
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--308

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Aguilar
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Barletta
     Barton
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Bost
     Boustany
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter (GA)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crawford

[[Page 17418]]


     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donovan
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Hartzler
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jolly
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Knight
     Kuster
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Long
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     MacArthur
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Marino
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McSally
     Meehan
     Meng
     Mica
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Moore
     Moulton
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Newhouse
     Norcross
     Nunes
     O'Rourke
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pitts
     Pocan
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (NY)
     Rice (SC)
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Roby
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Russell
     Ryan (OH)
     Salmon
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stefanik
     Stivers
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Trott
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Weber (TX)
     Welch
     Westerman
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Womack
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--9

     DeFazio
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Loudermilk
     Meeks
     Nolan
     Ribble
     Sinema
     Takai


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  2256

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Mulvaney

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney) on which further proceedings were postponed and 
on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 117, 
noes 308, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 611]

                               AYES--117

     Abraham
     Allen
     Amash
     Babin
     Barr
     Barton
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Brat
     Buck
     Burgess
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Collins (GA)
     Conaway
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Farenthold
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Grayson
     Guthrie
     Harris
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hurt (VA)
     Jenkins (KS)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Love
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Messer
     Miller (FL)
     Mooney (WV)
     Mulvaney
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Olson
     Palmer
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Roe (TN)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Stewart
     Stutzman
     Tipton
     Walker
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Williams
     Wittman
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--308

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Aguilar
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Barletta
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Bost
     Boustany
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter (GA)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Connolly
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donovan
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emmer (MN)
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Hartzler
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jolly
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Knight
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Long
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     MacArthur
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Marino
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McSally
     Meehan
     Meng
     Mica
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Moore
     Moulton
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Newhouse
     Nolan
     Norcross
     Nunes
     O'Rourke
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pitts
     Pocan
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Roby
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Russell
     Ryan (OH)
     Salmon
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stefanik
     Stivers
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Trott
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Weber (TX)
     Welch
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Womack
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Conyers
     DeFazio
     Ellmers (NC)
     Loudermilk
     Meeks
     Rice (NY)
     Sinema
     Takai

[[Page 17419]]



                              {time}  2300

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Ms. SINEMA. Madam Chair, on rollcall Nos. 607, 608, 609, 610, 611, I 
was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' 
on each of these rollcall votes.


                Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Mulvaney

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney) on which further proceedings were postponed and 
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 114, 
noes 314, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 612]

                               AYES--114

     Abraham
     Allen
     Amash
     Babin
     Barr
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Brat
     Buck
     Burgess
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Collins (GA)
     Conaway
     Culberson
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Farenthold
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Harris
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hurt (VA)
     Jenkins (KS)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Love
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Messer
     Miller (FL)
     Mooney (WV)
     Mulvaney
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Olson
     Palmer
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Roe (TN)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Stewart
     Stutzman
     Tipton
     Walberg
     Walker
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Williams
     Wittman
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--314

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Aguilar
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Barletta
     Barton
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Bost
     Boustany
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter (GA)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donovan
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emmer (MN)
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Hartzler
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jolly
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Knight
     Kuster
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Long
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     MacArthur
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Marino
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McSally
     Meehan
     Meng
     Mica
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Moore
     Moulton
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Newhouse
     Nolan
     Norcross
     Nunes
     O'Rourke
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pitts
     Pocan
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (NY)
     Rice (SC)
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Roby
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Russell
     Ryan (OH)
     Salmon
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stefanik
     Stivers
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Trott
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Weber (TX)
     Welch
     Westerman
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Womack
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--5

     DeFazio
     Ellmers (NC)
     Loudermilk
     Meeks
     Takai


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  2303

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Rothfus

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus) on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 115, 
noes 313, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 613]

                               AYES--115

     Abraham
     Allen
     Amash
     Babin
     Barr
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Brat
     Buck
     Burgess
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Collins (GA)
     Conaway
     Culberson
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Farenthold
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Grayson
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Harris
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hurt (VA)
     Jenkins (KS)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Love
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Messer
     Miller (FL)
     Mooney (WV)
     Mulvaney
     Neugebauer
     Nugent
     Olson
     Palmer
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Roe (TN)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (TX)
     Stewart
     Stutzman
     Tipton
     Walker
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Williams
     Wittman
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--313

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Aguilar
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Barletta
     Barton
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Bost
     Boustany
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brown (FL)

[[Page 17420]]


     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter (GA)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donovan
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emmer (MN)
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Hartzler
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jolly
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Knight
     Kuster
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Long
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     MacArthur
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Marino
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McSally
     Meehan
     Meng
     Mica
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Moore
     Moulton
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nolan
     Norcross
     Nunes
     O'Rourke
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pitts
     Pocan
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (NY)
     Rice (SC)
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Roby
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Russell
     Ryan (OH)
     Salmon
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stefanik
     Stivers
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Trott
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Weber (TX)
     Welch
     Westerman
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Womack
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--5

     DeFazio
     Ellmers (NC)
     Loudermilk
     Meeks
     Takai

                              {time}  2307

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                  Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Royce

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Royce) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 183, 
noes 244, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 614]

                               AYES--183

     Abraham
     Allen
     Amash
     Babin
     Barr
     Barton
     Bera
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Collins (GA)
     Conaway
     Costello (PA)
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Grayson
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hardy
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Love
     Lummis
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Ribble
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stewart
     Stutzman
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NOES--244

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Aguilar
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Barletta
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Bost
     Boustany
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Bridenstine
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bucshon
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter (GA)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanna
     Harper
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jolly
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Knight
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Long
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     MacArthur
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Marino
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meng
     Mica
     Moore
     Moulton
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (NY)
     Rice (SC)
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Russell
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stefanik
     Stivers
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Trott
     Tsongas
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walters, Mimi
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine

[[Page 17421]]


     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Womack
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Blum
     DeFazio
     Ellmers (NC)
     Loudermilk
     Meeks
     Takai


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  2310

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


               Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Schweikert

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Schweikert) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 133, 
noes 295, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 615]

                               AYES--133

     Abraham
     Allen
     Amash
     Babin
     Barr
     Barton
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Buck
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Collins (GA)
     Conaway
     Culberson
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Farenthold
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Love
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McSally
     Meadows
     Messer
     Miller (FL)
     Mooney (WV)
     Mulvaney
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Olson
     Palmer
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Ribble
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stewart
     Stutzman
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Walberg
     Walker
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Williams
     Wittman
     Woodall
     Yoho
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--295

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Aguilar
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Barletta
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Bost
     Boustany
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (IN)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter (GA)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donovan
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emmer (MN)
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves (MO)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jolly
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Knight
     Kuster
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Long
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     MacArthur
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Marino
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meng
     Mica
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Moore
     Moulton
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Newhouse
     Nolan
     Norcross
     Nunes
     O'Rourke
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (NY)
     Rice (SC)
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Russell
     Ryan (OH)
     Salmon
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stefanik
     Stivers
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiberi
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Trott
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Weber (TX)
     Welch
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Womack
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--5

     DeFazio
     Ellmers (NC)
     Loudermilk
     Meeks
     Takai


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  2314

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


              Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Westmoreland

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Westmoreland) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 129, 
noes 298, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 616]

                               AYES--129

     Abraham
     Allen
     Amash
     Babin
     Barr
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Brat
     Buck
     Burgess
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Collins (GA)
     Conaway
     Culberson
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Farenthold
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Graves (GA)
     Grayson
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Love
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Messer
     Miller (FL)
     Mooney (WV)
     Mulvaney
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palmer
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Ribble
     Roe (TN)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stewart
     Stutzman
     Tipton
     Walker
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)

[[Page 17422]]


     Wittman
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--298

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Aguilar
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Barletta
     Barton
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Bost
     Boustany
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter (GA)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donovan
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emmer (MN)
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gowdy
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jolly
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Knight
     Kuster
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Long
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     MacArthur
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Marino
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McSally
     Meehan
     Meng
     Mica
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Moore
     Moulton
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Newhouse
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (NY)
     Rice (SC)
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Roby
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Russell
     Ryan (OH)
     Salmon
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stefanik
     Stivers
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Trott
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Weber (TX)
     Welch
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Womack
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--6

     DeFazio
     Ellmers (NC)
     Joyce
     Loudermilk
     Meeks
     Takai


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  2318

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


             Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Young of Iowa

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Young) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 236, 
noes 192, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 617]

                               AYES--236

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DeSaulnier
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NOES--192

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brooks (AL)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Collins (NY)
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Harper
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jolly
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rogers (KY)
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruiz

[[Page 17423]]


     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--5

     DeFazio
     Ellmers (NC)
     Loudermilk
     Meeks
     Takai

                              {time}  2321

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          Personal Explanation

  Mr. LOUDERMILK. Madam Chair, on rollcall Nos. 608, 609, 610, 611, 
612, 613, 614, 615, 616, 617, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yes.''


                 Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Pompeo

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11 
printed in part B of House Report 114-326.
  Mr. POMPEO. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 12, after the item relating to section 62001, insert 
     the following:

Sec. 62002. GAO report on refunds to registered vendors of kerosene 
              used in noncommercial aviation.

       Page 988, after line 20, insert the following:

     SEC. 62002. GAO REPORT ON REFUNDS TO REGISTERED VENDORS OF 
                   KEROSENE USED IN NONCOMMERCIAL AVIATION.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall--
       (1) conduct a study regarding payments made to vendors of 
     kerosene used in noncommercial aviation under section 
     6427(l)(4)(C)(ii) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and
       (2) submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a 
     report describing the results of such study, which shall 
     include estimates of--
       (A) the number of vendors of kerosene used in noncommercial 
     aviation who are registered under section 4101 of such Code,
       (B) the number of vendors of kerosene used in noncommercial 
     aviation who are not so registered,
       (C) the number of vendors described in subparagraph (A) who 
     receive payments under section 6427(l)(4)(C)(ii) of such 
     Code,
       (D) the excess of--
       (i) the amount of payments which would be made under 
     section 6427(l)(4)(C)(ii) of such Code if all vendors of 
     kerosene used in noncommercial aviation were registered and 
     filed claims for such payments, over
       (ii) the amount of payments actually made under such 
     section, and
       (E) the number of cases of diesel truck operators 
     fraudulently using kerosene taxed for use in aviation.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentleman 
from Kansas (Mr. Pompeo) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas.
  Mr. POMPEO. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to have the GAO 
study an important issue that goes to the fairness of our 
transportation user-fee system. For a decade, Congress has been 
diverting millions of dollars in tax revenue into the highway trust 
fund at the expense of the general aviation community. This provision, 
commonly known as the fuel fraud tax, was included in the 2005 highway 
bill. It was originally created to fight a problem that didn't exist 
and has now diverted hundreds of millions of dollars from aviation into 
the highway trust fund.
  This is simply unfair. It has to be fixed. The highway trust fund 
should and must be supported by the user-fee system, just as the 
aviation community is supported by a fuel tax.
  Madam Chair, hopefully we can all agree that general aviation should 
not be paying for this highway infrastructure. At the very least, 
revenues paid by U.S. aviators under the fuel fraud provision should be 
reinvested in modernizing our Nation's airports and their navigation 
system.
  I look forward to working with Chairman Shuster and the ranking 
member on this important issue, and I urge my colleagues to vote for 
this amendment.
  With that, Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Pompeo).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Foster

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12 
printed in part B of House Report 114-326.
  Mr. FOSTER. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 12, after the item relating to section 62001, insert 
     the following:

Sec. 62002. Determination of certain spending and tax burdens by State.

       Page 988, after line 20, insert the following:

     SEC. 62002. DETERMINATION OF CERTAIN SPENDING AND TAX BURDENS 
                   BY STATE.

       (a) Calculation of Federal Revenue Contributions by 
     State.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Treasury, acting through 
     the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, shall 
     calculate the Federal tax burden of each State for each 
     calendar year.
       (2) Calculation of federal tax burden.--For purposes of 
     calculating the Federal tax burden of each State under 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary shall--
       (A) treat Federal taxes paid by an individual as a burden 
     on the State in which such individual resides; and
       (B) treat Federal taxes paid by a legal business entity as 
     a burden on each State in which economic activity of such 
     entity is performed in the same proportion that the economic 
     activity of such entity in such State bears to the economic 
     activity of such entity in all the States.
       (3) Report.--Not later than the date that is 180 days after 
     the beginning of each calendar year, the Secretary of the 
     Treasury shall--
       (A) submit to Congress a report containing the results of 
     the calculations described in sections 1 and 2 with respect 
     to such calendar year; and
       (B) publish the report on a publicly accessible website of 
     the Internal Revenue Service.
       (b) Annual Report on the Flow of Transportation Funds by 
     State.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than the first Monday in 
     February of each year, the Secretary of Transportation shall, 
     in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, submit to 
     the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs and the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee 
     on Transportation and Infrastructure, and the Committee on 
     Ways and Means of the House of Representatives a report that 
     includes--
       (A) a description of the total amount of the funds 
     authorized by this Act which were obligated with respect to 
     each State during the last ending fiscal year,
       (B) a description of the total amount of revenue 
     contributed from each State to the Highway Trust Fund during 
     such fiscal year.
       (2) Determination of state amounts.--For purposes of this 
     subsection--
       (A) In general.--the State with respect to which an amount 
     is obligated and the State from which revenue is contributed 
     shall be determined under principles similar to the 
     principles for determining the Federal tax burden of each 
     State under subsection (a).
       (B) Special rule for general fund transfers.--For purposes 
     of paragraph (1)(B), any transfer from the general fund of 
     the Treasury to the Highway Trust Fund during any fiscal year 
     shall be taken into account as revenue contributed from each 
     State in proportion to each State's Federal tax burden (as 
     determined under subsection (a)) for the calendar year in 
     which such fiscal year began.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Foster) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. FOSTER. Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman and ranking member 
for their hard work on this bill.
  Madam Chairman, my amendment is simple. It requires the Department of 
Transportation to send an annual report to Congress on how much funding 
each State has received from the highway trust fund and how much each 
State has contributed to the highway trust fund both directly through 
the gas tax and related fees and taxes and indirectly through transfers 
from the general fund.
  To understand why this is important, let's step back and ask how it 
is that we actually decide how much transportation money is spent in 
each State.

[[Page 17424]]

The bulk of this funding takes the form of formula grants to States 
with overall allocations often set by whatever was done in previous 
years. This may tell us a lot about congressional politics in years 
gone by, but it tells us very little about good public policy.
  All of this serves as a smokescreen which begs the real question: How 
do we actually allocate our highway spending?
  Now, I am a scientist, and I look at the facts. As far as I can tell, 
here are the facts.
  This is a plot here that shows the annual per capita spending from 
the highway trust fund plotted against the number of U.S. Senators per 
10 million people, which I will explain in a moment.
  Madam Chair, I include this in the Record.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Per Capita
                                      Apportionment     Senators  Per 10
               State                  from HTF  ($/     Million  People
                                          Year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama...........................                151               4.12
Alaska............................                657              27.15
Arizona...........................                105               2.97
Arkansas..........................                168               6.74
California........................                 91               0.52
Colorado..........................                 96               3.73
Connecticut.......................                135               5.56
Delaware..........................                175              21.38
Dist. of Col......................                234              30.35
Florida...........................                 92               1.01
Georgia...........................                123               1.98
Hawaii............................                115              14.09
Idaho.............................                169              12.24
Illinois..........................                107               1.55
Indiana...........................                139               3.03
Iowa..............................                153               6.44
Kansas............................                126               6.89
Kentucky..........................                145               4.53
Louisiana.........................                146               4.30
Maine.............................                134              15.04
Maryland..........................                 97               3.35
Massachusetts.....................                 87               2.96
Michigan..........................                103               2.02
Minnesota.........................                115               3.66
Mississippi.......................                156               6.68
Missouri..........................                151               3.30
Montana...........................                387              19.54
Nebraska..........................                148              10.63
Nevada............................                123               7.04
New Hampshire.....................                120              15.07
New Jersey........................                108               2.24
New Mexico........................                170               9.59
New York..........................                 82               1.01
North Carolina....................                101               2.01
North Dakota......................                324              27.05
Ohio..............................                112               1.73
Oklahoma..........................                158               5.16
Oregon............................                122               5.04
Pennsylvania......................                124               1.56
Rhode Island......................                200              18.95
South Carolina....................                134               4.14
South Dakota......................                319              23.44
Tennessee.........................                125               3.05
Texas.............................                124               0.74
Utah..............................                114               6.80
Vermont...........................                313              31.92
Virginia..........................                118               2.40
Washington........................                 93               2.83
West Virginia.....................                228              10.81
Wisconsin.........................                126               3.47
Wyoming...........................                423              34.24
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. FOSTER. Madam Chair, this plot shows the excellent correlation 
between the per capita transportation fund spending in each State with 
the number of Senators per person that the State has. And that says a 
lot about how broken our transportation trust fund allocations are.
  So how do we allocate transportation spending? Is it calculated per 
capita, with each American getting roughly the same amount of 
transportation spending? If this were the case, then transportation 
money would ultimately follow Americans to whatever States they chose 
to live in and could be applied to the best use in each State: elegant 
mass transportation systems in urban States, highways through the 
wilderness in rural States, and well-maintained commuter highways in 
suburban States. Spending in this way would not be a distortion of our 
economy.
  But, Madam Chairman, that is not what we do. In fact, per capita 
transportation spending varies by more than a factor of seven from 
State to State driven by a mysterious formulae handed down from 
generation to generation in Congress. So, in my State of Illinois, we 
get about $107 per person per year in transportation spending, and I 
have a hard time explaining to my constituents why citizens of other 
States should get $200, $400, $600, or more every year in Federal 
highway spending.

                              {time}  2330

  The States that are getting rooked like this generally are the larger 
States, as can be seen on this plot. In order to rectify this, I 
actually filed an amendment to replace the complex historical formulae 
with a simple per capita allotment, which would have benefited the 
States which contain 240 Members of the U.S. Congress. I was very 
disappointed that it was decided that this amendment would not be in 
order.
  Or perhaps we should divide the highway trust fund by economic 
productivity and actual highway usage. In this case, each State should 
take out from the Federal highway trust fund the same amount that it 
paid in in taxes. This approach would have an element of basic fairness 
and eliminate the economic distortions from massive transfers of wealth 
between the States.
  But that is not what we do either. Many States are getting out of the 
Federal highway trust fund several times more money than they paid into 
it, while other States, States like Illinois, New York, Florida, New 
Jersey, California, Michigan, Colorado, and many others are getting 
rooked. So the highway trust fund has simply become a vehicle for a 
massive redistribution of wealth from one State to another.
  Getting to the bottom of this is what my amendment is about. My 
amendment would require the Department of Transportation to calculate 
in each year how much each State receives from the highway trust fund. 
The report would also include an accounting of how much revenue each 
State put into the highway trust fund through both the gas tax and 
related contributions and contributions that were made through funds 
transferred from general revenue.
  While it is relatively easy to figure out how much revenue was 
collected from each State via the gas tax or personal income tax, 
determining the same for business tax is less straightforward. A 
business, for example, may file its taxes in Delaware, but most of its 
economic production might occur in a factory in Ohio.
  My amendment would require the IRS to assist the Department of 
Transportation in this analysis by looking not just at where a company 
files its taxes, but the State in which those tax dollars are 
generated. This kind of analysis has sporadically been done by private 
entities and nonprofits, but there has never been a sustained effort by 
the Federal Government to do so.
  I urge my colleagues to join me and vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  



                Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Williams

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13 
printed in part B of House Report 114-326.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 563, line 15, insert ``primarily'' before ``engaged''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Williams) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Madam Chair, I am a second-generation auto dealer. I 
have been in the industry for most of my life. I know it well.
  As such, my one-word amendment will fix Senate language that puts 
unintentional new burdens on all rental car establishments.
  My amendment will clarify the Senate language so it only applies to 
actual rental car companies, like it is supposed to.
  The definition in the underlying bill, which the House never passed, 
is so broad that it sweeps up dealers who offer loaner vehicles or 
rentals as a convenience for their customers. My amendment leaves the 
regulations on all rental car companies, which compromise 99 percent of 
the market, intact.
  The Senate language is flawed because it simply is not tailored to 
small business. For example, under the bill, vehicles would be grounded 
for weeks or months for such minor compliance matters as an airbag 
warning sticker that might peel off the sun visor or an incorrect phone 
number printed in the owner's manual. The regulations in this bill are 
not proportionate.
  Another problem is that this bill favors multinational rental car 
companies at the expense of small businesses.

[[Page 17425]]

This bill will regulate a small-business dealer with a fleet of five 
loaner vehicles the same way it would regulate a massive rental car 
company with hundreds of thousands of vehicles in their fleet.
  The bill even allows large rental car companies additional compliance 
time, which further disadvantages small businesses. Madam Chair, large 
businesses have regulatory and legal staffs available on-hand to help 
with this burden, and they have the capital to pay millions of dollars 
in regulatory compliance costs.
  The average small-business owner, however, is his or her own legal 
and regulatory staff. Without my amendment, this bill would impose new 
government inspections, additional recordkeeping requirements, and new 
penalties up to $15 million on small businesses.
  The Senate bill also gives the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration the authority to add more regulatory burdens as 
appropriate, and that is too open-ended.
  Without my amendment, this bill could make it impractical for small-
business dealers to provide loaner or rental cars to their customers 
because it mandates vehicles be grounded for minor compliance matters 
with a minimal impact on safety, and that is not what Congress' intent 
is or should be.
  Madam Chair, in tax law, employment law, and other areas, Congress 
has recognized the difference between big business and small business. 
Let's not regulate our Main Street businesses like multinational 
corporations. Frankly, Main Street is hurting enough as it is.
  Vote ``yes'' on the Williams amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chair, Mr. Williams' amendment unreasonably 
limits the application of the Raechel and Jacqueline Houck Safe Rental 
Car Act that is included in the Senate amendments to H.R. 22.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), 
the woman who has really been a leader for safety in the car rental 
field.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Chair, I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the Williams amendment.
  This amendment would needlessly exempt auto dealers from critical 
vehicle safety requirements included in the underlying bill.
  While Federal law currently prohibits auto dealers from selling new 
cars subject to a recall, there is no similar law prohibiting rental 
companies or auto dealers from renting or loaning out unrepaired 
recalled vehicles.
  I introduced the Raechel and Jacqueline Houck Safe Rental Car Act to 
close this loophole and prohibit rental car companies and auto dealers 
from renting or loaning vehicles under safety recall until they are 
fixed, and I am pleased this legislation is in the underlying bill.
  This harmful amendment, however, would put lives at risk by exempting 
auto dealers from complying with this commonsense safety requirement.
  GM, Honda, Chrysler, and other car manufacturers who have issued 
safety recalls, are loaning out tens of thousands of cars to customers 
while the repairs are being made. Consumers expect that the loaner cars 
they receive when they take their own cars into a dealership for 
repairs are safe to drive. But rather than ensure these loaners are 
safe, the Williams amendment would allow car dealers to give out loaner 
cars that have the same exact defect as the car that is being repaired.
  The auto dealers are justifying this amendment by claiming that some 
safety recalls aren't actually important enough to require immediate 
repairs. This is ridiculous. NHTSA does not issue frivolous recalls. 
All safety recalls pose serious safety risks and should be fixed as 
soon as possible. Any claim otherwise is simply not true.
  Madam Chair, it only takes one car with an unrepaired safety recall 
to tragically end a life. That is what happened to Raechel and Jackie 
Houck when their rented PT Cruiser caught fire and crashed into a 
tractor-trailer due to an unrepaired recall. And that is what happened 
to Jewel Brangman when she was killed by the unrepaired Takata airbag 
in her rented Honda Civic.
  Loaned cars from auto dealers should be no different. The Williams 
amendment would let these auto dealers off the hook and allow them to 
loan out defective cars to unsuspecting consumers. It creates a 
nonsensical double standard for rentals and loaner cars not based on 
how unsafe they are, but based on who is renting or loaning them to the 
public. Keeping unrepaired recalled cars parked in the lot and out of 
the hands of consumers is common sense.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the Williams amendment to 
ensure all consumers can be confident that their rental car or their 
loaner car is safe to drive, regardless of whether they get it from a 
rental company or a dealership.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for her 
leadership.
  I understand that everyone has car dealerships in their districts and 
they are an important part of our economy, but this amendment serves 
one purpose and one purpose only: allowing car dealers and rental car 
companies to evade responsibility.
  Just like rental car companies, car dealerships rent and lease 
vehicles regularly. And just like rental car companies, car dealerships 
should not be renting or leasing cars that are subject to a safety 
recall without first repairing the defect. These are safety recalls on 
cars the auto manufacturers themselves have deemed necessary to repair.
  Can you imagine bringing your car to a dealer to get a deadly Takata 
airbag replaced and then being given a loaner car with the same deadly 
Takata airbag to drive while your car is being repaired? That is the 
situation that this amendment would allow.
  Of all those subjected to the Safe Rental Car Act, car dealerships 
are in the best position to fix these recalled cars quickly.
  Instead of this amendment, which weakens the Senate provision, the 
Rules Committee should have made in order the gentlewoman's amendment 
expanding the provision to ensure used cars are not sold until recalls 
are fixed.
  Whether or not renting cars is the company's primary business makes 
no business. A defective car is a defective car.
  Rental companies and auto dealers alike have a responsibility to 
their customers, and we have a responsibility to ensure that consumers' 
lives are not put at risk.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), my good friend who is an auto dealer.
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman.
  Madam Chair, I am fascinated. I have been here for 5 years. And the 
fact is that people who don't have any idea about how a business is run 
are constantly telling people how to run their business; they are 
people who don't have the foggiest idea of who auto dealers are or who 
our responsibility is to and the fact that all recalls are not created 
equal.
  There is not a single person in our business that would ever put one 
of our owners in a defective car or a car with a recall. But that could 
happen. That could happen.
  So if you are telling me that, because the wrong phone number is 
printed in an owner's manual, that is a recall, we have to get that car 
off the road, my God, can you imagine what would happen to this owner 
if they opened up that glove box and saw that? What a horrible 
situation to put them in. Now, you shake your heads and you say, no, 
that is not what is going on.
  Now, please, this is what I do. This is who I am. We are a third-
generation automobile business, sold thousands of cars. And these 
people are not just customers. They are our part of our extended 
families.

[[Page 17426]]

  But somehow we believe that, if we can redefine, if we can tell 
people: ``This car has been recalled. You can't possibly get in it'' 
and you say: ``Well, what is the recall?'', well, you know what? One 
pound per square inch on the tire pressure is not printed correctly. 
That is horrible. How could that possibly be? You have got to get that 
car off the road.
  You are subjecting automobile dealers to the same things that you are 
subjecting rental car companies who don't have to worry about it 
because, by the way, as those cars come off the road in a recall, the 
factories pay them for those cars as they sit waiting to be repaired. 
There is no loss of revenue for a rental car company. That is why they 
are so happy about it.
  And what will they do with us when we take a car off the road? They 
will say: ``Send your customer to us and we will rent them a car.''
  If you can't see the difference, if you can't see the unequal balance 
in it, then there is a problem here. If a safety recall is a safety 
recall, that is one thing. But if it is something else that is 
cosmetic, that is something altogether different, to group them all 
under the same umbrella and say: ``This is a problem. This is a problem 
hunting for some type of an issue and there is no issue here. There is 
none of us in our business that would ever put any of our owners in an 
unsafe car.
  But I will tell you what. I wish some of these ridiculous amendments 
would expire.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.

                              {time}  2345

  Mr. WILLIAMS. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Auto dealers, much like us here in Washington, D.C., have a 
reputation to uphold. No auto dealer in his right mind would loan a 
vehicle to his customers that is unsafe to drive or operate. Auto 
dealers should not have to ground all of their loaner vehicles because 
of minor issues like a sticker that might peel off the sun visor 
because something was misspelled in the owner's manual. Auto dealers 
want to provide great service and be able to loan their customers 
vehicles so they can go to work, drop their kids off at school, go to 
the grocery store, and visit the doctor. These small business owners 
should not be regulated like huge, multinational car rental agencies.
  I urge Members to support my amendment and protect small businesses.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams).
  The amendment was agreed to.


         Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Kinzinger of Illinois

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 14 
printed in part B of House Report 114-326.
  Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle B of title XXXIV of division C, add 
     the following:

     SEC. 34216. AVAILABILITY OF CERTAIN INFORMATION ON MOTOR 
                   VEHICLE EQUIPMENT.

       Section 30118 of title 49, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) Information on Defective or Noncompliant Parts.--
       ``(1) Provision of information by suppliers.--A supplier of 
     parts that are determined to be defective or noncompliant by 
     the Secretary under subsection (a) or (b) shall identify all 
     parts that are subject to the recall and provide to the 
     Secretary and each affected manufacturer, not later than 3 
     business days after receiving notification of the 
     determination, for each affected part--
       ``(A) all part names;
       ``(B) all part numbers; and
       ``(C) a description of the part.
       ``(2) Provision of information by manufacturers.--Upon 
     receipt of notification of a determination by the Secretary 
     under subsection (a) or (b) or notification from a supplier 
     of parts under paragraph (1), a manufacturer of motor 
     vehicles shall--
       ``(A) identify the vehicle identification number for each 
     affected vehicle; and
       ``(B) not later than 5 business days after receiving such 
     notification, provide to the Secretary, in a searchable 
     format determined by the Secretary--
       ``(i) the vehicle identification numbers identified under 
     subparagraph (A); and
       ``(ii) the specific part names, numbers, and descriptions 
     used by the manufacturer for all affected parts the sale or 
     lease of which is prohibited by section 30120(j).
       ``(3) Availability of information on the internet.--In the 
     case of information provided by a manufacturer under 
     paragraph (2)(B), the Secretary shall make such information 
     available, or require the manufacturer to make such 
     information available, on an Internet website that may be 
     accessed by any person who sells or leases motor vehicle 
     equipment for purposes of assisting such person in complying 
     with section 30120(j). Such information shall be made 
     available in real-time or near-real-time as provided under 
     paragraph (2)(B) and at no cost to the person obtaining 
     access.
       ``(g) Information on Original Equipment.--Not later than 
     July 31, 2016, a manufacturer of motor vehicles shall make 
     available on an Internet website information about the 
     original equipment contained in such vehicles, which shall 
     include--
       ``(1) all parts or component numbers for such equipment; 
     and
       ``(2) specific part names and descriptions associated with 
     each manufacturer vehicle identification number.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I rise today to offer an amendment that would improve vehicle safety 
and ensure that businesses have the necessary information to comply 
with section 8 of the TREAD Act.
  Every day, professional automotive recyclers sell over a half a 
million original equipment manufacturer parts which are harvested from 
total loss or end-of-life vehicles and are resold to consumers, repair 
shops, and dealers. These parts are designed by automakers and are 
manufactured to meet their requirements. Even when a vehicle may reach 
the end of its useful life, many parts have a greater lifespan and can 
be subsequently recycled, resold, and reused. This offers consumers 
with additional choice to purchase a quality recycled part at a lower 
cost.
  In 2000, Congress enacted the TREAD Act to increase vehicle safety by 
prohibiting the resale of recycled auto parts that are subject to a 
recall and have not been remedied. Congress passed this legislation 
with the safety of the driving public in mind. However, the ability of 
professional automotive recyclers to identify and remove recalled parts 
from the supply chain is severely limited.
  Earlier this year, Secretary Foxx responded to a question for the 
record on this subject following a House Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee hearing. He recommended that automotive 
manufacturers provide part number information in an efficient and easy-
to-use format directly to recyclers and others who need the information 
to support auto safety. My amendment does just that and will ensure 
these businesses can identify such parts and remove them from their 
inventory.
  Our friends in the European Union have already implemented 
regulations requiring such a system that includes the VIN, OE parts 
numbers, and the OE naming of the parts. I know we have the 
technological capabilities to similarly improve vehicle safety, and I 
am hoping that my colleagues will show their commitment to improving 
the recall process with an ``aye'' vote. Now is the time to pass this 
measure.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although 
I am not opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Illinois is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chair, while I am not going to oppose the 
amendment, I do have some questions about it.
  For this reason, it seems to me that this amendment is not likely to 
be all

[[Page 17427]]

that effective in getting defective parts off the market: It only 
requires parts suppliers and automakers to supply information when a 
recall is first ordered by the Secretary of Transportation. It does not 
apply in the most common recall scenario when a manufacturer provides 
notice of a recall.
  So NHTSA is going to be asked to expend valuable resources to set up 
a new system for auto part information, and that system, it seems to 
me, should at least be effective in getting defective parts off the 
market and off the roads in all circumstances of recalls.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. I appreciate my friend from Illinois' 
response. I would be happy to work with her in the future on this.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 15 Offered by Ms. Schakowsky

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 15 
printed in part B of House Report 114-326.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 574, insert after line 6 the following new sections:

     SEC. 34216. IMPROVED VEHICLE SAFETY DATABASES.

       Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary shall increase public accessibility to and 
     timeliness of information on the National Highway Traffic 
     Safety Administration's vehicle safety databases including 
     by--
       (1) improving organization and functionality, including 
     modern web design features, and allowing for data to be 
     searched, aggregated, and downloaded;
       (2) providing greater consistency in presentation of 
     vehicle safety issues;
       (3) improving searchability about specific vehicles and 
     issues through standardization of commonly used search terms 
     and the integration of databases to enable all to be 
     simultaneously searched using the same keyword search 
     function; and
       (4) improving the publicly accessible early warning 
     database, by--
       (A) enabling users to search for incidents across multiple 
     reporting periods for a given make and model name, model 
     year, or type of potential defect; and
       (B) ensuring that search results, in addition to being 
     downloadable, are sortable within an Internet browser by 
     make, model name, model year, State or foreign country of the 
     incident, number of deaths, number of injuries, date of the 
     incident, and type of potential defect.

     SEC. 34217. IMPROVED USED CAR BUYERS GUIDE.

       In addition to the information already required to be 
     included pursuant to section 455.2 of title 16, Code of 
     Federal Regulations (the Used Motor Vehicle Trade Regulation 
     Rule), the Buyers Guide window form shall include--
       (1) a statement of the vehicle's brand history, total loss 
     history, and salvage history according to the vehicle's 
     National Motor Vehicle Title Information System (NMVTIS) 
     vehicle history report, the date on which the dealer obtained 
     the vehicle history report, and the website where a consumer 
     can obtain a vehicle history report; and
       (2) a statement of the vehicle's recall repair history 
     according to the vehicle identification number search tool 
     established pursuant to section 31301 of the Moving Ahead for 
     Progress in the 21st Century Act (49 U.S.C. 30166 note), the 
     date on which the used vehicle dealer obtained the recall 
     repair history, and the website where a consumer may obtain 
     this information.

     SEC. 34218. RETENTION OF SAFETY RECORDS BY MANUFACTURERS.

       (a) Rule.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue a final rule 
     pursuant to section 30117 of title 49, United States Code, 
     requiring each manufacturer of motor vehicles or motor 
     vehicle equipment to retain all motor vehicle safety records, 
     including documents, reports, correspondence, or other 
     materials that contain information concerning malfunctions 
     that may be related to motor vehicle safety (including any 
     failure or malfunction beyond normal deterioration in use, or 
     any failure of performance, or any flaw or unintended 
     deviation from design specifications, that could in any 
     reasonably foreseeable manner be a causative factor in, or 
     aggravate, an accident or an injury to a person), for a 
     period of not less than 20 calendar years from the date on 
     which they were generated or acquired by the manufacturer. 
     Such requirement shall also apply to all underlying records 
     on which information reported to the Secretary under part 579 
     of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, is based.
       (b) Application.--The rule required by subsection (a) shall 
     apply with respect to any record described in such subsection 
     that is in the possession of a manufacturer on the effective 
     date of such rule.

     SEC. 34219. ELIMINATION OF REGIONAL RECALLS.

       Section 30118 of title 49, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new subsections:
       ``(f) Long-term Exposure to Environmental Conditions.--If a 
     manufacturer of a motor vehicle or replacement equipment 
     learns the vehicle or equipment contains a safety problem 
     caused by long-term exposure to environmental conditions, the 
     manufacturer shall give notice under subsection (c) as if the 
     manufacturer learned the vehicle or equipment contains a 
     defect and decides in good faith that the defect is related 
     to motor vehicle safety.
       ``(g) National Orders and Notifications.--All orders under 
     subsection (b)(2) and notifications under subsection (c) 
     shall be carried out on a national basis and shall not be 
     limited to vehicles or equipment in certain States or 
     territories or other geographic regions of the United States. 
     This paragraph shall not prevent the Secretary from 
     permitting the prioritization of the shipment of replacement 
     parts by geographic location when appropriate.''.

     SEC. 34220. APPLICATION OF REMEDIES FOR DEFECTS AND 
                   NONCOMPLIANCE.

       Section 30120(g)(1) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``the motor vehicle or replacement 
     equipment was bought by the first purchaser more than 10 
     calendar years, or''.

     SEC. 34221. PEDESTRIAN SAFETY IMPROVEMENT RULE.

       (a) Safety Research Initiative.--Not later than 2 years 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall 
     complete research into the development of safety standards or 
     performance requirements to reduce the number of injuries and 
     fatalities suffered by pedestrians and other non-occupants 
     who are struck by passenger motor vehicles.
       (b) Specifications.--In carrying out subsection (a), the 
     Secretary shall consider means for protecting especially 
     vulnerable pedestrian and non-occupant populations, including 
     children, older adults, and individuals with disabilities.
       (c) Rulemaking or Report.--
       (1) Rulemaking.--Not later than 1 year after the completion 
     of each testing and research initiative required under 
     subsection (a), the Secretary shall initiate a rulemaking 
     proceeding to issue a Federal motor vehicle safety standard 
     if the Secretary determines that such a standard meets the 
     requirements and considerations set forth in subsections (a) 
     and (b) of section 30111 of title 49, United States Code.
       (2) Report.--If the Secretary determines that the standard 
     described in paragraph (1) does not meet the requirements and 
     considerations set forth in subsections (a) and (b) of 
     section 30111 of title 49, United States Code, the Secretary 
     shall submit a report describing the reasons for not 
     prescribing such a standard to the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
     Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate.
       (d) Passenger Motor Vehicle Defined.--In this section, the 
     term ``passenger motor vehicle''--
       (1) means a motor vehicle (as defined in section 30102(a) 
     of title 49, United States Code) that is rated at less than 
     10,000 pounds gross vehicular weight; and
       (2) does not include--
       (A) a motorcycle;
       (B) a trailer; or
       (C) a low speed vehicle (as defined in section 571.3 of 
     title 49, Code of Federal Regulations).
  


     SEC. 34222. RULEMAKING ON REAR SEAT CRASHWORTHINESS.

       (a) Safety Research Initiative.--Not later than 2 years 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall 
     complete research into the development of safety standards or 
     performance requirements for the crashworthiness and 
     survivability for passengers in the rear seats of motor 
     vehicles.
       (b) Specifications.--In carrying out subsection (a), the 
     Secretary shall consider side- and rear-impact collision 
     testing, additional airbags, head restraints, seatbelt fit, 
     seatbelt airbags, belt anchor location, and any other factors 
     the Secretary considers appropriate.
       (c) Rulemaking or Report.--
       (1) Rulemaking.--Not later than 1 year after the completion 
     of each research and testing initiative required under 
     subsection (a), the Secretary shall initiate a rulemaking 
     proceeding to issue a Federal motor vehicle safety standard 
     if the Secretary determines that such a standard meets the 
     requirements and considerations set forth in subsections (a) 
     and (b) of section 30111 of title 49, United States Code.
       (2) Report.--If the Secretary determines that the standard 
     described in paragraph (1) does not meet the requirements and 
     considerations set forth in subsections (a) and (b) of 
     section 30111 of title 49, United States

[[Page 17428]]

     Code, the Secretary shall submit a report describing the 
     reasons for not prescribing such a standard to the Committee 
     on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and 
     the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentlewoman 
from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Illinois.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chair, in the wake of the GM and Takata 
recalls, it became apparent that major changes were needed to improve 
information sharing, enhance safety, and strengthen accountability 
measures. This amendment addresses some of those issues, and I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Before I explain the contents of this amendment, it is important to 
explain what is not in the amendment.
  There are no new civil penalties for companies that fail to 
adequately protect drivers and the public. There is no ``imminent 
hazard authority'' to enable NHTSA to get the most dangerous cars off 
the road as soon as possible. While I believe those changes are sorely 
needed, I knew that the Republican majority would oppose them. What is 
left are some of the more obvious reforms for auto safety, and there is 
no reasonable excuse to oppose the amendment.
  This amendment would improve the functionality of the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Web site to enable better and 
more detailed searches, to standardize terms so that consistent 
problems can be identified faster, and to improve the early warning 
database so that consumers can determine whether a vehicle they drive 
or plan to drive has a history of dangerous incidents.
  My amendment would also increase the amount of information provided 
to consumers who are purchasing or leasing used vehicles, including 
specific vehicle damage history and recall repair history. It would 
include that information in the Used Car Buyers Guide, which already 
must be posted on each used vehicle that is offered for sale; and it 
would inform consumers about the Web site, which is where they can find 
more information about their specific vehicle history.
  The investigations into the GM and Takata failures were made more 
difficult by the fact that comprehensive safety records were not 
maintained by many manufacturers. This amendment would fix that by 
ensuring that those records are preserved for 20 years.
  Auto manufacturers are not currently required to remedy recalled 
vehicles if those cars were sold more than 10 years before the recall. 
That makes no sense, especially when the average car on the road is 
more than 11 years old. This amendment would require all defects to be 
remedied at no cost to the car owner no matter how long the car has 
been owned.
  With more than 30,000 deaths a year, we have a long way to go in 
reducing deaths and serious injuries on our roads. There are things we 
can and should do to enhance auto safety, and Congress has a long track 
record of doing just that.
  For example, a bill I sponsored, which was signed into law by 
President Bush, established a rulemaking to require technologies that 
would enable drivers to see behind their vehicles. By 2018, rear 
cameras will be standard for all cars. That rule will prevent more than 
100 deaths and many more injuries each year.
  This amendment would require NHTSA to continue that progress by 
requiring research into technologies and then developing standards that 
could reduce injuries and deaths for rear seat passengers and 
pedestrians.
  Finally, this amendment eliminates the flawed system of regional 
recalls. Regional recalls limit remedies to specific States. This 
prevents vehicles which have traveled across the country from being 
recalled.
  Takata issued regional recalls for its airbags, but with high 
humidity being a factor in airbag explosions, it makes no sense that 
its regional recall missed, for example, Washington, D.C.--a swamp, 
with all due respect. While most of Takata's regional recalls were 
expanded nationally, not all of them were, and some drivers can't 
legally get their vehicles remedied free of charge. We can't allow this 
regional recall system to continue.
  Again, these are commonsense, safety-focused provisions that would 
enhance consumer information, vehicle safety, and accountability.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chair, for some time now, the Energy and Commerce 
Committee, its Subcommittee of Oversight and Investigations as well as 
its Subcommittee of Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade, have been 
looking into recalls and automobile safety.
  We have heard about problems within the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration and about problems within the automobile 
industry, itself. There is a lot to fix, and there are provisions to 
get after those issues in terms of recommendations from the Inspector 
General's Office.
  Serious flaws of the basic operation of the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration were revealed earlier this year in a widely 
reported inspector general's report. In an unprecedented move after the 
inspector general's report was released, the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration publicly committed to a timeline to implement all 
of the inspector general's recommendations because of the serious and 
direct impact on NHTSA's ability to fulfill its core mission.
  You do worry that the direction in which this amendment purports to 
now go is going to send resources in the wrong direction. It is going 
to be very, very friendly to the Plaintiff's Trial Bar, but, really, 
that is not where our focus should be. Of course, the Plaintiffs' Bar 
wants to be able to download, sort, and map all of the incidents 
attributable by an automaker so that they can file class action 
lawsuits--very, very good for the Plaintiffs' Bar, not necessarily so 
good for the consumer.
  The problem is there is a real cost in going in this direction. More 
resources are diverted to defending non meritorious lawsuits, and that 
means less can go into safety and quality. Effectively, this provision 
starves the consumer in order to feed the Plaintiffs' Bar.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chair, how much time is remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Illinois has 1 minute 
remaining.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chair, I would say to my colleague, as the 
chairman of the subcommittee I serve on and that deals with auto 
safety, I know, for a very long time, he has certainly seen the 
legislation that I have offered in the past, and this is the first time 
that I have heard that argument.
  The idea of this legislation was to pair down the bill that I had 
introduced into the kinds of safety enhancements that the gentleman and 
many of the Republicans on the committee also had in their legislation.
  The goal is one thing: to make sure that we provide more safety, 
strengthen accountability, and that we share more information with 
consumers. The amendment addresses those issues. It has avoided, 
studiously, the more controversial parts of auto safety bills that 
maybe, someday, we can come back to, but the goal was to get a good 
start.
  I am disappointed that there is opposition to this amendment, but I 
still urge my colleagues to support it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I would just restate that this amendment takes us in the wrong 
direction; so I urge my colleagues to vote in opposition to the 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.

[[Page 17429]]


  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Illinois 
will be postponed.

                              {time}  0000


                 Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Mullin

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 16 
printed in part B of House Report 114-326.
  Mr. MULLIN. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle D of title XXXIV insert the 
     following new part:

                   PART IV--ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLES

     SEC. 34441. REGULATION PARITY FOR ELECTRIC AND NATURAL GAS 
                   VEHICLES.

       (a) In General.--In promulgating regulations, the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Administration 
     shall ensure that any preference or incentive provided to an 
     electric vehicle is also provided to a natural gas vehicle.
       (b) Revision of Existing Regulations.--Not later than 180 
     days after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Administrator shall revise any regulations of the 
     Administrator in existence as of that date concerning 
     electric vehicles as necessary to ensure that the regulations 
     conform to subsection (a).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. MULLIN. Madam Chair, the EPA currently regulates the tailpipe 
emissions of automobiles sold in the United States. In order to 
incentivize the use of alternative fuels, the agency provides 
regulatory credits to automakers that produce alternative fuel 
vehicles.
  The EPA has provided greater incentives for manufacturers to produce 
electric vehicles rather than natural gas vehicles, even though natural 
gas is a growing and inexpensive source of fuel with a clean emission 
profile.
  If we are going to incentivize alternative fuel vehicles, we need to 
make sure that natural gas vehicles are on a level playing field. My 
amendment does exactly that, encouraging the broader adoption of 
natural gas vehicles. It instructs EPA to provide the same incentives 
for the production of natural gas vehicles that it already provides for 
electric vehicles.
  In States like mine in Oklahoma, natural gas is cheap, but filling 
stations for vehicles can be few and far between. Consumers are 
hesitant to buy natural gas vehicles because they are afraid they won't 
have access to filling stations.
  The surface transportation bill encourages the build of natural gas 
refueling corridors. My amendment will add to the effort by encouraging 
automakers to produce the vehicles that will actually consume the 
natural gas fuel.
  This is a commonsense amendment, pro competition, and a reform the 
auto industry needs. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment, which would undermine the Obama administration's 
historic vehicle fuel economy and tailpipe emission standards.
  The EPA and the Department of Transportation rules provide huge 
benefits. They help consumers save money at the pump, reduce reliance 
on foreign oil, and reduce the carbon pollution that threatens our 
climate and our health. By 2025, these rules are expected to save 
American families $1.7 trillion on fuel costs, cut greenhouse gas 
emissions by 6 billion metric tons, and reduce America's dependance on 
oil by more than 2 million barrels per day.
  These are rules that have been an overwhelming success due in large 
part to the high level of coordination and participation of multiple 
stakeholder groups in their development. We are talking about groups 
like automobile manufacturers, State and local governments, the United 
Auto Workers, consumer groups, environmental organizations, and the 
public. In short, these rules are good for American consumers, 
manufacturers, and the environment.
  The Mullin amendment would undermine the success of existing and 
future car rules by requiring EPA to extend any ``preference or 
incentive'' provided to electric vehicles to natural gas vehicles as 
well.
  The amendment also requires EPA to go back and make retroactive 
changes to the tailpipe rules already on the books. Some of these rules 
were finalized 3 years ago, and reopening these carefully coordinated 
negotiations makes no sense.
  The Mullin amendment would effectively say that natural gas vehicles 
and electric vehicles are exactly the same, but they are fundamentally 
different in terms of their tailpipe emissions and the miles per gallon 
they get on the road.
  Natural gas vehicles already receive numerous incentives under the 
tailpipe and fuel economy rules, and natural gas vehicles are an 
established and functioning technology, so there is little need to 
incentivize them further for reasons of technological innovation. This 
is in contrast with electric vehicles for whom many of the current 
incentives are designed.
  The amendment is also not justified from a climate perspective. 
Electric vehicles have the potential to be game changers, especially 
with low greenhouse gas electricity. On the other hand, natural gas 
vehicles continue to depend on a fossil fuel with no such game-changing 
potential. Also, because natural gas is already a very viable fuel for 
heavy-duty vehicles, additional incentives would essentially be bonuses 
for using a fuel that would have been used anyway. So this would dilute 
the heavy-duty vehicle GHG program.
  The Mullin amendment would give windfall incentives to automobile 
manufacturers that produce natural gas vehicles, creating a loophole 
that will allow them to produce other dirty and less efficient vehicles 
and still meet their tailpipe emissions and fuel economy requirements. 
This sets a dangerous precedent that subverts essential rules that were 
developed through an open public rulemaking process, including all 
stakeholders, and undermines critical U.S. energy conservation 
policies.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MULLIN. Madam Chair, I appreciate what the gentlewoman is 
stating. All we are trying to do is listen to the President, too, when 
he says he has an all-the-above approach on energy.
  The gentlewoman states that electric vehicles are a clean way to 
drive around, but I must remind the gentlewoman that the power that 
they are charged by typically is produced by coal and natural gas power 
plants. So the argument that she is saying just simply doesn't make any 
sense.
  The EPA has already said that their emissions fits within their 
profile. What we are saying is let's truly have an all-the-above 
approach and allow natural gas to be on a natural, clean playing field.
  If we are going to talk about having a real conversation and not 
playing politics, then we shouldn't be playing winners and losers with 
this administration and the real fight, which is against--anti-fossil 
fuels altogether.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chair, my view is, if it ain't broke, don't fix 
it. We have had a good deal of success with the current rules, and to 
change the game plan right now, I think, is a disservice to consumers, 
to all the other stakeholders, including the auto manufacturers, the 
unions, the consumer groups, and everybody who has weighed in and 
bought in to these rules.
  So I would urge a ``no'' vote on the Mullin amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MULLIN. Madam Chair, I obviously encourage a ``yes'' vote, and I 
encourage my colleagues to support it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin).

[[Page 17430]]

  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Burgess

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 17 
printed in part B of House Report 114-326.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 550, strike line 24 and all that follows through page 
     551, line 4, and insert the following:
       (A) $31,270,000 for fiscal year 2016.
       (B) $36,537,670 for fiscal year 2017.
       (C) $42,296,336 for fiscal year 2018.
       (D) $47,999,728 for fiscal year 2019.
       (E) $54,837,974 for fiscal year 2020.
       (F) $61,656,407 for fiscal year 2021.
       Insert after subtitle D of title XXXIV the following new 
     subtitle:

            Subtitle E--Additional Motor Vehicle Provisions

     SEC. 34501. REQUIRED REPORTING OF NHTSA AGENDA.

       Not later than December 1 of the year beginning after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, and each year thereafter, the 
     Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety 
     Administration shall publish on the public website of the 
     Administration, and file with the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
     Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate an annual 
     plan for the following calendar year detailing the 
     Administration's projected activities, including--
       (1) the Administrator's policy priorities;
       (2) any rulemakings projected to be commenced;
       (3) any plans to develop guidelines;
       (4) any plans to restructure the Administration or to 
     establish or alter working groups;
       (5) any planned projects or initiatives of the 
     Administration, including the working groups and advisory 
     committees of the Administration; and
       (6) any projected dates or timetables associated with any 
     of the items described in paragraphs (1) through (5).

     SEC. 34502. APPLICATION OF REMEDIES FOR DEFECTS AND 
                   NONCOMPLIANCE.

       Section 30120(g)(1) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``10 calendar years'' and inserting ``15 
     calendar years''.

     SEC. 34503. RETENTION OF SAFETY RECORDS BY MANUFACTURERS.

       (a) Rule.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall 
     issue a final rule pursuant to section 30117 of title 49, 
     United States Code, requiring each manufacturer of motor 
     vehicles or motor vehicle equipment to retain all motor 
     vehicle safety records required to be maintained by 
     manufacturers under section 576.6 of title 49, Code of 
     Federal Regulations, for a period of not less than 10 
     calendar years from the date on which they were generated or 
     acquired by the manufacturer.
       (b) Application.--The rule required by subsection (a) shall 
     apply with respect to any record described in such subsection 
     that is in the possession of a manufacturer on the effective 
     date of such rule.

     SEC. 34504. NONAPPLICATION OF PROHIBITIONS RELATING TO 
                   NONCOMPLYING MOTOR VEHICLES TO VEHICLES USED 
                   FOR TESTING OR EVALUATION.

       Section 30112(b) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (8), by striking ``; or'' and inserting a 
     semicolon;
       (2) in paragraph (9), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(10) the introduction of a motor vehicle in interstate 
     commerce solely for purposes of testing or evaluation by a 
     manufacturer that prior to the date of enactment of this 
     paragraph--
       ``(A) has manufactured and distributed motor vehicles into 
     the United States that are certified to comply with all 
     applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards;
       ``(B) has submitted to the Secretary appropriate 
     manufacturer identification information under part 566 of 
     title 49, Code of Federal Regulations;
       ``(C) if applicable, has identified an agent for service of 
     process in accordance with part 551 of such title; and
       ``(D) agrees not to sell or offer for sale the motor 
     vehicle at the conclusion of the testing or evaluation.''.

     SEC. 34505. TREATMENT OF LOW-VOLUME MANUFACTURERS.

       (a) Exemption From Vehicle Safety Standards for Low-volume 
     Manufacturers.--Section 30114 of title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``The'' and inserting ``(a) Vehicles Used 
     for Particular Purposes.--The''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(b) Exemption for Low-volume Manufacturers.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall--
       ``(A) exempt from section 30112(a) of this title not more 
     than 500 replica motor vehicles per year that are 
     manufactured or imported by a low-volume manufacturer; and
       ``(B) except as provided in paragraph (4) of this 
     subsection, limit any such exemption to the Federal Motor 
     Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to motor vehicles and not 
     motor vehicle equipment.
       ``(2) Registration requirement.--To qualify for an 
     exemption under paragraph (1), a low-volume manufacturer 
     shall register with the Secretary at such time, in such 
     manner, and under such terms that the Secretary determines 
     appropriate. The Secretary shall establish terms that ensure 
     that no person may register as a low-volume manufacturer if 
     the person is registered as an importer under section 30141 
     of this title.
       ``(3) Permanent label requirement.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall require a low-volume 
     manufacturer to affix a permanent label to a motor vehicle 
     exempted under paragraph (1) that identifies the specified 
     standards and regulations for which such vehicle is exempt 
     from section 30112(a) and designates the model year such 
     vehicle replicates.
       ``(B) Written notice.--The Secretary may require a low-
     volume manufacturer of a motor vehicle exempted under 
     paragraph (1) to deliver written notice of the exemption to--
       ``(i) the dealer; and
       ``(ii) the first purchaser of the motor vehicle, if the 
     first purchaser is not an individual that purchases the motor 
     vehicle for resale.
       ``(C) Reporting requirement.--A low-volume manufacturer 
     shall annually submit a report to the Secretary including the 
     number and description of the motor vehicles exempted under 
     paragraph (1) and a list of the exemptions described on the 
     label affixed under subparagraph (A).
       ``(4) Effect on other provisions.--Any motor vehicle 
     exempted under this subsection shall also be exempted from 
     sections 32304, 32502, and 32902 of this title and from 
     section 3 of the Automobile Information Disclosure Act (15 
     U.S.C. 1232).
       ``(5) Limitation and public notice.--The Secretary shall 
     have 60 days to review and approve a registration submitted 
     under paragraph (2). Any registration not approved or denied 
     within 60 days after submission shall be deemed approved. The 
     Secretary shall have the authority to revoke an existing 
     registration based on a failure to comply with requirements 
     set forth in this subsection. The registrant shall be 
     provided a reasonable opportunity to correct all 
     deficiencies, if such are correctable based on the sole 
     discretion of the Secretary. An exemption granted by the 
     Secretary to a low-volume manufacturer under this subsection 
     may not be transferred to any other person, and shall expire 
     at the end of the calendar year for which it was granted with 
     respect to any volume authorized by the exemption that was 
     not applied by the low-volume manufacturer to vehicles built 
     during that calendar year. The Secretary shall maintain an 
     up-to-date list of registrants on an annual basis and publish 
     such list in the Federal Register or on a website operated by 
     the Secretary.
       ``(6) Limitation of liability for original manufacturers, 
     licensors or owners of product configuration, trade dress, or 
     design patents.--The original manufacturer, its successor or 
     assignee, or current owner, who grants a license or otherwise 
     transfers rights to a low-volume manufacturer shall incur no 
     liability to any person or entity under Federal or State 
     statute, regulation, local ordinance, or under any Federal or 
     State common law for such license or assignment to a low-
     volume manufacturer.
       ``(7) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       ``(A) Low-volume manufacturer.--The term `low-volume 
     manufacturer' means a motor vehicle manufacturer, other than 
     a person who is registered as an importer under section 30141 
     of this title, whose annual worldwide production is not more 
     than 5,000 motor vehicles.
       ``(B) Replica motor vehicle.--The term `replica motor 
     vehicle' means a motor vehicle produced by a low-volume 
     manufacturer and that--
       ``(i) is intended to resemble the body of another motor 
     vehicle that was manufactured not less than 25 years before 
     the manufacture of the replica motor vehicle; and
       ``(ii) is manufactured under a license for the product 
     configuration, trade dress, trademark, or patent, for the 
     motor vehicle that is intended to be replicated from the 
     original manufacturer, its successors or assignees, or 
     current owner of such product configuration, trade dress, 
     trademark, or patent rights.''.
       (b) Vehicle Emission Compliance Standards for Low-volume 
     Motor Vehicle Manufacturers.--Part A of title II of the Clean 
     Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7521 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) in section 206(a) by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(5)(A) A motor vehicle engine (including all engine 
     emission controls) from a motor

[[Page 17431]]

     vehicle that has been granted a certificate of conformity by 
     the Administrator for the model year in which the motor 
     vehicle is assembled, or a motor vehicle engine that has been 
     granted an Executive order subject to regulations promulgated 
     by the California Air Resources Board for the model year in 
     which the motor vehicle is assembled, may be installed in an 
     exempted specially produced motor vehicle, if--
       ``(i) the manufacturer of the engine supplies written 
     instructions explaining how to install the engine and 
     maintain functionality of the engine's emission control 
     system and the on-board diagnostic system (commonly known as 
     `OBD II'), except with respect to evaporative emissions 
     diagnostics;
       ``(ii) the manufacturer of the exempted specially produced 
     motor vehicle installs the engine in accordance with such 
     instructions; and
       ``(iii) the installation instructions include emission 
     control warranty information from the engine manufacturer in 
     compliance with section 207, including where warranty repairs 
     can be made, emission control labels to be affixed to the 
     vehicle, and the certificate of conformity number for the 
     applicable vehicle in which the engine was originally 
     intended or the applicable Executive order number for the 
     engine.
       ``(B) A motor vehicle containing an engine compliant with 
     the requirements of subparagraph (A) shall be treated as 
     meeting the requirements of section 202 applicable to new 
     vehicles manufactured or imported in the model year in which 
     the exempted specially produced motor vehicle is assembled.
       ``(C) Engine installations that are not performed in 
     accordance with installation instructions provided by the 
     manufacturer and alterations to the engine not in accordance 
     with the installation instructions shall--
       ``(i) be treated as prohibited acts by the installer under 
     section 203; and
       ``(ii) subject to civil penalties under the first and third 
     sentences of section 205(a), civil actions under section 
     205(b), and administrative assessment of penalties under 
     section 205(c).
       ``(D) The manufacturer of an exempted specially produced 
     motor vehicle that has an engine compliant with the 
     requirements of subparagraph (A) shall provide to the 
     purchaser of such vehicle all information received by the 
     manufacturer from the engine manufacturer, including 
     information regarding emissions warranties from the engine 
     manufacturer and all emissions-related recalls by the engine 
     manufacturer.
       ``(E) To qualify to install an engine under this paragraph, 
     a manufacturer of exempted specially produced motor vehicles 
     shall register with the Administrator at such time and in 
     such manner as the Administrator determines appropriate. The 
     manufacturer shall submit an annual report to the 
     Administrator that includes--
       ``(i) a description of the exempted specially produced 
     motor vehicles and engines installed in such vehicles; and
       ``(ii) the certificate of conformity number issued to the 
     motor vehicle in which the engine was originally intended or 
     the applicable Executive order number for the engine.
       ``(F) Exempted specially produced motor vehicles compliant 
     with this paragraph shall be exempted from--
       ``(i) motor vehicle certification testing under this 
     section; and
       ``(ii) vehicle emission control inspection and maintenance 
     programs required under section 110.
       ``(G) A person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling 
     of exempted specially produced motor vehicles shall not be 
     treated as a manufacturer for purposes of this Act by virtue 
     of such manufacturing or assembling, so long as such person 
     complies with subparagraphs (A) through (E).''; and
       (2) in section 216 by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(12) Exempted specially produced motor vehicle.--The term 
     `exempted specially produced motor vehicle' means a replica 
     motor vehicle that is exempt from specified standards 
     pursuant to section 30114(b) of title 49, United States 
     Code.''.
       (c) Implementation.--Not later than 12 months after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Transportation and the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency shall issue such regulations as may be 
     necessary to implement the amendments made by subsections (a) 
     and (b), respectively.

     SEC. 34506. NO LIABILITY ON THE BASIS OF NHTSA MOTOR VEHICLE 
                   SAFETY GUIDELINES.

       Section 30111 of title 49, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(f) No Liability on the Basis of Motor Vehicle Safety 
     Guidelines Issued by the Secretary.--(1) No guidelines issued 
     by the Secretary with respect to motor vehicle safety shall 
     provide a basis for or evidence of liability in any action 
     against a defendant whose practices are alleged to be 
     inconsistent with such guidelines. A person who is subject to 
     any such guidelines may use an alternative approach to that 
     set forth in such guidelines that complies with any 
     requirement in a provision of this subtitle, a motor vehicle 
     safety standard issued under this subtitle, or another 
     relevant statute or regulation.
       ``(2) No such guidelines shall confer any rights on any 
     person nor shall operate to bind the Secretary or any person 
     who is subject to such guidelines to the approach recommended 
     in such guidelines. In any enforcement action with respect to 
     motor vehicle safety, the Secretary must prove a violation of 
     a provision of this subtitle, a motor vehicle safety standard 
     issued under this subtitle, or another relevant statute or 
     regulation. The Secretary may not build a case against or 
     negotiate a consent order with any person based in whole or 
     in part on practices of the person that are alleged to be 
     inconsistent with any such guidelines.
       ``(3) A defendant may use compliance with any such 
     guidelines as evidence of compliance with the provision of 
     this subtitle, motor vehicle safety standard issued under 
     this subtitle, or other statute or regulation under which 
     such guidelines were developed.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Burgess) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chair, the thesis of this amendment is to secure 
good government reforms at the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration.
  We want to make certain that we are able to exercise strong oversight 
of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and we want to 
make certain that NHTSA is staying within its authorized jurisdiction.
  We took some ideas that were raised by the minority, amended them to 
reflect things like the longer life of cars. We asked manufacturers to 
hold onto safety information for a longer period of time. We extend the 
time for free recall fix requirements.
  Lastly, we have added the bipartisan Low Volume Motor Vehicle 
Manufacturers Act of 2015 and provided adjusted funding levels to the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to advance their 
important safety work.
  This is an important amendment, and I urge my colleagues to accept 
it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chairman, by reducing appropriations for 
vehicle safety programs, Mr. Burgess' amendment is making it impossible 
for NHTSA, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, to 
actually carry out its critical vehicle safety functions.
  At the same time that this amendment drastically cuts funding for 
critical safety functions, the amendment also requires more reporting 
that diverts necessary resources, both people and dollars, from NHTSA's 
mission to save lives, prevent injuries, and reduce economic costs from 
traffic crashes.
  The average age of cars on the road in the United States has hit a 
record high at 11\1/2\ years. That is just the average. Many cars are 
even older.
  Instead of fully acknowledging this reality, this amendment only 
requires manufacturers to keep limited safety records for 15 years and 
only requires recall repairs to be free of charge for 10 years. The 
recent GM ignition switch recall covered vehicles that were more than 
10 years old. That means that, under this amendment, some owners of 
defective GM cars could have to pay to have the defect repaired.
  The amendment also exempts from motor vehicle safety standards 
replica cars. Brand-new cars would not have to meet any safety 
standards as long as they look like a car that was made 25 years ago. 
These cars could be exempt from seatbelt and airbag requirements, basic 
but crucial safety equipment. We have no idea how many replica cars 
will end up on the roads. Although each low-volume manufacturer is 
limited to 500 vehicles, there are no limits on the number of 
manufacturers.
  The low-volume provision would also exempt manufacturers of replicas, 
unlike all others who manufacture cars in small batches, from the EPA's 
emission standards concerning greenhouse gasses. Replica cars also 
would be exempt from State inspections and emissions testing and 
evaporative emission standards. In the wake of the recent

[[Page 17432]]

VW scandal, it is unthinkable that we would make it easier for any 
manufacturers to bypass emission standards and to continue to put 
public health at risk.
  The amendment also allows automakers and others to use compliance 
with guidelines as evidence of compliance with motor vehicle safety 
standards. By prohibiting NHTSA from using guidelines for enforcement 
purposes, the majority obviously recognizes that nonbinding guidelines 
are not the same as actual safety requirements. But at the same time, 
this amendment allows automakers to evade liability by showing that 
they complied with nonbinding guidelines instead of having to prove 
that they complied with safety mandates. This double standard makes no 
sense.
  Instead of ensuring that automakers are held responsible for safety 
violations they commit, this amendment gives them yet another out. This 
amendment will adversely affect the public health and safety.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chairwoman, as I advised earlier in speaking to 
another amendment, some significant flaws in the basic operations of 
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration were revealed 
earlier this year and reported in an inspector general's report.
  Again, in an unprecedented move, after the IG report was released, 
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration publicly committed 
to a timeline to implement all of the inspector general's 
recommendations because of their serious and direct impact on NHTSA's 
ability to fulfill its core mission. I am grateful to NHTSA that they 
had this commitment to these reforms.
  Just like the Senate language, our amendment does provide for 
additional funding to the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration. This amendment would increase NHTSA's funding by 23\1/
2\ percent for fiscal year 2016 and over 27 percent for fiscal year 
2017 from the authorized levels in the underlying bill. Maybe we don't 
go as far as the Senate, but these are significant and generous 
increases.
  Again, I will urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  0015

  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chair, actually there is an increase in my 
chairman's amendment. It is also a significant decrease from what the 
Senate has added to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 
Because we have so many deaths on the road, and NHTSA has been 
significantly underfunded, it definitely makes sense to as fully fund 
them as they can to provide their mission of auto safety.
  So, for that reason and all the others I listed, I certainly urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  This amendment also requires the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration to issue an agenda on December 1 of every year detailing 
the agency's policy priorities, their planned rulemakings, and any 
projected alterations to the agency structure. Actually, that is a good 
idea. Regulated entities, especially, should have an idea of what the 
focus of the agency is going to be in the upcoming months and years.
  The last time the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
published a planning report was 2011. They are asking us for more 
money. We are providing them with more money. All we ask is they 
provide us a glimpse into what their strategy is as to how that money 
will be effectively spent.
  This is a good amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will 
be postponed.


               Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Neugebauer

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 18 
printed in part B of House Report 114-326.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike sections 52203 and 52205.
       Insert after section 52202 the following:

     SEC. 52203. ELIMINATION OF SURPLUS FUNDS OF FEDERAL RESERVE 
                   BANKS.

       (a) Elimination of Surplus Funds.--Section 7 of the Federal 
     Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 289 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in the heading of such subsection, by striking ``and 
     Surplus Funds''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``deposited in the 
     surplus fund of the bank'' and inserting ``transferred to the 
     Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for transfer 
     to the Secretary of the Treasury for deposit in the general 
     fund of the Treasury''; and
       (2) by striking the first subsection (b) (relating to a 
     transfer for fiscal year 2000).
       (b) Transfer to the Treasury.--The Federal reserve banks 
     shall transfer all of the funds of the surplus funds of such 
     banks to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System 
     for transfer to the Secretary of the Treasury for deposit in 
     the general fund of the Treasury.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chair, I rise today to offer amendment No. 18 with the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), my good friend.
  First, let me say I don't think it is good policy that we are trying 
to fund transportation from other sectors of the economy. This 
amendment does seek to address two major issues in the budget offset 
sent over from the Senate--the Federal Reserve dividend increase and 
the g-fee increase.
  Moving forward with the Federal Reserve dividend reduction without 
studying it could have a devastating consequence for the supervision of 
the financial sector and the stability of the Federal Reserve System. 
The cost that banks, especially community banks, could face as a result 
of the dividend reduction would be passed on to hardworking consumers. 
At a time when many Americans continue to struggle from the unintended 
consequences of Dodd-Frank, it would be dangerous and irresponsible to 
move ahead with the Senate version.
  Second, this amendment addresses what I see as a further entrenchment 
of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This is particularly timely because just 
this week we learned that Fannie and Freddie may need to tap the 
Treasury once again and saddle the taxpayers with the bill. This 
amendment further protects the taxpayers. Allowing Congress to continue 
to raise g-fees will make comprehensive housing finance reform 
impossible.
  Our amendment addresses both problems by liquidating and dissolving 
the Federal Reserve capital surplus account. The Federal Reserve 
currently has about $29 billion in capital surplus account. This 
account is made up of the earnings that the Federal Reserve has 
retained from investing member banks' money. Let me say that again. The 
surplus account is made up of earnings that the Federal Reserve has 
made from investing member banks' money. The Federal Reserve continues 
to hold this account in surplus at a time when our Nation is over $18.5 
trillion in debt. This is not a perfect policy, but it is better than 
the alternative.
  This preserves the budget neutrality of the transportation bill and 
counters irresponsible proposals sent over to us

[[Page 17433]]

by the Senate. Further, it protects consumers from potential for cost 
increases while reforming the surplus account to meet the needs of the 
current fiscal crisis.
  When the surplus account was created, no one could have imagined the 
debt and deficits that we are facing. It is appropriate to liquidate 
this account to meet today's realities.
  Moving forward, I hope that this body will ensure that transportation 
funding comes from transportation users and not completely unrelated 
sectors of the economy.
  Madam Chair, in closing, I include for the Record a joint trade 
letter of support from 27 banking and housing groups in support of 
amendment No. 18.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
                                                 November 4, 2015.
     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     Speaker, House of Representatives.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives.
       Dear Speaker Ryan and Leader Pelosi: The undersigned 
     organizations urge the House to adopt the Neugebauer-Huizenga 
     amendment to H.R. 22, the DRIVE Act, which would remove two 
     harmful provisions from the Senate version of the bill.
       The Neugebauer-Huizenga amendment would remove from H.R. 22 
     a harmful proposal to reduce the dividend paid on Federal 
     Reserve stock that would have significant negative 
     consequences on banks of all sizes across the country. Member 
     banks of the Federal Reserve are required by law to purchase 
     stock in regional Federal Reserve Banks. This stock may not 
     be sold, transferred or even used as collateral, unlike 
     virtually every other asset a bank holds. These funds 
     represent ``dead capital'' for the financial institution. The 
     dividend that the Senate is considering reducing reflects the 
     unique structure and constraints of this arrangement that is 
     required by law, as this is money that otherwise would be 
     used by banks for lending and to provide other services to 
     customers.
       The Neugebauer-Huizenga amendment would also remove from 
     H.R. 22 an extension of higher Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac 
     guarantee fees. The purpose of these fees is to prospectively 
     guard against credit losses at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. G-
     fees should only be used to protect taxpayers from mortgage 
     losses, not to fund unrelated spending. Each time g-fees are 
     extended, increased and diverted for unrelated spending, 
     homeowners are charged more for their mortgages and taxpayers 
     are exposed to additional risk for the long-term. The g-fee 
     increase was originally included in the Senate highway bill 
     as a funding offset, but the Congressional Budget Office has 
     scored the House bill as being budget neutral without this 
     provision. It should be removed to ensure that potential 
     homebuyers are not kept on the sidelines by raising the cost 
     to purchase or refinance a home.
       To ensure it is fully offset, the Neugebauer-Huizenga 
     amendment would use the Federal Reserve's ``surplus'' account 
     of earnings retained after paying operating expenses and 
     dividends. As a result of recent changes in the way the 
     Federal Reserve operates, these retained earnings are no 
     longer necessary. This amendment would use funds from this 
     account to pay for the extension of the Highway Trust Fund.
       We urge the House to pass the Neugebauer-Huizenga amendment 
     to H.R. 22.
       America's Homeowner Alliance, American Escrow Association, 
     American Bankers Association, American Land Title 
     Association, Center for Responsible Lending, The Clearing 
     House, Community Home Lenders Association, Consumer Bankers 
     Association, Consumer Mortgage Coalition, Credit Union 
     National Association.
       The Financial Services Forum, Financial Services 
     Roundtable, Habitat for Humanity International, Homeownership 
     Preservation Foundation, Independent Community Bankers of 
     America, Leading Builders of America, Mid-size Bank Coalition 
     of America, Mortgage Bankers Association, National 
     Association of Hispanic Real Estate Professionals.
       National Association of Home Builders, National Association 
     of Real Estate Brokers, National Association of 
     REALTORS, Real Estate Services Providers Council, 
     Inc., The Realty Alliance, Securities Industry and Financial 
     Markets Association, U.S. Chamber of Commerce Center for 
     Capital Markets Competitiveness, U.S. Mortgage Insurers.

  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Madam Chair, I claim the time in 
opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairwoman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The 
Neugebauer amendment represents a poorly designed attempt to cover the 
cost of the highway bill. My colleague from Texas is concerned that the 
Senate's underlying provisions would cut the largest banks' guaranteed 
6 percent dividend payments from the Federal Reserve as well as extend 
a 10 basis point fee on new mortgages, although not until 2021.
  In place of those provisions, my colleague would eliminate the 
Federal Reserve surplus account without even considering whether it 
could harm monetary policy or our economic security in the decades 
ahead.
  I previously expressed concern about using Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac 
as a piggy bank to pay for unrelated government spending. Instead, 
Republicans should finally take up housing finance reform. Despite 
controlling this House for almost 5 years and the Senate for nearly 2, 
Republicans have entirely failed to reform the housing markets, despite 
claiming that the mortgage giants caused the crisis.
  Regarding the other Senate provision, I am not sure why the largest 
banks should be entitled to a permanent dividend payment of 6 percent a 
year. How many of my colleagues or their constituents have a safe 
investment that pays this well? In fact, most of my constituents are 
lucky to earn a penny a month on their bank account. Yet, when the 
Senate first proposed to cut these bank dividends, House Republicans 
urged that Congress first study what would be the effect before 
changing the law.
  The Federal Reserve surplus account, which Mr. Neugebauer proposes to 
eliminate permanently to protect the bank dividends, has promoted 
global confidence in U.S. monetary policy for more than 100 years. 
Federal Reserve officials explained to the GAO that maintaining 
capital, including the surplus account, provides an assurance of a 
central bank's strength and stability to investors and foreign holders 
of U.S. currency. That is why central banks around the world--including 
the Bank of England, the European Central Bank, and the German Central 
Bank--all make use of surplus accounts. Nevertheless, my Republican 
colleagues are willing to cut this monetary policy tool without knowing 
what the long-term effect would be.
  During the 2008 financial crisis, the Federal Reserve took 
unprecedented action to prevent economic collapse by purchasing 
trillions of dollars of assets. During the countless hearings with 
Federal Reserve chairs Bernanke and Yellen, my colleagues suggested 
that the Federal Reserve is leveraged more than Lehman Brothers, 
pointing out that the Fed surplus is inadequate to protect losses to 
the taxpayer. But with this amendment, they would eliminate for all 
time all Fed surplus which, based on Republican logic, would be 
infinite leverage.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).
  Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Madam Chair, folks that are watching this 
at this late hour are unfortunately seeing politics over policy. The 
ranking member wants to agree but just can't let herself.
  This policy that we have seen, 73 percent of the Democrats on her 
committee signed a letter saying we need to hit the pause button; we 
need to make sure that we understand what this policy that got shipped 
over to us from the Senate is going to mean. Unfortunately, it has been 
plunged ahead, and we are moving ahead with this.
  This is less than ideal policy that we are looking at, but our choice 
isn't good choice versus bad choice. Our choice is less than ideal 
versus very bad choice. What we are seeing here is that we need to 
examine this further. It hasn't been looked at in over 50 years from 
the Committee on Financial Services.
  So I hope two things: one, that we are going to have a change in the 
way the House operates. I believe that that new day has arrived and 
that we will be doing that, but we are not sure exactly what this fixed 
rate is going to be. I will point out, though, that with that 6 percent 
return, the Fed has been able to build up a $29 billion, with a B, 
surplus account, which is where we are today.
  Chairman Hensarling of the Committee on Financial Services had 
written the GAO requesting a study of that.

[[Page 17434]]

I put out this letter, a bipartisan letter where we had 150 colleagues, 
that was forwarded. What we are doing is a better offset. We are 
believing that this is a better way to go rather than raiding Fannie 
and Freddie and the g-fees and the budget.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).
  Mr. SHERMAN. Madam Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, 
especially because I rise in favor of this amendment; not because it is 
perfect, but because it deals with a fundamental problem in the 
underlying legislation.
  How are we going to fund our highway system? Some would argue a tax 
on motorists; some would argue the general revenue of the United 
States. I don't know anyone who can really make the argument that we 
ought to have a tax on home buyers to fund highways; yet that is what 
the underlying bill does. It imposes a tax on everyone who gets a 
mortgage or refinances a mortgage and uses that for highways.
  I am confident that if we pass this amendment, the conference 
committee will take a look at how to finance this bill and will come up 
with a better way than the idea of imposing a tax on everyone. That 
basically means middle class homeowners who use Fannie Mae or Freddie 
Mac in order to buy a home or refinance a home.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Madam Chair, I would like to draw to 
your attention that Mr. Neugebauer's original amendment would have 
paused for 1 year and studied it. He changed it to strip the surplus 
forever and keep the dividend.
  My Republican colleagues had every opportunity to ask Federal Reserve 
Chair Janet Yellen about this amendment or, for that matter, her 
thoughts on what cutting the big bank dividend payments would be but 
did not. Instead, they peppered her for 3 hours with sundry other 
questions, failing to ask about one proposal, then considered late in 
the day to eliminate a 100-year-old monetary policy tool.
  Madam Chair, yesterday my Republican colleagues sought to hamstring 
the Federal Reserve. I ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Madam Chair, I yield the balance of my time to close 
to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), the distinguished 
chairman of the House Committee on Financial Services.

                              {time}  0030

  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Transportation ought to be funded out of transportation fees. It 
shouldn't be funded out of the functional equivalent of a bank account 
tax. It should not be funded on the backs of home buyers, or 
particularly those taxpayers who are forced to backstop Fannie and 
Freddie.
  If we are ever going to have a sustainable housing finance system in 
America, these guarantee fees cannot be diverted.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Texas and the gentleman from 
Michigan. No, they didn't come up with the perfect solution, but it is 
far superior than this bank account tax and this home-buyer tax. It 
makes no sense whatsoever.
  So I urge the entire House to adopt the Neugebauer amendment and get 
rid of this terrible idea from the Senate.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will 
be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Gosar

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 19 
printed in part B of House Report 114-326.
  Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 942, strike lines 7 and 8 (and redesignate subsequent 
     clauses accordingly).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Gosar) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, I rise today to offer a commonsense amendment 
to this transportation bill.
  My amendment is simple. If the intent of the Federal Permitting 
Improvement Council section of this bill is to actually improve the 
Federal permitting process, then the EPA, which is not a principal 
permitting or reviewing agency, should not be allowed an outsized vote 
to obstruct the expedited process for covered projects created by this 
legislation.
  The bill establishes a new council for the purpose of streamlining 
the Federal permitting process for projects of national importance. As 
currently constructed, the Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, is 
given far too big a voice in this process--an EPA that is known for 
being the primary obstructionist for every significant infrastructure 
and economic development project in the United States.
  It is important to note that nothing in my amendment prevents the EPA 
from being invited to be a participating or cooperating agent and 
providing information throughout this process to the council.
  The council established by this bill will be composed of a minimum of 
16 members, and it takes a vote by the majority of the members of the 
council in order for a covered project to be entitled to an expedited 
review.
  Currently, the bill allows the EPA too much influence in this 
process. This is wrong and will under mine goals of the rest of the 
council.
  In a memo regarding the Federal permitting process, the EPA itself 
stated: ``It is important to recognize the EPA is rarely, if ever, the 
principal permit or reviewing agency.''
  It goes on further: ``EPA's role is most often one of providing input 
to processes managed by others. . . . In addition, where projects do 
require permits issued under Federal environmental laws, permitting 
decisions are typically made by States under delegated or authorized 
programs. EPA is not responsible for the day-to-day administration of 
delegated or authorized permitting programs.''
  By the EPA's own admission, the agency is never the primary reviewing 
entity. It defies common sense that EPA would have a vote when other 
agencies and States that actually manage the permitting process don't.
  Intentional actions and shear incompetence from the EPA continue to 
impose Federal permitting delays and kill jobs throughout the country. 
The Wall Street Journal recently reported that the EPA coordinated with 
special interest groups to veto a mine project in Alaska.
  Media reports have also documented ``close coordination between the 
EPA and environmental groups in drafting the controversial Clean Power 
Plan, which would mark the demise of coal-fired plants in the United 
States.''
  My amendment is endorsed by Eagle Forum, Americans for Limited 
Government, Concerned Citizens for America, the Arizona Department of 
Transportation, the Arizona Small Business Association, the Bullhead 
Chamber of Commerce, the Lake Havasu Area Chamber of Commerce, the New 
Mexico Cattle Growers' Association, the New Mexico Federal Lands 
Council, and the Town of Fredonia.
  If the intent of this bill is to improve the Federal permitting 
process, then the EPA, which is not a principal permitting or reviewing 
agency, should not be allowed an outsized vote for critical projects 
that already have investments of $200 million or more.
  I fully support the intent of the council created by the bill and the 
committee's work in that regard. I believe the

[[Page 17435]]

process utilized could create tens of thousands of jobs and 
significantly benefit our economy. Let's not let the EPA screw it up.
  I urge my colleagues to stand with job creators, ranchers, local 
chambers of commerce, small businesses, transportation officials, and 
countless other organizations and individuals throughout this country 
that are tired of the EPA's obstructionism, and support my amendment. 
You are either with them or you are with the EPA.
  Vote ``yes'' on my amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Goodlatte

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 20 
printed in part B of House Report 114-326.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 964, line 6, insert after ``the participating 
     agencies'' the following: ``and the project sponsor''.
       Page 964, line 7, strike ``and''.
       Page 964, line 11, strike the period and insert the 
     following: ``; and''
       Page 964, after line 11, insert the following:

       (III) in the case of a modification that would necessitate 
     an extension of a final completion date under a permitting 
     timetable established under subparagraph (A) to a date more 
     than 30 days after the final completion date originally 
     established under subparagraph (A), the facilitating or lead 
     agency submits a request to modify the permitting timetable 
     to the Executive Director, who shall consult with the project 
     sponsor and make a determination on the record, based on 
     consideration of the relevant factors described under 
     subparagraph (B), whether to grant the facilitating or lead 
     agency, as applicable, authority to make such modification.

       Page 964, after line 15, insert the following:
       (iii) Limitation on length of modifications.--

       (I) In general.--Except as provided in subclause (II), the 
     total length of all modifications to a permitting timetable 
     authorized or made under this subparagraph, other than for 
     reasons outside the control of Federal, State, local, or 
     tribal governments, may not extend the permitting timetable 
     for a period of time greater than half of the amount of time 
     from the establishment of the permitting timetable under 
     subparagraph (A) to the last final completion date originally 
     established under subparagraph (A).
       (II) Additional extensions.--The Director of the Office of 
     Management and Budget, after consultation with the project 
     sponsor, may permit the Executive Director to authorize 
     additional extensions of a permitting timetable beyond the 
     limit prescribed by subclause (I). In such a case, the 
     Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall 
     transmit, not later than 5 days after making a determination 
     to permit an authorization of extension under this subclause, 
     a report to Congress explaining why such modification is 
     required. Such report shall explain to Congress with 
     specificity why the original permitting timetable and the 
     modifications authorized by the Executive Director failed to 
     be adequate. The lead or facilitating agency, as applicable, 
     shall transmit to Congress, the Director of the Office of 
     Management and Budget, and the Executive Director a 
     supplemental report on progress toward the final completion 
     date each year thereafter, until the permit review is 
     completed or the project sponsor withdraws its notice or 
     application or other request to which this title applies 
     under section 61010.

       (iv) Limitation on judicial review.--The following shall 
     not be subject to judicial review:

       (I) A determination by the Executive Director under clause 
     (i)(III).
       (II) A determination under clause (iii)(II) by the Director 
     of the Office of Management and Budget to permit the 
     Executive Director to authorize extensions of a permitting 
     timetable.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I and Regulatory Reform Subcommittee Chairman Marino offer this 
amendment to bridge the gap between two vital pieces of legislation: 
Chairman Marino's RAPID Act, H.R. 348, which the House passed on 
September 24, 2015, and Senators Portman and McCaskill's Federal 
Permitting Improvement Act, S. 280.
  These bills have been companions for multiple terms in our effort to 
streamline the process by which Federal agencies review and decide upon 
applications for federally funded and federally permitted construction 
projects. Permit streamlining reform is essential to create new, high-
paying jobs and strengthen our economy. It is a priority of the House, 
the Senate, and the President.
  S. 280 was incorporated by a floor amendment into the Senate 
amendments to H.R. 22 and, so, is included in the base bill before us. 
In two of the three key respects, it substantially achieves the House 
goals embodied by the RAPID Act: to shorten the time it takes to 
conclude litigation over Federal permitting decisions, and require 
litigants first to present the substance of any claims before 
permitting agencies during their administrative reviews.
  The Senate text, however, falls short in the third key respect: 
reliably expediting the time agencies have to conclude their reviews 
before acting to approve or disapprove permits. The Senate language 
includes many important steps toward this goal, but multiple loopholes 
in the language open the door for deadlines without end and without 
standards.
  The amendment Subcommittee Chairman Marino and I offer fixes this 
problem by establishing firm checks and balances through which the 
Director of OMB and the Executive Director of the Federal Permitting 
Improvement Steering Council can prevent abusive extensions and assure 
that permit applications are reviewed within reasonable deadlines.
  The amendment embodies a pre-conferenced resolution of the 
differences between the RAPID Act and S. 280 as incorporated into H.R. 
22 that Subcommittee Chairman Marino, I, Senator Portman, and Senator 
McCaskill all support.
  If the House adopts this amendment, it will perfect the bill to 
assure powerful permit streamlining reform, paving the way for good 
projects to move forward more quickly, delivering high-quality jobs and 
improvements to Americans' daily lives. I urge my colleagues to support 
this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment and 
title 61 of the underlying bill, which adopts the text of S. 280, the 
Federal Permitting Improvement Act.
  Before addressing my substantive concerns, I have serious procedural 
objections to the inclusion of title 61 in a transportation funding 
bill.
  S. 280, the Federal Permitting Improvement Act, was attached to the 
transportation bill on the Senate floor through a manager's amendment 
offered by Senate Majority Leader McConnell. It was adopted without 
adequate debate in an expedited process just days before the August 
recess. The bill has not been introduced in the House. Neither the 
House nor the Senate has had a hearing on the text of this bill, which 
involves a nuanced area of the law with broad implications for public 
health and safety.
  Moving to the substance of title 61, this bill is a misguided attempt 
to restrict public input and challenges in the permitting process under 
the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA.
  Over 40 years, NEPA has saved time, money, and protected the 
environment, all while providing a framework for wide-ranging input 
from all affected interests when a Federal agency conducts an 
environmental review of a proposed project.
  Title 61 of H.R. 22 discards this commonsense approach by severely 
curtailing the public's right to challenge permitting decisions in 
several ways.
  First, title 61 restricts challenges of major Federal projects to 
only parties who file comments within the bill's 45- to 60-day window. 
The bill requires

[[Page 17436]]

that these comments must be sufficiently detailed to put the lead 
agency on notice of the issue on which the party seeks judicial review. 
In other words, a party would have to litigate the issue in the 45- to 
60-day comment period--an extremely tall order for the public.
  Second, title 61 requires that courts consider the potential for 
significant job losses and other economic harms in considering whether 
to enjoin a project that has been challenged.
  The bill further requires that courts presume that these harms are 
irreparable, even if they aren't, tilting the outcome in favor of 
private interests and away from the public's interest in health, 
safety, and the environment.
  This is a radical departure from our laws and would have the 
practical effect of allowing a project to proceed even where there is 
ongoing litigation. Indeed, by the time a court determines that a 
project violates the law, a project could already be completed.
  Third, under current law, the public has 6 years to bring claims 
arising under most Federal laws, which provides for citizens to 
discover latent harms of projects. Title 61 only provides for 2 years 
for challenges to the Nation's most complex projects requiring a 
Federal permit.
  Madam Chairman, title 61 presents a false choice between funding 
transportation projects and accepting bad legislation without debate or 
proper consideration that would potentially have disastrous effects on 
the public's right to challenge Federal permitting decisions in court. 
This is yet another pro- corporate, anti-safety provision designed by 
the donor class to restrict access to the courts by the common people.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield such time 
as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino), who 
joins me in offering this amendment.
  Mr. MARINO. I thank Chairman Goodlatte for yielding.
  For two terms now, enacting legislation to streamline the Federal 
permitting process has been among my primary goals. Three times now, 
this House has passed the RAPID Act, a bill that I sponsored in both 
the 113th and 114th Congresses.

                              {time}  0045

  Our goal has been to fix the flaws in our Federal permitting process 
that often doom worthy projects that could collectively create millions 
of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars in economic activity.
  In just my home State of Pennsylvania, one 2011 study found that the 
stalled energy projects alone would produce an average of over 56,000 
jobs a year and over $44 billion in economic output.
  The potential growth in the American economy is staggering. Worthy 
projects across the country should not die on the vine while awaiting 
Federal bureaucratic approval.
  This amendment achieves these goals, and I am pleased to offer it 
with the chairman. It builds upon the reforms already encompassed in 
several bills passed by the House Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee and signed into law. Perhaps most importantly we have reached 
agreement on this amendment in a bipartisan fashion.
  It has been one of the honors of my time in Congress to reach not 
only across the aisle, but across Chambers, to work with Senator 
Portman and Senator McCaskill on these reforms and this amendment.
  I urge all my colleagues and Members to join us in supporting this 
important amendment that will put Americans to work and help stimulate 
economic growth.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Chair, this is a bad amendment that 
hurts the public interest, and for that reason I would ask that my 
colleagues vote along with me to disapprove of this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Chair, this is a very good amendment that will help create 
hundreds of thousands of jobs by getting projects that have been 
delayed all across this country moving. It is supported by many on both 
sides of the aisle in both Chambers of this institution.
  We have worked closely with Democrats and Republicans, and we have 
worked closely with the White House on this language. This is ready for 
prime time. This is ready to go.
  It is very appropriate to include it in this legislation because 
transportation projects will be the biggest beneficiary of this 
streamlining of permitting that will take place as a result of adoption 
of this legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and the underlying 
bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Hensarling

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 21 
printed in part B of House Report 114-326.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Add at the end the following:

                     DIVISION J--FINANCIAL SERVICES

     SEC. 1. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       The table of contents for this division is as follows:

Sec. 1. Table of contents.

   TITLE I--IMPROVING ACCESS TO CAPITAL FOR EMERGING GROWTH COMPANIES

Sec. 101. Filing requirement for public filing prior to public 
              offering.
Sec. 102. Grace period for change of status of emerging growth 
              companies.
Sec. 103. Simplified disclosure requirements for emerging growth 
              companies.

         TITLE II--DISCLOSURE MODERNIZATION AND SIMPLIFICATION

Sec. 201. Summary page for form 10-K.
Sec. 202. Improvement of regulation S-K.
Sec. 203. Study on modernization and simplification of regulation S-K.

TITLE III--BULLION AND COLLECTIBLE COIN PRODUCTION EFFICIENCY AND COST 
                                SAVINGS

Sec. 301. Technical corrections.
Sec. 302. American Eagle Silver Bullion 30th Anniversary.

                     TITLE IV--SBIC ADVISERS RELIEF

Sec. 401. Advisers of SBICs and venture capital funds.
Sec. 402. Advisers of SBICs and private funds.
Sec. 403. Relationship to State law.

              TITLE V--ELIMINATE PRIVACY NOTICE CONFUSION

Sec. 501. Exception to annual privacy notice requirement under the 
              Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

   TITLE VI--REFORMING ACCESS FOR INVESTMENTS IN STARTUP ENTERPRISES

Sec. 601. Exempted transactions.

      TITLE VII--PRESERVATION ENHANCEMENT AND SAVINGS OPPORTUNITY

Sec. 701. Distributions and residual receipts.
Sec. 702. Future refinancings.
Sec. 703. Implementation.

             TITLE VIII--TENANT INCOME VERIFICATION RELIEF

Sec. 801. Reviews of family incomes.

                TITLE IX--HOUSING ASSISTANCE EFFICIENCY

Sec. 901. Authority to administer rental assistance.
Sec. 902. Reallocation of funds.

                   TITLE X--CHILD SUPPORT ASSISTANCE

Sec. 1001. Requests for consumer reports by State or local child 
              support enforcement agencies.

                TITLE XI--PRIVATE INVESTMENT IN HOUSING

Sec. 1101. Budget-neutral demonstration program for energy and water 
              conservation improvements at multifamily residential 
              units.

  TITLE XII--CAPITAL ACCESS FOR SMALL COMMUNITY FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

Sec. 1201. Privately insured credit unions authorized to become members 
              of a Federal home loan bank.
Sec. 1202. GAO Report.

                TITLE XIII--SMALL BANK EXAM CYCLE REFORM

Sec. 1301. Smaller institutions qualifying for 18-month examination 
              cycle.

              TITLE XIV--SMALL COMPANY SIMPLE REGISTRATION

Sec. 1401. Forward incorporation by reference for Form S-1.

[[Page 17437]]

     TITLE XV--HOLDING COMPANY REGISTRATION THRESHOLD EQUALIZATION

Sec. 1501. Registration threshold for savings and loan holding 
              companies.

   TITLE I--IMPROVING ACCESS TO CAPITAL FOR EMERGING GROWTH COMPANIES

     SEC. 101. FILING REQUIREMENT FOR PUBLIC FILING PRIOR TO 
                   PUBLIC OFFERING.

       Section 6(e)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 
     77f(e)(1)) is amended by striking ``21 days'' and inserting 
     ``15 days''.

     SEC. 102. GRACE PERIOD FOR CHANGE OF STATUS OF EMERGING 
                   GROWTH COMPANIES.

       Section 6(e)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 
     77f(e)(1)) is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following: ``An issuer that was an emerging growth company at 
     the time it submitted a confidential registration statement 
     or, in lieu thereof, a publicly filed registration statement 
     for review under this subsection but ceases to be an emerging 
     growth company thereafter shall continue to be treated as an 
     emerging market growth company for the purposes of this 
     subsection through the earlier of the date on which the 
     issuer consummates its initial public offering pursuant to 
     such registrations statement or the end of the 1-year period 
     beginning on the date the company ceases to be an emerging 
     growth company.''.

     SEC. 103. SIMPLIFIED DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS FOR EMERGING 
                   GROWTH COMPANIES.

       Section 102 of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act 
     (Public Law 112-106) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(d) Simplified Disclosure Requirements.--With respect to 
     an emerging growth company (as such term is defined under 
     section 2 of the Securities Act of 1933):
       ``(1) Requirement to include notice on forms s-1 and f-1.--
     Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this 
     subsection, the Securities and Exchange Commission shall 
     revise its general instructions on Forms S-1 and F-1 to 
     indicate that a registration statement filed (or submitted 
     for confidential review) by an issuer prior to an initial 
     public offering may omit financial information for historical 
     periods otherwise required by regulation S-X (17 C.F.R. 
     210.1-01 et seq.) as of the time of filing (or confidential 
     submission) of such registration statement, provided that--
       ``(A) the omitted financial information relates to a 
     historical period that the issuer reasonably believes will 
     not be required to be included in the Form S-1 or F-1 at the 
     time of the contemplated offering; and
       ``(B) prior to the issuer distributing a preliminary 
     prospectus to investors, such registration statement is 
     amended to include all financial information required by such 
     regulation S-X at the date of such amendment.
       ``(2) Reliance by issuers.--Effective 30 days after the 
     date of enactment of this subsection, an issuer filing a 
     registration statement (or submitting the statement for 
     confidential review) on Form S-1 or Form F-1 may omit 
     financial information for historical periods otherwise 
     required by regulation S-X (17 C.F.R. 210.1-01 et seq.) as of 
     the time of filing (or confidential submission) of such 
     registration statement, provided that--
       ``(A) the omitted financial information relates to a 
     historical period that the issuer reasonably believes will 
     not be required to be included in the Form S-1 or Form F-1 at 
     the time of the contemplated offering; and
       ``(B) prior to the issuer distributing a preliminary 
     prospectus to investors, such registration statement is 
     amended to include all financial information required by such 
     regulation S-X at the date of such amendment.''.

         TITLE II--DISCLOSURE MODERNIZATION AND SIMPLIFICATION

     SEC. 201. SUMMARY PAGE FOR FORM 10-K.

       Not later than the end of the 180-day period beginning on 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the Securities and 
     Exchange Commission shall issue regulations to permit issuers 
     to submit a summary page on form 10-K (17 C.F.R. 249.310), 
     but only if each item on such summary page includes a cross-
     reference (by electronic link or otherwise) to the material 
     contained in form 10-K to which such item relates.

     SEC. 202. IMPROVEMENT OF REGULATION S-K.

       Not later than the end of the 180-day period beginning on 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the Securities and 
     Exchange Commission shall take all such actions to revise 
     regulation S-K (17 C.F.R. 229.10 et seq.)--
       (1) to further scale or eliminate requirements of 
     regulation S-K, in order to reduce the burden on emerging 
     growth companies, accelerated filers, smaller reporting 
     companies, and other smaller issuers, while still providing 
     all material information to investors;
       (2) to eliminate provisions of regulation S-K, required for 
     all issuers, that are duplicative, overlapping, outdated, or 
     unnecessary; and
       (3) for which the Commission determines that no further 
     study under section 203 is necessary to determine the 
     efficacy of such revisions to regulation S-K.

     SEC. 203. STUDY ON MODERNIZATION AND SIMPLIFICATION OF 
                   REGULATION S-K.

       (a) Study.--The Securities and Exchange Commission shall 
     carry out a study of the requirements contained in regulation 
     S-K (17 C.F.R. 229.10 et seq.). Such study shall--
       (1) determine how best to modernize and simplify such 
     requirements in a manner that reduces the costs and burdens 
     on issuers while still providing all material information;
       (2) emphasize a company by company approach that allows 
     relevant and material information to be disseminated to 
     investors without boilerplate language or static requirements 
     while preserving completeness and comparability of 
     information across registrants; and
       (3) evaluate methods of information delivery and 
     presentation and explore methods for discouraging repetition 
     and the disclosure of immaterial information.
       (b) Consultation.--In conducting the study required under 
     subsection (a), the Commission shall consult with the 
     Investor Advisory Committee and the Advisory Committee on 
     Small and Emerging Companies.
       (c) Report.--Not later than the end of the 360-day period 
     beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Commission shall issue a report to the Congress containing--
       (1) all findings and determinations made in carrying out 
     the study required under subsection (a);
       (2) specific and detailed recommendations on modernizing 
     and simplifying the requirements in regulation S-K in a 
     manner that reduces the costs and burdens on companies while 
     still providing all material information; and
       (3) specific and detailed recommendations on ways to 
     improve the readability and navigability of disclosure 
     documents and to discourage repetition and the disclosure of 
     immaterial information.
       (d) Rulemaking.--Not later than the end of the 360-day 
     period beginning on the date that the report is issued to the 
     Congress under subsection (c), the Commission shall issue a 
     proposed rule to implement the recommendations of the report 
     issued under subsection (c).
       (e) Rule of Construction.--Revisions made to regulation S-K 
     by the Commission under section 202 shall not be construed as 
     satisfying the rulemaking requirements under this section.

TITLE III--BULLION AND COLLECTIBLE COIN PRODUCTION EFFICIENCY AND COST 
                                SAVINGS

     SEC. 301. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.

       Title 31, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in section 5112--
       (A) in subsection (q)--
       (i) by striking paragraphs (3) and (8); and
       (ii) by redesignating paragraphs (4), (5), (6), and (7) as 
     paragraphs (3), (4), (5), and (6), respectively;
       (B) in subsection (t)(6)(B), by striking ``90 percent 
     silver and 10 percent copper'' and inserting ``not less than 
     90 percent silver''; and
       (C) in subsection (v)--
       (i) in paragraph (1), by striking ``Subject to'' and all 
     that follows through ``the Secretary shall'' and inserting 
     ``The Secretary shall'';
       (ii) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ``The Secretary'' and 
     inserting ``To the greatest extent possible, the Secretary'';
       (iii) in paragraph (5), by inserting after ``may issue'' 
     the following: ``collectible versions of''; and
       (iv) by striking paragraph (8); and
       (2) in section 5132(a)(2)(B)(i), by striking ``90 percent 
     silver and 10 percent copper'' and inserting ``not less than 
     90 percent silver''.

     SEC. 302. AMERICAN EAGLE SILVER BULLION 30TH ANNIVERSARY.

       Proof and uncirculated versions of coins issued by the 
     Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to subsection (e) of 
     section 5112 of title 31, United States Code, during calendar 
     year 2016 shall have a smooth edge incused with a designation 
     that notes the 30th anniversary of the first issue of coins 
     under such subsection.

                     TITLE IV--SBIC ADVISERS RELIEF

     SEC. 401. ADVISERS OF SBICS AND VENTURE CAPITAL FUNDS.

       Section 203(l) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 
     U.S.C. 80b-3(l)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``No investment adviser'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) In general.--No investment adviser''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Advisers of sbics.--For purposes of this subsection, 
     a venture capital fund includes an entity described in 
     subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of subsection (b)(7) (other 
     than an entity that has elected to be regulated or is 
     regulated as a business development company pursuant to 
     section 54 of the Investment Company Act of 1940).''.

     SEC. 402. ADVISERS OF SBICS AND PRIVATE FUNDS.

       Section 203(m) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 
     U.S.C. 80b-3(m)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(3) Advisers of sbics.--For purposes of this subsection, 
     the assets under management of a private fund that is an 
     entity described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of 
     subsection (b)(7) (other than an entity that has elected to 
     be regulated or is regulated as a business development 
     company pursuant to section 54 of the Investment Company Act 
     of 1940) shall be excluded from the limit set forth in 
     paragraph (1).''.

[[Page 17438]]



     SEC. 403. RELATIONSHIP TO STATE LAW.

       Section 203A(b)(1) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 
     (15 U.S.C. 80b-3a(b)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) that is not registered under section 203 because that 
     person is exempt from registration as provided in subsection 
     (b)(7) of such section, or is a supervised person of such 
     person.''.

              TITLE V--ELIMINATE PRIVACY NOTICE CONFUSION

     SEC. 501. EXCEPTION TO ANNUAL PRIVACY NOTICE REQUIREMENT 
                   UNDER THE GRAMM-LEACH-BLILEY ACT.

       Section 503 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. 6803) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) Exception to Annual Notice Requirement.--A financial 
     institution that--
       ``(1) provides nonpublic personal information only in 
     accordance with the provisions of subsection (b)(2) or (e) of 
     section 502 or regulations prescribed under section 504(b), 
     and
       ``(2) has not changed its policies and practices with 
     regard to disclosing nonpublic personal information from the 
     policies and practices that were disclosed in the most recent 
     disclosure sent to consumers in accordance with this section,

     shall not be required to provide an annual disclosure under 
     this section until such time as the financial institution 
     fails to comply with any criteria described in paragraph (1) 
     or (2).''.

   TITLE VI--REFORMING ACCESS FOR INVESTMENTS IN STARTUP ENTERPRISES

     SEC. 601. EXEMPTED TRANSACTIONS.

       (a) Exempted Transactions.--Section 4 of the Securities Act 
     of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77d) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(7) transactions meeting the requirements of subsection 
     (d).'';
       (2) by redesignating the second subsection (b) (relating to 
     securities offered and sold in compliance with Rule 506 of 
     Regulation D) as subsection (c); and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Certain Accredited Investor Transactions.--The 
     transactions referred to in subsection (a)(7) are 
     transactions meeting the following requirements:
       ``(1) Accredited investor requirement.--Each purchaser is 
     an accredited investor, as that term is defined in section 
     230.501(a) of title 17, Code of Federal Regulations (or any 
     successor regulation).
       ``(2) Prohibition on general solicitation or advertising.--
     Neither the seller, nor any person acting on the seller's 
     behalf, offers or sells securities by any form of general 
     solicitation or general advertising.
       ``(3) Information requirement.--In the case of a 
     transaction involving the securities of an issuer that is 
     neither subject to section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities 
     Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m; 78o(d)), nor exempt from 
     reporting pursuant to section 240.12g3-2(b) of title 17, Code 
     of Federal Regulations, nor a foreign government (as defined 
     in section 230.405 of title 17, Code of Federal Regulations) 
     eligible to register securities under Schedule B, the seller 
     and a prospective purchaser designated by the seller obtain 
     from the issuer, upon request of the seller, and the seller 
     in all cases makes available to a prospective purchaser, the 
     following information (which shall be reasonably current in 
     relation to the date of resale under this section):
       ``(A) The exact name of the issuer and the issuer's 
     predecessor (if any).
       ``(B) The address of the issuer's principal executive 
     offices.
       ``(C) The exact title and class of the security.
       ``(D) The par or stated value of the security.
       ``(E) The number of shares or total amount of the 
     securities outstanding as of the end of the issuer's most 
     recent fiscal year.
       ``(F) The name and address of the transfer agent, corporate 
     secretary, or other person responsible for transferring 
     shares and stock certificates.
       ``(G) A statement of the nature of the business of the 
     issuer and the products and services it offers, which shall 
     be presumed reasonably current if the statement is as of 12 
     months before the transaction date.
       ``(H) The names of the officers and directors of the 
     issuer.
       ``(I) The names of any persons registered as a broker, 
     dealer, or agent that shall be paid or given, directly or 
     indirectly, any commission or remuneration for such person's 
     participation in the offer or sale of the securities.
       ``(J) The issuer's most recent balance sheet and profit and 
     loss statement and similar financial statements, which 
     shall--
       ``(i) be for such part of the 2 preceding fiscal years as 
     the issuer has been in operation;
       ``(ii) be prepared in accordance with generally accepted 
     accounting principles or, in the case of a foreign private 
     issuer, be prepared in accordance with generally accepted 
     accounting principles or the International Financial 
     Reporting Standards issued by the International Accounting 
     Standards Board;
       ``(iii) be presumed reasonably current if--

       ``(I) with respect to the balance sheet, the balance sheet 
     is as of a date less than 16 months before the transaction 
     date; and
       ``(II) with respect to the profit and loss statement, such 
     statement is for the 12 months preceding the date of the 
     issuer's balance sheet; and

       ``(iv) if the balance sheet is not as of a date less than 6 
     months before the transaction date, be accompanied by 
     additional statements of profit and loss for the period from 
     the date of such balance sheet to a date less than 6 months 
     before the transaction date.
       ``(K) To the extent that the seller is a control person 
     with respect to the issuer, a brief statement regarding the 
     nature of the affiliation, and a statement certified by such 
     seller that they have no reasonable grounds to believe that 
     the issuer is in violation of the securities laws or 
     regulations.
       ``(4) Issuers disqualified.--The transaction is not for the 
     sale of a security where the seller is an issuer or a 
     subsidiary, either directly or indirectly, of the issuer.
       ``(5) Bad actor prohibition.--Neither the seller, nor any 
     person that has been or will be paid (directly or indirectly) 
     remuneration or a commission for their participation in the 
     offer or sale of the securities, including solicitation of 
     purchasers for the seller is subject to an event that would 
     disqualify an issuer or other covered person under Rule 
     506(d)(1) of Regulation D (17 C.F.R. 230.506(d)(1)) or is 
     subject to a statutory disqualification described under 
     section 3(a)(39) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
       ``(6) Business requirement.--The issuer is engaged in 
     business, is not in the organizational stage or in bankruptcy 
     or receivership, and is not a blank check, blind pool, or 
     shell company that has no specific business plan or purpose 
     or has indicated that the issuer's primary business plan is 
     to engage in a merger or combination of the business with, or 
     an acquisition of, an unidentified person.
       ``(7) Underwriter prohibition.--The transaction is not with 
     respect to a security that constitutes the whole or part of 
     an unsold allotment to, or a subscription or participation 
     by, a broker or dealer as an underwriter of the security or a 
     redistribution.
       ``(8) Outstanding class requirement.--The transaction is 
     with respect to a security of a class that has been 
     authorized and outstanding for at least 90 days prior to the 
     date of the transaction.
       ``(e) Additional Requirements.--
       ``(1) In general.--With respect to an exempted transaction 
     described under subsection (a)(7):
       ``(A) Securities acquired in such transaction shall be 
     deemed to have been acquired in a transaction not involving 
     any public offering.
       ``(B) Such transaction shall be deemed not to be a 
     distribution for purposes of section 2(a)(11).
       ``(C) Securities involved in such transaction shall be 
     deemed to be restricted securities within the meaning of Rule 
     144 (17 C.F.R. 230.144).
       ``(2) Rule of construction.--The exemption provided by 
     subsection (a)(7) shall not be the exclusive means for 
     establishing an exemption from the registration requirements 
     of section 5.''.
       (b) Exemption in Connection With Certain Exempt 
     Offerings.--Section 18(b)(4) of the Securities Act of 1933 
     (15 U.S.C. 77r(b)(4)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating the second subparagraph (D) and 
     subparagraph (E) as subparagraphs (E) and (F), respectively;
       (2) in subparagraph (E), as so redesignated, by striking 
     ``; or'' and inserting a semicolon;
       (3) in subparagraph (F), as so redesignated, by striking 
     the period and inserting ``; or''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(G) section 4(a)(7).''.

      TITLE VII--PRESERVATION ENHANCEMENT AND SAVINGS OPPORTUNITY

     SEC. 701. DISTRIBUTIONS AND RESIDUAL RECEIPTS.

       Section 222 of the Low-Income Housing Preservation and 
     Resident Homeownership Act of 1990 (12 U.S.C. 4112) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(e) Distribution and Residual Receipts.--
       ``(1) Authority.--After the date of the enactment of this 
     subsection, the owner of a property subject to a plan of 
     action or use agreement pursuant to this section shall be 
     entitled to distribute--
       ``(A) annually, all surplus cash generated by the property, 
     but only if the owner is in material compliance with such use 
     agreement including compliance with prevailing physical 
     condition standards established by the Secretary; and
       ``(B) notwithstanding any conflicting provision in such use 
     agreement, any funds accumulated in a residual receipts 
     account, but only if the owner is in material compliance with 
     such use agreement and has completed, or set aside sufficient 
     funds for completion of, any capital repairs identified by 
     the most recent third party capital needs assessment.
       ``(2) Operation of property.--An owner that distributes any 
     amounts pursuant to paragraph (1) shall--

[[Page 17439]]

       ``(A) continue to operate the property in accordance with 
     the affordability provisions of the use agreement for the 
     property for the remaining useful life of the property;
       ``(B) as required by the plan of action for the property, 
     continue to renew or extend any project-based rental 
     assistance contract for a term of not less than 20 years; and
       ``(C) if the owner has an existing multi-year project-based 
     rental assistance contract for less than 20 years, have the 
     option to extend the contract to a 20-year term.''.

     SEC. 702. FUTURE REFINANCINGS.

       Section 214 of the Low-Income Housing Preservation and 
     Resident Homeownership Act of 1990 (12 U.S.C. 4104) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(c) Future Financing.--Neither this section, nor any plan 
     of action or use agreement implementing this section, shall 
     restrict an owner from obtaining a new loan or refinancing an 
     existing loan secured by the project, or from distributing 
     the proceeds of such a loan; except that, in conjunction with 
     such refinancing--
       ``(1) the owner shall provide for adequate rehabilitation 
     pursuant to a capital needs assessment to ensure long-term 
     sustainability of the property satisfactory to the lender or 
     bond issuance agency;
       ``(2) any resulting budget-based rent increase shall 
     include debt service on the new financing, commercially 
     reasonable debt service coverage, and replacement reserves as 
     required by the lender; and
       ``(3) for tenants of dwelling units not covered by a 
     project- or tenant-based rental subsidy, any rent increases 
     resulting from the refinancing transaction may not exceed 10 
     percent per year, except that--
       ``(A) any tenant occupying a dwelling unit as of time of 
     the refinancing may not be required to pay for rent and 
     utilities, for the duration of such tenancy, an amount that 
     exceeds the greater of--
       ``(i) 30 percent of the tenant's income; or
       ``(ii) the amount paid by the tenant for rent and utilities 
     immediately before such refinancing; and
       ``(B) this paragraph shall not apply to any tenant who does 
     not provide the owner with proof of income

     .Paragraph (3) may not be construed to limit any rent 
     increases resulting from increased operating costs for a 
     project.''.

     SEC. 703. IMPLEMENTATION.

       The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall issue 
     any guidance that the Secretary considers necessary to carry 
     out the provisions added by the amendments made by this title 
     not later than the expiration of the 120-day period beginning 
     on the date of the enactment of this Act.

             TITLE VIII--TENANT INCOME VERIFICATION RELIEF

     SEC. 801. REVIEWS OF FAMILY INCOMES.

       (a) In General.--The second sentence of paragraph (1) of 
     section 3(a) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 
     U.S.C. 1437a(a)(1)) is amended by inserting before the period 
     at the end the following: ``; except that, in the case of any 
     family with a fixed income, as defined by the Secretary, 
     after the initial review of the family's income, the public 
     housing agency or owner shall not be required to conduct a 
     review of the family's income for any year for which such 
     family certifies, in accordance with such requirements as the 
     Secretary shall establish, which shall include policies to 
     adjust for inflation-based income changes, that 90 percent or 
     more of the income of the family consists of fixed income, 
     and that the sources of such income have not changed since 
     the previous year, except that the public housing agency or 
     owner shall conduct a review of each such family's income not 
     less than once every 3 years''.
       (b) Housing Choice Voucher Program.--Subparagraph (A) of 
     section 8(o)(5) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 
     U.S.C. 1437f(o)(5)(A)) is amended by striking ``not less than 
     annually'' and inserting ``as required by section 3(a)(1) of 
     this Act''.

                TITLE IX--HOUSING ASSISTANCE EFFICIENCY

     SEC. 901. AUTHORITY TO ADMINISTER RENTAL ASSISTANCE.

       Subsection (g) of section 423 of the McKinney-Vento 
     Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11383(g)) is amended by 
     inserting ``private nonprofit organization,'' after ``unit of 
     general local government,''.

     SEC. 902. REALLOCATION OF FUNDS.

       Paragraph (1) of section 414(d) of the McKinney-Vento 
     Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11373(d)(1)) is amended by 
     striking ``twice'' and inserting ``once''.

                   TITLE X--CHILD SUPPORT ASSISTANCE

     SEC. 1001. REQUESTS FOR CONSUMER REPORTS BY STATE OR LOCAL 
                   CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES.

       Paragraph (4) of section 604(a) of the Fair Credit 
     Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681b(a)(4)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``or determining the 
     appropriate level of such payments'' and inserting ``, 
     determining the appropriate level of such payments, or 
     enforcing a child support order, award, agreement, or 
     judgment'';
       (2) in subparagraph (B)--
       (A) by striking ``paternity'' and inserting ``parentage''; 
     and
       (B) by adding ``and'' at the end;
       (3) by striking subparagraph (C); and
       (4) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (C).

                TITLE XI--PRIVATE INVESTMENT IN HOUSING

     SEC. 1101. BUDGET-NEUTRAL DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM FOR ENERGY 
                   AND WATER CONSERVATION IMPROVEMENTS AT 
                   MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development (in this section referred to as the 
     ``Secretary'') shall
     establish a demonstration program under which the Secretary 
     may execute budget-neutral, performance-based agreements in 
     fiscal years 2016 through 2019 that result in a reduction in 
     energy or water costs with such entities as the Secretary 
     determines to be appropriate under which the entities shall 
     carry out projects for energy or water conservation 
     improvements at not more than 20,000 residential units in 
     multifamily buildings participating in--
       (1) the project-based rental assistance program under 
     section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 
     1437f), other than assistance provided under section 8(o) of 
     that Act;
       (2) the supportive housing for the elderly program under 
     section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959 (12 U.S.C. 1701q); or
       (3) the supportive housing for persons with disabilities 
     program under section 811(d)(2) of the Cranston-Gonzalez 
     National Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 8013(d)(2)).
       (b) Requirements.--
       (1) Payments contingent on savings.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall provide to an entity a 
     payment under an agreement under this section only during 
     applicable years for which an energy or water cost savings is 
     achieved with respect to the applicable multifamily portfolio 
     of properties, as determined by the Secretary, in accordance 
     with subparagraph (B).
       (B) Payment methodology.--
       (i) In general.--Each agreement under this section shall 
     include a pay-for-success provision that--

       (I) shall serve as a payment threshold for the term of the 
     agreement; and
       (II) requires that payments shall be contingent on realized 
     cost savings associated with reduced utility consumption in 
     the participating properties.

       (ii) Limitations.--A payment made by the Secretary under an 
     agreement under this section--

       (I) shall be contingent on documented utility savings; and
       (II) shall not exceed the utility savings achieved by the 
     date of the payment, and not previously paid, as a result of 
     the improvements made under the agreement.

       (C) Third-party verification.--Savings payments made by the 
     Secretary under this section shall be based on a measurement 
     and verification protocol that includes at least--
       (i) establishment of a weather-normalized and occupancy-
     normalized utility consumption baseline established pre-
     retrofit;
       (ii) annual third-party confirmation of actual utility 
     consumption and cost for utilities;
       (iii) annual third-party validation of the tenant utility 
     allowances in effect during the applicable year and vacancy 
     rates for each unit type; and
       (iv) annual third-party determination of savings to the 
     Secretary.

     An agreement under this section with an entity shall provide 
     that the entity shall cover costs associated with third-party 
     verification under this subparagraph.
       (2) Terms of performance-based agreements.--A performance-
     based agreement under this section shall include--
       (A) the period that the agreement will be in effect and 
     during which payments may be made, which may not be longer 
     than 12 years;
       (B) the performance measures that will serve as payment 
     thresholds during the term of the agreement;
       (C) an audit protocol for the properties covered by the 
     agreement;
       (D) a requirement that payments shall be contingent on 
     realized cost savings associated with reduced utility 
     consumption in the participating properties; and
       (E) such other requirements and terms as determined to be 
     appropriate by the Secretary.
       (3) Entity eligibility.--The Secretary shall--
       (A) establish a competitive process for entering into 
     agreements under this section; and
       (B) enter into such agreements only with entities that, 
     either jointly or individually, demonstrate significant 
     experience relating to--
       (i) financing or operating properties receiving assistance 
     under a program identified in subsection (a);
       (ii) oversight of energy or water conservation programs, 
     including oversight of contractors; and
       (iii) raising capital for energy or water conservation 
     improvements from charitable organizations or private 
     investors.
       (4) Geographical diversity.--Each agreement entered into 
     under this section shall provide for the inclusion of 
     properties with

[[Page 17440]]

     the greatest feasible regional and State variance.
       (5) Properties.--A property may only be included in the 
     demonstration under this section only if the property is 
     subject to affordability restrictions for at least 15 years 
     after the date of the completion of any conservation 
     improvements made to the property under the demonstration 
     program. Such restrictions may be made through an extended 
     affordability agreement for the property under a new housing 
     assistance payments contract with the Secretary of Housing 
     and Urban Development or through an enforceable covenant with 
     the owner of the property.
       (c) Plan and Reports.--
       (1) Plan.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committees on Appropriations and Financial Services of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committees on Appropriations 
     and Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate a 
     detailed plan for the implementation of this section.
       (2) Reports.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary 
     shall--
       (A) conduct an evaluation of the program under this 
     section; and
       (B) submit to Congress a report describing each evaluation 
     conducted under subparagraph (A).
       (d) Funding.--For each fiscal year during which an 
     agreement under this section is in effect, the Secretary may 
     use to carry out this section any funds appropriated to the 
     Secretary for the renewal of contracts under a program 
     described in subsection (a).

  TITLE XII--CAPITAL ACCESS FOR SMALL COMMUNITY FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

     SEC. 1201. PRIVATELY INSURED CREDIT UNIONS AUTHORIZED TO 
                   BECOME MEMBERS OF A FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK.

       (a) In General.--Section 4(a) of the Federal Home Loan Bank 
     Act (12 U.S.C. 1424(a)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(5) Certain privately insured credit unions.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to the requirements of 
     subparagraph (B), a credit union shall be treated as an 
     insured depository institution for purposes of determining 
     the eligibility of such credit union for membership in a 
     Federal home loan bank under paragraphs (1), (2), and (3).
       ``(B) Certification by appropriate supervisor.--
       ``(i) In general.--For purposes of this paragraph and 
     subject to clause (ii), a credit union which lacks Federal 
     deposit insurance and which has applied for membership in a 
     Federal home loan bank may be treated as meeting all the 
     eligibility requirements for Federal deposit insurance only 
     if the appropriate supervisor of the State in which the 
     credit union is chartered has determined that the credit 
     union meets all the eligibility requirements for Federal 
     deposit insurance as of the date of the application for 
     membership.
       ``(ii) Certification deemed valid.--If, in the case of any 
     credit union to which clause (i) applies, the appropriate 
     supervisor of the State in which such credit union is 
     chartered fails to make a determination pursuant to such 
     clause by the end of the 6-month period beginning on the date 
     of the application, the credit union shall be deemed to have 
     met the requirements of clause (i).
       ``(C) Security interests of federal home loan bank not 
     avoidable.--Notwithstanding any provision of State law 
     authorizing a conservator or liquidating agent of a credit 
     union to repudiate contracts, no such provision shall apply 
     with respect to--
       ``(i) any extension of credit from any Federal home loan 
     bank to any credit union which is a member of any such bank 
     pursuant to this paragraph; or
       ``(ii) any security interest in the assets of such credit 
     union securing any such extension of credit.
       ``(D) Protection for certain federal home loan bank 
     advances.--Notwithstanding any State law to the contrary, if 
     a Bank makes an advance under section 10 to a State-chartered 
     credit union that is not federally insured--
       ``(i) the Bank's interest in any collateral securing such 
     advance has the same priority and is afforded the same 
     standing and rights that the security interest would have had 
     if the advance had been made to a federally insured credit 
     union; and
       ``(ii) the Bank has the same right to access such 
     collateral that the Bank would have had if the advance had 
     been made to a federally insured credit union.''.
       (b) Copies of Audits of Private Insurers of Certain 
     Depository Institutions Required To Be Provided to 
     Supervisory Agencies.--Section 43(a)(2)(A) of the Federal 
     Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1831t(a)(2)(A)) is amended--
       (1) in clause (i), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in clause (ii), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by inserting at the end the following new clause:
       ``(iii) in the case of depository institutions described in 
     subsection (e)(2)(A) the deposits of which are insured by the 
     private insurer which are members of a Federal home loan 
     bank, to the Federal Housing Finance Agency, not later than 7 
     days after the audit is completed.''.

     SEC. 1202. GAO REPORT.

       Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall 
     conduct a study and submit a report to Congress--
       (1) on the adequacy of insurance reserves held by a private 
     deposit insurer that insures deposits in an entity described 
     in section 43(e)(2)(A) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act 
     (12 U.S.C. 1831t(e)(2)(A)); and
       (2) for an entity described in paragraph (1) the deposits 
     of which are insured by a private deposit insurer, 
     information on the level of compliance with Federal 
     regulations relating to the disclosure of a lack of Federal 
     deposit insurance.

                TITLE XIII--SMALL BANK EXAM CYCLE REFORM

     SEC. 1301. SMALLER INSTITUTIONS QUALIFYING FOR 18-MONTH 
                   EXAMINATION CYCLE.

       Section 10(d) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 
     U.S.C. 1820(d)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (4)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``$500,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$1,000,000,000''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (C)(ii), by striking ``$100,000,000'' 
     and inserting ``$200,000,000''; and
       (2) in paragraph (10)--
       (A) by striking ``$100,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$200,000,000''; and
       (B) by striking ``$500,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$1,000,000,000''.

              TITLE XIV--SMALL COMPANY SIMPLE REGISTRATION

     SEC. 1401. FORWARD INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE FOR FORM S-1.

       Not later than 45 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Securities and Exchange Commission shall revise 
     Form S-1 so as to permit a smaller reporting company (as 
     defined in section 230.405 of title 17, Code of Federal 
     Regulations) to incorporate by reference in a registration 
     statement filed on such form any documents that such company 
     files with the Commission after the effective date of such 
     registration statement.

     TITLE XV--HOLDING COMPANY REGISTRATION THRESHOLD EQUALIZATION

     SEC. 1501. REGISTRATION THRESHOLD FOR SAVINGS AND LOAN 
                   HOLDING COMPANIES.

       The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) 
     is amended--
       (1) in section 12(g)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)(B), by inserting after ``is a bank'' 
     the following: ``, a savings and loan holding company (as 
     defined in section 10 of the Home Owners' Loan Act),''; and
       (B) in paragraph (4), by inserting after ``case of a bank'' 
     the following: ``, a savings and loan holding company (as 
     defined in section 10 of the Home Owners' Loan Act),''; and
       (2) in section 15(d), by striking ``case of bank'' and 
     inserting the following: ``case of a bank, a savings and loan 
     holding company (as defined in section 10 of the Home Owners' 
     Loan Act),''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  People are still hurting in this economy, Madam Chair. We all know 
that. We need to do everything we can, as the House, to promote 
economic growth.
  It is very difficult in this Chamber and in this institution to come 
by bipartisan legislation. But I am proud to say, in the House 
Financial Services Committee, we have passed numerous pieces of 
bipartisan legislation. They are modest because they are bipartisan. 
But they are, nonetheless, important and can make a difference in 
people's lives.
  There are 15 bills that have already passed the House Financial 
Services Committee either unanimously or near unanimously and then have 
gone to the House to be debated and have been passed, almost all of 
them, unanimously by voice vote or near 400-plus votes.
  They are bills like H.R. 2064, to help with emerging growth company 
regulatory reforms; H.R. 1525, that simplifies some of the Security and 
Exchange Commission disclosures; H.R. 432, the Small Investment Company 
Regulatory Relief Act; and a number of bills like these that have 
typically passed our committee 57-0, for example, 60-0, 53-0, and then 
have gone on to pass the House by voice vote.

[[Page 17441]]

  Again, these are bipartisan bills. They are modest bills, but they 
happen to be germane to this transportation bill because of the revenue 
stream, the funding source, the pay-for in the transportation bill.
  So because they have already been debated in committee, passed in the 
committee, debated in the House, passed in the House, we are simply 
packaging 15 of these bills together because there is an opportunity to 
have these become law and benefit the American people.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Madam Chair, I claim the time in 
opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Madam Chair, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, this amendment combines 15 Financial Services bills that 
have had broad bipartisan support and passed through the committee and 
on the House floor. These bills address important issues that range 
from helping to preserve affordable rental housing to providing 
regulatory relief to small banks and reporting companies, to affording 
start-ups, emerging growth companies and community financial 
institutions with greater flexibility to raise capital.
  Let me be clear. I have supported these bills in committee and on the 
floor. But, Madam Chair and Members, this Congress is made up of two 
Houses, the House of Representatives and the Senate. Just as we were 
given the opportunity to debate and amend these bills, taking into 
account concerns from our constituents and interested stakeholders, the 
Senate should also be given the opportunity.
  I am also concerned with the other amendments and their potential 
negative effect on this set of bills. For example, Representative Young 
has an amendment that would require each rulemaking in the highway 
bill, as amended, to include a list of information upon which it is 
based, including data, scientific and economic studies, and cost-
benefit analysis, and identify how the public can access such 
information online.
  What this means is that the Securities and Exchange Commission, in 
conducting its rulemaking under Chairman Hensarling's amendment, would 
face this additional administrative hurdle, including the innocent-
sounding cost-benefit analysis.
  However, cost-benefit analysis is a tool that has been used by the 
industry and the opposite side of the aisle both in agencies and in the 
courts and in Congress to delay, weaken, or kill necessary reforms. 
Such analysis encourages second-guessing, favors easily quantifiable 
costs over less tangible benefits, and is extremely resource intensive.
  That is why my Democratic colleagues and I have opposed its 
application to the SEC, an agency that already performs economic 
analysis for its rulemaking and has enough on its plate with its 
additional responsibility under the JOBS Act and the Dodd-Frank Act.
  Requiring the SEC to conduct an onerous cost-benefit analysis is even 
more concerning with the Republicans' refusal to adequately fund the 
agency. So the meager existing funds would have to be diverted from 
other important SEC functions, like enforcement and investigations.
  Cost-benefit analysis in Representative Young's amendment is also 
opposed by consumer advocates like the Coalition for Sensible 
Safeguards.
  While, again, I support the 15 Financial Services bills in this 
amendment, I oppose this process of pushing them through the House 
attached to the highway bill.
  Madam Chair and Members, again, this is about process. I do believe 
that the Senate should have the ability to debate these bills.
  Coming out of the Financial Services Committee, we are tasked with 
the responsibility to take a very complicated subject matter, Financial 
Services matters, and to make sure that we give every Member an 
opportunity to have input, to have credible debates. I just believe 
that the Senate should have that opportunity.
  So while we have supported these bills--and Mr. Hensarling is 
absolutely correct--we had an opportunity to do that because we 
understood them very well. We debated them. We had an opportunity to 
have input to ask questions, to do everything that you need to do to be 
well informed about legislation that you are either supporting or 
opposing.
  Again, this is about process. I just simply believe that the Senate 
should have the right to debate.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I was listening carefully to my ranking member, and I think the 
translation is: I was for the bills before I was against the bills. I 
think she just said she supported all of these on the committee and the 
floor, she just doesn't support them tonight. And, apparently, the 
reason has something to do with the fact that the Senate, the other 
body, the other Chamber, perhaps hasn't gone through the same process 
that we have.
  I didn't know it was our business to do the Senate's business. Our 
business is to propose and support what the House has done. So I don't 
know if the ranking member sees the other body as a group of shrinking 
violets who cannot take care of themselves, who will somehow be 
overwhelmed by one particular amendment.
  I would remind all Members there is this thing called a conference 
committee between the House and the Senate to work out differences. 
They have many matters in the Senate bill that have not been debated in 
the House, yet those will be taken up in conference committee.
  So it is late in the evening, Madam Chair, as you well know, and I 
have heard a lot of very, very interesting things throughout the hours 
and hours of debate.
  But I simply cannot understand how Members will come to the floor and 
essentially tell us: ``We were for all of these bills, but we are no 
longer for all of these bills. We were for them before we were against 
them because we are just afraid the Senate somehow can't take care of 
themselves.''
  I think we should reject that. These are bills that were passed 
unanimously and near unanimously in the House. They are bipartisan. 
They include Republican bills, Democrat bills.
  As much as I respect the ranking member, this argument makes no sense 
to me whatsoever.
  The House has already spoken on these matters. Let's get the people's 
business done. I urge all Members to adopt the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Mullin

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 22 
printed in part B of House Report 114-326.
  Mr. MULLIN. Madam Chair, as the designee of the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Upton), I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 1032, after line 4, add the following:

                      DIVISION J--ENERGY SECURITY

     SEC. 99001. EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FOR ENERGY SUPPLY 
                   DISRUPTIONS.

       (a) Finding.--Congress finds that recent natural disasters 
     have underscored the importance of having resilient oil and 
     natural gas infrastructure and effective ways for industry 
     and government to communicate to address energy supply 
     disruptions.
       (b) Authorization for Activities To Enhance Emergency 
     Preparedness for Natural Disasters.--The Secretary of Energy 
     shall develop and adopt procedures to--
       (1) improve communication and coordination between the 
     Department of Energy's energy response team, Federal 
     partners, and industry;
       (2) leverage the Energy Information Administration's 
     subject matter expertise within the Department's energy 
     response team to improve supply chain situation assessments;
       (3) establish company liaisons and direct communication 
     with the Department's energy response team to improve 
     situation assessments;
       (4) streamline and enhance processes for obtaining 
     temporary regulatory relief to speed up emergency response 
     and recovery;

[[Page 17442]]

       (5) facilitate and increase engagement among States, the 
     oil and natural gas industry, and the Department in 
     developing State and local energy assurance plans;
       (6) establish routine education and training programs for 
     key government emergency response positions with the 
     Department and States; and
       (7) involve States and the oil and natural gas industry in 
     comprehensive drill and exercise programs.
       (c) Cooperation.--The activities carried out under 
     subsection (b) shall include collaborative efforts with State 
     and local government officials and the private sector.
       (d) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall submit 
     to Congress a report describing the effectiveness of the 
     activities authorized under this section.

     SEC. 99002. RESOLVING ENVIRONMENTAL AND GRID RELIABILITY 
                   CONFLICTS.

       (a) Compliance With or Violation of Environmental Laws 
     While Under Emergency Order.--Section 202(c) of the Federal 
     Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824a(c)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(c)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) With respect to an order issued under this subsection 
     that may result in a conflict with a requirement of any 
     Federal, State, or local environmental law or regulation, the 
     Commission shall ensure that such order requires generation, 
     delivery, interchange, or transmission of electric energy 
     only during hours necessary to meet the emergency and serve 
     the public interest, and, to the maximum extent practicable, 
     is consistent with any applicable Federal, State, or local 
     environmental law or regulation and minimizes any adverse 
     environmental impacts.
       ``(3) To the extent any omission or action taken by a 
     party, that is necessary to comply with an order issued under 
     this subsection, including any omission or action taken to 
     voluntarily comply with such order, results in noncompliance 
     with, or causes such party to not comply with, any Federal, 
     State, or local environmental law or regulation, such 
     omission or action shall not be considered a violation of 
     such environmental law or regulation, or subject such party 
     to any requirement, civil or criminal liability, or a citizen 
     suit under such environmental law or regulation.
       ``(4)(A) An order issued under this subsection that may 
     result in a conflict with a requirement of any Federal, 
     State, or local environmental law or regulation shall expire 
     not later than 90 days after it is issued. The Commission may 
     renew or reissue such order pursuant to paragraphs (1) and 
     (2) for subsequent periods, not to exceed 90 days for each 
     period, as the Commission determines necessary to meet the 
     emergency and serve the public interest.
       ``(B) In renewing or reissuing an order under subparagraph 
     (A), the Commission shall consult with the primary Federal 
     agency with expertise in the environmental interest protected 
     by such law or regulation, and shall include in any such 
     renewed or reissued order such conditions as such Federal 
     agency determines necessary to minimize any adverse 
     environmental impacts to the extent practicable. The 
     conditions, if any, submitted by such Federal agency shall be 
     made available to the public. The Commission may exclude such 
     a condition from the renewed or reissued order if it 
     determines that such condition would prevent the order from 
     adequately addressing the emergency necessitating such order 
     and provides in the order, or otherwise makes publicly 
     available, an explanation of such determination.
       ``(5) If an order issued under this subsection is 
     subsequently stayed, modified, or set aside by a court 
     pursuant to section 313 or any other provision of law, any 
     omission or action previously taken by a party that was 
     necessary to comply with the order while the order was in 
     effect, including any omission or action taken to voluntarily 
     comply with the order, shall remain subject to paragraph 
     (3).''.
       (b) Temporary Connection or Construction by 
     Municipalities.--Section 202(d) of the Federal Power Act (16 
     U.S.C. 824a(d)) is amended by inserting ``or municipality'' 
     before ``engaged in the transmission or sale of electric 
     energy''.

     SEC. 99003. CRITICAL ELECTRIC INFRASTRUCTURE SECURITY.

       (a) Critical Electric Infrastructure Security.--Part II of 
     the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824 et seq.) is amended by 
     adding after section 215 the following new section:

     ``SEC. 215A. CRITICAL ELECTRIC INFRASTRUCTURE SECURITY.

       ``(a) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
       ``(1) Bulk-power system; electric reliability organization; 
     regional entity.--The terms `bulk-power system', `Electric 
     Reliability Organization', and `regional entity' have the 
     meanings given such terms in paragraphs (1), (2), and (7) of 
     section 215(a), respectively.
       ``(2) Critical electric infrastructure.--The term `critical 
     electric infrastructure' means a system or asset of the bulk-
     power system, whether physical or virtual, the incapacity or 
     destruction of which would negatively affect national 
     security, economic security, public health or safety, or any 
     combination of such matters.
       ``(3) Critical electric infrastructure information.--The 
     term `critical electric infrastructure information' means 
     information related to critical electric infrastructure, or 
     proposed critical electrical infrastructure, generated by or 
     provided to the Commission or other Federal agency, other 
     than classified national security information, that is 
     designated as critical electric infrastructure information by 
     the Commission under subsection (d)(2). Such term includes 
     information that qualifies as critical energy infrastructure 
     information under the Commission's regulations.
       ``(4) Defense critical electric infrastructure.--The term 
     `defense critical electric infrastructure' means any electric 
     infrastructure located in the United States (including the 
     territories) that serves a facility designated by the 
     Secretary pursuant to subsection (c), but is not owned or 
     operated by the owner or operator of such facility.
       ``(5) Electromagnetic pulse.--The term `electromagnetic 
     pulse' means 1 or more pulses of electromagnetic energy 
     emitted by a device capable of disabling or disrupting 
     operation of, or destroying, electronic devices or 
     communications networks, including hardware, software, and 
     data, by means of such a pulse.
       ``(6) Geomagnetic storm.--The term `geomagnetic storm' 
     means a temporary disturbance of the Earth's magnetic field 
     resulting from solar activity.
       ``(7) Grid security emergency.--The term `grid security 
     emergency' means the occurrence or imminent danger of--
       ``(A)(i) a malicious act using electronic communication or 
     an electromagnetic pulse, or a geomagnetic storm event, that 
     could disrupt the operation of those electronic devices or 
     communications networks, including hardware, software, and 
     data, that are essential to the reliability of critical 
     electric infrastructure or of defense critical electric 
     infrastructure; and
       ``(ii) disruption of the operation of such devices or 
     networks, with significant adverse effects on the reliability 
     of critical electric infrastructure or of defense critical 
     electric infrastructure, as a result of such act or event; or
       ``(B)(i) a direct physical attack on critical electric 
     infrastructure or on defense critical electric 
     infrastructure; and
       ``(ii) significant adverse effects on the reliability of 
     critical electric infrastructure or of defense critical 
     electric infrastructure as a result of such physical attack.
       ``(8) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary 
     of Energy.
       ``(b) Authority To Address Grid Security Emergency.--
       ``(1) Authority.--Whenever the President issues and 
     provides to the Secretary a written directive or 
     determination identifying a grid security emergency, the 
     Secretary may, with or without notice, hearing, or report, 
     issue such orders for emergency measures as are necessary in 
     the judgment of the Secretary to protect or restore the 
     reliability of critical electric infrastructure or of defense 
     critical electric infrastructure during such emergency. As 
     soon as practicable but not later than 180 days after the 
     date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall, after 
     notice and opportunity for comment, establish rules of 
     procedure that ensure that such authority can be exercised 
     expeditiously.
       ``(2) Notification of congress.--Whenever the President 
     issues and provides to the Secretary a written directive or 
     determination under paragraph (1), the President shall 
     promptly notify congressional committees of relevant 
     jurisdiction, including the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
     of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy 
     and Natural Resources of the Senate, of the contents of, and 
     justification for, such directive or determination.
       ``(3) Consultation.--Before issuing an order for emergency 
     measures under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall, to the 
     extent practicable in light of the nature of the grid 
     security emergency and the urgency of the need for action, 
     consult with appropriate governmental authorities in Canada 
     and Mexico, entities described in paragraph (4), the 
     Electricity Sub-sector Coordinating Council, the Commission, 
     and other appropriate Federal agencies regarding 
     implementation of such emergency measures.
       ``(4) Application.--An order for emergency measures under 
     this subsection may apply to--
       ``(A) the Electric Reliability Organization;
       ``(B) a regional entity; or
       ``(C) any owner, user, or operator of critical electric 
     infrastructure or of defense critical electric infrastructure 
     within the United States.
       ``(5) Expiration and reissuance.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     an order for emergency measures issued under paragraph (1) 
     shall expire no later than 15 days after its issuance.
       ``(B) Extensions.--The Secretary may reissue an order for 
     emergency measures issued under paragraph (1) for subsequent 
     periods, not to exceed 15 days for each such period, provided 
     that the President, for each such period, issues and provides 
     to the Secretary a written directive or determination that 
     the grid security emergency identified under paragraph (1) 
     continues to exist or that the emergency measure continues to 
     be required.

[[Page 17443]]

       ``(6) Cost recovery.--
       ``(A) Critical electric infrastructure.--If the Commission 
     determines that owners, operators, or users of critical 
     electric infrastructure have incurred substantial costs to 
     comply with an order for emergency measures issued under this 
     subsection and that such costs were prudently incurred and 
     cannot reasonably be recovered through regulated rates or 
     market prices for the electric energy or services sold by 
     such owners, operators, or users, the Commission shall, 
     consistent with the requirements of section 205, after notice 
     and an opportunity for comment, establish a mechanism that 
     permits such owners, operators, or users to recover such 
     costs.
       ``(B) Defense critical electric infrastructure.--To the 
     extent the owner or operator of defense critical electric 
     infrastructure is required to take emergency measures 
     pursuant to an order issued under this subsection, the owners 
     or operators of a critical defense facility or facilities 
     designated by the Secretary pursuant to subsection (c) that 
     rely upon such infrastructure shall bear the full incremental 
     costs of the measures.
       ``(7) Temporary access to classified information.--The 
     Secretary, and other appropriate Federal agencies, shall, to 
     the extent practicable and consistent with their obligations 
     to protect classified information, provide temporary access 
     to classified information related to a grid security 
     emergency for which emergency measures are issued under 
     paragraph (1) to key personnel of any entity subject to such 
     emergency measures to enable optimum communication between 
     the entity and the Secretary and other appropriate Federal 
     agencies regarding the grid security emergency.
       ``(c) Designation of Critical Defense Facilities.--Not 
     later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
     section, the Secretary, in consultation with other 
     appropriate Federal agencies and appropriate owners, users, 
     or operators of infrastructure that may be defense critical 
     electric infrastructure, shall identify and designate 
     facilities located in the United States (including the 
     territories) that are--
       ``(1) critical to the defense of the United States; and
       ``(2) vulnerable to a disruption of the supply of electric 
     energy provided to such facility by an external provider.

     The Secretary may, in consultation with appropriate Federal 
     agencies and appropriate owners, users, or operators of 
     defense critical electric infrastructure, periodically revise 
     the list of designated facilities as necessary.
       ``(d) Protection and Sharing of Critical Electric 
     Infrastructure Information.--
       ``(1) Protection of critical electric infrastructure 
     information.--Critical electric infrastructure information--
       ``(A) shall be exempt from disclosure under section 
     552(b)(3) of title 5, United States Code; and
       ``(B) shall not be made available by any Federal, State, 
     political subdivision or tribal authority pursuant to any 
     Federal, State, political subdivision or tribal law requiring 
     public disclosure of information or records.
       ``(2) Designation and sharing of critical electric 
     infrastructure information.--Not later than one year after 
     the date of enactment of this section, the Commission, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Energy, shall promulgate 
     such regulations and issue such orders as necessary to--
       ``(A) designate information as critical electric 
     infrastructure information;
       ``(B) prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of critical 
     electric infrastructure information;
       ``(C) ensure there are appropriate sanctions in place for 
     Commissioners, officers, employees, or agents of the 
     Commission who knowingly and willfully disclose critical 
     electric infrastructure information in a manner that is not 
     authorized under this section; and
       ``(D) taking into account standards of the Electric 
     Reliability Organization, facilitate voluntary sharing of 
     critical electric infrastructure information with, between, 
     and by--
       ``(i) Federal, State, political subdivision, and tribal 
     authorities;
       ``(ii) the Electric Reliability Organization;
       ``(iii) regional entities;
       ``(iv) information sharing and analysis centers established 
     pursuant to Presidential Decision Directive 63;
       ``(v) owners, operators, and users of critical electric 
     infrastructure in the United States; and
       ``(vi) other entities determined appropriate by the 
     Commission.
       ``(3) Considerations.--In promulgating regulations and 
     issuing orders under paragraph (2), the Commission shall take 
     into consideration the role of State commissions in reviewing 
     the prudence and cost of investments, determining the rates 
     and terms of conditions for electric services, and ensuring 
     the safety and reliability of the bulk-power system and 
     distribution facilities within their respective 
     jurisdictions.
       ``(4) Protocols.--The Commission shall, in consultation 
     with Canadian and Mexican authorities, develop protocols for 
     the voluntary sharing of critical electric infrastructure 
     information with Canadian and Mexican authorities and owners, 
     operators, and users of the bulk-power system outside the 
     United States.
       ``(5) No required sharing of information.--Nothing in this 
     section shall require a person or entity in possession of 
     critical electric infrastructure information to share such 
     information with Federal, State, political subdivision, or 
     tribal authorities, or any other person or entity.
       ``(6) Submission of information to congress.--Nothing in 
     this section shall permit or authorize the withholding of 
     information from Congress, any committee or subcommittee 
     thereof, or the Comptroller General.
       ``(7) Disclosure of nonprotected information.--In 
     implementing this section, the Commission shall segregate 
     critical electric infrastructure information or information 
     that reasonably could be expected to lead to the disclosure 
     of the critical electric infrastructure information within 
     documents and electronic communications, wherever feasible, 
     to facilitate disclosure of information that is not 
     designated as critical electric infrastructure information.
       ``(8) Duration of designation.--Information may not be 
     designated as critical electric infrastructure information 
     for longer than 5 years, unless specifically re-designated by 
     the Commission.
       ``(9) Removal of designation.--The Commission shall remove 
     the designation of critical electric infrastructure 
     information, in whole or in part, from a document or 
     electronic communication if the Commission determines that 
     the unauthorized disclosure of such information could no 
     longer be used to impair the security or reliability of the 
     bulk-power system or distribution facilities.
       ``(10) Judicial review of designations.--Notwithstanding 
     section 313(b), any determination by the Commission 
     concerning the designation of critical electric 
     infrastructure information under this subsection shall be 
     subject to review under chapter 7 of title 5, United States 
     Code, except that such review shall be brought in the 
     district court of the United States in the district in which 
     the complainant resides, or has his principal place of 
     business, or in the District of Columbia. In such a case the 
     court shall examine in camera the contents of documents or 
     electronic communications that are the subject of the 
     determination under review to determine whether such 
     documents or any part thereof were improperly designated or 
     not designated as critical electric infrastructure 
     information.
       ``(e) Security Clearances.--The Secretary shall facilitate 
     and, to the extent practicable, expedite the acquisition of 
     adequate security clearances by key personnel of any entity 
     subject to the requirements of this section, to enable 
     optimum communication with Federal agencies regarding threats 
     to the security of the critical electric infrastructure. The 
     Secretary, the Commission, and other appropriate Federal 
     agencies shall, to the extent practicable and consistent with 
     their obligations to protect classified and critical electric 
     infrastructure information, share timely actionable 
     information regarding grid security with appropriate key 
     personnel of owners, operators, and users of the critical 
     electric infrastructure.
       ``(f) Clarifications of Liability.--
       ``(1) Compliance with or violation of this act.--Except as 
     provided in paragraph (4), to the extent any action or 
     omission taken by an entity that is necessary to comply with 
     an order for emergency measures issued under subsection 
     (b)(1), including any action or omission taken to voluntarily 
     comply with such order, results in noncompliance with, or 
     causes such entity not to comply with any rule, order, 
     regulation, or provision of this Act, including any 
     reliability standard approved by the Commission pursuant to 
     section 215, such action or omission shall not be considered 
     a violation of such rule, order, regulation, or provision.
       ``(2)  Relation to section 202(c).--Except as provided in 
     paragraph (4), an action or omission taken by an owner, 
     operator, or user of critical electric infrastructure or of 
     defense critical electric infrastructure to comply with an 
     order for emergency measures issued under subsection (b)(1) 
     shall be treated as an action or omission taken to comply 
     with an order issued under section 202(c) for purposes of 
     such section.
       ``(3) Sharing or receipt of information.--No cause of 
     action shall lie or be maintained in any Federal or State 
     court for the sharing or receipt of information under, and 
     that is conducted in accordance with, subsection (d).
       ``(4) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection 
     shall be construed to require dismissal of a cause of action 
     against an entity that, in the course of complying with an 
     order for emergency measures issued under subsection (b)(1) 
     by taking an action or omission for which they would be 
     liable but for paragraph (1) or (2), takes such action or 
     omission in a grossly negligent manner.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Jurisdiction.--Section 201(b)(2) of the Federal Power 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 824(b)(2)) is amended by inserting ``215A,'' 
     after ``215,'' each place it appears.
       (2) Public utility.--Section 201(e) of the Federal Power 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 824(e)) is amended by inserting ``215A,'' 
     after ``215,''.

[[Page 17444]]



     SEC. 99004. STRATEGIC TRANSFORMER RESERVE.

       (a) Finding.--Congress finds that the storage of 
     strategically located spare large power transformers and 
     emergency mobile substations will reduce the vulnerability of 
     the United States to multiple risks facing electric grid 
     reliability, including physical attack, cyber attack, 
     electromagnetic pulse, geomagnetic disturbances, severe 
     weather, and seismic events.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Bulk-power system.--The term ``bulk-power system'' has 
     the meaning given such term in section 215(a) of the Federal 
     Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824o(a)).
       (2) Critically damaged large power transformer.--The term 
     ``critically damaged large power transformer'' means a large 
     power transformer that--
       (A) has sustained extensive damage such that--
       (i) repair or refurbishment is not economically viable; or
       (ii) the extensive time to repair or refurbish the large 
     power transformer would create an extended period of 
     instability in the bulk-power system; and
       (B) prior to sustaining such damage, was part of the bulk-
     power system.
       (3) Critical electric infrastructure.--The term ``critical 
     electric infrastructure'' has the meaning given that term in 
     section 215A of the Federal Power Act.
       (4) Electric reliability organization.--The term ``Electric 
     Reliability Organization'' has the meaning given such term in 
     section 215(a) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824o(a)).
       (5) Emergency mobile substation.--The term ``emergency 
     mobile substation'' means a mobile substation or mobile 
     transformer that is--
       (A) assembled and permanently mounted on a trailer that is 
     capable of highway travel and meets relevant Department of 
     Transportation regulations; and
       (B) intended for express deployment and capable of being 
     rapidly placed into service.
       (6) Large power transformer.--The term ``large power 
     transformer'' means a power transformer with a maximum 
     nameplate rating of 100 megavolt-amperes or higher, including 
     related critical equipment, that is, or is intended to be, a 
     part of the bulk-power system.
       (7) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Energy.
       (8) Spare large power transformer.--The term ``spare large 
     power transformer'' means a large power transformer that is 
     stored within the Strategic Transformer Reserve to be 
     available to temporarily replace a critically damaged large 
     power transformer.
       (c) Strategic Transformer Reserve Plan.--
       (1) Plan.--Not later than one year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary, acting through the 
     Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, shall, 
     in consultation with the Federal Energy Regulatory 
     Commission, the Electricity Sub-sector Coordinating Council, 
     the Electric Reliability Organization, and owners and 
     operators of critical electric infrastructure and defense and 
     military installations, prepare and submit to Congress a plan 
     to establish a Strategic Transformer Reserve for the storage, 
     in strategically located facilities, of spare large power 
     transformers and emergency mobile substations in sufficient 
     numbers to temporarily replace critically damaged large power 
     transformers and substations that are critical electric 
     infrastructure or serve defense and military installations.
       (2) Inclusions.--The Strategic Transformer Reserve plan 
     shall include a description of--
       (A) the appropriate number and type of spare large power 
     transformers necessary to provide or restore sufficient 
     resiliency to the bulk-power system, critical electric 
     infrastructure, and defense and military installations to 
     mitigate significant impacts to the electric grid resulting 
     from--
       (i) physical attack;
       (ii) cyber attack;
       (iii) electromagnetic pulse attack;
       (iv) geomagnetic disturbances;
       (v) severe weather; or
       (vi) seismic events;
       (B) other critical electric grid equipment for which an 
     inventory of spare equipment, including emergency mobile 
     substations, is necessary to provide or restore sufficient 
     resiliency to the bulk-power system, critical electric 
     infrastructure, and defense and military installations;
       (C) the degree to which utility sector actions or 
     initiatives, including individual utility ownership of spare 
     equipment, joint ownership of spare equipment inventory, 
     sharing agreements, or other spare equipment reserves or 
     arrangements, satisfy the needs identified under 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B);
       (D) the potential locations for, and feasibility and 
     appropriate number of, strategic storage locations for 
     reserve equipment, including consideration of--
       (i) the physical security of such locations;
       (ii) the protection of the confidentiality of such 
     locations; and
       (iii) the proximity of such locations to sites of 
     potentially critically damaged large power transformers and 
     substations that are critical electric infrastructure or 
     serve defense and military installations, so as to enable 
     efficient delivery of equipment to such sites;
       (E) the necessary degree of flexibility of spare large 
     power transformers to be included in the Strategic 
     Transformer Reserve to conform to different substation 
     configurations, including consideration of transformer--
       (i) power and voltage rating for each winding;
       (ii) overload requirements;
       (iii) impedance between windings;
       (iv) configuration of windings; and
       (v) tap requirements;
       (F) an estimate of the direct cost of the Strategic 
     Transformer Reserve, as proposed, including--
       (i) the cost of storage facilities;
       (ii) the cost of the equipment; and
       (iii) management, maintenance, and operation costs;
       (G) the funding options available to establish, stock, 
     manage, and maintain the Strategic Transformer Reserve, 
     including consideration of fees on owners and operators of 
     bulk-power system facilities, critical electric 
     infrastructure, and defense and military installations 
     relying on the Strategic Transformer Reserve, use of Federal 
     appropriations, and public-private cost-sharing options;
       (H) the ease and speed of transportation, installation, and 
     energization of spare large power transformers to be included 
     in the Strategic Transformer Reserve, including consideration 
     of factors such as--
       (i) transformer transportation weight;
       (ii) transformer size;
       (iii) topology of critical substations;
       (iv) availability of appropriate transformer mounting pads;
       (v) flexibility of the spare large power transformers as 
     described in subparagraph (E); and
       (vi) ability to rapidly transition a spare large power 
     transformer from storage to energization;
       (I) eligibility criteria for withdrawal of equipment from 
     the Strategic Transformer Reserve;
       (J) the process by which owners or operators of critically 
     damaged large power transformers or substations that are 
     critical electric infrastructure or serve defense and 
     military installations may apply for a withdrawal from the 
     Strategic Transformer Reserve;
       (K) the process by which equipment withdrawn from the 
     Strategic Transformer Reserve is returned to the Strategic 
     Transformer Reserve or is replaced;
       (L) possible fees to be paid by users of equipment 
     withdrawn from the Strategic Transformer Reserve;
       (M) possible fees to be paid by owners and operators of 
     large power transformers and substations that are critical 
     electric infrastructure or serve defense and military 
     installations to cover operating costs of the Strategic 
     Transformer Reserve;
       (N) the domestic and international large power transformer 
     supply chain;
       (O) the potential reliability, cost, and operational 
     benefits of including emergency mobile substations in any 
     Strategic Transformer Reserve established under this section; 
     and
       (P) other considerations for designing, constructing, 
     stocking, funding, and managing the Strategic Transformer 
     Reserve.
       (d) Establishment.--The Secretary may establish a Strategic 
     Transformer Reserve in accordance with the plan prepared 
     pursuant to subsection (c) after the date that is 6 months 
     after the date on which such plan is submitted to Congress.
       (e) Disclosure of Information.--Any information included in 
     the Strategic Transformer Reserve plan, or shared in the 
     preparation and development of such plan, the disclosure of 
     which could cause harm to critical electric infrastructure, 
     shall be exempt from disclosure under section 552(b)(3) of 
     title 5, United States Code, and any State, tribal, or local 
     law requiring disclosure of information or records.

     SEC. 99005. ENERGY SECURITY VALUATION.

       (a) Establishment of Energy Security Valuation Methods.--
     Not later than one year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary of Energy, in collaboration with the 
     Secretary of State, shall develop and transmit, after public 
     notice and comment, to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
     and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the 
     Senate a report that develops recommended United States 
     energy security valuation methods. In developing the report, 
     the Secretaries may consider the recommendations of the 
     Administration's Quadrennial Energy Review released on April 
     21, 2015. The report shall--
       (1) evaluate and define United States energy security to 
     reflect modern domestic and global energy markets and the 
     collective needs of the United States and its allies and 
     partners;
       (2) identify transparent and uniform or coordinated 
     procedures and criteria to ensure that energy-related actions 
     that significantly affect the supply, distribution, or use

[[Page 17445]]

     of energy are evaluated with respect to their potential 
     impact on energy security, including their impact on--
       (A) consumers and the economy;
       (B) energy supply diversity and resiliency;
       (C) well-functioning and competitive energy markets;
       (D) United States trade balance; and
       (E) national security objectives; and
       (3) include a recommended implementation strategy that 
     identifies and aims to ensure that the procedures and 
     criteria referred to in paragraph (2) are--
       (A) evaluated consistently across the Federal Government; 
     and
       (B) weighed appropriately and balanced with environmental 
     considerations required by Federal law.
       (b) Participation.--In developing the report referred to in 
     subsection (a), the Secretaries may consult with relevant 
     Federal, State, private sector, and international 
     participants, as appropriate and consistent with applicable 
     law.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 512, the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. MULLIN. Madam Chair, I am offering this amendment on behalf of 
Chairman Upton. I would like to thank him for his leadership on the 
energy issues.
  This is a noncontroversial provision that had bipartisan support when 
it was reported out of the full committee. I would urge my colleagues 
to support it.

                              {time}  0100

  Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Olson) for the purpose of supporting the amendment.
  Mr. OLSON. Madam Chair, I thank my friend from Oklahoma.
  Madam Chair, a special thanks to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Upton), my committee chairman, for having this amendment in this 
important highway bill. This amendment is common sense. There is a 
great saying in America, ``The third time is a charm.''
  These exact words have passed this body three straight times. In the 
112th, the 113th, and the current 114th Congress, this exact language 
has passed this body without objection, all ``yea'' votes. It is 
noncontroversial.
  This amendment does one simple thing. It ensures that our power grid 
will be reliable in a power crisis, and that crisis won't become a 
legal crisis as has happened at least two times in the last 10 years.
  It is the same scenario: there is a power crisis, the entity that 
controls the grid says to keep that grid up and running, the operator 
says we will see our permits from EPA, they do that, and they are sued. 
This amendment says to stop that practice. If you are told to keep the 
grid up and running, you can do that for at least 16 days.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment one more 
time because right now we have the chance to have it go to the 
President and become signed into law to make our grid safer and more 
reliable for future Americans.
  Mr. MULLIN. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. MULLIN. Madam Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Olson) having assumed the chair, Ms. Foxx, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the Senate amendments to 
the bill (H.R. 22) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt 
employees with health coverage under TRICARE or the Veterans 
Administration from being taken into account for purposes of 
determining the employers to which the employer mandate applies under 
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________