Lincoln Diaz-Balart: “The gentleman's amendment is obviously very well intentioned. However, the amendment, as drafted, is so broad that, for…”

“The gentleman's amendment is obviously very well intentioned. However, the amendment, as drafted, is so broad that, for example, a contractor could be excluded for something as minor as failing to display a poster in a break room. Again, it is well intentioned. We have to remember something. We fund a lot of contracts in this bill, everything from phone service to the computer systems that ensure an orderly and efficient air space. Potentially, this amendment could eliminate a number of those transportation-industry-dependent contracts. Nobody wants to allow for lawbreaking; but, because it is so broadly drafted, the unintended consequences, I think, that folks could be caught in this are a lot more than I think many folks understand. Again, though it is a well-intentioned amendment, I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time. The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison). The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it.”