On the recordSeptember 6, 2017
I commend the gentleman for offering the amendment. I am compelled to oppose it, in part, because our authorizers have expressed reservations, at least on our side, about this amendment. No one disagrees with giving the States flexibility, but we and the authorizers, in particular, have some questions about how the gentleman's amendment would go about providing that flexibility. The set-asides in the bill reflect the agreement in the FAST Act. Therefore, before legislating on this, we need to be clear about how this would work and whether it does, in fact, violate the premises of the FAST Act and other questions raised by our colleagues. I suggest a ``no'' vote. I also suggest that we could return to this and deal with it later once some of these questions might be cleared up. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.





