David Price

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield an additional 1 minute to my colleague.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar), a distinguished member of our Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time both sides have remaining?

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly), our colleague, so he can complete his statement.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, although, as a formality, I will then claim that time, although I am not opposed; I am enthusiastically in support of Mr. Nadler's amendment.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank my colleague for offering this amendment. It calls attention to the gross underfunding in this bill, not just of TIGER, but of virtually every HUD and transportation program so that it is very hard, of course, to find offsets. There is very little money in this bill. We should be breaking out of that mold. We should be going after a budget agreement that will let us write a decent bill and meet this country's needs. Her amendment, better than anything we have heard thus far tonight, underscores that need. I thank the gentlewoman.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I appreciate the chairman's yielding. I want to echo his opposition to this amendment, and I want to echo his praise for the reality check that the gentleman from Illinois has provided us tonight. At various times in the course of the evening, we have talked about TIGER grants; we have talked about Amtrak; we have talked about transit investments--all of which are underfunded in this bill. I am also pleased that the chairman has expressed the willingness to cooperate in going forward. I want to echo that on my part, too, because we do believe a better day will come and, hopefully, not only at the end of the fiscal year but soon, where we get a budget agreement, where we get better numbers, and where we are able to address each of these accounts that the gentleman has highlighted. He is exactly right about the need in all of these areas. The offset is not acceptable. It is even dangerous. For that reason, I oppose the amendment, but the larger message is we have got to get a better budget number, and we have got to revisit many of the accounts in this bill.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to echo his opposition to this amendment, although I do commend Mr. Garrett for his focus on safety and operations. I, too, would like to raise that appropriation to the request level. That is a good objective. There are a couple of problems here, though. One, is that because of differences in outlay rates, to pick up $17 million on the safety and operations side you have to cut $83 million from the transit New Starts. That has to do with differences in outlay rates. But the fact is, it is a substantial cut. And these New Starts in the bill, I remind colleagues, are already $1.3 billion below the President's request. They are $198 million below what we have this year. These are badly underfunded items. So we simply, again, are robbing Peter to pay Paul. But because of the disproportionate impact here, and the fact that New Starts are already so underresourced, I reluctantly oppose this amendment.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I appreciate the chairman's response. I, too, will work with you. This isn't acceptable. We will do our best to help you get the kind of response you need.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I, too, reluctantly oppose this amendment. The discussion we had earlier about this offset certainly pertains here. We really cannot afford to make this kind of cut--safety-related cut, I might say--to the Federal Aviation Administration's funding. The amendment is worthy in purpose. Again, funding for Amtrak's capital accounts is woefully inadequate in this bill. But this is simply not the way to make it up. In fact, there is no way to make it up within the confines of this bill. We are robbing Peter to pay Paul. This is what is wrong with this bill--an inadequate allocation. That means there is no way to get adequate funding for things we care about without doing equivalent damage somewhere else. It is an impossible dilemma. What we need to do is do the responsible thing: get a budget agreement, get numbers we can work with, and write a decent bill. In the meantime, this amendment, while well-intentioned, really is not acceptable, and I urge rejection.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I commend my colleague for offering this amendment, and I want to offer my strong support. Mr. Chairman, we are talking here about annualizing the funding--in other words, bringing these people on board permanently--for pipeline safety inspectors who were hired in fiscal year 2015. We are also talking about the better coordination of enforcement activities between Federal, State, and local officials. I would like to remind my colleagues we have 2.6 million miles of pipeline across this country. I think the number is maybe 548 personnel in the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. This is an enormous task. The gentlewoman's amendment would greatly improve our capacity to address this challenge, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I seek time in opposition.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chair, we have an amendment before us that would strike a provision that has been carried in every transportation appropriations bill since 2009. The section simply grants the Secretary or his representatives the authority to engage in activities with States and State legislators to consider proposals related to the reduction of motorcycle fatalities. This consultation is entirely voluntary. Madam Chair, in 2013, we had 5,000 motorcycle fatalities in this country. That is the last year for which we have data. The research and expertise of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration can be extremely helpful--helpful to State highway traffic safety agencies as they consider measures they might want to undertake to improve motorcycle safety. Why wouldn't we want to be in partnership with the States as they address this important safety issue? Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment which, purely and simply, would end intercity passenger rail for our Nation. I remind colleagues, there is not a single mode of transportation in this country that is not subsidized, contrary to what we have just heard. To make the case further, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown), a distinguished member of the authorizing committee.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Will the gentlewoman yield?