David Price

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise to join the chairman in opposition. The amendment would decimate the salaries and expense accounts at the Department of Transportation, Department of Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies. There are broad consequences for this, but I want to focus on one consequence: cybersecurity. The inspectors general of both departments have indicated that both agencies have a lot of work to do in addressing cyber threats. The CIOs at DOT and HUD have been working to address these challenges. They have had issues in hiring and staffing cybersecurity professionals in what is a very competitive labor market. The bill would make these challenges even more difficult by reducing the salaries and expenses of the CIO offices by 10 percent. We owe it to our constituents to have a safe and secure transportation system and to safeguard personally identifiable information. This amendment would make it harder for these departments to do this, and I urge its defeat.

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

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, 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.

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

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding. I join him in opposing this amendment. It would reduce the total amount of spending on new infrastructure projects by $474 million. The main criticism of this bill, as the chairman has said, is that we ought to be doing more investment in infrastructure, not less. This amendment would make the bill's shortcomings even worse. The Federal-State partnership for State of Good Repair program can be used for grants along the Northeast Corridor, the Chicago to Detroit Corridor, and publicly owned rail infrastructure throughout the Nation. These corridors include many of the Nation's passenger rail bottlenecks. This amendment would take away dedicated funds to improve passenger rail service throughout our country. It is a distraction from the infrastructure challenges we face. We should be finding ways to invest in infrastructure: worthy new projects, expand mobility and opportunity. This amendment moves in the opposite direction. Mr. Chairman, I urge its defeat.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the chairman for yielding and join him in opposing this amendment. Amtrak serves more than 500 destinations in 46 States. It is a more and more critical component of our transportation system in North Carolina and many States like it across the country. It connects small communities that otherwise wouldn't have access to air service or other first-rate transportation. In the past 11 years, Amtrak has had ten consecutive years of record ridership, serving over 32 million passengers last year. So this is an irresponsible amendment. It would eliminate thousands of jobs for Amtrak workers, and it would hurt the local economies that benefit from Amtrak routes. Eliminating this national network service would also harm State- supported routes, and we in North Carolina and other States take notice when that is charged, and it is an accurate charge. They feed into these long-distance routes. It costs the government billions of dollars due to the violation of labor agreements. So it would be a very costly amendment. There is no doubt about it. Support for a robust national rail system has been reaffirmed by members of both parties, and we can reaffirm it here tonight by voting against this amendment.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I commend my colleague for offering this amendment, and I strongly support it. Like many Members, I have seen the difference that NeighborWorks makes in my own district: making available hundreds of affordable apartments, often for veterans, for families. The administration proposed slashing NeighborWorks by $113 million, so I commend the committee, our subcommittee, for refusing that proposal. But we need to bring it back to the fiscal year `16 level, and that is what my colleague is proposing. That would be $35 million. It would bring us to that fiscal year `16 level of funding, and it would let NeighborWorks do even more good work in our communities. I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman for yielding time to me, and I join him in opposition to this amendment. There are some conflicting accounts about what the underlying bill would do. Certainly there has been an attempt to contain the damage in the bill. Some groups like the National Low Income Housing Coalition, however, estimate that housing vouchers would be lost under the current bill, and then we have this amendment? This amendment would compound many times whatever problems are involved in the legislation. It would have a horrible impact on low-income families. The gentleman has asserted here tonight that veterans wouldn't be harmed, that the disabled wouldn't be harmed, the elderly wouldn't be harmed. Read the amendment. Where is any of this stated? How can he make such statement? All these groups and more would be harmed. Mr. Chair, I urge this amendment's rejection.

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

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment. The Private Enforcement Initiative provides grants to nonprofit organizations to prevent and eliminate discriminatory housing practices. These organizations receive complaints. They investigate them. They work to educate landlords and property managers on their responsibilities under Federal fair housing law. Their work ensures that legitimate complaints move forward and that education is provided to housing providers when that is appropriate. Across the country, PEI grantees are working to ensure that families with children have access to housing. Just this May, HUD and Project Sentinel, an organization in California, announced a conciliation agreement with a landlord who refused to rent to people with small children and infants. Another PEI grantee in California worked to ensure that a person with disabilities had access to a medically required service animal. Another grantee in Illinois worked to ensure that a mortgage lender did not discriminate on the basis of race. This is the kind of work that PEIs do. It may seem expedient to some to transfer the funding and responsibility of investigating fair housing complaints to States and local units of government, but we would lose a lot by doing that. What we would lose is the organizational knowledge, the years of expertise that the PEI program has developed. Now, if the gentleman has specific issues with the program about how it is run, you know, the authorizing committee can hear those complaints, not the appropriations process. This is not the place to refine the law under which the program operates, let alone to pull the plug on funding. Given all of the good work that PEI grantees do across the country and in my district, I can't support eliminating this program, and I urge colleagues to oppose this amendment. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a pretty good example, I must say, of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There may be complaints here and there. There are ways to pursue those complaints. But the good work that these organizations do, the documented cases of discrimination, discriminatory practices, exclusion that they have remedied, that they have made right, should be very compelling to us. Certainly, the blunt instrument of simply withholding of funding isn't going to deal with that. It is going to likely do great damage to organizations that, across the country, have had a very positive impact. This amendment would end their work. It would end the work of nonprofits that use funding to ensure housing providers remain in compliance with Federal housing law. It is a very bad idea. Mr. Chair, let's oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I can't imagine why we would want to micromanage Pennsylvania's transportation system. I wouldn't want the body micromanaging North Carolina's. We had a decision about tolling in my district a few years ago. Tolling wasn't anybody's first choice or second choice or third choice. But if tolling had not been instituted on a part of the loop road around Raleigh, North Carolina, if tolling had not been instituted, we would have waited 20 years for the road to be constructed. So we took a deep breath and we undertook a toll project, and that is why the road is built and serving commuters today. Now, that decision could have gone either way, but we would have had no business in this body coming in and dictating that decision in North Carolina or any other State. I don't know why we should start tonight. Federal law is very flexible about the use of Federal aid funds for new toll facilities and even existing toll-free roads. States will make different decisions about this. I would say our infrastructure needs are pressing enough to require an all-of-the-above approach, and if tolls are appropriate and are accepted, then that is perhaps what we should do. But that is a decision for State and local officials and their constituents in considering these matters. We have no business in adopting an amendment of that sort, and I very much hope we will not. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I would like the clarify that I am not the least bit interested in getting into the merits of this project. It is none of my business, none of our business, so that is not the point. I haven't said a word about the merits of the project. I know nothing about it. What I do know is that this is a decision that the State of Pennsylvania is perfectly capable of making for itself. I am not interested in the folks that might be on the losing side of a decision to come to this body to carry their water. We have no business doing that. This is simply an inappropriate exercise of appropriations power, and I urge the amendment's rejection. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Davis-Bacon is a pretty simple concept, and a fair one. It requires that workers on a federally funded construction project be paid no less than prevailing wages, the wages paid in the community for similar work. The Davis-Bacon Act ensures workers are paid decent wages, while preventing unscrupulous contractors from undercutting competitors. In doing this, Davis-Bacon helps protect workers and the Federal Government. Mr. Chairman, the House has taken numerous votes on this issue, and on every vote, this body has maintained Davis-Bacon requirements. Last year, we avoided including divisive language like this, and it is my hope that we will stop attacking working people and their organizations and defeat the amendment before us. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross).

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I urge defeat of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I understand the concern that has led to it about the practice of tolling or the possibility of tolling on two adjacent highways in two States. But the same kind of reasoning that applied, I think, to Mr. Thompson's amendment earlier would apply to this. This is not a decision for us to make on the floor of the House tonight. This is clearly a local matter. We don't have any business micromanaging it. The States involved can have their own decisionmaking processes. They have their own ways of consulting with one another for that matter. Federal law has been pretty flexible on this for good reason. It has been flexible about tolling, about the treatment of existing toll-free roads for good reason. We have pressing infrastructure needs in this country. We have great need for flexibility in the way we fund infrastructure improvements. I relayed earlier the kind of decision we made in North Carolina. It was not particularly our first choice to have a toll road, but the alternative was waiting 20 years, so we have a toll road. Others will make other decisions. But it is not our place to preempt those decisions, let alone in an appropriations bill. Mr. Chairman, I do oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

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

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

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Our colleague does make solid points about the importance of manufactured housing, about the serviceability of it, about the access of it, about the affordability. There are many, many aspects about manufactured housing that lend themselves to our constituents at various income levels. He asks why we would possibly want any kind of consumer protections enacted at the Federal level in this business, though. I think the answer to that is pretty obvious: It is about safety and security. It is about protecting consumers who put good money down for these houses. That is not to say every rule, every protection is well-conceived. Possibly some need to be scrutinized and some need to be revised. But are we going to do it tonight on the floor of the House in an appropriations bill? I would hope not. That is not a good way to proceed. We, for one thing, have colleagues on the authorizing committee who have not had hearings, as far as I know, on these issues. We have not had people who live with these regulations in to talk about them or groups that look out for the consumers come in. We have very limited debate here tonight, with 5 minutes on each side. On that basis, we are going to wipe away carefully conceived consumer protections in the area of manufactured housing? Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues not to go down this path. That is not to say we shouldn't consider these things. Congress, including the authorizing committees, and HUD should fully examine the impact of these individual regulations before we jump the gun and make sweeping changes to existing policy. I urge defeat of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, it is news to most of us, I expect, that consumer protections is incompatible with consumer choice. We offer protections of all sorts. In the case of housing, it is against predatory practices. As the houses are sold, it is against shoddy construction, it is against a race to the bottom in terms of quality that individual buyers may not be able to perceive. That compatibility of basic consumer protections and consumer choice is presented every day in our marketplace, and I certainly don't see why it should be absent here, although, as I said earlier, some of these rules may be up for scrutiny. It is just not that we are prepared to do it here tonight. I would also point out that the only type of housing that moves across State lines is manufactured housing, so that probably provides an additional argument as to why we should be particularly diligent in dismantling Federal protections. I urge rejection of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time