On the recordJune 9, 2015
Thank you, Madam Chair. I have the utmost respect for my colleague from North Carolina, but he actually makes the argument for the amendment as opposed to opposed to it. Yes, it reduces risk for bicyclists and pedestrians when you talk about signage, when you talk about certain lighting, when you talk about certain enhancements that are add-ons to the project that the Federal Government and the Federal taxpayer dollars are intended to fund. The Federal taxpayer dollars should be going to the transit project that it is intended for, instead of all the extras. The local authorities should be responsible for those. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. It is a clear-cut amendment. I yield back the balance of my time. The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer). The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
