David Price: “I want to join the chairman in opposing this well-intentioned amendment. The amendment would cannibalize various…”

“I want to join the chairman in opposing this well-intentioned amendment. The amendment would cannibalize various administrative accounts throughout the bill, the Office of the Secretary for Executive Management, the Chief Financial Officer, the CBP Salaries and Expenses, FEMA Salaries and Expenses, somewhat obscure accounts, you might say; but, nonetheless, accounts that are vital to the Department's functioning. It would cannibalize these accounts and put $22 million more in grants, presumably for urban grants, UASI. Now, the grant programs can always use more money. I've championed those programs for years, especially the risk-based UASI program. But we need to think carefully what this amendment is really about. This is a risky path for this body to go down. It really seems to be about adding cities to UASI, adding cities. Now, UASI-eligible cities, and there are 25 of them, are picked on a risk basis. There's a formula involving threat and vulnerability and consequence. The estimates are updated every year. This is probably the most strictly risk-based assessment that DHS undertakes. Do we really want to substitute that for picking these cities on the House floor? I'm afraid that's what this amendment is all about, or at least it's the path that it could put us on. And so, therefore, I urge its rejection. I yield back the balance of my time. The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heck).…”