John Culberson: “My colleague from Oregon is confusing the issue. This isn't about making money. This isn't about repaying the money.…”

“My colleague from Oregon is confusing the issue. This isn't about making money. This isn't about repaying the money. This is about making sure that our constituents' hard-earned tax dollars are going to be wisely and carefully and prudently sent only to those transit agencies that have proven they can do a good job, that they don't have more debt currently than they have current assets. My amendment, quoting from the amendment, is very simple: Applicant shall have a current operating ratio of current assets to current liabilities of 1:1. That is at a minimum. Houston Metro would qualify for this. There are transit agencies all over America that would qualify for this. Let's make sure that the transit entity, before they ask for our constituents' hard-earned tax dollars, have demonstrated that they are competent and capable of managing the money that they already have on hand and they don't have more debt than they can carry. I urge passage of the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Actually, the amendment is to take money from New York City, Washington, D.C., probably Baltimore, Boston--I don't know--anyone who has a legacy transportation system that actually, until Ronald Reagan was President, pretty much was built without Federal dollars and run without Federal support and they have huge backlogs in terms of bringing them up to a state of good repair, 120-, 130-year-old tunnels.…”