This amendment would cut $1.8 billion in areas that include important increases above the President's budget. And let me simply remind people that our budget, as brought forward, is $1.3 billion below the President's request. This amendment proposes to remove another $1.8 billion. It is the legislative branch's clearly stated constitutional responsibility to appropriate the proper allocation of resources. And that responsibility must not be ceded to the executive branch. This amendment would result in cuts to a number of programs that are critical to creating jobs, increasing transportation safety, and restoring support to programs serving vulnerable Americans across the country. It removes $400 million from the TIGER grant program, where for the $1.5 billion Recovery Act TIGER grant program, the requests coming from all of the 50 States were almost $57 billion, showing how much this kind of infrastructure was needed. This funding would have a positive impact on the economy, create thousands of jobs, and occur over a several-year period, thereby serving as a slow release remedy to keep the recovery going as it ought to do. The amendment also cuts $400 million from the high-speed rail program, which is designed to continue building a high-speed passenger rail network. This again would create jobs and help reinvigorate our manufacturing base.
John W. Olver: “This amendment would cut $1.8 billion in areas that include important increases above the President's budget. And let me…”
Editor's note · Context
Speaker Olver discusses the implications of an amendment that proposes significant budget cuts.
Share
More from John W. Olver
I rise in opposition. The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 5 minutes.
I will be very brief. I merely want to concur in the position of the chairman of the subcommittee, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time. The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered…
I oppose this amendment strongly, but not because I like a VMT, particularly, and not that I do not understand that in rural areas this can be very burdensome. However, we have to have additional revenue. The reason our infrastructure is…
I think that what the chairman has said is probably about as good as it gets. What we have now is a slightly amended version of the proposal. My understanding is that the major long-distance trucking companies are against this language and…





