There are no funds made available in this Act for high-speed rail. None. And so, since this is a 1-year bill, I don't think this amendment does very much. The gentleman from California has a problem with a process that has been going on now for at least a decade in the development of a high- speed rail process program, and the people of California have spoken on this by referendum. They have passed the bond bill by referendum. I think bond bills usually take an extraordinary vote, two-thirds vote or something like that. Am I correct? Would the gentleman from California confirm that it was a two-thirds vote by which the referendum was passed? I yield to the gentleman.
John W. Olver: “There are no funds made available in this Act for high-speed rail. None. And so, since this is a 1-year bill, I don't…”
Share
More from John W. Olver
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…
Reclaiming my time, the language of the amendment, as I have it before me, says none of the funds made available by this Act may be used for high-speed rail in the State of California, or for the California High-Speed Rail Authority.
At this point, I really don't know whether your understanding is anywhere close to mine. I think this is an amendment deserving of opposition, so I am opposing the amendment. I think this amendment should not be adopted, and you can do as…
Well, I don't know how this amendment is going to solve the problem that you have exactly, but the chairman has agreed to adopt it. So I will state an objection because I really don't understand how this is going to solve your problem, but…





