This is one of those cases in which we've gone back and forth here today with the gentleman from California. This must be the eighth or ninth of these, and it's hard to find ways of being very creative or original about what you're saying. The interesting thing here is that, for some of the time, the gentleman has been going back to whatever we had done several years ago, going back arbitrarily to some point in the past. Here, of course, he is supporting the President's position. I was not aware that the gentleman from California supported the President's position in much of anything.
John W. Olver: “This is one of those cases in which we've gone back and forth here today with the gentleman from California. This must…”
Share
More from John W. Olver
How does that guarantee that California's gas tax moneys will not be used for high-speed rail?
In reclaiming my time, maybe the gentleman understands and I simply do not. Who is about to promulgate regulations in this area of mandating global positioning systems, electronic onboard recording devices and so forth? Where is the action…
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…
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.





