Bud Shuster: “Unfortunately, I rise in opposition to this amendment by my good friend from Vermont. I know there are a lot of health…”

“Unfortunately, I rise in opposition to this amendment by my good friend from Vermont. I know there are a lot of health benefits and other benefits to this. The main reason that I rise in opposition is that, with the gentleman's amendment, there will be less money being invested in transit. The higher Federal share means that a bike project can eat up the funds the transit agencies need to address their needs. In addition, this amendment would mean that a bicycle project gets a higher Federal share than the acquisition of an ADA-compliant vehicle, which will support mobility for disabled individuals. Almost every other type of project we authorize in this bill--roads, bridges, bus stations--requires a partnership of up to 80 percent Federal, 20 percent non-Federal. These bike projects shouldn't be the exception; so I would urge all Members to oppose this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.”