BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I must join with my colleagues Mr. Price and Mr. Quigley. The reference here to the TIGER grant program is really almost incomprehensible in terms of what one would think Congress and even our friends in the Republican majority should be supporting. These are amongst the most popular programs that we have had in transportation, and the goal of the TIGER program was to maximize the impact. It required local communities to come together, often across jurisdictional boundaries, to figure out how to leverage the most impact from this program.
Mr. Price referenced the heritage trail in Indianapolis. I have heard the mayor of Indianapolis give a spirited explanation of what difference that has made in the revitalization of that community. It is leveraging over $60 million to be able to improve the livability of Indianapolis. I was in Philadelphia, watching the program there, where the entire region came together for a $23 million program for bike and pedestrian, which would not be possible under the restrictions that the Republicans have inexplicably designed. Mr. Latham has a couple of TIGER grants in his district that would not be possible under this language. In Houston, a $200 million investment in bike and pedestrian trails has leveraged another $50 million from the private sector and is part of their effort to revitalize the downtown.
It is a formula that is used across the country--being able to give people more choices--but instead, the committee has decided that they know better than the mayor of Indianapolis, that they know better than local communities about what they need to be able to make a difference.
The irony is that the resources that are used for bike and pedestrian programs actually create more jobs than simply road construction. Talk to people around the country, as I have, about the ability to invest in making their children safer for cycling and pedestrian. It is not incidental. It is not something that should be just simply brushed aside.
Mr. Chairman, this is part of what we should be doing. I have got two of these projects in my district that have leveraged private investment, that are wildly supported by the public. It is why we are seeing that there are thousands of requests for only a couple of hundred slots. To dramatically reduce the spending and restrict what the local communities can use it for, I think, is misguided. It is a step in the wrong direction, and it is not where America is going. It is not what we are seeing in communities--large and small, red States and blue States. What they want is to be able to revitalize their communities, to keep young, talented professionals there, to give people more choices, to cut down on pollution, and to be able to maximize transportation investment.
I hope that this misguided language does not survive the legislative process. It would be a tragic mistake, and it is one that is actually going to end up undercutting some of the most progressive and energetic efforts we are seeing in communities, large and small. I respectfully urge my colleagues to think again--eliminate the restrictions, and look at where we are going to be able to maximize the impact. Where we are watching people in this Congress not willing to provide adequate resources for a transportation bill, we should be maximizing elements like the TIGER grants because we are going to need them more than ever.
I yield back the balance of my time.