As I went on to explain in meetings of the caucus, meetings with our committee members on both sides of the aisle, the Senate version of this bill directed major highway discretionary program funding to a select group of States: four would get 58 percent of the funding; 22 States get nothing; the other 20 got dribbles. That formulation would provide a permanent windfall for those four States. And not just a one-time shot but a long-term windfall, because it would skew underlying highway formulas, changing the baseline for those four States that got the lion's share of the money.
James Oberstar: “As I went on to explain in meetings of the caucus, meetings with our committee members on both sides of the aisle, the…”
On the recordMarch 17, 2010
Editor's note · Context
Oberstar discusses concerns over unfair highway funding distribution in a bill.
Share
More from James Oberstar
Nov 18, 2019
The diverse water resources challenges throughout the United States are often studied, planned, and managed in individual 'silos,' independently of other water areas and projects.
Jun 18, 2019
A combination of analysis and tests may be used to show that the airplane is capable of being evacuated within 90 seconds...
Nov 18, 2019
The efforts of Federal agencies can overlap and at times conflict, and currently, there is no body within the Executive branch to provide substantive coordination or, if necessary, resolution of disagreements among agencies to ensure…
Sep 20, 2010
But we all also recognize that the potential cost of meeting these needs is immense.





