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…”
Editor's note · Context
Oberstar discusses concerns over unfair highway funding distribution in a bill.
Share
More from James Oberstar
The FAA in January of this year initiated a process to address the issues created by the so-called ``through-the-fence'' agreements. They formed a policy review team to gather information, evaluate the concerns, decide what kind of action…
In House floor consideration of the railroad retirement program, it was made very clear time and again by both sides of the aisle that this plan for railroad retirement was not a formula for Social Security. Both sides were at pains to say…
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.
The gentleman from Washington is mistaken in his understanding or his reading of the amendment that I offer. It's an amendment to OPA. It is not an amendment to the dollar amounts and does not reference dollar amounts. Under OPA, of which…





