I was so troubled by the remarks of the gentleman from Texas, for whom I have great respect. I think he was making more of a political argument than a substantive discussion of the matter at hand. In December, the House passed the Jobs for Main Street bill. It included the piece that is before us today. That measure went over to the Senate. It was held up in its entirety, and in the specific that we are dealing with today, by a hold, a series of holds, and then a filibuster by the Senator from Kentucky. Eventually, the Senate overcame that filibuster. This measure, this $15 billion, has been before the Congress for 22 months. It is no surprise to anyone. The measure before us does what Republican leadership did with our support on this side on SAFETEA-LU in 2004 and 2005; 12 extensions of current law, 12 extensions, in order to muster the support we needed, in order to buy the time necessary to pass the 5-year surface transportation bill. This measure before us provides $77 billion for a 15-month extension of current law. It restores the $8.7 billion rescission that was required in SAFETEA-LU, at the insistence of the Bush administration, which required, for the President's signature, a rescission at the end of the 5-year period, and that occurred September of 2009. That meant that programs were underfunded, that is, underfunded below the authorization level of SAFETEA-LU, for the past several months. The bill restores that funding level.
James Oberstar: “I was so troubled by the remarks of the gentleman from Texas, for whom I have great respect. I think he was making more…”
Editor's note · Context
Oberstar addresses the delays and funding issues related to the Jobs for Main Street bill and surface transportation funding.
Share
More from James Oberstar
I would just conclude that it's inappropriate for us to impose this penalty on the FAA through the appropriation process. A much more appropriate way would be to deal with it through our committee. I commit to the gentleman that we will…
I wish to express my appreciation to the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Mica, who made a very elaborate statement about the provisions of the bill. I will not elaborate on it, except to concur with him that we are getting the…
I would like to make the observation, Madam Speaker, that the gentleman took the lead in our Public Buildings Subcommittee many years ago, during his first term in Congress, on courthouses. The gentleman has saved the taxpayers of this…
This legislation makes clear that no State will be considered to have violated the Federal Highway Administration's competitive bidding requirements solely because the State chose to enact an anti-pay-to-play law. The bill would neither…





