In the hearing yesterday, I made it very clear that the committee would move forward with the broader changes that the gentleman just discussed, Madam Speaker, so that the Coast Guard will have authority to draw larger sums, in hundred-million-dollar increments, with proper notification to Congress, without having to come back and legislate each time. But that is beyond the scope of the pending bill. And the technical changes notified to us are of a truly technical nature. Expanding into the broader question that we are now discussing would require new legislation. And I commit to the gentleman that that will be part of our bipartisan work in committee, and we will craft the appropriate language.
James Oberstar: “In the hearing yesterday, I made it very clear that the committee would move forward with the broader changes that the…”
Editor's note · Context
Oberstar discusses the Coast Guard's funding authority and the need for new legislation.
Share
More from James Oberstar
But we all also recognize that the potential cost of meeting these needs is immense.
Using a National Infrastructure Bank to finance a large part of our infrastructure needs means we will be able to target Federal spending more efficiently.
The City of Marquette kept its part of the agreement, conveyed property to the Coast Guard for $1, and now is going to be stuck with the bill. The problem is that the way the transfer worked out, the statutory PAYGO rules preclude…
We must move away from complete reliance on public funding for infrastructure and forge a new, stronger connection between private capital and infrastructure needs.





