The only change we made was to increase the return to donor States while ensuring growth to each and every State. The EPW Committee wanted to put forth a bill that achieved fair balance and growth in every State. As in all of our national programs, we direct resources in our bill to the 50 States in order to maintain a national system. If we only sent funds to programs on a State-by-State basis, and then based it only on the ratios of the taxes paid from each State, we would be balkanized and disunified. I believe our bill is fair, balanced, equitable, and national in scope. As States grow, donor States grow. Every State is equipped to carry the share of the burden it is supporting on the national transportation system. This is a good bill. Let us get it done.
James M. Jeffords: “The only change we made was to increase the return to donor States while ensuring growth to each and every State. The…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the fairness and balance of a transportation funding bill.
Share
More from James M. Jeffords
I see that as a possibility and would, with the concurrence of the four bill managers, support reasonable modifications to be allowable.
last Thursday I submitted a statement expressing my concerns with the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the United States Supreme Court. I am here today to reiterate these concerns as we move toward a final vote on this nomination. There…
These innovations have the potential to move us into an era when driving a car or truck will no longer mean causing dangerous global warming pollution or using up scarce resources.
Thank you. Mr. Wehrum, a major challenge facing EPA is securing the resources needed to successfully develop and implement the renewable fuels standard, or RFS.