On the recordJuly 31, 1996
Now, my position is that this correction should be done in the course of our consideration of the revision of this formula next year during ISTEA. Owing to the clear conscience of the distinguished chairman of the committee, the distinguished ranking member from New Jersey, the distinguished ranking member of the Environment Committee, our chairman, and indeed backup from well-informed staff, we decided not to do this amendment last night--I among others objected--as a managers' amendment--and I commend the managers of this bill for not trying to do this--which results in a considerable loss of money to 19 States. The Senator has every right to do it as an amendment to the pending bill. Technically, I suppose it is legislation on this bill. I intend to vote, however the vote is taken, in opposition because I think the better course of action is to deal with this correction next year. These sums of money will not affect the ability of the several States, 50 of them, to go forward with their highway programs. My State, although it has been told it is going to get the $10 million, has made certain plans to expend this $10 million, and it will require a certain perturbation in the planning to take $10 million out of the budget for this year. And 18 other States will similarly be subjected to deducting from their highway budgets this sum of money. So that, to me, is the more equitable and more fair way to deal with this question.
Source
govinfo.gov




