On the recordJanuary 18, 1995
If I may comment on that very last sentence, this says that if the appropriation is less than the amount this agency determines to be needed to fully implement the mandate, you are giving that agency two options as I read this. They can either cut the mandate to some extent, modify it to make the money fit the mandate, or, as I started out a moment ago, or declare the mandate to be ineffective. I think the Senator and I both are reading this the same way now. What I am really suggesting is that this is a tremendous discretion that we are handing to the executive branch to declare that we either have not funded it fully and, therefore, they are going to cut it, or they are just going to torpedo it altogether. Now, why would we want to give the agency that kind of authority? Obviously, we feel the mandate is important or we would not have passed the bill.
Source
govinfo.gov
