I would--I hate to assume anything in politics, but it seems to me that if a State or a project came back to the Federal Government and said, 'Hey, trust us, let me give you some information and show you how great we are, we would like to have a waiver so that we can spend all the Federal money upfront instead of doing the obligatory State match at the same time,' that at some point you would be looking at an audit or some type of guarantee to say this is less riskier than the other corridors, or other projects, because of a lower risk and a larger guarantee that the project will be done and the grant will be fulfilled.
Editor's note · Context
Denham expresses skepticism about trusting state projects without audits or guarantees.
Share
More from Jeff Denham
I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in support, not only of this rule, but on the underlying bill. It is time to get something done around here. Both parties have failed to address this issue for decades now; we finally have an…
Let me just say, Mr. DeFazio has said this is very broad. It is very, very succinct. Title 49, section 31502 is the law. The regulation is 40 CFR 395. This is very, very tight compared to 1994, when the Democrats had control of the House…
I think everybody up here voted for the NEPA Reciprocity Act, NEPA/CEQA, so that we could streamline these projects.
This amendment prevents a huge water grab by the State of California from farmers and communities in California's Central Valley. Under Sacramento's new plan, residents and farmers, alike, will suffer skyrocketing rates that will cripple…





