Haley Stevens: “I reject that suggestion. As the Senator knows, the change is required for the $139 million that he is proposing. We are…”

“I reject that suggestion. As the Senator knows, the change is required for the $139 million that he is proposing. We are working from a 1996 base, and that is what we are equalizing. This is a growing program. Why should some States be less than they were in 1996, while other States grow at such a rate they are far in excess of 1996? Again, I have been trying to read what the Senator from Rhode Island, the chairman of the Public Works Committee, said in the statements before the Senate. The additional funds provided by the Appropriations Committee hardly give an unfair advantage to 29 States. In fact, the only States that actually receive additional funds in 1997, when compared to 1996, are the so-called donor States that are offering the amendment that is before us today. Mr. President, this is an issue that, in my opinion was resolved after the administration initially fixed its error last December. Unfortunately, the administration has reopened this complicated issue. The Appropriations Committee has developed a fair solution to a difficult problem, and they should be congratulated. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and support the chairman of the Appropriations Committee.”