The decision of what the States do is their decision taking into account the cost of living in the respective States. The cost of living in Louisiana is substantially less than in your State or New York. That is a State decision. But with the Senator's own amendment--the alternative does not in fact lock in the Federal Government at 100 percent. If it is inappropriate to lock in the States, why is it appropriate to lock in the Federal Government at 100 percent no matter how much the State reduces their caseload? Under your approach, the Federal Government continues to have to give 100 percent of what they are giving in 1994. If we are going to have savings, why should not the Federal Government share in the savings, which, according to the Congressional Budget Office, saves the Federal Government $545 billion?
John B. Breaux: “The decision of what the States do is their decision taking into account the cost of living in the respective States.…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing state versus federal funding decisions during a debate on budget savings.
Share
More from John B. Breaux
let me first express my appreciation for the very kind remarks of the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. I think it is only appropriate to acknowledge that had it not been for his perseverance and determination, we would not be here…
the amount that we have in so many of our programs is just incredible in comparison to this one.
There's not a lot of programs that we could say that the way we've run them we've actually made money while trying to help people by loaning them money.
today we are honored by the nomination of Debbie Hersman to serve as a member of the National Transportation Safety Board. Along with Senator Hollings, I have spent a great deal of time over the last 5 years working with Debbie. She has…