I would presume--and we are getting into some hypotheticals, which I think is worth getting into, and I think the answers so far have reflected the fact this is a legitimate amendment that is not going to destroy the bill, but is just trying to get at the core issue of fines versus funding. But I think in that context you would presume that the agreement that had been worked out which would have drawn down the revolving fund would have interest rate language in it. I know of very few that do not have interest rate language in them. So I presume that would be a fund advantage.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing a proposed amendment related to funding and interest rates during a legislative debate.
Share
More from Sen. Judd Gregg
Nobody is satisfied with what is happening in education. That is unquestionably the case. We are all very concerned that as a Nation our children are not able to compete in the international economy or the global marketplace. But the way…
I must respond briefly to the Senator from California, because I believe it is a bit unusual for those who are not actually drinking the water to expect that they are going to have even a higher level of concern about the water than those…
I wish to commend the Senator for his initiative, and I can understand the concern of the Senator from Hawaii about being familiar with the specifics. I acknowledge the fact that this has been publicly presented. I believe it was last…
If the Senator will yield to me for an answer, I hope I did not in any way imply that she is not committed to local control. As a former school board member, I am sure she is, but the practical impact of this bill--obviously, I disagree…





