If I understood the Senator's statement, the $700 million the States would have to pick up, this is a program that will cost $121 billion next year for the Federal Government and that is growing at an unbelievable, unsustainable rate. So you are talking about a program over the next 5 years that is going to be well over $100 billion, and we are asking beneficiaries to pay $5, and in some cases the States may pick up a portion of that, maybe $700 million out of a total cost of over $100 billion. I don't find that unreasonable in any way.
Don Nickles: “If I understood the Senator's statement, the $700 million the States would have to pick up, this is a program that will…”
On the recordJune 24, 1997
Source
govinfo.govEditor's note · Context
Discussing the financial implications of a federal program during Senate debate.
Share
More from Don Nickles
Sep 16, 2014
The biggest economic boon to this country has been the explosion of oil and gas activity, primarily because of fracking.
Jun 11, 2012
I do not defend 199, period. I think Congress--when you are rewriting the tax code, you should have a uniform corporate rate, not a lower rate for manufacturing.
Sep 16, 2014
Congress passed a bad law called the Windfall Profits Tax. That motivated me to run for Senate more than anything else.
Sep 30, 2023
Law makers must carefully distinguish between the need for tax credits which may operate as subsidies, compared to more favored tax deductions which are expensed as part of ordinary business operations.





