I rise in opposition to the amendment. Basically, this amendment would take away the obligation of the States to plan to use Federal resources. At the core of this legislation are two basic principles: accountability of Federal funds and flexibility for the States. The only way we can reasonably and realistically achieve those things is to require the States to consider a whole range of options in a comprehensive, coherent plan. That is all this legislation does. Mr. Chairman, to strip away the planning component from this legislation would basically be telling us to give the money to the States without any accountability, and to try another approach by micromanaging would be to take away their flexibility. The committee bill builds on two principles: accountability and flexibility. That is a sound approach. It is an approach we should support by rejecting this amendment.
On the recordApril 19, 1994
Source
govinfo.govEditor's note · Context
Opposing an amendment related to state planning for federal resources during a legislative debate.
Share
More from Jack Reed
Jun 10, 2026
This report is an indictment of the Department of Defense under President Trump.
Dec 10, 2025
the clock is ticking. In a matter of days, 24 million Americans will see their health insurance premiums double or triple. Since August and even earlier, Democrats have been imploring Republicans to do the right thing and extend the…
Oct 22, 2025
requiring all Department of Defense communications with Congress to be controlled by Secretary Hegseth's office raises serious questions about transparency and the timely flow of information that lawmakers need to conduct oversight.





