I think we are embarking on an unusual path for the Federal Government to require compliance: When it is granting a substantial sum of money but not 100 percent that it cannot make any requirement. Maybe the thing should be reversed. Maybe we ought to have a provision in here that no money goes to any State that will not comply. Maybe that is the answer: Any State that does not want to comply will not get a nickel. The money will go to those States who want to participate, and by wanting to participate, I mean they are willing to put up their share, whatever the share might be.
John Chafee: “I think we are embarking on an unusual path for the Federal Government to require compliance: When it is granting a…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing federal funding requirements for states during a debate.
Share
More from John Chafee
I know that there is a difference between authorization and appropriation. But clearly, the committee has not authorized this without hoping that it will be appropriated, that can be only my conclusion. My second question is: is there a…
It is a sad state of affairs when it seems that, sometimes, the only health care votes we are allowed to make are the ones which repeal the Affordable Health Care Act completely, leaving nothing in its place and leaving Americans with…
I commend the Senator from Idaho for the amendment he has presented. He is truly representing the folks of his State where they do have many, many small water systems. Let me just give you a statistic, if I might. There are 36,000…
I appreciate that. Perhaps while the Senator is up he can give me the truth in where I erred in the figures I have here. Am I in error in saying that the total appropriation for these activities were $526 million in the current fiscal…





