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.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing federal funding requirements for states during a debate.
Share
More from John Chafee
last Thursday in Providence, a terrible tragedy occurred: a fine young Providence policeman was killed in the line of duty, shot by a suspect using a handgun. Steven Michael Shaw and other officers were responding to a call involving a…
Now, what this bill does, it authorizes not what the President requested--by the way, the last I heard it was a Democratic President--but it is not $964 million that is requested, but under this bill the authorization is $1.370 billion; am…
I am proud to be listed as a cosponsor of the California desert bill now before us, and commend Senator Feinstein and the chairman of the Energy Committee, Senator Johnston, for their efforts to bring this measure to the floor. I have long…
I would like to make several comments regarding the debate concerning Admiral Kelso's pension. First, I want to review the admiral's career. At the age of 19, Frank Kelso went into the U.S. Naval Academy, and for the next 38 years made a…





