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…”
On the recordMay 17, 1994
Source
govinfo.govEditor's note · Context
Discussing federal funding requirements for states during a debate.
Share
More from John Chafee
May 12, 1994
One final question on cost considerations. In considering the cost savings that may be realized from selecting less stringent standards, what size systems is the Administrator to consider?
Mar 10, 1994
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…
May 12, 1994
OK. Can the administration lift the embargo without any resolution of Congress anytime it wants?
Jan 23, 2017
Those are not Democratic ideas. Those were proposed by Republican leadership actually in the Congress at the time.





