On the recordFebruary 4, 2016
Isn't it true that the Senators from Michigan made this demand for a $600 million earmark before a plan was actually put together by the State of Michigan or the city of Flint--either to analyze the problem or what the solution might look like and how much it might cost--and that the Senator from Alaska, in her capacity as the bill manager, has made an effort to come up with some compromises? In fact, I believe the Senator from Alaska mentioned a compromise that would include upfront funds of $50 million plus a loan, in effect, that would be paid back over time. I ask the Senator, doesn't it make sense--because there is no plan in place and because there is money already available for Flint and Michigan to begin to address this problem--for us to take our time and handle any additional requests for funding from Flint or Michigan through the regular appropriations process? I believe the Senator is the chair of the subcommittee that has jurisdiction over these issues, and I am just wondering whether that wouldn't be a more orderly, responsible process than a $600 million earmark before a plan is even in place.
Source
govinfo.gov




