We have set aside nearly 60 percent of these funds for special purposes, high-threat areas, areas that we determine need that money. We are talking about the all-State minimum going to what is remaining. Again, I hope someone is listening to this debate. You can vote for these next two amendments and a few States will gain from them, but if you vote for these next two amendments, here are the States that will lose or at best break even: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma.
Patrick Leahy: “We have set aside nearly 60 percent of these funds for special purposes, high-threat areas, areas that we determine need…”
On the recordMarch 6, 2007
Source
govinfo.govEditor's note · Context
Discussing the allocation of funds and the impact of proposed amendments on various states.
Share
More from Patrick Leahy
Apr 21, 2023
I can say with absolute certainty that the proposed rules directly conflict with the legislation on a variety of matters, especially on provisions that limit access to the PTAB.
May 25, 2022
Many hoped that President Giammattei would reject the corruption and impunity that his predecessors institutionalized. The reappointment of Attorney General Porras, who according to the State Department has ``repeatedly obstructed and…
Apr 21, 2023
I can say with absolute certainty that the proposed rules directly conflict with the legislation on a variety of matters, especially on provisions that limit access to the PTAB.





