Laserfiche WebLink
<br />give priority in his budget-making process to those projects in which <br />the states indicate that they will come up with cost-sharing. In other <br />words, very clearly the President invited the states to come up with a <br />portion of the project costs for projects already authorized. He <br />stated: "If you do that, then that will assist me and my people in <br />setting priorities for expenditures of federal money." <br /> <br />Well, is that a fact? If that is what the President means, why not meet <br />him on his own ground? If he means what he says, let's agree with him I <br />and say: "Okay, if that is a serious proposition on the part of the <br />Administration, the state of Colorado requests a construction appro- <br />priation contingent upon the state of Colorado meeting its part of the <br />cost-sharing formula." <br /> <br />That is one way to comply with the President's own criteria. Or if that <br />is no gOOd and the President doesn't mean what he says, does the Secre- <br />tary mean what he says in his letter to Senator Hart? will they help us <br />reformulate the project? <br /> <br />The second alternative is to provide $250,000 in federal money' on a one- <br />year basis to reformulate the project. I can't quote the person in the <br />Administration who gave me this information, but a person told me: "If <br />you are going to do this, you should also consider some state money." <br />Well, if'S:~~-B:." 325 passes, we might have state money to match federal <br />money to reformulate the project. The alternative to construction funds, <br />if Congress turns us down there" is to say: "All right, put up $250,000 <br />in federal, money. The state will:match that, and we are willing to look <br />at the method of reformulating the project in accordance with the <br />President's objections to the project." I don't know how we can go any <br />further, Gentlemen. <br /> <br />I strongly suggest that we propose both alternatives. That is,: I would <br />first propose that we request construction funds. If that is not accept- <br />able, then I suggest we go back to: the second position of further advanced <br />planning funds to see if we can't reformulate the project to meet the <br />President's objections. Again, I don't know what. else we can do on this <br />particular project. <br /> <br />MR. VANDEMOER: Mr. Chairman, I would make that in the form of a motion, <br />but I wish it was possible to go with "A" without showing "B," because <br />over the years, in poker games and all--I'wish there was a way, Larry, <br />we could go with the one without going with the other One sitting there, <br />in case they want to use it. Is this possible? . <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: That is something I have mulled over and over, Herb. But <br />I don't know how. Before you can get it, you have to lay it out. We <br />don't get two chances. This is the problem. <br /> <br />MR. VANDEMOER: I realize that. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: We have 5 minutes before that committee. That is all we <br />get this year. <br /> <br />MR. VANDEMOER: I would make it in' the form of a motion that maybe "A" <br />might be in blacker print or something like that. I would SO move. <br /> <br />-22- <br />