guidelines were appropriate.126
Considerable attention was focused on the need for sanctions to enforce the provisions of the national land use bill. CEQ chairman Russell Train advocated for tough sanctions. He stated, "many have argued that if the land use bill simply contains sufficient money, the job will get done. I disagree. ... [I]t is the premise of the Administration's approach that without sanctions in the bill, prospects for truly effective state land use control will be compromised."127 Fred Bosselman also testified in favor of sanctions. "My experience has made me strongly aware of the difficulty states will have in reaching a consensus on a rational land use policy. ... There will be great temptation to avoid the hard decisions that need to be made. Meaningful sanctions in the federal legislation will help accomplish the head-knocking that will be needed."128 Although Senator Jackson strongly favored the sanctions' provision, he feared that other committees, specifically those with jurisdiction over highway and airport projects, would delay movement of the bill if it contained the provision. Jackson decided the best approach would be to offer the amendment during the floor debate in the Senate.129
Senators Clifford Hansen and Paul Fannin argued that sanctions were the equivalent of a termination of the state's right to determine its own future.130 Additionally, they alleged that
(Id. at §307.
(Senate hearings S. 268, supra note 121, at Part 1, 182.
(Id. at 343.
(Noone, supra note 116, at 794.
(Senate hearings S. 268, supra note 121, at Part 4, 103, 104.