Dale Bumpers: “I thought for a moment that the Senator from Idaho had explained this to me. But in looking it over again, I have…”

“I thought for a moment that the Senator from Idaho had explained this to me. But in looking it over again, I have difficulty getting the sequence of events as to how this is going to happen and in what sequence. It says that the third alternative here--that is, the authorization for appropriations--a number of criteria must be met in order to avoid the point of order. First, any appropriations bill that is expected to provide the funding must be identified. So far so good. Second, the mandated legislation must also designate a responsible Federal agency. That is fine. We can designate the agency that will implement the mandate, that shall either, one, implement and appropriate a less costly mandate if less than full funding is ultimately appropriated, or--this is really a big ``or''--declare such mandate to be ineffective. Does that mean that we are authorizing after we have imposed a mandate and provided the funds--it says ``or'' allow that agency to declare the mandate ineffective. So they could, if they decide, as I read this--and I want to be corrected because this is an immensely complex bill.”