Certainly. So they say that because you goofed, we are going to take it upon ourselves to vastly reduce the mandate, no matter how critical it might be--it might be asbestos, water well pollution, or whatever, and they can say we are going to either severely reduce the requirement on the cities, counties, and States, or, two, we are negating the mandate. Now you are giving them an option, Senator. Even though we may have appropriated $90 million, to say that is not enough to get the water hot, so we are negating the entire mandate. Is that a fair reading of it?
Dale Bumpers: “Certainly. So they say that because you goofed, we are going to take it upon ourselves to vastly reduce the mandate, no…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of reducing federal mandates related to environmental regulations.
Share
More from Dale Bumpers
The American people are fairly happy right now because the economy is going well. But I can tell you, there is one underlying sentiment in this country that is undeniable, and it is that the vast majority of the people in this country…
this is a very difficult, a very difficult undertaking for me for a number of reasons. No. 1, my profound and unrestrained respect for the two Senators from Alaska who obviously feel very strongly about the issue. It gives me no pleasure…
If you vote no on this amendment, you should be prepared to go home and say to your constituents that you really don't believe in privacy. When we have a law in this country that allows people to tape-record a conversation with you and…
Bill Clinton, my friend from my home State of Arkansas, has been taking a lot of trashing lately, a lot of it richly deserved. I am not here to defend the President. But I will tell you one thing. You can say a lot of things about him but…





