The Senator will recall the distinguished Senator from Idaho, [Mr. Kempthorne], led the fight here to provide that the Federal Government in the future must pay the States for any mandates we impose on them and for which we do not provide any money. I am asking the Senator, why doesn't this come under the category of a violation, as long as we required them to enforce the ``18-year-old'' prohibition, but we haven't given them any money? Why is that not a violation of the law we passed here prohibiting mandates on local jurisdictions without money?
Dale Bumpers: “The Senator will recall the distinguished Senator from Idaho, [Mr. Kempthorne], led the fight here to provide that the…”
Editor's note · Context
Questioning the enforcement of federal mandates without funding during a Senate debate.
Share
More from Dale Bumpers
Yes, Senator Johnson, I do have some concerns about the amendment. However, I am prepared to accept the amendment today if I can secure a commitment from the Senator from South Dakota to sit down and address my concerns between passage of…
I noticed there was no prompt response on that side of the aisle to a request for the yeas and nays, so I assumed some sort of cabal was in the works.
I offered this amendment in 1984 when Charles Wick, head of the United States Information Agency, said that he had taped 84 phone calls, including Reagan, Cabinet Members, President Carter. I offered it then, and I got 41 votes. I offered…
I must say, his determination--his fierce determination--to get this bill passed was reflected in the fact that he asked me every day for 6 months when I was going to take my hold off. This morning, I was very happy to tell him that my…





