Maybe we have finally settled it. I heard the phrase ``additional requirement.'' You can argue that because this is such a massive job, we ought to hamstring the President a little bit or you can argue because this is such a massive job that we should not. But the Senator is absolutely correct in that he has laid on an additional requirement. That is the only thing I think we have been trying to establish.
Discussing the implications of an additional requirement in legislation.
Share
More from Mike Thompson
Californians are all too familiar with the devastation caused by wildfires. In the wake of losing their homes and livelihoods, it is wrong to tax survivors on settlement money that is meant to help them rebuild their lives.
It is wrong to tax survivors on settlement money that is meant to help them rebuild their lives.
The supremacy clause always prevails. And I will redraft SB 254 and introduce it again next session.
Other voices in this conversation
