I would like to just mention for the benefit of all the Members so that they understand where we are. We have just voted overwhelmingly to accept the Lipinski amendment so that our cities and States would be able to get the needed funds in order to meet the clean water needs of the cities and States across the country. It appears now this amendment would take away some $700 million in fiscal year 1996 for our cities and States and some $3.5 billion over the 5-year period, and so it seems to me, if our colleagues voted yes on the Lipinski amendment, then they should be voting no in very strong numbers again on the Largent amendment.
Norman Mineta: “I would like to just mention for the benefit of all the Members so that they understand where we are. We have just voted…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the impact of the Lipinski amendment on funding for clean water needs during a House debate.
Share
More from Norman Mineta
Everyone is familiar with our recent legacy of natural disasters. Hugo, Andrew, Iniki, Loma Prieta, Northridge. The names alone are sufficient to conjure images of death and destruction. But experts tell us that these are but a prelude to…
In my opinion, if my friend would further yield, it seems to me that again in those instances, the gentleman used the example of CALPERS as a number of us did, it seems to me that whether they are sophisticated individuals who are…
I rise in support of the Borski amendment. This amendment assures that we do not cripple our future efforts at protecting the basic rights of our constituents. As we learned so dramatically in Milwaukee, when over 100 individuals died…
under the example the gentleman gives, it seems to me that the SEC would still be able to bring an action against the individual, or there are State regulations or there is common law fraud that would still subject the maker of those kinds…





