We would still have that option, but we would have the costs in front of us and identified before we could act on that instead of being automatic. This is not a no-money-no-mandates bill. There may be an amendment offered to that later. This would simply put those costs in front of us, and we would have to affirmatively vote to waive the point of order before we could go forward with an unfunded mandate.
Discussing the implications of a bill related to unfunded mandates.
Share
More from Danny Davis
First of all, I thank Dr. Burgess for his tremendous advocacy on this and other legislative initiatives designed to improve the quality of health and healthcare in America. Mr. Speaker, the consequences and complications of sickle cell…
“Press releases claiming dramatic improvements in SSA customer service, particularly on the 800-number, conflict with reports from AARP and our constituents,”
Other voices in this conversation
