No. I take my time back to say this. That is simply inaccurate, for this reason: The original bill did not say if it is against the law in all these other areas and if it is a nuisance in the wetland and environmental area. What the gentleman has done is to narrow the scope of the law as it applies to the areas which would still apply because without that language, without that language, any State law violation would lead to no compensation even if it was under the Federal Wetland Act or Federal Endangered Species Act. Under the gentleman's language, if you are proceeding under the Wetlands or Endangered Species or the agricultural subsidy program, anything that violated State law would not defeat the claim for compensation unless it was a State law that defines it as a nuisance.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of a bill related to wetlands and environmental law.
Share
More from Barney Frank
No one doubts that if a change in administration comes and the new President disagrees with the existing Director, he or she can be removed.
For example, there are key differences in product characteristics between payday, car title, and other high-cost secured loans and more traditional closed-end unsecured lending and related products, and the products are often regulated…
I do guard the station. I hope you're not, Representative Mulvaney, equating a tax exemption with a Federal grant.
Just as I would say if you say you'd believe in racial discrimination or religious discrimination, any time you are at an agency that's in charge of protecting and enforcing constitutional rights and you express your view that that…





