[Homer1]

This is where they need to modify the legislation to allow disclosure, but to state that the clause is only valid when there is a defined process and a mandatory EPA response within 5 business days. No response from the EPA to be interpreted as an approval. This type of modification is called leadership. You don’t hand the other side the adavantage of allowing them to say that Rs want to cover-up the chemicals that are going into your drinking water.

[dirtboy]

This is where they need to modify the legislation to allow disclosure, but to state that the clause is only valid when there is a defined process and a mandatory EPA response within 5 business days. No response from the EPA to be interpreted as an approval.

You are making the mistaken assumption that this is about actual protection of water resources, as opposed to being another Dem roadblock against domestic energy development.

This type of modification is called leadership.

From Harry Reid? Once again, are you kidding me?

You don’t hand the other side the adavantage of allowing them to say that Rs want to cover-up the chemicals that are going into your drinking water.

Guess what? Liberal agit-prop does that no matter what the Republicans do.