I want to say the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman] has clearly stated his position that he does not believe judicial review should apply at all, and I understand the position and I respect the reasons he has given. However, I believe no judicial review ultimately means no enforcement. However, the concerns that have been raised have been legitimate concerns. And I think the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] in his amendment has tried to tighten this bill and tighten judicial review, so we hope to avoid even the prospect of some of the problems that might have arisen due to judicial review, as remote in my judgment as they may have been. I think the amendment strengthens the bill, and I support the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of judicial review in relation to a bill during House floor debate.
Share
More from Adam Schiff
These grants will fund critical projects that help construct and improve bridges, roadways, off-ramps, bikeways, pedestrian crossings and other transportation infrastructure.
It's critical that taxpayer dollars are spent responsibly and with full transparency and oversight, but removing billions in federal funding from another California project is not the right approach.
I am proud to help deliver over $150 million in new safety and modernization upgrades across our Amtrak Pacific Surfliner route to improve pedestrian access.
“The key to making corruption a powerful issue is by always bringing it back to the impact of that, the cost of his corruption,”





