whenever EPA wants to revise their regulations to meet problems that were not otherwise foreseen which are consistent with existing law, those regulations would have to undergo the analysis as to whether they constitute an unfunded mandate. Now, I have no problem with the analysis. What I find difficult is the fact that those regulations can be held up ad infinitum because of the judicial review that anybody who disagrees with the regulation could use to say that they did not want it go into effect, the analysis was not good enough. That seems to me to allow a situation that we would not tolerate if it were a prospective piece of legislation, because we would reserve to ourself a point of order which can be voted on by a point of order overturned, but could not be overturned except through lengthy court legislation. I think that makes no sense.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of judicial review on EPA regulations.
Share
More from Henry Waxman
Our bill provides more resources to give them the additional enforcement authority and increases the fines for manufacturers that violate vehicle safety laws.
I thank my colleague for those generous comments, and I am pleased to be here today to express why this bill should not pass. Mr. Chairman, the bill is called the Promoting New Manufacturing Act. We would all want to do that--what a nice…
The $200 billion in the Waxman-Markey bill that passed the House of Representatives was turned down over here in the Senate.
The use of performance enhancing substance was pervasive for more than a decade, and that everyone in baseball -- the players, the union, the owners and the commissioner -- were responsible.





