There may be a court interpretation of that. But you have under your amendment a review of subsection (d), ``without observance of the procedure required by law.'' According to what you have said, you are going to review the procedure because that is what subsection (d) says. We do limit under our amendment. Our amendment is limited specifically to whether the final agency action is ``arbitrary and capricious.'' That is much narrower than that which you state. It is at least ambiguous.
David Cay Johnston: “There may be a court interpretation of that. But you have under your amendment a review of subsection (d), ``without…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the limitations of an amendment related to agency action review.
Share
More from David Cay Johnston
I understand. But after they made that decision and you say it is right then to help them set up a legal system, would you not use the American Bar Association and the International Law Institute, the United States-Vietnam Trade----
Thus, we hold that the Nuclear Waste Policy Act creates an obligation in DOE to start disposing of the spent nuclear fuel no later than January 31, 1998. Is there any disagreement with what I read in the decision?
If I may answer that, because the Senator is a very thoughtful Senator and it is a fair question. First of all, let me say, on the issue of reprocessing, you would need a central facility for reprocessing anyway. So that does not solve the…
Let us take this one at a time. You agree with me the Government has no right to take away vested rights, and would be liable for the violation?





