If it falls to get a president’s signature, it does not become law.

No. Congress can pass a bill, the president can sign it into law, and then have an agency operate within its purview.

In the case of the EPA (and other agencies), once Congress and the President create a law that grants the EPA authority, it is the agency that makes the decisions, not Congress. Congress cannot arbitrarily reign in an agency without passing a new bill and getting a presidential signature.

And if they find that easy in this case because the shit-gibbon is occupying the Oval Office, that’s just another cause for their future regrets of ever voting for him (or not voting at all).

And since the interpretation of the law is in the hands of the courts, congress can draft up a bill and it is shot down.

A bill that also lies about its purpose can be annulled by pointing to the inconsistencies and holding the bill to the claimed purpose, not the one enacted.

Indeed this is part of why the Not-A-Muslim ban is banned: the law claims it’s not a muslim ban, but that it is banning people from places with a risk to the USA. Yet the biggest risk country in the area is Saudi Arabia, and is not banned, therefore the bill is invalid unless it puts Saudi Arabia (and many other muslim-majority states on there too, unless they want to make it the “top 7 risks”, in which some of the current 7 will have to be dropped from the list).

If the law doesn’t do what it says it does, the law is incorrectly drafted and nullified until fixed.

And since the EPA is tasked with pollution, including air pollution, that endangers the health of the citizens, then until that role is removed, this bill is not legal due to being fatally in error.

They can remove the EPA or change its remit. Or even defund it.

But they can’t run a bill to forbid it from following its charter. Any such bill is superseded by the statute that enables the EPA to act.

As what? If he summarised it as not overreach or a bill against overreach by the EPA *when regulating CO2*, then he’s wrong. Because the EPA regulating CO2 is NOT overreach. It’s just a bunch of retards who are bought and paid for claiming it is because they

a) can’t show AGW is false
b) don’t want to limit big business, because they won’t give the politicans big money otherwise
c) can’t go and admit that it’s just their benefactors

so lie about it being overreach. As brianstorms says, the bill itself is overreach. EPA regulating CO2 is within their remit because it IS a danger to the health of the US citizens.

If he summarised it as a massive overreach of republican politicians ignoring reality so they can get paid, then he’s right.

But I don’t think he meant that

Whether or not this change would be wise is a whole ‘nother question.

RickR correctly summarized HR 637.

I put a link in to the text so you can verify for yourself.

As far as I can see, if the argument is that the bill is valid, then he’s wrong. The claim regarding overreach is a fallacy of begging the question.

The assumption is that there is no such thing as AGW, despite no proof of it in the face of the overwhelming evidence that AGW is real.