On the recordFebruary 17, 2011
I would underscore some points previously made. Number one, we are not taking a position on the merits of this case. It may very well be, I would not be surprised, in fact, personally, that ultimately the drilling off the Arctic coast would be approved. But this is like taking a case to the district court. The district court agrees with you, and then the plaintiff appeals, goes to the appeals court. The appeals court disagrees or says that there needs to be more information. That's exactly what this appeals board did. Now, presumably, that information is being gathered. It will be presented. And when it is, I don't know why the appeals board would not agree with the EPA decision. The problem with this amendment is we're setting a precedent to say, if we don't like the appeals board, we like the district court decision, which is in this case EPA's decision, then we accept EPA's decision, ignore that appeals process. That's what we're opposed to. It seems to me we ought not be legislating that kind of judicial decision that affects many people's lives and incomes, clearly, and the environment without a full hearing.
