I of course believe that tools are good if they are used properly and if they are not used for obstruction, and that is really what this amendment is. This amendment would just simply prohibit the Secretary from taking any action. I think it creates an absolute obligation for the Secretary to conduct the proposed analysis subject to anything that comes under H.R. 1270, any type action. It makes no allowance for the Secretary to conduct a risk assessment during other steps of the process. This proposal lacks even an adequate definition of risk assessment. It provides no direction as to the consequences of the assessment. We say that the EIS already requires this and it is going to be done, it will be done, it is directed that it be done. It throws up a number of procedural hurdles that really renders impossible the storage as this act calls for. This is a bad amendment. It is just meant to cripple. I urge that Members vote it down.
Ralph Hall: “I of course believe that tools are good if they are used properly and if they are not used for obstruction, and that is…”
On the recordOctober 29, 1997
Source
govinfo.govEditor's note · Context
Opposing an amendment related to the Secretary's authority in environmental assessments.
Share
More from Ralph Hall
Mar 11, 2014
What has changed so dramatically in one year to allow the EPA to reach a different conclusion on the technical and economic feasibility of CCS?
May 6, 2013
The most important word in the dictionary today other than 'prayer' for young people is the word 'energy.'
Sep 13, 2022
Ayn Rand said, 'When you see that in order to produce you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing... you may know that your society is doomed.'
Feb 26, 2013
I think there is a huge distinction that should be made between a provider who is committing fraud, for example, billing for services that weren't rendered, and just plain making a mistake.





