The other side speaks about technicalities. Is it a technicality to fail to consider the negative impact on wildlife and the environment? Is it a technicality to ignore the harmful health effects for people living in communities near mining operations? Is it a technicality that allows us to sacrifice people's clean drinking water so that large mining companies can save a few dollars as they blow up a mountain? No. These are not technicalities. In fact, the U.S. district court a few weeks ago made it clear these were not technicalities. I will repeat, in their words: the way this was put together is a serious deficiency and not merely a strictly procedural defect. That is why the rule was vacated by the court. We should not be imposing that now. We should be looking after the health of our environment and the health of the people we were sent here to represent.
Steven Holt: “The other side speaks about technicalities. Is it a technicality to fail to consider the negative impact on wildlife and…”
Share
More from Steven Holt
I thank the gentlelady, my good friend from Texas, and I rise in opposition to this legislation. The bill concerns me, not only about the interference with protection of public health, but also the harm it would do to science and the…
I thank my friend from Florida for offering this amendment. It should go a long way toward recovering the lost reputation of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Mr. Chairman, this came about because the National Security…
I thank my friend from California for this amendment, but also for her longstanding work on this issue and related issues. When we hear about this impossible situation which we find ourselves in today in Iraq, with the country clamoring…