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.
Share
More from Steven Holt
I demand a recorded vote. The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey will be postponed. Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Duffy The Acting CHAIR. It is…
I have an amendment at the desk. The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Page 2, line 3, strike ``(a) Requiring Decisional Transparency With Affected States.--''. Beginning at page…
I ask the Chair the time remaining on each side. The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Washington has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
The gentleman from Colorado says that this would send a signal to European countries, and as my friend from California makes clear, it would not be a signal that help is on the way any time soon. The natural gas would not come soon, but…