I was absent during rollcall votes No. 339 and No. 340 due to my spouse's health situation in California. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on the motion on Ordering the Previous Question on the Rule providing for consideration of 3004. I would have also voted ``nay'' on H. Res. 415--Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 3004--Kate's Law. ____________________
Share
More from Grace Napolitano
To me, the answer is clear. We should recognize the familiarity and workability of the historic Clean Water Act.
In my view, we get lost on questions of who is best suited to protect our water resources, rather than talking about the importance of rivers, streams, lakes and wetlands for current and future needs.
I believe the Supreme Court purposefully chose to substitute its own philosophy over decades-old, legally grounded efforts to protect water quality.
Other voices in this conversation
