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
If the gentleman from Montana is ready to close, I yield back the balance of my time.
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.
Were it to become law, studies that might be used on regulations to keep drinking water safe or to prevent exposure to dangerous pesticides or other chemicals would be null and void. Let's be honest. The not-so-hidden motivations behind…
I thank my friend from Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. We have heard about the nature of this very dirty material that is dug, rather than pumped, and the fact that it will go through America, not to America. Now…