I, too, have been concerned that our Republican colleagues in the leadership have been pursuing an environmental agenda that I think is very much out of sync with what is practiced by most of the American public, the views and attitudes. But the irony is that their limited approach in cutting off debate and not allowing a full range of options to be discussed, actually, they have denied a majority of the House an opportunity to be heard and move important protective legislation forward. I think it is sad, because I know that there are some of our friends on the other side of the aisle who feel uncomfortable with these environmental initiatives. There is a majority of the House, when we get clean votes for air quality, when we get clean votes for clean water, more often than not the majority will of the House is such that it is in keeping with what the majority will of the American public is in terms of its environmental ethic. But, sadly, we are not permitted to have these straight up or down votes and this full and honest debate.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing environmental legislation and the need for open debate in the House.
Share
More from Earl Blumenauer
We ought to put real resources into renegotiating and rebuilding the MFN multilateral framework, like-minded trading partners that address modern American economic challenges.
I would like to start by commending the Biden-Harris administration for their leadership role in the recent extension of the WTO e-commerce moratorium.
This week we are having a public media summit in our Nation's Capital, with representatives from independent television stations from across the country. Thirteen years ago, the prospects were not particularly encouraging. We had just had…
This is not just about extending his presidency, but protecting democracy. While this is a decision for the president and the first lady, I hope they will come to the conclusion that I and others have: President Biden should not be the…





