I respect the chairman's objections to this, but I would like to point out that all that this amendment does in striking the section is allow the EPA to consider future changes to the ``fill'' definitions. Clearly, the work begun in the Clinton administration and finalized in the George W. Bush administration were the best possible actions at the time. In the meantime, we have discovered that, unfortunately, much mining waste and refuse are ending up in mining streams and rivers, and it has severely affected the health of those people. We are not attempting to eliminate mining jobs or to even impact earth moving. It is only reasonable to make sure that our Environmental Protection Agency has the latitude and the freedom to evolve future definitions so as to best protect the health of our citizens. I yield back the balance of my time. {time} 1545
Share
More from Don Beyer
[they made provisions like addressing taxes on tips and overtime pay temporary, as opposed to the cuts for the richest 1%, which they made permanent]
the current law that this amendment addresses doesn't hinder our readiness at all, nor does it raise costs. It is not costly. It is not a general ban on the internal combustion engine. Mr. Chairman, I believe I may be the only certified…
But these considerations, however powerfully they address themselves to your sensibility, are greatly outweighed by those which apply more immediately to your interest. Here every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives…
Diagnostic delays affect millions of Americans, drive up health care costs, and contribute to thousands of preventable deaths each year – but it doesn’t have to be this way. Our bill invests in better data collection, stronger research…





