On the recordApril 14, 2011
Cost benefit analysis, again, we welcome EPA to justify the loss of jobs for negligible toxic emittent benefits.
Source
congress.govEditor's note · Context
Shimkus emphasizes the importance of justifying job losses against minimal environmental benefits.
Share
More from John Shimkus
Jul 21, 2020
I rise again, this time to thank my boys, now young men, for their love, support, and understanding during my time as a Member of Congress. As I stated yesterday, when I was sworn in for my first term in January 1997, David was 3 years…
Jul 27, 2020
So, to keep cost out of this debate is ridiculous, because it does cost money to meet these standards, and when you try to cheap out, you hurt the very people that you are supposed to locally protect.
Sep 15, 2020
I would hope in our discussions we would work with the majority to try to make sure we somehow incentivize nuclear baseload because of zero-carbon emissions.
Jul 20, 2020
I oppose the Delgado amendment. Beware of a wolf in sheep's clothing. This is not a technical fix or a clarification of last year's NDAA. There were no colloquies, report language, or public statements rejecting TRI exemptions for PFAS in…
Other voices in this conversation
