John Shimkus

We do know what the goal of--and that is to kill coal and coal generation in this country.

Make no mistake, this is a designed application of Executive Branch force to destroy low-cost power and coal mining jobs

There is a definite war on coal. It has been planned by this administration

We want this present tense, not future tense. Does that make sense? It should be going on now.

The gentleman yields back his time.

I think Congress had good reason for doing that, and I think it is definitely constitutional for Congress to do it.

I don't think there is any serious constitutional argument that somehow or other once the Federal Government acts it needs to preempt more stringent State standards.

I think that if both State Governments and the Federal Government are able to focus on those areas where they have comparative advantage, we would improve the overall levels of environmental protection.

The Commerce Clause confers enormous potential power on Congress.

Our job is to reconcile those provisions.

When we create policies to protect human health and the environment, when should we defer to States?

But we are disenfranchising those States that have the nuclear option.

The President promised to make electricity generation by coal so expensive that he would drive that out of our market.

Those of us who talk about this debate, we are trying to save our coal miner jobs in this country.

I don't see a downside to it. I just don't. It helps bring capital in the early formation.

I am a cosponsor of the AIM Act for all the reasons that--I am not going to go into it in detail, but I would encourage my colleagues to look at that and get on it.

Rural America cannot be left out in the ability to receive real-time, accurate information, and these agreements help them maintain that in a very competitive world.

I too am disappointed with the FCC, but not for the totally same--

There is no reason why the 2010 and 2014 quadrennial review has not been filed. It is just not complying with the law, and it is a failure of the bureaucracy and the Federal Government to do its job.

My position is more pipes, not less. More pipes, not regulated pipe. Competitive markets versus controlled markets.

The DC Circuit Court affirmed that the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, and I quote, 'provides that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and I'--in quotation--'shall consider the Department of Energy's license application to store nuclear waste at…

I just want to remind my friend from Texas that we do have a long-term storage solution, and it is called the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which is the law of the land.

I agree that the best model is one that sets a strong Federal minimum standards, but allows our States to enact standards that respond to local needs and go above and beyond Federal law to protect human health and the environment.

If there has been frustration, it is just this is a very difficult process.

We can go through this process of junior high, he said what to who and who is talking to who.