John Shimkus

We must hold hearings on the new Health Reform Act.

This whole battle is about whether Americans can have affordable health care. And this system is not helping in this debate.

Because this amorphous CMS is--there are people there. And I am going to venture to guess that the regular bureaucrats did their job, the political appointees manipulated the system to hide data they didn't want the public to know.

I want to read a text I got from a friend and colleague from my State of Illinois: John, I have firsthand experience that the premium for an individual health policy is almost double the price now on the exchanges in Illinois. This person…

I don't like the law, I voted against the law, but I know I am going to get calls about how we can help my constituents, and I want to be ready to do that.

That is really the number one concern that we have.

The point, as you know, CCS takes billions of dollars. There is no commercially available technology to do it.

As my colleague from Colorado said, this is one everybody would like us to do something on, hopefully something positive.

I believe these hearings have helped us understand a law as complex as it is broad.

TSCA is about making interstate commerce in chemicals work for all of us.

We are going to hold you accountable. I hope that is clear.

We are supposed to be on the same side. It is the side of the American people.

I hope that you understand something and that you have seen the resolve of this committee to hold your agency accountable to the American people and to the laws that have been duly passed by this Congress.

You talk bipartisanship, 4 to 1 by this chamber in the House 3 consecutive years in a row in supporting Yucca Mountain.

When you walk away from a long-term geological storage, you upset the whole Waste Confidence Rule.

Yes, and if the gentlelady would yield, we currently have a law to deal with that and we are just trying to enforce the administration to comply with the law.

Your answer to his question was no, that it was not science-based, it was a politically based decision.

So that is a no, Mr. Lyons? That is a no that it wasn't a science-based decision to shut it down? That is what you just said. You are saying it was a political----

As we have testified in other hearings, our concern has been whether this is a workable solution to move forward, and I believe that without a consent-based process, it is not a workable solution.

If the gentleman would yield. And to the members of the panel, you better take the questions seriously because he is asking a question why didn't you comply with the law?

And I am talking about oversight by the legislative branch over the executive branch and independent agencies.

The court has said we must proceed with the licensing.

In that way, the NRC keeps the public informed of the agency's regulatory licensing and oversight activities, which you stated earlier.

But what have you done other than asking for other people to weigh in? What have you done in this month to start moving the SER forward?

Yucca Mountain is the law of the land.