John Shimkus

The states' ability or willingness to take on the cleanup responsibilities for these has gone down

As conservative Republicans, additional litigation is something that we are not interested in.

Yes. And I think you followed--that was my follow-up question. Why would that--why is it important that the states at least have some role?

In essence, the state Partnership Act, giving states more of a role in the whole process as----

When we got small business out of the liability regulations, the de minimis parties, and that was a successful piece of legislation that we were able to pick out what was wrong and how we could fix it and the like.

I fail to understand the purpose of this hearing or legislation other than to provide work for its members and staff.

I call my colleagues attention to Section 121(f) of the existing statute which sets forth in detail requirements for 'substantial and meaningful involvement by each state in initiation, development, and selection of remedial actions.'

The Federal and state Partnership for Environment Protection Act does exactly what the title implies and would go a long way toward making the states partners with EPA in cleaning up hazardous waste sites.

This is not a new concept. Legislation has been introduced previously by my friends across the aisle to ensure that federal agencies comply with all federal and state environmental laws.

Our goal is to modernize some of these environmental laws that we oversee and make sure the states are playing a significant role in implementing them.

I am extremely concerned with conduct of this Executive Branch.

The fact of the matter is, we were asked by the ranking member on the floor--the hearing tomorrow has three Republican witnesses and two Democrat witnesses.

I do not believe this is the time for EPA to launch new programs when there is clear evidence it must focus on its legally mandated responsibilities.

We need to do better, recognize advancements in technology, reward innovation, cut red tape.

It is kind of an irresponsible request.

But I don't know what you all are crying about. That is my frustration.

That is not acceptable.

We want to know what the agency is doing in its core, statutorily authorized programs; whether it is sticking to congressional intent.

We need an unbiased, valid process educating policymakers about the science, not policymakers dictating that science.

The Federal budget is approximately $3.6 trillion; $2.4 trillion is what we call ``mandatory spending.'' That's Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and interest payments on the debt. Approximately $1.2 trillion is the discretionary…

Ranking Member Pallone has also been leading on this.

For Ranking Member Waxman to say no one uses an Obama phone, he doesn't go to the web.

You are doing a terrible job of marketing it, because you have lost the public opinion war on this.

There is a reason it is called Lifeline.

I think probably a lot of us will use that, Mr. Gregg. Thank you for that.