John Shimkus

I still think that is very, very important because this 2022 debate is real.

So it is safe to say that energy development and the livelihood of people who you represent are greatly benefited by that?

Yes, and I was--I was just--I am glad you added photos to your testimony.

The point being is that this appropriation debate is just to debate the science, which, you know, this whole thing and you stand firm on, you know, let us look at the science.

As you know, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was tasked under law to evaluate the site and after litigation they were finally allowed to release the report, which said if used as designed Yucca Mountain would be safe for a million years.

President Bush got more votes in Nevada in 2004 than in 2000 after he approved the site selection.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There's no question, ever since your time on the committee, that you have been a vocal and passionate advocate for Federal policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

I do think nuclear power, especially major baseload power, is critical.

I think my concern is we are relitigating a law that has already passed and in the past.

There should be no differentiation between how we treat our workers and how we protect them, in my view.

Let me ask you this. Would you have concerns if EPA began writing its own specific worker protection, standards, and to significant new use rules for chemicals under the--under TSCA?

Would it be fair to say that to get a full picture of what is necessary to understand worker chemical safety you must understand the role of OSHA and its relationship with the EPA?

From my perspective, this hearing feels more like an airing of grievances along the lines of a civil court proceeding rather than a fact-finding mission.

I hope that you will convene a future hearing to give this committee time to more thoroughly inspect what is happening to new chemicals under TSCA.

I appreciate that we are having a hearing on chemical management and I want to congratulate you for calling this hearing.

Then you've got the rules. Then you've got to start going through the process, and now it is time to do a look and see the good and the bad and the ugly that still pervades through the system and to make corrective action.

We get it. We can all envision this. It could even crumble, airborne.

This is just not an easy space and so we appreciate you all being in it.

This hearing feels more like an airing of grievances along the lines of a civil court proceeding.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that you are having this hearing on chemical management and I want to congratulate you on calling this hearing.

I think it is important that workers are protected in their workplace.

I am a bit perplexed by this hearing.

I thank my colleague, and I appreciate his service in uniform and, of course, here on the floor. We are happy to have him here. Next, I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie), almost my neighbor on the North American continent.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 1138, and I yield back the balance of my time.