Chris Van Hollen

I just ask you today if you are willing to work with us to make sure the Federal Government remains a partner going forward.

The authorization for that partnership expires at the end of this fiscal year. It was a 10-year authorization.

I appreciate your comments regarding the imperative for safety, especially following the Fort Totten tragedy.

I think we want to take a look at nailing that down.

You must have reached a decision on this threshold question.

80 percent of the income generated from new economic activity is going to go into the pockets of foreigners, not American workers.

And stock buybacks are simply a way of increasing the value of stocks held by CEOs and executives and stockholders.

I really urge you to take a look at their analysis because it directly contradicts the fanciful theories we heard floating around that somehow the tax cut was going to pay for itself.

I would just hope, if we are going to be taking this public policy direction as a Committee, that we not look at just this very important piece, and it is an important piece, but that we look at everything else at the same time.

We are spending taxpayer money to reduce carbon dioxide, and the only reason I can see for spending taxpayer money on doing that is if we have a benefit from reducing carbon dioxide.

The reason we are actually spending taxpayer dollars to do this is that there is a public good to be had from reducing carbon.

I strongly support this legislation.

The President just signed something that added over $1.5 trillion to the debt.

It does not make sense to invest taxpayer dollars in places where it will not go.

The budget proposal adds to the ranks of the homeless.

That is shameful too.

That is just shameful.

I was just reading a tweet from the President of the United States this morning, where he was praising the funds for the Defense Department and military.

I do think on the policy ground, we need to be very vigilant in making sure that any sale of U.S. nuclear reactors meets the gold standard requirements to prevent nuclear proliferation.

Do you anticipate any further RIFs going forward?

I appreciate the way that was managed under the circumstances.

And they are totally independent, so this legislation, while it may impact CERCLA requirements, would not impact the Community Right-to-Know requirement?

OK. And I understand one of the questions here is whether or not this legislation also eliminates the requirements to report under Community Right-to-Know.

It just deals with CERCLA.

My question is, if you remove this requirement, in the event there was something that was not a low level emission, that was a high level concentrated emission, if we get rid of this entirely, is there any duty to report?