Mr. Chairman, this is not the first iteration of this amendment we have seen. We also saw this in committee. While I would describe its purpose as well-meaning and well-intended, my position in the committee and my position today are the same, and that is that this piece of legislation dealing with regulatory processes and paperwork burden is not the proper vehicle to establish a commission dealing with the quality of science that this or any other administration might otherwise wish to entertain. I would ask the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) just for clarification. The amendment mentions a report dated August 2003, and yet I have a copy here that is updated November 13. Might I inquire as to which report we are working off of?
Doug Ose: “Mr. Chairman, this is not the first iteration of this amendment we have seen. We also saw this in committee. While I…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing an amendment related to regulatory processes and the establishment of a commission on science quality.
Share
More from Doug Ose
I fully support many of the reforms in H.R. 522 but must, once again, raise some concern with one particular section that would not only cause harm but could ensure that the other reforms are once again delayed by the other body or by the…
Congressman Doug Ose has introduced a new bill too filthy to even read on TV that would ban not just that word but seven other words and phrases as well.
Mr. Speaker, I want to briefly note for the Record the deep appreciation I have for the chairman of the full committee and for the ranking member in sitting down and working out the differences that existed on this bill and allowing it to…
I feel like Churchill up here when I hear the 52 to 2 vote. Mr. Speaker, I do want to say, one of the things that the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) mentioned was the impact on, in particular, rural communities, where we have such…





