Henry Waxman

So a compounding pharmacy can put together drugs, but they don't have to come to the FDA to ask approval or even register with you to let you know that they are doing that, isn't that correct?

This meningitis outbreak from compounded drugs has claimed the lives of over 50 people, sickened over 700, brought unspeakable grief upon hundreds of families, and it is one of our Nation's worst public health disasters in recent memory.

I think it is part of the reason that we have this bill, have somebody besides the EPA taking a look at these issues.

The whole idea of this bill is so that the EPA can take a look at it and say, OK, maybe we need to find a less costly way of doing this if it is a good thing to do.

A billion dollars in Washington is considered an everyday decision.

There was no precedence for the Clean Air Act in the first place.

This is a bill that we shouldn't be spending our time talking about because it just doesn't make sense even though we are being told it is common sense.

Regulations delayed could be help to people denied.

As Congressman Waxman explained in his opening statement, the ratio between the cost and the benefits, the benefits exceed the cost by several orders of magnitude in almost all of these rules.

Mr. Chairman, the American people want us to solve their problems, not waste our time with partisan posturing.

Faced with these facts, opponents of EPA rules now argue that we should simply ignore the benefits and consider only the costs.

This bill sets a different standard for critical public health and environmental standards to be determined under law by the Environmental Protection Agency.

So it is imperative that we allow the EPA to act as an impartial referee and ensure that the playing field is level for all Americans.

This bill relies on an outlandish premise: that EPA's public health and environmental protections provide no benefits at all to the American people.

Chairman, the American people want us to solve problems not waste our time with partisan posturing, taking up nonsensical message bills that stand no chance of becoming law.

It is not common sense. It is not providing transparency.

This is an unprecedented intrusion on the authority of the EPA.

The benefits of most important rules dwarf the costs.

If I just looked at the costs, that would be one way to make a decision, but you should look at the costs and benefits.

The discussion draft is hopelessly flawed. It gives the Department of Energy (DOE) a veto over EPA regulations.

Justice delayed is justice denied.

That would require rethinking this legislation and listening to the expert views available to us.

I continue to oppose such an approach and believe that there is simply not the support for this proposal to be become law.

This proposal will not ensure the safe disposal of coal ash.

I hope we can work together on this issue.