I think we ought to look at it. The bill calls for a 'Share-in-Savings' contract.
Henry Waxman
The Public Record
Henry Waxman is a former U.S. Representative from California, serving from 1975 to 2015. A member of the Democratic Party, he was known for his work on health care, environmental policy, and consumer protection. During his tenure, Waxman played a key role in the passage of the Affordable Care Act and was a prominent advocate for climate change legislation. He chaired the House Energy and Commerce Committee, where he focused on issues such as tobacco regulation and health care reform.
For many years, hazardous waste generators, shippers, processors have expressed a willingness to fund the program through user fees.
Technology has advanced significantly over the last 32 years, and we shouldn't be relying on carbon copies to track potentially dangerous shipments.
We requested this hearing back in January, and we are looking to see how we modernize the tracking system for hazardous waste shipments in this country.
One of the reasons that we haven't been able to work all these problems out is that the Republicans, who run the Congress, are afraid to increase taxes even on billionaires.
You have correctly quoted the numbers as I understand them from the CBO about what the sequesters would do to NIH, and that loss of 2,300 grants, which would come already 3 months in the fiscal year, would represent about a quarter of the…
If there is something that I am most concerned about in terms of an event that could really disrupt and do serious damage to the progress that we now see in medical research, this is it.
Regardless of our political point of view, Democrats or Republicans, I know all members agree that NIH is one of the Federal Government's real gems.
We generally concluded that the longer we wait, the more expensive it will be to reach a certain goal in terms of carbon dioxide concentrations.
Delaying action is a false economy. For every dollar of investment avoided in the power sector in this decade, over $4 will be needed to be spent after 2020.
The IEA concluded that we have about 5 years to shift from traditional fossil fuel investments to clean, low-carbon energy to avoid a dangerous climate change.
Instead of holding hearings on the science and the risk posed by climate change, the majority opted to hold one hearing after another bashing EPA for every effort it makes to address the problem.
The Supreme Court is going to make a decision fairly soon and they are going to disappoint a lot of people, whatever they do.
Today's hearing is no surprise, but it is deeply disappointing. The Republican majority is holding yet another hearing to condemn EPA action to reduce carbon pollution.
The environmental case for a shift to green energy is indisputable, and the economic reasons are just as strong.
I commend the Obama administration for its focus on developing America's green job economy.
This Congress has earned its title as the most anti-environmental Congress in history.
Frankly, the absurdity of the anti-EPA rhetoric coming from the other side of the aisle and from some industry groups is stunning.
Despite these clear statements, EPA's critics claim that the controversial Armendariz comments must represent EPA's true enforcement policy.
This smear attack ignores most of what Dr. Armendariz said that day, and it ignores the facts.





