Of course, the main thing that makes sense at the moment is to deal with this SGR problem because it is--nothing else seems to work unless we take care of SGR.
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.
But I don't think we have got to push legislation to put a product back on the market in the face of such strong opposition by public health and physician organizations.
Let me ask, does anyone on the panel think that we should amend the Clean Air Act to allow sectors that have completely eliminated the use of methyl bromide to start using it again?
I would like to start by acknowledging and welcoming the bipartisan interest in transforming the Medicare physician payment system.
Mr. Murai, the California strawberry growers are by far the largest remaining users of methyl bromide in the United States.
Obviously, if you have two on each side, it doesn't produce a tie; it just means it is a balanced presentation and that is always a good idea so we hear both sides of the issue.
I am concerned about the provision of the bill that would allow growers to obtain methyl bromide without a critical use exemption for so-called emergency events.
I would actually recommend... we have the ability for patients to get albuterol very easily.
We want a health care system that works. We want some innovation, experimentation, but no one size fits all.
We must find a way to end the unsustainable system of cuts that loom over our physicians every year.
The whole idea of the protocol international agreement is that we are not going to give an advantage to other countries.
How sad a commentary is that on the confidence the Republicans have in the innovation and the technological capacity of the automotive industry?
These are significant benefits, but the House Republicans have already passed legislation that would block or imperil all of EPA's tailpipe standards and make Americans continue to spend more money at the pump, as well as exacerbate…
The single greatest weapon we have is increased fuel economy standards, and they are going to repeal that next week?
At that time, many of EIA's assumptions about vehicle technologies differed substantially from NHTSA and EPA projections.
For 18 months, the Republicans have tried to talk about energy policy without even mentioning, let alone addressing, the problem of carbon pollution and climate change.
The Republicans' approach is like trying to make America more secure without acknowledging the threat of terrorism.
Why should we export young men and women over to the Middle East when we can be exporting fuel efficient vehicles all around the planet made in America?
This Republican bill, it seems to me, is a terrible idea. It is just the latest Republican assault on clean energy.
It creates a winners list, potentially, of a few dozen projects that were submitted before the end of 2011.
No, that is the reasons people have said, if you accept that there is a need to support innovation, it doesn't make much sense in my view to cut it off now when you might have a new innovative project that comes up tomorrow that is better…
This program was created to support innovative energy technologies. That is its whole purpose.





