Henry Waxman

This hearing, which is called '21st Century Cures: Incorporating the Patient Perspective,' illustrates that we should take every opportunity to understand their experience.

The Orphan Drug Act has been a resounding success.

Congress has the authority under the Constitution and responsibility to address risks from pollution.

There is no question that water pollution, air pollution, and toxic chemicals cause widespread economic harm.

Unfortunately, House Republicans appear more interested in weakening existing environmental protections.

The House of Representatives took its 500th anti-environmental vote since the Republicans took control.

I think this makes sense to empower a patient, particularly faced with the dilemma of a terminal disease, to help move the ball down the field in the area of medical science.

My feeling is, why should the Federal Government interfere if the patient wishes to spend their own money on experimental treatment plans?

Clinical trials are the bedrock of modern medical product development.

I will continue to reserve the balance of my time. Then I presume the gentleman from Colorado will want to close on his bill. So after your two speakers, we will close on our side, and then you can close.

Might I inquire of the gentleman from Colorado how many more speakers you have?

I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

You don't think the bill is needed. Does that mean you are against domestic prosperity and global freedom? Mr. McNERNEY. No, I don't think that is what it means, Mr. Chairman.

I demand a recorded vote. The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California will be postponed. Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Welch The Acting CHAIR. It is…

I have an amendment at the desk. The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Strike section 3(c)(4) and insert the following: (4) if an application for a permit described in section 6…

I am pleased at this time to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gallego).

At this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the State of Utah (Mr. Matheson). {time} 1530

At this time I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from the State of New York (Mr. Tonko), our colleague who is an active leader in energy policy.

At this time, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from the State of Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), a very important member of our committee.

I care passionately about the Medicare program, and I want to make sure that we are doing everything we can to wipe out fraud.

I compliment you on the rule. I think it makes a lot of sense, it gives a lot of flexibility, and it achieves the goals.

We don't have to make that choice between clean air and a strong economy.

The arguments I hear from the other side is, one, they don't believe the science; two, they don't think there is anything to do; three, this is not good enough because it doesn't achieve the goals; four, it tells the States what to do.

This isn't a mandate from Washington, how to accomplish the goal. It sounds to me like a mandate from Washington to achieve the goal.

Doesn't the EPA, under the Clean Air Act, set standards that States have to meet which affect their energy resources within that State?