Henry Waxman

This MODDERN Cures proposal, the sponsors point out it is only for therapies that address an unmet medical need for serious or life-threatening diseases.

Well, you mentioned the evergreening provision in your testimony.

I have always believed that the 7 years was too long.

In a biosimilars provision in the Affordable Care Act, we gave 12 years of exclusivity to biologics.

The incentives are clearly not there to drive the innovation we need for many of the conditions.

We cannot rest on our laurels. We have an obligation to periodically reevaluate and adjust to account for the sweeping changes in the health sector.

Thirty years ago, Representative Waxman coauthored the Hatch-Waxman Act, which updated our innovation ecosystem and made medications affordable for millions of Americans.

The good news is that innovation in this country is flourishing. More important new drugs are launched here than any place else in the world.

Our taxpayers want basic research to be funded through the National Institutes of Health, and I would assume everybody that cares about this problem is outraged when we see cuts at the NIH budget.

We cannot legislate scientific advances. In some areas, the lack of new treatments is attributable to a lack of scientific knowledge, not the lack of incentives.

This hearing today has very real implications for patients everywhere. How do we ensure that drug and device companies have the right incentives to discover important new treatments for disease?

The foundation laid by Hatch-Waxman Act 30 years ago will continue to be the mechanism by which the management incentives development of lifesaving drugs but we do have an obligation to periodically reevaluate how the balance can be…

The foundation laid by the Hatch-Waxman Act thirty years ago will continue to be the mechanism by which the government incentivizes development of lifesaving drugs

These core values represent a commitment that stretches all the way back to the founding of our country.

The loan guarantee program is important for a number of reasons. It's creating jobs, it is moving us closer to a renewable energy economy, and it represents a great opportunity to develop technologies to address the clear risks of climate…

Ensuring that America generates a much larger share of its energy from clean sources should be a top priority for our Nation's energy policy.

We found no evidence of the wrongdoing to support the wild claims of House Republicans, but we ignored the big picture.

We should focus on the success of the program and the need for clean energy financing as the threat of climate change becomes even more dire.

I think it is important to state that the intention of the limited population pathway is to still operate within the confines of safety and efficacy, and that is not altered.

We need new therapies to be marketed but we have got to address high prices for these therapies.

We need to ensure that patients gain access to new treatment and cures at the earliest possible time.

The PCAST report's fourth recommendation is the creation of a new pathway that manufacturers could choose to use for initial approval of drugs shown to be safe and effective in a specific subgroup of patients.

We should create policies that foster scientific advances, but we should do so in a way that does not jeopardize public health.

These claims are nonsense and contradict the express language of the statute.

It would be an enormous setback for innovation and consumers if the incentive auction turns the wireless market into a duopoly, dominated by Verizon and AT&T.