Janice Schakowsky

So, essentially the CHIP savings are a side effect of the increased costs that Americans are going to face due to the Republican effort to undermine the Affordable Care Act.

We have all talked about now the 64 people who tragically died because of this drug at the New England Compounding Center.

I also wanted to thank you for meeting with some of us about Essure, the contraceptive device that I know has harmed many women.

The Internet of Things, of course, has tremendous potential to change manufacturing in the United States.

So government does have a role to play then, doesn't it?

A sensor can remove the need for a human worker to physically check a machine, assuming everything works correctly.

I am concerned because spending plans that we've seen from Republicans make drastic cuts to many of these things...

Smart manufacturing can help businesses save resources, improve performance, and expand consumer choice.

As the Internet of Things evolves, even more and more processes can be automated and this raises some familiar issues for subcommittee--privacy, cybersecurity, safety, and labor market impacts.

I think that all of this added together is taking America backwards.

That is not a recipe for innovation.

We need more women and people of color running these institutions so that decisions regarding increased inclusion and diversity are made inherently

You are just weakening our ability to compete with companies like China.

It is just incredible. And that it wasn't until January of 2018, this year, that there is a lifetime ban.

But I wanted to ask, really, yes or no, Ms. Reilly, do drug companies get a tax break for those rebates?

I think it's long overdue that this subcommittee and committee work on skyrocketing drug prices.

Excuse me, so is your point that there was no additional research and development. The price just went up?

CAFE and greenhouse gas emission standards have been critical tools to improve fuel economy and reduce carbon pollution.

The plea for harmonization between EPA's and NHTSA's program isn't about aligning different regulations. It's about weakening fuel economy standards.

So do you buy the estimate that this would raise the cost of a car $3,000? Does that take into account what the lower gas price would be?

If automakers were to get all the retroactive credits they're asking for, what would this mean for real improvements in fuel economy, going forward?

Do automakers, Dr. Cooke, really need such a substantial expansion of credits to meet the fuel economy standards?

What's being considered today might actually increase the pollution caused by weakening fuel economy standards.

Unfortunately, in my view, the United States is no longer part of that.

Calls for harmonization between CAFE and greenhouse gas standards are just further efforts to weaken the standards.