Clearly, we are in a time of budgetary constraints. You referred to it multiple times, but on the other hand, that is the new reality.

I am a doc, too, not a psychiatrist--but one of my concerns is that some of the SAMHSA money is going for folks who advocate doing without medications.

Why out of 288 programs will we only have four that seem to directly pertain to what we could all agree would be severe mental illness?

Why can't EPA beginning tomorrow to write documents that have clear methodology and have the same sort of standard that a peer-reviewed journal would require for such a thing?

True compliance costs, and if there is a reluctance to form that advisory committee or at least have some ad hoc committee which comes to agreement.

It seems like if this is being done with an EPA grant, we should be able to see those data as should anybody who would want to look at that methodology.

physicians fear the Federal Government. They understand that if the Federal Government comes after them and grabs them in their long legal arm, the physician may ultimately win, but she is destroyed in the process.

Indeed, it has great reason to fear, and so people act cautiously.

On the other hand, I think we have seen with some things like the exchanges in the Affordable Care Act just putting a date certain doesn't mean that it is going to smoothly happen.

you are absolutely correct that a lot of the expansion of the program that happened without proper oversight was during prior Administrations.

There is nothing like a deadline to sharpen a man's mind.

this notion of this service or these phones being called an Obama phone, what do you think is the rationale behind it?

Next, my gosh, don't we all still have a heartbreak for the issue of mental illness in our Nation?

Our governor has not yet indicated that he is going to accept the Medicaid expansion.

Can you provide us follow-up or some guarantee that the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness receiving $36 million a year in some way is no longer doing this?

I commend Rep. Bill Cassidy for his Energy Consumers Relief Act, which is a commonsense solution that bolsters EPA transparency and puts American consumers first.

So the point of principle that this bill is about creating transparency for the economic effect of EPA regulations...

This was a draft that was going to incredibly impact the economics of certain industries.

if you are an oncologist, you not only want talk about the potential upside but also the potential downside.

Isn't that something? That somebody in another country, because as Mr. Cicio says, it is going to be manufactured someplace, the question is where.

I don't see the common sense in the greater the regulatory burden, the more prosperity we have.

This bill is not about that. It is about transparency so that there could be an economic effect.

A little transparency so that if someone loses their job because of the regulation, they actually understand what thought process went into it.

It is now more important than ever to weigh the consequences of EPA's actions; the U.S. is on a pathway to unprecedented energy self-sufficiency.

The bill is actually about transparency.