I am not going to prolong this. The only thing I would say is, under the gentleman's theory, Madam Speaker, we wouldn't need the FDA because, clearly, these companies would not do anything just because of profit. And I don't allege that they would do that. But we have an FDA because we need a referee to look at it without thinking of the consequences of a yes or no answer but a scientific answer. That is the only observation I would make. I get it. I get that the companies are reputable companies. I support them. They do great work. But we have an FDA because we need somebody who is an independent arbiter, not just because no company would do this. Because if no company would do it, we wouldn't need the FDA.
Share & report
More from Steny Hoyer
This is a time of sadness, of wrenching pain, of anger, and of determination. It is my solemn duty, Mr. Speaker, to speak on this floor today about a courageous, talented, and generous young man, Itay Chen. His family is in the gallery. I…
This seems to be the substance of the Republican response to all the issues that the gentlewoman raises. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
I have great respect for my friend from Missouri, and it seems to me that this is a very serious matter that she has raised. It is also my belief that it ought to be considered in the context of the Financial Services Committee and…
I have a pro forma amendment at the desk. I rise as the designee of the ranking member. The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 minutes.





