Frank Pallone

But, you see, Mr. Secretary, no one--I mean, I only have a limited amount of time, and I appreciate your being here--but no one seems to agree with your proposal, not the utility industry, not the 15 State AGs, not consumer advocates.

So, again, Mr. Secretary, why is it that at the same time that DOE has missed 17 congressionally mandated legal deadlines for updating a wide range of appliance standards, the Department is spending scarce time and taxpayer money on…

The effect of your proposed rule is to take back a standard that would save the average U.S. household about $100 per year.

I am extremely frustrated and disappointed that the Fiscal Year 2020 Department of Energy budget is largely the same flawed, out of touch document that we saw last year.

I support legislation introduced by Ranking Member Upton and Representative Loebsack that would allow DOE to develop a program to establish policies and procedures to improve the physical and cybersecurity of our Nation's pipelines.

Unfortunately, the President's budget makes your job more daunting by cutting the environmental management program by over $700 million from last year's level.

The Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee held a hearing on DOE's growing environmental liability just last week, which, as of this year, has climbed to a staggering $377 billion.

The electricity generators support the lightbulb efficiency, and 37 electric utilities sent a letter to DOE last week opposing the lightbulb rollback.

The drastic cuts contained in President Trump's budget last year were rejected by Congress, and I expect that to be the case again this year.

I do really appreciate your being here, but I am still frustrated and disappointed about the fiscal year 2020 Department of Energy budget because it is largely the same, what I call, out-of-touch document that we saw last year.

We know that first-in-class novel drugs can change lives, sometimes even with a single dose.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

This is simply unacceptable.

Drug prices continue to dramatically increase, while consumers pay more and more out-of-pocket for the medications they need.

This is the number one issue that I hear when I go home. People want to know what we are going to do to lower prices.

So today's hearing is an important step in our efforts to fulfill the promise we made to the American people to reduce their healthcare costs.

This is simply not acceptable. Our constituents are just tired. They have had enough with the pharmaceutical industry.

It is critical that we have a full understanding of how drugs are developed, priced, delivered, purchased, and dispensed.

WE applaud the efforts of Representative Bonamici and this committee to champion and guide this legislation in the House.

I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting the bill. And that is why we need to have this bill that bans asbestos once and for all.

I think your actions implementing TSCA comport with the law. I don't think you are moving towards a ban.

You have also excluded exposure from disposal of legacy asbestos, despite the fact that disposal is explicitly included in the statute.

One of my biggest concerns with your risk, your asbestos risk evaluation is the Agency's position that you have the discretion to exclude significant exposures.

So, I don't think EPA is moving towards a ban.

Every day it seems new evidence comes to light that EPA is failing to protect the American people from asbestos and toxic chemicals in general.