to my colleagues on the Health Subcommittee on Commerce, this is a nice way to end the day after fairly contentious hearings on trying to figure out a way to reform the Food and Drug Administration, so that we can get pharmaceutical products and medical devices to the market faster, but at the same time not compromising public safety. This is a fitting end for the day, because we end occasionally, as this subcommittee can, and I hope will more often in the future, in a strong spirit of bipartisan cooperation to move forward a very important piece of legislation. This is an interesting kind of coming together of the minds, not only from both sides of the aisle, but, frankly, an interesting collaboration from people who represent very different parts of the country. I represent Madison, WI, which, like most other smaller cities in the United States, also has AIDS problems. But in the past we feel that we have been shortchanged because so many of the resources were plowed into New York and San Francisco, which obviously just based on current numbers had a much more serious problem. But in the future communities like Madison and Milwaukee will be just as dramatically impacted.
Scott Klug: “to my colleagues on the Health Subcommittee on Commerce, this is a nice way to end the day after fairly contentious…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing bipartisan efforts to reform the Food and Drug Administration and address AIDS resource allocation.
Share
More from Scott Klug
The Appalachian Regional Commission was set up in 1965 under the premise that if we poured more money from the Federal Government into this area we would get an economic boom. Now I think there is a flaw in this argument, because clearly…
I rise in support of the Metcalf-Tiahrt-Luther amendment which will freeze the cost-of-living adjustment [COLA] for members of this body, judicial branch, and senior executive branch officials. When we, as Members of Congress, make more…
If there is no subsidy involved in this program, why are they fighting so hard to preserve it? And if there is no implication whatsoever if we eliminate it, then they should not be fighting to eliminate it. That is the bottom line in this…
What we are talking about, for folks at home who may be confused about this debate, is an insurance program run by the Federal Government for corporations who want to invest in risky political situations. They want to invest in risky…





