David McKinley

This relates to the application to the Noerr-Pennington doctrine.

I don't think it is the chemical industry that is trying to weaken any of these provisions. I think there is another agenda out there.

I heard Mr. Waxman say that it doesn't protect public health.

American citizens in these small towns want sewer and water lines, and for you to take an arbitrary--you said it was a tough decision.

Do you agree with the President's priorities in his budget?

I really want to spend more time on the Clean Water and Drinking Act.

The consequences of your actions are detrimental to the economic growth here in this country.

I acknowledge that there is climate change as a result of all this, but I am trying to understand how much of it is man-made.

But let me just close in the few seconds we have left that I join with you in this concern about what happened down there, and the need to work on TSCA.

Well, that is what I am trying to find out, is why it failed under Section 8, that they didn't provide that information prior to this.

I join with you in the disgust and the fury internally I have over the breakdown of why that could occur.

Over two million people have signed up on the exchanges and four million people have enrolled in Medicaid.

We are going to continue to have glitches and we need to address those.

This represents real progress.

I think that is a darn shame.

Is there progress being made in Europe or elsewhere with EMP's, but it is not unique to western--to the United States?

I guess more what I am saying, what is your expectation, not just your plan?

Could you provide us in writing, because with the time frame, we don't--and especially since you said you weren't prepared to discuss that necessarily, can you provide us some rationale for the Federal Government to be involved in this as…

I think that is a fair statement.

You've acknowledged it wasn't done independently, and that's the----

Will they be able to use it by a license for other clients?

Who owns the software now? Now that this has been developed with taxpayer money to develop the software to do this?

So is the American taxpayer still paying the money to fix the problems that her company didn't do in the first place?

I haven't heard one of you apologize to the American public on behalf of your companies for problems that were associated with not having this thing ready.

One of the biggest moral responsibilities of the United States should be to help emerging nations come out of poverty.