Henry Waxman

Sixty days would be an outer limit, but as soon as practicable?

The bill from the last Congress included an outer limit of 60 days from the discovery of the breach to provide notice of the breach.

Unfortunately, there are some changes in the bill that I fear weaken the bill rather than strengthen it.

Data security is not a partisan issue; it is something all of us should care about.

The time for action is now.

Wasn't that decision vindicated by the continuing resolution passed overwhelmingly by the House and the Senate and signed by the President where $10 million was provided to close out Yucca Mountain's consideration?

Your report describes concerns raised by some Commission staff that Chairman Jaczko controls and restricts the information provided to his fellow commissioners.

The Obama Administration bravely recognized that moving forward with Yucca Mountain was not the scientifically appropriate direction to take.

I was here. I was saying you make a political decision you are going to wind up with big scientific problems at the end of the day, big scientific problems.

This is, of course, the problem with prejudging and announcing the outcome of an investigation before it has started.

This is the third hearing this subcommittee has held on the closure of the Yucca Mountain Waste Repository.

It seems to me that forcing the DOE to enter into a contract under statutory language that prevents the Department from having sufficient leverage to negotiate a fair contract will not adequately protect the American taxpayers.

The fund is clearly underfunded. Congress has to take steps to make sure the environmental mess created by these enrichment sites is cleaned up.

It would uniquely benefit USEC.

I am concerned about whether this bill gets the best deal for taxpayers.

I am concerned this legislation is not carefully drafted to yield the best deal for the American taxpayer.

I hope that that doesn't cloud their ability to thoughtfully examine the administration's steps to apply executive order principles to the health reform regulatory process.

We hear a lot about burdens on industry from our Republican colleagues, but I think a conversation about HHS regulations, their focus is exclusively on costs borne by the insurance industry is dangerously misleading.

Now, HHS has also issued regulations to end the lifetime caps on coverage, prevent insurance companies from using decades-old paperwork errors to justify canceling someone's insurance as soon as they get sick.

Is it true that extending coverage to children with preexisting conditions provides benefits to the children, their families, to the country as a whole?

Some of the administration's recent health regulations will do enormous good for American families.

Regulations aren't pulled out of thin air for no reason. They exist to implement laws Congress enacted to help protect taxpayers' funds, improve public health and safety, keep our air and water clean, and keep consumers safe.

The subject of regulatory reform deserves review, and Congress has a legitimate interest in making sure that the administration is living up to its promises.

I think it is horrifying, Chairman Stearns, that any insurer would choose to deny providing coverage to children who are sick

It appears to me that the President's regulatory review process holds the promise for creating a more effective, efficient, and responsive Federal Government.