Henry Waxman

I can't take this hearing seriously. I don't think the Republicans want open government.

The committee should not be holding hearings without essential witnesses. It's not a good use of the committee's time.

To his credit, President Obama has taken important steps to increase transparency in the White House.

The hearing is being held, it seems to me, more to give Members on the Republican side of the aisle an opportunity to say, 'They didn't come, they wouldn't come.'

I've long been a proponent of transparency in the executive branch. Transparency improves decision making, it makes government more accountable, it produces better results.

She also says about fraud, waste, and abuse: ``The Affordable Care Act also gives CMS new tools to fight fraud, and helps us move from a pay-and-chase system to a comprehensive, prevention- focused strategy. This resolution would…

Rather than get going and getting this accomplished, we saw delays. Industry pushed for delays.

These standards could and should have been adopted years ago, and if industry hadn't said the cleanup couldn't be done, we would have already done it.

With straining to do it, it is in the 2015 to 2018 timeframe that industry can get there.

American families have waited long enough.

If we delay these requirements to clean up toxic air pollution, our children and many other Americans will suffer serious, and in many cases, irreversible harm.

Well, at last EPA's proposed a defensible standard. It is consistent with the Clean Air Act.

Not only did a court with Republican and Democratic appointees reject the arguments, but in fact they quoted Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland for the absurdity of the legal argument.

The major flaw in EPA's analysis is that it makes overly optimistic assumptions about the effectiveness and availability of certain control technologies.

But that won't happen if Congress repeals or blocks the Clean Air Act and stops EPA from doing its job.

Delaying these rules will hurt a large number of people, especially children.

I fear that what we are seeing is another--in a series of assaults on the Clean Air Act.

Mr. Adams seems to state that the American Coal Ash Association supports phasing out wet impoundments like the one that burst in Kingston, Tennessee, in 2008.

I would like to set aside the debate over subtitle C versus subtitle D and focus on what protections should be established on the ground.

EPA has more authority to deal with municipal solid waste than it would for coal ash.

It is incorrect to consider subtitle D regulation as roughly equivalent to subtitle C regulation. It is not equivalent.

The purpose of the legislation we are examining today is to ensure that EPA does not regulate the safe disposal of toxic coal ash under subtitle C.

I think it is very narrow and mean-spirited to try to deny us an opportunity to hear witnesses that we think could add to the hearing.

I sincerely hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will work with me to provide FDA with the authority it needs to improve the safety of imports coming across our border.

It takes chutzpah to haul the FDA Commissioner up here and grill her about why FDA is not doing more to keep the food and drug supply safe while simultaneously passing a budget that takes away the resources she needs to do her job.