Janice Schakowsky

I support moving ahead as quickly as possible with the mandatory standards.

I am sick of hearing, the fault is the trial lawyers, the fault is the user who doesn't put on the seat belt.

The Commission, and its mission of protecting consumers from unsafe products, is very near and dear to my heart.

The CPSC has been incredibly successful in its efforts to improve consumer protection over the last few years.

I feel a sense of bipartisan mission here, some excitement that we are standing on the brink of some very important discoveries.

I think it may be helpful to just look back on what happens a little bit when we don't adequately fund NIH.

I believe that we must have a serious conversation about the high cost of medications.

Added exclusivity is not needed to bring new cures to patients.

I want to highlight how vital it is that we provide additional funding to NIH, both mandatory and discretionary.

This hearing could not be timelier. Increasingly, we are hearing reports of the toll this crisis is taking in communities across the country.

If we are serious about combating the opioid epidemic, it is incumbent that we provide strong Federal funding for the programs that patients and researchers rely on.

I also want to call attention to the impact that reducing discretionary spending will have on access to treatment and research on addiction.

Well, you don't think often of events in this building as being like really fun, and this is a day that we can say that it is because the showcase down the hall is very, very exciting.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today's showcase and hearing on the Internet of Things.

This proposal also weakens existing consumer protections under the Communications Act for customers of telecommunications, satellite, and cable companies.

I appreciate my colleagues' effort on this legislation, and I believe it has some positive elements--FTC penalty authority and a data security provision among them.

I appreciate the hearing today on the draft legislation released last week, and--by Mr. Welch and Ms. Blackburn to require data breach security and reporting.

So I wondered, Ms. Rich, if you wanted to comment on that. This is a concern that I have for consumers, that I think if we allowed the FCC to continue in its regulations, that we could then make sure we cover everything.

But as we established, much of the customer information currently required to be secured under the Communications Act does not have to be secured under this bill.

This bill also voids breach notification obligations required under the Communications Act, Mr. Johnson.

I don't want anything I say to seem to reflect a preference for one agency over another, but rather for the protection of the consumers.

The types of personal information covered by this bill are far too limited.

There are many types of harm that go beyond simply financial ones.

That being said, this bill needs significant amendment to achieve the goal of both simplifying compliance for businesses and enhancing protections for consumers.

In terms of the role of the FTC having some flexibility in defining what personal information would be, what position have you taken?