mr. waxman: ms. speaker, i'm pleased to yield at this time to the chairman of the health subcommittee who has played such an instrumental role in the legislation, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone, for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. pallone: thank you, madam speaker. i'm amazed when i hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. they seem to ignore the fact that our health care system is in crisis. millions of americans are going without health insurance. rising health care costs are bankrupting so many american families. now, democrats today have proposed a bill that will lower health care cost, give almost all americans quality health care coverage, the same as members of congress, and i'm going to repeat that. the same as members of congress, and put an end to insurance company abuses. when we passed this bill -- when we pass this bill, 32 million more americans will be able to see a doctor on a regular basis. america's seniors wi

mr. waxman: ms. speaker, i'm pleased to yield at this time to the chairman of the health subcommittee who has played such an instrumental role in the legislation, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone, for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. pallone: thank you, madam speaker. i'm amazed when i hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. they seem to ignore the fact that our health care system is in crisis. millions of americans are going without health insurance. rising health care costs are bankrupting so many american families. now, democrats today have proposed a bill that will lower health care cost, give almost all americans quality health care coverage, the same as members of congress, and i'm going to repeat that. the same as members of congress, and put an end to insurance company abuses. when we passed this bill -- when we pass this bill, 32 million more americans will be able to see a doctor on a regular basis. america's seniors wi

mr. waxman and mr. brown questions the means these other witnesses will sit for long time. >> i wasn't given that use. >> i was given that news. it was communicated to my staff that we were going to hear from the chairs and the ranking members of the committees and then going to begin with the questions. >> well, it's fine with me if mr. klein will move closer to mr. waxman said that mr. bill sarah can get over here by mr. ryan and then we can have everybody at the table. is that okay? and we will go ahead and do that. >> i'm happy to move. >> thank-you and allow this year from mr. laugh-in for the ways and means committee. mr. levin is. >> i will let everybody be seated. >> you're very welcome. get a little close there. but that is a lot of brainpower. >> mr. laugh-in. >> thank you for this opportunity, let me say hello to some longtime colleagues and some of your colleagues. buyback is to you. we face a challenge not only in this country, -- >> is your microphone on? >> it isn't. is it on? >> that is

mr. waxman and mr. barton questions means the other witnesses will be sitting here. >> i wasn't given that news. >> we are going to hear from the chairman and ranking member of the committees and we were going to begin with questions. >> it's fine with me if mr. klein will over to mr. waxman said mr. jazeera can get over here by mr. ryan and we can have everybody at the table. is that okay? we will go ahead and do that. we will now hear from mr. levin of the ways and means committee. >> it's a little close there is in it? that's a lot of brainpower. [inaudible conversations] mr. levin. >> thank you for this opportunity. let me say hello to some longtime colleagues and i am sorry my back history you to be we face a challenge not only -- >> is your microphone on? >> it isn't. is it on? it's all? >> that's better. >> today we face a challenge not only in this congress but in the country, and indeed i think it's a crisis. for those who like their insurance it's important that we be able to keep it. the prob

mr. waxman. >> thank you very much. was one of the plaintiffs of the lawsuit that knocked out the line item veto for the president. it was knocked out because it was a delegation of authority to the congress to the president that the congress has, the congress has obligation to pass a law and the president can sign it or veto it's not selectively pick out what he would veto. the situation here is different. we're not going to deal with the senate bill passed, we're going to pass the senate bill. we're going to pass it by a vote of the house, that's the way a bill becomes@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ã) >> you'll have to have a vote, the rules committee can it as all have done under democrats and republicans fashion what goes in and what goes out when there's a particular boat that is before. >> henry waxman and i are together, we are like twins on this. chairman waxman is and he's going to insist or request a rule that is a vote up and down on the substance of the senate-passed bill, that is news. not a self executing role, not bad

mr. waxman pointed out and others have reiterated we are going to pass the senate bill. if it is deemed or whenever the word is used, there is going to be legitimate case and controversy and i would thus have hoped and again and mr. barton and made the argument initially at 10 in the morning that regular order much more regular order certainly would have been used. i am not sure because i think this is going to be a new issue presented to the supreme court. i'm not sure that this is going to pass constitutional muster and obviously i want a conclusion but i say that it's one more reason for more regular order to have been made followed. >> mr. levin and chairwoman at slaughter, let's assume we pass a rule which is deemed and then we're going to debate reconciliation package and while we are debating this reconciliation package is the president of united states going to sign this bill that we just been to pass? if he doesn't it ain't a lot. i don't think it's a lot anyway. >> he is going to sign the senate bill. in. >> i don't know how much time we're going to have betwee

mr. waxman. >> thank you very much. was one of the plaintiffs of the lawsuit that knocked out the line item veto for the president. it was knocked out because it was a delegation of authority to the congress to the president that the congress has, the congress has obligation to pass a law and the president can sign it or veto it's not selectively pick out what he would veto. the situation here is different. we're not going to deal with the senate bill passed, we're going to pass the senate bill. we're going to pass it by a vote of the house, that's the way a bill becomes law. you'll figure out a way to do the role but when you establish the rule we will be required to vote for the rule, required to vote for the amendments, an eminent will have to be approved before its carried and the rule approved before it's approved, that's the way we operate. i would be against the away -- against dean, we either pass or down and i think the rule ought to say that we pass this when we vote to do this, pass that when we look to do th

mr. waxman. >> thank you very much. was one of the plaintiffs of the lawsuit that knocked out the line item veto for the president. it was knocked out because it was a delegation of authority to the congress to the president that the congress has, the congress has obligation to pass a law and the president can sign it or veto it's not selectively pick out what he would veto. the situation here is different. we're not going to deal with the senate bill passed, we're going to pass the senate bill. we're going to pass it by a vote of the house, that's the way a bill becomes law. you'll figure out a way to do the role but when you establish the rule we will be required to vote for the rule, required to vote for the amendments, an eminent will have to be approved before its carried and the rule approved before it's approved, that's the way we operate. i would be against the away -- against dean, we either pass or down and i think the rule ought to say that we pass this when we vote to do this, pass that when we look to do th

mr. waxman, is recognized for five minutes. >> before i begin my statements, i would like to correct a statementat broadband has never been regulated under title two. dsl broadband was a title to the service until august 2005 when the commission moved it to title 1. i like to ask questions about the plan's recommendations regarding the nationwide interoperable broadband network for public safety. all parties agree that the problem of interoperable the needs to be resolved. it seems like there's a strong disagreement on what we should do with the block. in your february 25th remarks, you emphasize the directed fcc staff to begin anew and not take anything for granted, the data driven and cream, and come up with the best recommendations for success. to the recommendations in the plan reflect that? >> yes, they do. that was the charge to him. he has been committed with a team on developing a framework for finally living on the bridge of delivering on the 9/11 recommendations. >> did you determine that was the best and for public safety? >> yes. >> do you agree that the spectrum in combination with

mr. waxman talk about public safety and i have a couple questions.the national broadband plan proposes a brahmin and priority access to public safety organizations for all licensed holders in the 700 mhz from. what type of obligations would be placed on commercial providers to ensure that public safety is given more than just primary access but also robust and resilience access at times of emergency? >> the details of that are exactly the kind of thing that would get worked out in the rulemaking that would hold. what you described is the goal. with to put in place a mechanism where public safety can have prioritized access, the spectrum that it needs. the team believes that there is a path that can work for public safety and deliver on the 9/11 recommendations and that is also reasonable for wireless industry's plan and take advantage of this unique moment in time where if we do this as the commercial networks are being filled out a, we can do this efficiently and deliver on the 9/11 commission recommendations. >> in order for it to work, you need to

mr. waxman spent time on public safety and i have a couple of question to follow-up on, the national broadband plan proposing roaming and priority access to public safety organizations for all license holders in the 700 megahertz realm. what type of obligation would be placed on commercial providers to ensure public safety is given more than just priority access, but, also, a robust and resilient access at times, of emergency? >> the details of that are exactly the kind of thing that will be worked out in the rule making that will hold, but that is the -- what you described as the goal, to put in place a mechanism where public safety can have prioritized access to spectrum that it needs, team that worked so hard on this, and has resulted with everyone, involved, believes that there is a path that can work for public safety, and deliver on the 9/11 commission recommendations and that is also reasonable for wireless industry and that takes advantage of this unique moment in time, if we do this, as the commercial networks are being built out, we can get it done, do it efficiently and deliver on t

i look forward to your testimony. >> thank you, chairman waxman. mr.rton, ranking member of the energy and commerce committee, is recognized for five minutes. >> i ask unanimous consent to put my entire statement in the record. >> without objection. >> thank you. i am going to summarize because we want to hear from you folks on the fcc, first of all, if you have to have a federal broadband policy plan, you done about as good as can be done. but it is kind of like the old movie -- "the good, the bad, and the ugly." you say some things that need to be said. you try to reform the universal service fund. you try to free up some spectrum, as chairman waxman just alluded to. the bad -- the worst idea i have heard in years is reclassification. i do not know about anybody else on this committee, but i do not want to regulate broadband likely regulated telephone services in the 1930's. i do not want to do it. i do not think the country wants to do it. as far as the ugly part of its -- just generically, mr. waxman talk about the internet -- the interstate highwa

i look forward to your testimony. >> thank you, chairman waxman. mr.ton, ranking member of the energy and commerce committee, is recognized for five minutes. >> i ask unanimous consent to put my entire statement in the record. >> without objection. >> thank you. i am going to summarize because we want to hear from you folks on the fcc, first of all, if you have to have a federal broadband policy plan, you done about as good as can be done. but it is kind of like the old movie -- "the good, the bad, and the ugly." you say some things that need to be said. you try to reform the universal service fund. you try to free up some spectrum, as chairman waxman just alluded to. the bad -- the worst idea i have heard in years is reclassification. i do not know about anybody else on this committee, but i do not want to regulate broadband likely regulated telephone services in the 1930's. i do not want to do it. i do not think the country wants to do it. as far as the ugly part of its -- just generically, mr. waxman talk about the internet -- the interstate highway

mr. waxman, steny hoyer, most importantly the president, my staff, and my michigan staff, and i would like to thank those who have been helping us out with love and support. there was someone who was receiving calls for me while i was here in d.c. hopefully, we will get back to normal life style, but i want to thank my colleagues. they stood strong. i am so proud to be with them. i will now turn it over to someone for a few words, and we will take some questions. >> it is really a great privilege to join with all of my colleagues today, and i thank him for being a great captain of our team and reaching an agreement is significant for every person. what we move forward today is actually a bill about life, life for all american families, including women and children, and no longer will any woman have to wonder whether she can bring a child to term because she cannot afford it. the provisions in this bill that have to do it maternal health care, child health care, preventive care, the adoption credits that were included in the bill, it takes us to a new day in america. it is just so profound

mr. waxman is not here. i mentioned mr. dingell. congresswomen roosevelt the lsa delauro. as i said, this day would not be possible without the vision and leadership of the president of the united states, the inspiration of senator kennedy who has been with us every step of the way, including right now, but all the difference in the world and all the difference for america's families was made by our class of 2006 and 2008, our newest members, bringing fresh thinking, their tireless energy, and their deep commitment to the american people to bear on this legislation. kxjclass of 2008. steve cohen of tennessee. kilroy of ohio. carol shea-porter vermont. any others? all of these young people back here who helped because actually all we wanted to do to maneuver and win votes in the congress is not possible without the outside mobilization of people who understand the impact of the legislation and make their voices known to the members of congress. remember, nothing is more eloquent to a member of congress and the voice of their own constituents. many of our colleagues have alr

mr. waxman's the success began solvency. >> the gentleman has related about how great this samet bill ase i assume we are talking about related to the solvency. does mr. ryan have a comment? i know these are probably -- >> this spreadsheet is a coverage spread sheet but that's not the medicare numbers. but if you look at the letter i got from the cdu yesterday which i inserted in the record earlier this morning, page four, let me just quote for you to congressional budget office rolling so to speak on whether or not the medicare cuts in this the extent solvency. in effect, and i'm quoting here in effect the majority of these trust fund savings under h.r. 3590 and reconciliation proposal would be used to pay for other spending and therefore would not enhance the ability of the government to pay for future medicare benefits. but pretty much makes the point right there which is you can't count money twice. either you're taking $523 billion out of medicare providers and what ever you are doing and it's going toward solvency or you are using it to create this new entitlement program. not both,

mr. waxman as you an appropriate question when you answered yes to mandatory recall of power. can you explain why your agency, nhtsa, has not initiated a recall since 1979? >> you can often influence a recall but going through the initial stages of the process. most times and automaker will not want to go to the formal process but it takes approximately one year. it is a public process and many automakers to realize they're facing public scrutiny fighting a vehicle safety defect. when they know that, the agency can prove it and they can effectuate a voluntary recall. most recalls are voluntary. there is a huge number that are influenced by this agency. that is the actual number one should look at. we influence well over half of the recalls that happening every year. that is the real number that i think it's indicative of the power of odi. do not have to get to the point with the administrator, after one year of public hearings has to sign an order. automakers will go forward and take care of that recall voluntaryily. >> , skeptical that there has not been one instance when all

mr. waxman suggested, we begin to close the doughnut hole, the payments of prescription medicine by seniors. shall we go beyond this? this is a fiscally responsible set of provisions. i think you notice this bill extends the solvency of the trust fund for nine years. cbo has told us and i have read the literature that has come out, cbo has said that the first 10 years are going to reduce the deficit by hundred $30 billion. -- by $130 billion. let me say a few words about how we pay for it. we have eight medicare health- insurance tax on people who have been come over $250,000. the tax is on the income over $250,000. we take care of the overpayments for the medicare advantage, overpayments and we need a fiscally responsible medicare advantage program. we also have measures to control waste and abuse. there is an excise tax on health plans. we have debated it at length. people who say we have not debated this bill, that it comes out of some sky or from under the ground, we have debated this provision as the have all others regarding the tax on health care plans. we reduce it by a 80%. it was

mr. waxman is attacking them for simply complying with the law.sitive have, to continue to say we think there are things about this bill that will not work and we have solutions and we have solutions for health care that will give you choice and options and actually control costs where the current bill won't and we have to move on on financial reform and where we are on cap and trade and on and on and continue to demonstrate to the american people that we can govern without spending the nation into oblivion whereas the democrats can't. >> sir, if i can follow up, is it your definition of constructive or positive opposition to use congressman boehner as an example to scream about armageddon on the floor of the house when you have a health care bill that historically as john dingell has said is to the right of where president nixon was? >> well, i think john dingell is dead wrong about that. richard nixon never advocated an individual mandate. that is unprecedented in american history and i think unprecedented in any health care legislation. i don't

mr. waxman's the success began solvency. >> the gentleman has related about how great this samet bill ase i assume we are talking about related to the solvency. does mr. ryan have a comment? i know these are probably -- >> this spreadsheet is a coverage spread sheet but that's not the medicare numbers. but if you look at the letter i got from the cdu yesterday which i inserted in the record earlier this morning, page four, let me just quote for you to congressional budget office rolling so to speak on whether or not the medicare cuts in this the extent solvency. in effect, and i'm quoting here in effect the majority of these trust fund savings under h.r. 3590 and reconciliation proposal would be used to pay for other spending and therefore would not enhance the ability of the government to pay for future medicare benefits. but pretty much makes the point right there which is you can't count money twice. either you're taking $523 billion out of medicare providers and what ever you are doing and it's going toward solvency or you are using it to create this new entitlement program. not both,

mr. waxman talk about public safety and i have a couple questions. the national broadband plan proposes a brahmin and priority access to public safety organizations for all licensed holders in the 700 mhz from. what type of obligations would be placed on commercial providers to ensure that public safety is given more than just primary access but also robust and resilience access at times of emergency? >> the details of that are exactly the kind of thing that would get worked out in the rulemaking that would hold. what you described is the goal. with to put in place a mechanism where public safety can have prioritized access, the spectrum that it needs. the team believes that there is a path that can work for public safety and deliver on the 9/11 recommendations and that is also reasonable for wireless industry's plan and take advantage of this unique moment in time where if we do this as the commercial networks are being filled out a, we can do this efficiently and deliver on the 9/11 commission recommendations. >> in order for it to work, you need t

mr. strickland. this was henry waxman, chairman rush, and myself, and we said that these windows generally have technology to reverse that, and they are found in the driver's window, and the intention of the legislation was to protect children. here is what i find surprising. you have a chart. this was the first of five proposed alternatives. the first alternative is what i described. it says, on this chart, the cost for each window for this remedy -- it says, $0. the incremental costs were $0. the annual fatality benefits, $0. annual injury benefits, close to zero. the preferred alternative to protect children was at no cost, no benefit solution. i would think that it was embarrassing, not only to put that in writing, but to choose that as the preferred action. i would hope that nothing like that happens again. let me describe the second alternative. the power side windows -- they meet the european standards. the cost for each window, $6. most people would find this reasonable. the total cost is $149 billion. the annual fatality benefits and the annual injury benefits were $850. 850 injuries and two deat

waxman and formerly john dingell and the ways and means committee under the leadership of charles rangel and now under the leadership of sander levin from michigan. thank them very much. the energy, mr. scott what's your new committee name? energy, education and labor committee under the leadership of mr. george miller of california. all of these committees working together with the budget committee led by john spratt of texas and louise slaughter of new york -- did i say texas? excuse me, from south carolina. i'll personally apologize to him for that. john spratt from south carolina and louise slaughter from new york leading the rules committee. all these individuals working together to get us to the point where we were last night. the passage of this bill is monumental. it is historic. yesterday was not an ordinary day in the house of representatives. i thank my colleagues who voted for this legislation and i look forward to the results that it will yield. at this time, i will yield back my time to the congresswoman from the virgin islands. mrs. christensen: thank you, congressman butter feel. thank you for going through the process we have gone through over the past year. it's be

mr. waxman, thank you for being here. >> chairman, thank you for convening this important and timely hearing february 4, the los angeles times reported that in some blue cross -- that and the blue cross -- anthem blue cross was doing this. our reporters have done excellent work on this issue. it brought to our attention all of this as well. by any measure, this was a breathtaking increase in health insurance costs. we are holding today's hearing to find out what is really driving these enormous rate increases. we are told that they are due to medical inflation. but the thousands of pages of wellpoint documents that we have reviewed tell another story. they tell a story, not about costs, but about profits. not about increasing coverage, but about dealing with coverage. not about covering more people that have illnesses, but about cutting them off and seeking out new customers who are healthier and wealthier. the documents also tell a story of a potential premium rate increase still to come. wellpoint says that its rate increases have nothing to do with increasing company profits. but an inter