mr. waxman. i will not be exactly mr. towns. but overall, over the many years that this committee has existed since 1995, there has been a tradition of the chairman has the authority to write a subpoena. the chairman most commonly informs in advance and has consultation with the ranking member. and i expect to do that. i would also say there has been an ever-declining number of subpoenas from this committee. i would very much hope that we could continue that tradition. my predecessor issued less than his predecessor. and his predecessor less -- no, rem rephrase that. my predecessor less than this predecessor. mr. waxman exceeded mr. davis. however, certainly, all of them were less than mr. burton's time. it's my hope that we will find tools other than subpoenas to get people to be before us. and i might note, if i could, for the gentle lady, that we've also made deposition reform that we insisted that the full house provide anyone who's being asked to be deposed, which is, in effect, more common for this committee to have an abs

mr. waxman, or mr. towns, but since this committee existed in 1995, there's the position that the chairman has a authority to write a subpoena, most commonly informs in advance, and has consultation with the ranking member, and i expect to do that. i would also say there's an ever-declining number of subpoenas from this committee. i would very much hope that we can continue that tradition. my predecessor issued less than his, and his predecessor -- no, let me rephrase that. my predecessor less than mine, mr. waxman exceeded mr. davis, but all of them were less than mr. burton's time. we have to get tools for people to be before us. i might note for the gentlelady that we made deposition reform that we insisted that the full house provide anyone asked to be deposed which is in effect more common for the committee to have an absolute right of members of congress present until they are waived. we are asking people to make sworn people before this -- sworn testimony before this committee in a more fair way.

mr. waxman. >> i want to thank each of you for your presentation today because you put a human face on the problems that congress was doing to solve. these are problems that did not just start now. these are problems that are real and faced by millions of people. to be denied care by insurance companies because you have a lifetime cap, to be denied insurance coverage because you have a pre-existing condition, were you threaten to cost the insurance companies more money, to be denied insurance because -- your gender as a woman might be considered a pre-existing condition. these are the kinds of things insurance companies are doing. it shocks me when i hear those who want to repeal this bill talked about how they want to give people more freedom. how could you consider yourself free if you have the nightmare of not having health insurance available to you? some people say government is too big. government would not be involved with this is the insurance companies would spread the risk. we did not do anything but protect the american people from insurance companies. when people want to repeal

mr. waxman: mr. speaker, i yield the control of the balance of our time on the energy and commerce committee to the distinguished gentleman from new jersey who chaired the health subcommittee in the last congress and who has done a great deal to advance this legislation, mr. frank pallone. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from new jersey will control the balance of the time. mr. pallone: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: at this time, mr. speaker, i'd like to yield two minutes to the dean of the house of representatives and the house sponsor of the health reform ladies and gentlemen sligs -- legislation, mr. dingell. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for two minutes. mr. dingell: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. dingell: well, so much for openness and transparency. we're going to do all this without any hearings, wi

mr. waxman's experience and credentials. what did you hear in the list that congress iceman doesnman i. >> yeah, and trying to make this personal, and every step of the way there will be those investigations will end up being sort of a framing against the administration. so how that unfolds, i don't know if we will see ranking member waxman as generous. >> yeah, it seems those types of investigations can be used to energize the base, and they called on him to work with member issa. >> yes, and it can be energizing and the crucial, moderate voters get frustrated fast. when they see the political food fights, and would rather see substantive than the jabs. democrats are coming in swinging and they learned how to fight in the minority. and trying to do that out of the gate. >> yes, and it's interesting to see this last week in congress the democrats with a united voice on the health care vote. and some processes unfolding the way that the house will conduct their rules. for those who watches congress and watch will especially t

mr. waxman. i know that it was strongly supported in the part of the committee, but from my point of view and it's not that, and another high-risk industries either to try to fix the responsibility of the very top. it's there any way if the company encounters it tend to 20 to $30 billion expense obviously. and now i think everybody's attention is very focused on liability. and to my knowledge, every company has stood down to examine their own form of political their own risk and to get their practices improved. but that's my personal judgment. we did not as a -- i actually consulted our senior technology adviser on that particular issue and we gave it some consideration within the commission and didn't go forward with it. >> can i get the senators answer to that question briefly? >> if the center can do it and 15 seconds which is a test. your question is will this be worthy of exploring a think the answer to that question is yes. my colleague has done some of the exploring and it does come to the

mr. waxman. wax >> i thank each of you for your presentation today because you put a human face that the congress was dealing to solve. these are problems that didn't just start now. these are problems that are real and faced by millions of people, to be denied care by insurance companies because you have a lifetime cap, to be denied insurance coverage because you have a pre-existing condition or you are threatend to cost the insurance companies more money, to be denied insurance because you don't have a job, to be denied insurance because some insurance companies decide your gender as a woman might be considered a pre-existing condition. these are the kinds of things insurance companies have been doing. and it shocks me when i hear those who want to repeal this bill talk about how they want to give people more freedom. how can you consider yourself free if you have the nightmare of not having health insurance available to you? some people say government's too big, well government shouldn't be in

mr. waxman. know that it was strongly supported in the part of the committee, but from my point of view and it's not that, and another high-risk industries either to try to fix the responsibility of the very top. it's there any way if the company encounters it tend to 20 to $30 billion expense obviously. and now i think everybody's attention is very focused on liability. and to my knowledge, every company has stood down to examine their own form of political their own risk and to get their practices improved. but that's my personal judgment. we did not as a -- i actually consulted our senior technology adviser on that particular issue and we gave it some consideration within the commission and didn't go forward with it. >> can i get the senators answer to that question briefly? >> if the center can do it and 15 seconds which is a test. your question is will this be worthy of exploring a think the answer to that question is yes. my colleague has done some of the exploring and it does come to the c

mr. waxman. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i want to thank each of you for your presentation today because you put a human face on the problems that congress is dealing to solve. these are problems that didn't just start now. these are problems that are real and faced by millions of people. they are denied care by insurance companies because you have a lifetime cap, they are denied insurance coverage because you're a pre-existing coverage or you threaten across the insurance company more money, to be denied insurance because you don't have a job, to be denied insurance because some insurance companies decide your gender as a woman might be considered a preexisting condition. these are the kinds of things that insurance companies have been doing, and it shocks me when i hear those who want to repeal this bill, talk about how they want to give people more freedom. how could you consider yourself free if you have the nightmare of not having health insurance available to you? some people say government is too big. well, government

mrs. capps, who's on -- you're on health, right? well, you haven't decided actually. ranking member waxman i don't thk has decided yet who the ranking mmber is or the membership of that subcommittee. and we're in the process of dog that now on the republican side. but i would think that under the fair and open process that we're going to have, that that would be an amendment that would be offered and we'll see what happens. but i think tht there will be a debate. >> do you think it will be made? >> in committee, absolutely, that's going to happen. >> well, we had that opportunity. >> i would note that a number, if notll of those provisions, at least most of them, were in ct in airman dreier's statement of things that he would support. so as a basis of how we would replace this bill, i think that those are certainly building blocks that many -- most of the, if not all -- >> i'm reclaiming my time. where is the data that you all have reflecting that what has passed and what is the law of the land as we continue the debate on repeal and you styled your repeal measure sort of a stab at the leg

mrs. capps, who's on -- you're on health, right? well, you haven't decided actually. ranking member waxman i don't think has decided yet who the ranking member is or the membership of that subcommittee. and we're in the process of doing that now on the republican side. but i would think that under the fair and open process that we're going to have, that that would be an amendment that would be offered and we'll see what happens. but i think that there will be a debate. >> do you think it will be made? >> in committee, absolutely, that's going to happen. >> well, we had that opportunity. >> i would note that a number, if not all of those provisions, at least most of them, were in fact in chairman dreier's statement of things that he would support. so as a basis of how we would replace this bill, i think that those are certainly building blocks that many -- most of those, if not all -- >> i'm reclaiming my time. where is the data that you all have reflecting that what has passed and what is the law of the land as we continue the debate on repeal and you styled your repeal measure sort of a s