Henry Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, the bill that is before us today is an unbalanced package of cuts that hurts the most vulnerable populations in our society and the working middle class. There was a budget agreement on a bipartisan basis between the Congress and the President by which we would shield low-income programs from the cuts that are now before us today. That agreement is being rejected, and the Republicans are pushing for cuts for low-income programs such as Medicaid, SNAP--which is the food stamp program-- helped by the Social Services Block Grant and which are vital to maintaining and continuing our economic recovery. These are the safety net programs. With the slashes in Medicaid, we will have hundreds of thousands of people, including 300,000 children, denied health insurance. Is this something that we have to do when we're not letting others do their fair share? The bill would establish a Federal medical malpractice system that tramples on the meaning of states' rights, which the Republicans have said is a central tenet of their point of view. They would undermine our future health care by cutting prevention and public health investments. They would make it harder for women to access important and life-saving preventative care, and they fail to protect Medicare from billions of dollars in cuts that would happen under the sequestration. But we shouldn't be surprised. This is all based on the Ryan budget that the Republicans passed on the House floor last month. Under that budget, defense spending is increased over investments in health, education, and research. Medicare, as we know it, would come to an end. The number of uninsured would rise, but millionaires and billionaires would receive enormous tax cuts.

Mr. WAXMAN. Instead of a budget that actually reduces the deficit, which this budget would not do, and that tries to do it in a balanced and fair way, the Ryan budget, and this bill specifically, targets those most in need; and it puts our Nation's financial recovery at risk. I urge a ``no'' vote on the bill.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The cynicism of the debate today is why Congress is held in such low repute. We hear Republicans saying that a public health fund is a slush fund. This is a fund set up to keep us healthy, prevent diseases as long as possible, immunize our kids, provide mammography and PAP smears, services to women in need, to find birth defects early on, to help stop smoking, and they call this a slush fund. They're not trying to reduce this fund; their proposal is to eliminate it. The argument from the other side of the aisle is we'll still get those services. I don't know where we're going to get those services if the fund is eliminated and appropriations are being squeezed down. They call this a slush fund, but they are using it as a slush fund because they took the elimination of this fund to pay for this extension of student loan interest rates. Then they eliminated this fund so they could use it for their reconciliation to the budget in order to make sure defense is adequately funded, to make sure that their tax cuts are kept in place. They're using it as a slush fund, and they're using the student loan issue to drive their agenda. I find that very cynical. I find that, in fact, quite repulsive, and I hope we will reject this bill. We're all for, according to the debate, making sure that we maintain the current interest rate for the 7.4 million students depending on these loans, but I don't find much sincerity when we see a proposal coming from the Republican majority to pay for that by cutting out preventive services. There's got to be a better way to do it. They're not looking for a better way; they're just looking for a way to cover their rear ends. I urge people to vote against this bill.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, today, we gather to remember the genocide against the Armenian people. Although the generation that experienced these atrocities has passed, their suffering has been prolonged by the continued efforts to silence their cries and deny that a genocide occurred. When words can help bring comfort to those who suffer, silence isolates and inflicts pain. When time marches forward and history becomes more distant, silence erodes the memory of those who were lost. When affirmation and recognition could prevent such a tragedy from being repeated, silence allows the perpetrators of genocide to assume their actions will meet neither obstacle nor objection. Thus, the ongoing efforts of the Turkish leadership to silence discussion of the Armenian genocide inflict yet another cruelty. We owe it to the victims of the Armenian genocide, the survivors and their descendants to resist such censorship. That is why I am an original cosponsor of H. Res. 304, a resolution to reaffirm the United States historical record on the Armenian genocide and our own government's bold role protesting the atrocities as they unfolded. Genocide is not a unique feature of the 20th century, a momentary aberration of human morality. Genocides have continued to occur in the 21st century, and today, we are reminded of our moral obligation to speak out and take action to stop such atrocities and the immense repercussions of our choices. Today, we will not be silent.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, today is Yom Hashoah U'Gvurah. It is a day to remember the Holocaust heroes and martyrs--those who fought and those who resisted; those who survived and those who perished. In Israel, the day is marked with the piercing wail of sirens that stops traffic and calls the nation to attention. Those sirens evoke the cries of loss, the cries of families torn asunder, the cries for vibrant Jewish communities reduced to memories and the cries of resolve that the State of Israel exists today as haven for Jews fleeing persecution. In the United States, Yom Hashoah is observed with events in cities and states around the country. This week, the L.A. Museum of the Holocaust held a Walk of Remembrance and a day of activities at its memorial in Pan Pacific Park. In Washington, DC, Yom Hashoah is commemorated as part of the Days of Remembrance sponsored by U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC. This year, the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum's events have the theme, ``Choosing to Act: Stories of Rescue.'' It is especially appropriate as we mark the 100th birthday of Raoul Wallenberg, a Swedish Diplomat who used his post to save as many as 100,000 Hungarian Jews. His legacy is profound and this nation is proud to have made him an honorary citizen of the United States. With the Raoul Wallenberg Centennial Celebration Act that passed the House this week, he is also one of the next awardees of the Congressional Gold Medal of Honor. Jewish tradition teaches that for one who saves a life, it is as if they have saved the whole world. People like Wallenberg, Irena Sendler, Miep Gies and the thousands of others recognized by Yad Vashem as ``Righteous Among the Nation'' risked their lives over and over again for the Jewish people they saved. In doing so, they restored humanity in a place where there was no value for human life. They brought dignity to a time in history that is measured in shame. They helped save the world from being eclipsed by the evil of Nazism. It is an honor to rise and pay tribute to the survivors of the Holocaust, the rescuers, and the liberators. At a time when fewer and fewer survivors are alive to tell their stories, we must all bear witness to their tremendous legacy.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. I rise in opposition to the amendment. President Obama has already threatened to veto this legislation because it circumvents the longstanding process for reviewing the potentially dangerous Keystone XL pipeline. The McKinley amendment would add another extraneous provision to the underlying bill. This amendment would prevent EPA from regulating toxic coal ash and would put our Nation's drinking water and public health at greater risk. On December 22, 2008, a coal ash impoundment in Kingston, Tennessee, burst, releasing 5.4 million cubic yards of toxic sludge, blanketing the Emory River and surrounding land and creating a Superfund site that could cost up to $1.2 billion to clean up. At hearings in the Energy and Commerce Committee, we heard testimony about the devastating impacts contamination from coal combustion wastes can cause. We learned of contaminated drinking water supplies and ruined property values. We learned that improper disposal of coal ash can both present catastrophic risks from ruptures of containment structures and cause cancer and other illnesses from long-term exposure to leaking chemicals. Two years ago, EPA proposed regulations to ensure stronger oversight of coal ash impoundments in order to prevent disasters like the one at Kingston and to protect groundwater and drinking water from the threat of contamination. The agency had proposed two alternatives for regulating coal combustion residuals. One proposal was to regulate these wastes under subtitle C of the Resources Conservation Recovery Act, or RCRA, as a hazardous waste. The other proposal was to regulate under subtitle D of RCRA as a nonhazardous solid waste. Under both proposals, there would be a minimum Federal standard developed to protect human health and the environment. Those standards would address wet impoundments, like in Kingston, and would also ensure that basic controls like the use of liners, groundwater monitoring, and dust control meet a minimum level of effectiveness. But this amendment blocks both of EPA's proposals. It replaces those proposals with an ineffective program that will not ensure the safe disposal of coal ash, won't protect public health, and won't protect the environment. We could and we should do better. Under each of our environmental laws, Congress has always established a legal standard when delegating programs to the States. These standards are the yardsticks by which it is determined whether a State's efforts measure up. They ensure a minimum level of effort and protection throughout the Nation. This approach has worked well because it prevents a race to the bottom by the States.

Mr. WAXMAN. This legislation does not include any legal standard to establish a minimum level of safety, and to the extent new safety requirements are established, nearly all of them can be waived at a State's discretion. This legislation appears to create a program, but the decision about whether or not to go forward is one that will be at the States' discretion. The result will inevitably be uneven and inconsistent rules between the States. Some will do a good job and others won't. If this legislation is adopted, no one should be fooled. This bill won't protect communities living near these waste disposal sites.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the Republican budget. This budget makes the wrong choices. We must enact a plan to steadily reduce our deficits and debts, but we must do so in a responsible way. This Republican budget is irresponsible. It provides tax breaks to millionaires, while ending the Medicare guarantee and shifting more costs to seniors. It slashes health insurance for the working disabled, gutting the program that provides the care they need to stay working. It shifts hundreds of billions in costs on to the States--the same States that are struggling to balance their budgets. It transfers tens of billions in health care costs on to the backs of the frail elderly in nursing homes and parents with children. And it takes away the guarantee of affordable health coverage--a right that everyone should enjoy--and leaves millions more uninsured. My Republican colleagues fail to understand that simply cutting the Federal commitment to health care, as they propose, doesn't make the need go away--it just shifts the problem somewhere else. Rather than responsibly address the issue of rising health care costs as the Democrats did in the Affordable Care Act--House Republicans would repeal that bill and leave American families without any protections from insurance company abuses. The Republican budget doesn't fix our health care problems. To pay for tax breaks for millionaires, it cuts hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicare and Medicaid and shifts costs to seniors . . . to people with disabilities . . . and to families with children. Under the Republican budget, the Medicaid program would be gutted. Their budget cuts more than $1.7 trillion out of the program over the next ten years and turns it into a block grant. This is deeply misguided. Medicaid serves the poorest children, pregnant women, elderly in nursing homes, and those needing services to live in the community and more. By 2050, when the baby boom generation will be retired and in need of long term care, Medicaid would be cut 75 percent according to the Congressional Budget Office. It's a great talking point if you want to appeal to the Tea Party, but a horrible policy if you really care about America's health. And of course, every Federal dollar cut from Medicaid means almost $2 cut from the State economy. As a result, the Republican plan would ultimately sap nearly $3.4 trillion in health care spending out of state and local economies, causing a significant loss in health care jobs and investments. The Republican budget makes severe cuts to Medicare, ending the program as we know it. For nearly five decades, Medicare has provided a lifeline for tens of millions of seniors and people with disabilities. Seniors rely on Medicare's affordability, and they depend on its guaranteed benefits. They cherish their ability to pick their own doctors, and they know that their doctors will treat them without interference from insurance bureaucrats. But the Republican plan would undo these protections. They would turn Medicare into a voucher that is virtually guaranteed to not keep pace with rising health care costs-- leaving seniors holding the bag. The adverse impacts on seniors would be immediate. The Republican plan would repeal access to free preventive services, increase prices for prescription drugs in the donut hole, and undo the other improvements to Medicare that were part of the Affordable Care Act. The proposed cuts wouldn't just hurt Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP. This budget slashes the level of discretionary spending for many critical health programs, including prevention and wellness, health professions training, community health centers, biomedical research, and oversight of food, drugs and medical devices. These programs--and many others--would face severe cuts if the limit for appropriated programs is reduced below the level agreed to--on a bipartisan basis--less than a year ago. I want to be clear. This isn't a proposal that would affect people years from now. It will have very real effects immediately. This budget would irreparably harm the basic fabric of our Nation's health care system. It is bad medicine. There is a better way to rein in our deficit. I urge my colleagues to reject the Republican plan.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, today the House is taking up H.R. 3309, which the Republicans say is a modest proposal to make the Agency operate more efficiently. I could not disagree more strongly. This bill would not reform the FCC. It would disable it. The bill erects procedural hurdles that make it more difficult for the FCC to protect consumers. It strips the FCC of its power to ensure that mergers between telecommunications companies are in the public interest. If this bill is enacted, it would stymie the ability of the Agency to do much of anything except to produce reports for Congress. Although I have many problems with the bill, I have three major concerns I want to highlight. First, it creates a new set of procedures for the FCC. For more than 65 years, the Administrative Procedure Act has governed administrative agencies across the Federal Government. This bill creates a special procedural set of rules for the FCC alone. Let me give you an example. The bill requires the FCC to include in every notice of proposed rulemaking the specific language of the proposed rule. Although this should be a best practice--and the Genachowski FCC does it 86 percent of the time--it makes no sense to strip the Agency of flexibility and require it to do it in every instance. Just last week, the FCC adopted unanimously a notice of proposed rulemaking on interoperability requirements in the 700 megahertz spectrum. It did this without including the specific language of proposed rules. As Republican Commissioner Robert McDowell stated, it made sense to refrain from including draft rules because ``putting forth proposed rules at this delicate stage may only distort the private sector's creative process.'' He added that the open-ended nature of the notice allows the Commission to ``elicit greater insight regarding the costs and technical feasibility of potential implementation.'' Administrative law experts have ridiculed the provisions of this bill. One said: ``Why would anyone want to tie the Agency up in knots like this and subject it to endless challenges?'' Another told us that industry lawyers would have a ``field day'' in challenging and in delaying FCC actions. Other experts told us it could take 15 years of litigation for the courts to clarify the meaning of the new requirements in the bill. Even the Congressional Budget Office agrees that this bill would wrap the FCC up in red tape. According to CBO, the Agency ``would require 20 additional staff positions to handle the new rulemaking, reporting, and analysis activities required under the bill.'' Secondly, this legislation alters fundamentally the way in which the FCC reviews transactions to ensure that they are in the public interest. Under current law, the FCC is directed to protect the public interest when reviewing proposed mergers. This bill would curtail this authority significantly. The bill strips the FCC of its authority to require merger conditions that promote broadband adoption, require minimum broadband speeds, require the repatriation of jobs from overseas, or ensure broadband coverage in rural or low-income areas. Conditions to protect smaller companies from harm could also fall by the wayside. This is not process reform but is a fundamental assault on the FCC's authority to protect the public interest. Finally, H.R. 3309 gives telephone, cable, or wireless companies vast new tools to tie the Agency up in litigation for years if they don't like what the Agency is doing. It does this by making all the regulatory analyses that accompany a regulation subject to judicial review. Well, if it's AT&T or Verizon or some other company that's subject to a regulation, they could sue the Agency on the grounds that the cost- benefit analysis was deficient or the analysis of the market failure was inadequate or the Agency failed to consider alternatives to regulation. These lawsuits, which no other Agency in government would face, could effectively paralyze the FCC.

Mr. WAXMAN. Democrats want to work with House Republicans to develop bipartisan Federal communications policies to help our economy and the American public and to make sure the FCC is doing its job. But we can't do this when the only proposals that are brought to the House floor would turn the FCC watchdog into a lapdog for industry. We should stop wasting time on ideological fights and start cooperating together. Otherwise, this will be another House-passed bill that will not go anywhere in the other body, will not become law; and it is for good reason that it shouldn't.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chair, I urge support for the amendment offered by Representative Eshoo. This is a straightforward amendment that will encourage transparency by requiring entities sponsoring political advertising to disclose the identity of any donors that have contributed $10,000 or more to such entity over a 2-year election reporting period. Notably, this amendment applies equally to broadcasters, cable providers, and satellite providers, and it does nothing more than update what is required to be placed in the political file. Based on concerns raised by members of the committee at markup, Ms. Eshoo modified the amendment to make it explicit that broadcasters as well as cable and satellite providers will not be held liable for any inaccuracies in the information provided under this amendment. Today, FCC rules require broadcasters, cable providers, and satellite providers to maintain and make available for public inspection requests to purchase airtime related to political advertising. There is no requirement, however, to disclose who actually pays for such advertisements. Rather, the file simply needs to contain the name of the person or entity requesting such airtime. As a result, it is easy to see how viewers might be confused about who is actually financing the advertisements they see and hear every day. Mild sounding names like ``Taxpayers Against Something'' can hide the fact that the advertisement is actually being funded by a corporation or a limited group of wealthy individuals. Political ads can have a great impact on the outcome of an election because the broadcast medium has the ability to reach vast numbers of citizens. This amendment simply recognizes the incredible impact such advertising can have on the outcome of an election. I think we can all agree that $10,000 indicates a significant commitment of resources, and the public should be made aware of who is paying such sums and for what. Mr. Chair, this amendment has broad support from numerous organizations that advocate on transparency issues like this, including the Campaign Legal Center, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Government, Common Cause, Democracy 21, the League of Women Voters, Public Citizen, and the Sunlight Foundation. I urge a yes vote on the this important amendment.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased at this time to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished ranking member and soon-to-be chairman of the Health Subcommittee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time each side has remaining in the general debate.

Mr. WAXMAN. I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I'm always amused when I hear people talk about government interference in our lives. If people think Medicare is an unjust government interference in their lives, they can forgo their Medicare, but I don't know too many people who would like to do that. What the Republicans are proposing is to take that Medicare away from them and turn it over to private insurance. Put that to a vote. I don't think the American people would support that either. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to a very important member on our committee, especially the Health Committee, the Representative from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).

Mr. WAXMAN. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to H.R. 5. It combines two very bad ideas into one terrible bill that is anti-senior, anti-consumer, and anti-health. It's no accident that we're considering the legislation during the second anniversary of the Affordable Care Act, because this is a thinly veiled, partisan attempt to confuse the public and obscure the law's success in covering young people, reducing costs for seniors, and providing improved health benefits. Title I of the bill before us, the medical malpractice provisions, have been around for over a decade. They have not been enacted under Democratic or Republican Congresses and Presidents because they are an extreme intrusion on the authority of the States to set their own liability rules and would shield bad actors from accountability when they cause injury and death. Let's be clear: this bill is much broader than traditional medical malpractice legislation. It protects manufacturers, distributors, suppliers, marketers, even promoters of health care products. And it gives them protection even if they intentionally cause harm. Insurance companies and HMOs are protected as well. The bill shields drug and device manufacturers with complete immunity from punitive damages, no matter how reckless their conduct, so long as their products were at one time approved by the FDA. This bill preempts State action in an area that has traditionally been left to the States. To the extent that we do have a medical malpractice problem in this country, it should be addressed at the State level. But this bill not only strips away State law; it puts in place a Federal scheme that will not reduce medical errors, will not award appropriate and adequate compensation when an injury occurs, and will not lower health care costs. The second part of the bill would repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which helps keep Medicare costs under control if they rise more than anticipated. IPAB's role is to recommend evidence-based policies to improve Medicare without harming patients. Repealing IPAB is the height of hypocrisy. The main Republican attack on Medicare and the Affordable Care Act is that we cannot afford them. House Republicans are proposing changes that would destroy Medicare because they say taking care of our seniors just costs too much. Yet today they will vote for a bill that eliminates one of Medicare's cost- saving innovations and saddles Medicare with over $3 billion in unnecessary costs. It's no wonder that the public holds Congress in so little regard. The Republican master plan for Medicare is to end the guarantee coverage and shift more costs on to seniors and people with disabilities. They don't hold down the costs; they simply shift them on to seniors and disabled people. Under Medicare, they pay more for it out of their own pockets. This is part of the Republican assault on Medicare. It would repeal the backstop in Medicare that keeps Medicare affordable for seniors. I want to be clear about what the IPAB is and what it isn't. The board is explicitly in statute prohibited from rationing. It also is prohibited from making recommendations that increase costs to seniors or cut benefits. IPAB also doesn't take away the role of Congress. IPAB makes recommendations, but Congress can and should act on those recommendations. We hear a lot about these unelected bureaucrats. Let me tell you that, around this place, there are a lot of elected bureaucrats. Here is the fundamental difference between the Democratic approach to Medicare and the Republican approach: Democrats in Congress are committed to preserving Medicare and protecting seniors' benefits; Republicans have proposed ending Medicare's guarantee of coverage so they can pay for tax breaks for oil companies and millionaires. Let me underscore that. They want to take money out of Medicare so they can give more tax breaks to billionaires and oil companies. Like some of my colleagues, I have concerns about some aspects of the IPAB. I don't agree with the premise that we need IPAB to make Congress do its job. But no one should think that the hyperbole of IPAB's Republican critics--rationing, death panels, and faceless bureaucrats pulling the plug on sick patients--represents reality. That came from their propaganda word masters. House Republicans are voting to repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board because they simply want to eliminate Medicare. They want to provide vouchers instead of benefits. They want to shift costs to the beneficiaries. They want to put Medicare into a death spiral and leave insurance companies in charge of seniors' care. Then it would be the insurance companies that could then ration care, cut benefits and, according to the Congressional Budget Office, likely increase out-of- pocket costs by $6,000. Does anybody doubt insurance companies ration care? Try to get an insurance policy if you have a previous medical condition. They won't even cover you, or they will charge you so much you can't afford it. Is that what we want, to let the insurance companies make these decisions for our seniors and disabled people? H.R. 5 is a partisan assault on Medicare and an assault on patients who are injured by careless doctors and drug companies and an assault on States' rights. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 5. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield to an important member of our committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) for 2 minutes.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my colleague from California, one of the key people in the authorship of the Affordable Care Act, George Miller.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. We're talking about the Independent Payment Advisory Board--advisory board. The appointed membership of the Board shall include physicians and other health professionals, experts in the area of pharmaco-economics or prescription drug benefit programs, employers, third-party payers, individuals skilled in the conduct and interpretation of biomedical, health services. Dot, dot, dot. These are people who will give us some recommendations, but they can't give us recommendations to take away services. They can't give us a recommendation to impose more costs on the Medicare beneficiaries. And when they give us their recommendations, Congress can act on it. And if we don't like it, we can change them. I think we have the Republicans trying to scare people. They come in and say ``Medicare costs too much.'' Well, if it costs too much, that's why we need this backup, to be sure that we're holding down costs. They say, ``it costs too much and therefore let's ends it.'' That doesn't make any sense. I think Americans should not be fooled. Mr. Chairman, I would like to now yield 3 minutes to my colleague from California, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Health of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Stark. (Mr. STARK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. We hear these things now, but we heard them in 1965 when Medicare was being proposed--socialized medicine, an unfair government intrusion into our lives. Medicare is a popular, successful program. I support it. But the Republicans didn't support it then, and they don't support it now. The Affordable Care Act is an excellent bill. I proudly voted for it because as a result of that legislation we're already seeing young people being able to get insurance up to 26 years of age on their parents' policies. We're already seeing seniors getting help to pay for their prescription drugs. We are seeing insurance companies prohibited from the abuses where they put lifetime limits, and they're going to be stopped from denying people health insurance because of preexisting medical conditions. This is good, and we're going to get even more benefits for over 30 million Americans when the bill is fully in place. It's a good bill. The Republicans would like to repeal it. But let's not forget, they didn't want Medicare in the first place. Mr. Chairman, now that I've used my minute, I would like to yield 3 minutes to a member of our committee from the State of Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), who has been very involved in helping seniors on all of these programs, whether it's Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid. She is very knowledgeable and highly respected--a little shorter than the podium, but I'm pleased to yield to her. (Ms. SCHAKOWSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time each side has.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, at this time I'd yield 5 of our 36 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Braley).

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. I thank the gentleman, who is a physician, for his comments. He said he wants to save Medicare. He said the Republicans want to save Medicare. They want to save Medicare, but their budget proposal would end Medicare. Let's just understand, those who are on Medicare know they can go to the doctor or the hospital or other health care provider and Medicare will pay. Under the Republican proposal, they'd be given a voucher and told to go buy a private insurance policy, as much as they could afford by adding additional money. To save it, they want to end it. And we hear the statement, so-called pain and suffering. For people who are living their lives with constant pain and suffering from a medical malpractice problem, it's not so-called to them. It's a real, terrible situation that they have to live with. I think that, because one of our speakers happens to be a trial lawyer, I want to point out that the past speaker is a medical physician, as if that should make a difference. Let's base our arguments on the points that are made. I, at this point, want to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), an important Member whom we hope will come back to our committee in the very near future.