Henry Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. WAXMAN. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, you have to ask: How do they come up with this great idea to put this bill on the House floor today under the suspension of the rules? This calendar is usually put in place for noncontroversial bills. But this is a controversial bill. In fact, it's a bill that never had a single hearing in the Energy and Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction. Not only would it eliminate national standards, it would bar any State standards, taking away longstanding State authority to improve efficiency in the absence of Federal action. And we should have cleaned up the drafting of this bill that eliminates all efficiency standards for fluorescent lighting. I oppose this bill, first of all, on procedural grounds. We shouldn't adopt legislation with significant impacts without a single hearing or markup to understand what it does. But I strongly oppose this BULB Act on substance. It would undermine job growth, strand investments that have been made to make sure that we meet these new standards, waste $12 billion a year on unnecessary electricity bills, and increase pollution. I don't think my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would come to the floor and say: Why are we requiring new cars to meet tighter emissions standards or tighter pollution standards? Let the public be able to choose the old ones that polluted more. I would be amazed if the colleagues on the other side of the aisle came here and said: Why should we have more efficient dryers, washers, and refrigerators? We like the old ones that were less efficient. This bill is absolutely unnecessary. In 2007, the lighting industry and the efficiency advocates reached a consensus on national standards to make light bulbs more efficient and avoid a patchwork of conflicting State standards, and, effective January 1 of next year, these national standards will go into effect. So what we have is an attempt to repeal a proposal that was offered by our current chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), and former Congresswoman Jane Harman. It passed on a bipartisan voice vote with Members of both sides of the aisle speaking in favor. This bill, which they want to repeal, was signed into law by President George W. Bush as part of the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act. Since it was signed into law, manufacturers have made millions of dollars in investments to produce more efficient incandescent bulbs. Not one manufacturer but a number of manufacturers can compete, and are competing, once they can figure out how to meet these standards, and they're doing it very well. The new incandescent bulb looks and works just like the old incandescent bulb. In fact, we know this to be the case. The only difference between this bulb and the old one is that it will last longer, cost less over the life of the bulb. American families will save an average of $100 a year with the new standards. This is particularly welcome in today's tough economy and adds up to a nationwide savings of $12 billion a year. These investments are creating new jobs in the United States. While most manufacturers moved their production of the old incandescent bulbs overseas years ago, research and development and high-technology manufacturing is now happening here. For example, there are LED facilities now in North Carolina, California, and Florida. This is a growth industry. Phillips hired 100 more people at its LED facility last year. If we repeal this law and enact the so-called BULB Act, we will repeal standards that are driving this competition, and we'll switch back to a time when U.S. jobs would return to China and Mexico. On January 1, 2012, we will be able to buy a better incandescent light bulb that looks and feels the same as the old ones. You don't have to buy compact fluorescents now. You don't have to buy them on January 1, 2012. You can buy the better incandescent bulbs or LEDs, neither of which contain mercury. That's more choice, not less. Well, if this bill had moved under regular order, they might have heard at a hearing that the following groups are now opposing this legislation to repeal the law: The National Electrical Manufacturers Association, the Consumers Union, the Consumer Federation of America, the American Lighting Association, the National Association of State Energy Officials, the National Association of Energy Service Companies, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Seattle City Light, Johnson Controls, Philips Electronics, United Technologies Corporation, United Steelworkers, Alliance to Save Energy, National Wildlife Federation, and the Environmental Defense Fund. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and not repeal a law that's working as we intended it to.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, it is with great frustration that I rise in opposition to H.R. 1249, the America Invents Act. Our nation's patent system is the backbone of our knowledge-based economy and the well-spring of our most competitive industries. Since the era of the Founding Fathers, the patent system has evolved on the principle that individuals are entitled and encouraged to claim ownership of their thoughts and discoveries. For this reason we continue to be a world leader in innovation, producing some of the greatest scientific advances of the modern era and serving as a robust market for all around in the world who want to invest in or introduce the next ``big idea.'' The objective of patent reform is to improve patent quality, reduce uncertainty and modernize a Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) mired in inefficiencies and delays. Regrettably, this bill as amended fails to achieve these critical goals. On the issue of patent quality, I am deeply disappointed that Section 12 of the bill introduces a new supplemental examination procedure permitting patent holders a second chance to correct or revise information that was inaccurate or omitted at the time the patent was filed. The provision also prohibits any information provided in a reexamination proceeding from being used as evidence that a patent holder committed inequitable conduct and deliberately filed a patent application that was misleading or deceptive. Effectively, this amounts to a ``get out of jail free card'' for any company fearful of having their patent invalidated because they deceived the PTO. Furthermore, nothing in the bill would stop a patent holder from seeking a supplemental examination with information that wasn't even available at the time the patent was originally filed. What is to stop a drug company from submitting new clinical studies conducted after the patent was filed to shore up questionable claims in an original application? And what is to stop a company from cutting corners on a patent application when they know they can just fix it later? If this bill is enacted into law, I am hopeful that the PTO will, at a minimum, adopt reasonable limitations on this procedure such as prohibiting reexamination of information that didn't exist at the time of the original filing. It is essential that the agency carefully police what stands to be an abusive practice. On the issue of certainty, I am concerned that this bill fails to offer greater clarity of the protection available to inventors during the ``grace period,'' or the one year period an inventor has to file a patent application after disclosing or publishing information about the invention. This time is critical for small inventors to conduct market research, pitch their ideas to investors, and raise sufficient capital to file a quality patent application. As our system shifts from a first-inventor-to-file to a first-to-file paradigm, small inventors face an increased risk that someone will hear their idea and race ahead of them to file a patent or use their own pitch materials against them to claim there is prior art undermining the patent application. Which brings me to the issue of modernization. This legislation is a leap of faith. It represents a dramatic transformation of the patent system and introduces a host of new mechanisms for pre-grant submissions, post-grant challenges, and revamped derivation proceedings at an agency already mired in backlogs. Rather than giving the PTO the resources it needs to implement these sweeping changes, the Republican leadership has refused to let the agency collect and allocate the fees paid by patent filers. Instead, the agency must remain at the mercy of the appropriations committee for annual allocations. It's one thing to ask inventors to take a leap of faith on the bold restructuring of our patent system. But now they are being asked to take another leap of faith that appropriators won't fall back on their long history of poaching patent fee revenues for other uses. Congress can do better and inventors deserve better. If this legislation passes the House, I am hopeful we will have an opportunity to fix these problems in negotiations with the Senate.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I believe we do need proper congressional authorization for the military operations we are conducting in Libya, and we need a clear definition of the mission and our objectives. I would very much like to vote for such a measure, but that is not the legislation before us today. Neither bill meets this test. Instead, we have been presented with two unsatisfactory options: an unfortunate choice between a cut-off of all funds for the Libya operation, or support for a broad authorization for the use of force-- except for the deployment of ground forces--that lasts for one year. Moreover, under the rules established by the Republican leadership, no amendments are permitted to either measure. So these are up-and-down votes on a very critical issue involving the ongoing engagement of our military forces against Libya--on a take-it- or-leave-it basis. Neither of these measures has my support today. I have never viewed Libya as being in the vital national security interests of the United States. That in itself is a flashing warning sign and a presumption against military involvement in Libya. This is true notwithstanding the enormous hopes that rose with the democratic uprising that erupted this spring--and the anger and outrage we feel as those expressions for freedom and an end to Qaddafi's tyranny and corruption have been met with the most brutal repression. In March, Qaddafi blatantly threatened to exterminate tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of his people. Key NATO allies, particularly Britain and France, viewed this crisis as vital to their national security interests, and urged us to join a military campaign that would prevent a humanitarian catastrophe. In pursuit of this goal, President Obama commenced U.S. participation in NATO military activities in March. At the outset of the Libya operation in March, I was afraid that we would in fact end up where we are today: a conflict that has lasted for months, not weeks, as the President indicated would be the case, and with a highly inconclusive situation on the ground. This operation has carried significant internal tensions from the very beginning. The purpose of the military campaign was to protect the Libyan people from Qaddafi, but not explicitly to oust him. Nevertheless, the scope and scale of military activities, in the face of the stalemate between Qaddafi and the opposition forces, suggests that the conflict cannot be resolved until Qaddafi is removed. Second, while President Obama has consulted extensively with Congress, he has not sought authorization for U.S. military involvement pursuant to the War Powers Act. I disagree strongly with his determination that the military campaign we are supporting and prosecuting does not constitute ``hostilities'' within the meaning of the War Powers Resolution. Active support for military operations that involve extensive bombing of Libya plainly constitutes ``hostilities.'' It is therefore regrettable that, in addressing this complex and difficult situation, we are presented with two unsatisfactory choices. As I previously stated earlier this month when we took votes on Libya, a sharp cut-off of funds, as provided today in H.R. 2778, is the wrong thing to do. If this became law, we would run out on our NATO allies. Qaddafi would be freer to resume murdering his own people with impunity. And other tyrants in the region, such as Assad in Syria, would be emboldened in their determination to crush democratic movements in their countries. But providing continued support for up to one year of the current military campaign is also unacceptable to me, even though it includes the very important limitation on the deployment of U.S. ground forces-- a limitation I strongly support. Should the current stalemate in Libya continue indefinitely, such a commitment invites more and more aggressive use of force in order to resolve it. This carries the significant risk that we will find ourselves, months from now, more deeply embedded in Libya and not any closer to a successful outcome and conclusion. While Libya is not in our vital national security interests, standing with our NATO allies very much is. Accordingly, I would support a limited authorization for continuing support for NATO's military campaign to protect the Libyan people, but for a much shorter period of time than provided by H.J. Res. 68. I believe the President, as Commander-in-Chief, should come directly to Congress to seek a limited authorization of military support for our NATO allies, and Congress should promptly act on it. This would help secure a stronger consensus behind a much more limited and well-defined campaign, and ensure that it is truly conducted in pursuit of our national security and policy interests.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I yield myself 5 minutes. I rise in opposition to this legislation. The legislation is not about creating jobs. It is not about lowering gasoline prices. It is a giveaway to the oil industry that will increase pollution along our coasts. This legislation's supporters have promoted it as a narrow bill designed to address specific problems that Shell has faced in obtaining a clean air permit for exploratory drilling off the coast of Alaska. This legislation will have wide-ranging impacts beyond the Arctic Ocean. The States of California and Delaware have grave concerns about the impact of this bill on their ability to protect public health and welfare from air pollution. In fact, this bill could affect every State on the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts. I agree that the provisions of the Clean Air Act that apply to the Outer Continental Shelf will have some ambiguities that could use clarification, but this legislation takes the wrong approach. Each of the so-called clarifications in this bill would have the effect of allowing more pollution and providing less public health protection for the nearby communities and limiting participation of affected stakeholders in the permitting process. The Republicans say that it shouldn't take 5 years to get a permit, and I agree with them. But the truth is it has not taken 5 years for Shell to get a permit. Shell has pulled permit applications and modified its proposed operations on numerous occasions. Each time, EPA has had to adjust its assessment of the potential impacts on air quality and public health. This is what EPA is supposed to do. No one should want EPA to take a one-size-fits-all approach to permitting these major sources of pollution. There are many flaws in the legislation. It allows huge increases in air pollution from oil and gas drilling activities by moving the point of measurement from the drill ship to the shore. It threatens the ability of California and other States to regulate the emissions of support vessels. And it sets an arbitrary deadline of 6 months for final agency action on every offshore exploratory drilling permit, no matter the size or complexity of the proposed operations. The EPA Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation testified before the Energy and Commerce Committee that 6 months is too short to allow for adequate technical analysis, public participation, and administrative review. Witnesses for the States of California and Delaware agree this wouldn't work for their State programs. Yet these concerns have been ignored. The legislation eliminates the Environmental Appeals Board from the permitting process, even though it is a cheaper, faster, and more expert substitute for judicial review. And it requires all challenges to air permits to be raised before the Federal Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., thousands of miles away from the affected communities. Claims that this legislation will reduce gas prices or the budget deficit are nonsense. They have no substantiation. There are sensible improvements we could make, but we aren't making them. Instead, this bill waives environmental requirements and short-circuits permitting reviews at the expense of public health. The administration opposes H.R. 2021 because it would curtail the authority of EPA to help ensure that domestic oil production on the Outer Continental Shelf proceeds safely, responsibly, and with opportunities for efficient stakeholder input. I agree with them. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 2021. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to our Democratic leader in the energy area, the ranking member of the Energy Subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to a very important member of our committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. WAXMAN. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I yield myself 1 minute to correct some of the statements that have been made that I don't think are accurate. Lisa Jackson, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, said if they got a permit that was approved by the EPA, there would be no adverse environmental impact, but what the proponents of this bill are trying to do is to circumvent the EPA action and to have Congress shorten the ability of the EPA to act. There will be pollution problems. States will not be able to control the pollution off their coasts. That is why California and Delaware have expressed such great concern, but other States are going to be in the same situation. This bill does not deal with just the problem in Alaska. It tries to circumvent the orderly procedure by which those who are trying to get permits will come in and submit their permit and show that they're justified, unlike the situation with Shell, where they submitted a permit, pulled it back, submitted another one and pulled it back. At this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).

Mr. WAXMAN. I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I just want to take issue with the statements that have been made over and over again that this drilling in Alaska by Shell Oil will relieve our dependence on foreign oil. Let's look at the facts. This country consumes 25 percent of the world's oil. All the oil reserves in the United States amount to 2 percent. We are not going to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by producing more oil. We don't have enough oil to produce to satisfy our demand. Now, that doesn't mean we shouldn't produce more domestic oil. And I want us to produce more domestic oil. The gentleman from Louisiana said let's play by the rules and not let these radical environmentalist groups stop the permit. Well, I don't even know what he's talking about, and he may not know what he's talking about when he talks about radical environmental groups. There's no radical or other environmental groups that are opposing this drilling in Alaska. The people who are seeking the permit have put it in and pulled it back, and they've spent this additional time keeping EPA from acting on their permit. Now, there's been talk about this Environmental Appeals Board, that it's not in the Clean Air Act. Well, the Clean Air Act provides that administrator shall set up an energy board to review the environmental issues. Play by the rules? The Republicans want to repeal the rules. They don't want this appeals board, which has been in creation since President George H.W. Bush, which has worked well. They don't want them to review the application. They want to change the rules. Now, let me tell you what it does in California. And my colleagues from California, Democratic and Republican, you don't know what your districts are going to be yet, so pay attention because our State is going to be hurt. According to the State of California, which opposes this bill, in addition to increasing pollution, this legislation preempts local control and review. The bill short-circuits California's existing effective delegated permitting process, greatly increasing the likelihood of litigation, and removes all proceedings to Washington, D.C., imposing a substantial burden on the State and local governments and effectively disenfranchising local stakeholders. Now, we hear so much from the Republican side of the aisle: Why should we have Washington make the decisions? Instead, what they're trying to do is keep California from making its own decisions. Well, what does California have to do with drilling off the coast of Alaska? Nothing, except in this bill they drafted it in a way that prevents California and Delaware and Virginia and other States from taking charge of what is known within their purview. Let's let Shell get a permit under the regular procedures. If they need some help in clarifying ambiguity, we're glad to work on it. But Republicans want to repeal the laws that protect the public interest and environmental protection just to give Shell a special break. It's not going to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We won't even see that oil for another decade. It's a giveaway to Shell Oil, and they're using this as an excuse to repeal protections for other areas to control their own pollution sources. So I would urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. It is a power grab, and the bureaucrats, the radical bureaucrats on the Republican side have come up with this bill; and they're trying to impose it on the whole country to help the oil companies. I don't think that it's worthy of our support, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, there was so much misinformation just given out by the previous speaker that it's hard to know where to start. The Republicans have said they don't like the Affordable Care Act. But what do they have to replace it with? They said they're going to repeal it and replace it. What are they going to do about the uninsured in this country, about the high cost of health care, about the people who can't even buy insurance even if they have the money because they have preexisting medical conditions? We have had no proposal from the Republicans, except in their budget they want to take Medicare away from future seniors by making it a block grant. And they want to cut the Medicaid program, which cuts a big hole in the safety net for the poor to get their health care needs, which means people in nursing homes would be dumped out of those nursing homes. But the bill before us now is to stop the program that would train primary care physicians. Does anybody disagree with the notion that we need more primary care physicians? Evidently, the Republicans do because as we heard from the last speaker, she wants to make it an appropriated program, not a mandatory spending program. Well, it's been in the mandatory program in spending in Medicare and Medicaid since 1965. Training physicians should be supported with assured funding that we could rely on. We can't train a doctor in just 1 year. Doctors need a number of years where they are going to be assured of their continuation in medical schools, and that's why we have had a short funding through Medicare and Medicaid. And in the The Affordable Care Act, the purpose was to train physicians for primary care in community settings. That's what the Republicans want to repeal. And if they can afford it from one year to the next, they will put in funds; but if they can't and their mood is to give another tax break to the wealthy, we won't be able to afford it. With all the costs to go to medical school and all the loans that are required, we ought to ensure spending for primary care doctors. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. It's incomprehensible to me why we even have it on the House floor. It's another one of those efforts that Republicans have been putting up to chip away at health care reform. They want to repeal it, they want to chip away at it, but we don't even know what they want to replace it with. And the American people and our constituents are entitled to know, are they just going to leave people on their own without the ability to buy health insurance because of preexisting conditions? Are they going to tell the elderly they are on their own and see who they want to insure them? I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, last week the health world lost one of its most respected, admired, and accomplished champions with the death on May 3 of Dr. James Mongan. Jim's last professional position was as president of Partners Health Care in Boston, following his service as president of the Massachusetts General Hospital, a position he assumed in 1996. His tenure there was heralded for remarkable achievements and progress. But for those of us who benefitted from his advice and experience in Washington, this was only the latest in a series of positions in which Jim worked tirelessly to increase access to health care services, to ensure that all Americans have health insurance, and to innovate and improve the quality and effectiveness of our health care delivery system. In the early days of his career in Washington, Jim was the first doctor to serve as professional staff to the Senate Finance Committee. He went on to work at the Department of Health, Education and Welfare with Secretary Joe Califano, and then in the Carter White House, where he headed efforts to enact a national health insurance plan in his role as Associate Director for Health on the domestic policy staff. After leaving Washington, Jim became the chief executive officer of the Truman Medical Center, a public safety net institution in Kansas City, Missouri, and Dean of the University of Missouri-Kansas City medical school. His work as a leader in academic medicine, in delivery system reform, and in bringing services to the uninsured and low- income, was widely known and respected. During all his many years away from Washington, Jim's keen interest in public policy and the goal of expanded heath care coverage never flagged. He was a frequent and insightful witness before many Committees in Congress. His service as a Member on many advisory boards was highly sought, including service on the Prospective Payment Advisory Commission (a predecessor to MedPAC), on the board of the American Hospital Association, on the board of the Kaiser Family Foundation, and as a member of the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured from its inception in 1991. He also served as a member of the board of the Commonwealth Foundation and the Chair of the Commonwealth Commission on High Performance Health Systems. His leadership and participation in all of these areas was a reflection of the value that was placed on his experience, his knowledge, and his sage advice. He could be depended on to cut through to the heart of the problem, and to offer pithy, practical and wise counsel. Jim was an instrumental partner in achievement of the health care reform system in Massachusetts, an achievement of which he was proud for its impact on his own State, and which helped serve as the impetus for the long-sought achievement of health care reform for all American. In 2009, he co-authored Chaos and Organization in Health Care, a book that was heralded as ``the single most informative and absorbing examination of what is wrong with the U.S. health care system, and what to do about it.'' It was an accurate reflection of the interests and work that dominated his entire career. Jim was a wise and kind person. He served as friend, mentor and advisor for more people in Washington and the health care world than we can count. By all of us, he will be missed.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I am wholly opposed to this legislation, and urge its defeat. We have a lot of challenges in this country: high gasoline prices, high unemployment, an economy that is not growing strongly enough, crumbling infrastructure, a growing threat from carbon pollution and climate change, and two ongoing wars in the Middle East, among many others. But rather than focus on issues that are front and center in the lives of Americans from all walks of life, what legislation does the Republican leadership choose to bring to the floor today? Not a bill for jobs. Not a bill for growth. Not a bill that will promote clean energy. Not a bill for education. Not a bill for infrastructure investment. Not even a bill that addresses the deficit. Instead, the Republican leadership presents a bill whose relentless focus is to extinguish a woman's right of choice with respect to pregnancy. We have already resolved this issue. Last year, we did so in the Affordable Care Act. That law clearly and unequivocally prohibits the use of federal funds for abortion; keeps state and federal abortion- related law in place; and ensures that those whose conscience dictates against abortion are protected, and not discriminated against. But this is not enough for some. H.R. 3 will result in a virtual shut-down of abortion services in the United States. In addition to making permanent the prohibition in existing law on any federal funding for abortion, H.R. 3 prohibits any federal funds from being expended for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion. It establishes tax penalties for private expenditures on abortion. It provides a limitation on federal facilities and employees with respect to abortion. It again singles out the District of Columbia to prevent the citizens of that city from determining whether the local government can fund abortion services with its own revenue. H.R. 3 is extreme, it is cruel, it is offensive, and it is wrong. As I have stated in opposing other restrictive legislation on reproductive rights this year, this legislation will not become law. It is not what the American people are asking us to do. November's election was focused on jobs and economic growth. Its outcome was not a mandate to erode the rights of choice that are protected by the Constitution. H.R. 3 turns the clock back to over 50 years ago. It should never have been brought to the floor and it should never be given the force of law. Not in the United States of America. Not in the 21st century. I urge its defeat.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, we are not focusing on the big issues that the American people care about with this bill. Instead, what we have before us is not a bill to increase jobs or to help those lives torn apart by the recent natural disaster storms or to address the country's high energy costs. Unfortunately, what the Republican leadership offers up, once again, is a debate on the Affordable Care Act. This is another piece of legislation that is going nowhere. The Senate will never pass it, and the President will never sign it. This bill, H.R. 1213, was analyzed by the Congressional Budget Office, and the budgetary estimate shows this bill diminishes coverage and raises costs. It punishes the States, and especially hurts working Americans and their families. First, the bill will leave people uninsured. This legislation, according to the Congressional Budget Office, will result in lower enrollment by an estimated 5 percent to 10 percent below the levels expected under current law between 2014 and 2016. In other words, there would be almost 2 million fewer people enrolled in State exchanges. Second, it will increase the costs to employers as they continue to fight off a sluggish economy. Third, it will increase costs to consumers through increased premiums in the individual market. Fourth, without Federal assistance, fewer States would be able to set up and operate State-run exchanges. Currently, 49 States, the District of Columbia and four territories have gotten beyond the ideological debate that we are having over and over again in this House, and they have responded by asking for funds so they can do the job of setting up a marketplace in which it would be best for families and businesses to choose their health insurance. Fifth and notably, 85 percent of the total $14 billion in cuts comes at the expense of low- and moderate-income Americans who are not able to access health insurance through exchanges. It is time to stop debating bills that move the country in the wrong direction for political reasons. This bill takes a direct shot at the heart of health reform and at the new marketplace that marks the end of insurance company abuses, and it puts Americans in charge of their health care. This is the wrong bill at the wrong time. It accomplishes nothing. We still don't know what the Republican proposal would be for health care. They said they were going to repeal it and then replace it. We don't know what they would replace it with. What we do know is that, for health care like Medicare and Medicaid, which insure millions of Americans, their proposal would be to decimate those two programs. With this bill, they would like to be sure, evidently, that States and working families don't have access to private insurance and that they don't have the ability to choose the best deal for them and their families. I urge the defeat of this bill.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much for yielding to me. I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1214, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this very shortsighted and misguided piece of legislation. This bill, of course, is part of a broader Republican strategy to tear down the new health reform law piece by piece. I will also note that they want to tear down the existing health care laws of Medicare and Medicaid in their budget. Well, I think that's all very disturbing. But what's especially troublesome is that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are now going after programs where we all agree, Democrats and Republicans agree, that actually work, that actually do a good job and make a difference. Numerous studies have shown that school-based health centers are enormously successful in helping to improve students' access to care, promote healthy behaviors among children and adolescents, improve students' academic performance, decrease school absenteeism, and reduce health care expenditures. With a report card like that, why wouldn't we want to build or renovate more of these centers? We should not end the school-based center construction and renovation program before it even has a chance to make its mark. I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 1214.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, each year on April 24, we gather to honor the memory of those lives that were destroyed in the events of the Armenian Genocide. Because this year a Congressional recess coincided with that date, I take the opportunity today to commemorate the atrocious acts of genocide that occurred 96 years ago. It is notable that today also happens to be Yom Hashoah, Holocaust Remembrance Day. The history of these two genocides remains tragically intertwined by the world's intransigence at the suffering of the victims while the atrocities took place and the ongoing efforts of those who seek to deny what happened. It is said that the trajectory from Armenia to Auschwitz was direct. It is said that when asked if the world would tolerate the ``Final Solution'' to annihilate the Jews, Hitler remarked ``Who remembers the Armenians?'' We remember the Armenians. More than 1.5 million men, women and children systematically murdered, chased from their communities and in many cases marched to death. The suffering of the victims, the courage of the survivors, and the battle of their descendents to preserve this history deserves full recognition. Silence only inflicts more pain and leaves those who suffer to suffer alone. Silence encourages those willing to engage in genocide to believe their actions will be met with impunity. Nearly 100 years later, we are still learning from this tragedy. The United States must embrace and encourage international recognition of the Armenian genocide not only for the peace of mind of those who suffered, but to reaffirm our commitment to preventing the genocides of the future. Let us raise our voice so that the Armenian Genocide will be mourned and remembered for generations to come.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, today is Holocaust Remembrance Day, known in Israel as Yom Ha'Shoah U'Gvura--a day to commemorate Holocaust victims and heroes. It is observed each year on the anniversary of the beginning of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. It cannot escape us that this year, this observance coincides with the killing of Osama Bin Laden, a ruthless murderer who embodied the worst hatred and cruelty that was a trademark of the Nazi era. It is also coincides with the anniversary of Hitler's death. As we remember the victims of the Holocaust and the victims of 9/11, we reflect on the hatred and violence indoctrinated by Bin Laden and Hitler to fuel their murders. We pay tribute to the heroes who risked their lives to bring the perpetrators of these crimes to justice. We memorialize innocent lives cut short and we strengthen our resolve to fight the extremism and intolerance that foster terrorism and genocide. I join my colleagues in marking this momentous confluence of events with grief for the past and hope for the future, so that we may proclaim with conviction: ``Never Again.''