Keith Ellison

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. No, I am not yielding. You're going to say whatever you want later, so let me just keep going. From 2000 to 2006, the Republicans had the White House--check the facts, Mr. Speaker--they had the Senate, and they had the House of Representatives, and they didn't do anything to help health care.

Mr. ELLISON. Let me just say for the third time, from 2000 to 2006, the Republicans had the presidency, they had the House of Representatives and the Senate, and they didn't do anything to help Americans improve the health care situation. They didn't do a thing. They allowed premiums to increase. They allowed co-pays to increase. They allowed people to be denied for preexisting conditions. They allowed misery to accumulate around the health care crisis in America. They allowed the number of uninsured to increase, and they allowed a very difficult, awful situation. So now we've got upwards of 45 million people who don't have health care, and while the Republicans could have done something about it, they did not do anything about it. Now, in a few minutes, Mr. Speaker, I am going to yield and in a few minutes I am sure my friend from Iowa is going to have plenty to say. But I would like, Mr. Speaker, that anyone listening to the sound of my voice examine the facts I just laid out because they are true. The Republicans could have done something to help Americans address their health care crisis between 2000 and 2006, and they did not do anything. And since the Democrats regained the Congress, we passed SCHIP, State Children's Health Insurance Program, which President Bush vetoed, and we're trying to fix one mess they made with prescription drugs by filling the doughnut hole. But all that program was was a boon to large pharmaceutical companies, and we're trying to fix that large debacle now. The fact is is that the Republican Caucus could have helped the American people and they declined the invitation to do so. And now while America has been embroiled in a conversation around health care reform for a year, they have come up with nothing constructive to say. All they want to do is deprive Americans of their right to civil redress under the law when doctors sometimes make mistakes. They call it tort reform. What it really is is denying consumers the right to redress grievances, which is an American thing to do to try to fix these problems. Now, we're not saying that people who abuse the legal system shouldn't have accountability. We are saying do not shut the doors when Americans have a legitimate claim, which is what I think the Republican Caucus is in favor of. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that this hour, called the Progressive Caucus Hour, is all about talking about Progressive measures that have made America great. And I would offer you this, Mr. Speaker, that every single thing that has made America the wonderful, beautiful, great country that it is has been a progressive proposal. Breaking away from England was progressive. Throwing off a dictator was progressive. Freeing people from slavery was a progressive thing to do. Allowing unions to organize was a progressive step forward. Civil rights was progressive. Women's rights was progressive. Getting rid of the poll tax was progressive. And it has been conservatives every step of the way trying to block these things. America is a progressive country. America believes that everybody does better when everybody does better. America believes deep in its heart in religious tolerance. We believe in economic justice. We believe in equality for all people. But conservatives, trying to hold this country back and maintain the status quo, have been in the way all along. So tonight, Mr. Speaker, may I yield back the microphone knowing full well that those following me will have plenty to add. But with that, I will yield back.

Mr. ELLISON. I don't have to yield, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. ELLISON. I can't stay here all night.

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I am here representing the Congressional Progressive Caucus tonight, the Congressional Progressive Caucus, a body of Members of Congress dedicated to the very simple idea that we all do better when we all do better. The Progressive Caucus, a caucus made up of Members of Congress--men, women, whites, blacks, Latinos, Asians, people of various different backgrounds throughout the whole country--all unified under the simple idea that everybody counts and everybody matters; that there is no one who doesn't deserve civil rights; that everybody deserves civil rights; that men and women should enjoy the same rights; that women should have a right to choose; that there is nobody who is outside the pale of our beloved community; and that we stand together on economic justice, environmental justice, stand together on the idea of health care for all, stand together on the idea of real consumer protection, stand together against the idea that Wall Street bankers and the well-to-do should have everything going their way. In fact, we think that the working men and women of America should have something going our way. In fact, we're the ones who do all the work around here and we're the ones who should see America operating on behalf of and for the American people. This is what the Progressive Caucus is all about. The Progressive Caucus is all about saying that consumer justice is important, health care reform is critical, war is usually the enemy of the poor, and that we need to find a way to seek diplomacy and dialogue and find a better way out of the conflicts that our country finds ourselves in. That is what the Progressive Caucus is about. I am going to be talking about some of our core beliefs, but how can I talk tonight, Mr. Speaker, without talking about the Health Care Summit? Obviously, the Health Care Summit was a big deal today. A lot of people were watching it on television. I want to commend President Barack Obama for having a transparent and open process. My friends on the other side of the aisle, the party apposite, the Republicans, say that we should just start all over. Well, as you could see by watching the broadcast today, there was ample debate, long hours of discussion. We've had many, many hearings here in Congress on health care. We've had a conversation with the American people going on a year, and they say scrap it? No, thank you. They wish we would, but we won't. The fact is that we have had a national dialogue, focusing on what it is like to live without health care and facing the world with your children and your family without any health care coverage, facing bankruptcy as health care expenses skyrocket and you are unable to meet that reality, facing a situation where you have to put your medical expenses on a credit card, you know, which may have gone up to 28 or 30 percent. These are the kinds of things that concern us. I want to commend the President for convening this dialogue today, for having this discussion. I do wish, however, that there had been a member of the Progressive Caucus in an official capacity there. It is true there were people from the Progressive Caucus there, but our leadership is Raul Grijalva and Lynn Woolsey, and I believe they should have been there. There were other people there who were members of the Progressive Caucus but none who were authorized to speak for the Progressive Caucus. I'm not happy about that, but you know what? Things are seldom perfect in life. I would have wished that we would have had it that way, but we didn't. A few things were clear about the health care summit today, which is that the ideology still rules the day for our friends in the party opposite that Americans continue to face health care nightmares on a daily basis and that the urgency of change is as powerful as ever. We have got to move forward. There is no way that we as a Congress can engage the public imagination around health care for a whole year and then come up with nothing. We need to have a health care bill. This is the Progressive Caucus, and I am talking about health care and the economy today. I also want to say, as we talk about health care and the economy from the perspective of the Progressive Caucus, that this is a Progressive message coming to you for an hour. We come here every week, and we speak for an hour about the critical issues facing the American people from a Progressive standpoint, and that is why I want to talk about health care right now. Let me start off the conversation about health care by saying that, today, not only was the health care summit on and not only was the same old debate laid out--Democrats, Progressives wanting health care reform for the American people--but the folks in the party opposite are not so big on reform and want to just keep the status quo. The House also demonstrated and signaled its urgent desire to see health care reform when we took up the Health Insurance Industry Fair Competition Act just this week. This bill stripped away a protection that was granted to insurance companies, and it requires them to now compete. They got their exemption from antitrust laws taken away. It's not enacted into law, but it was passed in the House, on the House floor, just this week. The idea is that health care companies don't need to be exempted from antitrust laws. They need to have to face those laws because we need competition. When businesses compete, consumers benefit. Simple as that. When businesses compete, consumers benefit, but for far too long, the health care insurance industry has played by a different set of rules. Since 1945, the McCarran-Ferguson Act--you may have heard of it--has exempted businesses of insurance from Federal antitrust laws. Now, that is not right, so we did something about it this week at last, on the House side, hoping that the body down the hall will do something similar. This bill that we passed off the House floor amends the McCarran-Ferguson Act by repealing the blanket antitrust exemption afforded to health insurance companies. This is something the American people want. Most people I talked to didn't understand why they had an antitrust exemption in the first place. Under the bill, health insurers will no longer be shielded from being held accountable for price-fixing, for dividing up territories among themselves, for sabotaging their competitors in order to gain monopoly power, and for other anticompetitive practices. If they do it and if we can get it passed into law, then they are going to be held accountable; they are going to be taken to court. That's what we need. Removing the antitrust exemption not only enables appropriate enforcement; it also will give all health insurance companies healthy, competitive incentives that will promote better affordability, that will improve quality, and that will increase innovation and greater consumer choice--as antitrust laws have done for the rest of the economy for over a century. Removing this antitrust exemption is key, and it is supported by law enforcement groups and by the National Association of Attorneys General. The National Association of Attorneys General has consistently opposed legislation that weakens antitrust standards for specific industries because there is no evidence that such exemptions promote competition or serve the public interest. They do not promote the public interest. They undermine the public interest. So I just wanted to tell everybody that this piece of legislation passed off the House floor, signaling greater change as we are driving every day a little closer to real health care reform. The Health Insurance Industry Fair Competition Act passed off the House floor this week. It's just a piece of health care reform, but it's an important piece. Let me now turn to the larger issue of health care reform by addressing something called the ``public option.'' You've heard me talking about the public option, and I believe in the public option. You know, we're going to have this system in America of private insurance, which is not going to be undermined. I believe in universal, single-payer health care, but the present format is to, essentially, reform the existing system of private health care insurance. No problem. By the way, I'm always for private doctors, always for private health care providers. I just think we should pay for it through a single payer, which would be much more affordable for everyone. The public option is simply a government-run program, and I don't shy away from calling it that, because Medicare is government run and the VA is government run, and there is nothing wrong with that. It's an agency that could be set up by the government which would offer an insurance product for people to get health care coverage, and that could offer real competition to the private insurance market. Now, the thing about the public option that you should know is that over 120 Members of the House of Representatives have said, in a letter, that we want that, and we would like to see it make it into law. Not only that, over 24 Senators have said that they want to vote on the public option as well. This is a very, very important development because the fact is, when you have 24 Senators and 120 House Members, that's a lot. Senator Reid says he favors the public option. Clearly, the public option has already passed through the House once. So this is a great idea. It's supported by the American people. Seventy percent of the American public like it. The public option should be in the final bill that eventually is signed by President Obama. The public option was talked about at the health care summit today, and we are very glad about that. Members of the Progressive Caucus went to the White House and handed out a document urging Members at the summit to raise the issue about the public option. Let me just state the facts about the public option. One is that poll after poll has shown that the vast majority of Americans believes a public option should be included in health care insurance reform. Fifty-seven percent were for a strong public option in a Washington ABC poll this winter. If the American people want it, if it has already passed through the House, if 24 Senators say they want it, and if the majority leader says he wants it, why can't we get a vote on it? I am saying this is a Progressive idea that is good for America, and I want to urge Americans to say that a public option is a good thing. Congress and the President have answered the call of the American people by dealing with health care, but we've really got to get a good health care bill. If we are going to use reconciliation because we can't get any Republican cooperation, why don't we get the best bill we can get? Why do we get a bill that is less than we could get? Incrementalism has its place, but if we don't have to bother about getting 60 Senators in order to get around the filibuster rules, why don't we just go with a good bill which would really help the American people--one that would lower costs, that would increase affordability, and that would have an option for people? It's a good idea. The Democratic health care reform plan, which passed through the House and included a public option, is a bill that makes a lot of sense. It covers preexisting conditions. It stops the practice of recision--denying you health care when you need it most. It stops the bankrupting of our businesses and of our families when they get sick. As for the public option in particular, part of the plan that passed through the House offers and introduces competition; it lowers costs for consumers--taxpayers--and it brings a higher quality of health care to millions of Americans. I think Americans want to see the public option in any final product, and I think it is something that people should let their government know that they want. Currently, in 34 States, 75 percent of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies. Many of the areas of the company are dominated by just one or two private organizations. A public option would offer a choice to people living in these highly concentrated markets. This means that the addition of a public option would provide a quality and affordable choice. The public option offers competition. Again, in 34 States, 75 percent of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies. In Alabama, almost 90 percent of the market is controlled by just one company. That's not fair. In addition, the public option would provide competition for private insurance companies to keep them honest. It would be completely up to individuals to decide whether they want to access the public option. You don't have to use the public option. In fact, you could go to the private market if you felt there were a better deal there, but the public option would be there so that concentrated markets could not simply force you to buy their products. If the Congress of the United States is going to mandate that Americans get health care insurance, we should at least say that there will be a public option so that we don't force you into the arms of a monopolistic, highly concentrated market which would take advantage of you because of its market advantages. Americans should be free to seek health care without having to fear that they could not afford it or that they would incur tens of thousands of dollars in debt. A public option offers us an advantage on cost. We know that existing public options, like Medicare and Medicaid, consistently have lower administrative costs than their private insurance counterparts. Of course they do. According to the Commonwealth Fund, the net administrative costs for Medicare and Medicaid were 5 and 8 percent, respectively. If you look at the top five private health insurance companies, their administrative costs are 17 percent. While the insurance market is controlled by fewer and fewer insurance companies in more and more States, there is little incentive to lower costs. Why should they? They're not in competition. A public option would offer that competition all over the country, and it would help Americans afford health care. Let me just say that we've been debating health care for a year now. When we started out, people like me wanted a single-payer health care system. I am so proud of the over 60 Members of Congress who signed onto John Conyers' bill for single-payer health care, but we compromised when we said, Okay. We're not going to get that. The single payer was not really given a fair chance in the House of Representatives, in my opinion. Be that as it is, we said, Okay. We will compromise and do the public option. Now the public option has been pushed to the side. In as early as August of 2009, we were told the public option is off the table. Off the table was what we were told. Well, the public option is such a good idea, such a powerful concept, that it keeps putting itself back on the table. So, when it looked like the public option was off the table again this winter--this winter, we thought, Okay. The public option is off the table again. Then we see a movement. First, it was just four Senators--Senator Bennet, Senator Gillibrand, Senator Brown. These Senators came together. They wrote a letter to Harry Reid, and they said, We want to vote on the public option, and we're going to ask you to put it up there. Then it was five. Then it was six. It got all the way up to 24. Then there are a number of Senators who said they don't want to sign a letter, which is their choice, but they would vote for it if it comes before them. Of course, we saw two dynamic freshman Members of the Congress-- Chellie Pingree and Jared Polis--two very dynamic, young Congress people who authored a letter that 120 of us joined, and now both the Houses have these movements moving forward. We didn't see the public option in the President's proposal, but both Houses of Congress are seeing these movements towards it. I believe that, if we put that bill on the President's table with a public option in it, he will sign it. He said he favored the idea. Here is his chance to prove it. The fact is that bureaucratic overhead costs coupled with multimillion- dollar CEO salaries and bonuses equate to high costs for America's working families, and a lack of competition provides no incentive to change their practices, but a public option will make them compete and will provide access to millions of Americans potentially. Higher quality. Competition always improves quality. Therefore, the public option will help consumers get better coverage for the same amount of money as their private insurers. Now, there are myths about the public option, and I think people ought to know that. The idea of a public option being a government takeover or even a government-run program is not really the truth. The idea that a mandated health insurance is a new tax on people is also not true. What a public option really is is that the government would help cover the high cost of insurance for Americans while bringing those costs down through competition. Without health insurance reform, however, we can expect the problems that exist today to only get worse. Now, the public option is not a takeover of health care. That's ridiculous. It's not true. It would simply be one option among many offered by the public. Now, it would be administered by the government, but so what. So is Medicaid, Medicare, the VA, and TRICARE. These are all government health care programs that people really, really like. You know, as a matter of fact, when it comes to Medicare, back in 1965 when we passed it, only 22 Republicans voted for it, and now they act like they're the defenders of the program, which they're not. But the fact is nobody's messing with Medicare nowadays. Why? Because it's a popular program. Even though only 22 Republicans voted for it in 1965 when it first passed, it is now the way we live, and nobody is going to allow it to be taken away. In 10 years the out-of-pocket costs that are paid by individuals and families across America would increase by more than 35 percent and as many as 65.7 million Americans will be uninsured. That's intolerable in this great country. This means higher costs to taxpayers to cover hospital expenses of the uninsured. Employers will also have to pay health insurance premiums at least 60 percent higher than premiums today. There are supporters for the public option in all areas of life, not just the House, not just the Senate, but also doctors are in support of the public option, and organizations behind them strongly support the public option too. These include the American Nurses Association, the American Cancer Society, the American Medical Association, and the AARP. Even hospitals such as the National Association of Children's Hospitals have supported the principles of health care change and the public option. And let me just say when the American Medical Association that represents doctors say they're for the public option, that lets you know that people on the other side of the aisle saying things like, Oh, the Democratic Congress wants to get between you and your doctor, isn't true. It's just not the case. So you need to be aware of the myths that are out there. As was said before, three courageous members of the Progressive Caucus went over to the White House today and offered the Congressional Progressive Caucus's perspective, and I was proud that they did that. The CPC, the Congressional Progressive Caucus, did not receive an invitation to the health care summit, but we showed up and we handed our ideas to the people who were invited, and we were happy to see that both Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer introduced the idea of the public option, and we thank them for that. So let me just now move into another area before we wrap it up tonight, and what I want to talk about is the economy. Now, it's important, as we discuss the economy, to bear in mind that we've come quite a long way, quite a long way. In fact, when the Republicans were in office, they literally, not literally but figuratively, drove the economy into the ditch. They just ran the economy into the ground. The economy shrank 5.4 percent in the fourth quarter of 2008. Barack Obama was not the President then. It was under George Bush when the economy shrank 5.4 percent in the fourth quarter of 2008. The fact is that the economy lost 741,000 jobs in January 2009 alone. Remember, Barack Obama was not the President until January 20. This a Bush failure and, of course, a Republican failure. Under the Republicans we erased $2.7 trillion in retirement savings. I will show you a board on that I have. And it's important to remember that people trying to retire saw their retirement savings just shrink under the leadership of the Republicans. Very scary. Not very nice to the seniors. And more than doubling the debt in 8 years. Now, these folks shake their finger at us like we're big spenders. Look, they doubled the debt in 8 years. When President Clinton left office, we had a surplus. They took care of that because they cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans and never paid for them and then had a couple of wars they didn't pay for and put us in massive debt. The worst recession since the Great Depression should be called the ``Republican recession.'' Now, just to show you a little bit more, I was talking about this idea of public debt a moment ago, and, of course, we all should be concerned about debt. As a progressive, I'm worried about debt because interest service on the debt can't be waived, can't be put off. You've got to pay it when it's due. And that means that it cuts into things, programs and expenditures that could literally help people who I want to see helped. Like helping people who are in need of medical assistance, helping our schools, helping firefighters and police and teachers and public safety people. All these things get squeezed when you've got to pay all that high debt service. But Republicans lack credibility on fiscal responsibility. They don't want to spend money to help poor folks and regular folks. That's true. But when it comes to helping out well-to-do people and really, really wealthy folks, who I am absolutely fine with--I've got a lot of friends who are doing well. But they don't need folks looking out for them because they've got the money. But the point is that Republicans lack credibility on fiscal responsibility. It's not that they don't spend. It's just they don't spend it on things that help your average citizen. They spend it on tax cuts for the very wealthy and wars. So debt held by the public nearly doubled under the Bush administration. We can look here at the year 2000, $3.4 trillion. We see this red ink just going up and up and up all the way to $6.3 trillion in 2008 when the Democrats get the White House and the Congress. So the fact is that this is their mountainous debt, and now they want to lecture about debt and fiscal responsibility, but it rings hollow because of their history. Let me also show you this board. This is a good one. Democrats actually have a proven record of fiscal responsibility. Democrats are good with the economy. We do a good job when we're in charge. If you look over Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II, you will see these budget deficits and surpluses. This is when we see the budget surplus during the Clinton years is going up. It actually goes above zero, so we actually have more money. But here the amount of money that we have is less and less and we're seeing ourselves greater and greater in debt under the Reagan-Bush years. You see the debt is actually going up while our surplus is going down. And then you see the surplus going up on the blue line, and then you see the dropoff when it comes to our surplus. We have no surplus here and then we have a negative surplus-- also known as a deficit. So if you look at this, Democrats have a proven record of fiscal responsibility. If you look at Reagan and Bush, Clinton and Bush, you're seeing the product of Republican leadership and their fiscal irresponsibility. Now, this is an important board because right now it's all about jobs. We need health care because it's such a big chunk of a family budget. We need to get that down. We need to cover everybody. So health care is economic justice for people. But it's important to understand that we've seen the job losses because of the Republican recession. I just showed you that. Democrats turned around Republicans' job losses. Now look: We're losing jobs. All these red lines below this zero is unemployment. We're going down. Monthly change and nonfarm payrolls. You see that. And we're going all the way down. We're just hitting it. And in January of 2009, you see Democrats are in control, and as we're just adding to job losses here, it's worse and worse and worse and worse, and then you see the slow but steady improvement. Now, we're still not creating jobs, and this is a serious problem. But you can see that we're going in the right direction. You can see that with Democrats in there, we're doing better. So the last month Bush was the President, we lost 741,000 jobs in a month. And the last month, and this doesn't reflect the most recent data, we lost 22,000. Now, we still lost, and that's bad. But the fact is we're losing fewer and fewer and fewer and you can see that in a few months, we'll be above the line and we'll be adding jobs, which is something very, very important to point out. Do you know what the toughest job in the circus is? Cleaning up after the elephants. So the Democrats are trying to fix 8 years of Republican leadership in this country, and it's not an easy thing to do. But you can see in a short period of time, we're getting it all turned around. Now, one of the things that helped turn things around is the Recovery Act. Now, you heard these folks say, oh, this is terrible, the Recovery Act is bad. You would think that the Recovery Act was something that wasn't any good. But look here. This is something you should take a look at: ``GOP: There's no hypocrisy in seeking stimulus money. Republicans say they are working on behalf of their constituents.'' Now here's the full quote: ``The DCCC claims that 91 House Republicans are talking out of both sides of their mouths.'' Now, these guys were voting against the stimulus. We didn't get one Republican vote for the stimulus. They didn't vote for it. They were all against it, even though it clearly put Americans back to work and stopped the bleeding of jobs. But that didn't stop them from going out in ribbon cuttings and being there and just trying to show off and say, hey, look, give me some stimulus money. I didn't vote for it, but I want to benefit from it. Isn't that terrible? Let me just read a little of this to you: ``Amid mounting criticism, House Republicans said this week that it is not hypocritical to vote against the stimulus and later seek money from it for their districts. ``After standing united in opposition to the President's economic stimulus bill a little more than a year ago, many Republicans have touted the benefits of that measure back in their districts, according to a comprehensive list compiled by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. ``Citing the stimulus and other measures, the DCCC claims that 91 House Republicans are talking out of both sides of their mouths. ``In recent days former Senator Alan Simpson, Republican from Wyoming, and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger have echoed the DCCC claims.'' Like my dad, who's a Republican, they're honest Republicans, and Simpson and Schwarzenegger are telling the truth. ``But key House Republicans argue that a vote against the stimulus bill should not prevent them from writing a letter on behalf of their constituents seeking grants available from the $787 billion measure. Some of them do say, however, that Republicans should refrain from attending photo ops.'' And it goes on. What is the point? The point is they created a recession with their policies of tax cuts for the rich, wars that they didn't pay for, tax cuts they didn't pay for, no regulation of Wall Street, and just letting things run amok, not regulating predatory lending though Democrats had been asking them to do it for years while we were in the minority. And then they create this situation where the economy tanks. Then when we put measures in place to bring the economy back to life, they vote against it, but then they run to take advantage of it. That is bad. Now, the Recovery Act. The CBO, that is the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, estimates that in the third quarter of calendar 2009, an additional 600,000 to 1.6 million people were employed in the United States. That is pretty good. In the third quarter of the calendar year 2009, an additional 600,000 to 1.6 million people were employed. That is pretty good. That is trying to dig us out of the hole. The Congressional Budget Office projects that the Recovery Act will increase real GDP by 1.5 to 4.5 percent during the first half of 2010, and 1.2 to 3.8 percent during the second half. That is actually good as well. Now, Mark Zandi, who actually was a consultant for Senator John McCain when he was running for President, who is pretty conservative, said, ``I don't think it is an accident that the economy has gone out of recession and into recovery at the same time stimulus is providing its maximum economic impact.'' So even a conservative economist is telling them that the stimulus worked and is working. And I just wish they would agree that Democrats are better for the economy. I just wish the Republicans would agree with the unbiased evidence that Democrats are better for the economy. Now, it is important, I mentioned retirement accounts earlier, Retirement Accounts Recovering Under the Obama Administration. Now, here we see under the Bush administration the value of retirement accounts is going down, the value of retirement savings accounts. You see them, they are just going down, down, down, down, down. They are just dropping. And then you see under the Obama administration, retirement accounts are up $1.8 trillion, as we see them climb from the first quarter of 2009 steadily back up. More evidence that Democrats are better with the economy, which is the thing that helps you put food on the table, a roof over your house, and retirement money in your account. Moving right through these boards here, and I just want to show the folks, the economy is swinging back to growth. Now, GDP is gross domestic product. That is the sum total of all the goods and services produced by the economy in a given period of time. You see that in the first quarter of 2008, we had negative GDP growth. It popped back up for a minute, but then it kept going down, down, down. This is all under Bush. And then you see GDP growth going back up. And these are the projected increases. The fact is that the economy, GDP growth is increasing. That means real goods and services produced. That means people working. That means production. That means people providing services. And it means food on the table. It means soup in the pot. That is what it means. Or chicken, or whatever you like. So let me just say, as I begin to wrap it up, the fact is that the economy is not back to health yet. It needs more things. I believe very strongly, and the Progressive Caucus agrees, that we need direct job creation from the government like the WPA, where we put people back to work, painting public buildings, working in Head Starts, doing valuable work that needs to be done, and that these jobs could be paid and they wouldn't be just special kinds of jobs, but they would just be jobs that people can do and hopefully keep that job. If we can ignite the economy and keep the period of growth going. The economy is not out of the woods yet. We still have unemployment that is intolerably high, particularly in minority communities. This is intolerable. We have got to do something about it. There is no doubt about that. But we are going in the right direction. And we need to improve to keep the drive alive. Keep the drive alive, not turn back. I just want to say to folks out across America, the fact is that it takes more than just a couple of years to get things straightened out after so many years of difficulty. We need young people, new Americans, communities of color, working people, labor, everybody to keep their level of enthusiasm up about what the prospects for America are and to not get discouraged just because things didn't pop back into shape as soon as George Bush handed over the mantle of the presidency. It is going to take a little bit of time, but things are clearly going in the right direction. One year in, the evidence is clear, and growing day by day, that the Recovery Act is working to cushion the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression and lay a new foundation for economic growth. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the Recovery Act is already responsible for as many as 2.4 million jobs. The analysis of the Council of Economic Advisers also found the Recovery Act is responsible for about 2 million jobs, a figure in line with estimates from private forecasters in the economy. Even the conservative American Enterprise Institute is agreeing that the Recovery Act is helping create jobs, which no Republican voted for the stimulus package. It is very important to remember that. We recently learned that our economy grew 5.7 percent in the fourth quarter, the largest gain in 6 years, and something many economists say is due to the Recovery Act. So again, negative GDP growth, meaning we were losing, the economy was shrinking when Bush was the President, and now it is growing. Very important for people to know that. The Recovery Act, by the way, it did cut taxes for 95 percent of working families. The Republicans love their tax cuts, but not for the regular working people, only for the very well-to-do. But the Recovery Act did cut taxes for about 95 percent of American families, the Making Work Pay Act tax credit. And that is about $37 billion in tax relief for about 110 million working families in 2009. The fact is loans were made to over 42,000 small businesses through the Recovery Act, providing them with nearly $20 billion in much-needed capital. The Recovery Act funded over 12,500 transportation construction projects nationwide. When 40 percent of all construction workers are on the bench, that work is very, very, very welcome. These projects range from highway construction to airport improvements, of which more than 8,500 already are underway. It funded 51 Superfund sites from the national priority list. Of those sites, 34 have already had on-site construction. The Recovery Act, which I was proud to vote for, has done a lot of good for America. So as we wrap it up today, it is important just to bear in mind that health care reform is a key component and a vital component of restoring our country to economic health. We need health care reform. Remember, the Republicans had the House, the Senate, and the White House between 2000 and 2006, and they didn't do anything to improve the health care situation for Americans.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, if you would listen to the party opposite, you would not know that America is actually on a real trajectory for positive change in the area of jobs. When President Bush left office, for the last 3 months of his administration America was hemorrhaging jobs at the rate of 750,000 on average. And now, in January, only 22,000 jobs lost. Now we are going in the right direction. You can't overturn and change over 8 years of Republican rule in simply a finger snap. But the Democratic Caucus is on its way to restoring this country to economic health. We have seen increases in GDP. We have seen increases in manufacturing. We have seen increases in significant indicators. And this country needs more help, but we are going in the right direction, which is something we were not doing when President Obama took office a year ago. All the American people need to do is just look at the numbers. Things are getting better. And the message of doom and gloom can never match up to one of hope.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, Democrats in Congress have devoted job creation as the number one top priority that we are focusing on in this period. The fact is that the Republican recession has created some of the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression. But it is important to note that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has actually helped our economy begin to recover, and it is important to make sure that Americans know this. It is important for Americans to know that the Recovery Act has created more than 640,000 jobs since it was enacted almost a year ago, and could produce as many as 1.6 million jobs. More is needed, but the Recovery Act has reduced job losses, reduced unemployment rates and the increase in the unemployment rate, and increased the gross domestic product. So, Madam Speaker, the Democratic caucus will continue to focus on job creation and will continue to work well, and we hope to do this in a bipartisan way. But even if we can't, we will continue to make jobs first on the agenda.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, after nearly a decade of handing over middle class tax dollars to the wealthiest 1 percent, after nearly a decade of policy that encouraged million-dollar CEO bonuses over raises for American workers, we are witnessing the results of nearly a decade of complete Republican control of the Federal Government. They handed President Obama and this Congress two wars, hundreds of billions of dollars in debt, crumbling national infrastructure, a home mortgage crisis--one in eight mortgages in default or foreclosure--a global climate crisis, and a financial sector ravaged by greed and lax regulation. In short, this greatest economic and financial crisis since the Great Depression should be called the ``Republican recession.'' And then, they handed it all off to President Obama and now have the audacity to ask, Where are the jobs? Well, the jobs are coming. The jobs are being built right now because Democrats are focusing on jobs. Democrats are committed to a jobs program that talks about our infrastructure, retaining public employees, and building America's future again.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Will the gentlelady yield?

Mr. ELLISON. Let me just say that I just want to tell a story. You know, I was home this weekend, and I was walking along one of the trails that we have in Minneapolis. You know, we've got a lot of parks in Minneapolis. It was cold, and I wanted to get my legs stretched from working so hard last week, so I was walking a long one of our many trails. And I decided to sit down at a park bench, and it looked like a pretty old-looking park bench. You could tell the rust was there. And when I sat down I noticed that it was sturdy. And we sat there talking to a few friends. But when I got up to leave, I noticed that there was a little plaque about the size of this phone, and it said on it, WPA, 1934. For 75 years that park bench had been sitting there. For 75 years, that thing has been giving comfort to people who are just walking by. But 75 years ago we had a job crisis then. And our country, our Congress, responded to the needs of unemployed Americans. We need to respond to the needs of Americans today as people are putting pressure on food shelves, as people don't have money for heat, for lights, as folks who had two and three jobs that were part time now have lost them; now they have no lifeline. We've got to respond to a generation of Americans looking for work today. And where there's extra hurt, there needs to be extra help. And that means that the Congressional Black Caucus--and other caucuses as well--are focusing on a targeted-jobs bill calling for jobs now, calling attention to an appalling condition where people are unemployed at rates of 25, 30 percent in some communities. I just want to ask the gentlelady--and I'll ask any of my colleagues. I like the dialogue. I'm not going to give a 20-minute speech. I will ask the gentlelady, what have you heard as you were standing in the grocery store line? What have you heard when you were walking around your parks in places like Los Angeles, Milwaukee, Ohio, Cleveland? What have you heard? What have you gone through? And what are your folks telling you? Don't give me a bunch of stats. Tell me what your people are feeling. I'd like to know that. I yield back to the gentlelady.

Mr. ELLISON. I will yield.

Mr. ELLISON. Have you are ever talked to somebody who's been unemployed for 12 months, 18 months? What does that do to their psyche? What does that do to their spirit? What does that do to their level of joy? Can anybody answer the question for me?

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, let me thank the chairman and ranking member, but also let me remind our colleagues that we are not here by accident. We are here because over the course of several years, lax regulation and failure, and inadequacy of law landed us at a point where we have seen over 2 million homes in foreclosure in this year alone. By September 2008, the average housing price had declined by over 20 percent since 2006. That's real wealth from families. More than 60 percent of subprime loans went to people who could have qualified for lower cost. And nearly one in four U.S. borrowers currently owes more on their mortgage than their home is worth. This, in large measure, happened, Madam Chair, because mortgage brokers, unregulated, lured families with low teaser-rate interest rates that later skyrocketed to unaffordable levels, hidden fees, and charges in incomprehensible terms and conditions that brought on the housing crisis and undermined the financial system. I want to rise in favor of the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which includes a strong consumer financial protection regulation. One of the most important causes of the financial crisis, as I mentioned, is the utter failure of consumer protection. The most abusive and predatory lenders were not federally regulated, were not regulated at all in some cases, while regulation was overly lax for banks and other institutions that were covered. To address this problem, I believe we need a new agency dedicated to consumer financial protection, a consumer financial protection agency, one agency, not a bunch, one, one that takes the interests of the consumer and puts them first. Not, let's work in the consumer. Not let's see what we can do for the consumer when we get to it, but the interests of the consumer up front. Such an agency, as contemplated in this legislation, would have the power to stop unfair, deceptive, and abusive financial products and services. It would also require financial institutions to provide concise, clear and easy-to-understand disclosures on the terms and conditions of consumer credit products. Of course, there are some who would like to keep the same regulators on the job and thereby piece together shards of a broken system. But what we need is real reform to protect not only the individual consumer but our economy as a whole. Right now, many people are fighting tooth-and-nail to weaken and eliminate the consumer financial protection proposal, spending millions of dollars on a scare campaign that spreads false claims about the agency. But how can they do this in light of the over 2 million foreclosures we have seen? Consumers all across America can't afford what these lobbyists are selling to certain Members of our body. The sale of risky and irresponsible credit products has cost over 10 million jobs and 2 million homes. We can't afford to lose any more, and that is why we need a consumer financial protection agency that is the cornerstone of any real regulatory reform. Now this bill, Madam Chair, is comprehensive. It talks about derivatives, credit rating agencies, and executive compensation, and it ends bailouts. Make no mistake about it: it is protection of the consumer, the average person purchasing a financial product that is the cornerstone of this financial legislation; and it is why I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, my name is Congressman Keith Ellison, and I am here to claim the time on behalf of the Progressive Message which comes to the American people every Thursday night to discuss critical issues and a progressive perspective on these same issues. The Progressive Message is put on and organized by Progressive Caucus members who happen to represent one of the largest caucuses in the Congress. The purpose of this message is to focus on critical issues from a progressive perspective. That means a perspective that all Americans are welcome and included; that we need civil rights, human rights; we need economic justice for working people and working families; we need to address poverty; and we need to address peace in the world; the idea that America, a country blessed, could help bestow blessings on other people in the world through example and not through imposition; the idea that the United States, a country blessed, can help demonstrate through an example what human rights can do, what respect for the rule of law can do, what respect for human rights, women's rights can do. The Progressive Caucus is an instrument through which progressive ideas are shared. Tonight what we want to talk about, Mr. Speaker, is jobs. Absolutely that's the topic tonight. Jobs is what we will be talking about. I would like to hear from anyone who might be listening later on what their perspective is on the jobs picture and what we can do about it. Mr. Speaker, the unemployment rate is 10.2 percent at this time. It could well climb higher by the end of the year. The fact is we have a jobs crisis, we have a jobs emergency, and we must do something about it now. It's important to point out that as much as people who are unemployed need jobs, and they do, other people who are employed also need the unemployed to get jobs. It's important to bear in mind that when people are not working, their income goes down, their purchases at the store go down, their ability to consume and buy things that they need goes down, and if the store isn't selling, then the store can't put on more workers; they may even have to lay some off. So this unemployment problem actually puts downward pressure on demand which puts other businesses who do have employees on the payroll in a position where they have to reconsider that. Not only is the lack of a paycheck detrimental to the family that is not employed, but it also creates generational problems and it creates problems for the person who's unemployed, because when the economy turns around and they can get back in a position where they can maybe find that job, the employer is going to ask, Hey, what was going on with you over the last 3 years? Or 2 years? Or 6 months? And that hole in the resume has real consequences for that worker which may extend over the course of that person's lifetime. Obviously, when unemployment is chronic and people are out of work for long stretches of time, their children sometimes are impacted by this and have to not only go with lower family income, which is obviously harmful to their development, but still are in a position where they have seen a parent go jobless for quite a long time which disadvantages them in terms of their ability to know how to access the job market and their hope, prospect and optimism as it relates to getting work. So unemployment is a problem, we've got to do something about it, and it is time to act. Though the Democratic Caucus and Congress did not create the situation, and it certainly wasn't created overnight, it does need to be fixed very soon. Ten months of the new leadership of the White House cannot eclipse that of nearly 10 years of George Bush and the Republican Congress who bankrupted the public trust. After nearly a decade of handing over middle-class tax dollars to the wealthiest 1 percent, we've now got to take real action for working Americans. After nearly a decade of a policy that encouraged multimillion-dollar CEO bonuses over raises for American workers, we've got to do something about the job picture in America. The economic policies of the last 10 years put President Obama and this Congress in a situation where it may not have been a situation of our making, but it is a problem that we have responsibility to correct. We're not going to say that, Yeah, we got handed two wars; yeah, we got handed hundreds of billions of dollars of debt, a crumbling infrastructure, a home mortgage foreclosure crisis--one out of eight mortgages is in default--a global climate crisis, and a financial sector ravaged by greed and lax regulation. We're not going to rely on any excuse. We're going to get after the problem, and we're going to do it now. In short, the greatest economic and financial crisis since the Great Depression is visiting the American economy right now and people are feeling it, and it's time to do something about it. This is why we are proposing, and I am proposing, and I am encouraging other people to support a jobs bill that would do a few things: American jobs. Invest in transportation and schools. Schools all over America are crumbling. Schools all over America have old pipes. Schools all over America are drafty and need windows replaced and the paint is peeling in many of them, not all of them but many of them. And any school teacher, any principal or any school kid can tell you that. We need people to do the work. We have people who are willing to do the work, and we have things that need to be worked on. What we have to do is bring the two together: invest in transportation, including transit, urban transportation, light rail, and schools. This is an urgent problem, it needs fixing, and people need work. Let's pay them to do it. State and local government relief. All over this country, States and cities and localities are having to cut back on services that they provide to their citizens. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has taken the public circle and said without the stimulus package, a hundred thousand teachers in California would be out of work. So that was an example of a good thing. But it's not nearly enough. We need more to be done, because in this era and in this time, we see local governments having to lay off police officers, firefighters, public works people, teachers. We can't allow this to happen. State governments and local governments around the country are facing serious deficits and the Federal Government should step in to help. We also need to strengthen safety nets. During times of economic downturn, there's greater pressure on our food shelves, greater pressure on our clothing shelves; and we need to understand that when unemployment runs out, a lot of families are just left without. What are we going to do about it? We need to extend unemployment benefits, food stamps and programs like that; and I just want to let folks know that this is economically, from an economic standpoint, it's not just good work, it's not just charitable, it's not just the right thing to do. It also is very, very important to stimulate the economy. Because when you give somebody food stamps, they take that and they go right to the store and they purchase groceries for their family. What does that do for the grocery store that is receiving that coupon that can redeem that for money? It's helping that grocery store. What is that doing for that grocer who is thinking about whether he or she has to lay off a few workers because people just aren't coming in and buying like they used to because the economy is down? Well, it helps them keep those people on the job. And if we do well enough, it might even actually help them add some people on the job. What happens if that store has to lay off a few folks and we don't come through with some of these basics? What happens is they have to lay off some folks, and now you've got more people on unemployment insurance. If they can't find a job within the right amount of time, then those people are just without, and they are putting pressure on the food pantries and the food shelves and they're just really suffering. These things have a ripple effect. What I am saying is if you can think of a coupon, a food stamp coupon, as not a piece of paper that can get you some food, think of it as a rock that you throw into a pond. I'm saying that that food stamp coupon and that unemployment insurance has a ripple effect that is very strong, and the multiplier effect of that is good because it gets right into the economy. It gets right into the economy to help people make their basic needs and also helps fuel the retail sector and then all the way back to the wholesale sector. This is basically just a few things that we could do right now to alleviate real pain people are suffering all over this country. We've got to act, we've got to do something about it; and we cannot say that things that were done in the past, although a lot of bad decisions, economic decisions, were made over the last 8 years, and the Obama administration and this Congress are trying to fix it. We can't rely on that. We've got to do something about it now. The American people deserve answers, especially the people who have been chronically unemployed. Today the White House is hosting, or has hosted already, an economic summit to discuss how to move the economy forward. This is good news. It's the President taking responsibility for dealing with the needs of Americans. I admire that tremendously. The fact is we do need more public jobs. There's broad support and work moving to respond to the need for American jobs. I want to commend the Campaign for America's Future, the AFL-CIO, SEIU, and other labor organizations and groups that come together to help people, but also many employers and many small businesses who are out there concerned about employment. This era that we're in, which I believe can fairly be called the ``great recession,'' has wreaked havoc on American communities, as I just mentioned. And I just want to point out we face a period of extended unemployment if we don't act now. Now, some people think, okay, the economy goes up and the economy goes down. But the fact is that the economy is a social institution, and unless people in society do something about it, the business cycle won't necessarily go up and include more jobs. We've got to do that. That's something that we need to work on. So we need to help small businesses get greater lending. We need to invest in public jobs. We need to invest in public infrastructure. We need to make these kinds of investments so that Americans can get back to work and the economy can get moving again. Many of you watching television and watching the nightly business news may note that, well, Wall Street seems to be kind of moving in the right direction. That's good for them. But the fact is the average American worker is under tremendous anxiety because they know that they might be next. And as one former Republican President once said, a recession is when your neighbor's out of work; a depression is when you are out of work. And for 10.2 percent of American workers, this is a depression, and we need to get on that and deal with it right away. Let me point out just a few other things. This has precedent in the United States. This is not something new for our country. We have stepped forward in the past. In fact, I was in my beautiful State of Minnesota after I enjoyed the great victory over the Chicago Bears by the Minnesota Vikings. And I went for a walk, and I saw that there was a picnic table that had written on it ``WPA 1934.'' Americans in the past have stepped forward and dealt with American crises. In the 1930s and again in the 1970s we responded to extraordinary hardship by adding jobs, jobs, to the array of programs and services designed to help our people and to help the economy move out of recession. The program that we envision today would provide work to the jobless and meet the needs in our communities by helping people meet their everyday needs and boost demand, which would help speed economic recovery. A new jobs program would be run by local elected officials who are closest to communities and best understand their needs. Local communities best understand the needs of the local community. So it wouldn't be Congress saying this many jobs for Head Start, this many jobs for that. It would be Congress sending funds to State and local governments that then those local governments could use to determine what is needed. And, of course, there are a lot of things that are needed. Some of the projects that are needed are paint and repair of schools, as I mentioned before. Peeling paint, community centers and libraries. You would be surprised what you might find if you went to a local library. You might find some local libraries are not in good repair. That's because they were built years and years ago and are in need of an upgrade. We need to clean up abandoned and vacant properties to alleviate the blight that's been caused by the foreclosure crisis. As everyone knows, we went through a major foreclosure crisis, and it's not over. But what's the reality of this situation? The reality is you have abandoned houses which people could live in if these places were maintained and upgraded. But some of them have seen the copper stripped out. Some of them have seen the grass grow long. Some of them have seen the windows knocked out. Unemployed people could be hired to help maintain these properties through a jobs program. This is important all over the country. Even if you want to make sure that these buildings are secured and boarded until somebody can buy them, these are things that are important. Remember, whenever there is a foreclosure on a property, two bad things happen. One is, somebody is out of their house, and those people are not paying property taxes like they used to in the past. But not only is the city not just getting property tax income anymore, the city now also has to pay out in order to maintain that property. So they don't just lose money, they actually now have an expense that they have to deal with when you have a foreclosure. That's why we need people to get employed to maintain these properties, and this is something that local communities might have to do with this money. We need to expand emergency food programs and reduce hunger and promote family stability. Did you know, Mr. Speaker, that one in five children in America are in poverty? In America one in five children in poverty. Children of all colors, children of all cultures, children of all faiths. This is something our country has to respond to. And for so many of these children in poverty today in this massive recession we're in, these are children who may not have parents who are in a union, which would probably guarantee them a higher wage, and that's why I support unions, or our public employees like teachers and police officers. Many of these folks are just the hardworking folks out there who keep the playground safe and clean, who keep the city in good repair. Folks who work at the Head Start and people who do child care and people who do these tough jobs every single day. Some of these folks, they may not have a big degree or a big certificate, but they need to earn good money. They need to have a good job. And maybe that job is the one thing that could keep and lift that family out of poverty so that one of those children who is among the one in five in poverty won't have to be in poverty for too long. We could augment staffing at Head Start, child care, early childhood education programs, senior centers, and promote school readiness and early literacy. We could renovate and enhance maintenance of parks, playgrounds and other public spaces, as I just said. The program we envision could place special emphasis on delivering job opportunities and needed services to low-income communities and communities of color suffering depression-level unemployment and distress. Everybody in this economy is hurting. Well, not everybody. Some of these Wall Streeters are getting big bonuses. They're not hurting. But the rest of us are really fighting out here, and it's not easy. Small business owners, a lot of folks are getting hurt. But as nearly everybody is feeling the pain in this economy, it's important for us to remember that there are some folks who are feeling it even more painfully than the average. I want to point out that unemployment among African Americans in August was not the 15.2 percent that I mentioned for the general economy, but it was 15.7 percent. That's serious. A very serious problem. Unemployment for people who are of Hispanic background is 13.1 percent. If you're talking about young people, African American and Latino young people who are between the ages of 16 and 30, we're talking about unemployment upwards of 35 percent. So we've got to do something in these chronically marginalized communities where people are just left out there and are often a second thought when we form public policy to address serious issues. We've got to deal with this. And that's why we need a program, yes, to build up infrastructure. Let's get those union guys back out there on the field making our roads, making our infrastructure, building those things up. And absolutely let's get those public employees back in. Let's not let the teachers and the cops get laid off. But let's not forget about that young teenager of color who is out there without any prospect. We don't want young people turning in the wrong direction; we want them staying in the right direction. While I mentioned statistics for African American and Hispanic young people, don't think for a minute that young white people in rural communities and even in urban communities are not having elevated unemployment rates as well. The youth are being unemployed at higher rates than other people regardless of background, and we've got to step up and do something about it. And we can do something about it. We still have over $200 billion of TARP money and stimulus dollars, and these need, I think, to be directed to employment programs similar to what we did in the 1930s and in the 1970s when Americans were out of work. I want to say that, yes, it's true that one in five, or about 20 percent, of all young people in America are living in poverty, but one in three African American young people are living in poverty. A serious issue. Their parents need work, and we've got to do something about it. If we act quickly, a jobs program like this could put hundreds of thousands of people of various skill levels to work during the next year, 2010, and will continue to provide job opportunities for several years as our economy recovers. People paying taxes, which can help lower the deficit. People who are paying child support or are just paying the monthly expenses of their family. This is all very important. The time to act is now. I propose, and I think we should all support, a program that could create 1 million American jobs in very short order if we put about $40 billion into it. The time to act is now, to make that investment. We need to make this investment if we want to lower the deficit. We need to make this investment if we want to increase demand. We need to make this investment if we want to keep people from being chronically unemployed. Let me now turn to another important part of what I believe any job recovery program must include, and that is the need for critical infrastructure development. I have been talking about lower-wage workers so far. Now I want to talk a little bit about infrastructure development. Do you know that if you look across America, you look across the roads and you look across the bridges, you look across transit and you look across some of these aging sewer lines and even fiber optic, and if you look at the needs of rural communities across America who need to get wired in on broadband, we're looking at well over about $3 trillion of infrastructure needs in our country. And the beautiful thing about spending this kind of money to invest in American infrastructure is that it stays here. These are not jobs that are going abroad. These are going to be American jobs because you can't lay fiber-optic cable in America in some other country. It's going to be here. That person's going to be paid here. That person's going to be employed here. And that money is going to go into the United States and be funneled back to Americans. This is important to understand--that infrastructure investment is critical to lifting our economy out of this very difficult economic situation, and we have to do it anyway. I'm very excited about this idea of investing in infrastructure in broadband in rural communities. You know that it was in the 1930s when visionary political leaders like Franklin Delano Roosevelt said, You know what, there's no reason why rural America should be in the dark. Rural electrification, an idea conceived when the United States was in a depression. Now, some people who think that bold action could only be taken when things are good economically, they have to contend with the fact that bold action was taken when we had a depression in the 1930s, bold action like rural electrification. And what rural electrification did was it brightened up rural communities all over the United States. We put up the telephone lines all across this country so that you could flick on a light in rural America. What it did was it absolutely improved the economic viability of rural America. People no longer had to move into the crowded city when they could do their business in the electrified rural areas. This is important to bear in mind. It's critical to bear in mind that critical jobs in infrastructure have been built in America even during times of economic downturn. Very important. Community infrastructure programs creating over a million jobs, a million jobs at the community and neighborhood level, is what we need now. We need these kinds of programs so we can create immediate opportunity, so we could create infrastructure. I just want to tell you I'm from the city of Minneapolis, and from my great city of Minneapolis, we had on August 4, 2007, a bridge collapse into the Mississippi River. Thirteen Minneapolitans died and a hundred had injuries like spinal cord injuries as they fell 65 feet from the bridge to the water. Now, at the end of the day, this crisis and this tragedy occurred because we did not maintain that infrastructure well enough. Now, I'm not saying it's anybody's fault. I'm sure everybody did the best they could. But the fact is if we would have had a stronger infrastructure commitment that would make bridges around this country a priority to repair and to fix and to rebuild, this tragedy may not have happened. But it did happen. But it did happen, and so we put out a clarion call for infrastructure development in our country. And I say, we need to do this anyway. We need to develop infrastructure so we can avoid horrible tragedies like the one that happened in my city. But more importantly, or as importantly, we need to do it now to put Americans back to work. During the first 6 to 9 months, if we can pass a good, solid community infrastructure program, the program could develop a fast track for jobs. Projects could be limited to certain activities such as key priorities. And within a short amount of time, we could see these infrastructure developments paying great dividends for Americans. You know, I want to talk to you about some of the things that we have been seeing in our economy that really do cause a tremendous amount of pause, and I think it is something that we need to really, really pay some close attention to. These are trends in our economy that I just feel that we need to pay some greater attention to, and this is not in a way of just describing what we should do, but it is kind of talking about what we have done. In the course of the last few weeks, we have seen people be highly critical of the stimulus package. I think we need to take a look back at what the stimulus package did. Some people, because it has not stopped the increase in unemployment, say that it didn't work. I say this is an incorrect analysis. I believe the Recovery Act has actually helped a lot of people stay employed and actually stopped this economic crisis from getting worse and slowed the rate of unemployment. But we need to do more. But let's just say what the Recovery Act did do. The Recovery Act created over a million jobs. That's what it did do. It created over 250,000 education jobs. As I said, it was Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger who said that but for the stimulus, over 100,000 teachers would be out of work. Thirty thousand jobs were created or saved by businesses that have received Federal contracts from just a small fraction of the Recovery Act. That is very important. Let me say that half a million homeowners have signed up for foreclosure prevention programs, reaching an important early goal. And the program that was launched last March aimed to help these half a million borrowers by November 1, with the ultimate goal of helping 4 million borrowers before it expires. Here is a number for you. The Dow Jones industrial average surged to over 10,000, passing the 10,000 point level much faster than expected and racking up a 53 percent gain in the last 7 months. That is an improvement in the economy that has helped some but has not helped enough. But it just shows that if we do invest in our economy, it does help. It improves the lives of people. It is not money that we shouldn't have spent. Things would be much worse if we didn't spend that stimulus money and make those important public sector investments. The number of road and bridge projects already approved under the Recovery Act, which creates jobs, is 8,000. The number of roads and bridges projects, 8,000 roads and bridges projects already underway because of the stimulus. And the percentage of spending that is now obligated under the Recovery Act, this money in the pipeline ready to be spent is about half, and this 50 percent mark exceeds the Congressional Budget Office's initial projection for the program, showing that investment is going out quickly to help boost the economy right away. But still we have a job crisis, and still we have to do something about this jobs crisis. And let me tell you a little more about how the Recovery Act has fared so far, because there has been a lot of disinformation about the Recovery Act. A lot of people have said that the President said it was going to stop unemployment at 8 percent, and it went up by 2 more percent. Leading economists say it would be 12 percent if the Recovery Act were not put in place. So let me just talk a little bit more about what this economic recovery has done, economic stimulus has done so far, and make a case for what more needs to be done. A recent report from the Council of Economic Advisers shows that the Recovery Act and other policy actions have saved or created over a million jobs while only about a quarter of the Recovery Act spending has been able to get into the economy. But many projects are in the pipeline and are on their way. The report, this report by the Council of Economic Advisers, estimates that the Recovery Act has had particularly strong effects in manufacturing, construction, retail trade, and temporary employment services. The employment effects are distributed across States with larger effects in States more severely impacted. So States like Michigan, Ohio, even my own State of Minnesota, but others as well, are getting this important economic recovery money so that we can turn our economy around. According to Jared Bernstein, who is the chief economist, Office of the Vice President, ``All signs--from the private estimates to this fragmentary data--point to the conclusion that the Recovery Act did indeed create or save about 1 million jobs in its first 7 months, a much needed lift in a very difficult period for our economy,'' which is something that I think we must pay attention to and cannot ignore. I just want to talk a little more about the success of the Recovery Act, not that it has completely succeeded. We would like to see unemployment headed down, not just the rate of unemployment slow down. But just to make sure that we understand that providing economic fiscal stimulus does help our economy, it is important to review the facts. The Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board--and as you know, we didn't just spend money out, we got a transparency board to look at it all--released its first report on the portion of the Recovery Act spending that shows that recipients have reported that so far, the act is helping to get Americans back to work. As I said, Mark Zandi of Moody's Economics said 2 percent, we would have 2 percent greater unemployment but for the Recovery Act which is so important. According to this report issued by the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, the act shows that businesses that received Federal contracts from stimulus spending reported creating or saving about 30,000 jobs. The board released a more extensive report last month, which I will get to in a moment. Now, I would like to talk a little bit now and just move on about this unemployment figure. I brought a graph with me that I would like to share with you, Mr. Speaker, and just show folks what we are looking at. It is important that we talk about creating these jobs, as I just mentioned, the economic recovery and jobs that we are creating or working on. What this chart shows is that part of our strategy for job creation must be infrastructure, as I mentioned, and must also be creating public sector, public works jobs, which is important. But a third aspect is clean energy and green jobs. This is the visionary, forward-looking kind of job proposal that we need to pay attention to. Investing $150 billion in clean energy will create a net gain of 1 million jobs and improve opportunities for low-income families. These are jobs for the future. These are jobs for the next period. These are jobs for now and into the future. Clean energy jobs. Clean energy jobs created, 2,500 to 10,000 jobs across America, places in rural areas. And 10,000 to 50,000 jobs in these more darkly shaded areas where people live, sparser population but people need to work, and more than 50,000 jobs in the darkly shaded areas. As you can see, these are our industrial manufacturing sectors, places like Indiana, Michigan, and places like Illinois and Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, Georgia, South Carolina, places like Florida, Texas, and California. This is a very important chart because a part of our conversation must revolve around what our job strategy is and what we expect to do in this period to create jobs for Americans. You know, the thing is that jobs, having a job is one of the most important things that any person can do. A job is not just income, but a job also gives you pride and dignity. A job also is something that allows you to feel that you are making a contribution to society. A job. A job is something that you can go to and you can come home and look your kids in the eye and say, you know what, I put in, I am productive. This is what I have done to help you and to help our society be better. It is important to do something about the millions of unemployed today, the people who are in the ranks of that 10.2 percent of unemployed, the people who are among the ranks of the 34 percent of minority teenagers and young adults who are unemployed. Those children, 1 in 5 children in America in poverty, 1 in 3 African American children in poverty in America today, below the poverty line, we can do something about it, and the time to do something about it is now. We cannot sit idly by while our fellow Americans are in an economic malaise. We have to have ideas that are designed to work, and we have to remember what has worked in the past, and we can't be afraid to reach for what can work now. The fact is that we are asking Americans, Mr. Speaker, to step forward and support a real jobs package, one that will work, one that is new and innovative for green jobs, one that preserves and improves our infrastructure, and one that puts people to work and one that keeps State and local governments from having to lay off public employees. These programs will work. We need to do something for small businesses who are often the biggest job generators of all, and we need to do it now. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that this has been another hour of the Progressive message, another hour of the Progressive Caucus. Our email is cpc.grijalva.house.gov. We want to hear from the public, Mr. Speaker. We want to know what is on the public's mind, and we want to know how people are feeling. And we just want to remind people of the importance of the dignity of work and the obligation and responsibility of Americans who are in Congress to do something about this dismal job picture out there. I want to let the people know, Mr. Speaker, that we hear them. I want them to know that we haven't forgotten them, and I want to let them know that we are here to do something about the very difficult circumstances that people are facing. So this will conclude the Progressive hour and the Progressive message. We will see you next week. Happy holidays, and enjoy.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, President Bush's policies of deregulation, poor regulation, and lack of oversight of our financial system came to a head a little more than a year ago, and they brought us the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. As my friends on the other side of the aisle talk about unemployment and the stimulus package, it is their policies that made all of this necessary in the first place. But the Democratic Congress is roaring back to protect consumers, to make our financial system more safe and sound, and to provide an orderly resolution of financial firms that have failed. Legislation being proposed right now will provide unprecedented protections for American consumers through the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, put procedures in place to make sure taxpayers will never again have to bail out too-big-to-fail institutions, restore accountability and transparency so that problems are recognized and fixed before they threaten the entire economy, outlaw many of the most egregious practices, like subprime lending, and put our economy on a stable footing.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, I am submitting the following summary of the Goldstone Report as part of the debate on H. Res. 867. Excerpt From United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict (The Goldstone Report) B. Methodology 11. To implement its mandate, the Mission determined that it was required to consider any actions by all parties that might have constituted violations of international human rights law or international humanitarian law. The mandate also required it to review related actions in the entire Occupied Palestinian Territory and Israel. 12. With regard to temporal scope, the Mission decided to focus primarily on events, actions or circumstances occurring since 19 June 2008, when a ceasefire was agreed between the Government of Israel and Hamas. The Mission has also taken into consideration matters occurring after the end of military operations that constitute continuing human rights and international humanitarian law violations related to or as a consequence of the military operations, up to 31 July 2009. 13. The Mission also analysed the historical context of the events that led to the military operations in Gaza between during the period from 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009 and the links between these operations and overarching Israeli policies vis-a-vis the Occupied Palestinian Territory. 14. The Mission considered that the reference in its mandate to violations committed ``in the context'' of the December--January military operations required it to include restrictions on human rights and fundamental freedoms relating to Israel's strategies and actions in the context of its military operations. 15. The normative framework for the Mission has been general international law, the Charter of the United Nations, international humanitarian law, international human rights law and international criminal law. 16. This report does not purport to be exhaustive in documenting the very high number of relevant incidents that occurred in the period covered by the Mission's mandate. Nevertheless, the Mission considers that the report is illustrative of the main patterns of violations. In Gaza, the Mission investigated 36 incidents. 17. The Mission based its work on an independent and impartial analysis of compliance by the parties with their obligations under international human rights and humanitarian law in the context of the recent conflict in Gaza, and on international investigative standards developed by the United Nations. 18. The Mission adopted an inclusive approach in gathering information and seeking views. Information-gathering methods included: (a) the review of reports from different sources; (b) interviews with victims, witnesses and other persons having relevant information); (c) site visits to specific locations in Gaza where incidents had occurred; (d) the analysis of video and photographic images, including satellite imagery; (e) the review of medical reports about injuries to victims; (f) the forensic analysis of weapons and ammunition remnants collected at incident sites; (g) meetings with a variety of interlocutors; (h) invitations to provide information relating to the Mission's investigation requirements; (i) the wide circulation of a public call for written submissions; (j) public hearings in Gaza and in Geneva. 19. The Mission conducted 188 individual interviews. It reviewed more than 300 reports, submissions and other documentation either researched of its own motion, received in reply to its call for submissions and notes verbales or provided during meetings or otherwise, amounting to more than 10,000 pages, over 30 videos and 1,200 photographs. 20. By refusing to cooperate with the Mission, the Government of Israel prevented it from meeting Israeli government officials, but also from travelling to Israel to meet with Israeli victims and to the West Bank to meet with Palestinian Authority representatives and Palestinian victims. 21. The Mission conducted field visits, including investigations of incident sites, in the Gaza Strip. This allowed the Mission to observe first-hand the situation on the ground, and speak to many witnesses and other relevant persons. 22. The purpose of the public hearings, which were broadcast live, was to enable victims, witnesses and experts from all sides to the conflict to speak directly to as many people as possible in the region as well as in the international community. The Mission gave priority to the participation of victims and people from the affected communities. The 38 public testimonies covered facts as well as legal and military matters. The Mission had initially intended to hold hearings in Gaza, Israel and the West Bank. However, denial of access to Israel and the West Bank resulted in the decision to hold hearings of participants from Israel and the West Bank in Geneva. 23. In establishing its findings, the Mission sought to rely primarily and whenever possible on information it gathered first-hand. Information produced by others, including reports, affidavits and media reports, was used primarily as corroboration. 24. The Mission's final conclusions on the reliability of the information received were made taking into consideration the Mission's assessment of the credibility and reliability of the witnesses it met, verifying sources and methodology used in reports and documents produced by others, cross- referencing the relevant material and information, and assessing whether, in all the circumstances, there was sufficient information of a credible and reliable nature for the Mission to make a finding in fact. 25. On this basis, the Mission has, to the best of its ability, determined what facts have been established. In many cases it has found that acts entailing individual criminal responsibility have been committed. In all of these cases the Mission has found that there is sufficient information to establish the objective elements of the crimes in question. In almost all of the cases the Mission has also been able to determine whether or not it appears that the acts in question were done deliberately or recklessly or in the knowledge that the consequence that resulted would result in the ordinary course of events. The Mission has thus referred in many cases to the relevant fault element (mens rea). The Mission fully appreciates the importance of the presumption of innocence: the findings in the report do not subvert the operation of that principle. The findings do not attempt to identify the individuals responsible for the commission of offences nor do they pretend to reach the standard of proof applicable in criminal trials. 26. In order to provide the parties concerned with an opportunity to submit additional relevant information and express their position and respond to allegations, the Mission also submitted comprehensive lists of questions to the Government of Israel, the Palestinian Authority and the Gaza authorities in advance of completing its analysis and findings. The Mission received replies from the Palestinian Authority and the Gaza authorities but not from Israel Recommendations 1769. To Israel The Mission recommends that Israel immediately cease the border closures and restrictions of passage through border crossings with the Gaza Strip and allow passage of goods necessary and sufficient to meet the needs of the population, for the recovery and reconstruction of housing and essential services and for the resumption of meaningful economic activity in the Gaza Strip. The Mission recommends that Israel cease the restrictions on access to the sea for fishing purposes imposed on the Gaza Strip and allow such fishing activities within the 20 nautical miles as provided for in the Oslo accords. It further recommends that Israel allow the resumption of agricultural activity within the Gaza Strip, including within areas in the vicinity of the borders with Israel. Israel should initiate a review of the rules of engagement, standard operating procedures, open fire regulations and other guidance for military and security personnel. The Mission recommends that Israel avail itself of the expertise of the ICRC, the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and other relevant bodies, and Israeli experts, civil society organizations with the relevant expertise and specialization, in order to ensure compliance in this respect with international humanitarian law and international human rights law. In particular such rules of engagement should ensure that the principles of proportionality, distinction, precaution and non- discrimination are effectively integrated in all such guidance and in any oral briefings provided to officers, soldiers and security forces, so as to avoid the recurrence of Palestinian civilian deaths, destruction and affronts on human dignity in violation of international law. The Mission recommends that Israel allow freedom of movement for Palestinians within the OPT--within the West Bank including East Jerusalem, between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank and between the OPT and the outside world--in accordance with international human rights standards and international commitments entered into by Israel and the representatives of the Palestinian people. The Mission further recommends that Israel forthwith lifts travel bans currently placed on Palestinians by reason of their human rights or political activities. The Mission recommends that Israel release Palestinians who are detained in Israeli prisons in connection with the occupation. The release of children should be an utmost priority. The Mission further recommends that Israel cease the discriminatory treatment of Palestinian detainees. Family visits for prisoners from Gaza should resume. Israel should forthwith cease interference with national political processes in the OPT, and as a first step release all members of the Palestinian Legislative Council currently in detention and allow all members of the PLC to move between Gaza and the West Bank so that the Council may resume functioning. The Government of Israel should cease actions aimed at limiting the expression of criticism by civil society and members of the public concerning Israel's policies and conduct during the military operations in the Gaza Strip. The Mission also recommends that Israel set up an independent inquiry to assess whether the treatment by Israeli judicial authorities of Palestinian and Jewish Israelis expressing dissent in connection with the offensive was discriminatory, both in terms of charges and detention pending trial. The results of the inquiry should be made public and, subject to the findings, appropriate remedial action should be taken. The Government of Israel should refrain from any action of reprisal against Palestinian and Israeli individuals and organizations that have cooperated with the UN Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, in particular individuals who have appeared at the Public Hearings held by the Mission in Gaza and Geneva and expressed criticism of actions by the State of Israel. The Mission recommends that Israel reiterates its commitment to respect the inviolability of UN premises and personnel and that it undertakes all appropriate measures to ensure that there is no repetition of violations in the future (ref Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the UN). It further recommends that reparation to the United Nations be provided fully and without further delay by the State of Israel, and that the General Assembly consider this matter. I770. To Palestinian armed groups The Mission recommends that Palestinian armed groups undertake forthwith to respect international humanitarian law, in particular by renouncing attacks on Israeli civilians and civilian objects, and take all feasible precautionary measures to avoid harm to Palestinian civilians during hostilities. The Mission recommends that Palestinian armed groups who hold Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit in detention release him on humanitarian grounds. Pending such release they should recognize his status as prisoner of war, treat him as such, and allow him ICRC visits. 1771. To responsible Palestinian authorities The Mission recommends that the Palestinian Authority issue clear instructions to security forces under its command to abide by human rights norms as enshrined in the Palestinian Basic Law and international instruments; ensure prompt and independent investigation of all allegations of serious human rights violations by security forces under its control; and end resort to military justice to deal with cases involving civilians. The Mission recommends that the Palestinian Authority and the Gaza authorities release without delay all political detainees currently in their power and refrain from further arrests on political grounds and in violation of international human rights law. The Mission recommends that the Palestinian Authority and the Gaza authorities continue to enable the free and independent operation of Palestinian non-governmental organizations, including human rights organizations, and of the Independent Commission on Human Rights.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Which party was in power when the doughnut hole, the doughnut hole that people are falling into that needs to be fixed and is going to be fixed by the Democrats, what party was in power when the doughnut hole came to be?

Mr. ELLISON. I just want to say thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing us the time for the Progressive message. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ELLISON. Well, let me just thank the gentlelady for that, because the reality is that Republicans are saying, Oh, we have a plan on tort reform and we want to give tax cuts and tax breaks--they've been talking about fragments of their plan for a long time, but when the reality of their plan came out, it was pretty dismal. I mean, here's what Ezra Klein says, of the Washington Post: Republicans are learning an unpleasant lesson this morning. The only thing worse than having no health care reform plan is releasing a bad one, getting thrashed by the CBO, and making the House Democrats look good. We want to thank you for that. The Democratic bill covers 12 times as many people and saves $36 billion more than the Republican plan. The New York Times, the Budget Monitor says: GOP leaves many uninsured. Again, the Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday that the alternative health care bill put forward by House Republicans would have little impact on extending health benefits to roughly 30 million uninsured Americans. You can go right down the ranks, but piece after piece shows that this Republican plan that they released is abysmal. I want to have some conversation about the Republican plan, because they've been beating up on the Democratic plan from the very beginning, yet it has gone through three committees. It has had a merger process. It has been beaten and smashed and attacked, and yet, still, still the Democratic bill is far and away superior to the Republican plan, maintains its public option. The fact is I think the American people are really going to start seeing who is looking out for their health. Let me turn now to a few health care stories if I may. A good friend, Amy. Amy says, ``I'm a graduate student working part- time at a restaurant. I applied for individual health insurance through Medica, hoping to pay their nice low rate, $99 a month for a pretty good plan and a fairly low deductible; however, Medica denied my individual application because I marked on my application that I have anxiety and take medication for it. It is a little ironic; not having insurance gives me more anxiety. ``I was recently approved for group health insurance through a company that owns the restaurant I work for. However, to stay on the group plan, I have to maintain a workload of 24 hours a week on average over a year, which can be hard to do as a full-time student. This group insurance is through Medica, and I will be paying $95 each month, which is affordable for me. However, I got a letter from Medica saying that my anxiety is considered a preexisting condition, so any treatment or medication for it will not be covered for a year. After 1 year, I can appeal for coverage. In the meantime, I will continue to pay for my medication out of pocket and not go to therapy because it will be too expensive. ``Please pass Federal health care reform that includes a public health insurance option that is affordable to middle-income families in Minnesota.'' This young lady would not be barred from getting health care insurance because of her anxiety, which the insurance company called a preexisting condition, yet under the Republican plan she still would be. David from Minneapolis: ``I am a small business owner and do provide health care to my employees, but this is a serious financial risk to my company. It's a moral issue, so I don't want to cancel health insurance, but I might have to in order to survive. It's scary to think about not being able to provide health insurance for employees or going under as a business. Knowing that I would always have access to reliable, affordable health care would relieve my fears. ``I would like to tell those who oppose health care reform that this is a moral issue. We should be taking care of each other. It's an embarrassment to our country to be one of the wealthiest countries and not have health care for all. Please pass Federal health care reform that includes a public insurance option.'' We've been joined by Jared Polis, who is an excellent advocate for the people's rights. He has been very vocal and has been a strong advocate of health care reform. I want to turn it over and yield to my friend from Colorado (Mr. Polis).

Mr. ELLISON. Yes, I will.

Mr. ELLISON. I thank the gentlelady and appreciate the gentlelady's remarks about collegiality, and also the gentlelady reassuring our seniors about what is really in the bill. This whole fear thing about scaring seniors about taking away their Medicare, I really don't appreciate. My dad was born in 1928 and my mom was born in 1938. Both of them are folks who would be classified as seniors, both very active, vibrant people, and both of them definitely active at the polling places and voting. And they've actually asked me, Is this really true? And I have to explain, Mom, no, it isn't true. But the reality is this is a campaign tactic to try to scare seniors and try to scare all kinds of Americans. I'm of the mind that, let's not use fear tactics, let's use logic and truth. Here's a few facts: The House Republican bill will cover just about 3 million more Americans over the course of 10 years. Today, 83 percent of the nonelderly Americans are insured. Under the GOP plan, 83 percent of nonelderly Americans would still be the proportion of the uninsured in 2019. No change. So I ask the gentlelady, look, if the problem today is the high percentage of the uninsured, people who are authorized to be in America and people who are nonelderly, if the proportion of uninsured is 17 percent, shouldn't we be better off in 10 years? Under the Republican plan, we will not be. I think that is a complete failure of their effort. The Affordable Health Care for America Act put forward by the Democratic-led Congress extends coverage to 36 million more Americans. Today, 83 percent of the nonelderly Americans are uninsured. Under the Democratic plan, 96 percent of nonelderly Americans will be insured. That's what I call success. I hope some of our friends on the other side of the aisle come on and join this plan that's good for America. The House Republican bill does not reduce the number of people who must buy insurance on the individual market because they're self- insured, don't have coverage of their employer, or lose their jobs. This segment of the market now pays the highest premiums and consumer abuses by the insurance industry. No change in this unfair practice. The Affordable Health Care for America Act put forward by the Democrats creates a health insurance exchange with a public plan as one of the choices people have that provides competition and offers large group rates to employees of small businesses, entrepreneurs, and Americans looking for jobs. Under the Democratic plan, affordable options and affordability credits make all the difference, something the Republican plan--even though they've had all this time to think of something good, haven't been able to think of anything good at all. Preexisting conditions. The Republican bill fails to require insurance companies to end the practice of discriminating against Americans with preexisting medical conditions. Let me just say this one more time, Mr. Speaker. The Republican bill fails to require insurance companies to end the practice of discriminating against Americans with preexisting conditions. There's no wonder that they have and will spend their time this evening talking about the divisive, polarizing issue of abortion, this very important issue which has Americans of goodwill arguing both relatively strongly held positions, trying to get us fighting over that when we're talking about health care reform. They say, Don't worry about this health care reform. Let's talk about this divisive issue that has divided Americans for so long. This is not a bill about abortion. This is a bill about health care reform. Why don't they want to talk about that fact? The Republican bill does not repeal antitrust exemptions for health insurance companies. Why not? The Republican bill does not repeal antitrust exemptions for health insurance companies. Why do they want to protect the health insurance companies? Why don't they want the health insurance companies to compete? Who is getting PAC money from the health insurance companies? Let's find out. The House Republican bill does not include provisions to stop price gouging by insurance companies. Why not? The Affordable Health Care for Americans Act put forth by the Democrats--and, again, we've only had the White House for a few months and only had this Chamber, been the majority in the House for a couple of years; not long. We haven't been here long, but even though we haven't been here long, we've come up strong, because this bill, the Democratic bill, ends discrimination against Americans with preexisting medical conditions. The Democratic bill finally ends the antitrust exemption. The Democratic bill gives States $1 billion to crack down on price gouging by health insurance companies. The fact is American consumers and small businesses deserve better than what the Republican bill offers to them. The Democratic bill, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, is a fiscally responsible bill that will reduce the deficit by $104 billion over 10 years; way more, way more, $36 billion more than the Republican bill. And I want to know, if the Democrats can face this very difficult process that we've gone through all summer--I had health care forums in my district and so did the gentlelady from California. Some people came up very upset because they've been listening to some of these radio guys and some of these TV guys scaring them and giving them misinformation, so they come into the meeting upset, loaded for bear. They want to talk to me. I want to talk to you, Mr. Ellison. But when the facts come out, they're like, Oh, okay, I get it now. And we just ask people to keep their minds open. I just say that if the Republicans have a real alternative around health care, how come they didn't come up with anything in the House from 1994 to 2006? Nothing did they come up with. Oh, they did veto SCHIP. We've got to give them credit for that. Vetoed SCHIP. Vetoed State Children's Health Insurance Program; can you imagine that? Oh, my goodness. I think that that is not good service to the American people. I do hope we get some Republican votes on this bill because I think there has got to be some Republicans who say, You know what? Skip all the bickering. The Democrats have been open to our ideas when we offered them, but we didn't offer them because we would rather beat the Democrats at the polls than give Americans real health care reform. Think about that. They would rather beat the Democrats at the polls and try to use this as a political thing rather than say, You know what? We're going to do something for the American people. Oh, my goodness. Let me turn to this poster board I have here. The Democratic bill-- let's set the record straight. Here's a myth: The Democratic bill will hurt small businesses. Not true. If you heard it today or if you hear it later today, don't believe it. Small chemical facilities are already regulated by the DHS. The bill requires DHS to assess potential impacts of IST on small businesses. And $225 billion in grant funding is available for small businesses. This will interfere with business operations. The fact is is that this bill will not interfere with business operations, it will not be a boon to plaintiffs' attorneys, and it will not do any of these things that are claimed by the Republicans over and over and over again. We hear the Republicans say we need to have tort reform. Let me just say, if you have a loved one who has a medical error, you have a right to go to court over that. Don't let anybody scare you away from your right to go to court when a doctor or a hospital fails to meet medical standards.

Mr. ELLISON. I talked to some of the people walking around today. I was impressed with how good and decent many of them were. Many didn't have the facts straight. Many were suffering with real problems with health care. I think we need to take the time to talk to people. The fact is everyone knows there are certain TV people and radio personalities, and I am not even going to give them credit by mentioning their names, but these people, because of entertainment and ratings, they try to play on tear and whip up anxiety among Americans who are just trying to put food on the table. So they get scared. People want to express themselves politically, but the leaders in front of them are not giving them good alternatives, they are just giving them fear. They are saying, Be afraid of those immigrants. Be afraid of those people over there who are not the same religion as you. Be afraid of these people over here. Just be afraid. As people are afraid, they are easier to manipulate. We ask people to overcome their fear and get the facts. If I may just offer a few more critiques of the Republican bill. Here is what The Washington Post said: Amazingly, the Democratic bill has already been through three committees and a merger process. It is already being shown to interest group and advocacy organizations and industry stakeholders. It has already made compromises and been through the legislative sausage grinder. And yet, it covers more people and saves more money than the blank-slate alternative proposed by House Republicans. Now I just want to ask the gentlelady from California, we have been working on health care for a long, long time. I have had to deal with angry folks at angry community meetings. People are worried. They are concerned. We have walked through that fiery furnace and done those tough town meetings. We have withstood all of that. You would think that our bill would be watered down to the point where it couldn't help anybody, but that isn't the case. The Democratic bills covers 12 times as many people and saves $36 billion more than the Republican plan. How can that be? The Republican plan, which was just recently introduced to the American people, actually doesn't save as much money and doesn't cover as many people as the Democratic plan when they are just getting started. You and I know when you first introduce a bill, it is just going to get sandpapered. People are going to wear it away. People show up and say, I don't like this part, and I don't like that part. After a while, your bill used to be here, and it is getting less and less. It doesn't meet as much of your vision, but that is okay, that is democracy. We have to come in here and we have to give and take and try and consider everybody's interests. But this Democratic bill, having gone through a very rigorous process of democracy, the writer here calls it a sausage grinder, still saves way more money and covers way more people than the Republican bill. I want to know, how can that possibly be? Where are these great ideas we have been hearing about? You remember during President Obama's speech in this very room, they're holding up pieces of paper, here is our plan, here is our plan, and they come up with a plan that is more expensive and doesn't cover as many people as the Democratic plan. There is a reason why the American people voted overwhelmingly to send Democrats to Congress last November because this is the best they could come up with. It is actually quite embarrassing. I feel a little bad for them. I yield back to the gentlelady.

Mr. ELLISON. If the gentlelady will yield, is it not the case today that some insurance company bureaucrat can get between a patient and her doctor?

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, my name is Keith Ellison. I am here to speak for the Progressive Caucus, to talk about the Progressive Message. Tonight, before I begin, I just want to say that my heart is sick and broken for the horrible tragedy that occurred at Fort Hood, and I ask all Americans to keep the families in their prayers and in their thoughts. I now will proceed with the hour. Tonight is the Progressive Message, we are here to talk about a progressive message for America, a message that says the human and civil rights of all people must be respected; a message that says dignity of people, regardless of their race, class or religion must be respected; a dignity that says that if 36 other countries in the world can provide universal health care coverage for their citizens, how come the richest country in the world, not only the richest country in the world but the richest country in the history of the world, can't do it. Why do we have 50 million people who are not covered? Why do we have a doubling of premiums for the people who do have health care coverage? Why do we have people being excluded for a preexisting condition? Why do we have these things? Well, the time for those things to end is now. We are within grasp of major health care reform and no scare tactics, no fear-mongering, no stretches of the facts are going to change that. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are quite upset about the present state of affairs because they know that Americans want health care reform. They want health care reform, and I believe they're going to get it. I want to say that I have spent these last several weeks talking about the problem. I have also spent many days discussing the Democratic bill, and I will do so tonight. But I want to spend a little time talking about what our friends on the other side of the aisle are proposing in their bill because, ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Speaker, we haven't heard much detail from the Republican side of the aisle. We haven't heard much at all, but they recently put forth an outline of a plan, an outline of a plan, not a plan, but just sort of like an outline of one, and it's not good. It was always convenient to just bang, bang, bang on what the Democrats were proposing, but now that America has said, okay, you guys don't like what the Democrats are calling for, what have you got? And their answer was less than satisfactory. Under the GOP health plan--I don't believe it's been introduced as a bill yet; it's just sort of a plan--people with preexisting conditions would pay up to 50 percent more than average for insurance coverage under the GOP plan. States would have to cover the rest of the tab with a stable funding source. This is Roll Call, November 4, 2009. Check it out. Under the Republican plan, most States already have such plans but typically are much more expensive than regular insurance and have not made much of a dent in the ranks of the uninsured. Also from Roll Call. A key piece of earlier Republican drafts, tax credits that would help people afford insurance, was rejected by the House minority leader as too expensive. Also Roll Call, November 4. The Republican measure has no limits on annual out-of-pocket costs, which means bankruptcy for some. But let me quote from the Roll Call article: The Republican measure has no limits on annual out-of-pocket costs, nor does it provide any direct assistance for uninsured people to buy insurance. So how are we going to deal with the uninsured problem, which you and I pay for anyway? The Congressional Budget Office, the CBO, has said on Wednesday that an alternative health care plan put forward by House Republicans would have, quote, little impact in extending health care benefits to roughly 30 million uninsured Americans. This is from the New York Times. Do you mean to tell me after all this attacking of the Democrats' proposal, the Democratic plan, that the Republicans have just bashed us, week after week, day after day, hour after hour, minute after minute--oh, it's bad, bad, bad, and that's all you ever hear is ``no''--they finally come up with their idea and they're going to leave 30 million people uninsured? This has got to be April Fool's Day come early. The Republican bill has no chance of passage, because Americans really don't want it, because if they did, we would be talking about it. But I quote again from the New York Times: The Republican bill, which has no chance of passage, would extend insurance coverage to about 3 million people by the year 2019. Why aren't they embarrassed? I have no idea. The Republican bill, which has no chance of passage, would extend insurance coverage to about 3 million people by 2019, and, continuing to quote, would leave 52 million people uninsured. The budget office said, meaning the proportion of nonelderly Americans with coverage would remain about the same as it is now, roughly at 83 percent. Let me read it again. The proportion of nonelderly Americans with coverage would remain about the same as now, about 83 percent, meaning that we have upwards of 16 to 17 percent who don't have insurance. Going along with the Republican plan, the Republican plan tonight, as we are discussing the Progressive Message, we're just going to talk about their plan since they got real expert talking about ours, we're going to let the American people know the real facts about the Republican plan. This is not a criticism or an attack on any individual member of the party apposite. I regard that they are honorable people, but we have to talk about their plan because it's not a good one. And the reason they haven't been bragging about it is because not even they are proud of it. The Congressional Budget Office umpires say the House Republican health plan would only make a small dent in the number of uninsured Americans. Let me say that again. According to the Associated Press article on November 4, 2009, Congressional Budget umpires say, quote, the House Republican health plan would make only a small dent in the number of uninsured Americans. Wait a minute. I thought that they had some great plan. How can you not make a dent in the number of uninsured Americans and still claim you have a good plan? Their plan is an embarrassment. They're not bragging about it because they, themselves, know that it's far more strategic to just bash away on the Democratic plan rather than talk about their own plan, which is nothing but status quo and keep insurance companies making lots and lots and lots of money. That's what it's all about--protect the wealthy and let everybody else do the best they can with what they got. Let me go to another important quote: Late Wednesday, last night, a bill that Republicans expect to offer as an alternative to the Democratic package received its assessment from the congressional budget analysts who concluded that the proposal wouldn't do anything to help reduce the ranks of the uninsured. The CBO said some people would see higher premiums, including older and sicker people. This is the Republican plan? Here is one. The CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, begins with the baseline estimate that 17 percent of legal nonelderly residents won't have health care in 2010. That's a lot of people. Seventeen percent of legal nonelderly residents won't have health care insurance in 2010. That's an indictment of the status quo, which the Republicans support. But, in 2019, after 10 years of the Republican plan, the CBO estimates that it will still be stuck at 17 percent of the legal nonelderly residents not having insurance. That is from the Washington Post today. My goodness, how in the world can our friends from the other side of the aisle claim that they are offering an improvement on the status quo when they are not changing the proportion of the uninsured even 10 years from now? This is a scathing indictment, and I don't expect to hear them talk much about their plan. And, if they do, they are not going to tell you about this, because this is embarrassing to them. They don't want this out. They don't want you to know about this. They want you to just keep on listening to the nonsense about death panels and school sex clinics, and they want to talk about the polarizing political issue of abortion. And I want to get to this issue of abortion in a little while. But I want to say that they want to use polarizing language, polarizing issues that divide Americans. They want to throw up scare tactics, all of it ultimately accruing to the benefit of the status quo now, which is an industry that reaps enormous magnitudes of profit at the expense of citizens who see their premiums escalate and see themselves denied coverage and see rescissions and see all these things that have cost the American economy dearly and the American middle class. This is a Washington Post quote: ``The Republican alternative will have helped 3 million people secure coverage, which is barely keeping up with the population growth. Compare that to the Democratic bill, which covers 36 million more people and cuts the uninsured population down to 4 percent.'' How can the Republicans have a straight face and offer this bill? How can they look you in the eye, after months and months of all of these disruptive meetings, where people were disrupting meetings and causing so much trouble, causing so much fear, and this is what they have to show for it? Madam Speaker, I can't believe that they honestly are offering this as a proposal. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Grand Old Party, the Republican Party's alternative, will shave or cut $86 billion off the deficit in 10 years. But get this: the Democrats, according to the CBO, will cut $104 billion off the deficit. The Democratic bill is fiscally superior to the Republican alternative. According to the Washington Post today, you can read it, according to the CBO, the Republican alternative only cuts $68 billion off the deficit in the next 10 years. The Democratic bill cuts $104 billion off the deficit. That is just about $40 million more. Wait a minute. Aren't these the guys who always complain about the deficit and spending and all this? Maybe that claim rings hollow. The Democratic bill, however, in other words, covers 12 times as many people and saves $36 billion more than the Republican plan. Let me just say this again for people listening out there. I know you have been scared. They want to tell you that the Democrats want to take away Medicare. Not true. They are trying to tell you the Democrats are trying to change the scenario as it relates to this very polarizing issue among Americans, abortion. It basically keeps things as they are today. They are trying to talk about death panels and school sex clinics, and they are trying to say that health care reform is only about the uninsured. None of these things are true, and it is important to come to the House floor and refute these false allegations. It is not the case, it is not right, it isn't true. I just want to say I am so proud to be joined by one of the finest Members of this body, my dear friend from the great State of California, Diane Watson. She is going to get her papers together; but when she is ready to start talking, I am going to yield to her right away. I just want to say the Democratic bill that has been released covers 12 times as many people and saves $36 billion more than the Republican plan. It covers 12 times as many people and saves $36 billion more than the Republican plan. Yes, I am going to keep saying this on the House floor. It needs to be said. The fact is, today we had a lot of visitors in Washington, and I want to say welcome to those folks. My colleague from the great State of Minnesota, and I am so proud to be from Minnesota, my friend, Congresswoman Bachmann, invited people down, and folks came. And I am glad they showed up, because democracy is good, and it is good to have people here. Now, I will say that many of the people who came down to support my colleague from Minnesota, we probably didn't see the issue the same. But I just want to say, I was honored to have them in my office. I am so proud that I was able to talk to my colleagues. But here is the thing that broke my heart. As they were explaining to me what their concerns were, they were saying, I have been dropped because of a preexisting condition. They were saying, I have been unemployed and I can't find an insurance policy to cover me. They were saying, I am afraid that I am going to go bankrupt. My family doesn't have any money. I lost my job. My husband lost his job. What are we going to do? And I said, you know what? You got on the wrong bus coming here, my friend. This Democratic bill is the one you need to be looking at. The fact is that good people have been scared away from policy that is going to help them. Good people, made afraid that policies that are going to help them are not for them. And that is a shame. So we had to come down here to the House floor today to explain that the fact is that middle class, working-class people struggling to make ends meet are going to benefit from the Democrats' proposal. I just want to say that after years of the Republicans being in power, years where they had the House, the White House, the Senate, doing nothing at all to help Americans, Democrats are taking care of business right now. I am so glad we had a lot of people and I was able to talk to constituents and others about this important issue of health care. Some of us started out not on the same page, but we ended up a lot closer together because I was able to say here are the true facts, not the made-up ones. I yield to the gentlelady from California.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. I thank the chairman and Congresswoman Maloney, who have been champions for consumers. I rise today to strongly urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 3639, the Expedited CARD Reform for Consumers Act of 2009. Earlier this year, the Congress voted overwhelmingly to pass comprehensive credit card reform legislation that was subsequently signed into law by President Obama. Unfortunately, the credit card companies have used the past few months to push through last-minute rate hikes and other unfair practices before the law kicks into gear. To address this problem, this bill simply moves up the effective date for the remaining credit card reforms from February 22, 2010, to December 1 of this year. I want to thank Congresswoman Maloney and Chairman Frank for their leadership in expeditiously bringing this bill to the floor. The actions of the credit card companies over the past few months have amply demonstrated that the American consumer needs quick relief from punitive and unfair credit card practices. The time to act on these important reforms is now. For too long, the credit card industry has been subject to too few regulations and far too little oversight.