Keith Ellison

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Well, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan, Chairman Conyers, for coming down here. We have a chance to do a little bit of give-and-take. Actually, I'd like to ask the gentleman a few questions if the gentleman would take a question. And my question is for you, Mr. Chairman, is why do you author H.R. 676, the single-payer bill, and why did you work so hard to try to get so many authors in the House? And you ended up getting about 80-plus authors. And why did you go all over the country, to my State of Minnesota, and talk to so many people? Why did you work so hard to push this idea of single payer forward? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, on July 17, 2009, I inadvertently failed to vote on rollcall No. 574. Had I voted, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the life of Sai Yang, a passionate and determined woman, a wife, mother, grandmother and great grandmother. Sai was the matriarch of the Chang family and influential in the lives of not only her own children and grandchildren, but that of her entire community. Sai was also the mother-in-law of my good friend, Senator Mee Moua of St. Paul. Sai was born in 1934 to Cha Doua Yang and Ying Kue in the remote jungle village of Nhu Ka in Laos. After the United States left Laos in May of 1975, Sai and her family sought refuge in the jungles and remote villages of Laos for several years before finally arriving on freedom's shore in Thailand in 1979. After six months in a Thai refugee camp, Sai's family was granted political asylum to the United States and arrived in Honolulu, Hawaii on February 1, 1980. A year later, her family moved to Minnesota. In her new life in the U.S., Sai learned how to read and write in her native Hmong language and in conversational English. In 1997, she became a U.S. Citizen. She subsequently voted in five presidential elections and helped to elect her daughter-in-law Mee Moua to the Minnesota State Senate; the highest among elected officials in the United States. In 1995, Sai was chosen as part of the delegation of Hmong American women who attended the United Nation's Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, China. Sai Yang passed away on July 7, 2009 in St. Paul and is survived by five sons, three daughters, 39 grandchildren, 27 great grandchildren, a brother, a sister, and the extended Chang and Yang families in Minnesota, across the U.S. and other countries. Sai Yang enriched many lives and she will be missed dearly by all who knew her.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. I agree with the gentlelady, and couldn't agree more. And I want to thank her for making the point she's made. We've been joined by Congressman Hank Johnson from the great State of Georgia. And we're talking health care reform tonight. The Progressive Caucus offering a progressive vision to care for Americans. And we were just speaking a moment ago about how we need a robust public option; that we're excited about the possibility to pass health care for Americans. This is a 60-year debate. Some people go back to 1994. But we all know this debate goes back way before that. This is an opportunity, equal to passing, in my view, civil rights legislation, equal to passing environmental protection legislation, equal to making a leap forward for the benefit and welfare of all Americans. And I guess my question to you, and I don't want to tailor what you want to share with us tonight, Congressman, but I do just want to see if I could get your views on why, for example, the Washington Post reported that the Nation's largest insurers, hospitals, medical groups, have hired more than 350, 350 former government and staff members and retired Members of Congress in hopes of influencing colleagues in opposition to health care reform to the tune of about 1.4, I'm reading now, I was going from memory before, $1.4 million a day. Why would they do such a thing, unless they thought that this was a reasonable cost of doing business? Does the Congressman have any views? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. ELLISON. So I thank the gentleman. If the gentleman yields back, I just want to do a very quick update for the folks who may have just tuned in. We're talking about health care reform tonight with the Progressive Caucus, and the health care reform must include guaranteed eligibility. That means no American will be turned away from any insurance plan because of an illness or preexisting condition. The bill also includes comprehensive benefits. This is what we need to have. This is what the bill offers: affordable premiums, copays, and deductibles. Participants will be charged fair premiums, minimal copays, and subsidies of families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need assistance. What this bill calls for--and I think it's important, and I hope my colleagues agree--is to try to make this thing simple so that people can get a grip on it. The path to health care for all, under the proposed bill, what would happen is under these three bubbles, if you have employer-based health insurance now, you will be able to keep that, but you will have certain things that control costs, including no more discrimination for preexisting conditions, no discrimination for gender, for issues like that. Also medical-loss ratio, 85 percent, so that at least 85 percent of the premiums must go to patient care. People who have public programs now such as SCHIP or Medicare or Medicaid can keep their program if they qualify. And there won't be much that they have to worry about. It will be pretty much how it is now. But then there will be this exchange which is new. And who will qualify for the exchange? People who are the uninsured--individuals and small businesses. And they will be subsidized for up to 400 percent of the poverty level. And within this exchange will be a public plan, and there will be private plans which have standardized benefits which they will have to compete for and will drive down costs. The fact is, it's not complicated. It's not that difficult. Of course, the bill has a lot of pages because there are a lot of things to consider. But the fact is that this is not a difficult thing, and we're going to be working to make sure people understand it. I would also like to just mention that change is necessary. Change is necessary, and there will be some pay-fors. The fact is only 1.2 percent of American households will have to pay the American surcharge for health care reform. That leaves about 98 percent of American households who will not pay any surcharge. And people who are blessed to be at that top, tip-top part of the income scale, I really believe, as good Americans who care about their fellow countrymen and -women, that they would not mind helping to cover the costs of health care. I think it's an act of patriotism, and I think it's a good act of social responsibility to say that if we, the top 1.2 percent, have been able to benefit from the massive tax cuts that have benefited this group of people over the last number of years, that now that the country needs health care insurance, now that it's not given up a substantial part of their income, that they would be able to contribute this. But I think it's important to talk about the fact that under this bill, a family making up to $350,000--which is a pretty good amount of money--in adjusted gross income will not owe any surcharge at all. And a family making $500,000 a year in adjusted gross income will contribute about $1,500 to help reduce cost and provide access to affordable health care for all. The fact is it's important to try to keep on talking about what the bill calls for so people will understand it. We've been very fortunate to be joined by John Hall, who is out front on nearly every progressive issue. Let me welcome the gentleman and yield to him so he can get in this conversation.

Mr. ELLISON. Now let's hear from the Congresswoman from Maryland, Ms. Edwards. How do you react to these claims?

Mr. ELLISON. I thank the gentlelady for yielding back. Let me now go to the gentleman again from Georgia. And I actually have a question I would like to pose to the gentleman, although the gentleman will talk about whatever he wants. And the question that I would like to pose to the gentleman is: Is this thing that we're embarking on, this health care reform plan which includes the public option, historically, is this a small thing or is this a big deal? Is this a time for rejoicing? Is this a big moment in history that people should be excited about? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. ELLISON. I want to thank the gentleman. Again, this is the Progressive Caucus coming with our weekly progressive message on the floor tonight with three progressive leaders who have been speaking up for health care reform. Let me turn now to Congressman Hall for a moment. We've only got about 10 minutes left. So I'd like to see the three colleagues share this time equally, and I don't need much time to close, but I'd like the public to hear, Mr. Speaker, from these three leaders in our Congress, and I guess I will just hand it right on over to Congressman Hall.

Mr. ELLISON. I want to thank the gentleman, and that was a very important story for us as we wind down, and now I turn to the gentlelady from Maryland, Congresswoman Edwards.

Mr. ELLISON. I thank the gentlewoman, and let me yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. ELLISON. Well, let me thank the gentleman, and let me remind everybody that this is the Progressive message, the Progressive Caucus coming together; and I just want to leave us with this. Mary from Minneapolis says, My daughter needed her wisdom teeth out. At the time with insurance we were told to pay $375 and we did. Then we got billed over a thousand. Resubmitted, eventually the amount was reduced to 750. In the meantime, my husband had no paycheck. Her second story was, she had calcium deposits in her back which make it difficult for her to walk, and yet she's having to delay her treatment until such time that it gets to be an emergency. There are health care nightmare stories all across America. This Democratic Caucus is hearing the cries of the American people and bringing forth reform, with a bill that includes a robust public option, will stop people being dropped and denied for preexisting conditions; and we hope, Mr. Speaker, that people all over America talk about the fact that hope is on the way, change is on the way. And I'm looking forward to pushing green on this bill, just like my colleague from Maryland talked about, feeling good about this change that's coming. Not that we don't have some tweaks to do, but, hey look, any tweak is nothing compared to the hope that this bill represents to the American people. So, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you and the Congress.

Mr. ELLISON. My name is Keith Ellison; and I am appearing on behalf of the Progressive Caucus, which is again coming to the House floor to discuss a progressive vision for America, a vision of America that has a central focus of the American quality of life being better for all people, that has a central focus of the welfare of Americans being better than it was before. In the Progressive Caucus, Mr. Speaker, we have a set of values which say that yes, we can live in harmony with the planet Earth; yes, we can engage in activity that will allow all Americans to have health care; yes, we can have civil rights for all people; yes, America can be a party and a member in the global village in which we promote peace and in which we stand with nations who are struggling to emerge around the world. The progressive vision for America, a progressive vision that says that the greatest points in our Nation's history were when we passed the law for civil rights for all people; a progressive vision where we said the Wagner Act, where workers will have rights, was a great moment in American history; a progressive vision where we put together the resources necessary to pull America out of the Great Depression and into a greater level of rights, a greater level of prosperity and a greater level of community. Tonight we're talking about health care, and I hope to be joined by my colleague soon. But I just want to set out that this is the congressional progressive message; and if anybody wants to communicate with us, they can do so at cpc.grijalva.house.gov. It is very important that folks know how to get in touch with us. Mr. Speaker, this is the progressive message where we come every week on the House floor to talk about a progressive vision. Health care is the topic. Health care is the issue for the American people today. Health care is what everybody is talking about here on Capitol Hill, and this is the progressive message where we talk about a progressive vision for America. Now I'm using these boards to help illustrate a point; but the main concept here, as we talk about the progressive vision for America's health care, we want to start out with a central idea; and that is, care should be the watchword. We should be talking about care, not who pays, not who doesn't pay. Care. We should not be talking about all the complicated mechanisms first. We'll get to that as it's time to talk about that and there will be a good and appropriate time to debate these more complicated issues. But the first thing we start with, as we talk about a progressive vision, is care, health care. Care should be where we start. Care should be how we end. If we care for each other, as Americans, if we regard all Americans as essential and important, we will construct a health care system and bring forth health care reform which makes sense for everybody, which costs less than this system does now because this system is not driven by care. It's driven by something else, which I will get to in a moment. We also have to have in this health care reform package a public option. But when I use the word public option, what I really mean is a we're-all-in-this-together option. A public option is an option that says that, look, we will have a public option, together with private options, in which the public can say, look, I want to select that public option because it works for me and my family or my business, and that's what people can take advantage of. There will be private options in the system, in the exchange. But this health care reform starts with the idea of care and states that the public option, which will be included in this health care reform bill and is in the bill now, is really a we're-in-this-together option. That is what it is about. That is the point. That is what we are going for. And we will talk more about that later. But I think it is important that when people talk about a public option, we are talking about an option that is available for Americans to select which really says, we are not going to leave you out in the cold, you're not by yourself, this ownership society is not a you're-on-your-own society. In fact, it is a society in which we are all in this thing together. So, Mr. Speaker, as I said before, care is what drives our vision. But the system, the status quo, has something else driving the vision. Health care reform means patients before profits. That is what health care reform means. Health care reform doesn't mean that there won't be profits. Of course, there will be. There will be private businesses on the exchange. There will be people making money. Doctors will continue to make good salaries, nurses as well; and other people who do good things for society will be compensated fairly, of course. But the fact is we will not have these insurance companies that are not allowed to just charge anything they want and pay their CEOs anything they want. We will have something where patient care will be what is important in this health care reform system. So, I want to talk tonight, Mr. Speaker, about exactly what health care reform must include. And so let me just get to this board, and then I have a chart which will simplify it. Mr. Speaker, I believe there are folks who want to make this thing complicated. They want to make it hard to understand, and people just sort of switch off their minds and say, well, it is really complicated, so I don't get it, and they seem to be talking bad about it, so I am just not going to plug in. I believe Americans really, really want health care reform. And I want them to know what this health care reform bill is talking about. As I said, a progressive vision is a vision that makes ``care'' the operative phrase in health care and puts patients before profits, although profits are not out of the picture. They are still around. But patient care is really what is driving the conversation. A health care reform bill must include guaranteed eligibility. No American will be turned away from any insurance plan because of illness or preexisting condition. Mr. Speaker, how many Americans are at home right now who are checking over their bills, who are perhaps anxiety ridden or maybe even in tears because they have just been dropped or denied coverage because of a preexisting condition? I told a story last week, Mr. Speaker, about a dear friend of mine who called me aside at a community forum I had on health care in my hometown of Minneapolis, Minnesota. She said to me with tears in her eyes that she had a dilemma. She didn't know what to do. Her sister and her mom had succumbed to breast cancer. She thinks she is at risk. She knows that if she goes to get the test to find out, then she will be presumed to have a preexisting condition and could be dropped. But if she doesn't, and she does have the early stages of breast cancer, she will not be getting the care that she needs. So she gets the test now, she can be dropped for having a preexisting condition. If she doesn't get the test now, her breast cancer could be advancing. This is the situation that so many Americans are in today, and it is wrong. The health care reform we are talking about, guaranteed eligibility, no American will be turned away from any insurance plan because of illness or preexisting condition, meaning that insurance companies just can't insure the people who are well and the people who never make claims. They have to insure everybody, comprehensive benefits. The new public plan, this is the you're-not-on-your-own plan, will cover all essential medical services including preventative, maternity, mental health and disease management programs. This is comprehensive benefits. This is different from some of those plans you get that is a good plan for health care only it doesn't cover anything, only it has a high deductible, high co-pay, high premium and doesn't offer any real coverage, and this is excluded, that is excluded, doesn't cover this, doesn't cover that. That is not the kind of plan we are talking about. Comprehensive benefits, affordable premiums, co-pays and deductibles, as I just said they got a certain version of health care out there now that the private market has coughed up where they have high co-pays, high premiums, high deductibles, meaning if you go to the doctor, you got to pay a lot, you got to pay a lot out of your check every 2 weeks or every month when you get paid; and then if you need a procedure, you got to cough up a lot of your own personal money because they don't cover everything or even nearly everything. So, participants will be charged fair premiums and minimal co-pays and deductibles for preventative services. So that means if you want to stay healthy by doing preventative health care, that option will be available to you. Subsidies. Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but who still need assistance will receive income-related Federal subsidies and keep health insurance premiums affordable. So we are not going to leave anybody out. Even people who are the lower income scale and have to have health care, have to be able to go and see a doctor, have to be able to get preventative services; and this will be covered. So health care reform, guaranteed eligibility, no exclusion for a preexisting condition, comprehensive benefits, a good plan that covers things that you need, affordable premiums, co-pays and deductibles and subsidies for people who need them. So this is a chart that we developed, Mr. Speaker, to try to make it simple for folks, because it is complicated. It is our job in Congress to try to boil this stuff down and make it digestible. And so we came up with this little chart to try to talk about what is going on. Let's just say, here is the path to health care for all. Up here at the top of the box, Mr. Speaker, you got every American. What the plan will yield is basically three of these bubbles that you will fit into. One of them is employer-based insurance. You have heard President Obama say, if you like your health care, keep it. That is what that is. If you like your health care, keep it. It is exactly what you have now if you have employer-based health care, but it is going to cost less. There will be no more discrimination for preexisting conditions. There will be no discrimination for age or gender. And we will have a medical loss ratio of 85 percent because 85 percent of the premiums must go to patient care. So they won't be able to just stuff their pockets with those $100 million salaries some of these health care insurance companies CEOs make. This is a lot like we have now, only we will have improvement because of cost, because of the medical loss, what is known as the ``medical loss ratio'' and because of the banning of the exclusion for preexisting conditions. Then also we have public programs that exist now, Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, still available to children, seniors and families below the poverty line. This will still be there. This is not going anywhere. We are going to have Medicare, we are going to have Medicaid, and we are going to have SCHIP. That is still there. What is going to be new, Mr. Speaker, is a health care insurance exchange. This is going to be new. This bubble is going to be kind of new. And it is going to go into effect in a few months perhaps after we pass the bill, perhaps as much as 12 months; but it will be counted in months. Who is eligible for the health care insurance exchange? Individuals and small businesses will be able to go into the exchange. And what will be on the exchange? Private insurance plans that people can purchase, and what you will have there is a public option. Now, people who go into the health care exchange will be subsidized for up to 400 percent of the poverty level. That means if you are at the poverty level times four, you take that income you have at the poverty level times four, if you make 400 percent of the poverty level, meaning you make well over the poverty level but still you don't have enough to afford health care, you can receive some sort of subsidy to make sure that you can afford coverage. Then, you can go into the exchange, and you might be able to pick your policy because the policies will be standardized, and you will be able to pick one, be it a public plan or a private plan. And you will be able to get your health care policy picking the one that you want, guaranteeing that you will have choice, guaranteeing that you will have options and you will be able to select based on your needs. We are going to revisit this chart in a moment, Mr. Speaker, because it is important to go back to it. So I just wanted to say that tonight what we want to do with this Progressive hour is talk about helping folks to understand the health care reform plan, helping folks to understand what the public option is. As I said before, the public option should be understood. It is something that is going to help you, something that means that this is our commitment to each other, like Social Security is our commitment to each other, like other important public programs are a commitment to each other, our roads are a commitment to each other. It is what we all do together to make sure people can make it. This is what the public option represents. So, Mr. Speaker, many in Congress, the House and Senate, believe that any significant health care reform package must include a robust public option. We have seen leaders, brave and courageous legislators like Russ Feingold in the Senate and Bernie Sanders and Chuck Schumer in the Senate over in the other body talking about the importance of a public option. But here in the House we have heard the same commitment from some great leaders like John Lewis, Lois Capps and Congresswoman Pingree from Maine, who is new to this body, all making important commitments to support a public option, on both sides, of course. We heard the President talk about the public option as well. So we have people in all three, in both Houses and in the President's Office, talking about the public option. We have talked a little bit about what it means. But let me just elaborate on that a little bit. What it means at its heart is it means giving the uninsured the option to enroll in a public health care plan that is sort of like Medicare. That is what it means at bottom, giving the uninsured the option, the choice, the choice to enroll in a public health care plan like Medicare. A public insurance option would compete. We are talking competition here, Mr. Speaker. We are not talking about not competing. We are talking about competing. Under the system we have now, we don't have much competition. But with a public option, we will have some competition. And this public option will compete on a level playing field with private health insurers, and the uninsured individuals would get a chance to choose which plan is best for them. If you look at the health care market today, and you go into a given area, everybody knows that one or two firms dominate in that particular area, maybe three. Sometimes you just really don't have any options at all, Mr. Speaker. And so we have a lack of insurance right now, a lack of a competition now; and what we need to do is get some real competition. Why is having a public health care option important? There are many reasons, but here are a few. A broad number of research and a broad spectrum of research has confirmed that a public health insurance option is a key component of cost containment. To drive down the cost of health care, you need a public option, because what it does is it introduces more competition, lower administrative expenses and drives cost-saving innovation. Some folks don't know that our health insurance industry right now is exempt from antitrust legislation and doesn't really have to compete. But a public option will drive them to competition, which is a good thing. Also, need for a public option, according to research from the Commonwealth Fund, the net administrative cost for Medicare and Medicaid are 5 and 8 percent respectively. These are plans, Medicare and Medicaid, which already drive reasonable cost down so that the folks who participate in these programs are not being charged for a bunch of stuff that they don't need. They are getting low administrative costs. Now I just want to say that I have been joined now by one of my favorite colleagues, Donna Edwards, who by the way, is a pretty good softball player, that is an aside, but Congresswoman Edwards is here. She represents a district in Maryland. And let me just give her a chance to sort of jump in on this important conversation going on in Congress right now. Congresswoman Edwards, how are you doing tonight? Let me yield to you.

Mr. ELLISON. Will the gentlelady yield to a question, perhaps? Congresswoman Edwards, we've been hearing a lot of rhetoric about this health care plan. This health care plan, which I agree with you, we need to be excited about it because this is a great and propitious moment in America. But we've been hearing detractors. We've been hearing this government-run health care, all this kind of stuff. Have you heard this kind of rhetoric before? And should anyone listen to it? I yield to the gentlelady.

Mr. ELLISON. If the gentlelady would yield, I hope the gentlelady doesn't mind me asking her a few other questions. My next question is, why do you think that it's been reported that the detractors to health care reform are spending up to $1.2 million a day here to lobby Congress? I'd yield to the gentlelady. Why are they spending so much money?

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, what a glorious day and a great time to be in Congress. We have an opportunity to preside in this 111th Congress when we pass comprehensive health care reform with a public option. You know, the fact is that millions of Americans are looking forward to the day when they don't have to worry about being excluded for a preexisting condition, when they will have true portability, when we can unlock the true entrepreneurial talent of America because people will be able to go and pursue their entrepreneurial dreams without fear of losing health care. The fact is the other team, look, they had their day. They tried and all we have gotten is sicker at a higher expense, and we've been dying earlier. We haven't seen better outcomes with status quo health care, and people who stand for the status quo, they have had their shot and their time has run. So, Mr. Speaker, thank you for presiding today. This is a good day to stand up for comprehensive health care reform and a strong, robust public option.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. So that is the kind of thing that will promote prejudice and religious bigotry. And I'm very ashamed for this body that he would do what he's doing right now.

Mr. ELLISON. No, no. I will not yield. I didn't yield, Mr. Chairman. I will not yield.

Mr. ELLISON. I'd like to reclaim the time, Mr. Chair, and I want to thank the gentleman from Florida. I actually just want to submit that I see the gentleman has a poster board up there, and it's extremely unfortunate that that poster board, I would submit to the American people, is extremely upsetting to me because, first of all, it has to do with something called Hadith, and that is disputed. It's not necessarily even authentic.

Mr. ELLISON. It's important to get the facts out as to what this foreign assistance is. This is simply American-to-Saudi joint military training. This is an opportunity for Americans and Saudis to work in concert so that we can continue to build a bridge with our historic ally so that we can be in a better position to influence Saudi society and we can learn from them what they have to offer. The fact is that this particular amendment does not bring America safety, doesn't bring it security. It brings it the opposite. This new administration, this new Congress is about opening a new era of foreign policy, a new page in diplomacy that is smarter, more respectful of other countries, more appreciative of our allies. Saudi Arabia is one of the most important allies in the Middle East. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia is one who proposed the Arab Peace Initiative, which has recently been endorsed by the Arab League. President Obama himself expressed support for this initiative in the early days of his Presidency. I would go on, but I do want to yield time to a distinguished Member from Florida, Congressman Crenshaw, who is here today to offer his views on why this amendment is not good. Before I yield to the gentleman, let me say that the 2008 U.S. State Department Country Report on Terrorism praised Saudi Arabia in Saudi counterterrorism practices, credited Saudi cooperation with U.S. counterterrorism efforts as significant, and characterized Saudi anti- extremism initiatives as aggressive, directly contrary to the gentleman from New York's representation of what Saudi Arabia is doing. I urge Members not to perpetuate prejudice, but to try to build a bridge of understanding with the rest of the world. I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw).

Mr. ELLISON. I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I am Keith Ellison and I am a Member of the Progressive Caucus. It is late and the hour is moving toward when a lot of people are looking to retire for the evening, but we have to talk health care. Before I do, let me introduce the Progressive Caucus message that we have for people tonight. The Progressive Caucus message is we come to this Chamber every week to talk about a progressive vision for America. What is a progressive vision for America? It is a vision, Mr. Speaker, in which people can live free of discrimination; people can live in harmony with the Earth; workers can work with dignity. Workers can have respect and safety on the job and earn decent pay. Where all Americans can have health care and enjoy the benefits and the bounty of this great country of ours. A progressive vision, a vision similar to the one that Martin Luther King had for our country, a vision similar to the one that the great Rachel Carson, author of ``Silent Spring,'' had for our country. A vision similar to one which Walter Reuther, a great labor leader, had for our country, a progressive vision which embraces all, which includes all, where human beings live in harmony, free from fear who do not disrespect or abuse our environment, believe all people have dignity, and we should have health care so people can have a decent standard of living. This is the progressive vision that we talk about with the progressive message and it is what we do when we come to the House floor to talk on this House floor about what we believe in. The Congressional Progressive Caucus is the group that I speak for tonight. This is our Web site, Mr. Speaker, which is cpc/ grijalva.house.gov. What are we talking about tonight? We are talking about health care reform, patients before profits. Tonight, Mr. Speaker, I think this presentation could not be possibly more different, it could not possibly be more different from the hour you just heard because the hour you just heard a moment ago talked about what we couldn't do, who couldn't get care, why we have to have the status quo, why things have to be the way they are and why we cannot have reform. That is what you just heard, horror stories and fear-mongering like we have been hearing for many decades. It was the same thing in 1994. Remember the Harry and Louise ads? Oh, the government is going to take your health care away; the government is going to make medical decisions for you. It is not true. Don't fear. The American people should not fear health care reform. The American people, 300 million strong, know that 50 million, nearly 50 million of our number, are without any health care at all. The 250 million who do have health care know that the private insurance companies have been reaping enormous profits while you've been paying higher deductibles and higher copay, and you have been paying higher premiums and you have been being denied coverage for preexisting conditions. The time for change is now. I think for the first time in a long time, real change is right within our hands. Mr. Speaker, if the American people have a will for a greater level of health care, for a greater level of quality of life in which all Americans don't have to go to bed at night afraid that they are going to be without, this is the time for them to raise their voices. I think a few things are important to know, and that is, just like as in 1994, the scare tactics that we just heard and will probably hear again tonight are in full force. And if the American people don't step forward, you don't know which vision of America will prevail: a progressive vision where all Americans have health care and access to care that says prevention, that says long-term care, that says we are going to have a public option which we desperately need, or this situation which leaves 50 million Americans out with escalating costs and preexisting costs which doom people to a medical nightmare. We will talk more about that in a moment. First, I want to say that the fight is on. It is raging. It is happening. And if the people want to be heard, Mr. Speaker, they need to be heard now. Let me say this: in the first 3 months of 2009, in the first 3 months of 2009, the Chamber of Commerce and the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America, PhRMA, played lobbyists a combined $22.5 million to promote their interests. Okay, you didn't hear me: $22.5 million to lobby people like me, Mr. Speaker, to not give the American people health care, to keep the status quo, to let it be how it is, to let these preexisting condition exclusions continue on, to leave 50 million Americans out in the cold, to continue the increasing premiums and these ridiculous copays people are having to pay. You didn't hear me? The first 3 months of 2009, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America, PhRMA, laid lobbyists a combined $22.5 million to promote their interests; $22.5 million in January, February, and March. You think that is a lot of money, Mr. Speaker? It's nothing if you compare it to the amount of money they made by denying Americans health care, by denying enrolled Americans health care, as they have been doing and saying we don't cover that. And by reaping all of these excessive profits, oh, $22 million is a rounding error for them, but it is an enormous amount of money for us. Monday, July 6, The Washington Post said: Familiar players in health care bill lobbying. The largest insurers, hospitals and medical groups have hired more than 350 former government staff members and retired Members of Congress in hopes of influencing their old bosses and colleagues. That is not quite one for every Member of Congress, but it is nearly one for every Member of Congress, and that is just counting the former Members of Congress and former staffers. Just to try to twist an arm to say leave the status quo as it is. Three out of every four major health care firms have at least one former insider on their payrolls, according to Washington Post analysis. Nearly half of the insiders previously worked for key committees and lawmakers currently debating whether to adopt a public insurance option which is opposed by major industry. So they are getting people who used to work here to try to stop progress and keep us from a progressive vision because they care more about profits before patients. We, in the Progressive Caucus, care about patients before profits. The hirings are part of a record-breaking influence campaign by the health care industry. This is according to The Washington Post, record- breaking influence peddling campaign by the health care industry. You know, Mr. Speaker, you may have been dazzled, shocked, and amazed by what you saw in 1994 when they in fact killed health care. Now they are pulling out all of the stops, and they are going to make sure that they set a record in the amount of influence that they are trying to campaign for to defeat health care reform. They want the status quo. We want a progressive vision. Mr. Speaker, just hold onto something because this number might stagger you: $1.4 million a day, nearly $1.5 million a day to stop health care reform by paying lobbyists, and this is just according to what has been disclosed in their records. So $1.4 million a day just to lobby against health care reform? Yes. So, Mr. Speaker, if the American people want health care reform, they better say something because $1.4 million a day can speak pretty loud. The Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America doubled its spending, nearly $7 million in the first quarter of 2009, followed by Pfizer with more than $6 million. If they are right, if this system is good, why have they spent all of this money? Can't they just let the facts speak for themselves? No, the facts need to be adjusted for them. The Post examined federally required disclosure reports submitted by health care firms that spent more than $100,000 lobbying in the first quarter of this year, and it used current and past filings to identify former lawmakers, congressional staff, and executive branch officials. This is a quote: ``The revolving door offers a shortcut to a Member of Congress to the highest bidder,'' said Sheila Krumholz, who is the executive director for the Center for Responsive Politics, which compiled some of the data used in the Post analysis. Here's her quote-- and this is really a shocker, Mr. Speaker: ``It's a small cost of doing business relative to the profits that they garner.'' So again, $1.4 million a day seems like a whole lot of money to me, but when you think about the money that is reaped from the status quo in their denial of claims, in their denial of preexisting conditions, and all of this stuff, it's really not a big deal at all. Mr. Speaker, let me show folks just what this profit is doing. Projected spending on health care as a percentage of gross domestic product, Mr. Speaker, has been doing nothing but going up and up and up. If you look at just projected costs in 2007, we're talking about an enormous upward slide from about 15 percent upward to nearly 50 percent if these numbers are projected to 2008. Medicare going up and Medicaid going up, but those lines are relatively flat. If you look at all the other health care costs, it's just jumping up. This is spending, and whatever I spend, somebody else makes. This represents the enormous amount of money that will be made under the status quo, and it represents why they're willing to drop $1.4 million a day just to defeat the real change that we need. Mr. Speaker, let me just also point out a few other facts that I think are important. We have a growing number of Members of this body, the House of Representatives--many of whom are Progressive Caucus members--who are saying they won't vote for any plan unless it includes a public option. I'm one of those. I know I've been accused of being doctrinaire, of drawing a line in the sand and not being flexible. Well, they're right; I'm flexible, but not on this. No public option means a red vote, which means no for me. We've got to have a public option. We have to have it. And I'm proud to say that Speaker Pelosi, Charlie Rangel, and leaders in this body have said that we're going to have our public option. And it's because people out there have raised their voices, Mr. Speaker, and the people in this body haven't let the people in America down and they've stood up for change. But it's not just in the House, Mr. Speaker. I'm happy to say that Members of the other body, Senator Russ Feingold, Senator Bernie Sanders, and Senator Chuck Schumer are standing up and speaking out for a public option right now. Senator Feingold, Senator Sanders, and Senator Schumer haven't been quiet, Mr. Speaker; they're trying to make sure that we get this public option through the Senate as we work for it in the House. What we really need, Mr. Speaker, is for Americans to let their voices be heard. Because if they say, Oh, well, the leaders in Congress got it all under control, that's exactly when we lose it. The American people are like the wind that pushes the boat through the sea. I don't care how big your sail is, how pretty it is, or what you put on it, if there's no wind, it doesn't move. And that's how this democracy is going to work. As I praise Senator Russ Feingold, let me tell you what he said on June 18 that deserves our respect, Mr. Speaker. Senator Feingold said, ``A strong public health insurance option is consistent with a healthy private market and effective private insurance plans. We have several insurers that operate in my home State of Wisconsin that provide great health coverage to their beneficiaries. Responsible insurers should have no trouble competing with a public insurance option on the merits of their plans, but a strong public health insurance option will provide a powerful incentive for less responsible insurers to reevaluate their own cost-sharing and benefit plans to ensure that they are actually an attractive option for consumers.'' That's what Russ Feingold said, Mr. Speaker. And he went on to add, ``There is another benefit of a public health insurance option which hits particularly close to home. My hometown of Janesville, Wisconsin''--that's Russ Feingold's hometown--``has one of the highest unemployment rates in the State of Wisconsin. Recently, our GM assembly plant ceased production, and other related businesses throughout the community are struggling to stay afloat during these tough economic times.'' Of course these challenges are shared by many other communities across the State and, I would add, across the Nation. Back to the Feingold quote. ``A public health insurance option would be invaluable to families in Janesville and many other cities across America who have recently been laid off because it is a guaranteed affordable option that can travel with an individual from job to job. A public health insurance option would also make a tremendous difference for our small business owners who are facing crippling health care costs while trying to keep their businesses open.'' That is the great Senator Russ Feingold as he spoke passionately and convincingly about a public option. I just want the American people to know, Mr. Speaker, that in the House of Representatives and in the Senate there are leaders who have heard the cries of the American people, who have heard the demands for change, and who are going to stand up for a public option. And Mr. Speaker, I just want to take a second to say thank you to all those Members in the House, but also these three Senators--Feingold, Sanders and Schumer--and many others who have gone on record for a public option. Mr. Speaker, I also want to share a few other points that I think are real important at this time as we've just discussed this critical thing. The fact is is that what we need is a real focus on patients, not profits. The way the health care proposal is working now in the draft is that there are basically three prongs. One is, employer-based health care insurance. If you like the insurance you have, you can keep it. Don't listen to that stuff you heard in the last hour, Mr. Speaker. The truth is, you get to keep your health insurance if that's what you want. Two, people who are over 65 or who qualify for Medicaid can get health insurance. Those folks who are in those government programs already can share in that benefit. But the third option is this exchange where private insurance plans and a public option will be available for people and people can bid on these options and purchase their health care. There will be a subsidy up to about 400 percent of the poverty guidelines. We would ban the exclusion of people with preexisting conditions. And there is a proposal that anyone who wants to put their plan in that exchange would have to have a medical loss ratio of about 85 percent, which would mean that actual health care delivered to people, the money would have to be 85 percent of their overall budget, and that 15 percent would be on administrative costs and other things like that. Medicare already does a whole lot better than that, and so does the VA. So that's basically an outline, Mr. Speaker. That's basically what it is. But I just wanted to make sure that we really hit this idea of this public option tonight. Our system wastes roughly about $700 billion on treatments and procedures that cannot be shown to improve health outcomes right now. A public option would make charging these kind of fees to just generate money something they really can't afford to do because you've got real competition that's not driven by a profit motive but is driven by quality health care. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, we need ways to drive waste out of the system and we need ways to make private insurers really compete with this public option, which they do not. As you know, Mr. Speaker, under the McCarran-Ferguson Act, insurance companies are not required to compete with each other. They have an exemption from antitrust laws, and therefore can legally collude. And so we need this public option so that we can make them actually compete. You know, Mr. Speaker, I don't have to get up here and tell you or anyone else that health care costs in America are crushing America's businesses and families, but I will offer a few examples. Our manufacturers spend more per hour on health care than do their counterparts in Canada, Japan, and the U.K. combined. What I'm saying is that if you have a company that is international in scope and has places in Canada and subsidiaries in Japan and the U.K.--that's England and the United Kingdom--their American manufacturers spend more per hour on health care than all these other subsidiaries combined. That's making America noncompetitive and putting us at a competitive disadvantage. Mr. Speaker, I bet you didn't know, and maybe you did, that health care costs for small businesses have grown 30 percent since the year 2000 alone. We need health care. We need a public option. The average family premium costs $1,100 more per year because our health care system fails to cover everyone. The average individual premium costs $400 or more. Mr. Speaker, we need a public option. We need health care reform. In 2004, half of all people filing for bankruptcy cited medical problems as a cause. That's half. Well, Mr. Speaker, I have got a chart right here where this is definitely an out-of-date figure because it's much higher than half now. Medical bills underlie 60 percent of U.S. bankruptcies, according to a recent study. Washington Reuters, that's the news company: Medical bills are involved in more than 60 percent of U.S. personal bankruptcies, an increase of 50 percent in just 6 years, U.S. researchers reported on Thursday. More than 75 percent of these bankrupt families had health insurance but were still overwhelmed by their medical debts, the team at Harvard Medical Law School, Harvard Medical School, and the Ohio University reported in the American Journal of Medicine. ``Using a conservative definition, 62.1 percent of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical; 92 percent of these medical debtors had medical debts over $5,000 or 10 percent of pretax family income,'' the researchers wrote. ``Most medical debtors were well educated, owned homes, and had middle class occupations.'' Mr. Speaker, this scenario is what the speakers in the previous hour were trying to defend. Is that not crazy? That is not what the American people want. That is not what the American people deserve. The speakers in the previous hour were literally defending this system and standing in the way of reform. A few more facts, Mr. Speaker. In 2008, just last year, half of all people filing home foreclosures cited medical problems as a cause. Again, medical problems and our broken health care system deeply implicated even in the foreclosure crisis. The fact is high costs lead to people losing coverage, and 14,000 Americans are losing coverage every day in the midst of this economic crisis. The numbers are staggering, and at some point your eyes just gloss over it and you can't really hear them. So sometimes numbers don't even bring as much light to the subject as one would want. But let me just say 14,000 Americans are losing coverage every day in the midst of this economic crisis. Why? Because as unemployment creeps toward 10 percent, when you lose your job, you lose your health care because we have an employer- based health care system. Mr. Speaker, again, a serious problem. Last month 400,000-plus jobs lost by Americans. Every one of them is either dealing with no health care or has to carry an enormous COBRA payment on their back. Mr. Speaker, that's not good. And 60 percent of Americans say that they or a member of their household have delayed or skipped health care in the last year. Mr. Speaker, we need to reform our health care system. I hope that's obvious to everybody. Actually, you and I both know it's not obvious to everybody though we wish that it was. But let me just talk a little bit about it for a moment. I will bring back up this poster, Patients Before Profits. Mr. Speaker, reform will alleviate the burden on families by lowering costs. Ensuring timely access to affordable, quality health care, making sure everyone has access to preventative care will help keep the American people healthy and allowing workers to change jobs without worrying about losing health care. Imagine being stuck in the job you have, and maybe you don't even want to be there, but you can't leave because you've got health care. Mr. Speaker, I talked to a dear friend of mine whom I have known for many years, many years, Mr. Speaker. And I know you know what I mean when you've known someone for years and years and years, but there is something I didn't know about this friend of mine when I had a health care forum in my district in Minneapolis a few weeks ago. I won't mention this friend of mine's name because I'm going to protect her privacy, but this friend of mine whom I've know for years, I didn't know this fact about her. Let's call her Ann. That's not her name. Ann, after a health care forum that I held in my district in Minneapolis in which 220 people showed up because they demand health care reform, waited around after everybody left after the health care forum and said she needed to talk to me. And I said, Ann, sure, I'll take a minute and we can talk. And this is a strong woman. She is not someone who is easily given over to tears, but she was in tears. She's only about 37, 36 years old, and she has a beautiful family, and she's just a great person all around. Anyway, Ann sat me down and she looked me straight in the eye. And when she looked me in the eye, Mr. Speaker, I knew she was serious, serious, serious. And what she said to me, Mr. Speaker, was this: I'm on my job and I have health care insurance at my job, but members of my family, including my sisters and my mom, have had breast cancer. And, Mr. Speaker, she told me that she is afraid to go get a test to determine whether she may develop breast cancer because if she gets this test, Mr. Speaker, then a health care company might decide she has a preexisting condition and then drop her from the policy. But if she doesn't go find out, Mr. Speaker, if she might develop breast cancer, she can't get treatment that she needs that may save her life one day. And she's a young mom. She's only about 37, 36 years old, and she has kids whom she's trying to rear. So, Mr. Speaker, imagine being in the case where you can't go get the test to find out whether you have breast cancer because if you do, that's going to be a preexisting condition, and yet you can't afford not to do it because if you don't do it, like your mother and your sister, you may develop breast cancer. This is the system that these folks who are standing in the way of reform are trying to preserve. And, Mr. Speaker, it is wrong. It's time for reform to take place, and the time for reform is now. Reform will alleviate the burden on families by lowering costs. Reform will alleviate the burden on our economy by creating more efficient insurance and a delivery system which will reduce waste and allow a more rational financing system where everyone contributes instead of shifting costs from some people onto others. Reform will alleviate the burden on business that has been hindered in their ability to compete because of these enormous health care costs. Mr. Speaker, we have got to have a public option. I explained the public option a moment ago. A public option is just one of other health insurance coverage programs that will be offered on the exchange. But, Mr. Speaker, the public option needs to be understood. What the public option is is giving the uninsured an option to enroll in a public health care plan that's like Medicare. The public insurance option would compete directly with health care insurers. Why are they afraid to compete? What are they scared of? The uninsured individuals would get to choose which plan is best for them, which could be a private one or the public option. Why is having a public option so important? A broad array of research has confirmed that a public health insurance option is a key component of cost containment because it will introduce more competition, something conservatives say they like whenever it makes them exorbitant money. It will lower administrative expenses. I talked about the medical loss ratio a moment ago of 85 percent. I have a bill personally that will raise it to 90, which I think would be better. Medicare would still outcompete them because they can do better than that and drive cost-saving innovation. According to research from the Commonwealth Fund, the net administrative costs for Medicare and Medicaid were 5 percent and 8 percent respectively. That's why I think a medical loss ratio of 90 percent would be good. They should be able to do it. Mr. Speaker, if you look up the top five health insurance companies, their administrative costs were 17 percent, and the average administrative cost for private insurance is 14 percent. The fact is, they're inefficient, they like it that way, and they don't want to change. But a public option would make them change. Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus signed a letter to Speaker Pelosi and to the Democratic leadership, clearly stating that a robust public option must be in the mix. This year in the Congress we must act on health care reform, and that health care reform must include a public option. We believe that only a health care plan with a robust public option will provide more Americans with greater access to treatment and doctors with less interference and obstruction from big insurance companies and other profit-driven special interests. Mr. Speaker, if you listened to the hour just before I came on, you heard people spinning scenarios and imaginary ghosts and demons and goblins in the air in which a patient would have a government bureaucrat--their words--in between the doctor. Well, that hasn't happened. That's imaginary. It's not going to happen. But now today a patient has to deal with a bureaucrat in an insurance company before they can get the medical treatment that they need. Their claims have been excluded. Some bureaucrat has said, ``Oh, we're not going to approve that.'' ``Oh, we're going to deny that.'' ``Oh, we're not going to allow that procedure to happen,'' even though a doctor has recommended it. That's reality. What they were talking about an hour ago was fantasy, and it's kind of like on the Freddy Krueger order, nothing but a nightmare and a horror film. We urgently need to fix health care for American families. Every day Americans worry not simply about getting well but whether they can afford to get well. Millions of Americans wonder if they can afford the routine care to stay well. Premiums have doubled over the last 9 years, three times faster than wages. The average American family already pays an extra $1,100 in premiums every year for a broken system that supports 46.5 million uninsured Americans. We need the change for American business. Soaring health care costs put American companies at a competitive disadvantage in a global economy. Small businesses are forced to choose between coverage and layoffs. That's a choice they should never have to make. But what about the fiscal future of America? We have the most expensive health care system in the world. We spend almost 50 percent more per person on health care than the next most costly nation, and we're no healthier for it. We're spending all this money, but we're not healthier for it. If you look at national rankings of Americans' health and wellness, we're not at the top, although spending is at the top. We're at the bottom when it comes to diabetes, when it comes to heart disease, when it comes to cancer, when it comes to all these critical things. What are we going to do about it? We'd better step up and do something, and that something cannot wait. If we do nothing, in a decade we'll be spending $1 out of every $5 on health care. In 30 years it will be $1 out of every $3. Health care reform is necessary, and it's deficit reduction because reform will drive down costs. What we want to offer is cost reduction, choice, security and quality. President Obama and this Congress want to reduce health care costs and offer people a choice of doctors and plans and guarantee affordable quality health care for all. That's what we're trying to do. This is an American solution. You always hear people talking about what they do in Canada, what they do in the U.K., what they do in France. We're not talking about any of those countries. We're talking about a uniquely American solution. We are not trying to be like anybody else, Mr. Speaker. The fact of the matter is, 36 other countries in the world and every industrialized country has national health insurance. We don't. That's why their outcomes are better and their costs are lower. But we're not comparing ourselves to some other country. We're not talking about what other countries do. We're talking about an American solution that will ensure every child in America is covered, that will invest in prevention and wellness, where we'll ensure that doctors and nurses get the information they need to provide individuals with the best care available and never again will your coverage be denied because of a pre-existing condition or your age or your gender or ending a system where profits come before people and millions go without vital health care. Never again. Never again should we make life or a job decision based on coverage, and never again should we let our families suffer financial catastrophe or bankruptcy because of these high costs. Mr. Speaker, I'm coming to the point where we're probably going to wind up in not too long; but I do want to just make a few more points before I take my seat. One of the things I want to do before we take our seats is just to point out the fact that scare tactics and fear tactics have not served the American people well, not back in 1994 when health care was defeated then, and they won't work now. We've learned a lot since 1994, and we're not going for it. The fact is, health care is a social imperative. It's an economic necessity. And the new study by the President's Council of Economic Advisers demonstrates that the current health care system is on an unsustainable path. Without reform, escalating health care insurance premiums will continue to cause American workers and families to experience eroding health care benefits and stagnating wages while rising spending on health care and Medicaid will lead to massive unsustainable Federal budget deficits. The fact is, we need change. I just have a few more points to make, and then I will hand it over to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I don't know what they're talking about; but if they talk about health care, I want you to remember what I said, Mr. Speaker, because these facts are critical, and we cannot allow anyone to scare us away from the reform that is necessary today. The fact is, the American people want change, and they're going to get change, and they're going to be much, much better for it. The fact is that we do need this public option. We do need health care reform. The fact is that we do need the change, and we can't allow it to be denied. It's time for the American people to raise their voices, Mr. Speaker, if they want to be heard. I talked about my friend Ann--whose name isn't really Ann--but I talked about her fear of going to get that test to determine whether she has breast cancer or not because, as I said, if she gets the test, she could be denied for a pre-existing condition or dropped from her insurance. And if she doesn't get the test, she won't be able to get the treatment that she needs to fight off that breast cancer. She's in a terrible position. But she's not the only one. I want to talk about a few other folks before I yield the microphone. I want to talk about Mary from Minneapolis. Mary says, ``My daughter needed her wisdom teeth out. At the time with insurance we were told to pay $375, which we did. Then I got billed for over $1,000, resubmitted, and eventually the amount was reduced to $750. Meantime, my husband had no paycheck. I have calcium deposits in my back which make it difficult to walk. I can't afford the copays, so I'm waiting until it is so bad that I can't walk.'' That's what Mary from Minneapolis said which is the status quo, which some people in this body want to preserve. Denise from Minneapolis says, ``I find more and more often that my family and I are skipping doctor visits for preventive care or when we would have made a visit to the doctor in the past, but now can't afford the copayment to be seen. This is especially true for childhood illnesses as well as allergy visits and medication, dental problems that could potentially be very serious, and injuries that, in reality, should be checked out by a doctor. ``My family is insured, yet because of our current employment situation combined with rising health care costs, it has become out of our reach to have the kind of care that we have enjoyed in the past. I feel we are being left behind for an inability to be able to bear the burden of the cost. This may mean that we will pay dearly in the future for things that could have been prevented or less serious had we been able to see a doctor initially.'' That is Denise from Minneapolis. Here is Janice from Golden Valley, Minnesota, also in my district: ``I have worked every day since the day I turned 15, and I am currently 51, married with two teenage children. I have a college degree. We have always lived a balanced and frugal life. We do not take exotic trips and mostly buy generic groceries and thrift or discount store clothing. I do not and never have smoked or drank. And I have been in my job for over 20 years, yet I bring home less and less each year due primarily to health care premiums and costs. Health care premiums and copays cost about 25 to 30 percent of my income. Health care premiums cost me more than my Federal, State, Social Security, union dues and retirement plan deduction combined from each paycheck. The increase has been so great that we have stopped being able to contribute to savings for about 4 years ago. The one thing I fear more than anything is me or a family member getting sick because of what treatment will cost even beyond the premium costs. When I have a strange new sensation in my eye, or vein hurting in my leg, or dull pain in my chest, I just pray it will go away on its own because I'm afraid of what it will cost me. We pay out so much for health insurance, yet we cannot afford to really even use it. And I feel even worse for those who have no health care insurance at all. This reflects so badly on what America has become, a place where only the wealthiest survive and the profit by the few takes priority over the basic needs of all.'' Janice, I want you to know that we are fighting for patients before profits today. I want you to know, Mr. Speaker, about Anita from Roseville, which is not in my district, but it is very close by. Anita says, ``I work for a public school and my husband stayed home with our daughter. We started paying family health insurance in 2002 at $10,000 out of pocket. This year, we are paying over $12,000 out of pocket, and our copays are $40 and $50 per visit. Our daughter is school-aged now, but my husband started looking for work when the economy took its downturn last summer and still does not have a job. Health insurance costs severely limit our quality of life by using up our disposable income.'' Let me talk about Priscilla from Minnesota. Priscilla says this: ``I got on my husband's insurance after the job I had discontinued coverage for me. We paid over $500 a month for this coverage. I had health issues that came on suddenly with breathing problems. It took several hospitalizations and ICU care before they finally figured out what the problem was. My husband's insurance refused to pay for any of it, calling it a ``preexisting condition.' '' And by the way, these would be banned under the plan offered by Democrats. ``And we were left with a medical bill over $25,000 to pay ourselves. This was at the same time we were spending $500 per month on premiums. The provider sent our bill to collections. It has been a nightmare. My husband is now disabled, and we have no coverage, yet his condition requires regular CAT scans and nine different medications to make sure his condition is stable.'' I urge my colleagues who stand in the way of reform to listen to these good, decent people. They deserve better. They deserve better. Let's not worry about what the Chamber of Commerce and what PhRMA want. Let's worry about our constituents and the patients of America. I'm going to just read one more story from Doug, Mr. Speaker. And then after that I will make some closing comments. ``I recently refilled my mail-order prescriptions. I get as many generics as possible. However, I am a diabetic, and both types of my insulin are not generic, neither are blood pressure medication nor a cholesterol medication and glucose test strips. My insurance company in a bid to force generic drugs have made them `free' for mail-order while nongenerics doubled in price. So I had to choose which ones I didn't need. I chose the glucose test strips because I can buy them over the counter for the same price and `ration' them by testing less than I should. I'm still spending more money than I can afford, and I am afraid that my bank account will be overdrawn. If that happens, I will not be able to afford food or gas for myself and my son. I could borrow from my elderly mother, but it looks like they will be losing their insurance coverage from a failing car company. I have a good job with good benefits.'' That is what Doug said. His last line was: ``I have a good job with `good' benefits.'' Mr. Speaker, I have a lot more stories, and I hope none of the constituents will be disappointed because I wasn't able to get to every story. But we got a bunch of stories on our Web site and stories people submitted to us, Mary from Minneapolis, Denise from Minneapolis, Janice from Golden Valley, Anita from Roseville, Minnesota, Verona from Mora, Minnesota, Mary from Minnesota, Priscilla from Minnesota, Maria from Minnesota, Cynthia from Minnesota, Doug from Minnesota all calling in, sharing very courageously their health care nightmare that they need to be relieved of. They need reform, Mr. Speaker. And the time for change is now. They need reform, Mr. Speaker, and the time for change is now. Let me wrap up my comments by just saying that it is wrong that in the first 3 months of 2009 that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and PhRMA paid lobbyists to combine $22.5 million to promote their interests which is to thwart reform of health care. And it is also very disturbing that The Washington Post had to report recently that the Nation's largest insurers have hired more than 350 former government staffers and retired Members of Congress in hopes of influencing us to thwart reform. And it is actually disgusting that the health care industry is spending more than $1.4 million a day lobbying to thwart health care reform. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Progressive Caucus who has a vision of an America where people who are sick can go to the doctor, Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Progressive Caucus that has a vision that we all can have decent, affordable health care, I urge my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to think about these decent people, Anita, Janice, Priscilla and others, because surely in their districts they have people just like these good people who need change. Let's say ``yes'' to the American people, Mr. Speaker. It has been an hour appearing here on the House floor with the progressive message and with the Progressive Caucus message. Mr. Speaker, people can communicate by going to this Web site, cpc.grijalva.house.gov to let us know how they really feel.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a World War II veteran from Minneapolis, Minnesota, Mr. Henry E. Bauer, who will celebrate his 100th birthday on July 15, 2009. Every American who served in the military during World War II has a unique story, and Mr. Bauer is no exception. He joined the Army Air Corps on June 5, 1942, at the age of 33. The desire of our country's youth to serve in the war was unprecedented and like so many others, Mr. Bauer answered the call of service to protect our nation at a time of great need. Henry landed at Omaha Beach on D- Day, June 6, 1944, little more than a month away from his 35th birthday. He was discharged as a Staff Sergeant after the war and returned to his family and friends on November 21, 1945. At the age of 100 years, his life is a testament to the fact that we can all accomplish amazing feats regardless of age or station. On behalf of myself and the residents of Minnesota's Fifth Congressional District, I want to offer Mr. Henry E. Bauer the thanks of a grateful country and community and the best wishes for a very happy 100th birthday.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the drafters of the resolution. I think it is carefully drafted, and I think it is clear that the universal values of freedom that are expressed in the resolution are done with a great amount of prudence, and I think that's right. I think it is also important to understand that when the Congress of the United States speaks a lot of people listen, and so it's important to not allow the Congress to be used as a tool in what was essentially an internal fight in Iran. And so I would urge caution and urge the United States Congress to stand up and speak about the universal values that we care about: Democracy, freedom, due process of law, lack of violence in terms of solving political disputes, and not allow ourselves to be used as a weapon against the people who we are, in fact, trying to help, which is the people of Iran.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, for the entire legislative day of June 18, 2009, I have an excused absence to attend my son's school graduation. If I were present, I would have voted ``no'' on Rollcall votes No. 356, 359, 360, 361, 362, 364, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379, 380, 381, 382, 383, 385, 386, 387, 389, 391, 393, 395, 397, 399, 401, 403, 405, and 407. I would have voted ``aye'' on Rollcall votes No. 357, 358, 363, 365, 371, 384, 388, 390, 392, 394, 396, 398, 400, 402, 404, 406, and 408.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, on June 10, 2009, I inadvertently failed to vote on rollcall No. 328, had I voted, I would have voted ``aye.'' Madam Speaker, on June 11, 2009, I inadvertently failed to vote on rollcall No. 329, had I voted, I would have voted ``aye.''