Keith Ellison

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. I thank the gentleman for yielding back. I'll yield to the gentlelady from California.

Mr. ELLISON. I thank the gentlelady. Let me point out as we walk into this new round of debate in health care, there is a pretty well-accomplished Republican adviser and consultant who has come out to be heard on this issue. And the gentleman, Frank Luntz: ``Warns GOP Health Reform is Popular.'' This has been published. This is a headline. Mr. Luntz is telling his constituency that health reform is popular, and he's warning the GOP what they should do if they ever want to come out of the cold. Dr. Frank Luntz, a top Republican consultant on the language of politics is warning the GOP that the American people want health care reform and that lawmakers need to avoid directly opposing President Barack Obama. ``You simply must be vocally and passionately on the side of reform,'' Luntz advises in a confidential 26-page report--I guess it's not so confidential now--obtained from Capitol Hill Republicans. ``The status quo is no longer acceptable if the dynamic becomes President Obama is on the side of reform and Republicans are against it. Then the battle is lost and every word in this document is useless.'' I think it's important to bring this out because we, of course, care about our Republican colleagues. We're all in the same body. And I think the advice to them is to avoid the fear stuff, because as Frank Luntz, a man who knows this stuff, has said, health reform is popular. I wonder--I mean, do either one of the esteemed Members have any views? Is this health reform that is talked about all over the Nation, is it popular? Do people really want it, and does a politician who stands against reform run the risk of paying the price at the polls? I offer the question to either Member.

Mr. ELLISON. Well, you've opened up an issue that I would like to explore for a moment, and that's an issue of cost and expense, how much is it costing. I think the gentleman from Washington already talked about the exorbitant expenditure. And this chart I have to the right-- projected spending on health care as a percentage of gross domestic product--what this chart shows is that we are nearly approaching 50 percent of gross domestic product when you add up all of health care. This big shaded area, the light blue-gray area here is all other health care. This little thin slice is Medicaid, and this low slice down here is Medicare, which we all know is one of the most efficiently run health care systems that we have--by the way, a single-payer system. And we've seen, as the percentage of GDP that if we add it all up, it's getting up to 50 percent. And my question is--and by 2082, it will be 50 percent. Here we are back here. It's been crouching up. And now we're in the realm of approaching 15, 14 percent. But if it keeps on growing, we will be paying 50 percent of our gross domestic product in health care by 2082, which, quite frankly, is not that long from now. These numbers are going in the wrong direction. I also want to bring up another chart very briefly. And this chart talks about net insurance program administrative costs as a percent of total spending. The fact is, if you look at Medicare, administrative costs are pretty low, about 5 percent or less. Medicaid, a little higher, 8 percent. Top five private companies, 17 percent. Small group, 29 percent. Individuals, 41 percent. Average private insurance, 14 percent. My question is, can we continue to see administrative costs be so high? When we talk about having an insurance program, what are the implications for the average citizen trying to get health care? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. ELLISON. But are we number one in any particular aspect?

Mr. ELLISON. I thank you. If I could yield to the gentlelady from California

Mr. ELLISON. If I could ask the gentlelady a question. You just noted that you were a business owner for 11 years. How does a public option, single-payer impact small business people? Is this going to put them out of business as we've heard, the scare tactics and so forth? Or would this, perhaps, help them out?

Mr. ELLISON. I thank the gentlelady for making that clear about small business because it is important that for people to know that we have this burgeoning coalition of people who want to see single-payer, at least want to see a public option. Clearly, we know that the forces of labor would like to see this public option and many of them call for single-payer. We know that the Chamber of Commerce has said we need health care reform. They may not be calling for single-payer, but some are. We know doctors are. But also as you pointed out, it's critical to know small business people would benefit from single-payer or at least a public option, which is critical. And I just want to say, as we begin to wrap up the night, that the need for health care reform in a public plan is essential. Reform will alleviate the burden on families by lowering costs, ensuring timely access to affordable health care, making sure that everybody has access to preventative care to help keep people healthy so those people that you were referring to don't have to worry about their employees being sick and not coming to work. They got a plan so they're coming back to work every day. And allowing workers to change jobs without worrying about losing health care. In this age of increasing unemployment, should a person lose their job and lose their health care? It's a scary prospect, and I suppose I pose that question to the gentlelady as well. As you talk to your constituents and you walk around the City of Oakland and you're in the grocery store, and you're in the park and in the community meetings, what are you hearing about people's fears as it relates to how they might lose their job--I mean, lose their health care if they should happen to become unemployed?

Mr. ELLISON. Let me thank the gentlelady for yielding. That will close us out for the night.

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, let me just signal that again tonight we come before this body as the Congressional Progressive Caucus with the Progressive Message. The Progressive Message, this idea of coming before the American people, projecting a progressive message, so that the people of the United States can say, you know what, there are people in Congress today who are willing to stand up and say that ideas about generosity, of justice, of peace, of inclusion, of universal health care, of providing access for everyone, these are principles, there are people who are in that Congress who will stand up for these ideas, and that is the Congressional Progressive Caucus. And we come and we talk about the Progressive Message where we talk about the importance of this message of saying we will remember great advances of our country of the past, like the civil rights movement, the women rights movement, the idea of coming together for Social Security, standing up for peace, getting us out of Vietnam, standing up against the rush to war in Iraq and Afghanistan. And today, that charge has not failed. That charge has not gone unnoticed, and we're here today to keep the call going. And tonight for the Progressive Message, I'm really pleased to have join me a leader who never fails to stand up for the people, never shrinks from the call of the people, a progressive, dynamic leader who hails from the great city of Houston, the great State of Texas, none other than Sheila Jackson-Lee. I thank Congresswoman Jackson-Lee for joining me tonight for the Progressive Message. Do you want to get us started a little bit as tonight we talk about health care?

Mr. ELLISON. Let me thank the gentlelady. We hope that she can stick with us because we'll be here for a little while, but I want to turn right now to another champion of the progressive values around health care, around diplomacy, around so many critical issues. Congresswoman Diane Watson's been a stalwart champion, and so I want to invite the gentlelady right now to just give some opening comments and reflections on this critical health care debate that's going on right now in our Nation's Capital and across America.

Mr. ELLISON. Well, I thank the gentlelady for yielding back. We're going to be right back with the gentlelady in a moment. But at this time I'd like to get into the conversation one of the very fine physician who happens to be a Member of this esteemed body, and we're so happy that he is a member of the Progressive Caucus too, and that is Jim McDermott, a physician, Member of Congress, a long-term practitioner of medicine, who is going to give us a thought on his reflections on where we are in health care, and as a member of the Progressive Caucus. And I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. ELLISON. To the gentlelady from California, the statistics you've laid out are excellent, and I'm sure we all need to hear more of that. But I just want to ask you for a moment, if I may, in all the statistics that you have read--and they're startling--as you walk around your district in California and you talk to people, just regular folks like at the grocery store, do they tell you stories about their lives, which really are reflective in some of the statistics that you have been sharing with us? I yield.

Mr. ELLISON. So as you walk your district and you talk to folks, just regular folks, whether they be from the rich district you're talking about or the not-so-rich district, you're saying that people are concerned about this issue of health care?

Mr. ELLISON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ELLISON. I'd just like to pose a question to the gentleman. There is a Web site called feedback progressive Congress. This is a Web site. It's called feedback.progressivecongress; 250 people went to that Web site and asked the question, how will you stop denial of pre-existing conditions? And I yield back to the gentleman. For those 250 folks who got on the Web site and want to know, what do you think?

Mr. ELLISON. If the gentleman would yield again.

Mr. ELLISON. Forgive me for these questions, but at this same Web site, which is feedback.progressive congress.com, the question was posed, Will you, meaning the Congress, vote against a reform plan without a public option? And then it goes on to say, a couple of months ago, Progressive Caucus made a promise to vote against any health care reform bill that does not include a strong public option. Health reform without a public option is no health reform at all. Will you continue to stand by your pledge to the American people to insist on a public option for health care by voting against any bill that does not include it? And this question was asked by 1,434 people. And the first person to ask the question was Mike.

Mr. ELLISON. Well, if the gentleman would yield, I want to get Congresswoman Lee involved in the conversation. We'll be right back with the gentleman in a moment because I know the gentleman has plenty more to go, the good doctor from Washington State. But we do have with us Congresswoman Barbara Lee, who is wearing a fabulous blue suit tonight, but more importantly than that, has been a fighter for people for so many years on so many issues; currently, the chairperson of the Congressional Black Caucus. Congresswoman, give us your thoughts on the progressive vision for health care in America, the debate going on right now and all across America. I'll yield to the gentlelady.

Mr. ELLISON. Will the gentlelady yield for a question?

Mr. ELLISON. The Progressive Congress.org asked for questions for the Progressive Caucus and for other progressive legislators on the issue of health care. Fifty-nine people want to know: What about the chronically ill? There is a lot of talk about subsidizing ``those who can't afford it.'' What about subsidizing the chronically ill, who have to pay outrageous fees for minimal access? What will you do for them? Is it the sick who need health care subsidies, those who truly cannot afford it at any income level? You mentioned HIV/AIDS. You mentioned other chronic illnesses. I wonder if the gentlelady has any views on that topic.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk this morning about a matter of great importance to the American people. As this new Congress and President Obama begin to repair and reshape our economy, I think it is critically important for Americans to know and remember how we got into this mess we find ourselves in today. President Obama and this Congress inherited a fiscal mess from the Bush administration, including a record deficit and soaring unemployment. Since taking control of the House in 2007, Democrats have committed to restoring fiscal responsibility, taking steps to cut waste, fraud and abuse. The President's budget slashes the deficit by nearly two-thirds in 4 years. The budget also calls for health care reform, job creation, clean energy and energy efficiency, and college affordability. We will continue to work to repair the damage of the last 8 years of irresponsibility.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Moving down the list, women's suffrage, 1920. It is important for Americans to know that women could not always vote in America. It was progressive women, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and others who stood up and fought. It was Sojourner Truth and a man by the name of Frederick Douglass fighting for women's right to vote. And it was women in the West who made the claim, we are already voting. You may not have a constitutional right to do it, but we do it in our State, and they helped lead the way. But what about the abolition of child labor, the 8-hour workday? Pretty progressive. We all hope we can do that. Minimum wage, Social Security, civil rights for minorities and women, voting rights for minorities and the poor. Cleaning up our air, water, toxic dump sights, consumer product safety and Medicare. Today, I ask the gentlelady from Maine, are we done? Has the Progressive agenda been completed? Do we have more work to do?

Mr. ELLISON. Yes, we have a great progressive history, but we have a tall order to do. We have to get health care to all Americans. We have to make sure that we have a green renewable future so we can live in harmony with the planet. The planet is going to keep on turning. Whether we can continue to survive on it is another question. I am happy that in the 110th and 111th Congress, we were able to pass legislation like the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which is an important step forward for people to bring pay equity lawsuits when they were victims of gender discrimination on the job. We were able to pass the children's health insurance program, not health care for all, but health care for children, a very important bill. We were able to pass the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which is a law that says, Look, you can have your value system as to how you feel about different sets of Americans, but you better not harm them. They are within the protection of the law. They have a right. People like Matthew Shepard will not be harmed. The rest of us will not tolerate it, and that is how we express our values for all human beings. And as you pointed out the, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the so-called stimulus act which gave a tax cut to middle-class Americans. Progressives aren't against tax cuts; we are just against tax cuts for only the rich people. We believe that working people ought to get a break sometimes, too. So these kinds of things are things that we are fighting on. This may be the history, but we have a tall agenda for the future that we want all Americans to partake of. I want to say briefly that to be a Progressive is to be one who believes, yes we have our individual rights, but we also have things that we proudly share together, like our safety and clean water and like our environmental legal regime. But on the other side, what a Progressive is not, what a Progressive is not is somebody who basically operates on the basis of fear-based politics. We boldly say we can do this new thing together. We are not afraid to embrace the future. But there is a set of politics that says be afraid, be very afraid. The Russians or somebody is going to get you, and you have to be afraid. You can't share with anybody. You just have to look out for yourself. That is a set of political ideas that is prevalent around here, too; and those ideas are not the ones that made America great. The ones that made America great are the ones listed on this board and the ones that we are talking about now. I yield to Ms. Pingree for your final comments.

Mr. ELLISON. As I just wrap up, this is the Progressive message. We have had Members, including Congresswoman Woolsey, Congressman Polis, and Congresswoman Pingree, talk about why I am a Progressive, giving their personal testimony and giving their own ideas and values about this critical subject. We also want folks to be able to check in on the Website right here: http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov. Very important for people who are watching to check in and check out the Progressive Caucus agenda. It is very important. The Progressive Caucus is a moral force within the Congress bringing America to its better half. I agree with Congresswoman Pingree, who pointed out that all of these things on this list are things where people said, Look, let's embrace our common life, our shared life. But these are all things, and I think that Congresswoman Pingree would agree with me, that before they were passed, people said it can't be done. They said this is something that we shouldn't do. But you know what? All of these things were done, and we are all as Americans much better off for it. Let me also wrap up by saying that it was the words of President Barack Obama, who said in his first address to Congress, ``I reject the view that says our problems will simply take care of themselves, that government has no role in laying the foundation of our common prosperity.'' That rejected view, I submit, is a conservative view because government does have an important role to play in our common prosperity, and our problems will not simply take care of themselves. President Obama went on to say, ``For history tells a different story. History reminds us that at every moment of economic upheaval and transformation, this Nation has responded with bold action and big ideas.'' I quite agree with the President on this point. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, let me first say at the outset that I support President Obama and his Administration in their overall foreign policy objectives and implementation. However, I cannot vote for this War Supplemental request because I believe that it does not represent the departure from the past that we all hope for and which is urgently needed to move our country forward in a new course. While I understand that there's a momentum building toward winding down our involvement in these conflicts and the move away from the war- making culture, I believe that there must be a sharp departure from past policy in order for us to achieve that goal. This War Supplemental budget will significantly expand our military presence in Afghanistan, while at the same time it does not go far enough in eliminating our longstanding presence in Iraq, either. I am very concerned by the fact that almost 90 percent of the funds are going for military operations and equipment replacement. While it contains some beneficial items like economic development and agriculture programs in Afghanistan, efforts to strengthen rule of law in Iraq, humanitarian assistance for Gaza--which I strongly support-- wildfire suppression, and efforts to fight against the spread of a new flu pandemic, all these items combined amount to less than 13 percent of the total budget. I also believe that funding for the war and military occupation and funding for diplomatic, humanitarian and other benevolent efforts must be separated. It is disingenuous and deceptive to combine these two and force the lawmakers to make the choice they shouldn't have to make; that is, supporting funding for the wars in order to get humanitarian assistance for Gaza. President Obama has made strong, inspirational statements that signal positive change of policy toward the Muslim world, but this budget will send a contradicting message to those statements. Approving this budget will send the message to the Muslim world and the international community at large that we are not serious in getting to the root-cause of the problem, which is our extensive engagement in war-making. At the end of the day, the best way to achieve our objectives is to send consistent messages that demonstrate our unwavering determination to scale down our military footprints. Supporting this bill will surely perpetuate military operations that are likely to fail or become a pyrrhic victory. President Obama will give a major speech in Egypt on how he would reduce those military footprints and increase civilian-led involvement. But the figures in this War Supplemental budget, over $75 billion for military operations versus merely $7 billion for state and foreign operations, will perpetuate the picture of how much we still prioritize war-making over diplomacy and development. With these reasons, and despite my continued support for the President and the Administration, I cannot support this War Supplemental budget request.