Lynn Woolsey

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. That was a negative pun.

Ms. WOOLSEY. That's right.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Would the gentleman yield?

Ms. WOOLSEY. Do you think it would be important for our viewers to know why the co-ops are of no value?

Ms. WOOLSEY. I think we should explain that. Co-ops could be of value over time, but what we need is a public option that's available the day the exchange goes into effect so that that is one of the options. If we depend on co-ops, right now there are less than 10 in the country. I really know of only one that's totally successful and that took more than 10 years to get up and running. It's not impossible, and it could happen; but that should not be what we consider a public option. It can be an option at another time.

Ms. WOOLSEY. A robust public option.

Ms. WOOLSEY. If the gentleman would yield.

Ms. WOOLSEY. That's the only way we can level the playing field so that employers who do provide health insurance for their employees aren't at a disadvantage in competing with like industries.

Ms. WOOLSEY. If the gentleman would yield, you're not going to be wealthy staying in this job----

Ms. WOOLSEY. Or you're going to stay the same.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Absolutely.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Well, I have a lot of thoughts on that. You see, I represent, probably, not the wealthiest district but the wealthiest county in the Congress, and I have not gotten one letter from one constituent who says, ``Woolsey, how dare you think about raising my taxes.'' I mean this is of the people who would have to pay taxes.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Those are not the kinds of people I represent. They are educated and progressive, and they get it. When other people are taken care of, they're better off in the long run. Their employees are. Their kids in school are safer because the other kids are covered and have good health care. They just totally get it, and I think, if there weren't so many fear factors around, most people would understand the concept.

Ms. WOOLSEY. That's absolutely true. There are many things we ask of our constituents, but mostly there are many things that the government provides for them, like public education, police, fire, roads. We pay for all of that because we use all of that--some more than others. Some benefit more than others from these services, but it's pretty proportionate about how much you pay and your taxes depending on how much you earn, on how much you have and on how much you've actually benefited from this country of ours. So I believe you're right. It's a shared thing. One of the suggestions is, of the people who have health care benefits, their benefits should be taxed. There are a lot of us who feel that taxing a person's benefits is not the way to go because they've already, probably, in this economy of ours, given up raises in order to keep their benefits in the first place. To tax those benefits on top of that would just be a hit to the middle class of this country.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Right.

Ms. WOOLSEY. If the gentleman would yield again----

Ms. WOOLSEY. With just that 2 percent difference, that cuts into middle-income workers.

Ms. WOOLSEY. I don't know what the numbers are, but I think, if they earn $41,000 a year and have four children, then they wouldn't be eligible for the subsidies. I don't have that in front of me. I'm sorry. I might be off a little bit, but it really cuts into middle- income workers. Part of what this bill is about is making it secure for all workers who already have coverage, not making it harder for them to have their coverage. Part of that is security. They might love the coverage they have, but they know, in their heart of hearts, that they could lose that.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Their employers could decide they can't afford to cover them anymore, and boom, that's the end of it. They might lose their jobs. They might want to change jobs and not have insurance going with them. The truth of it is is that, not the Baucus bill particularly, but the House health care reform bill makes it more secure for people who are already covered. They lose nothing. They don't have to leave their coverage unless their employers decide they don't want to cover them anymore. With the House bill, they have a place to land. They have a place to go, and they can get health care coverage without prejudice.

Ms. WOOLSEY. In the House bill, it's 2-1.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Tell what it is in the Baucus bill.

Ms. WOOLSEY. 5-1. Can you imagine?

Ms. WOOLSEY. That's right.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Well, I'd like to say that the Progressive Caucus believes that it is our responsibility in the House to get our bill united and that it is our responsibility to bring our bill forward and to get it voted on so that we have that as an example of a robust health care reform package, so that Senator Harkin's Health Committee can follow suit, and so that we can give him a lot of the strength that comes from this House. We'll be negotiating with them later, but we'll be negotiating two very good bills. We want to go first.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3221, the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009, because it invests in the future of our Nation, making college a reality for more students by investing in Pell Grants and programs that will ensure improved graduation rates and the renewed investment of our Nation's future. Creating the American Graduation Initiative was one of the most important parts because it will help community colleges find innovative ways to improve the developmental education and job skills training that so many students and workers need. In the end, we are investing in our future. Twenty-five percent of our population are the young people of this Nation. One hundred percent of our future is made up of those individuals. With H.R. 3221, we are ensuring that we will have a better future because they will have a better future. I request that every Member of this Congress vote for our kids and our future.