Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I would like to extend my congratulations to fellow Minnesotan Martha Spriggs for receiving the Milken Family Foundation National Educator Award.

Ms. Spriggs has been selected by a blue ribbon committee of education and policy leaders appointed by state departments of education. The award acknowledges her exceptional talent as a classroom teacher, leader in education, and friend to students, colleagues, and administrators. The children of Andersen United Community School in Minneapolis benefit from her work, as well as the dedication of many other skilled professionals.

Madam Speaker, the foundations of our democracy ultimately rest not only on the rights and liberties which we share, but also the willingness and dedication of its citizens to enter the education profession and educate our youth. History has been a powerful reminder of the need for a vibrant and well-educated society to complement the institutions of government in a healthy democracy. Martha Spriggs has certainly done her part and I commend her for her service.

To my extreme embarrassment, we're out of time. Support health care. To the Congressman from California, thank you very much, Mr. Garamendi.

Well, what's behind me, if the gentleman will yield, is a simple sign which just talks about the 45,000 Americans who die every year because they are uninsured. You know, 45,000 people sounds like a big number, and the fact is that there are families, there are citizens, there are individual Americans behind every one of those numbers. There is a health care nightmare for every individual represented by each point of that 45,000.

And you know what? America is a good country. We are a compassionate country, and we are a country that will respond to the needs of Americans.

And so, Congressman Garamendi, I want to say that you may be a new Congressman, but you are a seasoned veteran at this fight because you've been working in the area of State government, and State government and local government is where the action is. You have just come straight from the land, right off the battlefield of the campaign, listening to people day after day about the suffering that people are going through, people being dropped by rescission.

You know, I actually had my own little health care nightmare recently, which I don't mind telling you about. I'm the proud father of a 22-year-old young man who is still in college. And

we recently got a letter from Blue Cross/Blue Shield telling us that on his 22nd birthday he was going to get a little present. Mr. Speaker, you might guess what that little present is. He's dropped from our insurance. This health care bill says he can stay until he is 26 years old, until he actually has a job. He's a senior in college. He doesn't have--he works at the library, putting books up, helping us get him through college. He's not ready to get out there yet.

So this 45,000 Americans losing their lives every year because of a lack of health care, that is something that we can do something about, we will do something about in a very short order.

And I want to yield back to the gentleman from California because I admire the work that you're doing. You're coming into this Congress with a bang. You're not waiting around for anybody to tell you, John, get up and do something. You're getting up and you're taking charge, and that's the leadership we like.

I yield back.

Well, what's behind me is just another little data point which we're trying to get Americans to see here, and Americans know this. Even if they don't know the number, they know it in their gut: Health insurers break profit records as 2.7 million Americans loose coverage. We should--that's worth saying again, I think, Mr. Speaker: Health insurers break record profits as 2.7 million Americans lose coverage.

As Congresswoman Schakowsky, from the great State of Illinois, illustrated just a moment ago, Americans are struggling. People have these high

deductibles. They're not even meeting them, and they're still getting rate increases.

Here's a stat for you that I don't have a board for: 60 percent of all the bankruptcy filings are because of medical debt, Americans going to bankruptcy because they can't afford to pay these ridiculous health care bills. These are people who already have insurance.

Let me yield to the gentlelady from Illinois. Tell the rest of that story: 75 percent have health insurance. Some people think, Mr. Speaker, we're talking about the uninsured, and we are, but that's not the only people we're talking about. Tell the story about the insured.

I yield back to somebody.

If the gentlelady will yield, she just used the phrase ``do nothing.'' It just sparked in me sort of a reflection, that is, between the years 2000 and 2006, our caucus on the party opposite really did do nothing to fix health care.

No, the party opposite. The Republican caucus.

The Republicans didn't do anything. But then someone corrected me and said, Keith, they did do something. They gave us the doughnut hole. I said, well, that's not anything to brag about really. As a matter of fact, in our health care bill we actually make some down payments on the doughnut hole.

You know, they had the House from 1994 to 2006. They had the House, the White House, and the Senate from 2000 to 2006. They absolutely didn't do anything. And if you sit here and listen to this House floor, you would actually get the impression that they were about offering some constructive solutions. But they are not the party of constructive solutions. They are the Party of No, the Party of No, the party of the health care insurance industry; the wholly owned subsidiary, as Anthony Weiner is fond of saying, of the health insurance industry. It is time that it come to an end.

I just want to again thank all the colleagues on the floor because you are right, when the President signs that bill, that discriminatory behavior, no.

Young people being able to stay on their insurance policy until 26, yes. We will see free preventive care right from the beginning. We are going to see a lot of good things happening right away, and know more good things are going to come in as this bill is rolled out.

Madam Speaker, between the year 2000 and 2006, the Republicans had the House, the Senate, and the White House, and they did nothing of good to help the American people. And now you listen to them and it sounds like they actually are for health care for the American people. But if they were for the American people, they would have done something in those 6 years about people being affected by rescission, by preexisting condition, by carrying young people on the health care policy of their parents until they're 26, about doing something about this doughnut hole. They'd have done something about it. But they didn't do anything other than make the problem worse.

And if you listen to them today, you would think they cared, but the evidence is before the American people, they did nothing at all. And now we are going to do something about it within a little more than 1 year of coming into office.

Who's on your side, America? You'll find out this week.

Doing all right. If the gentlelady will yield, let me just point out that the gentlelady coming down here Monday after Monday, speaking to the Nation about the agenda of the Congressional Black Caucus, is so meritorious. I salute you. Thank you.

But I just want to say that, look, jobs are an essential component of a good quality of life; and lack of a job not only means you don't have any money, it means that your life is not ordered well. It means that you are living a life where you want respect, you want to be productive, you want to make something, create something and put some value into the world, but yet, because you don't have that employment opportunity, you're denied that.

When we talk about a direct creation of jobs, yes, we're talking about stimulating demand; we're talking about putting money and food on the table, but we're talking about giving people a sense of value, of worth, a sense of purpose. And you know what? That's one of the best things you can do for anyone.

This is absolutely true, that in the black community, unemployment levels are elevated three times the national rate. And as the gentlelady from Ohio pointed out, President Obama's right when he says that making sure that the black, brown, and people of color throughout America are working is good for the whole country, because if people of color have money, they spend it. Where do they spend it? In the economy. And if somebody spends money, then that means that somebody's making money. And if somebody's making money, that company can use that money to then hire somebody else. So this circular interconnected nature of the economy tells us that opportunity for one means opportunity for all.

I just want to yield back to the gentlelady because I just want to thank you again. I'm going to stick with you, but I want you to know that I want to commend you for your service and your fidelity and your persistence and your commitment.

Well, if the gentlelady would yield back, I would say that, you know, the days of high wage, the high-wage sector can come back if we have a national commitment to manufacturing, and we don't take the position that manufacturing is something that happens overseas or something that your father or grandfather did.

Manufacturing is what young people today can do. We can make the windmills. We can make the solar generators. We can do retrofitting on buildings and manufacture the tools to make them more efficient. We've got to just be a little bit more creative. We can make cars in Ohio and in Michigan and Minnesota and all over this country in a way that is fuel efficient so consumers want them. We can do these things.

As a matter of fact, the American automakers are late to the game, but they've started to make fuel efficient cars. We need to make sure they continue to do that.

I yield back to the gentlelady.

Well, the gentlelady is right. I mean the fact is the high-wage sector has been the manufacturing sector historically. And there's really no reason that America cannot make great things. Like I said, the solar panels, the windmills, the things that--the fuel efficient vehicles. There's all kinds of things in the tech area. We need training, and we need the government to invest in an industrial policy, a manufacturing policy that says, hey, you know what? We're going to make sure America makes things. Let's get the label ``Made in America'' stamped on some stuff again, just like it used to be. It can be.

And let me just tell you. We need to address manufacturing policy. We need to address trade policy. But this time around, when we rededicate ourselves to manufacturing, let's not say that it's only for some; let's say it's for all. Let's not say it's green for some; it's green for all. Let's not say that the manufacturing renewal is for one group, one segment of the community;

let's say it's for all segments of the community. And let's invest in making things again in Ohio, in Minnesota, in Michigan, in Florida, and Texas, and all over this country.

And let's also say that we can work in our educational system where we can make manufacturing and creativity a value system all over again. So see, this thing is connected to how we educate our youngsters. We've got to say, you know, STEM--science, technology, you know, math, and we've got to get into the schools, and we've got to make sure that that curriculum is available for all the kids.

Absolutely.

If the gentlelady would yield back, I'd also say, you know, America's crumbling. You know, in Minnesota, August 1, 2007, we had a bridge collapse. I-35 collapsed. It went over the Mississippi River, and it fell into that river. We lost 13 Minnesotans. They lost their lives. And 65 people--no, 100 people--had back injuries as they fell 65 feet.

You know what? I bet you in Ohio and Minnesota and Michigan we've got more potholes than we can shake a stick at. We need--our buildings are crumbling, our infrastructure is crumbling. We need to put broadband all over this country. We need to rebuild in America. It's not like there's not enough work to do. It's not like, oh well, everything's done and nothing needs to be maintained or made. We need to rebuild America. There's enough work to be done; we've just got to get about doing it.

And so I just want to point out, you know. Don't be thinking that there's not work in America, you know. We've got work to be done here.

And you know what? I just want to draw another point out, Mr. Speaker, and the gentlelady from Ohio. You know, the fact is I was walking along the Cedar Lake in Minneapolis, and if you're not from the Twin Cities you may not know about Cedar Lake. It's the land of 10,000 lakes. We've got lakes everywhere. You can hardly walk anywhere without stepping in one of them.

And I was walking along a trail at Cedar Lake, and I sat down at a picnic table, and it was a sturdy table. And I sat there, and I ate some chicken or something. But when I got up I saw a little plate on that table and it said, WPA 1934. That table was made by another generation when Americans were out of work, Americans of all colors.

This time we've got Americans out of work again. And at that time, that generation responded to the needs of employment and to the needs of the country to be built up, and we can't do any less in this day and in this time and in this age. We need a WPA-style, CCC camp. We need direct government job creation to help work ourselves up out of this recession.

And let me tell you, when the economy finally turns around, we're going to have some picnic tables that people in 2050 are going to be sitting on. We're going to have some trails that people in 2050 are walking on. We're going to, you know, have some bike paths that people are on. We're going to have some stronger bridges. We're going to have some broadband cable laid so people can talk all over this country and be on the computer.

So I yield back to the gentlelady. This is a vision we need to pursue

Well, I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I'm glad you mentioned steel. Now you know there is no reason in the world we can't make more steel in America. In Minnesota we make steel. We've got taconite mines in Minnesota. It's in an area called the Iron Range, and we make steel. And you know what? We make some of the highest quality steel in the world. And if you really want to make something that's going to have to last and the steel that's going to have a lot of integrity, this is the place you want to get the steel from.

Yet, we're making bridges and roads all over this country importing the steel from other places. Let's make the steel here. Let's adjust our trade policy to make sure we've got a fair, even, level playing field

Yes, ma'am. Yield back.

Will the gentlelady yield for a question?

Do you think that the Congressional Black Caucus has a vision for America to put America back to work? And do you think that constituents of all colors, all faiths, all cultures, can be trained to do the work that needs to be done to rebuild America?

Yes, ma'am

Will the gentlelady yield for another question?

So the plan that the Congressional Black Caucus is offering, it's not just a plan for African Americans; it's a plan for the whole country, is that right?

I yield to the gentlelady.

Will the gentlelady yield back?

So that kind of vision, that is the kind of thing that we need more of around here. The Black Caucus does believe, you know, that we--that opportunity doesn't know a color, doesn't know a culture, doesn't know a faith, that we all have to do better when we all do better, and that we, America, must make sure that we're tapping the talents of everyone, whether that person is an African American person, living in the inner city, or a rural area, or a suburb, or any person, that we can't leave our talent behind.

We don't know where the answer to curing cancer is. It might be locked up in the mind of a little Black girl in Cleveland somewhere, and she just needs some development of her talents. Does the Black Caucus believe that's true?

Yes, ma'am.

If the gentlelady would yield. I just want to offer the idea that, you know, so tonight we are talking, it's the Congressional Black Caucus hour, we're talking about jobs for Americans. We've talked about infrastructure. We've talked about manufacturing. We've talked about the need to address trade policy. We've talked about a progressive vision that the Congressional Black Caucus is offering for America to address joblessness, but also long-term joblessness.

But also, I think we should make a mention that we're relying on our small business and entrepreneurs to help get into this fight and get people employed again as well. And that's why I was very pleased to hear certain members of the Congressional Black Caucus raise an issue with the President regarding streamlining and loosening up the SBA to make sure, because if we can get the small businesses into this, they're going to hire quicker than some of these big businesses are.

A lot of big businesses, when they hire somebody they are going to just give the people they already have overtime. And they are going to give the people they already have, make them work more hours often. And that is why we often see employment as a lagging indicator even when the GDP is improving.

But if we can get the small businesses to get some loans, that might be something that can really spark up the economy. So I was very pleased to hear Chairman Bennie Thompson make this point, because I think small business development has got to be a key strategy we pursue in getting America back to work.

I would yield to the gentlelady.

If the gentlelady would yield, I only have about 10.2 percent of my constituents who are African American. I would say clearly 80 percent of my constituents are white. We have a diverse community. We have new Americans, we have Latinos, we have different people from Russia coming into our community. We welcome them. The Black Caucus is made up of African American members. This is rooted in the 1960s. But the truth is there are a lot of people who are white in the U.S. Congress who represent a great deal more black people than I do.

So we always have a focus on what is good for the whole country, what is good for America, persistently unemployed. But it is also true that our country does have a particular history as it relates to opportunity. And when we work for opportunity for all people, it enhances America, makes America better, and also helps people who have been on the more challenged end of the lack of opportunity. So this is something that we stand up for.

I yield to the gentlelady.

The gentlelady is right. We have dynamic districts. You know, we have got a lot of smart people in the districts we represent, good ideas coming from all places all the time.

In fact, even this morning I was lucky enough to talk to some people

representing the business community, listening to some of their good ideas. They were telling me some of their views about how we might be able to generate some employment. And, actually, these are folks who work in small businesses, but also some Fortune 500 companies. All of them, I am proud to say, want to help deal with this job gap we have.

One of them pointed out and said, look, you know, we used to say that 5 percent unemployment was a natural rate of unemployment. But, in fact, some economists say it is going to be 7 percent unemployment is going to be the natural rate of unemployment. It would be a shame if we tolerate that. We need to be the people who fight that and say, look, we are trying to get every American who wants to work a job.

Let me yield back to the gentlelady. And I see we are joined by one of my favorites.

Madam Speaker, it is with great sadness I rise today to mourn the passing of my friend and Minnesota news pioneer, Darcy Pohland.

Ms. Pohland was born in Mendota Heights, Minnesota and graduated from Sibley High School. She started her career as an intern at WCCO-TV's Washington, D.C. bureau while attending George Washington University.

In 1963 Pohland accidentally dove into the shallow end of her apartment's swimming pool and broke her neck, causing permanent paralysis from the chest down. After months of rehabilitation at the University of Minnesota, Pohland was hired by WCCO-TV in 1986 as a part-time dispatcher and quickly worked her way to the assignment desk in 1989. In August of 1994, she became one of the nation's first quadriplegic reporters when she was assigned as a full-time local news reporter. Soon she was covering top stories, making her one of WCCO's top reporters.

She will be remembered for being positive, opinionated, and smart. Her love of Minnesota sports was second to none. Most of all, Darcy will be remembered for being the friend you could always count on.

Madam Speaker, the world is a smaller place because of the passing of Darcy Pohland.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize a valuable resource available to Minnesota veterans; the Student Veterans of America Chapter at the Minneapolis Community and Technical College (MCTC).

The Minneapolis group operates as a chapter of the national non- profit organization. The Student Veterans of America have three primary missions: 1) Develop student veterans groups on college campuses and coordinate by region between existing groups; 2) connect student groups with resources; and 3) advocate on behalf of student veterans at the state and national level. Since their establishment, the Minneapolis chapter has consistently achieved these goals. Veterans who served in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the globe are welcomed by the staff at the Minneapolis chapter. Veterans are able to discuss issues, receive assistance, and share common bonds with fellow veterans who are experiencing the stress of integrating into an academic environment. Whether they ultimately transfer to another college or begin their professional careers, veterans who attend the Minneapolis Community and Technical College have a high graduation rate.

As a Nation, we owe a debt of gratitude to our veterans, who have served, and continue to serve, our country and I am proud to announce that veterans are receiving the respect and assistance they need from the Minnesota Chapter of the Student Veterans of America. MCTC is hosting an event to honor student veterans on March 10 as one of the many ways we express our appreciation for student veterans. I encourage my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives to find ways to honor student veterans in their communities.

The post-9/11 G.I. Bill passed by Congress has allowed more veterans an opportunity to achieve their academic goals. Organizations such as the Student Veterans of America, and the additional benefits available through the G.I. Bill, help to ensure that our veterans achieve their goals. I want all student veterans to know that I am grateful for their service and proud of their achievements. I wish them nothing but success and prosperity in their future endeavors.

Madam Speaker, on March 3, 2010, I inadvertently failed to vote on rollcall No. 78. Had I voted, I would have voted ``aye.''

I will claim the time on behalf of the Progressive Caucus, but I have a few boards to put up, so I'm going to grab those right now.

Mr. Speaker, I am Keith Ellison, and I am here to deliver the progressive message. I am looking forward to having some other Progressive Caucus members join me, but in any event, we'll be here tonight for a few minutes to talk to America about the progressive vision of America.

America is a great country because people stood forward and had a higher vision of what could be. Yet we came here as a Nation and the United States said, you know what? We can have a country where all men and women are created equal. We have to make that happen. And so Americans set out on path to what? End slavery then exalt the rights of workers, then eliminate gender discrimination and have the women's right to vote, and then move on forward to spread economic prosperity to all people to make sure that working class men and women during the Great Depression were able to have the kind of economic wherewithal that could see them through a difficult time.

America is a progressive idea. We saw the end of segregation because Americans of all races and colors stood up and said, you know what, this Jim Crow offends the basic principles of our Nation, so we're going to end this thing. It wasn't easy; it wasn't pretty. It was real messy and people gave up everything in order to pursue that ideal, but they did. And so America is really, at the bottom, a progressive idea.

Today, challenges are before Americans again today, none more important than the fight for health care, none more important than the fight for universal health care. As a member of the Progressive Caucus, I come here as a person who really would love to see universal single- payer health care; it's the right way to go. But single payer did not make it into the debate, really, this year, but important ideas like the public option did, and we're fighting for those ideas tooth and nail to the very last.

The progressive message tonight, talking about health care, as I have so many weeks before, is an idea that is coming to the floor. And it is no time to stop talking about health care reform now because Americans, we've been through a lot of changes. You all remember when the President started off his service, the President started off and said we're going to move forward on health care and begin some health care summits. We had a number of conversations as we went through and went forward, and of course, as so often happens, Members from the other side of the aisle, the Republican Caucus, had a lot of complaints, but they didn't have many constructive ideas. We moved forward anyway.

We went through the spring where we had literally tens and tens and tens--dozens of community hearings and hearings here on Capitol Hill about health care reform. We had witnesses come in and talk about how to bend the cost curve down, how to reduce cost, how to expand coverage. We literally had well over 100 hearings on health care reform. And as I said, we went into the communities. I had a number of community meetings myself where we talked health care reform. We had this debate right on up until the beginning of August, and people were telling us the public option is dead; but the public option, as we know, is not dead. We kept fighting for it and kept bringing it up. We kept rallying Americans, Mr. Speaker, and we just wouldn't break and we just wouldn't bend and we kept the conversation alive. We kept the conversation alive even though we had a very tough economy to deal with, even though we had to deal with the failing auto industry, even though we had a financial catastrophe.

We understood that getting health care reform right was key to prosperity for the poor, for working class people, and for middle class people; so we never really gave it up. In fact, even earlier today somebody said, Keith, what are you going to talk about tonight on the Special Order? I said, You know what I'm going to talk about? I'm going to talk about health care. They said, Wow, we're sick of talking about that. You know what? We don't have the luxury to be sick of talking about health care reform because right now, at this very moment, there are people who are facing being rescinded, being cut off health care insurance, people whose medical expenses have gone so high they have to consider bankruptcy in order to make it and survive economically.

There are people who have their children getting ready to turn 22, just like I recently had a situation where our health care carrier told me, On your son's birthday, which should be a happy occasion, he is going to be terminated from your health care policy. This is my own son. I'm a Member of Congress, and I'm trying to sit and figure out how we're going to get my boy, who is going from 21 to 22, covered because he is going to be looking for health care coverage in only a few days.

Americans are going through this all the time. Some Americans are thinking, Wow, I just hope I can get to 65 so I can get Medicare because then I won't have all of these problems. I'll be able to afford health care like I haven't been able to afford it in so many years. Americans are in dire straits. So it doesn't make any sense for anyone in this Congress to say they're sick of talking about health care, because Americans aren't through fighting these health care nightmares that we have to deal with every single day, day in and day out.

So we are here with the congressional Progressive Caucus. This is our email. If you want to contact us and let us know what your ideas are, the Progressive Caucus is open to ideas. We believe that progress is made through new ideas, and we want to hear about them.

We are going to be talking about health care tonight, and I'm hoping to be joined by some of our colleagues. I just want to start the conversation out talking about health care and about the economy and how these two ideas are linked together. It's shocking, shocking, shocking news. How do you like this one, folks?

Health insurers break profit records as 2.7 million Americans lose coverage.

Wait a minute. I must be reading this wrong, Mr. Speaker.

Health care insurers break profit records as 2.7 million Americans lose coverage.

Do you mean they're breaking records and getting more money than they ever got before as they're throwing people off coverage?

Well, that doesn't seem right. You would think that, during this time, Mr. Speaker, of reviewing health care policy that somebody somewhere would have at least the good sense to say, Well, maybe we shouldn't throw all of these people off at the very time we're making all this money. Maybe it would look bad.

Well, these avaricious folks don't have any shame when it comes to trying to grab more money. Just like some of these people in the financial services industry are giving themselves record bonuses as America's banks

have enough reserves but aren't lending it out so that small businesses can help grow our economy. As we're in the middle of a financial crisis, they're giving each other bonuses. Then they feel put upon and personally attacked because they can't go get a gazillion more dollars of American taxpayer money. It's really something.

Health care insurers break profit records as 2.7 million Americans lose coverage.

Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to show, to whomever is looking, the report where I get this information, this report of ``Health Care Insurers Break Profit Records As 2.7 Million Americans Lose Coverage''--the February 2010 Health Care for America Now! This is something very important. It's a great report that I would recommend people get. You can get it on the HealthCareforAmericaNow.org website. People need to check it out, Mr. Speaker, because it is the kind of information that can really help to get you engaged, to get you involved and to get you moving toward real health care reform. Let me just read a little bit from this report so the Americans who might be watching might just get a taste of this important report.

The five largest U.S. health insurance companies, Mr. Speaker, sailed through the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression to set new industry profit records in 2009, a feat accomplished by leaving behind 2.7 million Americans who had been in private health plans. For consumers who kept their benefits, the insurers raised rates and cost- sharing, and cut the share of premiums spent on medical care. Executives and shareholders of the five biggest for-profit health insurers--United Health Group, Inc., WellPoint, Inc., Aetna, Inc., Humana, Inc., and Cigna Corp.--enjoyed a combined profit of $12.2 billion--that's $12 billion with a ``b''--in 2009, up 56 percent from the previous year. It was the best year for big insurance.

Wow. Wow. That's amazing to me. These folks are coming down here, saying that they've got to have the private insurance go their way so they can survive while they are reaping mega-profits. Mr. Speaker, it's wrong. We've got to do something about it. It's downright unpatriotic. I will continue.

The outside earnings are a vivid reminder that, without comprehensive national health care reform, the gatekeepers of our health care system will put the short-term interests of Wall Street before the needs of millions of patients and a national economy plagued by joblessness.

I'm not going to read the whole report, Mr. Speaker, but it's worth it to go on a little further.

The 2009 financial reports from the Nation's five largest insurance companies reveal that, one, the firms made $12.2 billion--an increase of $4.4 billion, or 56 percent, from 2008. Four out of five of the companies saw earnings increase, with Cigna's profits jumping 346 percent.

Cigna's profits jumped 346 percent. That's pretty good. Now, this is as Americans are losing their health care benefits, as unemployment is spiking. As people are in real pain, they're getting more money.

The companies provided private insurance coverage to 2.7 million fewer people than the year before. Four out of five of the companies insured fewer people through private coverage. United Health alone insured 1.7 million fewer people through employer-based and individual coverage.

That's why I'm an advocate of universal, single-payer health care. As long as the private insurance market is a player in this thing, they're going to offer the worst at the highest price.

All but one of the five companies increased the number of people they covered through public insurance programs--Medicaid, SCHIP, Medicare. United Health added 680,000 people to public plans. That's me and you. That's the public.

The proportion of premium dollars spent on health care expenses went down for three of the five firms, with the higher proportion going to administrative expenses and to--guess what?--profits.

I know you're shocked.

One last paragraph, Mr. Speaker, so that people can really get a flavor of this thing. I'm hoping that people will really get a handle on this and will look into it so that they can see what's really going on. You can't figure out what's going on by some of these talk show hosts. Depending on what stations you like to watch, they're not going to tell you the truth. They're going to be busy telling you all about death panels and school-based sex clinics, and they're going to say government is taking over health care. Well, I'd rather have government take over my health care than have United Health take over my health care. I would. I think a lot of Americans would probably agree. Some may not, but I think most Americans expect the government to make sure that the private corporations in the health care business play fair with the American people. Let's go back to the report.

The shedding of 2.7 million members from private health care plans is part of the industry's long-term shifting of responsibility of the care of millions of the sick, older, and lower-income customers to taxpayer- supported government health programs, such as Medicaid and State Children's Health Insurance plans. State and Federal programs have increasingly been hiring big insurers to manage their care.

Well, I think we need to not do that. We need to get a plan that really provides some real competition for these people, like a public option or, better yet, have single-payer health care and just get the private market out of the health care business and allow private doctors to take care of patients as opposed to private insurance companies, which, Mr. Speaker, I will say don't really add value to the health care equation.

What do these people do? They move paper around. They don't see patients. They don't diagnose. They don't treat. What do they do? What do they add? Do they go get one aspirin? Do they put gauze on or dress wounds? They don't do anything like that. I think that they are, more or less, parasites on the system. They're taking massive amounts of money out and are leaving 2.7 million people behind in the year they've made the most money of all. So here is a little bit more from the inside of the report.

Faced with such onerous costs, many customers are winding up uninsured. Health insurance premiums have risen so high that experts have forecasted that 52 million Americans will be without coverage this year.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I know and you know that the number we always toss around is 47 million, that 47 million Americans don't have health care. Well, if that's what you say, you're wrong. We're approaching 52 million. There are 52 million Americans who are without health care, and this is at a time when we're in the very middle of a debate around reforming health care.

Left alone to purchase a health care plan directly from private insurers, many will have no choice but to remain uninsured or to buy cheap policies with inadequate benefits that leave them underinsured and at financial risk should they have a serious accident or illness.

Now, one little fact that Americans should know is that 60 percent-- think about 6 and 10--of all bankruptcy filings are directly related to medical debt. Think about that. Our broken health care system is driving Americans to bankruptcy and to poverty. As that happens, our industry doesn't seem to care much at all because they're getting theirs, which seems to be their only obsession.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I may return to this topic in a little while, but I want you to know and I want the American people to know that this is a problem that must be addressed. This is not a time for cynicism, Mr. Speaker; this is a time for action. This is not a time to say what can happen; this is a time to make something happen. This is not a time to quit; this is a time to act. If Americans act now, Mr. Speaker, we can get that public insurance option. We can get that public option.

You know, last week, when I was talking, we had only about 24 Senators signed onto a letter saying they were going to support the public option. The last I checked, we were up to 35. The question is: Is your Senator on the letter? We need every Senator on there. We've got to get 50 on there because, if we get 50 Senators on there, on a letter, to say they support the public option through reconciliation rules, then we will have that. Despite people saying that the public option is dead, it

will be jumping back to life just like the phoenix, and I will be so proud of Americans who just never accepted ``no'' for an answer, because it is these insurance companies that are doing this that are the main opponents of the public option.

Let me just say this: People who are for the public option, like me, and people who are against the public option, like them, have the same reason for the positions that we take. They oppose the public option, and I support it for the same reason. It's going to cut into corporate profits and give more people health care. That's why we don't agree. They want to take more from the American people. I want to give more to the American people, so we don't agree. This public option can succeed if we just don't stop. It passed through the House, and 70 percent of Americans support it. We've got a climbing number of Senators getting on every day.

I want to thank Senator Sherrod Brown. You know, I think ``President Sherrod Brown'' sounds pretty good. I'd like to see him think about that. We've got Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, another great American. We've got other Senators joining every day who are just saying, you know, We're going to break free of this stranglehold that has been around the U.S. Senate, and we're going to really do something good for the American people. So I just want to say hats off to them and say I appreciate the hard work that they're doing.

Mr. Speaker, I have another chart that I want to show to the people here, and this one is quite sobering, quite sobering. It is another big number, Mr. Speaker. It is the kind of number that really, really, really we almost don't want to mention it, but if you don't mention it, you dishonor the memory of the people that are hurt.

Mr. Speaker, this chart here, I want to bring it real close to me so it is in the camera shot, says 45,000--45,000--Americans die every year because they are uninsured.

Now, think about this number, and think about this number: 2.7 million Americans lose coverage. Because of no coverage, 45,000 Americans die every year. So people are literally dying because they don't have health care coverage. And not one, not two, not somebody here or there, but 45,000 people.

This is a national disgrace, Mr. Speaker. It must be changed. We have got to do something about it. It has to be something that is a national priority. We have got to extend coverage to people, and we have to do it in a way that is cost-effective and so that we can extend as much coverage as we possibly can to as many people as we possibly can.

This is the reality of the situation. We have to fight for this, and we have to understand that this fight for health care reform is a life- and-death fight, Mr. Speaker. It is not just something that one side would prefer and the other side kind of would not prefer. That is just not what we are talking about. We are talking about a life-and-death situation, where unless we are able to move forward on real health care reform, Americans die.

Now, this number, 45,000, it looks like a big number. Here in Washington we throw big numbers around all the time, 2.7 billion, 45,000, all these numbers, and they jumble the mind. One of these 45,000 is a mother of someone. One of these 45,000 is a child of someone. One of these 45,000 is a young man in his prime of life whose family is dependent upon his income. One of these 45,000 is a small business owner. One of these 45,000 is someone who somebody loves.

This is a national emergency, Mr. Speaker, and I don't need to tell you, if we were talking about losing this many people a year in conflict or war, there is no doubt we would have a national debate and outrage over what we were going to do about it. It is not less important because it happens silently in hospital rooms and bedrooms and houses. It is just as important, and we have to do something about it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to talk more about health care, but I just want to just lay out a few other impacts, since we laid that one out. Let me put it back up, because it is relevant to what I am about to say.

Not only do 45,000 Americans die every year because they are uninsured, but this year alone an estimated 1.5 million Americans will declare bankruptcy because of a lack of health care or because of health care expenses. Studies in recent years suggest that more than 60 percent of people who go bankrupt are actually capsized by medical bills.

Bankruptcies due to medical bills increased nearly 50 percent in a 6- year period, from 44 percent in 2001 to 62 percent in 2007. Sixty percent. We wish it was only 60 percent. It is probably 65 percent by now, Mr. Speaker, because this is a 2007 number.

Most of those who filed bankruptcy were middle-class, well-educated homeowners, according to a report published in August 2009 by the American Journal of Medicine. Unless you are Warren Buffett or Bill Gates, you are one illness away from financial ruin in this country. That is what the author of this report said, Dr. Stephanie Woolhandler. If an illness is long enough and expensive enough, private insurance offers very little protection against medical bankruptcy. That is the major finding of the study.

Overall, three-quarters of the people with medically related bankruptcy had health insurance. Let me tell you that again. As we know, this is the most generous, giving country. There are a lot of people who have the best of intentions. But as all Americans know, not everybody is like that.

There are some people who think, Well, I don't really care about those people. I only care about myself and my family, and if those people don't have insurance, well, that is just their problem. There is probably something they did to deserve that. Shocking as it is, there are a lot of people who think like that. The fact is, this statistic of all these people going into bankruptcy because of medical debt is talking about folks who are middle class and who have jobs.

This is a shocking statistic. Three-quarters of the people with medically related bankruptcy had health insurance. They had health insurance, and they still went down. Why? Because of lifetime caps, because they got dropped, because of copays and escalating premiums, all these things going on. Those were actually the predominant problems in patients studied. Seventy-eight percent of them had health insurance, but many of them were bankrupted anyway because there were gaps in their coverage, like copayments, deductibles, and uncovered services.

Other people had private insurance but got so sick they had lost their job and lost their insurance. We will return to that in a moment.

Health care cost, as a percentage of gross domestic product, has significantly increased. From March 2008, the number has grown since then. I have a chart here which I will explain to you, which I don't actually have a blowup of, which illustrates that we pay more than any other country for health care, and the other countries cover the entire population.

So, for example, in the United States, in 1970, health care was 7 percent of gross domestic product. Today it is 15.3. In Canada, 1970, it was 7 percent of gross domestic product. Now it is 9.9, more than 5 percentage points lower than ours. In Germany, health care was 6.2 percent in 1970 and grew to 10.6, about 5 percent lower than us. In the U.K., in 1970, health care was about 4.5 in 1970, and now it is 8.1.

We have expanded this because it makes somebody a whole lot of dough. We have got to think about this, and we have got to do something about it.

From 2000 to 2008, workers' health insurance premiums shot up more than five times faster than their wages. The average cost of family coverage in the workplace went from $6,672 in the year 2000 to $12,000 in 2007. That is a 78 percent increase. So it has eaten up family income. At the same time, average wages rose only about 15 percent, which means that the cost of health care significantly outstripped American pay.

I just wanted to speak a little bit, Mr. Speaker, about the important financial choices that Americans are having to make, bankruptcy or not bankruptcy, get the coverage or not. What are you going to do? Now that you are out of work, what are you going to do? Difficult choices.

But I wanted to spend a few minutes, Mr. Speaker, talking about the important issue of the public option, because

I think that a lot of people are thinking, well, you know, now that the public option seems to be back in play, more Senators are supporting it, and it already passed through the House, the American people like it, the President said he was in favor of it, and people are thinking, well, maybe it will happen now.

Well, you know what? This is no time to quit the fight for the public option. In fact, it is time to accelerate your energy around the public option. It wouldn't be a bad thing if people had rallies and community forums and petitions for the public option.

The public option is a great choice. I am an advocate of universal single payer health care, but the public option is a good choice if we can't get that far.

Currently, in 34 States, 75 percent of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies, Mr. Speaker. Many areas of the country are dominated by just one or two private organizations. What that means is Americans don't have much choice. We are dealing with highly concentrated markets, and the public option would give people in these highly concentrated markets more choice.

Competition. Again, in 34 States, 75 percent of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies. In Alabama, almost 90 percent is controlled by only one company. Now, is that a monopoly or what? In addition, a public option would provide competition for private insurance companies to keep them honest.

So the public option offers choice and competition. It also lowers cost. That is the funny thing about it. You would think you would have a lot of Republican support, because it reduces costs. But we know that existing public options, like Medicare and Medicaid, consistently have lower administrative costs than their private insurance counterparts because they don't have competition. Why should they worry about lowering costs?

According to the Commonwealth Fund, the net administrative costs for Medicaid and Medicare were 5 percent and then 8 percent; 5 percent for Medicare, 8 percent for Medicaid. If you look at the top five health insurance companies, their administrative costs were over 17 percent. Triple. It is crazy.

With the insurance market controlled by fewer and fewer companies and more and more States, there is little incentive to lower costs. Also, as one former insurance executive testified before Congress, insurance companies are not only encouraged to find reasons to drop seriously ill people, they are rewarded for it. Bureaucratic overhead costs coupled with multimillion dollar CEO salaries and bonuses make high costs for American families and a lack of competition, and it provides no incentive to change their practices.

The public option, Mr. Speaker, would provide higher quality for Americans' health care. Competition always improves--well, it doesn't always, but it often improves quality, and therefore the public option will help consumers get a better coverage for the same amount of money as their private insurance.

There are some things, Mr. Speaker, people have been saying about the public option that are not true. One of those things is the idea of the public option being a government takeover or even a government-run program. Well, you know what? The fact is that the public option would be administered by the Department of Health and Human Services, but it would be with private doctors and providers out there, so it would still be people dealing with their own private doctor.

The idea that the mandated health insurance is a new tax is also false, is not true. What a public option really means is that the government would help to cover the high cost of insurance for Americans, while bringing those costs down through competition, access, and choice. Without health care insurance reform, however, we can expect the problems that exist today only to get worse.

So, Mr. Speaker, I want to now just talk about the fact that we have been hearing a lot about this idea of reconciliation. There might be some Americans out there saying reconciliation, what is that about? Is that about how my neighbor and me who have been feuding are finally going to try to get along? Not really in this situation, although it would be a good thing.

The fact is, Mr. Speaker, in this case, reconciliation is just some special budgetary rules that are passed through Congress that allow Congress to pass laws by getting around the filibuster rules that are in the Senate. That is what it is. There are reconciliation rules in the House and the Senate, but in the Senate they have these rules that you have to have 60 people to end debate so you can then vote on something. Reconciliation allows us to get around those rules, and so it is a good thing.

A simple up or down vote by more than half the House and Senate should be enough to send the President the final improvements to the health care reform measure that we have been talking about for a year. A simple majority vote would not be used to reform the health care system, just to clear limited improvements to the comprehensive health reform bill which has already passed the Senate and in a similar form in the House, but not exactly the same.

Reconciliation is part of the normal legislative process, Mr. Speaker. It has been used 22 times over the last 30 years, 16 times by a Republican-led Senate, and nearly two-thirds of the time Republican Presidents have signed the reconciliation bills. Not all the time. Democrats have used it, too.

Certain times the reconciliation was used, for example, to enact a health reform bill called COBRA. Everybody knows what COBRA is. COBRA is what allows you to maintain your health insurance after you lose your job. This is a law that lets employees just keep their employer's health insurance after they have left their job. This bill was passed through reconciliation in 1985 and passed into law under Ronald Reagan. In fact, the R in COBRA actually stands for ``reconciliation.'' Isn't that something?

SCHIP, the bipartisan State Children's Health Insurance Program, passed through reconciliation in 1997. Medicare changes done through reconciliation include a hospice benefit, HMO preventative care, like cancer screenings, added protection also for patients in nursing homes, and the way Medicare pays doctors and health care professionals.

Also, the law requiring emergency rooms to screen Medicare and Medicaid patients, regardless of their ability to pay, was part of the 1985 reconciliation measure. So don't think that reconciliation is something new. There are people on the radio and television saying, Oh, my God, the Democrats are using reconciliation. Well, of course we are. It's a normal legislative tool used many times before and there's nothing unusual about it. Of course, reconciliation has been used for things that were not good for the American people as well. But this is not one of those occasions. This is an occasion where it's being used for something good.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to wrap up now. So if any of my Republican colleagues are thinking they want to get ready to get started, it would be a good idea to start thinking about that.

I just want to talk a little bit, as I begin to wrap up, about our economic situation. Because so much of the pain people are suffering through lack of health care and lack of health care reform is related to the fact that they're not working now. You lose your job; you lose your health care. I mentioned COBRA. Yeah, you can pay out of your own pocket COBRA if you lose your job, but you've still got to have some money to pay that.

So I just want to say that last Thursday, Mr. Speaker, the House unanimously passed the emergency legislation to extend a range of programs that expire this weekend. And some of these things were including unemployment benefits, help with health insurance for unemployed, a highway bill, satellite TV, delay in cut in Medicare physician payments, flood insurance, and things like that. Mr. Speaker, it just concerns me that we have had one Republican Senator who, up until a few days ago, was single-handedly blocking the passage of an emergency measure despite serious consequences for families.

Last week, Mr. Speaker, I actually went to my own district and asked people to raise their voices about the action that Senator Bunning was taking

because it was inflicting a lot of pain around the country. According to the Department of Labor, the expiration of unemployment benefits caused 100,000 people to lose their benefits immediately, and about 400,000 people will lose unemployment benefits, including 4,300 people in Kentucky, and the next few weeks, if Senator Bunning does not drop his opposition.

An estimated half a million jobless Americans will lose access to COBRA subsidies to them to help them buy health care insurance. Letting the highway and transit programs lapse would temporarily shut down a total of $925 million worth of projects this week in highway reimbursements and transit grants to States and urban areas, endangering more than 32,000 jobs, national anti-drunk driver efforts, and multimillion dollar construction jobs. With the Bunning obstruction, 41 highway projects have been forced to shut down.

Now, history knows that he came to an accommodation--and that's good. But the fact that the Senator held it up, to me is an example of how important it is to really, really understand who is not working for the American people and who is. Democrats are here trying to extend unemployment, extend COBRA, help Americans make it through tough times; and other people are obstructing and holding things up. I think it's important for the American people to know that because the American people deserve to know who's fighting for their economic livelihood and who's not.

The fact is, Senator Bunning actually said, It could be argued unemployment insurance is a disincentive for work because people are being paid even though they're not working. It could be argued that unemployment insurance is a disincentive for work because people are being paid even though they're not working. That's pretty sad. The fact is that is Senator Jim Bunning, Republican, Kentucky. I just want people to keep it in mind, what they're dealing with and what they're up against and who they're up against.

So the Senate ended up passing the bill; voted 78-19 Tuesday night to pass legislation extending unemployment benefits, highway funding, and other programs for 1 month, bringing an end to the one-man crusade to filibuster the bill. The fact is, the filibuster resulted in thousands of Federal workers being furloughed and an interruption in unemployment benefits. It happened. People were hurt. People were without money because of this. And that was incredibly unfortunate. But I think Americans in this great democracy of ours can express yourselves through the ballot box, and you should let people know that. And I think people should know what happened and how it happened and who did it.

So I also just want to mention, Mr. Speaker, that over 200,000 jobless workers were scheduled to lose unemployment benefits last week; and it didn't happen because we narrowly avoided it, but it certainly could have happened. And there was a break; there was a lapse. Federal employees were furloughed. I just want to keep that in mind and have people remember that.

So, Mr. Speaker, as I begin to wind down, I just want to say that there is a group of Members of Congress who have a progressive vision for America. The progressive vision for America is an America where the government actually takes responsibility for making sure the economy works for everybody; the progressive vision for America is where we have civil rights and human rights for women, people of color, working people, people who live in rural areas; where the country literally works for everyone and not just a few; where we really believe that all men are created equal and created with certain inalienable rights; where we really want to see our country reach its highest potential by offering educational opportunity, by saying that the military budget has expanded way out of control, that we need to put more energy into diplomacy and development around the world; a progressive vision in which we say that America should use its awesome blessings and strength to help confer those blessings for other people and people within.

With that, I yield back.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 6 o'clock and 21 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, March 5, 2010, at 9 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, I am here representing the Congressional Progressive Caucus tonight, the Congressional Progressive Caucus, a body of Members of Congress dedicated to the very simple idea that we all do better when we all do better. The Progressive Caucus, a caucus made up of Members of Congress--men, women, whites, blacks, Latinos, Asians, people of various different backgrounds throughout the whole country--all unified under the simple idea that everybody counts and everybody matters; that there is no one who doesn't deserve civil rights; that everybody deserves civil rights; that men and women should enjoy the same rights; that women should have a right to choose; that there is nobody who is outside the pale of our beloved community; and that we stand together on economic justice, environmental justice, stand together on the idea of health care for all, stand together on the idea of real consumer protection, stand together against the idea that Wall Street bankers and the well-to-do should have everything going their way. In fact, we think that the working men and women of America should have something going our way. In fact, we're the ones who do all the work around here and we're the ones who should see America operating on behalf of and for the American people.

This is what the Progressive Caucus is all about. The Progressive Caucus is all about saying that consumer justice is important, health care reform is critical, war is usually the enemy of the poor, and that we need to find a way to seek diplomacy and dialogue and find a better way out of the conflicts that our country finds ourselves in. That is what the Progressive Caucus is about.

I am going to be talking about some of our core beliefs, but how can I talk tonight, Mr. Speaker, without talking about the Health Care Summit? Obviously, the Health Care Summit was a big deal today. A lot of people were watching it on television. I want to commend President Barack Obama for having a transparent and open process.

My friends on the other side of the aisle, the party apposite, the Republicans, say that we should just start all over. Well, as you could see by watching the broadcast today, there was ample debate, long hours of discussion. We've had many, many hearings here in Congress on health care. We've had a conversation with the American people going on a year, and they say scrap it? No, thank you. They wish we would, but we won't.

The fact is that we have had a national dialogue, focusing on what it is like to live without health care and facing the world with your children and your family without any health care coverage, facing bankruptcy as health care expenses skyrocket and you are unable to meet that reality, facing a situation where you have to put your medical expenses on a credit card, you know, which may have gone up to 28 or 30 percent. These are the kinds of things that concern us.

I want to commend the President for convening this dialogue today, for having this discussion. I do wish, however, that there had been a member of the Progressive Caucus in an official capacity there. It is true there were people from the Progressive Caucus there, but our leadership is Raul Grijalva and Lynn Woolsey, and I believe they should have been there. There were other people there who were members of the Progressive Caucus but none who were authorized to speak for the Progressive Caucus. I'm not happy about that, but you know what? Things are seldom perfect in life. I would have wished that we would have had it that way, but we didn't.

A few things were clear about the health care summit today, which is that the ideology still rules the day for our friends in the party opposite that Americans continue to face health care nightmares on a daily basis and that the urgency of change is as powerful as ever. We have got to move forward. There is no way that we as a Congress can engage the public imagination around health care for a whole year and then come up with nothing. We need to have a health care bill.

This is the Progressive Caucus, and I am talking about health care and the economy today.

I also want to say, as we talk about health care and the economy from the perspective of the Progressive Caucus, that this is a Progressive message coming to you for an hour. We come here every week, and we speak for an hour about the critical issues facing the American people from a Progressive standpoint, and that is why I want to talk about health care right now.

Let me start off the conversation about health care by saying that, today, not only was the health care summit on and not only was the same old debate laid out--Democrats, Progressives wanting health care reform for the American people--but the folks in the party opposite are not so big on reform and want to just keep the status quo.

The House also demonstrated and signaled its urgent desire to see health care reform when we took up the Health Insurance Industry Fair Competition Act just this week. This bill stripped away a protection that was granted to insurance companies, and it requires them to now compete. They got their exemption from antitrust laws taken away. It's not enacted into law, but it was passed in the House, on the House floor, just this week. The idea is that health care companies don't need to be exempted from antitrust laws. They need to have to face those laws because we need competition. When businesses compete, consumers benefit. Simple as that. When businesses compete, consumers benefit, but for far too long, the health care insurance industry has played by a different set of rules.

Since 1945, the McCarran-Ferguson Act--you may have heard of it--has exempted businesses of insurance from Federal antitrust laws. Now, that is not right, so we did something about it this week at last, on the House side, hoping that the body down the hall will do something similar. This bill that we passed off the House floor amends the McCarran-Ferguson Act by repealing the blanket antitrust exemption afforded to health insurance companies. This is something the American people want. Most people I talked to didn't understand why they had an antitrust exemption in the first place.

Under the bill, health insurers will no longer be shielded from being held accountable for price-fixing, for dividing up territories among themselves, for sabotaging their competitors in order to gain monopoly power, and for other anticompetitive practices. If they do it and if we can get it passed into law, then they are going to be held accountable; they are going to be taken to court. That's what we need.

Removing the antitrust exemption not only enables appropriate enforcement; it also will give all health insurance companies healthy, competitive incentives that will promote better affordability, that will improve quality, and that will increase innovation and greater consumer choice--as antitrust laws have done for the rest of the economy for over a century.

Removing this antitrust exemption is key, and it is supported by law enforcement groups and by the National Association of Attorneys General. The National Association of Attorneys General has consistently opposed legislation that weakens antitrust standards for specific industries because there is no evidence that such exemptions promote competition or serve the public interest. They do not promote the public interest. They undermine the public interest.

So I just wanted to tell everybody that this piece of legislation passed off the House floor, signaling greater change as we are driving every day a little closer to real health care reform. The Health Insurance Industry Fair

Competition Act passed off the House floor this week. It's just a piece of health care reform, but it's an important piece.

Let me now turn to the larger issue of health care reform by addressing something called the ``public option.'' You've heard me talking about the public option, and I believe in the public option. You know, we're going to have this system in America of private insurance, which is not going to be undermined. I believe in universal, single-payer health care, but the present format is to, essentially, reform the existing system of private health care insurance. No problem. By the way, I'm always for private doctors, always for private health care providers. I just think we should pay for it through a single payer, which would be much more affordable for everyone. The public option is simply a government-run program, and I don't shy away from calling it that, because Medicare is government run and the VA is government run, and there is nothing wrong with that. It's an agency that could be set up by the government which would offer an insurance product for people to get health care coverage, and that could offer real competition to the private insurance market.

Now, the thing about the public option that you should know is that over 120 Members of the House of Representatives have said, in a letter, that we want that, and we would like to see it make it into law. Not only that, over 24 Senators have said that they want to vote on the public option as well. This is a very, very important development because the fact is, when you have 24 Senators and 120 House Members, that's a lot. Senator Reid says he favors the public option. Clearly, the public option has already passed through the House once. So this is a great idea. It's supported by the American people. Seventy percent of the American public like it.

The public option should be in the final bill that eventually is signed by President Obama. The public option was talked about at the health care summit today, and we are very glad about that. Members of the Progressive Caucus went to the White House and handed out a document urging Members at the summit to raise the issue about the public option. Let me just state the facts about the public option.

One is that poll after poll has shown that the vast majority of Americans believes a public option should be included in health care insurance reform. Fifty-seven percent were for a strong public option in a Washington ABC poll this winter. If the American people want it, if it has already passed through the House, if 24 Senators say they want it, and if the majority leader says he wants it, why can't we get a vote on it? I am saying this is a Progressive idea that is good for America, and I want to urge Americans to say that a public option is a good thing.

Congress and the President have answered the call of the American people by dealing with health care, but we've really got to get a good health care bill. If we are going to use reconciliation because we can't get any Republican cooperation, why don't we get the best bill we can get? Why do we get a bill that is less than we could get? Incrementalism has its place, but if we don't have to bother about getting 60 Senators in order to get around the filibuster rules, why don't we just go with a good bill which would really help the American people--one that would lower costs, that would increase affordability, and that would have an option for people? It's a good idea.

The Democratic health care reform plan, which passed through the House and included a public option, is a bill that makes a lot of sense. It covers preexisting conditions. It stops the practice of recision--denying you health care when you need it most. It stops the bankrupting of our businesses and of our families when they get sick.

As for the public option in particular, part of the plan that passed through the House offers and introduces competition; it lowers costs for consumers--taxpayers--and it brings a higher quality of health care to millions of Americans. I think Americans want to see the public option in any final product, and I think it is something that people should let their government know that they want.

Currently, in 34 States, 75 percent of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies. Many of the areas of the company are dominated by just one or two private organizations. A public option would offer a choice to people living in these highly concentrated markets. This means that the addition of a public option would provide a quality and affordable choice. The public option offers competition. Again, in 34 States, 75 percent of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies. In Alabama, almost 90 percent of the market is controlled by just one company. That's not fair.

In addition, the public option would provide competition for private insurance companies to keep them honest. It would be completely up to individuals to decide whether they want to access the public option. You don't have to use the public option. In fact, you could go to the private market if you felt there were a better deal there, but the public option would be there so that concentrated markets could not simply force you to buy their products.

If the Congress of the United States is going to mandate that Americans get health care insurance, we should at least say that there will be a public option so that we don't force you into the arms of a monopolistic, highly concentrated market which would take advantage of you because of its market advantages.

Americans should be free to seek health care without having to fear that they could not afford it or that they would incur tens of thousands of dollars in debt. A public option offers us an advantage on cost. We know that existing public options, like Medicare and Medicaid, consistently have lower administrative costs than their private insurance counterparts. Of course they do. According to the Commonwealth Fund, the net administrative costs for Medicare and Medicaid were 5 and 8 percent, respectively. If you look at the top five private health insurance companies, their administrative costs are 17 percent. While the insurance market is controlled by fewer and fewer insurance companies in more and more States, there is little incentive to lower costs. Why should they? They're not in competition. A public option would offer that competition all over the country, and it would help Americans afford health care.

Let me just say that we've been debating health care for a year now. When we started out, people like me wanted a single-payer health care system. I am so proud of the over 60 Members of Congress who signed onto John Conyers' bill for single-payer health care, but we compromised when we said, Okay. We're not going to get that. The single payer was not really given a fair chance in the House of Representatives, in my opinion. Be that as it is, we said, Okay. We will compromise and do the public option.

Now the public option has been pushed to the side. In as early as August of 2009, we were told the public option is off the table. Off the table was what we were told. Well, the public option is such a good idea, such a powerful concept, that it keeps putting itself back on the table. So, when it looked like the public option was off the table again this winter--this winter, we thought, Okay. The public option is off the table again. Then we see a movement. First, it was just four Senators--Senator Bennet, Senator Gillibrand, Senator Brown. These Senators came together. They wrote a letter to Harry Reid, and they said, We want to vote on the public option, and we're going to ask you to put it up there. Then it was five. Then it was six. It got all the way up to 24. Then there are a number of Senators who said they don't want to sign a letter, which is their choice, but they would vote for it if it comes before them.

Of course, we saw two dynamic freshman Members of the Congress-- Chellie Pingree and Jared Polis--two very dynamic, young Congress people who authored a letter that 120 of us joined, and now both the Houses have these movements moving forward. We didn't see the public option in the President's proposal, but both Houses of Congress are seeing these movements towards it. I believe that, if we put that bill on the President's table with a public option in it, he will sign it. He said he favored the idea. Here is his chance to prove it.

The fact is that bureaucratic overhead costs coupled with multimillion-

dollar CEO salaries and bonuses equate to high costs for America's working families, and a lack of competition provides no incentive to change their practices, but a public option will make them compete and will provide access to millions of Americans potentially.

Higher quality. Competition always improves quality. Therefore, the public option will help consumers get better coverage for the same amount of money as their private insurers.

Now, there are myths about the public option, and I think people ought to know that. The idea of a public option being a government takeover or even a government-run program is not really the truth. The idea that a mandated health insurance is a new tax on people is also not true. What a public option really is is that the government would help cover the high cost of insurance for Americans while bringing those costs down through competition. Without health insurance reform, however, we can expect the problems that exist today to only get worse.

Now, the public option is not a takeover of health care. That's ridiculous. It's not true. It would simply be one option among many offered by the public. Now, it would be administered by the government, but so what. So is Medicaid, Medicare, the VA, and TRICARE. These are all government health care programs that people really, really like. You know, as a matter of fact, when it comes to Medicare, back in 1965 when we passed it, only 22 Republicans voted for it, and now they act like they're the defenders of the program, which they're not. But the fact is nobody's messing with Medicare nowadays. Why? Because it's a popular program. Even though only 22 Republicans voted for it in 1965 when it first passed, it is now the way we live, and nobody is going to allow it to be taken away.

In 10 years the out-of-pocket costs that are paid by individuals and families across America would increase by more than 35 percent and as many as 65.7 million Americans will be uninsured. That's intolerable in this great country. This means higher costs to taxpayers to cover hospital expenses of the uninsured. Employers will also have to pay health insurance premiums at least 60 percent higher than premiums today.

There are supporters for the public option in all areas of life, not just the House, not just the Senate, but also doctors are in support of the public option, and organizations behind them strongly support the public option too. These include the American Nurses Association, the American Cancer Society, the American Medical Association, and the AARP. Even hospitals such as the National Association of Children's Hospitals have supported the principles of health care change and the public option.

And let me just say when the American Medical Association that represents doctors say they're for the public option, that lets you know that people on the other side of the aisle saying things like, Oh, the Democratic Congress wants to get between you and your doctor, isn't true. It's just not the case. So you need to be aware of the myths that are out there.

As was said before, three courageous members of the Progressive Caucus went over to the White House today and offered the Congressional Progressive Caucus's perspective, and I was proud that they did that. The CPC, the Congressional Progressive Caucus, did not receive an invitation to the health care summit, but we showed up and we handed our ideas to the people who were invited, and we were happy to see that both Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer introduced the idea of the public option, and we thank them for that.

So let me just now move into another area before we wrap it up tonight, and what I want to talk about is the economy. Now, it's important, as we discuss the economy, to bear in mind that we've come quite a long way, quite a long way. In fact, when the Republicans were in office, they literally, not literally but figuratively, drove the economy into the ditch. They just ran the economy into the ground. The economy shrank 5.4 percent in the fourth quarter of 2008. Barack Obama was not the President then. It was under George Bush when the economy shrank 5.4 percent in the fourth quarter of 2008. The fact is that the economy lost 741,000 jobs in January 2009 alone. Remember, Barack Obama was not the President until January 20. This a Bush failure and, of course, a Republican failure.

Under the Republicans we erased $2.7 trillion in retirement savings. I will show you a board on that I have. And it's important to remember that people trying to retire saw their retirement savings just shrink under the leadership of the Republicans. Very scary. Not very nice to the seniors. And more than doubling the debt in 8 years. Now, these folks shake their finger at us like we're big spenders. Look, they doubled the debt in 8 years. When President Clinton left office, we had a surplus. They took care of that because they cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans and never paid for them and then had a couple of wars they didn't pay for and put us in massive debt. The worst recession since the Great Depression should be called the ``Republican recession.''

Now, just to show you a little bit more, I was talking about this idea of public debt a moment ago, and, of course, we all should be concerned about debt. As a progressive, I'm worried about debt because interest service on the debt can't be waived, can't be put off. You've got to pay it when it's due. And that means that it cuts into things, programs and expenditures that could literally help people who I want to see helped. Like helping people who are in need of medical assistance, helping our schools, helping firefighters and police and teachers and public safety people. All these things get squeezed when you've got to pay all that high debt service.

But Republicans lack credibility on fiscal responsibility. They don't want to spend money to help poor folks and regular folks. That's true. But when it comes to helping out well-to-do people and really, really wealthy folks, who I am absolutely fine with--I've got a lot of friends who are doing well. But they don't need folks looking out for them because they've got the money. But the point is that Republicans lack credibility on fiscal responsibility. It's not that they don't spend. It's just they don't spend it on things that help your average citizen. They spend it on tax cuts for the very wealthy and wars.

So debt held by the public nearly doubled under the Bush administration. We can look here at the year 2000, $3.4 trillion. We see this red ink just going up and up and up all the way to $6.3 trillion in 2008 when the Democrats get the White House and the Congress.

So the fact is that this is their mountainous debt, and now they want to lecture about debt and fiscal responsibility, but it rings hollow because of their history.

Let me also show you this board. This is a good one. Democrats actually have a proven record of fiscal responsibility. Democrats are good with the economy. We do a good job when we're in charge. If you look over Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II, you will see these budget deficits and surpluses. This is when we see the budget surplus during the Clinton years is going up. It actually goes above zero, so we actually have more money. But here the amount of money that we have is less and less and we're seeing ourselves greater and greater in debt under the Reagan-Bush years. You see the debt is actually going up while our surplus is going down. And then you see the surplus going up on the blue line, and then you see the dropoff when it comes to our surplus. We have no surplus here and then we have a negative surplus-- also known as a deficit.

So if you look at this, Democrats have a proven record of fiscal responsibility. If you look at Reagan and Bush, Clinton and Bush, you're seeing the product of Republican leadership and their fiscal irresponsibility.

Now, this is an important board because right now it's all about jobs. We need health care because it's such a big chunk of a family budget. We need to get that down. We need to cover everybody. So health care is economic justice for people. But it's important to understand that we've seen the job losses because of the Republican recession. I just showed you that. Democrats turned around Republicans' job losses. Now look: We're losing jobs. All these red lines below this zero is unemployment. We're going down. Monthly change and nonfarm payrolls. You see that. And we're going all the way

down. We're just hitting it. And in January of 2009, you see Democrats are in control, and as we're just adding to job losses here, it's worse and worse and worse and worse, and then you see the slow but steady improvement.

Now, we're still not creating jobs, and this is a serious problem. But you can see that we're going in the right direction. You can see that with Democrats in there, we're doing better.

So the last month Bush was the President, we lost 741,000 jobs in a month. And the last month, and this doesn't reflect the most recent data, we lost 22,000. Now, we still lost, and that's bad. But the fact is we're losing fewer and fewer and fewer and you can see that in a few months, we'll be above the line and we'll be adding jobs, which is something very, very important to point out.

Do you know what the toughest job in the circus is? Cleaning up after the elephants. So the Democrats are trying to fix 8 years of Republican leadership in this country, and it's not an easy thing to do. But you can see in a short period of time, we're getting it all turned around.

Now, one of the things that helped turn things around is the Recovery Act. Now, you heard these folks say, oh, this is terrible, the Recovery Act is bad. You would think that the Recovery Act was something that wasn't any good. But look here. This is something you should take a look at:

``GOP: There's no hypocrisy in seeking stimulus money. Republicans say they are working on behalf of their constituents.''

Now here's the full quote:

``The DCCC claims that 91 House Republicans are talking out of both sides of their mouths.''

Now, these guys were voting against the stimulus. We didn't get one Republican vote for the stimulus. They didn't vote for it. They were all against it, even though it clearly put Americans back to work and stopped the bleeding of jobs. But that didn't stop them from going out in ribbon cuttings and being there and just trying to show off and say, hey, look, give me some stimulus money. I didn't vote for it, but I want to benefit from it. Isn't that terrible? Let me just read a little of this to you:

``Amid mounting criticism, House Republicans said this week that it is not hypocritical to vote against the stimulus and later seek money from it for their districts.

``After standing united in opposition to the President's economic stimulus bill a little more than a year ago, many Republicans have touted the benefits of that measure back in their districts, according to a comprehensive list compiled by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

``Citing the stimulus and other measures, the DCCC claims that 91 House Republicans are talking out of both sides of their mouths.

``In recent days former Senator Alan Simpson, Republican from Wyoming, and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger have echoed the DCCC claims.''

Like my dad, who's a Republican, they're honest Republicans, and Simpson and Schwarzenegger are telling the truth.

``But key House Republicans argue that a vote against the stimulus bill should not prevent them from writing a letter on behalf of their constituents seeking grants available from the $787 billion measure. Some of them do say, however, that Republicans should refrain from attending photo ops.''

And it goes on.

What is the point? The point is they created a recession with their policies of tax cuts for the rich, wars that they didn't pay for, tax cuts they didn't pay for, no regulation of Wall Street, and just letting things run amok, not regulating predatory lending though Democrats had been asking them to do it for years while we were in the minority. And then they create this situation where the economy tanks. Then when we put measures in place to bring the economy back to life, they vote against it, but then they run to take advantage of it. That is bad.

Now, the Recovery Act. The CBO, that is the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, estimates that in the third quarter of calendar 2009, an additional 600,000 to 1.6 million people were employed in the United States. That is pretty good. In the third quarter of the calendar year 2009, an additional 600,000 to 1.6 million people were employed. That is pretty good. That is trying to dig us out of the hole.

The Congressional Budget Office projects that the Recovery Act will increase real GDP by 1.5 to 4.5 percent during the first half of 2010, and 1.2 to 3.8 percent during the second half. That is actually good as well.

Now, Mark Zandi, who actually was a consultant for Senator John McCain when he was running for President, who is pretty conservative, said, ``I don't think it is an accident that the economy has gone out of recession and into recovery at the same time stimulus is providing its maximum economic impact.'' So even a conservative economist is telling them that the stimulus worked and is working. And I just wish they would agree that Democrats are better for the economy. I just wish the Republicans would agree with the unbiased evidence that Democrats are better for the economy.

Now, it is important, I mentioned retirement accounts earlier, Retirement Accounts Recovering Under the Obama Administration. Now, here we see under the Bush administration the value of retirement accounts is going down, the value of retirement savings accounts. You see them, they are just going down, down, down, down, down. They are just dropping. And then you see under the Obama administration, retirement accounts are up $1.8 trillion, as we see them climb from the first quarter of 2009 steadily back up. More evidence that Democrats are better with the economy, which is the thing that helps you put food on the table, a roof over your house, and retirement money in your account.

Moving right through these boards here, and I just want to show the folks, the economy is swinging back to growth. Now, GDP is gross domestic product. That is the sum total of all the goods and services produced by the economy in a given period of time. You see that in the first quarter of 2008, we had negative GDP growth. It popped back up for a minute, but then it kept going down, down, down. This is all under Bush. And then you see GDP growth going back up. And these are the projected increases.

The fact is that the economy, GDP growth is increasing. That means real goods and services produced. That means people working. That means production. That means people providing services. And it means food on the table. It means soup in the pot. That is what it means. Or chicken, or whatever you like.

So let me just say, as I begin to wrap it up, the fact is that the economy is not back to health yet. It needs more things. I believe very strongly, and the Progressive Caucus agrees, that we need direct job creation from the government like the WPA, where we put people back to work, painting public buildings, working in Head Starts, doing valuable work that needs to be done, and that these jobs could be paid and they wouldn't be just special kinds of jobs, but they would just be jobs that people can do and hopefully keep that job.

If we can ignite the economy and keep the period of growth going. The economy is not out of the woods yet. We still have unemployment that is intolerably high, particularly in minority communities. This is intolerable. We have got to do something about it. There is no doubt about that. But we are going in the right direction. And we need to improve to keep the drive alive. Keep the drive alive, not turn back.

I just want to say to folks out across America, the fact is that it takes more than just a couple of years to get things straightened out after so many years of difficulty. We need young people, new Americans, communities of color, working people, labor, everybody to keep their level of enthusiasm up about what the prospects for America are and to not get discouraged just because things didn't pop back into shape as soon as George Bush handed over the mantle of the presidency. It is going to take a little bit of time, but things are clearly going in the right direction.

One year in, the evidence is clear, and growing day by day, that the Recovery Act is working to cushion the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression and lay a new foundation for economic growth. According to

the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the Recovery Act is already responsible for as many as 2.4 million jobs. The analysis of the Council of Economic Advisers also found the Recovery Act is responsible for about 2 million jobs, a figure in line with estimates from private forecasters in the economy. Even the conservative American Enterprise Institute is agreeing that the Recovery Act is helping create jobs, which no Republican voted for the stimulus package. It is very important to remember that.

We recently learned that our economy grew 5.7 percent in the fourth quarter, the largest gain in 6 years, and something many economists say is due to the Recovery Act. So again, negative GDP growth, meaning we were losing, the economy was shrinking when Bush was the President, and now it is growing. Very important for people to know that.

The Recovery Act, by the way, it did cut taxes for 95 percent of working families. The Republicans love their tax cuts, but not for the regular working people, only for the very well-to-do. But the Recovery Act did cut taxes for about 95 percent of American families, the Making Work Pay Act tax credit. And that is about $37 billion in tax relief for about 110 million working families in 2009.

The fact is loans were made to over 42,000 small businesses through the Recovery Act, providing them with nearly $20 billion in much-needed capital. The Recovery Act funded over 12,500 transportation construction projects nationwide. When 40 percent of all construction workers are on the bench, that work is very, very, very welcome. These projects range from highway construction to airport improvements, of which more than 8,500 already are underway. It funded 51 Superfund sites from the national priority list. Of those sites, 34 have already had on-site construction. The Recovery Act, which I was proud to vote for, has done a lot of good for America.

So as we wrap it up today, it is important just to bear in mind that health care reform is a key component and a vital component of restoring our country to economic health. We need health care reform.

Remember, the Republicans had the House, the Senate, and the White House between 2000 and 2006, and they didn't do anything to improve the health care situation for Americans.

The gentleman will have an hour to say whatever he wants.

I can't stay here all night.

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

I have already answered that question. I will not yield.

Parliamentary Inquiries

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

Let me just say for the third time, from 2000 to 2006, the Republicans had the presidency, they had the House of Representatives and the Senate, and they didn't do anything to help Americans improve the health care situation.

They didn't do a thing. They allowed premiums to increase. They allowed co-pays to increase. They allowed people to be denied for preexisting conditions. They allowed misery to accumulate around the health care crisis in America. They allowed the number of uninsured to increase, and they allowed a very difficult, awful situation.

So now we've got upwards of 45 million people who don't have health care, and while the Republicans could have done something about it, they did not do anything about it.

Now, in a few minutes, Mr. Speaker, I am going to yield and in a few minutes I am sure my friend from Iowa is going to have plenty to say. But I would like, Mr. Speaker, that anyone listening to the sound of my voice examine the facts I just laid out because they are true.

The Republicans could have done something to help Americans address their health care crisis between 2000 and 2006, and they did not do anything. And since the Democrats regained the Congress, we passed SCHIP, State Children's Health Insurance Program, which President Bush vetoed, and we're trying to fix one mess they made with prescription drugs by filling the doughnut hole. But all that program was was a boon to large pharmaceutical companies, and we're trying to fix that large debacle now.

The fact is is that the Republican Caucus could have helped the American people and they declined the invitation to do so. And now while America has been embroiled in a conversation around health care reform for a year, they have come up with nothing constructive to say. All they want to do is deprive Americans of their right to civil redress under the law when doctors sometimes make mistakes. They call it tort reform. What it really is is denying consumers the right to redress grievances, which is an American thing to do to try to fix these problems.

Now, we're not saying that people who abuse the legal system shouldn't have accountability. We are saying do not shut the doors when Americans have a legitimate claim, which is what I think the Republican Caucus is in favor of.

The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that this hour, called the Progressive Caucus Hour, is all about talking about Progressive measures that have made America great. And I would offer you this, Mr. Speaker, that every single thing that has made America the wonderful, beautiful, great country that it is has been a progressive proposal.

Breaking away from England was progressive. Throwing off a dictator was progressive. Freeing people from slavery was a progressive thing to do. Allowing unions to organize was a progressive step forward. Civil rights was progressive. Women's rights was progressive. Getting rid of the poll tax was progressive. And it has been conservatives every step of the way trying to block these things.

America is a progressive country. America believes that everybody does better when everybody does better. America believes deep in its heart in religious tolerance. We believe in economic justice. We believe in equality for all people. But conservatives, trying to hold this country back and maintain the status quo, have been in the way all along.

So tonight, Mr. Speaker, may I yield back the microphone knowing full well that those following me will have plenty to add.

But with that, I will yield back.

Mr. Speaker, if you would listen to the party opposite, you would not know that America is actually on a real trajectory for positive change in the area of jobs. When President Bush left office, for the last 3 months of his administration America was hemorrhaging jobs at the rate of 750,000 on average. And now, in January, only 22,000 jobs lost. Now we are going in the right direction.

You can't overturn and change over 8 years of Republican rule in simply a finger snap. But the Democratic Caucus is on its way to restoring this country to economic health. We have seen increases in GDP. We have seen increases in manufacturing. We have seen increases in significant indicators. And this country needs more help, but we are going in the right direction, which is something we were not doing when President Obama took office a year ago.

All the American people need to do is just look at the numbers. Things are getting better. And the message of doom and gloom can never match up to one of hope.

Madam Speaker, Democrats in Congress have devoted job creation as the number one top priority that we are focusing on in this period.

The fact is that the Republican recession has created some of the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression. But it is important to note that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has actually helped our economy begin to recover, and it is important to make sure that Americans know this.

It is important for Americans to know that the Recovery Act has created more than 640,000 jobs since it was enacted almost a year ago, and could produce as many as 1.6 million jobs.

More is needed, but the Recovery Act has reduced job losses, reduced unemployment rates and the increase in the unemployment rate, and increased the gross domestic product.

So, Madam Speaker, the Democratic caucus will continue to focus on job creation and will continue to work well, and we hope to do this in a bipartisan way. But even if we can't, we will continue to make jobs first on the agenda.

Mr. Speaker, after nearly a decade of handing over middle class tax dollars to the wealthiest 1 percent, after nearly a decade of policy that encouraged million-dollar CEO bonuses over raises for American workers, we are witnessing the results of nearly a decade of complete Republican control of the Federal Government.

They handed President Obama and this Congress two wars, hundreds of billions of dollars in debt, crumbling national infrastructure, a home mortgage crisis--one in eight mortgages in default or foreclosure--a global climate crisis, and a financial sector ravaged by greed and lax regulation.

In short, this greatest economic and financial crisis since the Great Depression should be called the ``Republican recession.'' And then, they handed it all off to President Obama and now have the audacity to ask, Where are the jobs? Well, the jobs are coming. The jobs are being built right now because Democrats are focusing on jobs. Democrats are committed to a jobs program that talks about our infrastructure, retaining public employees, and building America's future again.

Let me just say that I just want to tell a story. You know, I was home this weekend, and I was walking along one of the trails that we have in Minneapolis. You know, we've got a lot of parks in Minneapolis. It was cold, and I wanted to get my legs stretched from working so hard last week, so I was walking a long one of our many trails. And I decided to sit down at a park bench, and it looked like a pretty old-looking park bench. You could tell the rust was there.

And when I sat down I noticed that it was sturdy. And we sat there talking to a few friends. But when I got up to

leave, I noticed that there was a little plaque about the size of this phone, and it said on it, WPA, 1934. For 75 years that park bench had been sitting there. For 75 years, that thing has been giving comfort to people who are just walking by. But 75 years ago we had a job crisis then. And our country, our Congress, responded to the needs of unemployed Americans.

We need to respond to the needs of Americans today as people are putting pressure on food shelves, as people don't have money for heat, for lights, as folks who had two and three jobs that were part time now have lost them; now they have no lifeline. We've got to respond to a generation of Americans looking for work today. And where there's extra hurt, there needs to be extra help.

And that means that the Congressional Black Caucus--and other caucuses as well--are focusing on a targeted-jobs bill calling for jobs now, calling attention to an appalling condition where people are unemployed at rates of 25, 30 percent in some communities.

I just want to ask the gentlelady--and I'll ask any of my colleagues. I like the dialogue. I'm not going to give a 20-minute speech.

I will ask the gentlelady, what have you heard as you were standing in the grocery store line? What have you heard when you were walking around your parks in places like Los Angeles, Milwaukee, Ohio, Cleveland? What have you heard? What have you gone through? And what are your folks telling you? Don't give me a bunch of stats. Tell me what your people are feeling. I'd like to know that.

I yield back to the gentlelady.

Will the gentlelady yield?

Have you are ever talked to somebody who's been unemployed for 12 months, 18 months? What does that do to their psyche? What does that do to their spirit? What does that do to their level of joy?

Can anybody answer the question for me?

I will yield.